Category: walkability

Sidewalks are part of the transportation network, and should be repaired as such

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Division 7, Part 3, Chapter 22, Article 2: Repairs, states that the responsibility for repairing sidewalks lies with the adjacent property owner. This is, on its face, unconstitutional, regardless of state code. The state is saying that a government agency can require a property owner to maintain property that belongs to the government, without any compensation. It has long been hoped that a public interest entity would sue the state to declare this code unconstitutional, but so far that has not happened. The ability of the public to sue is overmatched by the power of the cities and counties to fight any such lawsuit. Therefore, it is imperative that the legislature remove this unconstitutional requirement from state law.

It is worth noting that this code dates from 1941. Society’s view of the responsibility of governments to its citizens, what characterizes a livable and walkable place, and equitable transportation systems, have evolved considerably since that time. State law, on the topic of sidewalks, has not.

Code defines sidewalk (paragraph 5600): “As used in this chapter “sidewalk” includes a park or parking strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk or of any such park or parking strip.” The lack of a definition for ‘parking strip’ is concerning. Is it the buffer area, or does it include parking areas on the roadway? Does the use of this term allow people to park motor vehicles in the buffer? The code is vague.

It is not clear that state code should require, or not require, adjacent property owners to maintain the ‘park or parking strip’, most commonly called sidewalk buffers. These buffers are not part of the transportation network, but they are a key part of enhancing walkability and overall livability through provision of shade trees.

Note that this does not address the day-to-day maintenance of sidewalks in the sense of removal of leaf fall and snow. However, neither does existing code. This is left to policy of the individual city or county, as it probably should be.

The replacement language would be very simple. Chapter 22 would read:

“Sidewalks and curbs are an integral part of the transportation network, and will be maintained for the benefit of all citizens using all modes of transportation, in a state of good repair, under the same requirements that apply to adjacent roadways.”

It is worth noting that the most poorly repaired sidewalks are often adjacent to government-owned property. Governments seem to view this code as applying to private property owners, and not to themselves.

Nothing in state law precludes a local government, city or county, from taking on responsibility for repairing sidewalks. They generally have not done so, because by shifting the responsibility for maintaining part of the transportation network onto private citizens, they can spend more money on infrastructure for motor vehicles. That is the real reason for this state law, and its continuance into modern times.

it’s not just transportation infrastructure

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

It has been increasingly common to refrain from blaming traffic violence on drivers, and instead to point to transportation infrastructure which encourages drivers to speed and to act in such a way as to create crashes. There is truth in this, and equity to some degree. But I think the pendulum has swung too far in that direction, and it is time to bring back driver responsibility.

We have invested trillions of dollars to create a transportation system that kills and mains countless people, with an emphasis on harming people who walk and bicycle. This was not an ‘accident’. Traffic engineers knew that their roadway designs would kill people, but absolved themselves of responsibility by pointing to the ‘standards’, which promote these designs, but are based on nothing but speculation and bias. It is always easier to blame crashes on driver behavior than to design safe roadways. Well, here we are. It will cost trillions to fix. We don’t have that money. That is not to say we should not be fixing what we can, with a priority on those designs and locations that have killed the most people, or seem most likely to.

But there are two very, very common driver behaviors which are not really an infrastructure problem. Red light running, and failure to yield to walkers in the crosswalk, both of which I’ve written about before. See ‘how to stop red light running‘ and the list of other posts there, and ‘Yield to walkers? Nah.‘.

Could we move signals to upstream instead of downstream of intersections? Yes, but that is very unlikely in a transportation profession that values tradition over observation and innovation. Could we install raised crosswalks (also known as continuous sidewalks) or raised intersections to let drivers know that they are guests on the roadway, not the hegemony. Yes, and that would cost a lot of money.

Let me say up front that I am not in favor of in-person law enforcement of traffic law. However, we have an epidemic of traffic violence, perpetrated by drivers, which could be greatly reduced with a limited and guardrailed period of enforcement. Automated enforcement of red light running will come to City of Sacramento, probably within five years, and to the entire county, probably within 10 years, but a lot of people are going to be killed and severely injured in the meanwhile. Would law enforcement use this as a pretext for racial and income bias? Yes, they will. It is in their nature. But I want to save lives. Police could write hundreds of tickets a day to red light runners. No, it isn’t about citation income, it is about saving lives.

Automated enforcement of failure by drivers to yield to walkers in the crosswalk is even further away, and may never happen. Nothing short of direct law enforcement may correct this problem. Again, police could write hundreds of tickets a day on failure to yield.

It is not just traffic violence, death and injury, that is the problem. It is that both of these driver behaviors intimidate people who would like to walk and bicycle from doing so. People stay home, or drive instead, or go ahead and walk and bicycle, but live in fear. Of course this is the desired outcome for politicians who support a cars-first transportation system, and oppression of those who don’t participate in the automative paradigm whether by choice or necessity. People who walk and bicycle are truly second-class citizens in our society, and many of them are further so due to racism, income bias, age, and disability.

As you will notice from past posts, I’m not a supporter of the police, and most particularly, not CHP. But police in the City of Sacramento could be forced to actually do something useful. The police work for the Chief, the Chief works for the City Manager, and the City Manager works for the City Council. The council could direct the police to pay attention to traffic violence. If the City Manager doesn’t support, fire her. If the Chief doesn’t support, fire her. And on down the line. The police spend almost all their time responding to things after they’ve gone wrong. Though they give lip service to community policing, prevention is a tiny part of what they do. And so with traffic violence. They respond to crashes, when they could be preventing crashes through targeted enforcement. They document the carnage, and almost alway blame it on the person walking and bicycling, though that is rarely the case. CHP is harder to rein in. It is an agency largely out of the control of the rest of state government. It goes its own way, ignoring laws it doesn’t like, interpreting laws to absolve drivers, and putting its thumb on corrective legislation by encouraging the windshield bias of our governor.

I’m not looking at you

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Everywhere I travel, and walk, most other people walking will at least glance at me, and often acknowledge or smile, and sometimes say hi or good morning or good evening, or even talk. But that is rare in Sacramento. At least on the sidewalk, this is the least friendly place I’ve ever lived.

People passing look studiously at their phones, as though there were something important there, or look at the ground, or look away to the other side. 95% of people walking will not make eye contact, let alone give a positive vibe.

Why is this a transportation issue? The message is that I am an island (Simon and Garfunkel), I don’t need you, I don’t acknowledge you, I don’t care about you. Communities are built on trust, and trust does not occur if people don’t interact with other people. Sacramento (the city and region) has serious problems that can only be solved by group action and personal engagement. In particular, we have a very serious problem with traffic violence. That we are so bad at solving our problems is not surprising when we don’t think of anyone else except close friends as ‘our people’. Of course this is worse since the pandemic, but it has existing as long as I have lived in Sacramento (14 years) and spent time in Sacramento (22 years).

Is it different elsewhere? Yes, it is. In San Francisco, almost everyone I pass on the sidewalk will at least nod their head, and frequently more. Los Angeles. Portland. Seattle. Las Vegas. Denver. Salt Lake City. San Diego. And on and on.

I am very sad about this. But I do not know the cause, and I do not know the solution.

Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel update

Dan Allison1 Comment

Re-upping the Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel post from earlier this year. It has been reported to me by a number of bicyclists, and I have experienced it myself, that this section of Elvas between the Hornet Tunnel and the signal at 62nd Street has become significantly more hazardous due to the motor vehicle traffic generated by The Line (a collection of various food vendors, opened 2022) and Garden at the Line (an outdoor eating and drinking area adjacent to The Line, opened this December). There is a lot more come and go parking on Elvas, and a lot more motor vehicle traffic in and out of the parking lots. Most bicyclists ride on the sidewalk to avoid the fast-moving traffic, otherwise the crash rate would be higher. The M Street to Elvas Avenue to Hornet Tunnel route is probably the busiest in the city.

In addition to the previous post (reblog below) about the hazards for bicyclists, this area is now hazardous for walkers along and crossing Elvas.

I was there last night for the SABA social gathering, and the place was packed. People were parking along the west side of Elvas as well as on 63rd Avenue and 64th Avenue, and then trying to cross Elvas to Garden at the Line. It was nearly impossible to cross, as there are no marked crosswalks over Elvas at either street, drivers are going fast, and Elvas is not well lit. The speed limit in this section is 40 mph, which almost guarantees that walkers hit by cars will die. Sidewalks on both sides of Elvas are in poor condition, and rolled curbs are common, which are less safe for people walking than vertical curbs. There are no sidewalk buffers. While this section of Elvas is not one of the top 5 or top 10 Vision Zero corridors, it will quickly become so. In the last five years, there have been two injury crashes on this stretch, one bicyclist and one walker, both in the vicinity of Hornet Tunnel.

The city has no plans to improve safety for bicyclists or walkers on this stretch of Elvas.

Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel

Denver’s approach to sidewalk maintenance

Dan Allison3 Comments

Denver is implementing a unique approach to sidewalk maintenance (Denver’s Sidewalk Program). Rather than making the individual property owner responsible for sidewalk maintenance, the city will charge all property owners a fee which will be pooled city-wide to maintain or install sidewalks. It is a flat fee for most parcels, but with a progressive fee based on sidewalk footage for parcels with a lot of sidewalk.

The City of Sacramento, and most governments in California, make sidewalk maintenance the responsibility of individual property owners. State law allows this, though does not require it. You can see the results for yourself: broken sidewalks due to root heaves, discontinuous sidewalks, lack of ADA ramps. And the city and cities within the county and the county are not the worst in California. If you want to see truly horrible sidewalks, visit the City of Los Angeles, where root heaves from too narrow sidewalk buffers have broken or destroyed most sidewalks in the city.

Denver, recognizing that the model of individual property owners paying was not working, and under the threat of lawsuits, decided to take a different approach, making maintenance and installation the responsibility of all property owners. This is an immense improvement over the Sacramento and California model, though still falls short.

Sidewalks are a part of our transportation network, in fact are the most important part of that network. As such, they should be maintained, and gaps filled, as part of the regular transportation budget of cities, counties and the state. Making them a special case with special funding, or ignoring them completely, leads to a deteriorated and missing sidewalk network that actively discriminates against people who use the sidewalks to walk, roll, and, in some cases, bicycle. Every broken sidewalk and every missing sidewalk is a abject failure of the government to fulfill its responsibility to citizens to create a transportation system that serves everyone. Transportation engineers will always, if given the choice, prioritize motor vehicles over everyone and everything else, so we must compel them to meet their true responsibilities.

photo of broken sidewalk and missing sidewalk, Capitol Mall & 3rd St, Sacramento
broken sidewalk and missing sidewalk, Capitol Mall & 3rd St, Sacramento

RRFBs are being ignored

Dan Allison4 Comments

I was a strong supporter of RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacon), where a safer crossing of the street is intended mid-block. I worked with transportation agencies in a number of locations to get them installed, and was very happy to see them go in.

They are used where multi-use trails cross roadways, and at intersections where additional traffic calming and safety are needed, but where the transportation agency does not want to add stop signs, or is unwilling or financially unable to install a traffic signal. The cost savings of an RRFB over a traffic signal are significant, about $25K for a RRFB, and upwards of $1M for a full traffic signal.

But…

Driver behavior has rendered RRFBs untenable for protecting people walking. I have observed a number of RRFB locations over the last few months. All of them are failing. Between 25% and 50% of drivers are failing to yield to people using these crossings, bicyclists or walkers. I have seen several people almost get hit by car drivers. Some drivers are slowing but failing to stop, or yield, and some drivers are not even slowing. Apparently the attitude of many drivers is that the RRFBs are only advisory and do not require yield to people in the street. Of course the law requires yielding to people crossing the street in a crosswalk, whether there is any type of signing or signaling, or not. But drivers don’t see it that way.

So, I find myself having to withdraw support for RRFBs. I will not support them as freestanding safety improvements, not as part of project. It is sad that driver behavior has erased the benefit of a safety enhancement, but it is a fact, and driver behavior gets continuously worse, never better.

Drivers are terrorists.

photo of RRFB on J St at 17th St, Sacramento
RRFB on J St at 17th St, Sacramento

SacCity sidewalk inventory

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento does not make available to the public an inventory of sidewalks. The city does make available on the Transportation & Infrastructure page: Bike Master Plan, EV Chargers, Off-Street Parking, Signs, Street Lights, Traffic Counts, and Traffic Signals, and other datasets. Sacramento County makes available on the Transportation page: Posted Speed Limits. SACOG makes available on the Transportation page several other transportation datasets. None have sidewalk inventories.

I have heard, unofficially, that the city has a partial dataset of sidewalks, but it is not spatially complete. It may be that it has only more recent installations, or that it focuses on some parts of the city. I have done a PRA for sidewalk inventory, but the city couldn’t figure out what I was asking for, so I will have to determine how to describe the dataset in a way they will understand.

What would a good sidewalk inventory contain?

  • total width
  • unobstructed width
  • sidewalk buffer (planting strip) width
  • available right-of-way
  • condition
  • year of installation, or reconstruction
  • gaps
  • intersection corner design
  • ramps (compliant or not)

The soon to be adopted 2040 General Plan 8-Mobility Element mentions sidewalks a number of times, suggesting widening or improving. Probably the most important are:

M-1.9 Equitable Processes and Outcomes. The City shall ensure that the transportation system is planned and implemented with an equitable process to achieve equitable outcomes and investments so that all neighborhoods one day will have similar levels of transportation infrastructure such as sidewalks, marked low stress crossings, and bikeways.

M-1.14 Walking Facilities. The City shall work to complete the network of tree-shaded sidewalks throughout the city, to the greatest extent feasible, through development project improvements and grant funding to build new sidewalks and crossings, especially within the high-injury network, in disadvantaged communities, near highridership transit stops, and near important destinations, such as schools, parks, and commercial areas. Walking facilities should incorporate shade trees.

However, there is no mention of how locations needing improvement will be identified. Is this guesswork on the part of city staff, or is there a dataset being used but not shared with the public?

My request is that the city make available to the public whatever sidewalk inventory it has, even if it is not spatially complete nor has all the elements a sidewalk inventory should have.

A sidewalk inventory is the first step in meeting the city’s goal of a continuous, high quality sidewalk network. More about that soon.

photo of deteriorated sidewalk on 24th St, near Capitol Ave
deteriorated sidewalk on 24th St, near Capitol Ave

And while we are at it, a crosswalk inventory:

  • marked or unmarked
  • width
  • length
  • design
  • median island
  • material: paint or thermoplastic
  • condition
  • date of placement or refresh
  • traffic control (yield, stop, signal, actuated crossing)
  • crossing prohibition

It should be said that sidewalks and crosswalks in the City of Sacramento are in better condition than many similar sized cities in California, but that does not mean that there isn’t a need for great improvement. Every city and county neglects its sidewalks.

Previous related posts: SacBee: sidewalk repair; SacCity sidewalk design standards; SacCity sidewalk responsibility; Sacramento and sidewalks; Walkable Sacramento #4: sidewalks.

N Street & 14th Street construction

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At a recent meeting, people asked me about the crossing of N Street at 14th Street, what I thought of the pedestrian prohibition, and why I hadn’t reported it as I do most other construction related issues.

N Street is a three lane one-way street, reduced to two lanes by construction at the state capitol, and the CADA construction project on the southwest corner of N Street and 14th Street. At this construction project, the parking lane and rightmost lane are closed, with a barrier and fence along N Street. The barrier and fence block driver view of the crosswalk on the east side of the N Street/14th Street crosswalk, until just before the crosswalk. This is a situation not addressed by CA-MUTCD, nor the proposed city Draft Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events, or work zone guide for short.

There are probably ways of safely handling this limited visibility situation, but it is not immediately obvious to me how. So I have not reported the closure of this crosswalk. It is a low volume crosswalk, I believe. Any detour for walkers is an issue, and this one requires a detour of a block to the east or west, because both the east crosswalk and the west crosswalk are closed.

While it is true that this crosswalk closure is no absolutely necessary, it is also true that it would take some sort of traffic control at this location to make it safe for walkers.

photo of N St approaching 14th St, poor visibility
N St approaching 14th St, poor visibility
photo of closed crosswalk over N St at 14th St, east
closed crosswalk over N St at 14th St, east leg, northeast corner
photo of crosswalk closed over N St at 14th St, east, southeast corner
crosswalk closed over N St at 14th St, east leg, southeast corner

update on SacCity new beg buttons on Alhambra

Dan Allison1 Comment

A previous post about new beg buttons on Alhambra Blvd noted that there are now beg buttons where there used to be auto-recall pedestrian crossings. I walked Alhambra this week, and noted that there are eight intersections with these new beg buttons (technically called pedestrian actuators or Accessible Pedestrian Signals APS). At auto-recall crosswalks, the pedestrian signal comes on at every signal cycle. At beg button crosswalks, the signal comes on only if requested by the pedestrian. The city has many of both types of crosswalks, but these particular locations are new. The intersections are Alhambra and: J Street, K Street, L Street, Capitol Avenue/Folsom Blvd, N Street, P Street/Stockton Blvd, Q Street, S Street. At each intersection there are eight of these new beg buttons on new posts, for a total of 64 new beg buttons.

No one seems to know who authorized this project, nor what funds were used to pay for it. I have confirmed that the project never came before the Active Transportation Commission (SacATC). All significant pedestrian projects are supposed to come before SacATC, and the fact that this one did not probably indicates that the staff in Public Works knows that this is a motor vehicle project, and not a pedestrian project. Though it is a good bet that pedestrian safety funds were used to pay for it.

Though these beg buttons are not signed with the ‘wave at’ sign R10-3j(CA) that the new ones at 21st Street and I Street, they do seem to have the same function, that they detect people, waving or not, up to about 18 inches. It seems odd that the city would have purchased these infrared detector actuators, which must be more expensive than plain touch buttons, but then did not indicate them as such. Installation of new accessible pedestrian signals is about $70K per intersection, though replacement of buttons at existing locations is only about $14K per intersection. I have been unable to find costs for passive detection systems (they all seem to require a quote process).

A reminder, if one is needed, that beg buttons have no safety benefit for people walking. They are a motor vehicle device, meant to reduce the length of signal cycles so that more cars can go faster.

The solution to this is to prohibit the use of pedestrian beg buttons throughout the city. Existing locations can be converted to the audible crossing signals that are now required by PROWAG. The relevant sections of PROWAG are R307 Pedestrian Push Buttons and Passive Pedestrian Detection and R308 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Walk Indications. Unfortunately PROWAG does not have a definition for ‘passive detection’ to specify what the detection radius or functionality is. It might be presumed this is the same at automated pedestrian detection, but not certain. Under PROWAG, new or changed locations require audible signals, but this can be met by audible/tactile push buttons or passive detection.

San Francisco is replacing the signing on their pedestrian actuator locations with the signing below.

photo of Accessible Message Only pedestrian button
Accessible Message Only pedestrian button

diagonal ramp corners are now illegal

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines) from the US Access Board have now been officially adopted. I’ve only begun to review them, but a few things grabbed my attention right off the bat. From PROWAG:

“At an intersection corner, one curb ramp or blended transition shall be provided for each crosswalk, or a single blended transition that spans all crosswalks at the intersection corner may be provided. Where pedestrian crossing is prohibited, curb ramps or blended transitions shall not be provided, and the pedestrian circulation path shall be either (a) separated from the roadway with landscaping or other non-prepared surface or (b) separated from the roadway by a detectable vertical edge treatment with a bottom edge 15 inches maximum above the pedestrian circulation path.”

This means that the diagonal access ramps at corners, which are common in suburban areas and even a few urban areas, are no longer legal for installation. For any alterations of curbs, sidewalk, or corner, new ramps must be two to a corner, perpendicular, or the ramp must cover the area of both sidewalks. See photo below.

photo of diagonal curb ramp, now illegal under PROWAG, installed May 2023
diagonal curb ramp, now illegal under PROWAG, installed May 2023 by Sac City

Secondly, the pedestrian prohibition signing in common use in the City of Sacramento and many other places is now illegal, because it does not meet the criteria of the bottom edge no more than 15 inches above the sidewalk. See photo below, showing a newly installed curb ramp where the ramp does not extend the full width of both crosswalks. Again, any alteration of the curb, sidewalk, or corner requires compliant design. Of course the majority of these pedestrian crossing prohibitions are unnecessary, and were installed to ease motor vehicle traffic and not to protect walkers, so most should simply be removed, and legal curb ramps installed. The one exception would be freeway on and off ramps that have not been modified to be safe under any conditions.

photo of pedestrian crossing prohibition, now illegal under PROWAG
pedestrian crossing prohibition, now illegal under PROWAG