Category: City of Sacramento

Broadway Complete Streets is NOT

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Broadway Complete Streets project is underway, with new corners installed at many locations, some of them curb extensions (bulb-outs) to shorten crossing distance for walkers. Though I’m reluctant to criticize a project that is underway, I just can’t remain quiet. I have been spending a lot of time on Broadway because I’m interested in the street and its businesses, and always want to see how the city is shifting away from its former ‘cars first’ policy and design. Some of what I’m seeing is great, but I’m also seeing a lot that makes me very concerned, and disappointed. The city could have done much better, but decided not to.

photo of Broadway near 19th St, south side, too narrow sidewalk
Broadway near 19th St, south side, too narrow sidewalk

The project was designed from the inside out, first motor vehicle space for turn lanes, travel lanes, and parking lanes, then bicycle lanes. The result clearly shows this priority. But streets should be designed from the outside in, taking care first of the needs of people walking. The city did not do this.

The Broadway Complete Streets webpage says “The project location is the two-mile Broadway corridor between 3rd Street and 29th Street, south of downtown Sacramento, California. It anchors multi-modal transportation connections and improves access for all modes through introduction of a four lane to three lane road diet, new buffered bicycle lanes, new marked pedestrian crossings and refuge islands, and multi-modal improvements at two intersections”, and “The project is designed to calm traffic, improve safety, and make the street more inviting for travel on foot and by bicycle.” Notice that sidewalks are not specifically mentioned.

The pedestrian selection criteria from the 2016 Broadway Complete Streets Final Recommendations shows the following table. The third row (of eight) is ‘pedestrian space’, and it talks about space at ‘sidewalk enhancement locations’. But the document never indicates where these location are, nor mentions them again.

The plan cites as a critical issue: “Sidewalk obstructions or narrow sidewalks”. It also says, under transit improvement, not sidewalks: “Over time, opportunities for sidewalk expansion can be explored on blocks as appropriate. The Broadway Complete Streets Plan designs allow for conversion of the parking lane to an expanded sidewalk to create space for better bus amenities, landscaping, sidewalk dining, and other urban design elements.” What I think that means is that concrete for sidewalks and curbs will be poured now, and we’ll think about doing better later. The document refers to information about sidewalk widths in the existing conditions technical appendix, but that document has not been made available to the public.

The city’s Street Design Standards for sidewalks is five feet, or six feet for arterials. Broadway is a ‘minor arterial’ from 5th Street to 10th Street, and a ‘principal arterial’ from 10th Street to 29th Street, so the sidewalk width would be six feet. Existing sidewalks along Broadway vary greatly in width, from expansive, to wide sidewalks typical of the central city, to very narrow sidewalks. Of course there are locations where the sidewalk has been narrowed to accommodate tree growth, but the city is installing NEW sidewalk along Broadway that is less than city standards. The PROWAG requirements are four feet, but there are NEW sidewalks that are as little as 34 inches. The city’s project engineer has claimed that PROWAG does not need to be followed for this project because PROWAG is not enforceable yet. Seems strange to claim that because enforcement action can’t be taken, federally promulgated regulations don’t need to be followed.

The project is installing better crossings for walkers at several locations, but has pretty much ignored the needs of people walking ALONG the street. The design documents do not show sidewalk widths anywhere, though turn lane, traffic lane, parking lane, and bike lanes are clearly labeled with widths. It is as though the project design did not even think about sidewalks.

The city must correct its too-narrow sidewalks along Broadway. Where a parking lane is adjacent to these too narrow sections, the parking lane must be converted to sidewalk so as too provide the legally required width, or better yet, at least eight feet. If this is to be a complete street, and a walking-friendly and business-friendly street, then eight feet should be the minimum. If a parking lane is not available to convert, then the city must purchase property or easements to widen the sidewalks to the minimum five feet required by its own standards.

Strong SacTown street design standards group

Dan Allison2 Comments

Strong SacTown, the local affiliate, or local conversation of Strong Towns, has formed a committee to develop ideas for the update of the City of Sacramento Street Design Standards, which is currently underway. These standards, from 2009, are very much in need of an update. They do not include many modern or innovative ideas, and in fact don’t include much. The committee has adopted the city’s own Streets for People moniker for its efforts, as they believe that perspective should inform not just the Active Transportation Plan, but all city documents and efforts in transportation, including the street design standards.

The Street Design Standards will be guided by and consistent with the 2040 General Plan, soon to be adopted.

The group has recently formed, and will be meeting in person about every two weeks. If you have a strong interest in street design, you may want to join. You do not need expertise ahead of time, you do not need to be a planner or engineer, just a person with passion for better and safer streets. But you will develop some expertise as the committee does its work.

The committee is searching out innovative plans from other cities that might be a model for us. We are also looking at progressive design guidance, including but not limited to NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide and Urban Bikeway Design Guide (which is being updated, with several pieces already published).

If you wish to join in, or just find out more, contact Matt Anderson, the committee lead, matthew.n.anderson@gmail.com.

SacCity 2040 GP user prioritization

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento 2024 General Plan, to be adopted February 27, includes in the Mobility element a user prioritization text and diagram, below.

This graphic and text should be added to every city document that has policy or design for roadways in the city, including Street Design Standards (2009-07, being updated), Complete Streets Policy (2019-12), Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines (2021-04), Traffic Calming Guidelines (updated), Vision Zero Action Plan (2018-08, being updated) and related VZ documents, Transportation Priorities Plan (2022-11) and related TPP documents, Creative Crosswalks (2021-05), and any other city document related to transportation.

Thanks, as always, to Matt for pointing this reference out to me, which I had somehow missed in my reading of the draft 2040 General Plan.

M-1.2: User Prioritization. The City shall prioritize mobility, comfort, health, safety, and convenience for those walking, followed by those bicycling and riding transit, ahead of design and operations for those driving.

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.

Broadway diagonal ramps

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.

Many of the corner ADA ramps already installed and to be installed as part of the Broadway Complete Streets project are diagonal ramps. Diagonal ramps were a common solution in the past for corners because they save a little bit of money, and sometimes avoid drain inlets that perpendicular ramp would conflict with. Changing drain inlet locations can be expensive. However, diagonal ramps have never been the optimal solution for corners, and since August 2023, they are not permitted under PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), except under rare circumstances. In those rare circumstances, the ramp must be completely contained within the two crosswalks, which often leads to awkward crosswalks.

There are very few diagonal ramps in the Sacramento central city, so it is surprising that they will be so common at the edge of the central city, Broadway, as part of a complete streets project.

Some transportation agencies have been claiming that they don’t need to follow PROWAG since it has not yet been adopted by USDOJ and USDOT, however, that just means that it is not yet legally enforceable on agencies. But the regulation has been promulgated and published and is now the law.

The project engineer for Broadway Complete Streets has claimed that the diagonal ramps are specified because of “design constraints”. I have looked at every corner where a diagonal ramp was placed, and I see nothing that constitutes a constraint. It may be that what the city means is that it didn’t fit in the budget to install perpendicular ramps, but that is not a valid exception in PROWAG. It is worth remembering that the concrete being installed under this project will be in place for at least 30 years, so that means the city is constructing corners and ramps that are already outmoded, and will be far more so in 30 years.

Of the 15 locations that will have new diagonal ramps, and the 2 that apparently will be unchanged, the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th Street will serve as an example. The other three corners here have perpendicular ramps, but for unknown reasons, the northwest has a diagonal ramp.

photo of Broadway & 18th St diagonal ramp
Broadway & 18th St diagonal ramp

The diagram below, from NACTO, shows perpendicular ramps. Note also the tight turning radius, which slows turning drivers. Of course the optimal is if these ramps are contained within a curb extension, but even without that, they are a good practice.

diagram of NACTO perpendicular ramps
NACTO perpendicular ramps

The next diagram snows perpendicular ramps in the context of curb extensions, and illustrates the huge benefit of curb extensions, which is increased visibility between walkers and roadway users. The curb extension also removes the need to paint the curb red or place a sign, one of which is required now under AB 413 (Lee, 2023). Caltrans includes curb extensions in its Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Toolbox.

diagram of curb extension creating visibility (source unknown)
curb extension creating visibility (source unknown)

The table below shows the plan for each corner along the corridor from 3rd Street to 24th Street, with details about ramps and curb extensions. The plan I have does not include any change from the west side of 19th Street to the east side of 21st Street. This section includes the crossing between 19th and 20th by light rail and railroad tracks. It is unknown why this is.

Cross-streetNWNESWSENotes
3rd SNoneNoneDiagonal existingDiagonal newNo crosswalks
3rd NDiagonal newDiagonal existingNoneNoneNo crosswalks
5thPerpendicular newPerpendicular newPerpendicular newPerpendicular new
6thDiagonal newPerpendicular existNoneSingleW crosswalk removed
Midblock



New, single with extensions
8thDiagonal existingDiagonal newNoneNoneNo crosswalks
Muir WayNoneNoneDiagonal newDiagonal newNo E crosswalk
9thDiagonal newPerpendicular existNoneNoneNo crosswalks
10thPerpendicular newPerpendicular newSingle, extensionSingle, extension
RiversideDiagonal newDiagonal newDiagonal newDiagonal new, extension
13thPerpendicular existPerpendicular new, extensionSingleSingle
14th Perpendicular new, extensionPerpendicular new, extensionPerpendicular new, extensionPerpendicular new, extension
15thPerpendicular newDiagonal newSingleNoneNo E crosswalk
16th/Land ParkPerpendicular newPerpendicular new, extensionDiagonal newPerpendicular new, extensionW crosswalk unknown
17thPerpendicular newPerpendicular new, extensionDiagonal new, extensionPerpendicular new, extensionW crosswalk removed
18thPerpendicular new, extensionDiagonal newPerpendicular new, extensionPerpendicular new, extension
19th



Unknown
20th



Unknown
21st



Unknown
22ndPerpendicular newPerpendicular new, extensionNoneSingle, extensionW crosswalk removed
23rdPerpendicular new, extensionPerpendicular new, extensionSingle, extensionNoneW crosswalk only
24thNo changeNo changeNo changeNo change
table of Broadway Complete Streets corners and curb extensions

SacATC February 15, includes Truxel Bridge

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, February 15, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. The agenda includes five items. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.

Agenda item 3 is a presentation on the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study. The Truxel crossing of the American River was originally proposed and approved by SacRT and the county as a transit-walking-bicycling bridge, carrying light rail from downtown to Natomas. The city is now proposing a motor vehicle-transit-walking-bicycling bridge. They are claiming that the bridge would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the provision of alternative modes, and a shorter trip between downtown and Natomas, but has not presented data to justify this claim. New roadway capacity induces more motor vehicle trips, a well-established fact, so to claim otherwise requires proof. Walking and bicycling would be unlikely to be the major component of bridge users. Transit availability could reduce motor vehicle trips, but the Green Line to the Airport is probably decades away, and anything short of service to North Natomas would be unlikely to replace many car trips.

The city intends to go full speed ahead (pun intended) with the bridge, based on a 2013 city council approval, seeking public input only on the southern approach to the bridge and the bridge cross-section. Since 2013, the city has declared a climate emergency, the Mayors Commission on Climate Change goal is to achieve Carbon Zero by reducing VMT, the soon-to-be-adopted General Plan 2040 and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan aim for reducing VMT rather than increasing it, and SB 745 required VMT impacts as the primary criteria for judging projects. Most importantly, public awareness of the risk of motor vehicle induced climate change has emerged and strengthened.

Read More »

Broadway too-narrow sidewalks

Dan Allison3 Comments

This is a follow-up to my serious concerns about Broadway post. There will be additional posts about the Broadway Complete Streets project. The Broadway Complete Streets project is underway, with several locations of corners, midblock crossings, curbs, and sidewalks already reconstructed.

It is clear that throughout the planning and construction of this project, sidewalks were ignored or discounted. The project is all about the roadway, reducing motor vehicle lanes to 2 plus a turn lane (from 4), and adding buffered bikeways. It is common in project planning to assume that sidewalks will not be disturbed, and therefore do not need to be brought up to current ADA/PROWAG requirements. However, sidewalks are being replaced, newly constructed, in several locations along Broadway. That means they do have to meet current requirements, and that requirement is a clear width of 48 inches.

The Broadway Complete Streets Final Recommendations (2016) document identifies ‘Sidewalk obstructions or narrow sidewalks’ as a critical issue. It also says “The proposed road diet allows for a buffered bike lane through the entire corridor, and presents opportunities for pedestrian crossing improvements, new pedestrian crossings, and sidewalk enhancements.” However, other than curb extensions at intersections and mid-block crossings, nothing in the design actually enhances sidewalks. The ‘typical cross section proposed’ is below. Though the diagram shows 8 foot sidewalks, the actual sidewalk width varies greatly along the corridor.

diagram of Broadway Complete Streets typical cross-section proposed
Broadway Complete Streets typical cross-section proposed
Read More »

Crash Rapid Response Program for SacCity

Dan Allison2 Comments

Note: This post has been significantly revised and published as two separate posts, one on OakDOT’s Rapid Response Program, and the second a proposal for a City of Sacramento program.

When a fatality or severe injury for walkers and bicyclists, people often ask, what can we do right now to prevent or reduce the severity of the next crash? This topic has come up a number of times at the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), and communication by Slow Down Sacramento, Civic Thread, SABA, and other organizations. I believe now is the time for the City of Sacramento to establish and fund a crash rapid response program.

OakDOT Rapid Response Program

The City of Oakland Department of Transportation (OakDOT) seems to have the best program I could find on the Internet. This is not surprising – since being formed in 2016, OakDOT has led on developing programs for safer streets that are informed by equity. So far I have not found a single document that describes the program and procedures, so I’ve selected some information from the Safe Oakland Streets (SOS) and related pages and documents. Safe Oakland Streets is Oakland’s version of Vision Zero.

“Rapid Response Projects: OakDOT seeks to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries while promoting safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all. OakDOT’s efforts to make streets safe include rapid responses to fatal and severe crashes involving the most vulnerable users of Oakland’s roadways. A Rapid Response is a coordinated effort in the days and weeks following a traffic tragedy that may include investigations, targeted maintenance, near-term improvements, and the identification and prioritization of longer-term capital needs.”

“A Rapid Response may be activated for traffic crashes resulting in pedestrian or bicyclist fatalities, or severe injuries to pedestrians or bicyclists who are youth or seniors. A Rapid Response may be activated for additional crashes based on the individual circumstances of a crash.”

The two elements most relevant to rapid response are:

  1. Maintenance Treatment: If the crash location has a maintenance issue that may be related to traffic safety e.g., pavement defect, faded striping, missing sign), the maintenance issue will be rectified by field staff.
  2. Quick-Build Improvement: If there are design treatments that could be implemented quickly at low cost, engineering staff will prepare the design and issue a work order for field staff to construct.

The following photos shows the setting after rapid response to a fatality that occurred at Harrison & 23rd. See Harrison & 23rd St Crash Response for more information.

photo of OakDOT rapid response project at Harrison & 23rd
photo of OakDOT rapid response project at Harrison & 23rd

OakDOT has a Crash Prevention Toolkit with photos of solutions, most of which are inexpensive and quick to implement.

OakDOT offers a map with locations of fatality crashes and relevant features such as high injury network and equity, Traffic Fatalities, City of Oakland. A chart, below, also shows yearly data for modes of travel. A Crash Analysis Infographic also communicates data visually.

OakDOT chart of traffic fatalities by mode over time
OakDOT chart of traffic fatalities by mode over time

SacCity program outline

The city program should start small to make sure that there are sufficient resources of staff time and funding to do a good job. I would suggest in the first year responding only to crashes on the high injury network. Yes, those will get fixed with grants, but those are very long term projects, whereas quick fixes are also needed. An alternative would be to do only fatalities, not severe injury crashes.

A rapid response team should be composed of at least three people. One must be a traffic engineer. Others could be planners, law enforcement, and a member of an advocacy organization (Civic Thread for walkers and SABA for bicyclists). Though the participation of law enforcement may not be useful to the outcome, it is useful for educating police about street design.

It is important that the team review existing documentation and make a site visit. The full law enforcement incident report will not be available within the rapid response time frame, but sufficient detail should be available to determine the movements of the people involved in the crash.

The team should make a report within five working days of the crash, listing obvious and inexpensive fixes, prioritized by effectiveness. One or more of the fixes should be implemented within 20 working days of the crash.

Public Works staff should report to SacATC on a yearly basis on the rapid response program, the projects undertaken, staff time, and money spent. After the first year, this information should be used to develop a budget request for future years.

City of Sacramento should create a fatalities map similar to Oakland’s, with frequent updates, from SacPD information. The state SWITRS database always lags too far to be useful.

A dashboard should be developed that includes fatalities and severe injuries by type of mode and trends. SacATC has already requested a dashboard that would also show projects applied for, in progress, and complete.

As with any new program, this one would and should evolve as experience is gained and the public sees the value of the program in reducing or eliminating fatalities.