crosswalk daylighting in SacCity?

2024/03/172024/03/17 Dan Allison2 Comments

AB 413 (2023, Lee), the Daylighting Saves Lives bill, became law last year. It prohibits stopping, standing or parking a vehicle within 20 feet of any crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked. CalBike: Intersection Daylighting Becomes California Law. The law also details that it applies to the approach side (upstream), and is 15 feet if a curb extension is present. Until January 2025, only warnings can be issued. Either red paint or a sign is required. It does allow a ‘local authority’ (city or county) to establish a different distance with justification and by painting or signing a different distance. Another exception is for commercial vehicle loading and unloading, where the specific crosswalks are identified in ordinance and they are marked by paint or signing. Bicycle and scooter parking can be placed within the 20 feet, which is great since much of the city lacks sufficient parking for these devices.

photo of red curb offset for daylighting, L St at 18th St — *red curb offset for daylighting, L St at 18th St*

I fully support this law, though I would have modified it in some ways. I don’t think the 15 foot distance where a curb extension is present is necessary. The daylighting here can be ‘enforced’ by design. I would have made an exception for passenger loading and unloading (white curb), not for commercial vehicle loading and unloading (yellow curb). Commercial vehicles usually don’t stay long, but they are almost always large and effectively block visibility, whereas private vehicles are usually smaller and block visibility to a lesser degree. Of course we need commercial loading and unloading zones, many more than exist, so that bike lanes and travel lanes are not blocked, but approaching crosswalks is not the right place. Most drivers don’t understand what curb colors mean anyway, but that is a matter for education, not for not using them. Green, by the way, signifies limited time parking, which is posted on signs or stenciled on green curbs.

So, how will the City of Sacramento respond to this? The city has over 700 signalized intersections. It is unknown how many total intersections there are, but it is likely in excess of 15,000, and for most intersections there are four crosswalks, so in excess of 60,000 crosswalk approaches. There isn’t and likely won’t ever be funds to mark or sign all these. So how should the city select locations? One criteria that should not be used is how much demand there is for parking on a particular street. This is about safety, not parking. So possible criteria, similar to that presented for ‘no turn on red’ (no turn on red for Sacramento?):

locations of crashes: This is a no-brainer. Red curbs or signs should be installed at any intersection where there is a history of crashes involved walkers and bicyclists. This should be city policy, to install signs at any location where SWITRS indicates there is an issue, or immediately after any crash.
crosswalks with a high walker count: This is probably the most beneficial for safety. The problem is that the city does not collect data on the number of walkers using crosswalks (marked or unmarked), so it would not know where to start. The lack of data collection is a failure on the part of the city, but it is nevertheless a fact.

There are other possible criteria. The city’s Vision Zero Action Plan (2018) identified ‘Parking Restrictions Near Intersections’ as a countermeasure specifically for drivers making left or right turns impacting walkers and bicyclists, with a high efficacy, low cost and low complexity. The Top Five Corridor Study identified Marysville, El Camino, Broadway/Stockton, South Stockton and Florin segments as dangerous roadways for safety improvements. Unfortunately the Vision Zero effort was limited to corridors, and not high injury intersections. It should have also identified the top five, or ten, intersections. Nevertheless, the city does have data on these intersections that could be used to identify high priority fixes.

The separated bikeways with turn wedges on P Street, Q Street, 9th Street, 10th Street, 19th Street, 21st Street, and I Street largely address the issue without needing additional marking or signing, on the side on which the bikeway is installed, but the other side would still need marking or signing. The separated bikeway on J Street has daylighting at some but not all crosswalks.

The highest safety benefit accrues to curb extensions, temporary at first and permanent in the long run. Temporary extensions are inexpensive and can be installed quickly (Strong SacTown quick-build street safety), while permanent extensions are more expensive and require planning. Sometimes curb extensions require relocation of drain inlets, which increases their cost.

no turn on red for Sacramento?

2024/03/162026/02/17 Dan Allison5 Comments

Update: I was incorrect that a ban citywide would not require signing. See below for more information. Thank you, Matt, for the heads up.

Many places throughout the United States are considering banning turns on red signals. Permitting turns on red was a fuel-saving practice implemented in the 1970s, though there is little evidence it actually saved fuel. There is considerable evidence that it decreases safety for walkers and bicyclists, and perhaps motor vehicle drivers and passengers. Though turns on red signals are not the greatest danger walkers and bicyclists face, banning the practice would have safety benefits. It is a partial protection against oversized SUVs and trucks, which have large blind zones that contribute to striking walkers and bicyclists. Though people think of this as no-right-turn-on-red, in Sacramento central city with its overabundance of one-way streets, it may also be no-left-turn-on red.

San Francisco is considering an expansion of its no-turn-on red zones from the Tenderloin, where it has increased safety and calming traffic, to more of the downtown area. Washington DC has banned turn-on-red, though it doesn’t take effect until next year. Chicago and Seattle have considered bans.

The signs used to indicate no turn on red are:

MUTCD R10-11a No Turn on Red sign — MUTCD R10-11a No Turn on Red

MUTCD R10-11 No Turn on Red sign — MUTCD R10-11a No Turn on Red

How should the City of Sacramento, and the rest of the counties and cities in the region respond? The options are:

ban citywide: Turns on red would be illegal throughout the city (or county). The advantage is that no signing would be needed since it would apply to all signalized intersections. However, this may not have as great a safety benefit as a more targeted approach.
ban at locations of crashes involving turning vehicles: This is a no-brainer. Turn on red should be banned at any intersection where there is a history of crashes caused by vehicles turning on red. This should be city policy, to install signs at any location where SWITRS indicates there is an issue, or immediately after any crash.
ban at intersections with a high walker count: This is probably the most beneficial for safety. The problem is that the city does not collect data on the number of walkers using crosswalks (marked or unmarked), so it would not know where to start. The lack of data collection is a failure on the part of the city, but it is nevertheless a fact.
ban at separated bikeway locations: A ban at the intersections with separated bikeways (also called protected bike lanes, parking-protected bikeways, or cycletracks) would protect bicyclists and give them a head start over motor vehicles. Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), which bicyclists can also use, can offer even better protection.

I have resisted turn-on-red bans in the past because I thought they had a lower safety benefit than many other measures that could be taken, but traffic violence has become such an issue that any action to reduce death and injury for walkers and bicyclists may be worth taking, and taking now.

As an alternative to bans, yield-to-pedestrians (and bicyclists) signs can also be installed. Two versions are shown below, on the left, the approved MUTCD R10-15R sign, and on the right, the bicyclist and pedestrian version with interim approval in California, and in use in many locations. My observation is that these signs are widely ignored by drivers, but of course, they do help those drivers who are willing to follow the law.

MUTCD R10-15b (California interim) — MUTCD R10-15R

California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21453

CVC 21453:
(a) A driver facing a steady circular red signal alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver, after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety.
(c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=21453.

Under section (b), signs are required, even if the ban is citywide. Section (c) does allow use of red arrows, but the red arrow signal would be more expensive than a sign, so only used in a few situations. The blank-out sign, shown above in the set of three, is probably the most effective, but again, more expensive that a regular sign.

Strong SacTown quick-build street safety

2024/03/152024/03/15 Dan Allison1 Comment

Strong SacTown has created a great visual introduction to quick-build fixes for street safety, posted to Instagram. I encourage you to take a look. The series includes curb extensions and modal filters (traffic diverters), both quick build with temporary materials, and permanent installations. Of course temporary materials should eventually be replaced with permanence, but it is better to get something on the ground now rather than waiting for the planning and money it takes for permanent installations. We are experiencing an epidemic of traffic violence, and even small actions can reduce fatalities and injuries. These installations are also called tactical urbanism, though the definition of quick-build and tactical urbanism is not identical.

Some additional ideas that are not always thought of as traffic calming.

Street Design

We can design better streets to begin with so that the need for traffic calming is reduced. Example one is the wide medians in Boulevard Park, which reduces turning movements to the intersections while providing a pleasant environment. Example two is wide sidewalk buffers in the Poverty Ridge area, where narrow streets reduce vehicle speeds, and the sidewalk buffers provide a pleasant environment. I have watched motor vehicle drivers passing each other on these narrow streets in the Poverty Ridge area. They are slowing to about 5 mph to pass. This is a traffic violence reduction design in action!

*wide street median, 22nd St at C St in Boulevard Park*

photo of narrow street with wide sidewalk buffers, V St at 21st St — *narrow street with wide sidewalk buffers, V St at 21st St in Poverty Ridge*

the end of red light enforcement

2024/03/152026/02/17 Dan Allison6 Comments

A SacBee article today notes the end of the red light camera program in City of Sacramento, which was part of Sacramento County’s program: Sacramento’s red light camera program has been shut down by the Sheriff’s Office. Here’s why. (sorry about the firewall)

This is very sad news, given the epidemic of red light running in the City of Sacramento (and elsewhere). I’ve written about this before: how do we get more red light cameras?, red light running consequences, SacCity red light cameras and crashes, Sac Vision Zero intersections & red light cameras, red-light-running bullies, and pandemic of red light running. It has only gotten worse over time, and will continue to get worse unless the city takes action to reduce it.

A quote from the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office is particularly galling: “Gandhi said the Sheriff’s Office wants to focus on its mission of suppressing violent crime and other criminal activity.” Apparently, in the view of law enforcement, traffic violence is not a violent crime. Apparently, the fact that red-light runners kill and injure walkers, bicyclists, passengers, and other drivers is of little concern. Sadly, this is a very common law enforcement attitude.

If cost-cutting were an appropriate response to criminal activity, it would be reasonable to just eliminate law enforcement. Law enforcement responds to criminal activity; it does little to nothing to prevent criminal activity. Automated red light enforcement is an effective response to criminal activity, and it does reduce future criminal activity. Why is the Sheriff’s Office and the City of Sacramento not interested?

If you think that direct law enforcement of red light running is a good replacement, you would be wrong, for two reasons. One, almost no enforcement of motor vehicle violations occurs anymore, other than some enforcement of speeding. Two, the law enforcement practice of pretextual stops, stopping people of color for traffic violations to search for other violations, and to intimidate people of color, results in law enforcement violence against drivers of color.

One of the useful things the city was doing to reduce traffic violence is no longer. Don’t you feel safer now? You can visit the city’s Red Light Running Program page, in case you wish to leave condolences, remembrances, or flowers.

photo of red light camera, from City of Sacramento — *red light camera, from City of Sacramento*

Jackrabbit Trail crossing at Truxel Rd

2024/03/112024/03/12 Dan Allison5 Comments

I participated in Slow Down Sacramento’s Traffic Safety Forum on March 2. I participated in the session looking at specific locations that need safety improvements, with two individuals interested in the North Natomas area, specifically the locations where the Jackrabbit Trail, a multi-use path, crosses streets. We focused on the crossing of Truxel Road at Natomas Crossing Drive. I intend to write more about the forum in a future post.

Jackrabbit Trail is not just a recreational trail, it is also the main route between North Natomas and downtown Sacramento, which is why North Natomas Jibe has been active in promoting the trail and working with the city to complete the trail. There are still gaps, but it is heavily used, and I have used it a number of times when I was doing bicyclist education in North Natomas. The UEDA trail is also a north-south route, but it is far to the east, serving an industrial area and along a levee, rather than serving residents and businesses.

Summary

The crossing of Truxel Drive by the Jackrabbit Trail is poorly designed and hazardous for bicyclists and walkers.
The crosswalk should have an exclusive phase, without motor vehicle movement, to protect walkers and bicyclists using the crosswalk.
The crosswalk should be painted in a high-visibility pattern rather than the low visibility parallel lines.
The ends of the path should be aligned with a multi-use crossing just south of the existing crosswalk, and perpendicular to Truxel Road.

SacATC Annual Report to Sac Council March 12

2024/03/10 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The 2023 Annual Report from the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission is agenda 5 for the Sacramento City Council on March 12, 2024, starting 5:00PM. Unfortunately, the item has been placed on the consent agenda. Every transportation advocate in Sacramento is disappointed that it is on consent, because we feel that the report deserves discussion by council. The report is critical to the future of active transportation in the city, and all the livability and safety benefits of active transportation, so the consent agenda minimizes its importance.

The public may comment on items on the consent agenda, both in eComment beforehand, and at the meeting. In-person comments are always weighted more than eComments, but if eComment is all you can do, please do! However, unless a council member pulls the item from consent, it will not be discussed by the council. If it were pulled from consent, I assume that City of Sacramento Transportation Planning Manager Jennifer Donlon Wyant and 2024 SacATC chair Arlete Hodel might present the report to the council.

To comment in person, you must submit a request to speak before the agenda item comes up, which will be very close to the beginning of the meeting at 5:00PM. Once the consent agenda comes up, it is not possible to submit a request. Speaker cards are on the back counter, to your left when you walk in to chambers, and the basket for cards is at the left front of chambers. Though you can of course comment on anything during the ‘items not on the agenda’ at the end of the meeting, it is much better if you can comment directly on the agenda item in question.

Even if you cannot comment, the Annual Report is well worth a read. The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission has shifted to a much more progressive and activist stance over the last two years, and the ten recommendations in the report (starting on page 8) should be implemented by the city. These are listed below, but read the document for supporting details.

Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
Expand Speed Management Programs
Pilot an Electric Bike Library
Promote E-Bike Incentives
Create a Sacramento Quick-Build Bikeways Program
Increase Bike Parking
Re-establish Slow & Active Streets
Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
Develop an ATC Dashboard

If you are going to comment, I recommend that you pick one item of most importance to you, and comment on that. Personal perspectives are best, why the lack of these programs has harmed you, or why the implementation of these programs will benefit you.

Broadway Complete Streets is NOT

2024/02/24 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

2024/02/22 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

2024/02/222024/02/22 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

2024/02/172024/02/17 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.

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)

Category: City of Sacramento