The City of Sacramento is in a planning process that will lead to an active transportation plan, called Streets for People. It will replace the somewhat out of date Bicycle Master Plan and the prehistoric Pedestrian Master Plan. Phase 1 involved gathering input and specifics from the community, and resulted in an existing conditions report.
I have, to be honest, not participated in this process nor posted anything about it. Well, here you go! I’ll look more closely, and no doubt have things to say. Soon, I hope.
PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), released in August 2023, has the force of law, whereas MUTCD and CA-MUTCD are advisory, so relevant sections of PROWAG must be referenced in the work zone guidance.
Signing
PROWAG Chapter 3 says: [R303.2 Signs: Signs identifying alternate pedestrian access routes shall be provided in advance of decision points and shall comply with R410. Proximity actuated audible signs or other non-visual means within the public right-of-way of conveying the information that identifies the alternate pedestrian access route shall also be provided.]
The draft guideline says: ‘Proposed design and placement of the temporary traffic control signs, devices, and roadway markings must follow the most recent edition of the CA MUTCD.’
The draft guidelines must make clear that CA-MUTCD/MUTCD signs as shown on the diagrams must be used. This is a common failing of construction zone signing. Companies, and the city, use whatever similar signs happen to be on hand. They use roadway construction signs, and paper signs that melt in the rain and blow away in the wind. Note: I submitted a comment to FHWA for the MUTCD revision that these signs should be construction orange, as they are temporary construction closures, not permanent. They didn’t listen.
Barriers
MUTCD text and figures show barriers in crosshatched orange. Unfortunately, neither MUTCD nor PROWAG show details of what that barrier should look like. It is common in construction projects to use chain link fence or roadway construction barriers on sidewalks, but these do not meet the requirements for detectability by persons using canes. Though PROWAG does not specifically address barriers (unfortunately), it does have the text: R303.6.1 Top: The top of the top detectable edging shall be no lower than 32 inches (815 mm) above the walking surface and be free of sharp or abrasive surfaces, and R303.6.2 Bottom: The bottom of the bottom detectable edging shall be 2 inches (51 mm) maximum above the walking surface.
There are two diagrams that I’ve used before, left and center. Right is a commercial product (though note is is only compliant if the props are away from the walker, otherwise they are a trip hazard). This model has been used in several places in Sacramento, but they tend to fall down in wind, so may not be the best. The channelizer in center is often used as a barricade at crosswalks, and I believe this use is compliant, and they don’t fall down in wind. The draft guidelines must include some sort of diagram, otherwise, companies will use whatever is on hand, and whatever a sighted person thinks is sufficient.
The sidewalk diagram in the new 2023 MUTCD Figure 6P-28 is better than the 2014 CA-MUTCD Figure 6P-28 because it makes clear that ramps from sidewalk level street level are necessary for a diversion. That diagram is below, and should replace the one in the draft guidelines. Figure 6P-29 is the same in both.
The City of Sacramento has released the Draft Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events. The related page is Work Zone and Event Detour Policy Update. The city’s Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), many advocates in the region, as well as myself, have long requested this document, as current city practice is simply unacceptable. Starting with this post, posts related to this document and the process will be under the category ‘Work Zones‘ within City of Sacramento. Previous posts, of which there are a considerable number, are linked via the tag ‘construction zone‘ within Active Transportation.
I will read through the document and no doubt have comments to offer to you, and the city. At a glance, it looks pretty good.
One issue that I note right of the top is that the document does not mention PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines). Though PROWAG includes text from the federal MUTCD, and therefore the CA-MUTCD, PROWAG supercedes both MUTCDs. PROWAG no longer accepts some outmoded and unsafe designs that are in the MUTCD.
I hope that readers will review the document and comment, here and to the city. There is a comment form linked from the city’s page, though it is not structured in such as way as to comment on specific sections. You can also email Casandra Cortez, Transportation Planner, cncortez@cityofsacramento.org.
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.
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.
pedestrian crossing prohibition, now illegal under PROWAG
I was out walking last evening, and was horrified to discover this:
new beg button at Alhambra Blvd & L St
This is a brand new beg button (technically called pedestrian pushbutton) on Alhambra Blvd in Sacramento. These have not been turned on yet, hence the cardboard over the button itself, but they are newly installed. There are a number of these along Alhambra Blvd, though I don’t yet know how many. For at least the ones I observed, these are all at locations where the pedestrian signal was previously on auto-recall, meaning the pedestrian signal changes as part of the regular signal cycle, not requiring any action on the part of the walker. Now, with these beg buttons, a person walking must ‘beg’ to cross the street by pressing the button. These buttons do not, at least in Sacramento, speed up the signal cycle. The person waiting must wait the same amount of time before a walk indicator comes on.
This is an affront to myself and anyone who walks. I’m sure the city considers this a pedestrian safety improvement, and I’d not be surprised if the city used pedestrian safety funds to install it. But it is a motor vehicle facility and improvement, it does absolutely nothing for someone walking. What is does do is allow the traffic engineer to favor motor vehicle traffic in signal timing.
The trend all over the US is to either remove such beg buttons completely, or to change them to accessible audible buttons. In a few places, they are being replaced by automated pedestrian detection, so that no action is required on the part of any walker. San Francisco has converted all of its beg buttons to accessible buttons. Other bay area cities have started to do so. I know of no place in the US where new beg buttons are being installed.
City of Sacramento Public Works is populated by fossil engineers and fossilized thinking. It has a cars-first attitude, and will continue to have that attitude until the fossils are cleared out. Put them in a museum of the 1970s, and get them out of our transportation system.
The white line stripes that were added to the two blocks of P Street protected bikeway, 19th Street to 17th Street, are an attempt to keep leaf piles and trash cans out of the bikeway. I noted the added white stripes in Central City Mobility update #27, but wasn’t sure why they were added. The wording was added later. I have not yet observed this location on either a trash pickup day, or now that there are a lot more leaf piles. I have not seen the striping and marking on other blocks of the new bikeways, so this may be a pilot to see if it works. The practice of putting leaf piles in the regular Class 2 bike lanes in common, and the city has made no effort to reduce this practice.
The Sacramento City Council will hear tonight (Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 5:00PM) on a recommendation to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from 1 to 2 in areas within a half mile of frequent transit, and other improvements. The Missing Middle Housing program is part of the 2040 General Plan update. In October, staff brought missing middle housing to the council. Housing advocates led by House Sacramento suggested several improvements, and several council members spoke strongly in favor of improvements. See Sac missing middle housing project for background. So at the council meeting tonight, staff will be back with some of the recommended improvements. The documents are here: body of the staff report; table of public comments (the comments account for most of the size of the document, so the body will download much faster).
Public support for improved missing middle housing program policies and areas is critical to ensure that it will end up strong in the general plan. Though people opposed to better housing availability (NIMBYs) have so far not shown up to speak against it, they have been using their political power behind the scenes to ensure that housing remains scarce (which increases their own property values) and that their neighborhood does not change nor include people who have been excluded from housing and opportunity. Of course these Missing Middle Housing program elements will only take effect if they are not weakened when the 2040 General Plan is adopted, perhaps late next year. So housing advocates will need to remain vigilant.
Please see the House Sacramento Take Action page for information about providing public comment on the issue, and suggestions for your comments.
I believe that the public should support these changes. The general plan could be even better, by removing zoning completely, but this represents a huge improvement over both existing conditions and the earlier proposal.
Floor area ratio (FAR) changed from 1 to 2 for all areas within a half mile of frequent transit service (which means if and when areas get better transit service, they can be similarly be allows greater housing density and variety). See map below (pdf). While the area changed is not huge, it represents a huge opportunity for more housing along light rail and SacRT bus route 1 along Stockton.
The cap on dwelling per parcel are removed. Use of FAR will provide the appropriate level of control without reference to number of units. The cap on dwelling is a continuation of the exclusionary housing policies of the past.
Creation of a sliding FAR scale. To be honest, I don’t quite understand this policy, but I trust to House Sacramento that it is useful.
I have written before about excess signals in the central city: too many traffic signals?. The fact that these exist is bad enough, but as part of the 5th Street conversion project, one-way to two-way, the city is replacing unnecessary old signals with very expensive and unnecessary new signals.
At 5th Street and S Street, a new signal is being installed. S Street is a low volume street that never needed and never should have had a traffic signal. A four-way stop sign, maybe, or maybe only stop signs for S Street. A fully signalized intersection, no way. There is nothing wrong with the existing signal for northbound traffic. Of course, a new signal is needed for southbound traffic. But the city is replacing northbound. Why?
Why is the city putting in a new signal here? Because there was one here before. If this intersection were studied for whether it needed a signal, the answer would be no. A warrant is a study indicating a need for a signal, as is simply explained at http://www.apsguide.org/chapter3_mutcd.cfm (this is much easier to read than the MUTCD). The 5th Street & S Street intersection does not meet any of these criteria. So, the city is putting in a new signal because they want to, not because it is necessary.
new and unnecessary signal at 5th St & S St
The current cost of a fully signalized intersection is $200K to $500K. Half a mil per. Your tax money. For intersections like 5th Street and P Street, a signal probably is necessary, particularly since the P Street and Q Street traffic sewers encourage high speeds.
It is likely that the signal at T Street is similarly unnecessary, however, T Street is busier than S Street, so might be justified by traffic volume. I’d like to see the city do a new traffic warrant study on this intersection. The city always uses warrants as an excuse for something it does not want to do, but seems to ignore these for things it wants to do. A typical traffic engineering misuse of MUTCD guidance.
The rubber speed bumps have finally been installed on most of the non-concrete turn wedges. These are marked by vertical delineators, as shown below. it is odd that most of these installations have both green K-71 vertical delineators in addition. These K-71s might have been installed temporarily, while waiting for the rubber speed bumps, and be removed later, or may be permanent. In some of the locations, the white vertical delineators have already been hit and bent by errant drivers. I have not visited all of the locations where the rubber speed bumps have been installed (or not), so don’t have any more information. More info about the rubber speed bumps is available from the vendor TreeTop Products.
turn wedge at 16th St & P St, with green K-71 delineators and rubber speed bumpsRead More »
“Missing Middle Housing (MMH) is a range of small multi-unit housing types that are similar in scale to a single-family house and are often found in walkable areas. This study focuses on duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and bungalow courts. MMH types are ‘middle’ in form and scale between that of small single-family houses and larger apartment buildings, enabling them to blend into existing residential neighborhoods. With smaller units, MMH can provide housing at price points attainable to many middle-income households.”
If you would like to see what missing middle housing looks like, head to midtown Sacramento, where missing middle is mostly NOT missing. Midtown has a mix of building uses and housing types. There are corner grocery stores, single family houses, bungalow courts (cottage court, in the MMH documents), multi-unit apartments, and large apartment buildings, with clusters of commercial areas hosted small locally owned businesses.
Midtown was created before the city decided (along with most governments) that uses should be far separated, jobs downtown and housing in the far suburbs. It prohibited most of the kinds of buildings that exist today in midtown. Some of this was through exclusionary zoning, and some through parking mandates that made affordable housing almost impossible. Most, though not all, of midtown escaped the city and state’s urban renewal travesty of the 1960s and 1970s. The city and state replaced missing middle, and lower income, housing, and the people who lived there, with state buildings and parking lots throughout downtown Sacramento (west of 15th Street). But the urban renewal project had just bitten into the edge of midtown, to 17th Street, before urban renewal was stopped, and the housing that had been purchased and not yet torn down was transferred to Capitol Area Development Agency (CADA). And parking mandates were removed from the central city (midtown and downtown).
The Missing Middle Housing Project will become part of the 2020 General Plan update. Four reports will be produced, and the first two are done: MMH Informational Report, and MMH Attainability & Livability Analysis. The analysis was the topic in front of the city council on October 24. All the public comments were in favor of the concept, and requested strengthening the project by removing some of the remnants of the old zoning regime such as tiers matching existing zoning patterns, and unnecessary dwelling unit limits. Floor area ratio (FAR) should be the only built environment limit. The council was also very much in favor of a stronger program, and clearly favored removal of dwelling unit limits. All the attendees were pleased at the support of the council for a strong MMH plan.
My point of concern was recommendation 9, Approval Process – “A discretionary design review process will be required for MMH projects, allowing opportunity for community input.” in the staff presentation. This page is below, and pdf. This type of community review, where NIMBYs are able to kill housing of any density greater than current density, and housing for people of color and lower income, is what got us into this fix to begin with, it is largely the reason missing middle housing is missing. It included in the final proposal, this one item could potentially kill any new housing, by allowing the same exclusionary policies to continue.
City staff tried to clarify that design review would be by city staff, and not public hearings, but that is not what the text says. It says ‘community input’. I’m certainly not opposed to community input, but it should be up front, at the level of policy review, and not review of individual projects. Review of individual projects would force middle housing to continue to be missing.
Getting Around Sacramento 