Category: City of Sacramento

SacATC recommendations supported by city council

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Agenda item 11 on the Sacramento City Council agenda last night (2023-08-29) was ‘Active Transportation Commission 2022 Annual Report Regarding the Status of Walking and Bicycling in the City of Sacramento and Activities of the Commission‘. Twenty members of the public and organizations spoke in support of the recommendations, no one against, and all council members spoke in support. Comments of both the public and council focused on the need for more funding to make infrastructure changes to our roadways, in order to fix the unsafe roadway network we have.

I have written twice before about the SacATC recommendations: support SacATC status on walking/biking (now!) and SacATC meeting Jan 19 with report, Northgate, Freeport. I recommend you read the full set of recommendations. Do they go far enough? No. Do they miss some important issues? Yes. But these recommendations are beyond anything that the city has considered before, and deserve the support of everyone in the city (and county and region).

Several representative from Land Park talked about how much they loved the slow streets in the park, and how disappointed they were when the city nixed them. They want them back! So do a number of other speakers. Grace Bartley talked about how she was hit by a driver while riding her bike to McClatchy High on Freeport, probably the most impactful speaker of the evening. Several speakers mentioned the imperative to control motor vehicle speeds, by whatever means necessary. (The ultimate solution to this issue is not any action of the city, but speed-limited motor vehicles.)

Eric Guerra mentioned again, as he has other times, that many parents seem to care about only their own children, once their children are safely dropped off at school, they speed away, endangering other people’s children. And some not ever their own children, encouraging their kids to run across the street at drop-off and pick-up. There was general agreement that there needs to be more money in next year’s budget for active transportation, though no one said what would be cut to accomplish that. SacATC had wanted their recommendations to go to the council for consideration in adopting this year’s budget, but a roadblock (intentional?) was thrown up by requiring that the report go first to the Personnel and Public Employees Committee, which meant that it did not come to the council until August. Katie Valenzuela suggested that Public Works come up with guidelines for citizen-initiated ‘tactical urbanism’ projects so that quick-builds can happen now, when the city does not have the funds or materials or personnel to complete in a timely manner. Jennifer Donlon Wyant was open to the idea, but I’m sure it would get nixed in Public Works. Darrell Steinberg talked about his proposal for a housing and transportation measure in 2024, that would provide some of the additional funding needed. This will be the topic of my next post.

I spoke along with the other 19 people, and my comments are below:

I strongly support all of the recommendations included in the 2022 report from the ATC to the city council. In particularly, I would like to address two of those, 3. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program, and 4. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy. 

I was the Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified for 10 years. Having that position funded through federal and ATC grants, and district funding, allowed the completion of many infrastructure project though collaboration with the City of Citrus Heights and Sacramento County. Most of these would not have occurred without the position. We also offered an extensive program of walking and bicycling education to students, and to the community. Civil Thread/WALKSacramento was a key partner in these efforts. I recommend that Sac City schools and the city create and fund a Safe Routes position to head an ongoing program in the support of students and their families.

It is long past time for a policy to accommodate walkers and bicyclists during construction projects. Nearly every construction project that has occurred in the central city has violated ADA guidelines, which require accommodation. City staff is on record as saying that walkers and bicyclists would be accommodated when it does not remove capacity from motor vehicles. So every project presents dangers to walkers and bicyclists. The are poorly signed and do not provide detectable barriers. I spend a lot of time reporting these violations, and over time many though not all of them are corrected. However, it should not be the responsibility of citizens to hold the city to ADA requirements. A progressive city would develop traffic plans that accommodate all travel modes, and would then inspect and enforce those plans.

Central City Mobility update: 9th, 10th, I

Dan Allison2 Comments

This is Central City Mobility Project update #22.

9th Street: 9th Street has a pavement overlay from L Street to Q Street. This is not repaving, removing old pavement and placing new, as has been done on many of the streets in the Central City Mobility Project, but a thin overlay. This was done very recently and there is no marking of any sort on the street. I had guessed that this section of 9th Street would not receive any treatment until the construction projects were complete, but I was wrong. I don’t know what kind of roadway allocation will be done in these five blocks. The left side is constrained by construction from L to Capitol Mall, and the right side from N Street to O Street and from P Street to Q Street. Note that in the photo below, there is a bus stop on the right hand side, which is why the city has designed the separated bikeway design on the left side.

9th St at L St, overlay and no markings
9th St at L St, overlay and no markings

10th Street: 10th Street is largely complete from W Street to Q Street, where a pre-existing separated bikeway continues north, but a few things are left unfinished and not all of the green vertical delineators have been installed. The block from Broadway to X Street has been marked. It does not appear that anything will be done with the block from X Street to W Street, under the freeway.

10th Street from Broadway to X St, new markings for separated bikeway
10th Street from Broadway to X St, new markings for separated bikeway

I Street: Nothing has been done on I Street since the pavement patching. There are lane marker tabs for three general purpose lanes and no bicycle facilities.

19th Street: Work south of Q Street is now underway, with repaving complete and the beginnings or markings for the left side separated bikeway. I have not ridden south on 19th to see what is being done beyond this point.

19th St at Q St, initial markings for separated bikeway
19th St at Q St, initial markings for separated bikeway

There is no change to the ‘turn wedges of death‘. The bicycle signal at 21st Street and I Street has not been installed. No further work is in evidence on 5th Street.

Central City Mobility update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #21.

I have been backpacking and traveling, so not keeping up as much with the Central City Mobility Project. I may do updates on my days back in town, about once a week.

19th St: Paint and vertical delineators are mostly complete from H St to W St. Nothing has happened in the two blocks from W St to Broadway. Though pavement has been patched from Q St to W St, no other work has occurred.

21st St: Paint and vertical delineators are complete from W St to I St. No bicycle signal at I St, so the intersection of 21st St and I St remains extremely hazardous to bicyclists (and walkers).

P St: Paint and vertical delineators are complete from 21st St to 15th St.

Q St: Paint is mostly complete from 14th St to 21st St. Vertical delineators have been installed on some blocks but not others, probably due to materials shortages. Some crosswalks are missing.

10th St: Paint is mostly complete from W St to Q St (Q St to I St was already ‘complete’ before this project). No vertical delineators yet. The block from Broadway to X St has a traditional bike lane on the right, but no changes. The block from X St to W St, under the freeway, has a wide right side shoulder, but it is not a bike lane, nor is it marked as such. The parking-protected separated bikeway on 10th St is on the right side, because 10th St does not have bus service to be accommodated by a left-side bikeway.

9th St: Other than some patching, nothing has happened on 9th St. The new bikeway from L St to Q St will be on the left side. A construction project from L St to Capitol Ave closes the left side bike lane, and there is no accommodation for bicyclists. Though there is a bus area on the right, followed by a parking lane, it is not marked as a bike lane, nor is it safe as a bike lane. There is no signed on 9th St approaching L St to indicate that the bikeway ends, nor how to ride south. See photo below.

9th St at L St, no bicycle accommodation
9th St at L St, no bicycle accommodation

Another construction project from O St to P St closes the right side of the roadway, but the existing bike lane on the left hand side is still open. As previously noted, it is unlikely that the bikeway on 9th St will be installed until both construction projects are complete.

I St: Other than pavement patches, no other work has taken place. No-parking signs continue to be up even though no active work is occurring. Most blocks from 21st St to 12th St will be reduced from three general purpose travel lanes to two, but from 20th St to 19th St, and part way to 18th St, the three lanes will be retained. It is not clear why.

5th St: No further work has occurred.

Nothing has changed about the ‘turn wedges of death‘. A closer look at the design diagrams (thanks to the person who provided them) shows that the wedges at intersections of the separated bikeways are intended to have hard curbs, 4 inches with sloped sides (regular curbs are six inches or more) with stamped concrete interiors (style 3), but the other intersections will have ‘rubber speed bumps’, and vertical delineators. The bumps are apparently as shown in the photo below, though the photo shows a bump in the travel lane, and these are in the turn wedges. The bumps are 2.25 inches high, which won’t be even noticed by trucks and SUVs, though might be noticed and respected by passenger car drivers.

19th St gutter fix

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #20.

Apparently it does help to complain, at least sometimes. The city is fixing the root heave and gutter on 19th Street between Matsui Alley and N Street, which I posted on recently (hazardous bikeway on 19th St). I had submitted several 311 reports on this issue, and so had other people, and it seems we got through to Public Works.

The gutter is being replaced at the root heave, and other deteriorated locations in that half block. The photo below shows a night-time view, and I’ll add a daytime view and a view when the project is complete. Note that the bikeway is being appropriately diverted into the parking lane. It is unusual for the city to provide an equivalent accommodation for bicyclists.

gutter fix work on 19th St bikeway between Matsui Alley and N St
gutter fix work on 19th St bikeway between Matsui Alley and N St

Of course there are several more blocks on 19th Street where the gutter pan is deteriorated enough that it doesn’t provide a bikeway surface and the bikeway therefore does not meet standards. However, this was the worst and most dangerous location, so there is progress.

hazardous bikeway on 19th St

Dan Allison4 Comments

This is Central City Mobility Project update #19.

I have mentioned the problems with the gutter pan on several blocks of the new bikeway on 19th Street being so deteriorated that the effective width of the bikeway is only about two feet. It is clear that the city did not look at the existing conditions of the gutter before deciding to place the bikeway in this gutter. But, this is not an easy thing to fix. There are at least four blocks that are unacceptable, but it will probably require reconstruction of the gutter pan to fix it.

What can be fixed, but has not been, is the root heave in the 19th Street bikeway at Matsui Alley (note that Matsui is discontinuous, and is present only on the west side of 19th Street; the alley does not exist on the east side.) The photo below shows the root heave, but doesn’t really emphasize how big it is. There is a four inch displacement. This is a pavement flaw that could easily cause a bicyclist to crash. I don’t know whether the orange paint marking is from the city or bicyclists, but orange paint is not visible at night, and even in daytime it doesn’t make clear what the rider should do to avoid the hazard.

19th St bikeway at Matsui-Alley root heave
19th St bikeway at Matsui Alley root heave

I have reported this issue to the city 311 app several times. I know of at least two other bicyclists who have reported it multiple times. The city 311 incident map shows only my latest report (230805-1907594), which means that the city has closed all the other reports without any action.

Allowing this type of hazard to exist, when it is a known hazard, particularly in a location designed to attract bicyclists, is criminally negligent. Let me repeat that for the idiots in Public Works, who seem to be hard of hearing – CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.

If you are a bicyclist who is using 19th Street, I encourage you to NOT use the bikeway in this block between Capitol Avenue and N Street. Ride in the middle of the general purpose travel lane instead. And if you have the time, file a 311 report on the hazard. It will become increasingly difficult for the city to claim it didn’t know about this problem (by closing the reports without action), the more people report it.

Central City Mobility update K71, curbs

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #18.

Flexible delineators have been installed along part of 21st Street, and are undergoing active installation this week. These K-71 posts are more substantial that the traditional vertical delineators. They can still be run over, and are run over, but since they look more substantial, drivers are less likely to run over them. They are still plastic, so provide no actual protection from errant motor vehicles; only hard curbs or true bollards (steel or concrete) can do that, but still, an improvement over earlier designs.

Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, K71 delineators
Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, K71 delineators

I don’t know how quickly the otherwise completed sections of the Central City Mobility Project will have these delineators installed. Apparently there is a US-wide shortage of materials for separated bikeways, and many cities are not able to complete their projects.

A second change since my last posting is that some parking spot paint is showing up. I had thought that parts of the striping that were still missing after quite some while were just missed, but in fact at least some of them were intended for parking regulation marking. The photo below shows a yellow curb and yellow stripe adjacent to the parking spots. I am glad to see that both the curb and the parking lane are being marked with paint. Otherwise, many drivers would fail to see, or pretend not to see, the curb color alone. This is hard to miss!

Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, yellow curb and parking marking
Central City Mobility Project, 21st St, yellow curb and parking marking

In California, painted curbs have the following meaning:

  • red – no stopping, standing, or parking
  • yellow – commercial loading and unloading (can also be used for passenger loading and unloading, unless otherwise signed)
  • white – passenger loading and unloading
  • green – limited time parking, as posted on a sign or the curb
  • blue – disabled parking (must have a license plate or temporary hanger tag)

In Sacramento, and many places in California, parking enforcement takes a laissez faire attitude towards curb colors. Except for red curbs, they are seldom enforced, and even red curb enforcement is uneven. Note that red curbs are really intended to mean what they say. If you stop there, you are in violation. A typical driver excuse for any parking violation is that they were ‘just going in for a moment’. Moments turn into minutes turn into hours, as I have observed many, many times. If you get out of your car, you are parking, no matter what the driver calls it, the law calls it parking. Parking on white and yellow curbs is a violation. Obviously commercial loading and unloading may take some time, but if there is no active loading or unloading going on, that is a violation.

I like green curbs as a solution for businesses where people pick up food and beverages. Fast food places where people order ahead. Coffee shops. My local coffee shop has a green curb right outside, and it is used for its intended purpose by some drivers. Other drivers just take it as an open free parking spot. I have reported these to city 311 as violations, but the city has not enforced so far as I am aware. More green curbs, please! (note that in the photo, the motor vehicle had just pulled into the curb, and the driver was crossing the street to pick up food at one of the businesses on the west side of 15th St; the parking meters are not functional, but the 15 minute limit is clearly posted)

green curb 15 minute parking, 15th St, Naked Lounge
green curb 15 minute parking, 15th St, Naked Lounge

Because past enforcement has been laissez faire, it will take some signing and education to make these curb colors work. Most drivers in California don’t really understand curb colors; I used to work in Nevada, and I can tell you most drivers there know exactly what they mean.

I am very pleased to see that curb colors are being more actively used in the city. Illegal parking endangers bicyclists, in particular, but also walkers and drivers. Of course something must be done to get delivery vehicles out of bike lanes and out of blocking streets and crosswalks. The city is far, far from having a plan to address that.

Other

19th St: no active work south of Q St

10th St: street being prepared for repaving and re-striping

I St: street being prepared for repaving and re-striping

5th St, 9th St: no active work

Nothing has been installed in the ‘turn wedges of death‘. I looked at the detailed design for these turn wedges (another advocate was able to obtain them), and it is still not clear what is intended for these locations. The bicycle signal at 21st and H Sts has not been installed, nor is there any sign cautioning bicyclist from using the pedestrian signal, which exposes them to high speed left turning motor vehicles.

SacCity SB 535 disadvantaged communities and density

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 update draft offers a map of the SB 535 disadvantaged communities (DAC), on page 7-6, reproduced below. The areas are census tracts, and their number is labeled. Census tracts do not necessarily follow city boundaries, some overlap with county areas.

The general plan text states “Under SB 535, a DAC is defined as an area scoring in the top 25 percent (75th – 100th percentile) of all California census tracts for pollution burden and socioeconomic factors as measured in CalEnviroScreen.” You can read more detail about how DACs are determined, and the relationship to CalEnviroScreen, on page 7-3.

It is good that the area of ‘the finger’ (also known as the Fruitridge/Florin study area), disadvantaged communities in south Sacramento, are included, but it also makes the map hard to read. What areas are actually within the city, where the city might invest to overcome the past disinvestment that created these disadvantaged communities? To look at this question, I created the map below, which distinguishes city from county, blue being city and orange being county. It is clear that ignoring that significant areas of south Sacramento are in the county would be a mistake, but it is important to note where the city disadvantaged areas are, because that is where the city could spend money.

But these type of maps, where an area is mapped without reference to other characteristics, can be misleading. For example, the large area on the southeast side is indeed disadvantaged, but it is also mostly low density and even agricultural. The Census Bureau indicates that census tracts range between 1200 and 8000 people, with an average of 4000. Sacramento does not have such a wide range, but nevertheless, there are significant differences in the number of people residing in each census tract. The table ‘Table EJ-1: CalEnviroScreen Scores of DACs in the Planning Area’ (pages 7-4 & 7-5) lists the population density of all the tracts in the city, but unfortunately this data is not mapped. Of the disadvantaged census tracts, the population density (residents per acre) in the table range from 3.71 (6067006900, north area) to 20.71 (6067000700, northwest downtown)

So I developed a map that shows the range of densities (this is calculated for my map from area of census tract and population in 2022, not from the city’s table; the city does not indicate the date of the table data). A higher intensity of blue indicates more dense census tracts in the city, and for the county, a higher intensity of orange. As you can see, some of the city census tracts that are indicated as disadvantaged are very low density.

Why is density important? The city will never have enough money, from its own budget or other sources, to overcome past disinvestment. So investments must be prioritized. I believe the most important criteria is population density. A dollar of investment in a higher density area reaches more people. Conversely, investment in a low density area reaches fewer people. This fact is glossed over in the general plan.

There are additional maps of the disadvantaged census tracts in the general plan, focused on particular areas of the city, and addressing such issues as healthy food resources, environmental justice issues, parks, and light rail transit. It should be noted that SB 535 disadvantaged communities are only one criteria for looking at an area. The state offers Low Income High Minority (LIHM), and SACOG uses that criteria among others. All of these criteria are important, but I believe density to be one of the most important.

You may comment on the General Plan under the ‘Self-Guided Workshop‘. For a good explanation of how to use this resource, see my previous post relaying the House Sacramento guide. For my earlier posts on the General Plan, see category: General Plan 2040.

PDF versions of the maps are available: SB 535 census tracts from General Plan; SB 535 city/county; SB 535 weighted for population density.

House Sac guide to General Plan update

Dan Allison1 Comment

House Sacramento (SacYIMBY) has provided a simple guide to commenting on the City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 Update. I hope you will take a look and consider their priorities and comments when making your own comments to the city. The update is weak, full of glorious language, but not much in the way of commitments or actions that will really make a difference. We can greatly improve it by making comments, so please do!

I have four prior posts on the General Plan, at category General Plan 2040. Groups actively working on identifying improvements and concerns include: House Sacramento, Strong SacTown, ECOS Climate Committee, Civic Thread, 350Sacramento, and Sacramento Climate Coalition.

change it before someone gets killed

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #17.

I regularly ride the newly repaved streets with separated and/or parking protected bikeways, because I want to see how bicyclists and drivers are dealing with the new design. Well, the turn wedges are a complete failure. At every intersection where there is a turn wedge for left turns, drivers are cutting the corner and turning at higher speeds than they did before. The city has created a danger that was not present before, when there were regular bike lanes. The city has not completed work on the turn wedges, and for now, they are an incredible danger to bicyclists. The city has not placed construction signs at these locations, though at least according to the rough designs the city has shared with the public, construction is not complete. Nothing has been installed in the turn wedges. That means that the city has left the project in an incomplete state, but is communicating to the public that the project is complete.

The number of close calls that I have personally experienced at these turn wedges now numbers over 40. As an experienced bicyclist, I know what to watch out for and respond, but having to slam on my brakes to keep from getting run over is not something I or any other bicyclist should have to do.

The city must stop this madness before people die. The city knowingly has installed unsafe roadways, and has not fixed them despite knowing that they are hazardous. This means that the city is legally responsible for any bicyclist-driver crashes that happen at those corners. I will happily testify against the city, and hope that they have to pay our millions for their incompetence. But of course someone will be dead or severely injured, and the city won’t have to be liable for that. Traffic engineers depend on ‘approved’ designs to isolate themselves from direct legal responsibility, but these are not approved designs, they are ones that the city invented using pieces and parts of internationally recognized designs.

City, fix this now, or suffer the consequences!

real turn wedges

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #16.

A post today on Streetsblog LA (Santa Monica’s New 17th Street Curb-Protected Bike Lanes are Amazing) is about new bicycle facilities on 17th Street in Santa Monica. I think you will find some of the photos interesting. At first glance, it looks like some of the ones being installed as part of the Central City Mobility Project, but looking more closely, two differences really stand out. Most of the separated bikeways in Santa Monica are curb-protected. Bikeways that are solely parking protected only are protected when cars are parked. Otherwise, they are really just buffered bike lanes. And the turn wedges are hard curbs with additional markers, not paint-only, and definitely superior to the Sacramento’s suggested turn wedges which might have vertical delineators or other markers, but won’t have curbs.

curb turn wedges in Santa Monica (from Streetsblog LA)
curb turn wedges in Santa Monica (from Streetsblog LA)

To illustrate the problem these curb turn wedges solve, see the photo below of a motor vehicle making a high speed dangerous turn over a painted parking wedge at P Street and 15th Street.

16th St & P St, Sacramento, high speed turn across painted turn wedge
16th St & P St, Sacramento, high speed turn across painted turn wedge

Other

  • P Street markings including green paint are nearly complete. In two blocks, the green paint is nearly the entire block, for unknown reasons. There is nothing unique about these blocks. While green paint is useful to mark conflict areas, excessive use will just lead to maintenance expense over time.
  • Q Street has preliminary markings, but the temporary lane tabs still indicate overly wide and dangerous general purpose lanes.
  • 19th Street is nearly complete from H Street to Q Street, but there is no marking south of Q Street. South of Q Street, the old bike lanes show in some places, but otherwise have been erased in favor of overly wide and dangerous general purpose lanes. Several blocks of the new bikeway are in the gutter pan, making an unacceptable rough and dangerous surface.
  • 21st Street is complete except for a few spots that were missed and have not been picked up. The confusing arrow at 21st Street and W Street has been corrected. There is still accommodation or signal for bicyclists at 21st Street and I Street.
  • I Street work has begun, with the last few ADA ramps complete and some repaving.
  • 10th Street has the last few ADA ramps complete.
  • 9th Street doesn’t have any work in evidence.
  • 5th Street has not progresses past installation of signal bases.
  • Overall, no vertical delineators have been installed at any locations.
  • Delivery vehicles are parking in and blocking the separated bikeway on P Street approaching 16th Street. The city did not mark any of the parking spaces for delivery use. Cones and barricades have been placed in the buffer to reduce this hazardous driver behavior, and have been removed by someone, and replaced by citizens, and removed by someone, and …