Category: City of Sacramento

SacCity work zone problems on Broadway

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Posts related to the work zone guidelines are linked via category ‘Work Zones‘ within City of Sacramento category. Posts about construction project issues, previous to and after the release of the draft guidelines, of which there are a huge number, are linked via tag ‘construction zone‘ within Active Transportation category.

I walked a long section of Broadway today, and came across two construction projects that close sidewalks without proper and safe signing and barricades.

‘Dental Clinic Remodel’

I put this one in quotes because it is a building that has been abandoned for years, but is apparently now under construction. Construction for this half-block building on the north side of Broadway between 23rd and 22nd Streets has closed sidewalks on both 23rd and 22nd. For 23rd, there is some signing, but also a non-detectable chainlink fence and trips hazard folding barricade. As with many other construction projects, a sign on hand, the bicycle/pedestrian detour sign (MUTCD M4-9a), was used though it is not required or appropriate. The sidewalk closed ahead cross here (MUTCD R9-11) is a valid sign, but the wrong location. The sidewalk is closed HERE, not ahead, so the correct sign is sidewalk closed cross here (MUTCD R9-11a).

photo of work zone violation at Broadway and 23rd St, wrong sign, non-detectable barricade
work zone violation at Broadway and 23rd St, wrong sign, non-detectable barricade

At the corner of Broadway and 22nd Street, there is no sign at all, and the same non-detectable chainlink fence used as a barricade.

photo of work zone violation at Broadway and 22nd St, no sign and non-detectable barricade
work zone violation at Broadway and 22nd St, no sign, non-detectable barricade

I did not check on the north side of these sidewalk closures, but I would assume the signing and detectability is the same or worse.

Read More »

SacCity work zone monitoring

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Posts related to the work zone guidelines are linked via category ‘Work Zones‘ within City of Sacramento category. Posts previous to the release of the draft guidelines, of which there are a considerable number, are linked via tag ‘construction zone‘ within Active Transportation category.

The problem with work zones at this time, before the adoption of a new Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events policy (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/Planning-Projects/Work-Zone-and-Event-Detours), is that the city accepts incomplete and non-compliant Temporary Traffic Control Plans, and then does not monitor them for compliance. The success and safety of construction zones should not have to rely on the public reporting non-compliant locations, it should be the job of city staff to monitor compliance.

Monitoring

City staff should monitor construction zones at the beginning of the construction project when signs, barricades, and channelizing devices are installed, and at any point when there is a significant change to the locations closed or detoured sidewalks or bikeways. As an example, 9th Street between K Street and L Street changed dozens of times during the construction project, and in fact, the sidewalk at that location is still closed long after construction appears to be complete. Almost every change had one or more non-compliant aspects, though it did improve over time. At beginning of construction, the sidewalk and bikeway were closed without warning signs, and there was unrelated construction on the other side of the street which closed the sidewalk. This sort of issue should never have happened! It has long been a requirement to comply with MUTCD and ADA (even before PROWAG was finalized).

The draft guidelines define five work durations:

  1. Long-term stationary is work that occupies a location for 5 days or more.
  2. Intermediate-term stationary is work that occupies a location more than one daylight period up to 5 days, or nighttime work lasting more than 1 hour.
  3. Short-term stationary is daytime work that occupies a location for more than 1 hour within a single daylight period.
  4. Short duration is work that occupies a location up to 1 hour.
  5. Mobile is work that moves intermittently or continuously.

I would not suggest that monitoring is necessary for durations C, D, and E, unless there is a citizen complaint about safety. For duration B, it should be inspected once, at the beginning. For duration A, it should be inspected at the beginning, and once per week thereafter. The additional monitoring would ensure that changes are captured and addressed, and that fallen signs, barricades or channelizing devices are corrected.

If there seems to be insufficient staff for monitoring, then the construction company must be charged more for the Temporary Traffic Control Plan and encroachment permit, sufficient to staff. The majority of construction is occurring in the central city, but there are locations throughout the city that must be monitored.

Enforcement

The draft guidelines do provide for administrative remedy, as follows. This will be sufficient, if Public Works staff follows through. However, in the past, staff has shown little concern for compliance, and has only responded to repeated citizen complaints.

Administrative Penalties
Implementation of the requirements for accommodations within these criteria and guidance must be paid for by the construction sponsor and it must be the responsibility of the construction sponsor to comply with the requirements of these criteria and guidance. Should the construction sponsor fail to comply, the Public Works Director or their delegate has the authority to stop all work until compliance has been achieved (§12.20.020). Such work will not be resumed until the necessary modifications have been implemented (§12.20.020). The Public Works Director or their delegate may issue an order imposing an administrative penalty to any person violating any provision of Chapter 12.20 Closure of Primary Streets for Construction.

SacCity work zone done wrong

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

There is a construction zone at the northwest corner of Q Street and 21st Street which serves to illustrate what can go wrong with work zone signing. I am not picking on this particular construction site, as it is a rehabilitation of historical housing, which I fully support. I’ve seen worse construction sites, I’ve seen better construction sites, but this is a current example.

On Q Street at 20th Street, at the last crosswalk before the construction zone, there is the sign below. It is a roadway construction sign, not a sidewalk closure sign. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11a.

photo of Q-St at 20th-St advance warning sign
Sac_Q-St-20th-St_advance-warning
MUTCD R9-11a right sign
MUTCD R9-11a right sign

On Q Street approaching 21st Street, at the point of closure, there is this sign and a chainlink fence. This sign has been turned so it is not visible to someone approaching, and the traffic barricade on which it is mounted is a trip hazard. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11. Chain link fence is not an acceptable detectable barricade. Imagine using a long cane and running into this. What would you think? What would you do?

photo of Q-St near 21st-St sidewalk closed ahead sign
Sac_Q-St-21st-St_sidewalk closed
MUTCD R9-9 sign
MUTCD R9-9

For the crosswalk over Q Street at 21st Street, here is the sign. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21t-St at Q-St sidewalk-closed ahead sign for crosswalk
Sac_21t-St-Q-St_sidewalk-closed ahead
MUTCD R9-10 sign
MUTCD R9-10

On 21st Street crossing at Q Street, north side, there is a sign on the ground that was intended to mark the closed crosswalk, before it was knocked down by the wind or by people. This is what happens when work zone signing is not monitored by the construction company. Note that this sign was not here until I reported the location to 311. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21st-St at Q-St sign on ground for crosswalk
Sac_21st-St-Q-St_sign-on-ground
MUTCD R9-10 sign
MUTCD R9-10

On 21st Street at P Street, there should be an advance warning sign. There is not. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-10.

photo of 21st-St at P-St no advance warning sign
Sac_21st-St-P-St_no-advance-warning
MUTCD R9-11a left

On 21st Street at Powerhouse Alley, where the sidewalk is closed, there is the sign shown below. Again, it is the incorrect sign, mounted on a traffic barricade that is in itself a trip hazard since it does not meet detectability requirements. The chain link fence is not an acceptable detectable barricade. Following is the sign that should be here, MUTCD R9-11.

photo of 21st-St at Powerhouse-Alley sidewalk closed sign
Sac_21st-St-Powerhouse-Alley_sidewalk-closed
MUTCD R9-9 sign
MUTCD R9-9 sign

The use of incorrect signs, missing signs, and lack of detectable barricades, are problems that could be corrected, if the construction company had a compliant Temporary Traffic Control Plan, and if the city monitored the location for compliance. More about that in the next post.

SacCity work zone barricades and audible

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’ve spent more time looking at the 2023 MUTCD, Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control. The document is a bit convoluted, and I didn’t realize there were references in several locations, which taken together though not separately, provide better guidance for sidewalk barricades.

Figure 6K-2 provides a diagram for ‘pedestrian channelizing device’. The example is for the side of a temporary walkway, shown curved (though Figure 6P-29 shows right angles).

diagram of MUTCD-2023 Figure 6K-2 pedestrian channelizing device
MUTCD-2023 Figure 6K-2 pedestrian channelizing device

In a separate location, the notes page for Figure 6P-29, the text reads, Standard 1 “When existing pedestrian facilities are disrupted, closed, or relocated in a TTC zone, the temporary facilities shall be detectable and include accessibility features consistent with the features present in the existing pedestrian facility. A pedestrian channelizing device (see Figure 6K-2) that is detectable by a person with a vision disability traveling with the aid of a long cane shall be placed across the full width of the closed sidewalk.” The same channelizing device can be used as a barricade to close sidewalks. Imagine the left-most panel in the diagram, extending across the width of the sidewalk. I think that the three examples I used in my previous post (SacCity work zone comments) would be compliant, though I am not certain.

Audible Warning

Another item of critical importance, that I did not initially pick up on, is the new requirement for audible warning: Notes for Figure 6P-28, Standard 5 (page 914): “SIDEWALK CLOSED CROSS HERE signs shall include audible information devices to provide adequate communication to pedestrians with vision disabilities.” The ‘sidewalk closed cross here’ sign is MUTCD R9-11a, which is the advance warning, used at the last available crosswalk.

SacCity Active Transportation Plan

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

SacCity work zone comments

Dan Allison1 Comment

I developed comments on the Draft Criteria and Guidance to Accommodate Active Transportation in Work Zones and at Events, and submitted them to the city, attached if you wish to take a look. There is a roundtable meeting for stakeholders on January 9, and a community meeting later in the month, possibly January 24.

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.

diagrams of detectable barricades

The left diagram is from Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act in Work Zones: A Practitioner’s Guide (https://workzonesafety.org/publication/applying-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-in-work-zones-a-practitioner-guide/), and the center diagram is from Work Zone Pedestrian and Bicycle Guidance (https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/technical-guidance-documents/traffic-engineering/WZ_Ped_Bike_Guide.pdf).

Diagrams

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.

SacCity releases draft work zone guidance

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

diagonal ramp corners are now illegal

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sac City NEW beg buttons

Dan Allison8 Comments

I was out walking last evening, and was horrified to discover this:

photo of new beg button at Alhambra Blvd and L Street
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.