Category: transportation

a real street

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’m still in Philadelphia today, and will post some thoughts about the city tomorrow. But for today, I want to say again that smooth streets are dangerous streets. They encourage motor vehicle drivers to drive fast, too fast for conditions, and fast enough to kill any walkers or bicyclists they hit because they are driving too fast. Our street design encourages speeding, and rewards it. But we can design streets that discourage or even prohibit speeding.

The street below, 5th Street in the historical and old city part of Philadelphia, is a street with an appropriate surface, cobblestone pavers. Of course it is so for historical reasons, it has been preserved, and probably reconstructed, to preserve the historical feel of the area. Independence Square is to the left. I watched traffic on this street for quite some time. I saw absolutely no one speeding. The cobble surface enforces reasonable speeds. Of course the width of the street is not optimal. It is not clear whether it is two lanes or one, and it is not clear whether parking on the right side is permitted or not. But that is actually part of the benefit, by leaving drivers a bit confused, they drive even more slowly and carefully.

And if a driver does error, there are metal bollards separating the street from the sidewalk. Why is the ‘old’ way to protect walkers from errant drivers, while the ‘new’ way is to leave walkers at the mercy of errant drivers.

I’m pretty sure that all the streets in the old part of Sacramento, both ‘Old Sacramento Waterfront’ and the western part of the central city up to the Capitol, were cobblestone. I’ve seen utility projects digging up streets reveal the cobblestone beneath the asphalt. People think of asphalt as being the modern thing, and cobblestone as being old fashioned, but the fact is, cobblestone is the advanced street design, because it keeps motor vehicle drivers to safe speeds. We need to get back to the ‘old’ and safe ways.

photo of 5th St cobblestone between Walnut and Chestnut, Philadelphia
5th St cobblestone between Walnut and Chestnut, Philadelphia

sidewalk-level bikeway in Philadelphia

Dan Allison2 Comments

One of the many reasons that I travel is to see transportation facilities in different places, ways in which cities have made active transportation and transit better, or worse. I’m in Philadelphia at the moment, and one of the features that has been implemented is…

photo of sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia
sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia

These sidewalk-level separated/protected bikeways are on several blocks of Market Street, the main east-west street in Philadelphia. These are new, and were under construction during my last visit a year ago. NACTO calls these Raised Protected Bike Lanes, with designs on the Separating Protected Bike Lanes page (scroll down for this design section).

These bikeways are visually distinctive from the adjacent sidewalk, composed of different materials and colors, red brick for the sidewalk (many sidewalks in Philadelphia are brick), grey granite for the separation, and black asphalt for the bikeway. NACTO recommends a tactile warning delineator (TWD) between the sidewalk and bikeway. The granite separator and change of texture may or may not meet this criteria for visually impaired people. Though

Philadelphia downtown has a significant bicyclist mode share, but it mostly seems to be on the north-south arterials and collectors, not on east-west streets. But this may be an artifact of the time of day I observed. It has a wide variety of bike facilities: traditional bike lanes, vertical delineator ‘separated’ bikeways, two-way separated bikeways (cycle tracks), parking protected bikeways, bikeways along transit islands. I don’t know the criteria, but I suspect that available roadway width is a determinant.

Sacramento is proposing a sidewalk-level bikeway (2-way cycle track) on H Street between 9th Street and 10th Street, at City Hall. I believe the design is for paint on the existing sidewalk, not reconstruction of that section. It will be interesting to see if this design works.

so many projects, so little time

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

You may have noticed a flurry of posts yesterday and recently about ongoing planning projects for the City of Sacramento,

And there are several more in the planning or development stages. The city has a list at Transportation Planning: Current Efforts, There is also a map, Public Works Transportation Projects that shows the number of projects and status. Selecting for ‘planning’ shows Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan, Truxel Road Bridge Over American River, Norwood Ave Complete Streets Plan, Arden Way and Auburn Boulevard Vision Zero and Mobility Plan, Reconnecting Old North Sacramento, and Howe Ave Transportation Vision Zero Plan, which is mostly planned and about to go to council. You can also select for preliminary engineering, final design, in construction, and construction complete.

Read more: so many projects, so little time

This is just within the City of Sacramento. Widening out, there are projects in each of the cities within the county, and Sacramento County itself. Widening our even further, there are projects and transportation policy development in the region, and for the region, under SACOG, and the other five counties within SACOG.

There are more projects and policies than any one person, or even an advocacy organization, can keep up with. Many of these projects depend on funding from the regional, state, or federal government to be implemented, and so many will sit on the shelf. Many of the policies will remain theoretical because there is not the political will to overcome the inertia of government and dedication of staff to doing things the way they have always been done. But sometimes writing about a project or policy does lead to positive change.

For me, I will focus on only a few of these, and quite possibly never write again on most of them. My current focus is Vision Zero Action Plan Update, H Street Bikeway, and Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP).

So why do I bring this up? I’d like to plant the seed of interest. If one of these projects, or one of the many others, piques your interest because it is in your neighborhood, or along your route of travel, or aligns with something you are passionate about, I’m inviting you to research and write about it, here. Getting Around Sacramento is the only regular local source of information about what is going on with transportation. I don’t wish to claim to much, but it is essentially Streetsblog Sacramento. If writing for this blog appeals to you, please get in touch – allisondan52@icloud.com. We can of course talk directly, but you will need to ask for my phone number, or arrange coffee/tea. What one project appeals to you? What, in general, do you want to say about it? You need not be familiar with WordPress, which is the host for this blog, as you could write directly or I can post your writing.

red light cameras and law enforcement

Dan Allison2 Comments

Earlier posts on red light running and automated enforcement are available at category: automated enforcement.

The City of Sacramento has a crisis in biased law enforcement against people of color and low income, and also has a crisis of red light running.

The city had red light cameras at eleven locations, part of a program managed by Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. The county dropped the program in early 2024, and all cameras were removed. The county claimed that the fines from red light running were not paying the cost of the program, and of the contractor. The City of Sacramento therefore dropped its program and has made no effort to restart it. At the dollar value of human life being $10M or more, it is hard to understand how the county saw this program as too costly. City of Sacramento paid $27M in traffic crash lawsuits over five years. The county information does not seem to be available, but it would likely be larger due to higher population, more road miles, and more poorly designed roadways and intersections.

The nature of red light running is that a motor vehicle driver T-bones someone, impacting other motor vehicles, walkers and bicyclists at a perpendicular angle at high speeds, frequently resulting in a fatality. This is not the leading cause of fatalities, but it is significant.

There are reasonable objections to any law enforcement of traffic laws. Traffic stops are often pre-textual, intended to discover illegal activity or warrants that have nothing to do with traffic law, and to oppress people of color and low income. Law enforcement officers not infrequently escalate interactions, resulting in intimidation, unlawful arrest, and death. Law enforcement often focuses on communities with people of color and low income, both because of the pre-textual nature of stops and intended intimidation of people in those communities. Even when justified, tickets for traffic violations have an outsized impact on lower income people because fines are a flat amount no matter the income of the violator, so are strongly regressive. Court fees add a great deal to the cost of a ticket, often sending low-income people in a downward economic and legal spiral. 

Automated enforcement of traffic law removes some of these concerns, but not others. By removing the interaction with officers, law enforcement intimidation and violence is eliminated. But the issue of outsized economic impact remains.

If a red light camera program were to be restarted in the City of Sacramento, it would have to have these characteristics:

  1. The program would be operated by Public Works as part of their transportation management responsibilities, not by the Police Department.
  2. Camera locations would be selected based on traffic crash location hot-spots, but adjusted so that low-income communities do not have a higher number of cameras per-capita than other areas 
  3. For camera locations with a history of traffic crashes resulting in fatalities and severe injuries, and with a higher than average number of citations issued, the city would commit to making changes to that intersection to reduce the incidence of red light running and crashes.
  4. The fines for red light running would be reduced for low-income people. The reduction could be a) across the board for income levels below a certain set percentage of the median household income, or b) based on the value of the vehicle driven by the violator. Alternatives to fines could also be implemented. Though income based fines are often mentioned, and are used in other countries, concerns about privacy and availability of the data make this impractical. The value of a vehicle is easily available, and does track to some degree with the income of the owner. It is not certain whether these options could be implemented by the city now, or if changes in state law would be required, but the city should commit to exploring options and committing to a solution.

Two other types of automated law enforcement have been discussed. Automated speed cameras are legal under a pilot program for several cities, but Sacramento is not one of them. It is unlikely that other cities would be added, or statewide implementation would occur before the pilot is completed. It is possible that active intelligent speed assistance will become law in California, and obviate the need for automated speed enforcement, at least in urban areas.

Automated enforcement of ‘failure to yield’ to walkers (pedestrians) law would be very useful. Failure to yield sometimes results in fatalities and severe injuries, but it always results in intimidation of people walking by people driving, reducing the frequency and comfort of walking trips. The technology for detection of ‘failure to yield’ is not well developed, but has been implemented in some cities and is practical. ‘Failure to yield’ is another crisis on our roadways.

This recommendation to restart the red light camera program in the city does not indicate that it is the primary solution to the traffic violence crisis. It is one among many tools. Changes to the roadway, temporary (quick-build) or permanent, are by far the most effective solution and should be the lead action by the city.

SacCity pedestrian safety emergency: enforcement

Dan Allison2 Comments

The draft City of Sacramento emergency declaration on pedestrian safety: ‘Declaring a state of emergency regarding pedestrian safety in the City of Sacramento and calling for immediate action to address pedestrian injuries and fatalities’ is available (pdf of text, 2 pages, 68KB) (pdf of attachments, 28 pages, 26MB).

This post focuses on the enforcement item.

3. “The City Manager is further directed to work with the Sacramento Police Department to ramp up enforcement of traffic laws that protect pedestrians, including speed limit enforcement, crosswalk violations, and distracted driving. The City shall prioritize enforcement in high-injury corridors and areas with frequent pedestrian activity.”

Three advocacy organizations specifically commented about the draft that it must focus on ‘equity and mobility justice’, as did most of the people who spoke at the city council meeting.

I’ll be blunt. There is a deep and well justified mistrust of Sacramento Police Department (SacPD) among people of color and low-income, particularly among, but not limited to, blacks. SacPD has a history of oppressing black people, and has often used traffic stops as a pretext to harass people. Many of these have escalated into arrest, beatings, and even death. I have seen no real evidence that SacPD has changed their stripes. They are not people that I want interacting with the public about traffic law. And, apparently, they don’t want to either. SacPD has reduced its traffic officer group to almost nothing, and does little traffic enforcement by traffic officers or any officers. It is time to move past the idea that law enforcement has much to contribute to reducing traffic violence.

At the same time, no enforcement of any sort is not the answer. People are dying when drivers violate traffic law, and these deaths are unacceptable. Speed is a contributing factor to all traffic crashes, and is sometimes the primary factor. Driving too fast for conditions, and these conditions include walkers and bicyclists on and close to the roadway, is always wrong, even though road design encourages it.

Automated enforcement is a partial answer. It avoids the pretextual stops, avoids harassment of people of color and low-income by police, at least over traffic law, avoid the escalation that police engage in, and is much less expensive than police officers.

The three main traffic violence issues to be addressed, at least at this time, are:

red light running: Red light cameras and automatic ticket issue to the owner of the vehicle are a partial solution to red light running. Of course some drivers will always run red lights, will always endanger others, and will not be deterred by tickets. But most drivers will notice that tickets are being issued, and will change their behavior. Red light running does have infrastructure solutions, including changing from far-side signals to near-side signals, and raised crosswalks and raised intersections. But there are not easy or inexpensive fixes, so automated enforcement is a good interim solution. When the county ended its red light program, which operated the red light camera in the City of Sacramento, the city made no effort to replace that program, and at least some city staff celebrated it (the red light runners?). The city should create a red light camera program of its own. It should be administered by Public Works, not by SacPD. There are equity issues, since the wide, high speed arterials that most encourage red light running are in low-income communities. Two solutions are to distribute cameras across the city in locations where red light running might occur, and not just those locations with a history. The egregious violators, which are who we really want to target, will be receive tickets eventually. The second is to adjust violation fees (and court costs) to a factor related to income. It would be awkward and perhaps invasive to base it on income, but it could easily be based on vehicle value.

failure to yield to walkers: Drivers have been trained by roadway mis-design to not yield to people in crosswalks. The recent SacPD, OTS funded, sting on J Street demonstrated how common this is. But again, as drivers have been trained to do this, they can be untrained. There are options for automated enforcement of failure to yield, but it requires more complicated and less widely used technology. The city should be experimenting with this technology (they are not), but in the meanwhile, this may be one situation in which in-person enforcement, on a limit basis and with close attention to equity concerns, may be justified. Any in-person enforcement by SacPD raises issues of police violence and over-reaction, including high-speed chases of violators. One solution is to ban high-speed chases. With technology such as helicopters (which the police love) and drones, there is no reason to endanger the lives of violations, bystanders, or officers themselves with high speed chases. Too many cops have watched too many movies with the thrill of high-speed chases. The practice must end.

speeding: There is available and highly reliable technology for automated enforcement of speeding. There is a state-authorized pilot program of speed camera enforcement in six cities and part of Pacific Coast Highway. Sacramento is not among them. To its credit, City of Sacramento asked to be part of this pilot but was not included. The city should strongly lobby the next legislative session for inclusion, and should have a program designed and ready to go when authorized. Speeding is the most common concern of the public, and it is true that speed is a factor in every crash, I’m doubtful that it is the biggest concern. I’d rather see a focus on red light running and failure to yield.

I believe that item 3 should be deleted for its likely failure on equity and mobility justice.

I have not yet written about the other six items, and don’t know when I’ll be able to get to it. However, I will say now, in case you were wondering, that by far the most effective city response is temporary (quick build or tactical urbanism) and permanent changes to roadway design. And what it will take to accomplish those changes is funding, from the city general fund. The seeking of grants, and waiting years or decades for the funding to address traffic violence, is only part of the solution. If this is truly an emergency, and it is, the city must spend significant funding to act on it, and act now.

Park(ing) Day in Sacramento on September 21

Dan Allison2 Comments

Park(ing) Day, is an international and local event: “Park(ing) day is a global, public, participatory project where people across the world temporarily repurpose curbside parking spaces and convert them into public parks and social spaces to advocate for safer, greener, and more equitable streets for people.”

Strong SacTown, the affiliate or ‘local conversation’ of the Strong Towns organization, and SABA, are sponsoring a Park(ing) Day event on Saturday, September 21, from 11:00am to 2:00pm. The location will be repurposed parking spaces at 1607 10th Street, Sacramento, in front of Cafe Xocolatl, which is supporting the event.

The Park(ing) Day website (https://www.myparkingday.org) map shows a second location in Sacramento, on 20th Street between J and K streets, but doesn’t have information about the date and time or sponsor. This may be a carryover from 2023 when there was an event on 20th Street.

street design and land use

Dan Allison1 Comment

Street design and land use are intimately connected. Street design should support surrounding land use (not land use somewhere else), and land use should take advantage of the best characteristics of streets. But in most of Sacramento, street design and land use do not support each other.

At the regional level, SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) has transportation authority but does not have land use authority. They must rely on encouragement of local governments to implement better land use, and is able to use transportation investments to a small degree to support better land use. But the City of Sacramento does have both transportation and land use authority, and could and should be planning the two in unison to accomplish a more sustainable and livable built environment.

Many of our streets are designed to allow people to pass through at high speed, not to stop for living. In some cases, this is an historical artifact because some of our major streets were at one time state highways. But other streets were designed in the same way in more recent times. The city has allowed and encouraged business development along these former highways, with more driveways, more parking, more intersections, more congestion that reduces transit effectiveness, and fewer safe crossings. At the same time, the city has widened roads and widened lanes, creating or maintaining high speed limits which are completely incompatible with the function of streets as places, or as Strong Towns puts it, places for building wealth.

The roadways which try to combine the functions of high speed and throughput with local productivity are called ‘stroads’, a street/road combination. These roadways fail at both. They must be healed by conversion to either streets or roads.

Stroad to Road

In order to bring street design and land use into alignment, the city must either redesign these stroads (a street/road hybrid) toward road function by:

  • Greatly reduce driveways and eliminate on-roadway parking
  • Eliminate signals that serve shopping centers, and replace major signalized intersections with roundabouts
  • Provide on-demand safe crossing at moderately frequent intervals for walkers and bicyclists
  • Discourage homes and businesses along these roadways

Stroad to Street

Or, redesign these stroads toward street function by:

  • Change roadway design to enforce motor vehicle speeds of 20 mph or less
  • Encourage homes and small businesses along streets
  • Create space for living in the public right-of-way by temporary or permanent closure of some streets, and street or sidewalk dining areas (with ADA-compliant routes).

In most cases it is more cost effective to change a stroad to a street, but both transformations are possible and necessary. We need fewer roads and more streets in our transportation system.

Land Use

An effective land use pattern offers the opportunities of daily life (jobs, businesses, dining, entertainment, groceries and shopping) within walking or bicycling distance of home. In Sacramento, the midtown section of the central city already offers this type of land use, because it was developed before the primitive concept of zoning pushed all uses further away. A few other places in Sacramento offer widely scattered examples of such land use.

Relatively few trips outside the neighborhood would be necessary if we had this type of mixed use and diverse land use. Though both land use and streets in midtown could be even better, it is an example which other neighborhoods could emulate. Of course streets must support this land use, with slow speeds which do not endanger people walking and bicycling, and where parking is sufficient but not in excess.

The city should support small businesses in every reasonable way. It need not prohibit larger businesses, but let them succeed or not on their own, without promotion or subsidy from the city.

Small parcels, often called fine-grained development, best support a diversity of housing types and businesses. The city should preserve small parcels, prohibiting consolidation except under compelling public interest, and where large parcels exist, consider purchase, division into small parcels, and sale to small scale infill developers.

Street and Land Use Supporting Each Other

Below is a photo of K Street in midtown Sacramento. The street design, one lane each way, low volume and low speed, temporary curb extensions to calm traffic, painted crosswalks, some on-street parking but reduced to increase walker safety. Of course it could be even better. The land use, a mix of storefront retail and housing, in turn supports good road design. This is a street. This is a place where people want to spend time, and spend money, and feel welcome.

photo of street design and land use that support each other, K St, midtown Sacramento
street design and land use that support each other, K St, midtown Sacramento

Street and Land Use Working Against Each Other

Below is a photo of Freeport Blvd at the intersection with Fruitridge Rd in south Sacramento. The street is designed for high speed travel, accommodating high volumes of motor vehicles. Bike lanes are present in some places, but dropped when necessary to promote motor vehicle flow. Dual left turn lanes endanger everyone on the road, and right turn lanes present a hazard to bicyclists. The crosswalk has faded to near invisibility. And the land use reflects those problems. Fast food businesses oriented to drivers and excluding walkers and bicyclists. A blank fence to try to isolate residences from the roadway, but of course it does not reduce exposure to noise and air pollution. Parking lots facing the street rather than storefronts. This is not a place where people feel welcome.

Freeport is NOT the worst stroad in town, by any means, but it is typical. Does the roadway encourage poor land use? Yes. Does the land use encourage the poorly designed roadway? Yes.

Intersection Control

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Intersection control means the devices used at intersections to control the actions and behavior of motor vehicle drivers and others including walkers. The types of controls are:

  • none
  • 2-way yield
  • 2-way stop (or minor approach stop, MAS)
  • 4-way stop (or all-way stop, AWS)
  • roundabouts without signals
  • partial traffic control signals, such as flashing red or flashing yellow, and HAWK or RRFB
  • complete traffic control signals, with a cycle of green-yellow-red

It is often assumed, by traffic engineers and by the public, that safety increases moving down the list of intersection controls. However, there is research both supporting and contradicting this assumption.

Intersections may have features designed for people crossing, such as pedestrian crossing signals, with or without a countdown, and accessible pedestrian signals, compliant with PROWAG (Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines). Pedestrian signals may require user activation (the beg button) or may use automated pedestrian detection. Exclusive pedestrian phases allow people to cross when no motor vehicles are moving, thereby reducing the chance for crashes to near zero.

Other features may increase or decrease safety. Examples that may increase safety if properly designed and implemented, are curb extensions, refuge islands, automated red light cameras, near-side traffic signal placement, raised crosswalks or raised intersections, and roadway design that slows vehicles approaching the intersection. Examples that may decrease safety, particularly for walkers and bicyclists, are dedicated turn lanes, faded or non-existent crosswalks, pedestrian crossing prohibitions, and roadway designs that encourage speeding approaching the intersection.

Traffic Signals

Traffic engineers often try to solve known safety issues by adding new traffic signals. Little attention is paid to alternative solutions such as adding traffic calming features, or removing hazardous features. New or enhanced traffic signals are VERY expensive, ranging up to $1,000,000 per intersection. The addition of new signals ensures that money will not be available for traffic calming solutions that would be less expensive and more effective.

Traffic signals do not decrease the speed of motor vehicles in between intersections. Drivers immediately accelerate to the speed they had before stopping at the signal (if in fact they do stop). But signals do delay drivers, leading to frustration and increased violation of motor vehicle codes, particularly in yielding to walkers in the crosswalk. Red light running has become epidemic in the Sacramento region, perhaps worse than other regions, so it is not safe for anyone to proceed on a green signal or a pedestrian walk signal. This indicates a failure of traffic signals to control driver behavior, and that they may no longer be effective for safety.

The fact is, traffic signals are largely intended to smooth and ease traffic flow, and are often not safety features at all. Safety is used to justify new or upgraded signals, often without evidence.

Traffic signals are a classic example of ‘orderly but dumb’. Intersections should be ‘chaotic but smart’. (Strong Towns concept and Carlson’s Law)

Traffic engineers often claim that existing traffic signals were installed based on meeting warrants defined in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD, and the California version CA-MUTCD), but generally can’t produce those warrant documents. Many signals were installed based on politician requests and were not and are not justified by intersection characteristics. The warrant process emphasizes traffic flow and de-emphasizes safety for walkers and bicyclists.

All existing traffic signal locations should be analyzed every ten years, and signals which did not meet, or no longer meet, warrants, shall be removed. As roadways are modified or rebuilt with traffic calming features, far fewer traffic signals will be necessary.

When are traffic signals justified?

  1. At the intersection of two major roadways.
  2. Where the flow of traffic on one roadway does not provide gaps in traffic for crossing that roadway.
  3. At offset or skewed intersections where visibility or understanding may be difficult.

Most existing and proposed traffic signals do not meet any of these criteria. Major roadways, almost always designed as stroads, which are roadways designed for higher speed but with land use or design features that require slower speed, including driveways and turning movements, should be uncommon in urban areas.

Signals should never be installed to serve driveways, including shopping centers.

For any new traffic signal installed, it must include:

  • Signal cycles no longer than 90 seconds. Longer cycles are biased against walkers, and encourage walkers to cross against the signal.
  • Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) which provides the walk sign three or more seconds before the green light for drivers. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI) should be installed at ALL traffic signals in the city within five years. Bicyclists may proceed on the walk signal.
  • Elimination of slip lanes, dedicated right-hand turn lanes, and dedicated left-hand turn lanes more than one. Turning movements constitute the greatest danger to all roadway users.
  • No right (or left, for one-way roads) turn on red. No right on red should be installed at ALL traffic signals in the city within ten years.
  • Automated pedestrian detection to eliminate the need for beg buttons while achieving compliance with PROWAG. No person walking or rolling shall be required to manually actuate a pedestrian signal.
  • Implementation of exclusive pedestrian phases at any intersection with significant pedestrian flow. This phase may be achieved with turn prohibitions during pedestrian movement, or by all-way pedestrian crossing, called pedestrian scrambles.
  • Demand-responsive operation so that the signal cycle responds to demand by drivers, walkers and bicyclists, rather than set to an unchanging cycle.

Existing signals should meet the same criteria when upgraded.

HAWK and RRFB signals

HAWK (High intensity Activated crossWalK) and RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) are partial signals installed to allow walkers to cross roadways which would be difficult or unsafe to cross. However, HAWK signals are violated by some drivers, and RRFB signals are violated by many drivers. These signals are often justified by traffic engineers as ‘safer than nothing’, but it only takes one violating driver to kill a walker. RRFBs should not be used on roadways with a posted speed limit over 30 mph, and HAWKs over 35 mph.

Other Intersection Control

Intersections without signals can have stop signs, yield signs, or no signs at all.

The intersection of two low-speed (20 mph or less), low volume streets do not need any sign. They can be left uncontrolled, with drivers and bicyclists negotiating right of way at intersections, based on the universal first-come/first-served principal.

Intersections of moderate-speed (up to 30 mph), moderate volume streets may justify some signing. In order of increasing regulation, these are:

  • Two-way yield
  • Two-way stop
  • Four-way stop

The lowest level of signing that can provide safety for the intersection is the right level of signing. Stop signs should not be installed based on neighborhood or politician request, but rather based on observation of user behavior and the intersection, and crash history. The objective should not be to eliminate all possibility of crashes but to eliminate any possibility of fatal crashes.

With roadways designed for safety and placemaking rather than motor vehicle speed and throughput, intersection control can be the minimum necessary rather than the maximum control and expense.

Roundabouts

A roundabout is a circulatory intersection in which motor vehicles and bicyclists yield to others already in the roundabout, but otherwise do not need to stop. By eliminating traffic signals and stop signs, they ease traffic flow (and therefore driver frustration) and reduce crashes, particularly fatal and severe injury crashes. Other than low speed, low volume local streets that require no traffic control but do require user negotiation, roundabouts are the safest sort of intersection. Multi-lane roundabouts should really not be called roundabouts at all, and are generally no safer than signalized intersections.

References

Previous Getting Around Sacramento posts

lawsuits against Yolo 80

Dan Allison3 Comments

For earlier posts on Yolo 80 and managed lanes, see category ‘managed lanes‘.

Two lawsuits have been filed against Caltrans over the Yolo 80 freeway widening project.

Sierra Club and ECOS: Sierra Club, ECOS file lawsuit against Caltrans over I-80 project; Sierra Club and ECOS Sue Caltrans over Yolo I-80 Freeway Widening Project

“Caltrans’ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) grossly underestimates increased vehicular travel, which would emit far larger quantities of greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants than claimed. The EIR fails to consider viable alternatives, such as increased public transit or alternate tolling strategies. Therefore, the project neither adequately manages demand nor produces adequate revenue to fund needed transit alternatives. Also, Caltrans’ proposed mitigation is woefully inadequate to offset the resulting increased GHG and air pollutant emissions.” – Sierra Club/ECOS Press Release

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council)/Planning and Conservation League/Center for Biological Diversity: Environmental Groups File Suit Against I-80 Highway Expansion; Environmental Groups Challenge Highway Expansion Project in Court

“First, Caltrans improperly chopped this project into two pieces to use funding in illegitimate ways and obscure environmental impacts, as documented by a Caltrans whistleblower. The first project, already underway, is using maintenance-only transportation dollars to strengthen the shoulders of the highway so they can accommodate heavy vehicle travel. The second project would restripe the road to accommodate the additional lane of traffic in each direction.” – NRDC

I tend to be cynical about the chances of stopping this widening project. However, the lawsuits can have several beneficial impacts:

  • requiring Caltans to supplement or revise its Environmental Impact Report, because it failed to consider several impacts, and failed to address induced demand
  • requiring Caltrans to allocate more funding to environmental and GHG mitigation; the existing project only partially mitigates impacts, and depends on income from a single tolled lane, which may fall short of projections
  • highlighting the failure of the California Transportation Commission, and in particular Chair Carl Guardino, to provide legally required oversight of Caltrans

I am in favor of tolling freeway lanes in order to recovered construction and maintenance costs, and to fund mitigation measures, not just for GHG but for other environmental impacts. A tolling authority (CARTA) has been set up to administer the added toll lane, but there are great uncertainties about how much will be raised, and the fee structure (vehicles and time of day) has not been developed.

“The EIR does not consider tolling existing lanes, which could be based on income, with funds used to provide clean public transit and bike and pedestrian options along the corridor, facilitating affordable infill development.” – Ralph Propper, ECOS Climate Committee Chair, from the press release