As mentioned in no grid: the original sin of city planning, freeways are one of the features that constrain the grid system of the central city Sacramento. Unlike the rivers, which are a natural feature, the freeways were designed to break the grid. This was a design choice by Caltrans to priority freeway travel over local travel. It doesn’t mean freeways are a bad idea, they are good and bad, but the decision to break grid streets was an intentional one, and a mistake that has harmed the city.
I was thinking of mapping all the broken grid streets, but realized there is a useful map in the Grid 2.0 presentation. Note that Grid 2.0 was superseded by Grid 3.0, and then the Downtown Mobility Plan, and then Central City Mobility Project. The focus on broken grid locations, and the goal of correcting some of them, was lost. In the map below, you can see seven locations where Business 80 broke the grid, eight locations where Hwy 50 broke the grid, and eight locations where Interstate 5 broke the grid. There was a proposal to reconnect N Street over Interstate 5, but I’ve not heard anything about that in years.
Some of the grid streets are broken in favor of freeway onramps and off-ramps. A reconfiguration of the ramps from long, long ramps to shorter (and safer) ramps could allow reconnection of some grid streets, but not most of them. The freeways, as designed and built, are a permanent blight on city livability.
13th Street is one that could be reconnected, and would have great utility because 13th, with its route through Capitol Park, is a critical north-south bikeway through the central city. Though K Street has a freeway underpass for walkers and bicyclists, a street connection at J Street or L Street would serve to reconnect Old Sacramento Waterfront (as it is called now) to the rest of the city. Currently, it is isolated by freeway, parking lots, and broken grid streets.
Worse, from a city amenity viewpoint, was that Hwy 50 broke Southside Park, splitting it into two sections, and with the W Street and X Street traffic sewers, making it unsafe and unpleasant to get from one part of the park to the other.
grid discontinuity map from Grid 2.0 presentation by ITE
The oldest parts of the City of Sacramento have a grid street pattern, meaning streets and cross-streets at regular intervals. Nearly all of the central city and much of east Sacramento have a grid. Outside that, there is a broken grid, or no grid. There are certainly constraints to a grid, such as the Sacramento River and American River, railroad tracks, and old highways that are now arterial streets, such as Stockton Blvd. And of course there are the freeways that have destroyed what grid did exist: Interstate 5, Interstate 80, Highway 99, Highway 50, cutting most local streets into two inaccessible sections.
I acknowledge that the other cities of Sacramento County, and unincorporated county, are as bad or worse than anything in the city, but I’m using the City of Sacramento as a example of a universal problem in the region. In the eastern suburbs, unincorporated Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Fair Oaks and Orangevale, streets intentionally change directions, for example, a street that starts out north-south will end up exiting east-west to an arterial. Other streets loop back on themselves, but change names somewhere along the way. Streets that were designed wide, as through streets, suddenly end. Yes, things can be much worse.
Here is the central city grid. Not perfect, but close. This grid was largely the street layout of the original city, from 1848. The street blocks are 400 feet (122 m) on a side, supplemented by east-west alleys at 200 feet. There are some larger blocks, including the state capitol, which covers five blocks by two blocks. Many cities have a shorter block length than 400 feet, but 400 is satisfactory. Many cities have rectangular blocks, with one dimension shorter than 400 and one longer than 400.
Sacramento central city grid, Google Maps
Here is East Sacramento. Less regular, but not bad.
Sacramento, East Sacramento grid, Google Maps
Here is a section in south Sacramento. There are grid streets, Florin Road, Meadowview Road, Freeport Blvd, and 24th Street. There are even a through street within this section, 21st Street. But none of the other streets are through streets. Some are straight, and some wind around.
Sacramento, south Sacramento broken grid, Google Maps
And finally, here is the River Lake area of The Pocket. Few through streets, cul-de-sacs everywhere. No way to get from one area to the next.
Sacramento River Lake, no grid whatsoever, Google Maps
So why is this important? Grids allow travel by many different routes. They allow travel on parallel streets so that some streets can emphasize car travel (well, actually, all of them do, currently), while others are or could be for slower travel by foot and bicycle. Grids allow efficient bus routes that get people to destinations with no transfers or one transfer. Our bus system that exists is a maze of zig-zags, largely trying to make the best of a no-grid street system.
Why did this happen? In the Sacramento area, developers of high income neighborhoods (see River Lake above) wanted windy streets so that only people who live there can figure out how to get places. Cul-de-sacs galore, making sure that people from outside (‘those people’) cannot get into the neighborhood, and guaranteeing low traffic on that street, while increasing traffic on all other streets as people try to get somewhere. In middle income neighborhoods (see South Sacramento above), windy streets were designed to give the feel of a high income neighborhood. If you can’t figure out where to go, isn’t that a sign of income?
Broken grid and no-grid neighborhoods make sure that amenities such as groceries, coffee shops, and medical services, are further away. Everyone must drive. All traffic must be funneled onto larger and larger, and more dangerous streets. And isn’t that the point of these neighborhoods, a sign of wealth when you can have the fancy car that exceeds the cost of some homes, and a deep bank account for gas, or charging?
Downtown Sacramento had most of its buildings removed, replaced by state buildings and massive buildings, which is why downtown is largely dead. But the street grid is mostly still there, the bones of what could someday become a livable, functional place again. As I have said many times, midtown Sacramento is the model of what a place can be, a vibrant neighborhood with a mix of uses. The grid is in large part what allowed it to develop, and to continue to exist. I doubt that most of Sacramento will ever evolve to a more economically vibrant and livable place. Without a grid street network, it can’t.
Many people have argued that single family homes, exclusionary zoning and redlining, and suburban sprawl are the original sin. They are a sin, but not the original sin. The original sin is the lack of a grid street system.
The city allowed this, by allowing developers to design any sort of street pattern they wanted. The city could have developed a grid street system, and allowed developers to design streets within this, but they did not. They also did not require that streets in one development connect to streets in an adjacent development. The lack of a grid is a problem that will haunt us forever.
But for any new development areas, the city must design and enforce a street grid. Regular north-south and east-west streets should be on a grid of one-quarter mile (400 m). Within that grid, developers can do what they want, but they can’t break the grid. Blocks, the distance between cross streets, should be no more than 800 feet.
The street grid is a topic that crosses boundaries (ha ha) between street design standards (Public Works, Street Design Standards Amendment) and development standards (Community Development, Planning Division). I am not sure where it best belongs, but I do know that it must exist, and must be enforced, no matter what bribes (mostly in the past) or campaign contributions (modern bribes) are made.
The lack of a grid has long bothered me, but I’m posting about it now because the recent How to design for cars in people-centred places suggests that not every street needs to be multi-modal, that a ‘complete network’ of parallel routes, rather than a ‘complete street’ is a better solution, hence “Complete networks, not complete streets”. I have just started to look at the design guide, but this is something that jumped out at me in the Strong Town podcast and Streetsblog post – how do you have parallel routes when there are no parallel streets, because there is no street grid?
I’ve listened to the podcast, and am intrigued. Though I need to read the document (which you can download by registering on the Happy City website) and reflect on it, I’m having the feeling that it may change my ideas about street design. Though I’ve criticized the functional classification system, I may have bought into the concept in my alternative suggestions for street design (tag: street design standards). I have also criticized Complete Streets as neglecting frequent and safe crossings, but maybe the whole complete streets concept is amiss (‘complete streets’ or sidewalks? and (in)complete streets). At least I have fought against the idea that is unfortunately prevalent in bicycle advocacy that every road needs bicycle facilities.
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.
5th St cobblestone between Walnut and Chestnut, Philadelphia
