again, from the outside in

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’ve written before that streets should be planned from the outside in. Nearly every street I travel and nearly every plan I see for changing street width allocation clearly shows that the reverse is what was built, and what is planned.

There are a number of streets where center turn lanes are provided in blocks where there are few to no driveways. S Street near where I live is just one example. Many blocks have few to no driveways, yet the center turn lane exists all the way from 3rd Street to Alhambra Blvd. Could the street width be better used? You bet.

The most egregious example, however, is the Broadway Complete Streets project. I’ve written quite a number of posts, about the ways in which the project is successful, and the ways in which is it not. The project is such a disappointment to all the transportation advocates I talk to. Why?

Broadway was planned from the inside out. A center turn lane, all the way, whether needed or not. I’ll point out the expression, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, Ralph Waldo Emerson, from the essay Self-Reliance“. Next, two motor vehicle lanes, one each way (which is an improvement over two each way before the project). The lanes are overly wide, 11 feet when they could have been 10 feet (not less than 10, because it is a bus route). Next, traditional bike lanes, mostly five feet wide but sometimes six, sometimes with a painted buffer (no vertical delineators), sometimes without. The bike lanes could have been parking protected, but they were not. They could have been wider, so that two bicyclists could safely pass each other, and accommodate cargo bikes and three-wheeled bikes. They were not. There is a short one block section between 15th Street and 16th Street where these a curb-protected bikeway. But nowhere else.

Then comes the sidewalks. The city apparently had a design policy to not touch the sidewalks, which then engenders ADA requirements, which are somewhat expensive to meet (though a small fraction of the entire project). But they did touch the sidewalks in places, and in each of these places, the sidewalks are narrower than they were before the project. In several locations, the sidewalks do not even meet ADA or PROWAG guidelines. The city has claimed that since PROWAG has not been adopted by FHWA, the requirements don’t apply to the city. In other words, go ahead and sue us, but we aren’t going to do the right thing. That is what city staff said when challenged about this.

Has the city learned its lesson? No. The two additional segments of Broadway to the east have exactly the same design.

The city’s stated objective for this project was to slow and reduce motor vehicle traffic so that people would stop for businesses along the street, increasing economic vitality. Broadway has real problems currently, as you can see by traveling along the corridor. A lot of empty buildings, a lot of parking lots, a lot of low value fast food joints. But is also has a number of great locally owned businesses, many of which were beginning to fail due to the street design and the pandemic. I admire the city’s intent, but mourn their failure to create a street than will accomplish that.

SacBee: quit parroting CHP misinformation

Dan Allison1 Comment

An article in the SacBee today reports that a bicyclist died when he/she swerved into the path of a motor vehicle. The article parrots the CHP spokesman, that the bicyclist swerved. No doubt the uninjured driver would say that. The bicyclist is dead and has nothing to say, so the CHP takes the word of the driver.

Note that no crash investigation has been conducted by CHP. Crash investigations take weeks, and require gathering of detailed information about the point of collision, and the direction of movement of the bicyclist and driver at the time of collision, and more information about the victim and perpetrator. But without the results of an investigation, the CHP just assumes that the bicyclist is at fault and the driver is innocent. This is victim blaming of the first order. Of course this is standard procedure for CHP, where almost every officer thinks that every bicyclist crash is the fault of the bicyclist, without evidence to support that assumption. CHP is not a safety-oriented agency, they are a victim-blaming agency. No surprise.

What is a surprise is that the SacBee would parrot the CHP’s misinformation about the crash. News media does not exist to reprint agency press releases. It should exist to question what agencies say, particularly when the agency expresses certainty about a crash that has not received an incident investigation. Please do better, SacBee. Report the facts that are known, not CHP speculation.

this week 2024-08-12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: Don’t expect this to be a regular feature. I’ll do it when I can. SacMoves Coalition hosts an event calendar at https://sacmoves.org/events/. Added note about consent calendars, below.

Monday 12

  • SacRT Board Meeting – canceled (no surprise)

Tuesday 13

Wednesday 14

Thursday 15

Friday 16

Consent Calendar items

All of the agency agendas have items on a consent calendar or consent agenda, items which are routine continuations of decisions already made, or which are not expected to generate any controversy or public discussion. Any council/board/commission member may request that an agenda item be pulled from the consent calendar for discussion. Sometimes this is just so that they can make a statement of support, and sometimes it is because they wish the governing body to really discuss the item. It is not unusual for an item that really deserves discussion to be snuck by on the consent agenda, but at the same time, discussion of every single item would lead to interminable meetings. The consent calendar does serve a useful purpose.

The public may comment on any item on the consent calendar. However, unless the item has been pulled for discussion, comment is unlikely to change the outcome. The consent calendar is passed en-masse, not item by item. It is often not known until the consent calendar comes up whether or not a particular item may be pulled, so if you do wish to comment, you must submit a speaker card for that item ahead of time (if in person) or a comment beforehand on whatever schedule and mechanism the entity requires.

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.

gateway treatments

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Gateway treatments signal to drivers that they are entering a Local Street, from a higher speed or higher volume street or road. They are critical for signaling to drivers that they are entering a street dedicated to safety and placemaking, where motor vehicles are guests subservient to all other users, and walkers and bicyclists may be present at any time and any place. Drivers often continue their prior speed and behavior onto local streets where it is not appropriate, but gateway treatments strongly discourage such behavior.

gateway treatment diagram
gateway treatment diagram; credit: developed by Dan Allison, refined by Troy Sankey, Strong SacTown

Full gateway treatments include raised textured pavements, raised crosswalks, and curb extensions,  In combination they slow motor vehicle traffic.

If only some of the treatments are present, signing may also be appropriate. If the Local Street is designed for 15 mph, and/or shared space, the European woonerf sign, or slow streets signs from cities in the US may be appropriate.

neighborhood greenway sign, Eugene, OR
neighborhood greenway sign, Eugene, OR

Cobblestones on Front Street in Old Sacramento Waterfront demonstrate the effective traffic calming benefit of rough streets at gateways, and they are often used in other cities for the purpose.

photo of cobblestones on Front Street, Sacramento
cobblestones on Front Street, Sacramento

The following photo shows a gateway treatment on Court Street in Cincinnati. The bollard is temporary for a special event, but the street is normally open to slow moving motor vehicles.

photo of brick texture treatment, Court St, Cincinnati
brick texture treatment, Court St, Cincinnati

Just yesterday, I noted a texture treatment used for crosswalks in the downtown area of Petaluma, California. Though these are not wide enough or rough enough to significantly slow drivers, they do serve well to visually mark crosswalks as being slower areas.

Note: The term gateway is also used to refer to the entry point of a redeveloped or new commercial and housing area that the city or developer wishes to highlight. There may be decorative elements signifying the special area.

References

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

Streets for People interactive map

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Additional posts on Streets for People Active Transportation Plan are at category: Active Transportation Plan.

The interactive map developed for the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan is available for public input through August 11. The ‘add a route’ and ‘add a point’ options have a free-form entry box, so you can enter anything you would like, but using terms that the city uses, in the visual glossaries (below) or the traffic calming features (below) are more likely to be understood and accepted.

You can comment on the city’s recommendations: “Clicking on a draft network recommendation will launch a pop-up that will provide more information about the recommendation. You can leave a comment, like, or dislike on any recommendation.”

Or you can add your own: “Are there roads or intersections that don’t have a recommendation, but you think should? Use the “Add a route” and “Add a point” buttons below to mark these locations on the map.”

The interactive map offers visual glossaries for pedestrian infrastructure and classes of bikeways. Since you can’t have these glossaries open at the same time as the map, they are offered as blog posts and pdf documents by Getting Around Sacramento.

Traffic Calming Features

The City of Sacramento has added the Neighborhood Connections Story Board to the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan webpage. The traffic calming tab has 13 features, with photos, brief descriptions, and relative costs. These traffic calming features are meant for local and minor collector streets, not for major collector and arterials streets. See Streets for People traffic calming for the 13 features.

The crowd-sourced entries on the map are concentrated in the central city and north Land Park. We hope that people who walk and bicycle in other parts of the city, particularly the disinvested areas of South Sacramento and North Sacramento, will make suggestions on the map.

Neither the glossaries nor traffic calming features offer fully signalized intersections as a recommendation. Traffic signals regulate motor vehicle flow to some degree, but do not significantly slow traffic nor make streets safer for walkers and bicyclists. Safety is best achieved by slowing the motor vehicles through street redesign.

The ‘bicycle routes’ / sharrows option in the Visual Glossary of Classes of Bikeways has been misused by Sacramento and many other cities/counties/Caltrans by placing them on high volume and high speed roadways, in lieu of creating safer bicycle facilities. Their use should be strictly limited, and most existing locations should be converted to higher quality bicycle facilities.

CalBike series on Caltrans complete streets failure

Dan Allison1 Comment

CalBike has published the first two of a series of reports on the failure of Caltrans to follow their own complete streets policy when designing and building streets which are also state highways. It is telling that the first of the series is on the failure of Caltrans District 3, which includes Sacramento county, to actually provide complete streets – Incomplete Streets Part 1: How Caltrans Shortchanges Pedestrians. District 3 is perhaps the worst of the Caltrans districts, which operate as independent (or rogue) agencies and regularly subvert Caltrans policy and direction from headquarters. Though they have a lot of competition for the title of worst.

“District 3 is perhaps best known as the district pushing through the Yolo Causeway highway expansion project. The project, which has been approved despite internal and external opposition, led to the firing of Caltrans Deputy Director Jeanie Ward-Waller after she blew the whistle on improper use of funds for freeway widening and insufficient environmental review.”

I encourage you to read these first two, and to follow CalBike investigative reporting. Caltrans must be held to account, as otherwise they will continue to design projects that kill and injure walkers and bicyclists, will continue to resist fixing the design mistakes they have made in the past, and will continue to commit fraud on the people of California by lying about what they are doing with your tax money.

Central City Mobility Project update: 5th Street conversion

Dan Allison1 Comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #35.

I noticed over a week ago that all striping has been removed from 5th Street, including crosswalks, so had presumed that the conversion from one-way to two-way was immanent. Nope. Nothing has happened since then. I guess the city thinks it is OK to remove striping from a street and then do nothing. In a sense, it might be OK, because drivers, without striping to guide them, will be uncertain, and slow down. Maybe.

photo of erased crosswalk on 5th St
erased crosswalk on 5th St

Broadway Complete Streets update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I mistakenly included an item on 5th Street in this post, but I’ve now removed it to a separate post.

Note: Dan Allison, the primary author of this blog, spends most of July and August, and some of September, backpacking in the mountains, in the wilderness, and away from Internet access. So posts will be very intermitent, though some will show up when I’m in town, as I am for a few days.

Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.

Green Paint

Green paint seems to be complete along the corridor, except of course for 19th Street to 22nd Street where no changes to the roadway have occurred.

18th Street Bus Stop

The project proposed to move the bus stop for Route 51 from the far side of 18th Street to the near side, in front of New Helvetia Brewing, even though far-side bus stops are preferred and safer. But the design of the sidewalk and sidewalk buffer makes it a poor bus stop, with access to the front (and handicapped ramp) and rear doors difficult. A green striped area, meaning a shared bus stop and bike lane, has been installed, but is being used as a parking area by drivers. The area is not signed for no parking, nor is the curb painted red. The bus stop has not been moved. I don’t know if it will be moved.

bus stop Broadway eastbound at 18th St, with parked cars
bus stop Broadway eastbound at 18th St, with parked cars

Bicycle Signal at 16th Street

The non-functional bicycle signal on Broadway eastbound at Land Park Drive now works (and has for over a week, but I didn’t get to posting until today). It took the involvement of city planning staff to get it fixed, as the traffic signal people did not care that it didn’t work, and did not fix it after multiple 311 requests.

However, it is not safe. There are large and prominent no turn blank-out signs for motor vehicle drivers turning south onto Land Park Drive, illuminated when the green bicycle light is on, and blank when it is not. The signs are hard to miss. It isn’t working.

I observed 54 drivers turning right at this intersection, not during a busy time of day. 52 of them violated the law and turned right against the no turn signs. Two did not. Both of those drivers noticed that I was taking photos, and did not turn, while looking at me to see if I was going to capture their license plate on a photo. I’m pretty sure those two would have turned if I’d not been there.

This would be a great location for a red light camera. Oh, but wait, the city has decided it is not interested in red light cameras. Drivers are free to run red lights at will, since there is no automated enforcement, and there is no direct enforcement.

The city’s design objective for streets should be that they are self-enforcing, physically making sure that drivers behave safely for all road users. This is an example where the city decided to rely on drivers following the law. Clearly a failure, on the part of the city, and the part of the drivers.

just one of many drivers violating the law by turning against the no turn signs
just one of many drivers violating the law by turning against the no turn signs

Construction Signs

At the southwest corner of Broadway and Land Park Drive, there are two sidewalk closed signs. I am not sure whether these are related to the construction on the southeast corner, or are leftover remnants of the Broadway project. In the photo below, the sign on the left is oriented to walkers heading north on Land Park Drive, but it should be oriented to walkers heading east on Broadway. The sign on the right doesn’t make any sense at all for this location, no matter how it might be oriented. Whether this is a mistake by city contractors, or the construction company, makes no difference. It is the city’s responsibility to make sure that signing is appropriate and correct. It has failed miserably at that responsibility.

incorrect construction signs southwest corner of Broadway and Land Park Dr
incorrect construction signs southwest corner of Broadway and Land Park Dr

Photos on Flickr. An album of photos of the Broadway Complete Streets project, during and after construction. No promise is made that the album will be kept up to date.