The third post by Strong SacTown to improve and promote the City of Sacramento update to its Street Design Standards. Other posts at tag: street design standards.
Narrower lanes are generally correlated with slower speeds, reduced collisions, and safer streets. Our recommendations:Lane widths instituted as maximums (rather than minimums) Maximum 10 feet for any streets 30+ mph (except limited cases) Increased flexibility for streets designed for 25 mph or lowerOver 80% of the fatalities and serious injuries on Sacramento roadways happen on streets signed between 30 mph and 45 mph. Taking a serious approach to Vision Zero will mean addressing these higher-speed, higher-volume roads. Both a reclassification of these roads (discussed later) and redesign of the current geometry to appropriate speeds is crucial.
Lane Widths – Strong SacTown
pavement condition in Sacramento County
A report on pavement condition in Sacramento County was presented today to the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA): 2023 Regional Pavement Analysis, written by consultant NCE, agenda item 12.
The report has two main sections:
- What are the existing pavement conditions, countywide, and by each agency (city or county).
- What are funding scenarios and how would the allow, or not allow, substandard conditions to be improved.
Existing conditions are summarized in the chart below. The countywide PCI (pavement condition index) is 53, out of a possible 100, with a target of at least 70 for ‘good condition’. Only Elk Grove has the target 70 or better, in large part because their roadways are newer than most of the county.
The second section presents five possible funding scenarios, and how pavement condition would vary over time. In each of the scenarios except the first, ‘improve PCI to 70’, pavement condition declines, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly. SacTA already recognized that there is no likely funding source that would allow scenario one. Scenario four includes new sales tax income, but still does not keep pavement conditions from declining.
Many people question where SB 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 funding (mostly gas tax) is going and why it hasn’t fixed our roads. SB 1’s main intent was to allow Caltrans to maintain freeways and other state-owned roads. It had only minor funding, a fraction of what would be needed, to maintain local roadways.
Why are we in this crisis of pavement condition? Because we have built roadways (and bridges and freeways) that we will never be able to maintain. It would take a tax rate many times higher than it is today to actually maintain all we have. That isn’t happening. We’ve built ourselves into a corner. But that doesn’t mean we can’t address the problem. We can shift funding from road building to road repair. This is called ‘fix my pothole’ or ‘fix-it-first’ or ‘state of good repair’.
I made these comments today about the issue:
- I’m a active transportation and transit advocate, but what everyone in the county wants is to have good streets.
- Under no reasonable funding scenario does pavement quality improve
- There will be less money coming through the state, as demonstrated by the LAO presentation (the previous agenda item, 11)
- $8.3B roadway ‘asset’ is really a $8.3B ‘liability’, requiring a significant investment to maintain
- Every new pavement mile is an additional liability
- Authority funding should shift from creating new pavement to maintaining and rehabilitating existing pavement
- This shift is even more important for the member agencies, cities and county
- Each potential infrastructure project should be evaluated on the question “Does this project add enough economic activity to pay for maintenance?” If the answer is not, they should not be built.
- If the authority is going to voters for increased sales tax in the future, it will be necessary ahead of time to show that the authority and agencies are already working to solve this issue, not just waiting for more money
Two bicycle advocates spoke after me, pointing out that safety for bicyclists is actually a very high priority. I agree, even above economic productivity. But economic productivity must be considered. I roadway projects don’t create enough income to pay for them, and maintenance and rehabilitation of them, we are sliding further down the slope of pavement deterioration.
Board comments were mostly in recognition that we must invest differently than in the past, we must keep our existing roads in better condition, and that includes consideration not doing projects which increase future liability.
The Importance of Street Design
The second post by Strong SacTown to improve and promote the City of Sacramento update to its Street Design Standards. Other posts at tag: street design standards.
Over time, the major use of our streets and public right of way has shifted: from pedestrians and horse-drawn carriages, to streetcars and bicycles, and — over the last several decades — to ever larger private vehicles. In designing our streets for vehicle throughput, our network of roads has become a transitional space focused on getting as many cars from Point A to Point B as fast as possible. This means dedicating an ever increasing amount of space to travel and parking lanes, with only the space left over from vehicle use — if any — allocated to people: pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit.
The Importance of Street Design – Strong SacTown
Street Design Standards
Strong SacTown Street Design Team will be posting a series to improve and promote the City of Sacramento update of their street design standards. This is the first. You can follow their website at https://www.strongsactown.org/, and the series at https://www.strongsactown.org/tag/street-design-standards/. Getting Around Sacramento / Dan Allison is participating in the team planning and writing, but these posts are the work of the team.
“We are Strong SacTown — Streets for People, a group of Sacramentans advocating for updated street designs that will rank safety, livability, and economic vitality above vehicle throughput or speed; where congestion relief will not be the goal in street design.
The City of Sacramento is updating the street design standards for the first time since 2009. The city is embarking on this effort as it is becoming increasingly apparent that the existing standards do not meet the needs of all users in the modern era.”
Streets for People – Street Design Standards – Strong SacTown
RRFBs are being ignored
I was a strong supporter of RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacon), where a safer crossing of the street is intended mid-block. I worked with transportation agencies in a number of locations to get them installed, and was very happy to see them go in.
They are used where multi-use trails cross roadways, and at intersections where additional traffic calming and safety are needed, but where the transportation agency does not want to add stop signs, or is unwilling or financially unable to install a traffic signal. The cost savings of an RRFB over a traffic signal are significant, about $25K for a RRFB, and upwards of $1M for a full traffic signal.
But…
Driver behavior has rendered RRFBs untenable for protecting people walking. I have observed a number of RRFB locations over the last few months. All of them are failing. Between 25% and 50% of drivers are failing to yield to people using these crossings, bicyclists or walkers. I have seen several people almost get hit by car drivers. Some drivers are slowing but failing to stop, or yield, and some drivers are not even slowing. Apparently the attitude of many drivers is that the RRFBs are only advisory and do not require yield to people in the street. Of course the law requires yielding to people crossing the street in a crosswalk, whether there is any type of signing or signaling, or not. But drivers don’t see it that way.
So, I find myself having to withdraw support for RRFBs. I will not support them as freestanding safety improvements, not as part of project. It is sad that driver behavior has erased the benefit of a safety enhancement, but it is a fact, and driver behavior gets continuously worse, never better.
Drivers are terrorists.
lawsuits against Yolo 80
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
Civic Thread petition to eliminate pedestrian and cyclist fatalities
Civic Thread has posted a petition to Caltrans, SACOG, City of Sacramento, and others in the region asking for immediate action to eliminate pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. I encourage you to sign the petition, and to follow the efforts of Civic Thread and many other advocacy organization in holding government and particularly transportation agencies accountable for the traffic violence that impacts us all. As with everything that Civic Thread does, action is through an equity lens. It would be a great first step if every agency adopted the list of five commitments that Civic Thread says is required, though of course it is action and not language that will make the difference.
- A commitment to work collaboratively and cross-sectorally at the City, County, and regional level to prioritize a consistent focus on equity and racial justice for project planning, funding, and implementation, particularly since evidence continues to show the majority of pedestrian and cyclist fatalities occur in low-income, communities of color, with Black residents disproportionately experience the highest risk of death while walking, in addition to a high risk of being killed by police in routine traffic stops.
- A commitment to prioritize funding mechanisms and set aside funding within the city, county, regional, and state budget for active transportation programs, Safe Routes to School, and matching funds for state and federal funding programs at the local jurisdiction level.
- A commitment to thoroughly vet community proposed infrastructure recommendations and to work closely with neighborhood groups and residents to identify solutions and ideas the community supports, including road diets, speed reduction, and quick builds along High Injury Networks.
- A commitment to analyze current roadway conditions, transportation design policies, and guidelines and develop a plan to address design flaws equitably and immediately.
- A commitment to building a comprehensive, seamless, low-stress network of active transportation corridors that is centered on equity and prioritizes investment in low-income and environmental justice communities.
Broadway Complete Streets update
Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.
The section of Broadway from just west of 3rd Street to 19th Street has been repaved, and marked for striping, but no striping has been done yet. The section from 21st St to 24th Street has been ground down in preparation for paving, but no paving has occurred.
There are construction vertical delineators scattered all over the street, along with delineator bases without the vertical. Most of the delineators were placed in what will be the bike lane, not in what will be the bike lane buffer. Presumably the construction company wishes to keep them further away from motor vehicles, which is sort of understandable since more than one-third of the delineators have been hit by drivers.
I’ll post again when there is actual striping installed.
cycletrack in West Sacramento Bridge District
Note: I’ve added text and a photo of the approach from the north.
The City of West Sacramento has installed a section of cycletrack (a two-way Class 4 separated bikeway) on South River Road and 5th Street in the Bridge District. Apparently completed late 2023 (shows how long since I’ve ridden that way), it is part of the Riverfront Street Extension and 5th Street Widening Project.
From 15th Street (the connection to Jefferson Blvd) north to almost Mill Street, the bikeway is separated from motor vehicles by a hard curb divider. The on-street bike lane southbound still exists, but this bikeway provides a much safer alternative. The onramp to Hwy 50 east (or Business 80 as it is designated), was an extreme hazard for bicyclists due to drivers turning at high speeds. See two photos below.
From Mill Street north to Bridge Street, the cycletrack is separated by a buffer and vertical delineators (K-71). At Bridge Street and north, the roadways returns to traditional Class 2 unprotected bike lanes. Though it would have been great to extend the curb-protected cycletrack all the way north to West Capitol Avenue, at least the truly dangerous section at the freeway onramp was fixed.
To the south of 15th Street, South River Road has more traditional bike lanes, with buffers in a few locations, as it crosses the ship channel and goes through two roundabouts.
The transitions to and from the bikeway seem a little awkward as they swoop through the intersection, but are probably not unsafe. I observed several bicyclists heading westbound to 15th Street who were not following the skip green bicycle markings, but the maneuver was not unsafe. I did not observe any bicyclists at the Bridge Street intersection.
Approaching the cycletrack from the north, the southbound traditional bike lane on the west side of 5th Street transitions to the cycletrack on the east side of 5th Street at Bridge St. Though the transition does not feel safe, I think it actually is, with signals preventing inappropriate motor vehicle movements.
Folsom Blvd alternative
The city has proposed a Folsom Blvd Safety Project. See previous post on that project. I would like to present an alternative to the bicycle facilities aspect of this project, improvement of the M Street corridor. M Street, and related streets including Elvas Ave, provide an alternative route. This route is already used by hundreds of bicyclists per day, students at Sacramento State, other commuters, and recreational bicyclists accessing the American River Parkway. Folsom, on the other hand, sees very little bicycle use. This is because it feels dangerous for most bicyclists, and because it is not the most direct route for many destinations.
The lack of bicyclists does not indicate that the street does not deserve bicycle facilities. Folsom has no bicycle facilities in the section to be revised, does not feel safe for bicyclists, and is not safe for bicyclists. The classic saying is that you can’t judge the need for a bridge by the number of people swimming the river. Bicyclists deserve safety on every street.
However, since bicycle facilities are a primary feature of the project, so it is worth asking: ‘Is this the best investment of limited funds?’ I’d suggest that upgrades to the M Street corridor might be a better investment.
Neither route actually offers safe access to and through Sacramento State. M Street is a low volume, mostly low speed street, from Alhambra Blvd to Elvas Blvd, However, the section along Elvas to the Hornet Tunnel that goes under the railroad tracks, is hazardous and intimidating for bicyclists. Folsom Blvd, with this project, would provide basic bicyclist facilities from Alhambra to 65th Street. However, access to and through Sacramento State beyond 65th Street is poor. The ‘safer’ crossing of Folsom at 69th Street and Elvas Avenue is awkward, was designed for walkers and not bicyclists, and not really safe. I have observed a number of drivers blowing the red light at this crossing. After crossing Folsom, a bicyclist can jog west to Elvas Avenue, and ride that to Hornet Tunnel, though the street is very deteriorated, of widely variable width, and the entrance to the tunnel is awkward.
The map below shows both routes, M Street from Alhambra Blvd to Elvas Avenue, in orange, and Folsom Blvd from Alhambra Blvd to 65th Street. Both are of equal length. Folsom Blvd has bike lanes from Alhambra to 47th Street, and discontinuously from 49th Street to 57th Street, with nothing to the east. M Street does not have bike lanes, but is is a low volume, low speed roadway along which most bicyclists feel comfortable riding. It is a ‘low stress bikeway’. Some of the route is marked with bike sharrows. Though improvements could certainly be made to M Street, it is functional as is, as a bicycle route.
Folsom Blvd has a posted speed limit of 35 mph, and much higher speeds are routinely observed. The fatal crash was in fact due in part to egregious speed violation by a driver. The proposed project would reduce speeds somewhat due to prudent drivers, but will probably encourage passing in the center turn lane. The project would leave the posted speed limit unchanged. M Street has a posted speed limit of 25 mph throughout, and speeds above 30 mph are rare. Would bicyclists rather ride on a non-bicyclist facilities roadway with 30 mph traffic, or on a buffered and un-buffered bike lane with 50 mph traffic?
Both of these routes are unacceptable because they don’t create a safe corridor all the way to Sacramento State. However, I feel that an investment in improving the M Street corridor section along Elvas would be a better investment than bicycle facilities along Folsom Blvd which end at 65th Street.
I wrote about improving the section of the M Street corridor between 62nd Street and Hornet Tunnel earlier this year: Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel. I don’t have a cost estimate for this project.
I am not saying the the Folsom Blvd Safety Project is a bad idea, just raising the question of where funds can be best invested to improve safety and comfort for bicyclists.
Getting Around Sacramento 