update on SacCity new beg buttons on Alhambra

Dan Allison1 Comment

A previous post about new beg buttons on Alhambra Blvd noted that there are now beg buttons where there used to be auto-recall pedestrian crossings. I walked Alhambra this week, and noted that there are eight intersections with these new beg buttons (technically called pedestrian actuators or Accessible Pedestrian Signals APS). At auto-recall crosswalks, the pedestrian signal comes on at every signal cycle. At beg button crosswalks, the signal comes on only if requested by the pedestrian. The city has many of both types of crosswalks, but these particular locations are new. The intersections are Alhambra and: J Street, K Street, L Street, Capitol Avenue/Folsom Blvd, N Street, P Street/Stockton Blvd, Q Street, S Street. At each intersection there are eight of these new beg buttons on new posts, for a total of 64 new beg buttons.

No one seems to know who authorized this project, nor what funds were used to pay for it. I have confirmed that the project never came before the Active Transportation Commission (SacATC). All significant pedestrian projects are supposed to come before SacATC, and the fact that this one did not probably indicates that the staff in Public Works knows that this is a motor vehicle project, and not a pedestrian project. Though it is a good bet that pedestrian safety funds were used to pay for it.

Though these beg buttons are not signed with the ‘wave at’ sign R10-3j(CA) that the new ones at 21st Street and I Street, they do seem to have the same function, that they detect people, waving or not, up to about 18 inches. It seems odd that the city would have purchased these infrared detector actuators, which must be more expensive than plain touch buttons, but then did not indicate them as such. Installation of new accessible pedestrian signals is about $70K per intersection, though replacement of buttons at existing locations is only about $14K per intersection. I have been unable to find costs for passive detection systems (they all seem to require a quote process).

A reminder, if one is needed, that beg buttons have no safety benefit for people walking. They are a motor vehicle device, meant to reduce the length of signal cycles so that more cars can go faster.

The solution to this is to prohibit the use of pedestrian beg buttons throughout the city. Existing locations can be converted to the audible crossing signals that are now required by PROWAG. The relevant sections of PROWAG are R307 Pedestrian Push Buttons and Passive Pedestrian Detection and R308 Accessible Pedestrian Signal Walk Indications. Unfortunately PROWAG does not have a definition for ‘passive detection’ to specify what the detection radius or functionality is. It might be presumed this is the same at automated pedestrian detection, but not certain. Under PROWAG, new or changed locations require audible signals, but this can be met by audible/tactile push buttons or passive detection.

San Francisco is replacing the signing on their pedestrian actuator locations with the signing below.

photo of Accessible Message Only pedestrian button
Accessible Message Only pedestrian button

Central City Mobility: 21st & I bike signals

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #31.

The bike signals and related signaling is now installed at the intersection of 21st Street and I Street, where the northbound 21st Street separated bikeway ends, and the westbound I Street separated bikeway begins. East of this intersection, I Street is two-way. The I Street bikeway is on the north side, right side, so bicyclists must transition from the southwest corner to the northwest corner. Bicyclists continuing north on 21st Street must also transition from the left side bikeway to the right side general purpose lane.

The city has attempted to solve this problem by installing bicycle signal faces on the northwest corner, for bicyclists turning left on I Street, and the northeast corner, for bicyclists going straight on 21st Street. The photos below show the northwest corner bicycle signal green and turn arrow red, bicycle signal red and turn arrow green, and the bike signal on the northeast corner.

photo of 21st & I St, bicycle signal green and turn arrow red
21st & I St, bicycle signal green and turn arrow red
photo of 21st St & I St, bicycle signal red and turn arrow green
21st St & I St, bicycle signal red and turn arrow green
photo of 21st & I St, bike signal on the northeast corner
21st & I St, bike signal on the northeast corner

The signals are set up so that bicyclists, and walkers on the west leg of the intersection, have an exclusive phase, meaning that no cars are supposed to be moving when the pedestrian signal shows walk, or the bike signal is green. Actually, triggering the bike signal also triggers the pedestrian signal, and vice versa, they are ganged together.

The problem is that drivers are turning left from 21st Street to I Street against the red arrow, endangering bicyclists going west and north, and walkers in the crosswalk. In about 30 minutes of observation over the last few days, I saw drivers turning left against the red about half of all signal cycles. Once the front driver decides to turn, all other drivers follow. I did not see any drivers turning from the right hand left-turn-straight lane.

California Vehicle Code (CVC) 21453 says: (c) A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before entering the intersection, and shall remain stopped until an indication permitting movement is shown.

So, every single one of the drivers who turned left on the red arrow was breaking the law. Sadly, the city has designed an intersection that assumes drivers will not break the law, but as every bicyclist and walker knows, drivers do so pretty much continuously. I do not know what the solution is for this intersection. It is difficult to control driver behavior. In any other situation than roadways, the behavior of routinely breaking the law is called lawlessness.

Signal actuation (beg buttons)

In addition to the new signals, there are signal actuators, generally called beg buttons. Nothing here is on auto-recall, meaning there is not a bicyclist and pedestrian phase on every signal cycle, but only when requested.

The actuator for the pedestrian signal is shown below. This is first placement of this technology in the city, so far as I know. The sign is CA-MUTCD R10-3j (CA). The ‘wave at’ function is an infrared proximity detector, that works for up to about 15 inches, and also works for standing as well as waving. An example commercial product is WiAPPS Wave, though I don’t know what vendor the city used. It is not automated pedestrian detection, which would cover the full width of the sidewalk.

photo of pedestrian actuator (beg button), 21st St & I St
pedestrian actuator (beg button), 21st St & I St

Strangely, the bicyclist actuator (beg button) does not have this technology; the bicyclist must actually touch the button.

photos of bicyclist beg button on 21st St bikeway at I St
bicyclist beg button on 21st St bikeway at I St

serious concerns about Broadway

Dan Allison3 Comments

The Broadway Complete Streets project, to reallocate the street from 3rd Street to 24th Street, is underway. I have been walking this section recently, and I see several things that greatly concern me. To be honest, I was not paying much attention when this project went through public review, and attended only one meeting. I had not looked closely at the project documents. The page linked above confuses me. There are no final design documents, yet I have several documents more recent, including one that says final. Did the city unlink these newer documents? Lose them?

It appears from the work I see being done currently, that parking will be preserved along the entire length of the project. While this makes complete sense where there are small businesses, there are also several blocks where there are large buildings that provide off-street parking, or fast food chain restaurants that that have ample off-street parking. Parking can be a good thing, but not when it takes the place of wider sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

One positive is that vertical curbs are being installed, replacing the rolled curbs that exist along much of the street at this time. But a negative is that apparently curb lines are not being moved as part of the project, meaning that under-width sidewalks and under-width sidewalk buffers will remain so. A diagram from the planning process shows eight foot sidewalks.

diagram of proposed roadway allocation
diagram of proposed roadway allocation

Here is an actual constructed section, north side between 18th and 19th Streets. The sidewalk is six feet, and a completely useless sidewalk buffer of about 18 inches is included. A sidewalk buffer this narrow cannot provide planting space, and does not provide any physical or visual separation from the street. The street width could have been reallocated to a wider sidewalk, and a sidewalk buffer wide enough to host trees, but it was not.

photo of Broadway narrow sidewalk and narrow buffer new construction
Broadway narrow sidewalk and narrow buffer new construction
Read More »

SacCity work zone problems on Broadway

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

‘Dental Clinic Remodel’

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

SacCity work zone monitoring

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

Monitoring

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

The draft guidelines define five work durations:

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

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

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

Enforcement

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

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

SacCity work zone done wrong

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SacCity work zone barricades and audible

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

Audible Warning

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

SacCity Active Transportation Plan

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento is in a planning process that will lead to an active transportation plan, called Streets for People. It will replace the somewhat out of date Bicycle Master Plan and the prehistoric Pedestrian Master Plan. Phase 1 involved gathering input and specifics from the community, and resulted in an existing conditions report.

I have, to be honest, not participated in this process nor posted anything about it. Well, here you go! I’ll look more closely, and no doubt have things to say. Soon, I hope.

SacCity work zone comments

Dan Allison1 Comment

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

PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), released in August 2023, has the force of law, whereas MUTCD and CA-MUTCD are advisory, so relevant sections of PROWAG must be referenced in the work zone guidance.

Signing

PROWAG Chapter 3 says: [R303.2 Signs: Signs identifying alternate pedestrian access routes shall be provided in advance of decision points and shall comply with R410. Proximity actuated audible signs or other non-visual means within the public right-of-way of conveying the information that identifies the alternate pedestrian access route shall also be provided.]

The draft guideline says: ‘Proposed design and placement of the temporary traffic control signs, devices, and roadway markings must follow the most recent edition of the CA MUTCD.’

The draft guidelines must make clear that CA-MUTCD/MUTCD signs as shown on the diagrams must be used. This is a common failing of construction zone signing. Companies, and the city, use whatever similar signs happen to be on hand. They use roadway construction signs, and paper signs that melt in the rain and blow away in the wind. Note: I submitted a comment to FHWA for the MUTCD revision that these signs should be construction orange, as they are temporary construction closures, not permanent. They didn’t listen.

Barriers

MUTCD text and figures show barriers in crosshatched orange. Unfortunately, neither MUTCD nor PROWAG show details of what that barrier should look like. It is common in construction projects to use chain link fence or roadway construction barriers on sidewalks, but these do not meet the requirements for detectability by persons using canes. Though PROWAG does not specifically address barriers (unfortunately), it does have the text: R303.6.1 Top: The top of the top detectable edging shall be no lower than 32 inches (815 mm) above the walking surface and be free of sharp or abrasive surfaces, and R303.6.2 Bottom: The bottom of the bottom detectable edging shall be 2 inches (51 mm) maximum above the walking surface.

There are two diagrams that I’ve used before, left and center. Right is a commercial product (though note is is only compliant if the props are away from the walker, otherwise they are a trip hazard). This model has been used in several places in Sacramento, but they tend to fall down in wind, so may not be the best. The channelizer in center is often used as a barricade at crosswalks, and I believe this use is compliant, and they don’t fall down in wind. The draft guidelines must include some sort of diagram, otherwise, companies will use whatever is on hand, and whatever a sighted person thinks is sufficient.

diagrams of detectable barricades

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

Diagrams

The sidewalk diagram in the new 2023 MUTCD Figure 6P-28 is better than the 2014 CA-MUTCD Figure 6P-28 because it makes clear that ramps from sidewalk level street level are necessary for a diversion. That diagram is below, and should replace the one in the draft guidelines. Figure 6P-29 is the same in both.