SacCity SB 535 disadvantaged communities and density

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 update draft offers a map of the SB 535 disadvantaged communities (DAC), on page 7-6, reproduced below. The areas are census tracts, and their number is labeled. Census tracts do not necessarily follow city boundaries, some overlap with county areas.

The general plan text states “Under SB 535, a DAC is defined as an area scoring in the top 25 percent (75th – 100th percentile) of all California census tracts for pollution burden and socioeconomic factors as measured in CalEnviroScreen.” You can read more detail about how DACs are determined, and the relationship to CalEnviroScreen, on page 7-3.

It is good that the area of ‘the finger’ (also known as the Fruitridge/Florin study area), disadvantaged communities in south Sacramento, are included, but it also makes the map hard to read. What areas are actually within the city, where the city might invest to overcome the past disinvestment that created these disadvantaged communities? To look at this question, I created the map below, which distinguishes city from county, blue being city and orange being county. It is clear that ignoring that significant areas of south Sacramento are in the county would be a mistake, but it is important to note where the city disadvantaged areas are, because that is where the city could spend money.

But these type of maps, where an area is mapped without reference to other characteristics, can be misleading. For example, the large area on the southeast side is indeed disadvantaged, but it is also mostly low density and even agricultural. The Census Bureau indicates that census tracts range between 1200 and 8000 people, with an average of 4000. Sacramento does not have such a wide range, but nevertheless, there are significant differences in the number of people residing in each census tract. The table ‘Table EJ-1: CalEnviroScreen Scores of DACs in the Planning Area’ (pages 7-4 & 7-5) lists the population density of all the tracts in the city, but unfortunately this data is not mapped. Of the disadvantaged census tracts, the population density (residents per acre) in the table range from 3.71 (6067006900, north area) to 20.71 (6067000700, northwest downtown)

So I developed a map that shows the range of densities (this is calculated for my map from area of census tract and population in 2022, not from the city’s table; the city does not indicate the date of the table data). A higher intensity of blue indicates more dense census tracts in the city, and for the county, a higher intensity of orange. As you can see, some of the city census tracts that are indicated as disadvantaged are very low density.

Why is density important? The city will never have enough money, from its own budget or other sources, to overcome past disinvestment. So investments must be prioritized. I believe the most important criteria is population density. A dollar of investment in a higher density area reaches more people. Conversely, investment in a low density area reaches fewer people. This fact is glossed over in the general plan.

There are additional maps of the disadvantaged census tracts in the general plan, focused on particular areas of the city, and addressing such issues as healthy food resources, environmental justice issues, parks, and light rail transit. It should be noted that SB 535 disadvantaged communities are only one criteria for looking at an area. The state offers Low Income High Minority (LIHM), and SACOG uses that criteria among others. All of these criteria are important, but I believe density to be one of the most important.

You may comment on the General Plan under the ‘Self-Guided Workshop‘. For a good explanation of how to use this resource, see my previous post relaying the House Sacramento guide. For my earlier posts on the General Plan, see category: General Plan 2040.

PDF versions of the maps are available: SB 535 census tracts from General Plan; SB 535 city/county; SB 535 weighted for population density.

House Sac guide to General Plan update

Dan Allison1 Comment

House Sacramento (SacYIMBY) has provided a simple guide to commenting on the City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 Update. I hope you will take a look and consider their priorities and comments when making your own comments to the city. The update is weak, full of glorious language, but not much in the way of commitments or actions that will really make a difference. We can greatly improve it by making comments, so please do!

I have four prior posts on the General Plan, at category General Plan 2040. Groups actively working on identifying improvements and concerns include: House Sacramento, Strong SacTown, ECOS Climate Committee, Civic Thread, 350Sacramento, and Sacramento Climate Coalition.

parking and bikeways

Dan Allison2 Comments

A number of people have commented, here and other places, that my idea of converting parallel parking to diagonal parking is wrong. There should be bike lanes instead. These comments come from a misunderstanding of context. I’ve written some while ago about diagonal parking, and it is mentioned in many of my posts about parking and street design, particularly sidewalk-level bikeways and bike lane widths.

What I intend is a transportation system where:

  1. Streets designed for 20 mph and under don’t need any bike facilities, as they are naturally traffic calmed. Bike lanes would be a waste of space. Where these streets are too wide, diagonal parking is a great solution for narrowing the street.
  2. Streets from 21 to 30 mph need standard Class 2 bike lanes. Visual separation from motor vehicles is needed.
  3. Streets from 31 to 40 mp need separated bikeways. In most cases these should be at sidewalk level, not at street level, but street level bikeways can be a temporary measure until the street is redesigned. These bikeways need to be sufficiently wide to accommodate passing and all types (widths) of bicycles and mobility devices.
  4. Streets 41 mph and above are NOT streets, they are roads, and should be designed as such. No driveways, no street facing retail or commercial, few intersections. These are for getting someplace fast. These roads do not need bicycle facilities at the edge of the road. What is needed is a completely separate transportation system that keeps bicyclist safe and completely separated from motor vehicle traffic.

Is any of this real right now? No. Nothing like this exists in the Sacramento region. But I strongly believe it is the goal we should be moving towards, with haste. And diagonal parking on slow but overly wide streets provides traffic calming and more efficient use of space.

Walkable City book club: Step 5: Protect the Pedestrian

Dan Allison4 Comments

The Walkable City book club will meet again this Wednesday at Lefty’s Taproom, 5610 Elvas Ave, in east Sacramento, 6:00PM to about 7:30PM. If you can’t arrive at the beginning, or need to leave sooner, that is fine, your presence is welcome for whatever you can make. Though some of the people in the book club group are ‘walkable city’ advocates, there are also people who are simply interested in making Sacramento more walkable, and more safe. Everyone is an expert when it comes to identifying what aspects of our transportation system don’t work for them personally, and the others are happy to fill you in on what we call the problems and possible solutions to those problems. We also celebrate the walkable nature of some places in Sacramento. Though many of us live in the City of Sacramento, we also discuss areas throughout the region. So please join us!

Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save American, One Step at a Time, 10th Anniversary Edition, Jeff Speck. Sacramento County Library has one copy of the 10th edition, waitlisted, and one copy of the 2012 edition, available. It is of course also available from your local bookstore, though it may need to be ordered, and Amazon has Kindle, paper and hardback versions.

The Walkable City book club: Step 5: Protect the Pedestrian section has eight parts:

Read More »

change it before someone gets killed

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #17.

I regularly ride the newly repaved streets with separated and/or parking protected bikeways, because I want to see how bicyclists and drivers are dealing with the new design. Well, the turn wedges are a complete failure. At every intersection where there is a turn wedge for left turns, drivers are cutting the corner and turning at higher speeds than they did before. The city has created a danger that was not present before, when there were regular bike lanes. The city has not completed work on the turn wedges, and for now, they are an incredible danger to bicyclists. The city has not placed construction signs at these locations, though at least according to the rough designs the city has shared with the public, construction is not complete. Nothing has been installed in the turn wedges. That means that the city has left the project in an incomplete state, but is communicating to the public that the project is complete.

The number of close calls that I have personally experienced at these turn wedges now numbers over 40. As an experienced bicyclist, I know what to watch out for and respond, but having to slam on my brakes to keep from getting run over is not something I or any other bicyclist should have to do.

The city must stop this madness before people die. The city knowingly has installed unsafe roadways, and has not fixed them despite knowing that they are hazardous. This means that the city is legally responsible for any bicyclist-driver crashes that happen at those corners. I will happily testify against the city, and hope that they have to pay our millions for their incompetence. But of course someone will be dead or severely injured, and the city won’t have to be liable for that. Traffic engineers depend on ‘approved’ designs to isolate themselves from direct legal responsibility, but these are not approved designs, they are ones that the city invented using pieces and parts of internationally recognized designs.

City, fix this now, or suffer the consequences!

real turn wedges

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #16.

A post today on Streetsblog LA (Santa Monica’s New 17th Street Curb-Protected Bike Lanes are Amazing) is about new bicycle facilities on 17th Street in Santa Monica. I think you will find some of the photos interesting. At first glance, it looks like some of the ones being installed as part of the Central City Mobility Project, but looking more closely, two differences really stand out. Most of the separated bikeways in Santa Monica are curb-protected. Bikeways that are solely parking protected only are protected when cars are parked. Otherwise, they are really just buffered bike lanes. And the turn wedges are hard curbs with additional markers, not paint-only, and definitely superior to the Sacramento’s suggested turn wedges which might have vertical delineators or other markers, but won’t have curbs.

curb turn wedges in Santa Monica (from Streetsblog LA)
curb turn wedges in Santa Monica (from Streetsblog LA)

To illustrate the problem these curb turn wedges solve, see the photo below of a motor vehicle making a high speed dangerous turn over a painted parking wedge at P Street and 15th Street.

16th St & P St, Sacramento, high speed turn across painted turn wedge
16th St & P St, Sacramento, high speed turn across painted turn wedge

Other

  • P Street markings including green paint are nearly complete. In two blocks, the green paint is nearly the entire block, for unknown reasons. There is nothing unique about these blocks. While green paint is useful to mark conflict areas, excessive use will just lead to maintenance expense over time.
  • Q Street has preliminary markings, but the temporary lane tabs still indicate overly wide and dangerous general purpose lanes.
  • 19th Street is nearly complete from H Street to Q Street, but there is no marking south of Q Street. South of Q Street, the old bike lanes show in some places, but otherwise have been erased in favor of overly wide and dangerous general purpose lanes. Several blocks of the new bikeway are in the gutter pan, making an unacceptable rough and dangerous surface.
  • 21st Street is complete except for a few spots that were missed and have not been picked up. The confusing arrow at 21st Street and W Street has been corrected. There is still accommodation or signal for bicyclists at 21st Street and I Street.
  • I Street work has begun, with the last few ADA ramps complete and some repaving.
  • 10th Street has the last few ADA ramps complete.
  • 9th Street doesn’t have any work in evidence.
  • 5th Street has not progresses past installation of signal bases.
  • Overall, no vertical delineators have been installed at any locations.
  • Delivery vehicles are parking in and blocking the separated bikeway on P Street approaching 16th Street. The city did not mark any of the parking spaces for delivery use. Cones and barricades have been placed in the buffer to reduce this hazardous driver behavior, and have been removed by someone, and replaced by citizens, and removed by someone, and …

Sac City is transportation bankrupt

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

There is an insightful admission hiding in the City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 update. In the Mobility Element, A Multimodal System section, Maintenance and Funding subsection (page 8-8), “A key challenge for Sacramento is that existing revenue streams do not fully cover operations and maintenance costs, and this same funding is also used to support implementation of improvements for safety and mobility throughout the city.”

Revenue does not cover expenses. Liabilities exceed assets. The city is bankrupt, just as you would be in this situation. Some asset of yours, like your house if you own one, or your business if you own one, is deteriorating, and you do not have the income to fix it. In the case of the city, it has incurred debt in order to build a transportation network that it cannot possibly maintain under the current taxation regime. And it never will. Never. If the city raised taxes, of whatever type, to the point they would pay for debt service and maintenance of the existing system, people would revolt. And that does not even include the new transportation infrastructure that some people would want. The city’s transportation system is bankrupt. It always will be. The core of the reason is that the city asked developers to pay for transportation infrastructure within a development, but then the city takes on liability for maintenance of that infrastructure. It all looks good for about 30 years, until things start to fall apart. The streets need repaving. The sidewalks are cracked. Painted lines and crosswalks have long since faded to invisibility. Not to mention what lies beneath (water and sewer), which is even more expensive to fix. For an in-depth explanation of how cities and counties and states got into this situation, I can recommend Confessions of a Recovering Traffic Engineer: Transportation for a Strong Town, and Strong Towns: A Bottom-up Revolution to Rebuild American Prosperity, both by Charles Marohn of Strong Towns. In fact, just in time for my post, an article today on Strong Towns: Why Cities are Flying Blind When It Comes to Their Own Debt.

So, what to do?

  1. Don’t bond anything again. We don’t need more roadways, or wider roadways, or interchanges. We don’t need big projects. Pay for maintenance of what we have, out of current income. This also means that we would never again bond against future income for current funding, as the city has done with parking revenue.
  2. Figure out what we can’t afford to maintain, and have that discussion with the public. I’d suggest that we can’t afford to maintain parking areas, whether on street, surface lots, or structured parking. Parking has never paid for itself and never will, and if we have to triage our transportation spending, it should be the first to go. Next would be cut-de-sacs and intentionally dead-end streets.
  3. Change accounting and budgeting so that transportation infrastructure shows up as a liability in accounting and budget, because it must be maintained forever, rather than as an asset.
  4. Cease accepting responsibility for new roadways built by developers. If a developer wants infrastructure, they can pay for it, and maintain it, forever, by setting aside reserves to cover the necessary maintenance. This would result in gated communities, which I definitely do not like, but a gated community is better than fiscal bankruptcy. It would also result in far, far fewer greenfield developments, since the financial model for these is that society will take on maintenance responsibility, and will build the surrounding infrastructure of arterial roads and highways that the development must have to pencil out. That is all to the good.
  5. Wean the city off of federal, state, and regional grants. Not all at once, but decrease the percentage of transportation projects that depend on outside money. This would mean even less money for transportation in the city, but it would force the city and citizens to look at what is really important, to individuals and society, and spend on the things that are really important. I hope that safety comes out at the top, and that we spend on transforming out transportation system from the current one that kills and maims people to one that protects vulnerable users first and foremost.

Note that the city is bankrupt in many ways, not just transportation. But transportation is my thing, so that is what I focus on.

Capital Southeast Connector sneaks another one in

Dan Allison4 Comments

Please see the Streetsblog California post today on transportation projects which increase VMT (vehicle miles traveled): California Will Continue Funding Projects that Induce Driving, Despite State Policy. The post in particularly calls out the Capital Southeast Connector highway project in Sacramento County as inducing VMT (not to mention greenfield developing), in direct violation of the principles of California’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Investments (CAPTI).

When CTC (California Tranportation Commission) member Darnell Grisby raised questions about the project, the project representative tried to gaslight Grisby and the commission by saying the JPA did not have land use authority and the development to be induced is not their problem. But the JPA does, indirectly, because highway projects promote sprawl and directly reduce the effectiveness of walking, bicycling, and transit projects.

Having been shot down in the recent Measure A sales tax, which failed in large part because it included controversial Capital Southeast Connector projects, the JPA (joint powers authority) is trying other back-door methods. The ultimate outcome desired by the JPA is a full freeway from El Dorado Hills and Highway 50 to Elk Grove and Interstate 5. The public has rejected this idea, so the JPA is working to sneak the project through in segments, by nickel and dime-ing the taxpayers until it is ultimately finished. In case you aren’t aware of the Capital Southeast Connector, I have written about it many times: Measure 2022: Southeast Connector exceptionalism, No to the southeast connector, Measure 2022: greenfield developer sponsors, and many others on the failed Measure A 2022.

SACOG has repeatedly refused to put the project as a whole into the regional MTP/SCS (metropolitan transportation plan / sustainable communities strategy) updates and specifically said it will not be in the upcoming Blueprint.

The Capital Southeast Connector JPA is a rogue agency. It serves the needs of greenfield developers and politicians who see the future as even more motor vehicle dominated than the present. The JPA should be disbanded. This probably wouldn’t completely kill off the project, since the county and cities might continue to waste taxpayer dollars on inducing sprawl and travel, in order to gain campaign contributions, but it would certainly help.

No Capital Southeast Connector highway, now or ever, in pieces or as a whole!

SACOG ATP awards

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Ten projects were awarded ATP (Active Transportation Program) funding in the SACOG region for 2023-2027. Brief descriptions follow. All are full funding of the grant request, unless otherwise noted.

  • Citrus Heights – Arcade Cripple Creek Extension. Construct a 0.5 mile Class I multi-use trail following the Arcade Creek alignment between Sayonara Drive and Mariposa Avenue. $7,155,000
  • El Dorado County – El Dorado Trail / Missouri Flat Road Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing. Construct a Class I multi-use grade-separated crossing over Missouri Flat Rd, closing a gap in the El Dorado Trail. $3,271,000
  • Elk Grove – Laguna Creek Inter-Regional Trail Crossing at State Route 99. Construct Class I Bikeway across State Route 99 and adjacent class I trail gap closure. $6,874,000
  • Folsom – Folsom-Placerville Rail Trail Gap Closure Project. Install curb ramps, sidewalk connections, curb extensions, pedestrian refuge islands, curb & gutter, raised medians, pavement markings, signage, striping, and asphalt overlay. $1,700,000
  • Roseville – Dry Creek Greenway East Trail, Phase 2. Construct a Class I multi-use trail and Class II buffered bike lanes. $6,063,000
  • Sacramento County DOT – Bell Street Safe Routes to School. Construct new sidewalks and curb ramps. Relocate signal poles and straighten sidewalks. Install pedestrian signal, RRFB, new signs, bike lanes and bike detectors. $8,808,000
  • Sacramento County Regional Parks – Dry Creek Parkway Trail. Construct a paved Class1 multi-use trail, including dg shoulder, plus two bridges and roadway crossing evaluation. $7,704,000
  • Sacramento – 9th Street Separated Bikeway Project. Construct a Class IV bikeway and a Class II bikeway. [This would extend the Central City Mobility Project from Q St to Broadway, which is not part of the current project.] $2,564,000
  • West Sacramento – North 5th Street Complete Streets & Connectivity Project. Project will install bike lanes, intersection enhancements, and new sidewalks, and an ADA ramp connection from 5th Street/A Street to Riverwalk Trail. $3,131,000 (partial funding)
  • West Sacramento – West Capitol Avenue Regional Connection Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Improvements. Construct vertical delineators to create separated bike lanes, Class II bike lanes , intersections improvements, and improve Westacre Rd underpass. $735,000

I am particularly pleased about Bell Street Safe Routes to School and Arcade Cripple Creek Extension, as these were projects that I promoted when I was Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified School District. Bell Street is used by many students attending Howe Avenue Elementary, Encina Preparatory High, and Greer Elementary, as well as several private schools in the area. The Arcade-Cripple Creek trail project serves both students at a number of schools and promotes active transportation for the entire community.

too wide, too fast

Dan Allison3 Comments

This phrase summarizes the street network we have in the City of Sacramento. With a very, very few exceptions, every single street is too wide and too fast, across the entire range from residential streets to traffic sewer arterials. These streets kill and injure incredible numbers of people every year. Walkers, bicyclists, drivers, passengers, no one is immune to the danger that these poorly designed streets present. Though rankings change year to year, and depend on details, Sacramento is at or near the top of crash rates for the state. We probably don’t have worse drivers than other cities, we have worse streets.

The city has promised that it will update the Street Design Standards that have created this hazard. Maybe soon, maybe not for years. In fact, the existing standards don’t even have all that much detail, so a lot of the streets were apparently designed on the whim of traffic engineers, not even on standards. MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and CA-MUTCD will not be considered acceptable roadway designs since they emphasize motor vehicles over all other roadway users. NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) or European standards such as the Netherlands CROW will be referred to as needed.

The new standards must ensure that we never build an unsafe roadway again. The goal must be no fatalities or severe injuries, no matter how drivers behave. Sacramento must be a true Vision Zero, safe systems city, not the lip service, we will fix things someday, when we have the money, that it is now.

What should the new standards be like?

  1. There should be separate documents, or at least clearly separate sections, for new construction and for healing existing designs.
  2. The state and federal roadway functional classification system (FCS) should not be used. Instead, a system that addresses the intended purpose of streets including ALL users should be used. The FCS is in large part responsible for the mess we have now. It represents that traditional traffic engineer focus on maximizing motor vehicle volume and speed. See SacCity street classification for more information.
  3. New construction standards:
    • will emphasize limited roadways, one lane in each direction, and would include designs for two lanes in each direction in exceptional circumstances
    • design speeds and posted speed limits must match
    • base design speed is 20 mph
    • roadways over 20 mph must have bike lanes; over 30 mph must have separated bikeways
    • no roadway will have a design speed over 40 mph. Anywhere. Ever.
    • intersections will be designed so that it is clear that crosswalks, at sidewalk level, continue through the intersection, and motor vehicles are the guests
    • all new developments will be designed with a street grid of 1/4 mile
    • rolled curbs will not meet standards, however, streets without curbs may be used if the design speed is 10 mph
  4. Healing existing roadways:
    • no street will be repaved without consideration being given to reallocating right-of-way width to walking, bicycling, transit, and sidewalks buffers for trees
    • the intent of reallocation will be to achieve the same design as new construction
    • on-street parking will be retained for its traffic calming effect, however, removal of parking will never prevent reallocation to higher uses
    • for overly wide streets, parallel parking will be converted to back-in diagonal parking in order to narrow roadways for safety
    • streets without a tree canopy will have trees added, in parking lanes if no other space is available
    • the city will adopt responsibility for maintenance of sidewalks, in the same way that they are responsible for pavement
    • designs will be available for closing sections of street temporarily or permanently for dining or community events
    • designs for diagonal ADA ramps will not be part of the updated standards; only perpendicular ramps will meet standards

My intent here is to provide something simple, summarizing beyond the details of previous posts on Street Design Standards.

What would you add?