I was in Seattle in May, for Northwest Folklife, and am back again at the moment, reminded that I had not posted about transformations happening in Seattle. Seattle is, on the whole, a very traffic-y city with sparse bike facilities, but what is interesting is what they are doing with re-allocating roadway space to better use than motor vehicles. Bus lanes, wider sidewalks, protected bikeways, removal of parking. It is inspirational.
I have not been able to pin down whether it is official policy, but I can say for certain that the city is no longer installing paint-only door-zone bike lanes. Anywhere. All of the bike facilities are separated, some by car parking, some with planters, some with substantial vertical delineators. Almost all the new ones are either at roadway level and protected by hard curbs, or raised to sidewalk level and therefore separated from the roadway by curb and buffer strip.
City of Sacramento Public Works staff has told the Active Transportation Commission that an update to the Street Design Standards will start soon. But the General Plan says otherwise. From the plan, Implementation Actions, pages 8-28 to 8-29:
M-A.10: Street Design Standards Update. The City shall review and update City Street Design Standards as needed to ensure they adequately support objectives for prioritizing people throughput, safety, and efficient transportation management. Responsible Entity: Department of Public Works Timeframe: Mid-term (2030-2035)
This timeframe indicates that the update will not even start until 2030, six years after the adoption of the plan in 2024. Six years of Public Works enforcing outmoded and dangerous street designs on the public and on developers. Hopefully the plan is out of date, and staff is correct that it will start soon.
Yes, I had promised quite some while ago a summary of my many blog posts on the Street Design Standards update. Coming soon to a blog near you.
I have been following the progress of the Central City Mobility Project which has now mostly completed separated bikeways on 21st Street, half of 19th Street (H to Q), most of P Street, and now going to Q Street. One of the features of the design is ‘turn wedges’ which I have written about before: where the bike lane ends – update, where the bike lane ends, Central City Mobility update. I have spent a lot of time observing driver and bicyclist behavior at the intersections which have these turn wedges installed. The wedges are marked only by white paint, though city diagrams show them having some sort of physical barrier installed in them.
Drivers are using the turn wedges, and the buffer areas of the separated bikeway, to make very high speed, very wide turns at these corners, cutting the corner where a bicyclist might be riding. The prior configuration of a regular intersection did not allow such wide and high speed turns. I have seen a number of close calls between motor vehicles and bicyclists, and walkers, for that matter, since these high speed turns cross the crosswalk as well as the bikeway. These turn wedge corners are also encouraging drivers to run red lights, even more so than the usual red light running. I saw three drivers run the red on a single signal cycle, and a driver on the cross street had to slam on their brakes to avoid a collision. I’ve seen a large number of near-misses for motor vehicles.
It is not clear whether these turn wedges are complete or not. Will the city actually install something here that prevents or at least discourages these high speed dangerous turns? I don’t know. What I do know is that in the meanwhile, these turn wedges are a clear and present danger to bicyclists.
I spent time this afternoon watching left turns from P Street westbound to 15th Street southbound. Drivers were using the buffer area and the bikeway to form two lines of left turning traffic, where there should be only one. The block of P Street was completely devoid of parked cars, so drivers were queuing into two lines way back near 16th Street. Since the intersection is in no way marked for a double left turn lane, there were motor vehicle conflicts on every signal cycle.
Sorry to be the doom-sayer, but I have to recommend that bicyclists simply not ride on these streets until the projects are truly complete, with as full a protection for bicyclist as can be achieved with these less than international best practice designs.
The city’s attitude seems to be that since the bikeways will eventually be safer, we just have to put up with the unsafe situation in the meanwhile. I completely disagree. This may be criminal behavior on the part of the city, to remove moderately safe bike lanes and replace them with unsafe bikeways. If bicyclists (or walkers or drivers) die before the project is complete, is this just a ‘whoopsie’? Professional engineers designed this project, signed off on this project, and should be inspecting the project as it goes along. Why do we then have these unsafe situations? Is is intentional? Is it indifference to bicyclists and walkers? Is it professional incompetence?
It is imperative that all construction projects accommodate walkers and bicyclists, who are even more vulnerable at these projects than normally. The attitude of ‘it will be safer later’ is completely unacceptable.
The construction company for this project is McGuire and Hester. Though many people might blame these problems on the construction company, I don’t. It is the city’s responsibility to design safe projects, during and after construction, and it is the city’s responsibility to inspect projects to see if they are complying with the design, and to fix things if not. But I strongly suspect that the construction company is doing exactly what the city told it to do.
At the meeting of the ECOS Climate Committee on Tuesday, June 27, there was a presentation on the City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 Update by city staff Remi Mendoza. The presentation gave an overview of the plan, which is pretty much available on the city website, but the questions and comments were interesting.
Heather Fargo raised issue of language to address disability transportation concerns; does plan address sidewalk maintenance? Staff did not really answer about disabled mobility, rather, the answer was about walking and bicycling for other people. Heather said she is dissatisfied with bicyclist improvements which make things harder for disability. I will ask Heather for clarification on her concerns. Heather also expressed a number of concerns about the lack of a commitment to protecting agricultural and wildlife lands in the Natomas Basin and Natomas area, both in the main general plan and in the specific North Natomas Community Plan.
I asked two questions:
Why is the council commitment to removing parking mandates now a weak ‘could include’? Staff answered that a consultant is working on this, and if council wants stronger language, it can reinstitute it. This is a very dissatisfying answer. If the council wanted weaker language, they could asked for it, but they have not. I suspect that some politically powerful people (more powerful than you or I) asked for the language to be weakened, and staff complied. Was this City Manager Howard Chan, or was it one of the powerful who is not on the council?
Map M-3 emphasizes light rail and arterials for transit oriented development. These are both NOT the best locations due to surrounding land use (often industrial and toxic), poor accessibility to transit (long distances to safe crosswalks over high speed, high volume, very wide arterials), lack of existing neighborhoods to build on in several cases, and the pollution created along these freight routes and motor vehicle traffic sewers. This question was brushed off.
A number of others asked questions about the plan, which were only partially answered. It appears that the transportation and climate community are very concerned about the general plan. And they should be.
The members of city Community Development Department, which initially seemed to be on board with very innovative and future-looking goals and policies, seems to have backed way off, and are now proposing something not remarkable different from the current 2035 plan, which was outdated before it was even adopted.
I appreciate ECOS (Environmental Council of Sacramento) for their willingness to stand up to the powers that be. I’m a member of a number of other groups that are not willing to stand up. The city and the county, and the other cities in the county, get away with the status quo and gaslighting because no one is calling them out on their poor decisions and lack of attention to the needs of the people who live here.
If the City of Sacramento General Plan 2040 update is approved, with its very weak language about parking management, it is almost guaranteed that the objectives of the entire plan will fail, because parking is such a key aspect of how our transportation system and built environment look and function. Parking must be reformed, and the reform must be transformative and immediate. Vague language about what might happen in the future, in the 16 years of the plan, is pretty much a guarantee that not much of anything will happen. The city has strongly resisted proactively managing parking, and the General Plan would continue this resistance. [Since I refer to the Mobility Element of the General Plan so much, I have extracted those 30 pages here. However, to really understand how a lack of parking reform will harm everything else, you will have to refer to the rest of the plan.]
The goals and policies Mobility element is the place where most language about parking resides. Curb management, items M-2.10 through M-2.13 (page 8-17), and Parking Management M-2.14 through M-2.19 (pages 8-17 to 8-18) are worth a read. I have previously written about M-2.17 Parking Management Strategy. This item says that the city will ‘continue’ its parking management strategy. The city has no parking management strategy, at least none ever shared with the public. So ‘continue’ means it is likely that nothing will change. The most important words in the item, however, are ‘could include’. Not will include, not will include on a deadline, but ‘could’. Can you imaging any more wishy-washy wording?
When bicyclists using the separated bikeway on 21st Street come to I Street, they are left without any bicyclist facilities at all, in a hazardous situation. The city intends to install a bikes-only signal here to allow bicyclists to proceed when motor vehicle traffic is not moving, but until at least late July, bicyclists are on their own. See the previous posts where the bike lane ends – update and where the bike lane ends for background.
The city has recommended, in the information sign on 21st St approaching I St, that bicyclists cross I Street using the pedestrian signal. I recommend otherwise. The double left turn general purpose (motor vehicle) lanes from 21st Street northbound to I Street westbound encourage drivers to make high speed turns, with no attention to other roadway users, while the pedestrian signal shows the white walker. This was a serious problem before the reconfiguration of 21st Street, but now is worse because not only are walkers are endangered, but now bicyclists as well.
I recommend looking for gaps in traffic from 21st Street southbound (21st is two-way north of I Street with much less traffic and much lower speeds) and I Street westbound (I Street to the east is a two-way street with much less traffic and much lower speeds), and cross against the red light. Illegal, yes. But safer to be making an illegal move than competing with drivers turning left on the green light.
This intersection could be made safer in the meanwhile by two city actions: 1) Create a separate phase for walkers crossing I Street on the west leg, where the signal remains red; and 2) Prohibit left turns on red at the signal. Since this is a one-way street to one-way street turn, it is legal to turn on red, unless posted otherwise. The advantage to prohibiting left turn on red is that it will allow bicyclists to only pay attention to two opposing traffic movements rather than three. It will be necessary to prohibit left turns on red when the bike signals are installed, so why not do that now? There is a ‘left turn yield to pedestrians’ sign here, but it is small and mounted high up, so unlikely seen by drivers. Drivers may reasonably expect walkers crossing at slow speed, but are not expecting bicyclists crossing at much higher speed. It’s why bicyclists are discouraged from riding crosswalks, and why the city is wrong to be encouraging such behavior here.
21st St: Nearly all striping is done and green paint complete, except for a few spots that were missed. No vertical delineators have been installed. No bicycle signal has been installed at 21st St and I St, and according to a SacBee article (Sacramento to install new bike signal at midtown cross street. How it will change traffic?), will not be installed before late July. The turn wedges are a continuing hazard to bicyclists as they imply that drivers will make safer turns, but they are not doing so.
19th St: Most striping and green paint has been installed from H St to Q St, with a few spots still being worked on. No striping has been installed south of Q St to X St, there are still temporary lane marking tabs without bike lanes. No vertical delineators have been installed.
P St: Repaving from 21st St to 15th St is complete, and white line striping is nearly complete. No green paint yet, no vertical delineators. P St has several of the unsafe turn wedges. In the blocks from 17th St to 15th St, drivers are parking in the bike lane, but to the east, drivers seem to be using the detached parking correctly.
Q St: It has been stripped down, and paving should occur soon.
10th St: ADA ramps nearly complete, but no sign of reconfiguration.
9th St: No work. It is unlikely that 9th St will be completed this year (or next?), as there are three blocks of major construction that block sidewalks and bike lanes, and would prevent completion of any roadway reconfiguration.
5th St: No further work beyond the signal bases that were installed some while ago.
I St: No parking signs have been up for quite some while, but there is no evidence of work beyond a few ADA ramps.
At the June 15, 2023 meeting of the City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission meeting, agenda item 5 was ‘Stone Beetland Planned Unit Development – Amendments to the Bicycle Master Plan’. The topic was about modifying the bicycle master plan so that the new bicycle facilities in this development connected with other facilities already in the master plan. But since it is the purview of the commission is to address all active transportation topics, several members of the public and of the commission asked questions and commented on the transportation aspects of the overall development plan.
I asked why the streets were so wide, ranging from 42 feet to 74 feet, with the most common being 59 feet. Wide streets encourage drivers to speed, and so are significantly less safe than narrow streets. Another commenter and two commission members also asked about this. A 42 foot right of way should be the upper limit of street width, not the lower limit. When asked, the developer said that they had wanted narrower streets, but City of Sacramento Public Works forced the wider streets. The excuse from Public Works was apparently that as the area developed, there would be more traffic and wider streets were necessary. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy: building wider streets induces more traffic, and so the wider streets are needed to handle the motor vehicle traffic that the wider streets induced.
There were other questions about this development, including whether streets will have sidewalk buffers of sufficient width to host trees as they mature, and whether bicyclists will be able to leave the neighborhood since Cosumnes River Blvd is a high speed (55 mph!), high volume arterial that has paint-only bike lanes (which should not even be legal on a road with 55 mph posted speed limit), that very few bicyclists feel comfortable riding on. No matter what bicycle facilities the developer provides, people will be trapped in their neighborhood, unless they can drive and want to drive.
Public Works is the enemy of safe streets. Again and again the safer streets proposed by city planners and developers are nixed by someone in Public Works. There are car-brained engineers in Public Works that think the sole purpose of streets is to carry the maximum number of motor vehicles at the maximum possible speed. Despite the world changing around it, and the clearly documented hazard of wide fast streets, Public Works is living in the past, dedicated to a cars-first transportation system. I am not denying that there are progressive people in Public Works, and in Community Development as well, but somehow the outcome is always worse and less safe than the public wants.
I attended the SACOG Blueprint Workshop on Friday, June 16, at the Folsom Community Center. So far as I am aware, this was the largest gathering that SACOG has ever hosted. There were electeds, city and county staff, citizens, and a lot of SACOG staff.
I attended because I was concerned that SACOG would be hearing mostly from electeds and staff, and not citizens. SACOG already hears from electeds and staff, too much. But there were enough citizens there to balance things out. The big surprise to me was that nearly everyone in the room came out of the side of the progressive solutions. Two contrasting scenarios for each of five issues (development pattern, types of housing, transportation expenditures, transit frequency vs coverage, and one I’m not remembering; unfortunately I lost track of the printed material provided, so can’t give you the details). In each case, the consensus of the people in the room was for the progressive idea: infill development, mixed use with multi-family prominent, transportation expenditures on maintenance (fix-it-first; fix the potholes) rather than expansion, investment in active transportation, and better transit frequency. When electeds vote on priorities and projects, they often favor the regressive (low productivity sprawl with a high and unrecoverable investment in transportation and other infrastructure), and many staff support this. But when removed from the direct view of the campaign donor class, it turns out most of them want the right thing. I am hopeful!
When a summary of the workshop becomes available, and/or I get a copy of the printed material, I’ll update this post.
Nothing has changed on 21st Street since the last post.
On 19th Street, some of the striping has been completed as far south at P Street. This is only white, long-line striping, none of the details have been painted. While riding 19th Street today, I was very nearly hit by a driver at O Street. The long-lines lead drivers to think that they have full width right of way, and to not expect bike riders to be coming out to pass the curb extensions at O Street. As I have said all along, I question putting extensions in locations with separated bikeways. It may be less dangerous once the detailed striping and green paint are installed, but it won’t be as safe as it could be if the city had simply not installed extensions on the east side of the 19th Street and O Street intersection.
A friend pointed out that the separated bikeway on 19th Street southbound is more than half in the gutter pan, and that the gutter pan is deteriorated in many locations. Therefore the effective width of the separated bikeway is not six feet, but about two feet. Smooth sailing for drivers, not for bicyclists!
19th St separated bikeway in the gutter pan
As is true of every street that has been repaved, or patched, so far, the lane tabs have indicated that the general purpose lanes are very wide, and there are no bike lanes. Bike riders are now exposed to higher speed traffic (because of the very wide lanes), with not even the slight protection of paint. Though this might be the fault of the project contractor, I doubt it. If the city had told the contractor to keep temporary bike lanes, they would have. I’m almost certain that the city did not say anything about accommodations for bicyclists to the contractor. The city is endangering bicyclists during this construction project, on purpose and with full knowledge. If someone is hurt or killed here, it will be on the city, and I hope they get sued for millions. The city philosophy, overall, for this project and every other construction project on streets and sidewalks, is that bicyclists and walkers don’t matter.
The city has claimed that they are now, finally, working on a construction accommodation policy. I suspect that it will come out very weak, because Public Works still believes strongly in cars-first. Traffic flow and ease for drivers controls all their decisions.
P Street has been repaved, but does not have any marking yet. Q Street has been patched, though I can’t tell if there is more to be done. A reader pointed out that there is some active work on 10th Street, but I haven’t gotten there yet.
A friend mentioned that traffic was a disaster when the city closed Q Street and 15th Street, with traffic backed up for many blocks. Though I did not observe this, I’ve had reports now from many people that the detour signage for this project does not provide drivers (or bicyclists) with any information about which way to go (the detour signs, I have observed, frequently point two directions, and the signage along the detours is incomplete. This could, possibly, be the fault of the contractor, but if the city was not out inspecting the detours and getting them corrected, the city was also failing. I have talked to a number of people on the street for whom this project has left a bad taste in their mouth. They have seen that the city has done a poor job of communicating with drivers, bicyclists and walkers, and there is a lot of doubt being expressed about whether the separated bikeways will actually be safer.
Lastly, I will note that there was no public outreach on this project. There are no plans available to the public. I am sure if there had been outreach, some of the design details would be different, some of the flaws would have been caught, communication would have been continuous and effective, and construction signing would have been done correctly. This was an internal Public Works project, and it was not done well.
Getting Around Sacramento 