SacCity signal management

Dan Allison1 Comment

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so.

  • Signal cycles will be the shortest timing consistent with ample time for walkers to cross
  • Shorter crossing distances and therefore shorter signal cycles can be created via lane reductions and curb extensions 
  • Signalized intersections will be evaluated for signal elimination and conversion to stop-controlled intersections
  • Leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) will be installed at all signalized intersections with pedestrian signals; LPIs will be a minimum of three seconds, longer in high pedestrian crossing areas
  • All pedestrian activation buttons will be removed, or will be converted to audible-only signal activation. Temporary signing will be installed when a button has been deactivated but not yet removed.

I earlier posted on too many traffic signals? in the central city, which should be eliminated in favor of stop controlled or yield controlled intersections.

SacCity sidewalk design standards

Dan Allison1 Comment

I’ve written about existing sidewalk buffers or lack thereof (sidewalk buffer widths), and a solution for areas without sidewalk buffers (street trees in the parking lane), and now on to sidewalk standards. Sidewalk areas are composed of the sidewalk, sidewalk buffer (also called planting strip or furniture zone), and pedestrian scale lighting.

Design criteria:

  • All new or reconstructed streets will have sidewalks, sidewalk buffers, and pedestrian scale lighting
  • Reallocated or mitigated streets will have sidewalk buffers added if right-of-way can be reallocated
  • Sidewalk areas may also include sidewalk-level bicycle facilities
  • Attached sidewalks (sidewalk adjacent to the curb) will not be used for new or reconstructed streets
  • Sidewalk width:
    • Minimum sidewalk width will be six feet in areas of 85% of more residential
    • Minimum sidewalk width will be eight feet in all other areas
    • Sidewalks must be completely free of obstructions, encroachments, or driveway aprons into their minimum width
    • Sidewalks adjacent to and within 1/8 mile of schools will be a minimum of 8 feet; sidewalks used for drop off/pickup will be a minimum of 10 feet
  • Sidewalk buffer width:
    • Minimum sidewalk buffer width will be eight feet in order to accommodate a canopy of mature trees; if a lesser width is available, parking areas will be considered for tree placement
    • Sidewalk buffer may also accommodate street related infrastructure and utilities, street furniture, bike and scooter parking, dining areas, bioswales, and other related uses
  • Sidewalks will receive priority use of right-of-way; travel and parking lanes, and bike facilities, will be placed in remaining right-of-way
  • Bus stop amenities will not be placed within the sidewalk minimum width; the sidewalk buffer may serve as clear sidewalk abutting the curb, with appropriate design and transition; transit amenities may also be placed on transit islands away from the sidewalk and sidewalk buffer
  • Sidewalks will be continuous over driveways and alleys, without interruption of design or materials
  • Pedestrian scale lighting will be provided along the street length; motor vehicle scale lighting will not be considered sufficient; intersections and crosswalks may be lit with motor vehicle scale lighting

Design diagrams:

  • Sidewalks of six or eight feet, with sidewalk buffers of at least eight feet
  • Tree planters or wells in the parking lane or curb extensions
  • Alley entrances and sidewalk crossings of alleys
  • Driveway crossings of sidewalk, with design indicating walking priority
  • Bus stop amenities (benches, shelters, etc.) with a sidewalk area clear of encroachment
  • Transit island diagram here or in the transit section
walkers at Capitol Park sidewalk N St & 15th
walkers at Capitol Park sidewalk N St & 15th

SacCity street design for transit

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so.

The purpose of designing streets for transit is to actively shift trips away from private motor vehicles and to transit. Most arterial streets in the city should have dedicated bus rapid transit design, and any street with more than one general purpose lane per direction should have a dedicated bus lane, with red paint.

  • Transit Street Design Guide will be used along with close collaboration with the transit agency to determine optimal and innovative street designs supportive of transit
  • Dedicated bus lanes will be provided on all 15-minute frequency bus routes on streets over one lane per direction
  • Light rail will be given exclusive right-of-way on streets with three or more lanes existing; and considered for streets with two or more lanes existing
  • Bus bays which force buses to pull out of and into traffic will not be used, except where the transit agency has identified the need to wait for a timed stop or to layover
  • Curb extensions may be lengthened to provide in-lane bus boarding
  • Dedicated bus lanes shared with bicyclists will be used only when high quality bicycle facilities on an immediately parallel street are not available, or to solve right-of-way issues of one block or less
  • Bus routes with 15-minute or better frequency, and light rail, will have transit signal priority at all intersections

Design diagrams will be developed in cooperation with the transit agency:

  • Bus stops, including stop amenities, with preservation of sidewalk passage
  • Concrete bus pads to lessen pavement deterioration
  • Bus boarding extensions on streets without bike facilities
  • Bus boarding islands with bicycle facilities behind, including design features that slow bicyclist traffic behind the island to prioritize walkers
  • Raised platforms for low floor or level boarding of light rail vehicles
  • Bus rapid transit streets, including potential raised platforms

SacCity street design for bicycles and shared mobility

Dan Allison5 Comments

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so. See also separated bikeways and bus routes, sidewalk-level bikeways, and bike lane widths.

  • Bicycle facilities will be provided within 1/4 mile of every origin/destination
  • Regular bike lanes (Class 2) may only be used where design and posted speeds are 30 mph or less
  • Separated bikeways (Class 4) will:
    • be used for design and posted speeds above 30 mph
    • have a minimum width of 8 feet, to accommodate passing and wider devices
    • use hard curb protection where parking protection is not available, or parking utilization is low
  • Signals
    • Bicycle signals will be used as necessary to ensure safe crossing of intersections, appropriate priority for bicyclists, and safe transitions to and from separated bikeways
    • Signals at intersections will detect bicyclists in any lane
    • Streets that host large volumes of bicyclists in general purpose lanes or bike lanes will have signal timing for a green wave, accommodating bicyclist speeds of 12-15 mph and slowing motor vehicle traffic
  • Parking
    • Parking for shared mobility devices will be provided in sufficient quantity on wide sidewalks (over 8 feet) or in the street
    • On-demand bicycle parking (BikeLink or equivalent) will be provided at locations where bikes are commonly parked for more than two hours
    • The city will work closely with transit agencies to ensure that bus stops with significant bicycling first mile/last mile have sufficient bike parking
  • Transit
    • All bus routes with 30 minute frequency or better will have bus boarding islands with bike lanes or separated bikeways passing behind the island; shared bus/bike lanes will only be used to distances of not more than one block, in order to solve right-of-way issues
  • Streets that provide long distance travel on with low volume and low speed motor vehicle traffic will be designated as bike boulevards, with appropriate marking, signing, and traffic calming treatment
  • Shared mobility will be managed and/or owned by the city or transit agency with sufficient control to ensure social and transportation objectives, and stability

Design diagrams will include:

  • Bike lanes (Class 2)
  • Separated bikeways (Class 4)
  • Bike boulevards
  • Contra-flow and two-way cycletracks, for use where safe bicycle facilities are not 
  • available on an immediately parallel street
  • Sidewalk level bike facilities
  • Bicycle signal faces
  • Bicycle detection at signalized intersections
  • bus boarding islands

AB 825 (Bryan) Safe Passage for People on Bikes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Assembly Bill 825 been introduced to the California legislature by Issac Bryan. The bill would allow bicyclists to use sidewalks where safe street bicyclist facilities have not been provide by the transportation agency. Class 1 separated paths, Class 2 bike lanes and Class 4 separated bikeways are considered safe facilities. Note that Class 3 bike routes, which are only signing and sometimes sharrows, are not considered safe under this bill. It would limit speed on sidewalks to 10 mph and require that bicyclists yield to walkers. The bill passed Assembly Committee on Transportation last week and will go to Assembly Committee on Appropriations.

Take at look at the CalBike Support AB 825 for Safe Passage for People on Bikes page for more information, including a link to email your assembly member.

I posted two day ago about bicycling on sidewalk codes in Sacramento county. The county and all the cities prohibit biking on sidewalks unless they are recognized in the bicycle plan as being bike facilities. There are very, very few such designations. The City of Sacramento takes the reverse approach, that it is legal except where signed against, and there are currently no locations signed against.

Again, I’ll say that I don’t like bicycling on sidewalks, and I don’t do it, but I completely understand why others do. The are making the best decision they can to keep themselves safe from traffic violence. This bill recognizes that reality.

SacCity design speed

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: A reader asked how a driver would know whether they are on a street where the design speed is well above the posted speed, or whether they were on a street where the design speed was equal to the posted speed. That is a reasonable question. A safely designed street communicates through design what the intended speed is. However, our traffic engineering profession has trained drivers very well with the expectation that it is safe to exceed the posted speed. There will be a transition period as drivers learn 1) to pay attention to the street and what it signals, not just what the sign says, and 2) that new and reconstructed streets are designed for safety of all users, and therefore the design speed equals the posted speed. But in the meanwhile, drivers will need to know. So, I’ve added a sign below that could be used to signal design = posted, with a red border. The color of the sign itself can’t be changed because in our sign system (MUTCD), white is regulatory.

Part of an ongoing series of posts to support better streets in the City of Sacramento during their 2023 update of Street Design Standards. New standards must be innovative, safe, and equitable, and it will take strong citizen involvement and advocacy to make them so.

Streets are designed for a specific speed limit, which is almost always well above the posted speed limit. The original theory was that designing for higher speeds would protect drivers who drive over the posted speed limit. This is outmoded thinking, for two reasons. One is risk compensation, that most drivers will drive at a speed that feels slightly unsafe, so they are driving just over the design speed. Two is that even if the design speed is safe for drivers, it is not safe for walkers and bicyclists.

The points below are policy, not specifically designs. I have realized that it is not just the design standards that need to be updated, but the policies that determine what design will be used in various context. A lot of city policies are not documented, but reside in the minds of the planners and engineers. Because they are not documented, the public can’t evaluate them and ask for changes.

  • Design speed = posted speed; a street will never be designed or reconstructed for a higher design speed than the posted speed limit
  • Design and posted speed limits will be set at a level that ensures safety for all street users including walkers along and crossing the street, and bicyclists
  • All projects that reconstruct or reallocate a street must consider a reduction in the design and posted speed
  • Lane widths must match design speeds; lane widths will be limited to 9 or 10 feet except that one lane on truck routes, bus routes with 15 minute or better frequency, or dedicated bus lanes may be 11 feet
  • Local streets will have a design and posted speed of no more than 20 mph
  • Streets intended for both local and through traffic may have a design and posted speed of up to 30 mph
  • Streets will not be designed or posted for 40 mph unless the design reduces intersections, and reduces or eliminates driveways and turning movements
  • No street in an urbanized area will be designed or posted over 40 mph

bicycling on sidewalks

Dan Allison1 Comment

The release yesterday of the report Arrested Mobility: Barriers to Walking, Biking, and E-Scooter Use in Black Communities in the United States demonstrating that tickets for riding on the sidewalk are one of the ways in which laws and law enforcement discriminate against black bicyclists, and Latinx bicyclists as well.

Let me say that I am not in favor of bicyclists on sidewalks, but the conflict between bicyclists and walkers is often exaggerated, and bicyclists are making the best decision they perceive to keep themselves safe from traffic violence. I don’t do it, but I understand why other people do.

So what is the situation in the Sacramento region?

City of Sacramento code 10.76.010 Riding bicycles on sidewalks prohibits bicycling on sidewalks only where signed and where in-street facilities are provided. The code says:

  •  A. No person shall ride a bicycle on a sidewalk where a sign is posted indicating that bicycling is prohibited. The city manager shall designate sidewalks where such signs are posted upon a finding that:
    • 1. The sidewalk abuts a road that is designated a “Low Stress Bikeway” using the criteria for the Facility Selection Guidelines in the City of Sacramento Bicycle Master Plan; and
    • 2. There is either a demonstrated or probable conflict between pedestrians and bicycles. This may be shown by information including, but not limited to: 311 reports, incident data, or estimated high pedestrian activity determined by counts or adjacent land uses and densities.
  • B. Subsection A of this section does not apply to the following persons:
    • 1. City employees acting within the course and scope of employment, including but not limited to:
      • a. Peace officers, as defined in California Penal Code section 830.
      • b. Emergency medical personnel as designated by the fire chief of the city.
      • c. Parking enforcement officers.
    • 2. Children under the age of 18 years old and an accompanying adult.
  • C. Where bicycling on a sidewalk is permitted, the following apply:
    • 1. Bicyclists must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians by slowing down, stopping, or dismounting, as needed.
    • 2. Before passing a pedestrian traveling in the same direction, bicyclists must give the pedestrian an audible warning.
  • D. The city manager or designee shall report to the city council annually regarding the impacts of sections 10.76.010 and 10.76.030. (Ord. 2019-007 § 2; Ord. 2017-0033 § 1; Ord. 2016-0024 § 1; prior code § 25.05.070)

There are some designated bike routes on sidewalks in the City of Sacramento, which were designated before this code came into effect and are still valid. N Street between 8th Street and 15th Street, and the area through the convention center/performance center between 13th Street and 14th Street.

SABA has a summary of sidewalk riding rules, on Sharing the Road page, scroll down to ‘Is it legal to ride on the sidewalk? This page may be out of date.

Note that the County of Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Rancho Cordova code sections are identical, and the Folsom and Galt code sections are identical, examples of mindless copying of code from other locales.

I do not have any information on whether these codes are being enforced in a discriminatory way, but given the almost universal pattern of law enforcement oppression of people of color, I’d not be the least surprised.

On the positive side, AB-825 Vehicles: bicycling on sidewalks (Bryan) has been introduced which would prohibit sidewalk prohibitions except where there are high quality bicycle facilities available on the street,  invalidating all of these code sections except, perhaps, the City of Sacramento. The relevant paragraph is: Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a local authority shall not prohibit the operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk adjacent to a highway or corridor that does not include a Class I, Class II, or Class IV bikeway, as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highway Code.

I hope readers will support this legislation. The bill passed the Assembly Committee on Transportation on March 20, 2023, and was referred to Assembly Committee on Appropriations, but not yet scheduled. See also Streetsblog CA Traffic Safety Bills Pass First Committee.

If passed, the legislation might well cause cities and counties to accelerate projects to add safe bicycling facilities to streets, in order to reduce sidewalk riding. One can hope.

street design contexts

Dan Allison3 Comments

People have commented on my series of street design posts, online and Twitter and in person, with many questions about how to fix existing streets. My focus so far has been on new and reconstructed streets. Obviously fixing existing streets is a critical issue, and I’m not wanting to neglect it, but part of my approach is summed up as “don’t build stupid”, in other words, don’t ever again design or construct a single transportation infrastructure that prioritizes motor vehicle traffic over access and safety for walkers and bicyclists. The best time for better design was 50 years ago, the second best time is today. But the City of Sacramento, and most cities and counties and state agencies, are continuing to build things that are hostile to people walking and bicycling. Traffic engineering is a remarkably regressive profession, sticking with what was once thought to work, even though it never did, and even though it is absolutely clear that it does not meet our needs today. Transportation infrastructure is meant to last 30 to 50 years, and may be in place longer than that, so everything we do wrong today will be around for a long time. We won’t ever have the money to fix everything (a lot of our transportation investment is basically money we’ve flushed down the toilet), and the Vision Zero or Safe Systems approach of identifying and fixing the locations with the highest fatality and severe injury crashes is right.

My thinking about street design has four contexts:

Read More »

street trees in the parking lane

Dan Allison3 Comments

Note: Added two photos to the bottom, or integrated parking and trees.

In situations where there isn’t any space for trees along the street, usually where a sidewalk buffer (planting strip) was never provided and where a reconstruction of the street to add sidewalk buffers is not in the budget or possible in the right-of-way, trees can be placed in the parking lane. I am not suggesting here that the entire parking area be replaced with trees, but there some trees and their associated shade for walkers and traffic calming effects could be provided on any street with existing parking.

Portland (PBOT) has a sheet about street tree enhancements, which includes Tree Planting in the Curb Zone:

Tree planting in the curb zone allows for encroaching into the on-street parking zone to increase planting widths. This offers an alternative method for increasing tree well size without negatively impacting people walking.

This new tool provides an opportunity to plant trees along curb tight sidewalks or where the furnishing zone is too narrow for large street trees, locations where tree planting would not be possible under current guidance.

PBOT Pedestrian Design Guide
PBOT Pedestrian Design Guide trees in the parking lane diagram
PBOT Pedestrian Design Guide trees in the parking lane

San Francisco has a Parking Lane Planter page:


Parking lane planters are landscaped sidewalk extensions placed between parking spaces at regular intervals or at specific locations. They provide space for street trees and landscaping on streets with narrow sidewalks, where tree planting is limited by conflicts with utilities or driveways, or where there is a desire to visually narrow the roadway.

SF Better Streets

It does not seem as though most cities have policies about placing trees in the street, and those that do, do not seem of long standing, but certainly the practice exists. Street trees in general, though, are of long standing, with every city having policy and design guidance. Sometimes urban forestry and transportation policies and transportation are well integrated, but as often, not.

The City of Sacramento does have an inventory of trees on city property, which includes planting strips (sidewalk buffers). I don’t know of any trees in the parking lane in Sacramento.

Two readers pointed out locations in Sacramento where parking and street trees are mixed in. Both of these were designed this way; the trees were not added later. Both are on R St, the first with a housing development, with parallel parking, the second with housing and commercial development, with perpendicular parking.

R St between 25th & 26th, south side, parallel parking and trees
R St between 25th & 26th, south side, parallel parking and trees
R St between 16th & 18th, south side, perpendicular parking and trees
R St between 16th & 18th, south side, perpendicular parking and trees

What’s Next? – SacMoves Coalition

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

An earlier post covered the Mayor’s Environmental Advocates Roundtable.

SacMoves is a coalition of transportation advocacy organizations and environmental and climate advocacy organizations, primarily, though it does include some other interests such as housing. There are also a number of interested individuals who participate in the meetings. I am not speaking for the coalition. I represent one organizational member of the coalition, Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR), and serve on the Process Committee of the coalition, but otherwise don’t have position or authorization to speak for the coalition. I am relaying information that I think will be of interest to others.

SacMoves decided not take a position on the Measure A transportation sales tax. Most organizational members were opposed to the measure, some very strongly, and there were a few members that did not want the coalition to take a position. As a result, several individuals and some organizations formed the MeasureANotOK group, assisted by Climate Plan, and were primarily responsible for defeat of the measure (though there is of course always an anti-tax contingent). And it was a resounding defeat!

SacMoves Coalition held a special meeting on March 9 to discuss What’s Next?, and more specifically whether SacMoves would take a key role in formulating future transportation funding, or would wait and respond to what others proposed. The group meeting that day confirmed that the coalition would take a key role, and the next regular meeting confirmed that. A one-page summary of the special meeting is here: https://gettingaroundsac.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sacmoves_2023-03-16_planning-summary.pdf.

The regular meeting on March 17 formed three working groups to start developing background information towards providing a model for transportation goals and funding, which are policy, funding, and communications. The coalition also decided to work more closely with housing and particularly affordable housing interests to see how each can contribute to the best solutions. Transportation and housing cannot stand in siloes, or they both fail.

The coalition does not see itself as the only group working on transportation funding. Organizational members and individuals are following and participating the other efforts, including the Mayor’s roundtable. Perhaps eventually the efforts will coalesce behind a single proposal which will move forward through the efforts of all the interested organizations and individuals.

Unfortunately, SacMoves does not have a website, so I can’t direct you there for more information or contacts, but if you contact me, I will pass you along to the right people.