street design contexts

2023/03/29 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:

street trees in the parking lane

2023/03/282023/03/29 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 16th & 18th, south side, perpendicular parking and trees

What’s Next? – SacMoves Coalition

2023/03/28 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.

separated bikeways and bus routes

2023/03/282023/03/28 Dan Allison3 Comments

The City of Sacramento started a design with protected bikeways on streets with significant bus traffic on P Street and Q Street in downtown Sacramento. I live on P Street, so see use of the bikeway on a daily basis. It works OK. P and Q are not heavily biked streets, and the separated bikeways are not heavily used, but they are OK. And actually, P Street doesn’t work well for buses. Since much of the bus traffic is commuter buses, a lot of them over a short period of time, there is often a stack-up of buses blocking traffic and interfering with each other at a stop opposite me on P Street at 13th Street.

Note: I’m using the term separated bikeway here because it is the term in state law, and therefore planning and engineering documents. Most people call these protected bike lanes, or sometimes cycletracks, though the term cycletrack is more commonly used for two-way bike facilities. Use whatever term you’d like!

On Q Street eastbound, the separated bikeway transitions to a bike lane at 14th Street. Since there are bike lanes on both sides of Q Street to the east, a bicyclist a decide where to transition to the right side of the street. This works OK.

On P Street westbound, however, it is a completely different story. The separated bikeway ends at 9th Street. To the west there are no bicycle facilities of any sort. It is a three lane traffic sewer (what I can three or more lane roadways, the purpose of which is solely to flush traffic in and out of downtown). With the construction going on all through downtown, P Street is and has been reduced to two lanes is several places, and with state workers mostly working from home, there is much less traffic in downtown. Nevertheless, the design is fatally flawed. I use the term ‘fatally’ on purpose – it is a design likely to result in bicyclist fatalities.

What’s next? – Mayor’s Environmental Roundtable

2023/03/262023/03/26 Dan Allison1 Comment

After the failure of Measure A transportation sales tax measure, everyone who was for it, and everyone who was against it, asked ‘What’s next?’ It is clear there is a need to fund at least some types of transportation infrastructure, including transit, active transportation, and repairing the potholes. It is also clear to me, at least, there there is absolutely no need to fund roadway capacity expansion. We have all of the roadways we will ever need – we need less capacity, not more. But that is not clear to everyone. A lot of people initially were saying things like “we just need to improve the measure a bit, perhaps by removing the Capital Southeast Connector, and then it will pass in 2024. Fortunately, that view has faded. We need something much better than the failed Measure A, and it is not obvious that more transportation sales tax is the right solution. So, What’s next?

One of the groups working on that question is the Mayor’s Environmental Advocacy Roundtable (the mayor being Mayor Darrell Steinberg). A premise of the group is that there might be a role for the city in defining how to fund transportation, and perhaps creating a sales tax or other measure focused on the city. This group has met four times. I was able to attend the last meeting on March 22, and have a brief report. Please keep in mind that these are my notes about what I found interesting, not minutes of the meeting. First, two documents were available, shared here, the agenda, and the overview. Jennifer Donlon Wyant gave a presentation on the city’s transportation planning and funding, which I do not have available. The remainder of the meeting was discussion. So, my notes:

SacCity intersections of local streets

2023/03/252023/04/07 Dan Allison7 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.

When two local streets intersect, the priority should be for people walking. I’ve created a diagram of what such an intersection might look like, and measure. Notice that the travelway, the area used by moving motor vehicles, is much narrower than is true on most existing streets. This is intentional. Drivers are slowed by their perception that there is a limited space to pass other motor vehicles, or bicyclists for that matter, and limited shy distance from parked cars. Not only does this make the street safer, it also makes it more pleasant for everyone. Drivers traveling any distance will leave these streets in favor of wider/faster streets. Bicyclists can mix with other traffic due to the slow speeds, and do not need a dedicated area. Design and posted speed (if posting is even needed) would be a maximum of 20 mph, and might be less.

Parking is present and welcome, both because it is probably needed, and because it slows motor vehicle traffic. Every corner has a curb extension to shorten the crossing distance for people walking, to increase visibility between walkers and drivers, and to further calm traffic.

Sidewalks of at least six feet, and sidewalk buffers of at least eight feet are included.

Most significantly, sidewalks are raised and extended, with concrete, across the intersection. This enforces the perception that this is a place for walkers, where drivers and motor vehicles are guests. And it is a place where kids could play in the street, as used to be the right of every kid before we let cars dominate our streets. There is still significant pavement for motor vehicles (and bicyclists), but it no longer dominates the neighborhood.

I will address what kinds of streets these are in the future, but what I envision for now is a street with about 80% or more residential, multi-family and single-family. Small businesses on single parcels would be allowed, particularly on corners, but there would be no large commercial or retail, and there would be no surface parking lots.

diagram of intersection of two local streets

sidewalk buffer widths

2023/03/25 Dan Allison2 Comments

One of the elements of street design is the width of sidewalk buffers, and how these are presented in design standards. The sidewalk buffer is the area between the curb and the sidewalk. The city calls sidewalk buffers ‘planting strips’, and this is often how they are used, but it is not the only use, and in more urban areas, there are often multiple uses of the sidewalk buffer.

I did a sampling of sidewalk buffer widths in the central city, and a few other parts of Sacramento. I am not claiming any insight into the overall pattern. The city does not have a publicly available database or GIS layer of sidewalk locations and widths, let alone locations and widths of the buffers. I have heard rumors that they are developing one, but I have been hearing that rumor for the last ten years, so I’ve become doubtful.

Typical buffer widths in the central city range from six feet to nine feet, with seven feet being the most common. With huge mature trees, the narrower buffers are too narrow of the trees, and the sidewalks have had to be modified. The photo below shows an example, and these situations are everywhere.

sidewalk narrowed for tree roots, Q St near 14th St

has SacCity forgotten about climate?

2023/03/25 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I reviewed the Sacramento City Council agendas for this calendar year, 12 meetings, looking for the word climate. One mention in three months, seeking authorization to submit a Climate Adaptation Planning Grant Program application. That’s it. Has there been a report on the Mayor Climate Change Commission (2020) recommendations and implementation strategies? No. Has there there been an update on the city’s declaration of a climate emergency (2019)? No. Has there been an update on the Preliminary Draft Climate Action Plan, and progress towards a final? No. Has there been an update on Climate Change Adaptation? No.

There have been quarterly climate reports (scroll down to Climate Workplan) to the council from the Office of Climate Action and Sustainability, which are provided to council, but without looking at each council meeting video, I don’t know whether these generated any significant council discussion, or any requests for followup action or information.

The city has said we are in a climate emergency. But it doesn’t seem to be acting like it. I realize that housing and homelessness are very high priorities, and should be, but ignoring climate can’t end well. Particularly since climate and transportation and housing are so closely linked.

how to classify streets?

2023/03/23 Dan Allison7 Comments

Obviously there are different kinds of streets that serve different purposes. One of the simplest is street-stroad-road, the Strong Town concept that there should be only streets and roads, and the combination is a failure which they have labeled stroads. But a two-category classification is probably too simple.

The existing City of Sacramento Street Design Standards (2009) offers the table below.

City of Sacramento street design classification

Both of these classification systems were developed for and reflect motor vehicle throughput. The more vehicles and the more speed, the higher the classification. This is the wrong way to go about designing roadways. It assumes that the primary purpose of roadways is to move motor vehicles. We know that is not true, or at least shouldn’t be true.

Portland (PBOT) uses a street classification system with eleven street designs, which are supplemented by five pedestrian classifications, four bicycle classifications, six transit classifications, and nine freight classifications. Yow! An advantage of the Portland system is that it includes details about each category, including land use, lanes, width, function, curb zone, separation, design elements, design treatment, and utilities. The Pedestrian Design Guide, simplifies down to eight classifications, shown below (pdf).

First, I believe that it is critically important that the city drop use of functional classification from its updated street design standards. Not only does the public not understand this classification system, it leads to roadways dominated by motor vehicles. That is not what we want in the city.

I don’t yet know what street classification system might work well for Sacramento, but I am certainly thinking about it, and researching for it. Probably not more than five classifications, for simplicity of understanding by the public, and so that the number of different designs are limited.

I have written about a three-classification system based on speed. That is a useful concept, and easy to understand, but it does not illuminate the surrounding land use nor the feeling and livability of the street. So rather than being a classification, speed limits (design and posted) should be set for each street classification, after the classification description is developed.

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)