The MUTCD (Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices) is a bit confused (and a lot lacking) when it comes to signs for temporary traffic control devices. Orange is supposed to be the color for temporary traffic control devices, yet the manual uses regulatory (white) signs for sidewalks in construction zones. A white sign indicates permanence, an orange sign indicates temporary. That subtlety seems beyond the comprehension of the people who write the MUTCD, but I’m here to help them. Below are the pairs of signs for sidewalk closure in construction zones. On the left is the existing MUTCD sign, on the right is the sign as it should be.
R9-9 regulatory version
R9-9 TTC version
R9-11a regulatory version
R9-11a TTC version
R9-11 regulatory version
R9-11 TTC version
There might be situations in which the permanent, white regulatory sign might be appropriate, though the number of such situations is and should be rare. Sidewalks should be continuous, not broken, not closed.
Note that I did not include the R9-10 sign with arrows pointing both ways, since I can’t think of a context in which that would be the appropriate sign. Unless someone can, it should be removed from the MUTCD.
I have also suggested that all TTC signs be given a unique code, not M, not R, not W, but perhaps T.
Though in most cases the construction zone signing and barriers improve after they are reported (first time, second time, third time…), sometimes they get worse. I had reported to the Sac311 system that there was no advance warning of the sidewalk closed ahead on the south side of J Street, westbound, at 7th Street. This the left hand photo below.
The ‘correction’ was to place an incorrect sign at the location, which is more confusing than the lack of a sign. I observed and listened for a while to people looking at this location. Every single one commented on the confusion. Does the detour sign point to a detour, or does it mean to cross the street? There were discussions and even arguments within couples and groups. The sign is the wrong sign, and it is placed in a very confusing manner, angled toward the sidewalk rather than perpendicular to it. The clear indication is to continue along the sidewalk if one wants to go west on J Street, but this is incorrect, as the sidewalk is closed a short distance away. This is the right hand photo.
7th St & J St sw, no advance signing
7th St & J St sw, wrong advance signing
The correct sign of course is this one, MUTCD R9-11 right, placed perpendicular to the path of travel along J Street. It could be argued that the sign should be orange rather than red, indicating a temporary traffic control (TTC) device, but at this time the MUTCD does not offer this sign in this color.
The future development, possibly to be called Anthem Cathedral Square, at J Street & 11th Street is currently a hole in the ground. The old buildings have been razed, and debris hauled away, but new construction has not started, so it will be some while before J Street on the north side of the site (south side of the street) returns to normal.
A channelized bypass should be created to carry the sidewalk for walkers and the bike lane for bicyclists past this construction site, between 10th St and 11th St, by removing a general purpose travel lane from J Street. The aerial below (before removal of the buildings) shows a sidewalk, a parking lane, a bicycle lane, three general purpose travel lanes, and a parking lane. The channelized bypass would include a shared pathway for walkers and bicyclists, in place of the right hand general purpose lane. The bypass can be created with use of orange construction barrier, as was done on 9th Street. This bypass would remain in place until construction is complete.
While the razing and cleanup was going on, there was decent signing, but it has disappeared or been moved to the side. The first set is the former signage at J St & 1oth St, and then today without an signage. There should be a sign here, the MUTCD R9-11; a barrier is not appropriate at this location since the closure is ahead and there are businesses open.
J St at 10th St se, signage
J St at 10th St se, no signage
At the sidewalk closure point, there is an acceptable barrier but no signage. At this point, it looks like there could be a bypass, but it is fenced off. The appropriate sign here is MUTCD R9-9.
J St past 10th St, sidewalk barrier
At J St & 11th St southeast corner, there was a barrier and signage, but the barrier has been moved to the side and the signage is gone. There should be a barrier and sign here to indicate that the crosswalk is closed. The third photo is an example of a correct barrier and signage.
11th St at J St se, signage
11th St at J St se, no signage
correct barrier and signage
At J St & 11th St northwest corner, there should be a barrier and signing to indicate the crosswalk is closed, but neither is present.
J St & 11th St nw, no barrier or signage
This construction zone failure is one among many in Sacramento. The city is not creating traffic control plans that accommodate walkers and bicyclists, and the construction companies are not appropriately placing signs and barriers. This is a violation of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Responsibility for encroachment permits (when the construction project goes into the public right of way, which includes sidewalks), and traffic control plans to mitigate the situation, rests with the City of Sacramento Department of Public Works.
I have created a new category, construction zone, which will make is easier to find other posts on the construction zone topic. Photos of many construction zone locations are on Flicker in Sac construction-zone album.
I have finally gotten to reviewing the Stockton Blvd Corridor Plan, following my post noticing the draft plan: Stockton Blvd draft available.
Overall, the plan is great, and when someday implemented, will result in a much safer and livable Stockton Blvd. The plan addresses major concerns raised by the community, including safer and more frequent crossings, better lighting, more trees, more effective transit service, and others. However…
The plan is still too oriented to the throughput of motor vehicle traffic. Better, but not as good as it could be. Maintaining the five lane configuration for significant parts of the corridor is unnecessary.
The plan does not even mention speed limits. When any street is reconfigured/reallocated, it removes any obligation to the unsafe and outmoded 85% rule, so the city should have considered speed limit changes for the corridor.
The plan recommends two-way cycle tracks in some locations. These are great for traveling along, but the problem comes in transitioning into and out of them at the beginning and end. Unless very clear guidance and priority is provided, these transitions can be very unsafe, particularly for less experienced bicyclists. In most cases, a bicycle signal head with exclusive bicyclist phase is required at beginning and end.
The plan acknowledges the challenging intersection of Stockton Blvd/34th Street/R Street as a “unique challenge” (page 13), but doesn’t even suggest solutions. I believe that the only way to make this intersection safe is to either restrict R Street or 34th Street, or to construct a flyover for light rail, similar to that for 19th Street, Watt Ave, and Sunrise Blvd. Yes, the expense of any of these might be beyond the scope of this plan, but eliminating this issue from the plan makes it difficult to compare the relative cost and benefit of other solutions.
On page 36, a diagram shows a bike lane eastbound on T Street to the right of a dedicated right hand turn lane. Bike lanes should never be to the right of dedicated turn lanes unless there is a bicycle signal head to create an exclusive bicyclist phase, which the plan does not propose. This must be fixed.
Shared bus and bike lanes will be a new concept for the city, and region. I support the implementation of these, and have used them in several other cities where transit frequency is not high. But they should be considered a pilot. If they don’t work out for bicyclists, and bus drivers, in this region, how do we fix it?
The flared intersection at Stockton Blvd and Fruitridge Road is preserved in the plan, but this is completely inappropriate. Flared intersections are always more dangerous for people crossing the street. The roadway width at the intersection, shown on page 41, is 90 feet. Crossings of this length cannot be safe, no matter what the length of the pedestrian cycle, without a pedestrian refuge median (with push buttons unless the pedestrian crossing is already on auto-recall). Double left hand turn lanes are dangerous for drivers and everyone else, as driver attention is focused on the vehicle beside, and not the roadway ahead, so these should be reduced to single left turn lanes. The right hand turns lanes should probably be eliminated, unless a traffic study shows conclusively that traffic would not clear during a signal cycle without them. The upshot is that this intersection should be completely reconfigured, not just tinkered with.
The plan does not indicate which intersection signals and signalized pedestrian crossings will be on auto-recall, or not. There is probably no justification for pedestrians activation buttons at any location on the corridor (pedestrian crossings should have auto-detection), but if there is, these should be called out clearly in the plan.
The plan shows most intersections as having skipped (dotted) green bike lanes striped through the intersection, but a few do not. They should be used everywhere. For the protected legs of partially protected intersections, the striping should be continuous rather than skipped (dotted). MUTCD frowns on this, but it has been installed many places with positive safety outcomes.
Added item: No right turn on red prohibitions should never be used without leading pedestrian intervals (LPI). Otherwise, drivers turning will immediately come into conflict with walkers in the crosswalk. I don’t think this is being proposed in this plan, but just want to make sure.
The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will consider the plan this evening (2021-03-18). I apologize for not posting this in time for you to consider my suggestions, and relay them to the commission, if you agree.
Stockton Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection
Added info: There was a discussion about the prioritization of different travel modes during the SacATC meeting this evening. It reminded me of one of my favorite graphics about transportation modes, from Chicago Department of Transportation. I think this is the right answer for Stockton Blvd, and for nearly every other roadway.
I find it interesting when something I’ve been thinking about but not written about suddenly shows up in Twitter and news media. Specifically, vacant buildings. Not talking about buildings that have been vacated during the pandemic, which may or may not see future use, but buildings that were vacant pre-pandemic, oftentime for years. The Sacramento central city has a lot of vacant buildings, most of them commercial spaces such as offices and warehouses, but some housing and retail as well.
I don’t have a solution for unused/underused/vacant buildings. Certainly the city should do everything it can to encourage adaptive reuse of functional buildings, or replacement when the building is no longer functional or can’t be repurposed for any use that is economically viable. But I’m also mostly a libertarian about property use, believing that people should do what they want with their property (while still not believing in the whole concept of private property). So I don’t think the city should force any particular development or use on a property owner, but sending economic signals that letting a building sit vacant is not in the best interest of the city, that is a valid function of a city.
Vacancy taxes or fees are one of the actions that has been proposed in other cities, particularly cities in Europe. I have mixed feelings. These might turn a project that is barely viable for a property owner into a decision to sell the land to a bigger developer who might be even less likely to move forward with productive use. So if there were to be a vacancy tax in Sacramento, I’d want an exclusion for any property that is owned by an individual rather than a corporation, or properties that are only a single traditional parcel (that has not been aggregated into a large parcel). That might actually encourage corporations to shed their small properties back to the market, so they could be picked up by smaller infill developers. More about small versus large developers, and preservation of traditional parcels, in a future posts.
Not knowing much specifically about this development proposal, I tend to think that the developer is providing too much parking, which will be underutilized, and which will promote vehicle ownership and use. But… I don’t think the city should prohibit that. It should, however, send a message that unproductive uses such as unneeded parking will have a cost, some sort of tax or fee on land used as parking. Or requiring that parking be unbundled from rent. Or requiring that the parking be available to the public through metering. Some policy that sends a message that excess parking is a societal harm rather than something to be promoted.
I will pause for a moment my mission to publicize and formulate ideas that make for a more livable place, more walkable, more bikeable, with effective transit, a diverse range of people, and jobs close to home.
The city, and the streets, are not safe for many people, not just because of traffic violence, but because of all types of violence. The last two years have seen a rising awareness that Blacks are not safe in public space, subject to oppression by law enforcement and violence in the places they live, and on the streets they use. What was once the problem of ‘driving while Black’ is now obviously the problem of ‘walking while Black’, ‘bicycling while Black’, and ‘existing while Black’. The same is true, to perhaps a slightly lesser degree, for Latinx. Hatred of trans people is growing, and they are unusually subject to violence. And now it is becoming clear that it is also not safe for Asian American Pacific Islanders (AAPI).
The incident in Georgia was probably a racial hate crime, but whether it was or not, it was a crime against those who died, and against society. Misogyny is also a hate crime. White supremacy is also a hate crime.
We have become a society where many people encourage the arming of everyone including mentally unstable individuals (usually white males, but not always), and they then try to absolve them when they act out. The former president encouraged hatred of ‘others’, meaning anyone not a white male, but focusing on people of color. The Republican party has long been the defender of the idea that the 2nd Amendment and the ‘right to bear arms’ is more important than all other amendments, and the rest of the constitution, and life itself. If people are not safe from gun violence, particularly white supremacy-fueled gun violence (by individuals and under the color of law), then all other freedoms are moot. The former president has blood on his hands on this one, and so do all his supporters, and so do all of the people who have opposed restrictions on gun ownership. Gun ownership in urban places is a pox on our humanity.
I will continue to be a voice for livable places. I appreciate every day the work of people to make those place safe and welcoming for everyone. I often think that I should join those voices in a more active way, but I also see that there are now many such voices, but still only a few voices for more livable places, and I feel like I need to continue to be one of those voices. We must adapt places and build places where the transportation network supports affordable housing for everyone, and affordable housing supports an effective and equitable transportation network. That is my mission. But I know that my work is for naught if people are not safe in those places.
This is the second of the four quadrants of Sacramento central city, bounded by Capitol Ave on the north, Broadway on the south, 16th Street on the west, and Alhambra Blvd on the east.
Please see my previous post, more housing, less parking, for background information, and the southwest quadrant.
The graphic is below, but more useful will be the ArcGIS Online WebApp Sacramento parking & empty. Red is surface parking, orange is empty parcels.
The slideshow below shows many of the surface parking lots in this quadrant of the central city. It may include photos of parcels that contain a building but also have excess parking.
The next slideshow shows many of the empty lots in this quadrant of the central city.
It turns out that compiling the data, including parcels and photos, it quite time consuming, so the other two quadrants of the central city will be a while in coming, but I’ll be adding several posts about what I’ve learned, and the opportunities.
AB 550, by Assemblyman David Chui, would allow the use of Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE, or speed cameras) in certain circumstances. I can’t point you to the language for specifics, since the legislative website has not been updated yet. You might call this a gut and amend bill, but since the original subject was ‘pedestrian safety’ it is really more of an amend.
The bill would establish a pilot program, which local transportation agencies could participate in. It would not start until July 2022, more than a year from now, in order for CalSTA (California State Transportation Agency) to develop an implementation plan. The program would rest with Caltrans and local transportation agencies, not with law enforcement agencies, which is a critical distinction to reduce the use of discriminatory pretext stops by law enforcement.
This legislation for ASE is a key component of the Vision Zero movement: “Managing speed to safe levels.”
It has long been my theory that most fatal crashes, whether the victim is a driver, passenger, walker or bicyclist, are caused by egregious speeders, drivers who travel more than 10 mph over the speed limit, the sort of people that CHP occasionally catches going 120 mph on the freeway, and is the same person driving 50 mph on a residential street. If that person is getting repeated automated speeding tickets, then they (he) can be targeted for more serious consequences like loss of freedom and loss of vehicle. Of course loss of vehicle probably requires other law changes, but this bill is at least a start.
When the bill language is available and hearing scheduled, I’ll post again. Keep an eye out here, or Streetsblog, or Twitter.
Things have changed again. The construction zone on the east side of 9th Street between K Street and L Street has changed again. The east parking lane and east travel lane are now dedicated to the construction project, the general purpose lane has been shifted right into the west parking lane, and the combined pedestrian/bicyclist bypass is now in what was the right hand general purpose lane.
One the plus side, detectable strips have been added to the left side of the bypass, which are required to provide protection from trip and crash hazards presented by the fence bases. Photo below.
detectable strips along bypass on 9th St
The entrance to the bypass is still awkward, too narrow and poorly signed. There are still corrections to be made.
While walking in the central city today, I saw this brand new curb ramp on the southwest corner of X Street and 24th Street.
new curb ramp, southwest corner of X Street & 24th Street
Why, why, why, did the city put in a diagonal curb ramp when they should have put in a two perpendicular ramps? Though I’ve searched in vain through city documents looking to see what the criteria is for a single ramp per corner versus two ramps per corner, I have heard it said by city staff that the single ramps are for residential neighborhoods and the two ramps are for urban neighborhoods. This is definitely an urban neighborhood setting, with both 24th Street and X Street being arterials. Yet the city put in a single ramp. They call this a ‘single flare curb ramp’. What should have been installed here is a ‘standard curb ramp’. The city diagrams do not show exactly this situation, where there is a sidewalk buffer (planter strip) on X Street, with an attached sidewalk on 24th Street, but the diagram below is the closest to the situation.
If the city development code does not specify that single, diagonal ramps should be used only in purely residential situations (if even there), it should be modified to be so.
2021-03-12: Adding a photo that better shows the context for this diagonal ramp. This is the southwest corner, X Street to the right and 24th Street to the left. There is space for perpendicular ramps. Of course this would have been a great location for a curb extension (bulb out) on both 24th Street and X Street, but yes, that would be significantly more expensive and might involve drainage issues.
curb ramp at southwest corner of 24th St & X St
2021-03-17: Adding a photo of a new curb ramp in the same area of town, at 22nd Street and W Street, showing the correct perpendicular curb ramps. It isn’t that the city doesn’t know how to do it right, it is that they chose not to at the intersection of X Street and 24th Street.
perpendicular curb ramps at 22nd Street & W Street
Getting Around Sacramento 