beware the leaves of December

2023/12/06 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

It is fall in Sacramento, trees are turning, leaves are falling. It is my favorite time of year, in part due to the knowledge that it will be over soon, only memories and photos. While out walking the last two days, I have been watching little breezes create leaf-fall, more fascinating to watch than snowfall. The four ginkgo trees back of my apartment are at their peak of brilliant yellow color, and the ground is carpeted in yellow. Blocks with a variety of trees are a kaleidoscope of colors.

This morning landscape workers were out blowing leaves into piles, but they were falling faster than they were moved. As I write, it is raining lightly, which will accelerate the leaf fall.

photo of ginkgo tree and leaves next to bikeway on P St — ginkgo tree and leaves next to bikeway on P St

What is not to like? Well, what happens over the next few days. The wet leaves will start to rot, which is a natural process. But any leaf area where cars are allowed to drive will grind the leaves into fine particles, and those particles with turn into what I call leaf slime. Leaf slime is incredibly slippery, and it is a clear and present danger to bicyclists (and walkers). The Class 4 separated bikeways probably won’t be too bad, since bicycles don’t grind up the leaves, and the city may even get around to sweeping the bikeways. But the regular Class 2 bike lanes will be horrible. Cars will drive over the leaves, and start the process. The city very rarely sweeps bike lanes. They may be partially cleared if residents have illegally piled leaves in the bike lane, and the claw picks up the leaf piles, but the very act of scraping up the piles leaves a thin leaf slime layer.

So, it is time of year to avoid bike lanes, until there is either maintenance or enough rain to wash away the leaf slime. Ride in the general purpose lane. Yes, you will get yelled at by asshole drivers whose car isolates them from the realities of roadways, but at least you won’t be slipping and falling on the leaf slime. Beware the leaves of December.

Central City Mobility update: I Street

2023/09/27 Dan Allison1 Comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #26.

Work is occurring on I Street this week. The street has been marked from 21st Street to 12th Street, and some of the white striping has been completed. No green paint yet. This section is all right side of the street bikeways.

The design is rather erratic:

21st Street to 20th Street, parking protected separated bikeway
20th Street to 19th Street midblock, bike lane
19th Street midblock to 16th Street, buffered bike lane
16th Street to 13th Street, buffered bike lane
13th Street to 12th Street, parking protected separated bikeway

At the intersection of 21st Street and I Street, there are markings for dashed green bike lanes on the west, south, and east legs, adjacent to the crosswalks (not yet painted). No sign of the promised bike signal yet. The markings imply to me that bicyclists continuing north on 21st Street will have to make a two-stage crossing, first across 21st Street, and then across I Street. This is not what was advertised, which was that bicyclists would have an exclusive signal phase during which they could go to any of the three destinations without any moving motor vehicle traffic. To to seen.

photo 21st St & I St intersection bike lane markings — 21st St & I St intersection bike lane markings

At 20th Street, the street becomes three motor vehicle lanes (general purpose travel lanes) and a curb-side regular bike lane. I’m guessing this is to provide stacking area for motor vehicles when trains are crossing. Makes some sense, but it also makes the bikeway erratic, and will encourage poor behavior as drivers speed into the third lane, and then have to merge back into two lanes.

photo I St at 20th St, unprotected bike lane and three motor vehicle lanes — I St at 20th St, unprotected bike lane and three motor vehicle lanes

At 16th Street, the street design is two motor vehicle lanes and a buffered bike lane. The reason for this is that the Memorial Auditorium loading dock extends into the street, which was an earlier design mistake that the city made to choose auditorium convenience over people walking (Sac permanently closes sidewalk).

photo I St at 16th St, two vehicle lanes and buffered bike lane — I St at 16th St, two vehicle lanes and buffered bike lane

12th Street is the end of the project, and I Street is again a three-lane traffic sewer towards the freeway. At 6th Street it becomes a five-lane traffic sewer.

Since work is actively going on today, I would guess that the white paint will be complete by the end of this week, and green paint added next week. There is still a national shortage of the green K-71 vertical delineators, so I would guess that only a few will be placed in the near future. There are a few places with gaps in the white stripes, which will be a designated color for parking or loading.

SacCity street design for bicycles and shared mobility

2023/03/31 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

pinching bike lanes

2021/08/04 Dan Allison1 Comment

Another classic mistake by the City of Sacramento. Re-striping was just done on several blocks of N Street. Eastbound on N Street 22nd Street, this is what it looks like.

Take a close look. Extend the dashed line forward, and you’ll see the taper, from a regular bike lane adjacent to a parking lane, to just a bike lane. Look even closer. See where the no parking sign is? A vehicle can park that close to the intersection, completely blocking the bike lane, and in fact blocking part of the general purpose lane. Yesterday, when I rode by, but neglected to take a photo, there was a large pedestrian-killer pickup truck parked right up to the no parking sign, and it was actually covering up three of the dash marks. Riding a bicycle in the bike lane and expecting it to continue? In Sacramento, that is not a reasonable expectation.

I would hope that the striping crew, whether city or contractor (not sure which this was) would notice the problem and stop painting until this was clarified. But it is not really the responsibility of the stripers. This design was signed off on by a ‘professional’ engineer employed by the city. This is the quality of people the city employs.

Westbound on N Street, it is not as bad since the no parking sign is further from the intersection. See below.

It is still a poor design, but nowhere near as dangerous.

As I’ve said before (traffic calming in the central city), these median islands, when placed in this way, as a widening of the center line only at intersections, are a hazard to bicyclists, though they do provide some safety for pedestrians. The best traffic calming measure, and the one that should be used by the city, is traffic diverters.

unacceptable accommodation

2019/01/042021/03/20 Dan Allison1 Comment

Sacramento City continues its practice of approving construction projects that do not consider the needs of walkers and bicyclists. Here is the latest I ran across, on Folsom Blvd between Santa Ynez Way and 39th St. The construction on the south side appears to be installing cable or fiber. At the west end, there is a sudden ‘sidewalk closed’ sign. There is no prior warning, there is no ramp or marked crosswalk for crossing Folsom to the north side (it requires crossing an offset intersection diagonally to go from one ramp to another, an exceptionally long distance), and there is no indication about how long the detour is.

At the other end, there is the same sort of signing without any prior warning or information provided.

At this location, 39th St, there is a marked crosswalk with traffic signal which could allow people to cross Folsom, but just to make sure the message that pedestrians are unwelcome here is clearly received, a construction truck was parked across the crosswalk. When I asked the construction crew to move the truck, they refused. I reported it to parking enforcement but am not sure of the outcome.

Of course there is a bicycle lane along this section of Folsom Blvd, which is also blocked by the construction. That may be justifiable, but you would think that forcing bicyclists to share the general purpose traffic lane would justify a reduction of the speed limit from 35 mph to 25 mph, but no, that that would inconvenience drivers and in the city, that is not to be considered.

This kind of bias against walkers and bicyclists should be unacceptable in the city. And it would be if the staff of Construction Services were not biased against walkers and bicyclists. Time to replace that staff with people who care about all modes of travel.

city failure on Capitol Mall bike lane

2016/08/192023/04/07 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Sacramento has nearly completed a reconstructed bridge over I-5 between 3rd Street and Tower Bridge. This is part of a project to provide access from and to Old Sacramento, but that part is not complete yet. The pavement is fresh, with bright white lines and green carpet bike lanes. But, the bike lane design is a failure. The eastbound bike lane is OK. A little strange because it varies in width, but acceptable. The westbound bike lane, though, is a hazard to bicyclists.

Below is a photo of the first problem, a bike lane to the right of a place where a right turn is permitted. This is at the entrance to the Old Sacramento access.The straight-and-right arrow indicates that the city expects heavy right turning traffic at this location.

While this design is in compliance with the law, using a dashed line to indicate that traffic from the general purpose lane and the bike lane should safely merge, the use of green paint here is the wrong message. Though green paint has no legal meaning, the general meaning taken is that this is the place for bicycles. So an average bicyclist will stay in the bike lane, not realizing that the safe manesuver is to merge into the general purpose lane. The result is a right hook danger that has been created by the design.

Stay to the right of right turning cars? NO!

There are a lot of ways to solve this issue, but this is the worst possible solution. Creating a separate signal phase for bicyclists and right turning traffic is one solution. Dropping the bike lane in favor of green-back sharrows in the general purpose lane is another.

However, this problem spot is minor in comparison to what happens just on the other side of the intersection. Here, the bike lane suddenly ends and becomes a right turn only lane. There is no signing for bicyclists or motor vehicle drivers, no pavement markings, no indication of what biyclists should do. I’m a vehicular bicyclist and would not be in this bike lane fragment to begin with, but for the average bicyclist, this green paint is a clear message, “this is where you belong.” Whoops. Sorry. Turns out we needed the road for a right turn lane, and just got rid of the bike lane. Hope you are still alive, but if not, well it wasn’t our fault. But the thing is, it is the city’s fault. This is a mis-design, and the city should be sued the first time someone is injured at this location. It is not as though this was an existing location where the city did the best if could to squeeze in bike facilities. This is a new construction where things should have been done right. They were not.

There are several good solutions for this location, and the NACTO Guide to Urban Bicycling has several, but even the standard MUTCD design is better than this. Though you can’t see the turn lane due to the parked FedEx van (it was there for more than 10 minutes, double-parked, and I couldn’t wait any longer for the photo), there are no bike markings in the right turn lane at all. There is no “bicyclists may use full lane” sign. Maybe bicyclists are meant to fly over this right turn lane and return to earth at the bridge. Or maybe they are meant to die.

As I always warn people in bicyclist education classes, don’t get sucked in by paint. Paint doesn’t keep you safe. And in this particular case, paint creates a danger for you that would not exist if not for the paint. Negligent design, for sure.

Trashing the bike lanes

2016/03/112016/12/13 Dan Allison2 Comments

Trash cans in bike lanes are epidemic, and are a public danger hazard to bicyclists. Placing a trash can, or anything else, in a bike lane is a violation of California Vehicle Code (CVC):

21211 (b) No person may place or park any bicycle, vehicle, or any other object upon any bikeway or bicycle path or trail, as specified in subdivision (a), which impedes or blocks the normal and reasonable movement of any bicyclist unless the placement or parking is necessary for safe operation or is otherwise in compliance with the law.

Some people misunderstand where to place their trash cans, but most people know and don’t care – I’ve had extensive conversations with many such people – they don’t think that my right to the bike lane supersedes their right to put their trash can wherever they damned well please. The photo at right is on Tupelo Drive in Citrus Heights, trash cans placed directly in a marked bike lane. Notice that it would have been easy to place them in the parking “lane” instead, but the residents chose not to. This is not just a Citrus Heights problem, this photo could as well be any street anywhere in the region.

More Sac county nonsense

2015/05/05 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking (CA-MUTCD Figure 9C-7, shown at right) is placed to show a bicyclist where to stop so that they can trigger a traffic signal. When installed properly, they prevent the all-too-common scenario where bicyclists cannot trigger signals and must either cross against the red light when a safe gap is available, or wait until a motor vehicle arrives. They are also a clear signal to motorists that there is a reason why the bicyclist is positioned where they are. Of course “bicycles may use full lane” is true approaching any intersection where right turns are permitted, however, most motorists do not know or remember this law unless there is a sign there to remind them. The sharrow serves a similar purpose. However, these markings are often not installed in properly.

Mission southbound at Marconi, bike detector placement

Here is another fresh Sacramento County mistake, where the marking was not placed properly. On Mission Ave southbound, approaching Marconi Ave, there is a Bicycle Detector Pavement Marking in the bike lane, but not in the regular through/right turn lane. This marking is on new pavement placed in a complete streets project along Marconi from Mission westward to Fulton, and was installed within the last two years. If a bicyclist is to trigger the signal, they have to stay in the right hand edge bicycle lane, where they are at risk of getting right hooked. If they adopt a merge position between the two lanes, where they should be in order to make clear to motor vehicle drivers to either get in front or fall in behind, not beside, then the signal won’t trigger.

The solution is to place a marker in the regular lane, and adjust loop sensitivity if necessary, so that the bicyclist can choose which lane position to use.

Sac County just doesn’t get it

2015/04/30 Dan Allison2 Comments

The photo below shows Garfield Ave southbound approaching Marconi Ave, in the Carmichael community of Sacramento County. This roadway was repaved within the last year, and this is the bicycle facility that was painted by the county. The bike lane veers to the right and then ends, running into the dedicated right hand turn lane, and another bike lane continues to the left of the right hand turn lane. These pavement marking clearly give priority to motor vehicles making a right hand turn, and ask bicyclists to yield to those vehicles, as second-class users of the roadways.

And this is what it could look like.Read More »

update on I Street

2015/02/102024/01/21 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

"bicycles must turn right" sign, I Street between 6th and 5th — “bicycles must turn right” sign, I Street between 6th and 5th

I wrote previously about the The I Street Mess. A small change has taken place here, with a new sign that says “Bicycles Must Turn Right” on the bike lane midway between 6th and 5th. Basically, this is a warning to bicyclists who missed the “Thru Bikes Merge Left” sign at the beginning of the block that they are truly screwed. By this point, bicyclist will have a very hard time merging across four lanes of high speed traffic to reach the left side bike lane that takes one to Old Sacramento or 3rd Street. At a minimum, the warnings need to occur earlier, in the block between 7th and 6th. Better yet would be slowing the traffic on I Street so that a bicyclist could actually maneuver through the traffic lanes. Best would be an alternate route for bicyclists who don’t wish to ride vehicularly, that avoids the I Street Mess completely.

Getting Around Sacramento

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

Tag: bike lane