SacCity curb extensions + daylighting, or not

2026/08/192026/08/19 Dan Allison2 Comments

The City of Sacramento has been installing temporary curb extensions, with vertical delineators mounted on bases, at intersections. The extension is ‘temporary’ in the sense that it is not a concrete or hardened extension, though in most cases they will not be replaced with ‘permanent’ due to the expense of permanent installations. These curb extensions slow turning drivers, and reduce the crossing distance for people walking, or rolling. These are an effective countermeasure that increases safety, and I am very happy to see them being installed. In the photo below, on the northeast corner of S Street and 27th Street, the crosswalks have also been freshly painted in a high visibility pattern. The marked crosswalk over 27th Street may be new, and seems to be a new pattern for the city to use.

This particular installation also serves as daylighting, by preventing parking in the daylighting area approaching the intersection. I did not measure it, so am not sure if it meets the legal 20 foot requirement, but it does serve the purpose of increasing visibility by precluding parking. However, many of the installations do not set off the daylighting area, for example the northwest corner in the photo. I do not know why the city has decided in some cases to include daylighting in the curb extensions, and in other cases, not.

Though it would increase the materials cost of installations, requiring more delineators, all curb extension installations should also include daylighting, unless the location already has red curbs and/or signing for daylighting. AB 413 (2023), the daylighting law, does not require red curbs, signing, or delineators, however, the city’s intent is to ticket only where there is an indication for drivers of the law.

It appears that these vertical delineators are Pexco FG 300 Turnpike Grade Curb System. The bases discourage but don’t prevent motor vehicle drivers from running over the delineators ‘just for fun’, and provide more visibility than simple vertical delineators. I have so far not seen any curb extension locations where the delineators have been damaged by drivers. Delineators on the bikeway turn wedges have definitely been damaged by motor vehicle drivers.

I wonder if the lane channelizing vertical delineators on 15th Street and 16th Street should be replaced by this type (Hmm. 16th St traffic calming). These installations really do reduce lane changes at the last moment, which endanger walkers using the crosswalks, the ‘multi-lane threat’ that kills people. They are a success story for Sacramento, and should be used in more locations.

photo of temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner — *temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner*

H Street Bikeway: 10th St alternative

2026/02/272026/02/25 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

The 30% design for the 10th Street connection to the H Street Bikeway is shown below (these were also in the overview post H Street Bikeway: overview). The overall width of the roadway is 105.5 feet, and the ‘FOC face of curb’ width is 50 feet. The street narrows to 34 feet at the curb extensions at I Street and H Street.

*H St Bikeway 10th St section, proposed (from SacATC presentation)*

I have created a StreetMix cross-section duplicating the design cross-section so that it can be compared to an alternative recommendation.

*H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, proposed (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)*

The design proposes a 7 foot bike lane northbound, with a 3 foot stripped buffer, and a parking lane to the right against the curb. Despite the cross-section showing a vertical delineator in the buffer, this is not possible with a parking lane to the right of the bike lane. The bike lane continues the separated, mostly parking-protected, bikeway from the south, which is a good thing. But a buffered bike lane is less safe than a separated bike lane, so detracts from the safety and low-stress goals of the project. The design encourages drivers, whether parking or drop-off/pick-up, to cross the bike lane, a poor practice.

Instead, the design should create a parking-protected separated bikeway. This reduces the utility for drop-off/pick-up, but an larger area could be set aside in the parking lane for this purpose, and the conflict zone crossing the bikeway can be clearly marked. Bikeways that swing into the curb past curb extension, and out again past curb extension, feel awkward for bicyclists, but they have been installed in several locations along the separated bikeway network, and don’t seem to engender safety issues.

The design also proposes sharrows within a southbound general purpose lane. You will have to look closely at the image to see the sharrows, but there are there. They are placed far to the right, in the door zone. This is a very poor design. New sharrows should not be installed, as they don’t decrease crash risk over unmarked routes. If they were there, they should be placed in the exact middle of the travel lane, and supplemented by ‘bicycles allowed use of full lane’ signing (MUTCD R9-20). to make is clear that drivers should not be passing bicyclists in this block. It is particularly likely that drivers will squeeze out bicyclists against the curb extension at I Street. An alternative is to stripe a narrow 5 foot bike lane, without buffer or protection, marked with green. Not ideal, but better than sharrows.

The design retains existing parking. Though it is not clear that removing parking would allow a better design, this should always be a consideration. There is ample and never-full parking in the city garage on the south side of I Street between 11th and 10th Streets. The curb extensions at I Street and H Street are critical features for the safety of walkers, but they do constrain design in this block.

My suggested design is below.

H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, alternative design *(StreetMix created by Dan Allison)*

I do not have the time it would take to create an image of the street with the new design, but I think the cross-section will communicate clearly enough.

What is different? A southbound traditional bike lane (Class II) has been added. Both general purpose lanes have been reduced to 10 feet. There is no reason for over-wide lanes in this section. No buses, no delivery. The east side parking lane, an over-generous 9 feet, has been reduced to 7.5 feet. And the parking-protected separated bikeway is up against the curb, still with a 3 foot buffer from parked cars.

Broadway diagonal ramps

2024/02/17 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.

Many of the corner ADA ramps already installed and to be installed as part of the Broadway Complete Streets project are diagonal ramps. Diagonal ramps were a common solution in the past for corners because they save a little bit of money, and sometimes avoid drain inlets that perpendicular ramp would conflict with. Changing drain inlet locations can be expensive. However, diagonal ramps have never been the optimal solution for corners, and since August 2023, they are not permitted under PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), except under rare circumstances. In those rare circumstances, the ramp must be completely contained within the two crosswalks, which often leads to awkward crosswalks.

There are very few diagonal ramps in the Sacramento central city, so it is surprising that they will be so common at the edge of the central city, Broadway, as part of a complete streets project.

Some transportation agencies have been claiming that they don’t need to follow PROWAG since it has not yet been adopted by USDOJ and USDOT, however, that just means that it is not yet legally enforceable on agencies. But the regulation has been promulgated and published and is now the law.

The project engineer for Broadway Complete Streets has claimed that the diagonal ramps are specified because of “design constraints”. I have looked at every corner where a diagonal ramp was placed, and I see nothing that constitutes a constraint. It may be that what the city means is that it didn’t fit in the budget to install perpendicular ramps, but that is not a valid exception in PROWAG. It is worth remembering that the concrete being installed under this project will be in place for at least 30 years, so that means the city is constructing corners and ramps that are already outmoded, and will be far more so in 30 years.

Of the 15 locations that will have new diagonal ramps, and the 2 that apparently will be unchanged, the northwest corner of Broadway and 18th Street will serve as an example. The other three corners here have perpendicular ramps, but for unknown reasons, the northwest has a diagonal ramp.

photo of Broadway & 18th St diagonal ramp — *Broadway & 18th St diagonal ramp*

The diagram below, from NACTO, shows perpendicular ramps. Note also the tight turning radius, which slows turning drivers. Of course the optimal is if these ramps are contained within a curb extension, but even without that, they are a good practice.

diagram of NACTO perpendicular ramps — *NACTO perpendicular ramps*

The next diagram snows perpendicular ramps in the context of curb extensions, and illustrates the huge benefit of curb extensions, which is increased visibility between walkers and roadway users. The curb extension also removes the need to paint the curb red or place a sign, one of which is required now under AB 413 (Lee, 2023). Caltrans includes curb extensions in its Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Toolbox.

diagram of curb extension creating visibility (source unknown) — *curb extension creating visibility (source unknown)*

The table below shows the plan for each corner along the corridor from 3rd Street to 24th Street, with details about ramps and curb extensions. The plan I have does not include any change from the west side of 19th Street to the east side of 21st Street. This section includes the crossing between 19th and 20th by light rail and railroad tracks. It is unknown why this is.

Cross-street	NW	NE	SW	SE	Notes
3rd S	None	None	Diagonal existing	Diagonal new	No crosswalks
3rd N	Diagonal new	Diagonal existing	None	None	No crosswalks
5th	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new
6th	Diagonal new	Perpendicular exist	None	Single	W crosswalk removed
Midblock					New, single with extensions
8th	Diagonal existing	Diagonal new	None	None	No crosswalks
Muir Way	None	None	Diagonal new	Diagonal new	No E crosswalk
9th	Diagonal new	Perpendicular exist	None	None	No crosswalks
10th	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new	Single, extension	Single, extension
Riverside	Diagonal new	Diagonal new	Diagonal new	Diagonal new, extension
13th	Perpendicular exist	Perpendicular new, extension	Single	Single
14th	Perpendicular new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension
15th	Perpendicular new	Diagonal new	Single	None	No E crosswalk
16th/Land Park	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new, extension	Diagonal new	Perpendicular new, extension	W crosswalk unknown
17th	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new, extension	Diagonal new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension	W crosswalk removed
18th	Perpendicular new, extension	Diagonal new	Perpendicular new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension
19th					Unknown
20th					Unknown
21st					Unknown
22nd	Perpendicular new	Perpendicular new, extension	None	Single, extension	W crosswalk removed
23rd	Perpendicular new, extension	Perpendicular new, extension	Single, extension	None	W crosswalk only
24th	No change	No change	No change	No change

table of Broadway Complete Streets corners and curb extensions

Central City Mobility: 19th & O curb extensions

2023/05/172023/06/30 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This is Central City Mobility Project update #7.

More information on the curb extensions (bulb outs) being installed on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 19th Street and O Street, as part of the Central City Mobility Project. I questioned this location for curb extensions because 19th Street with have a parking protected separated bikeways on the left side (southbound) of 19th Street. (Central City Mobility update)

I received a response from the engineering firm for the project:

This is in response to your inquiry as to compatibility of the subject intersection revisions and parking protected bike lane. The design does account for the bulb outs at the intersection. Unfortunately, due to the space restrictions resulting from the bulb outs, it won’t be possible to provide parking protected all the way around the bulb outs. However, we are providing a transition of the bike lane at the intersection. Please take a look at the following striping design for the intersection. North is to the right with 19th Street running left to right. Hopefully this will give you a better feel for the plan:

Any reader of this blog will know that I love curb extensions. What confuses me is why this location would have been selected by the city over many other potential locations. Perhaps some of the reason it that the crossing at O Street has a moderately high walker count, but does not otherwise have a traffic signal or pedestrian signaling such as a RRFB. It is possible that the city thought these four corner curb extensions to be the most practical way of increasing safety for walkers and bicyclists crossing at this point.

The design of bringing the separated bikeway out adjacent to the general purpose travel lane, as a bike lane, is not ideal but not particularly unsafe. In fact some bicyclists prefer this design, because it increases the visibility of bicyclists by motor vehicle drivers, so that they are not ‘hidden’ behind parked cars. Though daylighting of the intersection approach can accomplish the same objective.

I would like to see green skip paint continuing through the intersection in the bike lane. These are often painted as discontinuous green rectangles with sharrows stenciled on top, called green-backed sharrows. The sharrows are out of favor with most bicyclists and some traffic engineers, I think this is a valid use of them. The main purpose of green paint (it has no legal meaning) is to increase driver awareness of bicycle facilities by highlighting conflict points, and this is definitely a conflict point.

A number of related posts are in the category: Central City Mobility Project.

half-measure corners?

2023/04/062023/04/21 Dan Allison4 Comments

Summary: The city should not install curb islands at corners, as it is currently doing, but rather install much safer and more effective true curb extensions, even if fewer can be installed now. Temporary installations can be used at other corners.

The City of Sacramento is currently re-doing a number of intersection corners in midtown. Most of these corners are along 21st Street, so far as I’ve noticed, but some are on other streets, and there well may be other locations I’ve not noticed yet. Last week crews were out saw cutting asphalt at corners, in preparation for new concrete work. The existing corner concrete and ramps have been removed from at least two corners, and at the 21St Street and O Street corner there is form work for whatever is going to replace the old corners.

The first photo is of the saw cuts at P Street & 19th Street. The cuts don’t really stand out, but they do indicate the areas that will be changed.

19th St & P St, SW corner, asphalt cuts for corners changes

It appears from the saw cuts that what is going to be constructed is something similar to the existing northwest and northeast corners. Northwest is shown below. I am not sure what to call these. They are not in the city’s street design standards, and almost the only place where I’ve seen them is Sacramento. I looked at several other cities to see if these were in their street designs, and they were not. So, just to call them something, I’m going to call them ‘curb islands’. The City of Los Angeles calls these floating curb extensions, but apparently their intended use is with bike lanes, not with gutters.

19th St & P St, northwest corner, corner islands

Sac kill those sharrows on I St

2022/09/162022/09/16 Dan Allison2 Comments

Next sharrows location to address is I Street between 10th Street and 9th Street. The bike lane present to the east disappears in this block, with Cesar Chavez Plaza on the south and Old City Hall on the north, before picking up again west of 9th Street. Not having my tape measure out (and I’d have to measure late night when there is no traffic), it isn’t clear why this one block does not have a bike lane. It may be that the curb extension is too wide, or it may be that the general purpose (car) lanes are not configured correctly. If lanes, then it is an easy problem to fix, just re-stripe the lanes and add a bike lane. If the curb extension, then that would require a bit of infrastructure work. I fully support curb extensions, nearly all intersections should have them, but in some places the city has installed them incorrectly and caused issues for bicycle facilities. This is not, as many places are, a case for removing parking, but for designing the street correctly. Of course ultimately there should be no three-lane one-way traffic sewers in the city, and right of way should be reallocated to a separated (protected) bikeway and wider sidewalks.

I St westbound at 10th St, sharrows, Sacramento — I St westbound at 10th St, Sacramento

Caveat: I post about issues in the central city because I live here, and see the problems every time I am out walking or bicycling. However, I strongly believe that the city should be focused on solving issues in lower income, disinvested neighborhoods, of which there are ample throughout the city. The central city has received more than its share of bike facilities.

walking policies for SacCity

2022/02/15 Dan Allison2 Comments

Where two previous posts come together (Reset for SacATC and don’t forget the little things) is suggested policies for the City of Sacramento that support walking for many reasons: to protect vulnerable users from drivers, to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and thereby greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), to create a walking-first city where everyone feels safe to walk, and to support infill housing that is the next most important action to reduce GHGs. I’ll make a brief suggestion for a policy that would implement each walking idea.

These are the policies that the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) should be addressing, and then making recommendations to the city council. I’ll be blunt: if SacATC is not addressing these issues, then why does it exist?

The ideas presented are, not in any priority order (numbers for reference only):

1. Mark crosswalks at every intersection. Except in purely residential neighborhoods, these should be zebra design.
Policy: The city will mark (paint) every crosswalk in the city. The standard will be zebra or continental markings (the solid bars), but parallel lines are acceptable at purely residential intersections. Implementation within one year.
Considerations: Yes, this will be expensive to install and to maintain. But the safety benefit makes this a great investment. Since the DMV fails to ensure that drivers understand that every intersection has crosswalks whether marked or not, it is incumbent on the city to mark crosswalks.

2. Daylight intersections by removing parking from within 15 feet of every crosswalk, at least on the near side (far side is a lesser safety benefit)
Policy: Marked parking spots will be removed from within 20 feet of an intersection on the near side. Unmarked parking will be converted to no parking with red curb offsets of 20 feet. The resulting area may be used for shared rideables parking. Where a curb extension is present, parking need not be removed. Implementation within two years.
Considerations: This increases visibility at every intersection by making walkers more visible to motorists (and bicyclists), and making vehicles more visible to people walking. Near side means the first crosswalk at every intersection in the direction of travel. Removal of parking on the far side confers little safety benefit.

3. Re-program traffic signals to create leading pedestrian intervals, everywhere.
Policy: Every traffic signal with a pedestrian signal head will be programmed to offer a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) of at least three seconds. Implementation within one year.
Considerations: The greatest risk walkers face at intersections is right-turning drivers who do not yield to people in the crosswalk. The LPI gives walkers a head start so that they are visible to drivers while the traffic light is still red. State law will soon be changed to allow bicyclists to also use the LPI.

4. Remove or properly label every pedestrian push button. Don’t make walkers play the guessing game. Except at very low use intersections, pedestrian signals should be on auto-recall.
Policy: Every pedestrian push button will either be removed or labeled with its function. Implementation within one year.
Considerations: The presence of push buttons without indication of whether they are necessary to push is a case of clear discrimination against people walking. The city has refused to change signage to indicate whether the push button activates a signal change, triggers an audible warning only, or does nothing at all. In the long run, all pedestrian signals everywhere should be on auto-recall, meaning no push is needed, but this correctly labeling the button is the first step.

5. Remove pedestrian prohibitions which serve traffic flow rather than safety of walkers. This is the majority of them.
Policy: The city will study every instance of a pedestrian prohibition to determine if the prohibition is necessary to ensure safety for people walking. Traffic flow will not be used to justify a prohibition. Each location where the study determines there is no safety benefit for walkers will be removed, crosswalks marked, and appropriate pedestrian signal heads installed. Implementation within three years.
Considerations: Most, though not all, of these pedestrian prohibitions were installed to promote the flow of traffic, not to protect walkers. Studies will result in the removal of most.

6. Install traffic diverters (modal filters) on about one-quarter of all streets, at no less than 1/8 mile intervals. This discourages through-traffic on most streets, and discourages longer driving trips, while being permeable to bicyclists and walkers.
Policy: At every location in the city where a grid street system or alternate travel streets are available, the city will install traffic diverters (modal filters) which require motor vehicles to turn off current street. The interval should be no less than 1/8 mile. This will not apply to designated collector or arterial streets. Implementation within for years.
Considerations: Diverters discourage drivers from traveling long distances on streets which should be low traffic, and they also slow traffic. Diverters are the most effective traffic calming device available. Despite the clear effectiveness of the existing diverters, the city has decided not to install any more. This policy would reverse that unofficial policy. Where a grid street system exists, diverters are completely appropriate. Unfortunately the winding streets and lack of connectivity in the sprawling parts of the city make these impractical.

7. Charge for all street parking, everywhere, even in residential neighborhoods.
Policy: End all free street parking. Charge residents a reasonable fee for a parking permit that covers the cost of maintaining the portion of the street that contains the parking. Set fees for paid parking in such a way that there is always at least one open parking spot on every block. Implement within one year.
Considerations: The city has done much better at managing paid parking, raising rates to more closely reflect (though not fully cover) the actual costs to the city. But outside of paid parking areas, drivers are getting a free ride, which encourages ownership and use of vehicles, contributing to VMT. In residential areas, it is not unusual for a single residence to own multiple vehicles, some of which are rarely used and just take up space that could better be used for other purposes.

8. Reduce speed limits to 20 mph, citywide and all at once, on every street that is not an arterial or collector street.
Policy: The speed limit on all streets that are not collectors or arterials will be reduced to 20 mph. Implementation within six months.
Considerations: The benefits to walkers and bicyclists (and drivers) of lower speeds are well known, reducing the severity of crashes and reducing the likelihood of crashes due to more reaction time. The ’20 is plenty’ movement is becoming widespread. Some argue that changing speed limits without changing roadway design is pointless, but my philosophy is “Yes, and…” – we should be redesigning roadways, but while that work is in progress, we can save lives now by reducing speed limits. It will take some while to change speed limit signs, so simply blocking out the existing 25 number would be acceptable in the interim.

9. Ensure that every construction project that reconstructs sidewalks also installs curb extensions (bulb-outs) where there is a parking lane present. This is not uniformly happening.
Policy: Curb extensions will be required on every corner which is reconstructed for any purpose. Street faces on corners where a bicycle lane is present but parking lane is not present will be excepted. Curb extensions will be designed so as to not interfere with bicycle lanes, and existing or planned separated bikeways. Implementation immediately.
Considerations: Curb extensions, also called bulb-outs, significantly increase safety by shortening crossing distances and by increasing visibility between walkers and drivers. The entity making the change to the sidewalk/corner would be responsible to the extension, though where drainage issues exist, the city might help with partial funding to move or enhance drainage. There are many instances in the city where curb extensions should be installed as part of construction projects, but are not being.

10. Create interim curb extensions with paint and flexible posts.
Policy: At any intersection where a pedestrian fatality or severe injury has occurred within the last ten years, temporary curb extensions created with paint and vertical delineators will be installed. Implementation within one year. Temporary curb extensions will be replaced by permanent concrete curb extensions within ten years.
Considerations: This policy would allow the ‘quick fix’ of curb extensions at relatively low cost, but eventually create curb extensions at all hazardous intersections, city-wide.

11. Take on responsibility for maintaining sidewalks, since they are an integral part of the transportation network.
Policy: The city accepts maintenance responsibility for all sidewalks that are within the public right-of-way. The city will develop a plan for bringing all sidewalks to a state of good repair, with implementation first in low-income neighborhoods.
Considerations: State law allows the city to shirk its responsibility for maintaining sidewalks by shifting the burden unfairly onto adjacent property owners. The result is poorly maintained sidewalks that do not serve the needs of anyone waking or rolling, but particularly discriminate against people with mobility limitations. Some sidewalks are not within the public right-of-way, but this is uncommon.

12. Buy every employee of Public Works and Community Development a copy of Walkable City Rules (Jeff Speck), and hold sessions to develop a new city mission that prioritizes walkers (and bicyclists and transit riders) over private vehicles.
Policy: Buy the books! Implementation immediately. Hold sessions within six months. Develop new mission within one year.
Considerations: Every city employee should be responsible for doing their part to make the city a walkable place where people are safe and welcomed on every street. City employees and politicians have in the past created a car-dominated city where it is unsafe to walk and bicycle, and now is the time to set a new vision and way forward. Note that this does not address the issue that people don’t feel safe walking in some locations, and this is a critically important issue that the city should also address.

Curb extensions 16th & N

2018/01/27 Dan Allison1 Comment

Curb extensions, also called bulb-outs, have been installed on all four corners at the intersection of 16th Street and N Street in midtown Sacramento. The extensions are the width of the parking lanes along both these streets. N Street has bikes lanes, which are not restricted by the extensions, while 16th Street does not have bike lanes, and won’t until the street is reconstructed into a more complete street at some unknown point in the future.

The primary beneficiaries of curb extensions are pedestrians, who have a shorter distance to cross, with every crossing being about six feet less distance for every parking lane, so in this case, 12 feet less. There is also much better visibility of cars by walkers, and of walkers by car drivers. Sometimes they also provide an opportunity for beautification, with rainwater swales and/or planting, as can be seen in the photo.

Every street with parking lanes should have curb extensions, so almost every intersection, but implementation will be slow because they are moderately expensive to construct (curbs sidewalks, detectable warning strips, better located ped buttons), and sometimes require drainage changes and occasionally even utility relocation. These particular extensions are certainly not the first in Sacramento, in fact there are extensions on the west corners of the intersection of 16th and O, just to the south, but are notable for being installed in a high pedestrian use area along two heavily trafficked streets.

R Street suggestions

2013/12/072023/03/19 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento and CADA held a community meeting on November 23 on the R Street Phase III Streetscape project, presenting design alternatives for the section of R Street between 13th and 16th streets. Phase I is the already completed portion between 10th and 13th, and Phase II is the upcoming portion between 16th and 18th. Three alternatives were presented for each of the three blocks, basically representing three different levels of traffic calming and devotion of right-of-way width to pedestrians rather than vehicles. Alternative three for each block includes curb extensions or bulb-outs at most corners. All the alternatives include wider sidewalks.

I am glad to see the city moving forward on these improvements, with the already completed Phase I making a huge difference to the usability and appearance of the street. Though the most economically vibrant portion of the street currently is this section from 13th to 16th, it will unfortunately be the last to be completed.

Getting Around Sacramento

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

Tag: curb extension