Tag: daylighting

What’s Next: parking

Dan Allison2 Comments

Part two of what’s next, part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.

Parking is the gateway drug to greater motor vehicle use. Drivers have the expectation that parking will be available at home, at work, and any place else you’d like to go. Preferably free, but if not, at least low cost. Free parking or below cost parking is socialism, pure and simple. Society as a whole paying to provide goods or services to those who demand them. Drivers have a high demand for parking, they want it not only free, but very close to where they are going. This extends from homeowners thinking they own the parking space in front of their home, to not wanting to walk more than a few feet to your destination. Drivers spend an incredible amount of time driving around streets and parking lots and parking garages until they find that perfect spot, just outside where they want to go, steps away. Ironically, one of the places they are going is the gym, to get physical activity otherwise lacking in their life, or to the park or river to walk their dog.

Parking is a gateway drug. And our transportation planners and engineers have spent huge amounts of time and money providing for that demand. So long as parking is easily available, drivers will continue to drive, making unnecessary trips, and making trips that may be necessary but could be taken by other modes: walking, bicycling, transit.

There is a common thought among transportation advocates that if we make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer, people will drive less. The evidence doesn’t support that, beyond a gradual transition for some people. But now we don’t have the money needed to make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer.

I believe that we must directly reduce driving by making it more difficult. One of the best ways of doing that is to reduce parking, so that there is not easy parking where people are driving to. The more difficult parking becomes, the less people will chose to make trips by driving.

Solutions. Make parking less available and more expensive.

  • Daylighting: Enforce AB 413 (2023) to prohibits parking within 20 feet upstream of a crosswalk [VEH 22500 (n)]. As staff resource allows, install red curbs or temporary curb extensions. Red curbs or extensions are not required bu law, but they do help drivers understand. There are some material costs for this, and staff time to do the work, but far less than signing and permanent curb extensions. This is consistent with Slow Down Sacramento’s bullet five of then, ‘Fully implementing and physically reinforcing intersection daylighting’.
  • Reduce available parking: Though daylighting should be the first step, for its dual benefit of reducing parking and increasing safety, there should be a gradual reduction in available parking. I’d suggest 10% per year over five years. Some curb space would become unavailable for any use, but most would be converted to more productive uses, such as short term up to 15 minute parking, delivery, and drop off and pickup. Where parking is needed for a higher use, including bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, or street dining (al fresco), all parking should be removed as needed. Of course any new street must be limited to parking on one side only. This solution would require some curb paint and some staff time, but would not be expensive.
  • Charge for street parking everywhere: In Sacramento, only the central city charges for parking. In the rest of the city it is free. Parking ‘meter’ fees should be increased to discourage motor vehicle use and to maintain some open space on every block (the Shoup goal). Parking fees should go exclusively to maintain the parking infrastructure, and to neighborhood improvements, as in, a parking benefit district. In areas where ‘meters’ are not present or not practical, street parking should require a parking permit with fee. Yes, a permit would be required for that parking space in front of your home. The city is providing a service to you, and it should not be free, it should not be subsidized by other taxpayers. I am not sure what the fee should be, but I would start with $20 per month per vehicle. Again, these fees should go to maintenance of the parking area, and neighborhood improvements. No parking fees should go into the general fund or to other uses not related to the streets. In the suburbs of Sacramento, and the county and other cities, almost everyone has a driveway and a garage. These should be used for parking, not the common resource of the street. This solution would require setting up a mechanism to charge for parking permits everywhere, but once set up, it would be a source of income and not an expense.

As we reduce parking, there will be less driving because driving will be less convenient. That has a clear safety benefit, but also strong support for livability. It is a gradual but directional movement towards fewer cars in our cities, in our lives.

daylighting enforcement?

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento has announced that it will be enforcing the state intersection daylighting law, AB 413 (Lee, 2024), starting today. Tickets will be $25.

Higher income people will of course just see this as the cost of parking, and won’t care. An open spot at every corner, only $25? Yes! With the new parking rates, a person could park in a daylighted space for 8 hours for less than the cost of a metered space.

Daylighting increases safety for people walking by providing increased visibility between drivers and walkers crossing the street. As with all crosswalk laws, it applies whether the crosswalk is marked (painted) or not.

I’m a little cynical about this. Over the years, I have reported about 60 violations of drivers parked ON the crosswalk. Once, the driver was cited. Often I would wait to see if parking enforcement officers would show up, and what they would do. Sometimes, the vehicle was gone. Often, the vehicle was still there, but the 311 report closed without action. Sometimes, it was closed without the officer even showing up.

Traditionally, parking enforcement has only been concerned about drivers overstaying time at parking meters.

Administration of the parking and parking enforcement program has changed, so perhaps the city is serious about enforcing daylighting. Time will tell.

Whither daylighting?

Dan Allison2 Comments

See crosswalk daylighting in SacCity? for more information.

The city has confirmed that crosswalk daylighting, as required by AB 413 (2023, Lee), will not be a part of the Parking Strategies project. The city has also confirmed that it will not be a part of the Streets for All Active Transportation Plan, though that plan will recognize that where there is space created by daylighting, it may be used for bicycle and scooter parking.

So where will crosswalk daylighting be addressed? So far as can be determined, the city does not intend to address it at all. A search of the city website for ‘AB 413’ or ‘daylighting’ produces nothing. City staff seems to be suggesting that it will be addressed somewhere else, not part of the current projects, though that somewhere else has not been mentioned.

It is going to take public pressure to convince the city to take action on crosswalk daylighting.

San Francisco has been proactive in implementing the state law, with warning notices now being given, and enforcement starting January 1. Parking is far more contentious in San Francisco than Sacramento, so it is surprising that Sacramento is stalled while San Francisco is moving forward.

What City of Sacramento ISN’T doing

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento, that bastion of doing the least amount possible, has failed to notice that progressive cities in the US and worldwide are making changes to their environment to make is safer for people who walk and bicycle, and more efficient and welcoming for people outside of cars.

What the city is NOT doing, that it could:

  • Accept responsibility for maintaining sidewalks, as an integral part of the transportation network. The city continues to shirk its responsibility, spending funds on motor vehicle infrastructure instead of maintaining walker infrastructure.
  • Installing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at every traffic signal in the city. The same eleven have been in place for years; none have been added. The recent legislation, AB 2264, only applies to state highways; it is up to cities and counties to implement on other roadways.
  • Daylighting intersections. This means removing parking from within 15-20 feet of the crosswalk or stop bar, either by painting and enforcing red curbs, or building curb extensions (bulb-outs) at every intersection. Upstream, approaching the intersection, is the big safety feature, downstream, leaving the intersection is much less important. There are interim solutions here, such as painting curb extensions and using soft-hit posts (vertical delineators).
  • Implementing construction zone requirements that accommodate walkers and bicyclists. The current city policy is to provide safe bypasses only if it does not in any way inconvenience drivers. The public has asked that a policy be developed along the lines of the Oakland construction policy, but the city has stonewalled against that.
  • Making transportation improvements that benefit walkers and bicyclists, except with county, state or federal grants. The city simply will not spend any of its general funds on improving transportation safety.
  • Waiting until a roadway is completely repaved to reallocate roadway width to bicycle lanes or separated bikeways, or transit. Compounding this issue is that the city doesn’t share with the public the repaving projects that it intends to do, so the public has no chance to comment beforehand.
  • Lowering speed limits citywide. While it is true that spot reductions have little effect on travel speeds, there are a growing number of cities that have lowered speed limits citywide, with a significant reduction in speed.
  • Enforce traffic laws. The Sacramento Police Department has essentially stopped enforcing laws related to the safety of walkers and bicyclists. This of course is also true in many other places. Police don’t see traffic safety as an issue worthy of concern. Of course so much of law enforcement is used as pretext to oppress, and I’m not in favor of any of that, but if the police won’t even enforce failure to yield to people in the crosswalk, what use are they? We would all be much safer if traffic law enforcement were removed from the police, largely automated, and the money saved diverted to real community needs. Yes, defund the police.
  • Painting marked crosswalks at every intersection. Yes, I know that unmarked crosswalks are legal crossings, but most drivers either don’t know or don’t care, so marking crosswalks is critical.
  • Remove beg buttons. These buttons, which sometimes a walker must press to get a walk sign, and sometimes don’t need to press (this is called auto-recall) are a direct attempt to discriminate against people walking. The city, after much pressure from the public at the beginning of the pandemic, set five crossings to auto-recall, out of the thousands. Of course they didn’t change the signing, so people walking don’t know this. The city it being intentionally obstinate in its defense of this outmoded requirement.
  • Remove pedestrian prohibition signs unless that is a demonstrable safety reason for the prohibition. There are numerous signs all over the city that were placed solely to preference motor vehicle drivers over people walking. The default should be that every one is removed unless the city wishes to do a traffic study to justify them.
  • Install traffic diverters (mode filters) all over the city. These diverters, which allow bicyclists free travel but turn motor vehicle drivers aside, are the single most effective safety measure that city could implement. But the city has decided to take these off the menu of solutions, for no reason that it has ever been made public. The few that exist are in the central city, almost none in other neighborhoods. Another example of privileging the already privileged over lower income neighborhoods.
  • Charge for parking, eveCavrywhere. Residential neighborhoods, where there is usually open parking space, would be charged through permits for the cost of maintaining that portion of the street. Any place where parking is in short supply, market rates for parking should be charged. Giving away free parking is subsidizing drivers and throwing your tax money in the trash.

I could go on with this list for pages. In fact, I have: walking policies for SacCity, and many related posts. But the city is still not taking meaningful action on any of these items, so I will keep reposting. For as long as it takes. And it will probably take quite some while before the city gets over its culture of doing the least amount possible.

Caveat: The city has disinvested in lower income and high minority neighborhoods, probably for its entire history. The first steps should be taken in these neighborhoods, with input from the residents, of course, and not in higher income and non-minority neighborhoods which have always gotten more than their share.