In designing a safe and welcoming two-way bikeway (cycletrack), design of intersections is critical. This post highlights the intersection. Both the staff report and presentation diagrams split the roadway at the intersections, obscuring the intersections themselves. The diagrams below show the intersections, and not the blocks in between the intersections. The diagrams are from the presentation, which offer more details about the intersections than the staff report. The images are rough because I glued together two parts which were not the same pixel resolution, but they provide a good idea of the intersections.
Key points:
bicycle signal faces are required at every intersection from 5th Street to 9th Street, but are indicated only at 5th Street and 6th Street
protecting bicyclists is particular critical at 7th Street and 9th Street to guard against right turning drivers heading southbound onto these one-way streets
5th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway. The transition from the bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station looks awkward, and will be until the station itself is revised, which is also part of the TIRCP grant project.
H St Bikeway, 5th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
6th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway.
H St Bikeway, 6th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
7th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 7th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 7th Street is one-way southbound south of H Street, and two-way north of H Street.
H St Bikeway, 7th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
8th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. 8th Street is one-way northbound.
H St Bikeway, 8th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
9th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 9th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 9th Street is one-way southbound to the south of H Street, but two-way to the north of H Street.
H St Bikeway, 9th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
The H Street Bikeway design has 6 driveways crossing it, 2 on 5th Street to 6th Street, 3 on 6th Street to 7th Street, 1 on 7th Street to 8th Street, and none on 8th Street to 10th Street. Though none of these driveways are heavily used, all are potential conflict points for the bikeway. The 30% design diagrams do not detail how these driveways crossing the separated bikeway will be handled. It is imperative that motor vehicles using the bikeway are moving slowly enough that drivers will see and yield to bicyclists, and bicyclists have time to avoid collisions with drivers who do not yield.
San Francisco has a two-way separated bikeway (cycletrack) on Battery Street in the financial district. Each driveway has speed control devices to ensure that drivers are moving slowly entering and exiting the driveways. The photo below shows one installation, between Pine Street and Bush Street. As a frequent user of this bikeway, I can attest that they are a critical safety feature.
A note about speed bumps. Speed bumps are illegal across roadways in the US. They are most often seen in parking lots, where they are still legal. This use across driveways, and not streets, is legal. The traffic calming devices that are legal across roadways are speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables.
speed bumps across driveway on Battery St two-way bikeway, San Francisco
Update: Edited to add more accurate segments and cross-sections, make additional comments on design, make clear that the 6th-7th cross-section should be similar to the 5th-6th cross-section, with light rail tracks in their own right-of-way rather than the southern one (Line 1) being in a shared or mixed use lane with private motor vehicles.
Note: I realized last night in thinking about H Street that I had accepted too much of the city’s compromise to prioritize motor vehicle traffic and preserve parking. This section of H Street could be a model for how to do streets right, but the 30% design presented is not that. I’ve changed some recommendations and reorganized the post content.
Key points:
Mixed use transit lanes prioritize motor vehicle traffic over transit safety and efficiency. The mixed use lane between 6th Street and 7th Street must be changed to a dedicated transit lane.
The two-way bikeway must be a minimum of 10 feet in width (5 feet each direction) in order to provide safety, usability, and maintainability. This will require changing parking and/or general purpose lanes widths.
Two-way bikeways must have bicycle signals at every intersection. This design does not.
Where there are two general purpose travel lanes in same direction, as between 9th Street and 10th Street, only one lane needs to be 11 feet, while the other must not be more than 10 feet. This is generous, as most modern recommendations are between 9 and 10 feet. The safety advantages of narrower lanes are well documented.
Maintenance of on-street parking is clearly a priority in this design. While on-street parking can slow traffic, and is appropriate in retail and residential areas, here it is for the convenience of workers who could park in the ample parking garages and lots along and near H Street. Where roadway width is needed for safe and high quality bikeways, on-street parking can and should be removed.
The H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station project is presenting at the SacATC meeting this week, Thursday, February 19, starting at 5:30 PM. A community workshop will be held Thursday, February 26, starting at 5:30 PM at city hall, room 1119. This project is part of a large grant-funded project (TIRCP – Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program) to improve Sacramento Valley Station. H Street is the main access route from the station for bicyclists. There are no safe routes to the station, at this time.
The project will create a two-way separated bikeway (also called a cycle-track) on H Street between 5th Street (the station) and 10th Street and 9th Street with existing bicycle facilities.
For the segment images, I have used the SacATC presentation. For the segment cross-sections, I have used the diagrams from the SacATC staff report, as they include measurements, which are critical for determining the safety and usability of the bikeway. StreetMix diagrams usually include measurements, but the ones in the presentation do not.
Transit priority
The TIRCP grant of which this project is a small part, is intended to support transit use to and from Sacramento Valley Station, to ensure that the station is the effective transit and rail hub that the city, region, and state want.
I support the double-tracking of light rail in the segment between 5th Street and 7th Street. Single-track light rail segments create pinch points where one train may need to wait for another, slowing the entire light rail system. The diagrams also seem to indicate a crossover between 5th Street and 6th Street, which is valuable for routing trains when there are blockages.
Segments
Bicycle facilities within Sacramento Valley Station, west of 5th Street, are not part of this project. I have not seen any recent information on how bicyclist circulation will be handled within the station area.
5th Street to 6th Street
This segment is reasonably well designed but could be improved. Double-tracking of light rail removes a bottleneck for the Gold Line/Green Line.
H St Bikeway between 5th St and 6th St, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
The buffer between light rail and general purpose lane (7.2 feet), and the overly wide general purpose lane (13 feet), totaling 20.2 feet, waste roadway width that could be devoted to the two-way bikeway. A better allocation would be, from right to left, 12 foot bikeway, 3 foot mountable curb, 3 foot buffer, 11.2 feet general purpose lane, and 4 foot buffer.
H St Bikeway from 5th St to 6th St, proposed cross-section, 92.5 feet ROW?, 52.5 feet FOC (from SacATC staff report)
6th Street to 7th Street
The segment shows a light rail track sharing with motor vehicle traffic. This is inappropriate, and removes the advantage of double-tracking, since trains can be stuck in congested motor vehicle traffic. The southern or right hand lane should be a combined through and right turn lane, and the northern or left hand lane should be eliminated. The design constrains the bikeway to 4.5/4.75 feet, rather than the minimum of 10 feet. Diagrams below.
H St Bikeway from 6th St to 7th St, proposed (from SacATC presentation)H St Bikeway between 6th St and 7th St, proposed cross-section, 80.5 feet ROW?, 47.5 feet FOC (from SacATC staff report)
The 6th Street to 7th Street cross-section should be designed similarly to the 5th Street to 6th Street cross-section, shown below, with the suggested modifications to roadway allocation, as above in 5th Street to 6th Street segment.
H St Bikeway between 5th St and 6th St, proposed cross-section(from SacATC staff report)
7th Street to 8th Street
The preservation of parking in this segment is ridiculous. There is a parking garage of large capacity directly north across the street, so there is no reason for on-street parking here. The city’s desire to maintain parking in this section is in fact the reason why the existing Class III (sharrows only) bike facilitiy on H Street is dangerous and unpleasant. Again, retention of parking constrains the bikeway to 4.0/5.0 feet rather than the minimum 10 feet. Diagrams below.
H St Bikeway from 7th to 8th, proposed (from SacATC presentation)H St Bikeway from 7th St to 8th St, proposed cross-section, 83.3 feet ROW?, 48.6 feet FOC (from SacATC staff report)
8th Street to 9th Street
The segment design is reasonable.
H St Bikeway, 8th St to 9th St, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
However, since there are no driveways in this block, the separation between motor vehicles and bikeway should be a hard concrete curb, not a stripped buffer. The 10 foot bikeway is the minimum width, however, narrowing the parking lanes to 8 feet would provide space for a desired 12 foot bikeway.
H St Bikeway from 8th St to 9th St, proposed cross-section, 79.6 feet ROW?, 47.6 feet FOC (from SacATC staff report)
9th Street to 10th Street
I like the design of the segment, a sidewalk level completely separated bikeway.
H St Bikeway from 9th St to 10th St, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
The width of the bikeway is 4.0/4.9 feet (8.9 feet) rather than the minimum of 10 feet. It is not clear how to reallocate roadway width to accomplish this, but it must be done.
H St Bikeway from 9th St to 10th St, proposed cross-section, 87.7 feet ROW?, 47.7 feet FOC (from SacATC staff report)
10th Street from I Street to H Street
This segment design is reasonable, given the curb extensions (bulb-outs) present at the bounding intersections. This project probably does not have the funding to reconstruct the street to create a separated bikeway, though this should be done in the long term. A separated bikeway would complete a buffered or separated bikeway on 10th Street all the way from Broadway to H Street. Despite the call-out on the image below, this is just a buffered bike lane, not a Class IV (separated) bikeway. Parking is not needed on both sides, as ample parking is available on nearby streets and in the city parking garage on the southeast corner of I Street and 10th Street.
H St Bikeway, 10th St from I St to H St, proposed (from SacATC presentation)H St Bikeway, 10th St from I St to H St, proposed cross-section, 105.5 foot ROW?, 50 foot FOC (from SacATC staff report)
Signals
The staff report diagrams use the phrase ‘Traffic Signal (Eastbound/Westbound) to be Modified or Replaced’. I am very concerned with ‘replaced’. The city has a penchant for replacing signals, and controller boxes, that do not need to be replaced, raising the cost of projects or wasting money that could be better spent on other parts of the project.
The presentation diagrams show bicycle signal faces at 5th Street and 6th Street, but not 7th Street, 8th Street or 9th Street. Bicycle signals are necessary at every intersection for the safe operation of two-way separated bikeways. It is possible they were neglected on the diagrams, but they cannot be neglected in the project.
Signal timing should be set to a ‘green wave’ of about 13 mph, to allow bicyclists continuous movement through the five blocks. If signal timing remains the same, bicyclists will encounter red light at every intersection, making the bikeway much less useful.
Every pedestrian signal in this section should include a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). Though valuable to enhance transit and bicycling, the design must not disadvantage people walking along or across the corridor.
Speed
The posted speed limit in this section is 25 mph, but observed speeds are higher. This section seems to serve, since the conversion of 5th Street to two-way traffic, as a cut-through from 5th Street to 16th Street, and the design of the intersection of H Street at 16th Street, three dedicated left turn lanes, supports this use. The speed should be reduced to 20 mph, in part to reduce the differential between motor vehicles and bicyclists. Though the bikeway separates these two uses, bicyclists will need to use the general purpose lanes at some points to enter and exit the bikeway, reaching other destinations in addition to the end points. If the posted speed remains 25 mph, and the actual speeds higher, drivers will be encouraged to speed in order to hit green lights. In the central city, many signals are set to 28 mph, encouraging drivers to speed.
Bikeway design
The width of the two-way bikeway in this five block section varies from 8.9 feet (4.0 + 4.9) to 10 feet (5 + 5). The smaller width is not enough to provide safe passage for two larger bikes, such as three-wheel bikes, cargo bikes, and bikes with trailers going in opposite or the same direction. The minimum width throughout must be 10 feet. NACTO’s Urban Bikeway Design Guide says: Two-way bike lanes should be at least 13 ft (3.9m) wide to accommodate all types of bicycles, side-by-side riding, platooning, and passing. A consistent width also allows for bikeway sweeping by devices which cover the full width of the bikeway. The City of Sacramento is deficient is maintaining its existing separated bikeways free of leaves and trash, so future bikeways must be designed for ease of maintenance.
Bikeways should be designed for maximum protection against errant motor vehicles. In blocks without driveways, a concrete curb should be installed, with small gaps for bicyclists to enter and exit. The segment between 8th Street and 9th Street is one such segment. The design with a buffer from parked cars is only effective when parked cars are present. A dedicated motor vehicle right turn lane is adjacent to the bikeway with only a very narrow buffer. The segment from 9th Street to 10th Street seems to have this protection by design. Mountable curbs, as shown for 5th Street to 6th Street may also be appropriate for parts of the 6th Street to 7th Street and 7th Street to 8th Street segments.
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
The page on ‘Designing Protected Bike Lanes‘ provide guidance on three situations, including two-way (bi-directional) bikeways. The diagram below is from that page. The page includes guidance on dimensions, marking, signs, and intersections.
My previous posts on Vision Zero cover many topics related to it, and make some recommendations. A draft plan will be available in the spring, at which time I’ll no doubt have many comments. If you haven’t been following the Action Plan update process, this is a good chance to catch up.
This is the first time preliminary plans for creating a safe bikeway on H Street, leading to and from Sacramento Valley Station, have been presented to the public. I will take a closer look and perhaps post again before Thursday.
High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation
H Street is commonly used by bicyclists leaving Sacramento Valley Station, and others as well. It has decent bicycle facilities except for some gaps.
H Street has a bike lane on the south side from 5th Street to 16th St, except one block, 7th Street to 8th Street. There is absolutely no reason for this gap. This is the section between the Sacramento County Administration Building on the south and a decked parking garage on the north. The parking seems to be there for the convenience of people working in the building, as there does not seem to be turnover of the parking spots. There is ample parking in the garage. This parking should be removed and a bike lane painted IMMEDIATELY. No excuses. A common quote in the bicyclist community is “sharrows are bullshit”, and this is the case here, where the city has preferenced motor vehicle drivers over bicyclist safety.
H St parking and sharrows from 7th St to 8th St
There is a bike lane on the north side between 7th Street and 13th Street. Bike lanes on the left side of one-way streets are much less used than right side bike lanes, but are useful.
The block of H Street between 7th Street and 8th Street in downtown Sacramento has shadows instead of a bike lane. There is a bike lane in the preceding block, and in the block past, but not this block. Why? Because on-street parking has been preserved on this block in preference to bicycle facilities. The right lane lane is marked with a sharrow. Not a properly placed sharrow, but one in the door zone of the parking lane. When shadows are used, they should be placed in the center of the travel lane. But rare is the situation in which they should be used at all. Research indicates that sharrows are less safe than no markings are all, less safe than marked bike lanes.
So why is this parking here at all? No reason whatsoever. On the north side of this block is a County of Sacramento parking garage. There is even a pedestrian bridge between the parking garage and the Sacramento County administrative building on the south side of H Street, as seen in the photo.
I am certain that all of these cars belong to county employees or contractors. They should be parking in the garage, and this parking should be removed so that at least a marked bike lane can be placed in this block. Of course H Street should have a separated bikeway from 6th Street, Sacramento Valley Station, to 16th Street, where it becomes two-way. But a Continous painted bike lane is at least a first step.
There are a number of locations in the central city where bike lanes are dropped for a block in favor of parking and travel lanes. Every single one of these should be fixed either by the removal of parking or a general purpose lane.
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.
Getting Around Sacramento 