Sac TPG allocation

2013/04/202013/04/20 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I’ve now had time to look at Sacramento’s 2010 Transportation Programming Guide in more detail. What I’ve seen convinces me that updating the project list without revisiting the ranking criteria would be a huge mistake. The ranking criteria represent at 1970s view of transportation planning, with a little 2000s language thrown in. It will not lead to a modern transportation system that welcomes all transportation modes, but to the same system that got us in the fix we are already in. What fix? That we spend huge amounts of money to reduce congestion and increase mobility, which is the ability of people to drive long distances at high speeds. In contrast, we spend very little on accessibility, which is the ability of people to get to services they need, including but not limited to employment. As mobility goes up, accessibility goes down, because we allow everything to spread out, and then have to build wide, high-speed arterials and freeways between these far-flung places.

2010TPG-allocation The chart at right shows the allocation to auto, walking, bicycling, and transit. It is based on the standard that sidewalks add about 3% to the cost of transportation project, and bicycle lanes add about 5%. Reading the project descriptions of the top 20 projects (out of 42 projects), I assigned a percent to ped and bike, and then calculated the project cost. I was pretty liberal, increasing the percentage for projects that actually had some purpose beside widening or extending streets, and only decreasing it when the project didn’t have any significant ped or bike component at all. Transit is even worse. The TPG doesn’t really even address transit, though it should. Transit is usually the best solution to congestion problems, yet it is never identified in the TPG as a solution. And in fact roadway projects can have a negative impact on transit when they clog areas that buses need to move freely, and place cars on top of light rail tracks.

Sacramento Transportation Programming Guide (2013-04-12)
Spending priorities? (2013-04-12)
rank transportation projects by accessibility? (2013-04-17)

arena or not…

2013/04/172013/04/17 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Whether the arena is built or not, I care little, and whether the Kings stay or not, I care not at all. But what I find interesting is that no one any longer talks about a public asset like this being located in the suburbs. When it was in the railyards, it was a downtown arena. As it is now proposed on the footprint of the mall, it is the downtown arena. It is the same in Seattle, where the arena location is not so central but is still part of downtown.

Sacramento has grown up! It realizes that downtown is the place for public assets. Downtown has a high density of public transit, walkable and bikeable areas, a grid street pattern, established businesses that can serve patrons of an events center, and yes, even freeways.

The ARCO/Power Balance/Sleep Train facility squats in the middle of acres of parking, a 12,000 parking space wasteland. It is far from light rail, is poorly served by bus (you can get there, but you can’t get home, for evening events, and not at all on Sunday, transit score 24, minimal), is in an un-walkable and un-bikeable area (all high speed arterial roads, walk score 48, car dependent), where almost no streets go through (the classic suburban street system of cul-de-sacs and streets that wind interminably). Why anyone ever thought an arena in Natomas was a good idea, I don’t know, but at least no one any longer thinks it is. And that is progress!

Downtown Plaza, the currently proposed location, has a walk score of 94, walker’s paradise, and a transit score of 67, good transit.

Sacramento Transportation Programming Guide

2013/04/122013/04/12 Dan Allison2 Comments

Sacramento is updating its Transportation Programming Guide, and has sought public input on projects. A survey (deadline April 15) seeks input on specific improvements at specific locations, but it does not seek input on the overall approach of the guide. The 2010 guide is available for review. Since the survey did not allow me to comment on the overall plan, I submitted some comments, below. I could have said a lot more about each of these, but only have time for this at the moment.

Roadway widening is not needed anywhere in Sacramento. Widening generally induces more traffic, and when it does not, is a waste of limited resources. We need a fix-it-first policy, and roadway widening is not part of that.

The I Street mess

2013/04/032024/01/21 Dan Allison2 Comments

Thank you, Elle, for reminding me in your “transportation ‘planning’ downtown” that I wanted to write about I Street. Note: If you are looking at Google Maps, it does not show the current lane configuration on I Street since the repaving and re-striping project of last fall, nor the realignment of tracks and work on extending 5th and 6th streets over the tracks.

I Street from the 4th Street crosswalk; I have the walk signal but this is still scary

I Street in Sacramento approaching the train station is a mess. Starting with the confusing floating bike lane between 7th and 6th streets (subject of a future post), the street becomes worse and worse: five lanes wide, high speed, and completely unfriendly to bicyclists and pedestrians. For pedestrians, the crossing on the east side of the I/5th intersection is uncomfortable because westbound traffic is already moving at high speed and often runs the red light, and right turning cars from I to 5th often do not yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. The west side is so unsafe due to traffic turning left off 5th Street, it is signed against pedestrian crossing, even though this is a logical walking route from downtown to the train station. A crosswalk has been added on the east side of the I/4th intersection, but it has the same challenges that drivers are moving too fast and often run the run light. When I used this new crosswalk, I was very concerned, and I have a much higher tolerance for danger than most people do.

The right-most two travel lanes lead to the high-speed northbound I-5 freeway onramp, so drivers passing 6th Street are already accelerating to freeway speeds, many times going 55 mph as they cross through the I/5th intersection. The next two lanes lead to a medium speed onramp to the I Street bridge over the Sacramento river, and to the southbound I-5 onramp. For pedestrians, the only way to go westbound towards Old Sacramento is to go through the parking lot for the train station and under the onramps along an ugly, dark, poorly marked pedestrian way.

and the freeways

2013/03/292013/12/16 Dan Allison6 Comments

I-5 separating Old Town from downtown Sacramento

Sometimes I catch a ride from a friend or take an Amtrak bus, and am on freeways in the Sacramento area, which most of the time I never see. I wonder why there are so many lanes for so few cars, so much expanse of empty concrete and expensive bridges. Of course I know the answer, the freeways have been built for two rush hours, morning and afternoon, on five days a week, perhaps 13 hours per week out of 168 hours in the week. Oh, and the Friday up to the snow or Tahoe and Sunday back home, that weekly migration of bay area people. The rest of the time they are largely empty.

Yet freeways take up a huge amount of space, have a huge carbon footprint for construction and maintenance even before fuel consumption comes into play, spew pollution into neighborhoods, and suck up the largest portion of our transportation funds. As an example of cost, the nine miles of the six-lane Capitol City Freeway (Business I-80) from Interstate 80 to Highway 50 is 54 lane-miles. Though the cost to construct a lane-mile varies widely, from $2M to $80 million, lets take a very conservative number of $5M and say that this section of freeway cost a quarter of a billion dollars. And this is not even an expensive highway, with its simple interchanges. Pretty amazing, huh? What else could we have done with that money?

diagonal parking

2013/03/272015/08/18 Dan Allison4 Comments

I’ve suggested using up excess street width with diagonal parking. Below are two photos of 17th Street in midtown, one of the section between N and O, which has parallel parking, and a much-too-wide street width. The second is between O and P, which has diagonal parking on the west side. Since these are right next to where I live, I get a regular chance to observe the behavior of drivers on these two sections. On the parallel parking section, drivers are almost always moving above the speed limit, about 30 mph, particularly since most of them have come from an overly-wide section of 17th north of N Street. On the diagonal parking section, drivers are almost always moving at less that the speed limit, about 20 mph. A more subtle difference is that northbound drivers, from the diagonal parking section, seems more willing to yield to pedestrians at the unmarked crosswalks at the intersection of 17th and O streets, whereas southbound drivers, from the parallel parking section, seems to be less willing to yield. Narrowing streets with diagonal parking really does make a difference!

17th St parallel parking — 17th Street parallel parking

more on conversion to two-way streets

2013/03/262013/12/16 Dan Allison3 Comments

A friend suggested that my streets change ideas were hardly new, and that is quite true. Some streets were converted in the past, some were identified for conversion but not completed, and many more have been suggested but not adopted by the city. Here are some additional references.

Some news articles about past and planned conversions in Sacramento:

Part of J street to convert from one-way to two-way this week (Sacramento Press 2010-03-15)
Two-Way Conversion Project (Sacramento Press, 2009-02-19)
N Street, one way no more (Sacramento Press, 2008-11-08)
Central city traffic plan doesn’t yield to business (Sacramento Business Journal, 2006-12-17)
Going both ways (Sacramento News & Review, 2006-02-02)

References on past and planned conversions in Sacramento:

Central City Two-Way Conversion Study (City of Sacramento web page); I am unsure how many of these projects were completed
Freeport Boulevard/21st Street Two-Way Conversion (City of Sacramento web page); though the page is undated, I believe this project was completed in 2007

Articles and references on the one-way to two-conversion concept:

The Case Against One-Way Streets (The Atlantic Cities 2013-01-31)
Two-way conversion of Ellis and Eddy moving forward (Transbay Blog 2012-04-10)

Note: There are a number of contrarian views available from the cars-first crowd. You can search for the Internet for “two-way conversion” if you want to find them.

additional street changes

2013/03/252013/06/13 Dan Allison2 Comments

Note: I’ve updated this post to add some detail to the descriptions and photos to illustrate the treatments. I will be adding separate detailed posts on some of these treatments.

Following on my earlier posts about changing streets in downtown/midtown Sacramento, here are additional street changes that might be used in some places:

Reduce speed limit: Reduce speed limits throughout downtown/midtown to 20 mph. Of course simply reducing speed limits does not ensure that actual speeds go down, unless other measures are taken. The removal of three-lane and one-way streets will help a great deal, since these are the streets that most encourage speeding. Other changes suggested below will also slow traffic. I think, however, that the primary change will be a change in attitude, in cultural values. Once a place becomes more livable, people will focus more on being there instead of going through there to somewhere else. I see the whole pace of life in downtown/midtown as being slower, living at the pace of a walker, or even the pace of a casual conversation, rather than at the unnatural pace of a motor vehicle.

less commuting, more livability

2013/03/232013/03/27 Dan Allison1 Comment

Q-St-10th-St_SaratogaTownhomes In my previous post, I suggested two major changes to the street grid in downtown/midtown Sacramento, one to eliminate one-way streets, and the second to convert all three-lane streets to two-lane streets. Of course there is an overlap between these changes, as all of the three-lane streets are also one-way streets.

The goal of these changes is to make it harder to commute to and from downtown Sacramento by car. Yes, that is my intention.

By way of explanation, I go back to Williams Burg’s documentation of the intentional de-population of downtown, and to a smaller degree, of midtown. There is an insufficient housing stock of all types in the downtown area, and in the midtown area there is a lack of some kinds of housing, primarily single family housing. I’m not talking here about separate housing, the suburban model of isolated houses on isolated lots in isolated communities, but of housing designed for families to live in that are not like apartments with shared facilities. Tapestri Square on 20th St is one example of this kind of single family housing, but there are many more both new and older. And of course there are Victorians still available which have not been subdivided into spaces too small for a family. Housing is gradually being added back into midtown. Where I live at 16th & O, there are two new mixed-use buildings going up, retail below and apartments above. There are others in midtown, and even a few in downtown.

Getting Around Sacramento

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

Tag: Sacramento