Tag: signals

Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Marysville Blvd Vision Zero Safety Project, Quick Build Phase 1, started today, Monday, March 16. The overview from the SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025, shows Phase 1, which is from Grand Avenue to Nogales Avenue only. Phase 2 will cover from North Avenue to Arcade Blvd. Phase 2 will include more extensive work, but is not being called a ‘complete streets’ project. Only Phase 1 is fully funded. The city has in the past applied for grants to convert the entire stretch of Marysville Blvd into a complete street, but has been unsuccessful in that effort, which has led to this quick build project in order to improve safety now rather than someday. Phase 1 will cost $1.4M and be completed in 2026. Phase 2 is about $18M and only partially funded.

map of Marysville Blvd Phase 1 and Phase 2
Marysville Blvd Phase 1 and Phase 2

A diagram from the SacATC presentation September 18, 2025, shows collision history for the segment. This is the issue that the city if trying to solve. The diagram is rather dense with information, but of note is that of the four fatalities, three are outside the current phase, and only one is inside, at Roanoke Aveue.

diagram of Marysville Blvd collision history
Marysville Blvd collision history
Read more: Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts

Marysville Blvd is narrowed for construction to one lane, starting just south of Harris Avenue and continuing to south of Roanoke Avenue. During my time of observation, I did not observe any significant backup of traffic, however, it was mid-day, not commute hours.

The work on this day is focused on the intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue. Signal wiring at the intersection has been exposed and torn up, in preparation for installing a modified signal at this intersection. The diagram from the SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025 (below), shows a modified signal at Marysville and Grand. It is hard to reconcile the signal wiring being torn out with the term ‘modified signal’, but no other information is available.

photo of Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade
Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade
diagram of Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals
Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals

The SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025, includes existing and new for the section from Roanoke Avenue to Grand Avenue, and shows a complete rebuild of the intersection, but this is Phase 2, and it isn’t clear what the intersection and signal will look like at the end of Phase 1. Though the wording is not clear, the pedestrian hybrid signal (HAWK) at Roanoke Avenue may be completely replaced with a new regular traffic signal, but again, in Phase 2. I will have another post on Phase 2, but this one is focused on the Phase 1 Quick Build.

Future post will follow the construction project, and look more closely at Phase 2.

So far as I can determine from the presentation diagrams and the plan diagrams, no sidewalk improvements other than ADA ramps at intersections are planned. Though there are sidewalks nearly throughout the segment, they are narrow and unbuffered. The majority of the driveways ramps are sloped, many to such as degree that they present a barrier to wheelchair travel.

Sadly, most of this segment of Marysville Blvd is characterized by closed businesses, long abandoned buildings, and empty lots. This is not to denigrate the existing businesses, health services, and parks, but it will take much more than this project to energize this corridor. This is an area that has been disinvested by the City of Sacramento since it became part of the city, and it shows. A Marysville and Del Paso ‘Forward Together’ Action Plan lays out some of the actions necessary to heal this community.

Central City Mobility: 5th St conversion

Dan Allison7 Comments

This is Central City Mobility Project update #6.

One of the elements of the Central City Mobility Project is the conversion of 5th Street from a one-way, two-lane street, to a two-way, one-lane each direction street. Some work is underway: wiring and signal bases have been installed for the signals necessary for two way traffic at the existing signal locations. Looking at the bases, photo below, I’m guessing that there will be new signal poles and mast arms, not re-use of the existing signals equipment. That seems like a waste of money to me, but the city loves to spend money on new signals, and signal controllers.

I am not sure that many of the current signal locations are even needed. After the conversion, 5th Street will be a lower speed and probably lower volume street. Four-way stops at some major cross streets (such as T Street) might work just fine. Again, the city loves to spend money on signals, and already has unneeded signals at a number of locations (too many traffic signals?).

5th St and T St new signal base
5th St and T St new signal base

The Central City Mobility Project map shows the 5th Street conversion as extending from Broadway to I Street. The block between Broadway and X Street is already two-way, as are the two blocks between L Street and J Street (the DOCO underpass). It is also two-way north of I Street.

I wonder what, if anything, will be done for the block between X Street and W Street, under the Hwy 50 freeway. This is a very complex block, with a freeway onramp west of 5th Street and a freeway offramp west of 5th Street. The onramp and off-ramp have separate signal phases from X Street and W Street. Traffic westbound onto the ramp, if it makes the green light, is already traveling at freeway speeds, about 65 mph as it crosses 5th Street. Similarly, but not as egregious, the off-ramp traffic, if it makes the green light, is traveling a bit below freeway speeds. I am really not sure how this complex situation can be made safe for bicyclists. Northbound bicyclists only have to deal with drivers running the red light at 5th Street from W Street, but southbound bicyclists would have to deal with multiple turning vehicle movements. In general, the only way to make complex situations like this safe is to have exclusive bicycle phases in which only bicyclists and walkers are moving, no vehicle movement or turns are permitted. But the city is very unlikely to select that safe alternative because it would lengthen the signal cycles and therefore slow motor vehicle traffic to some degree. The city doesn’t want to slow motor vehicle traffic.

The diagram below, from Google Maps, indicates the complexity of this block, but the reality on the ground is even worse.

Google Maps of 5th St and Hwy 50 intersection
Google Maps of 5th St and Hwy 50 intersection

Grid 2.0 pedestrian comments

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento Grid 2.0 project is requesting specific input on ways to improve the pedestrian experience in midtown/downtown. I encourage you to go there and add your pins.

Pedestrian beg button on a commonly used crosswalk, this location should have a pedestrian signal on every cycle, not just when someone presses the button.
Pedestrian beg button on a commonly used crosswalk (K & 9th), this location should have a pedestrian signal on every cycle, not just when someone presses the button.

Dropping pins on a map, however, doesn’t allow some more general comments that I think are very important, and perhaps just as important as any of the corridor improvements shown. For me, these points are:

  1. All signals and pedestrian signals in the grid should be set on automatic recall by default. That means that pedestrians get a walk signal on every cycle without having to find and press the beg button (many of which can’t be accessed by disabled people). If the city thinks that a particular crossing should require a button, they should have to do a traffic study to justify it, which includes both the requirements that 1) the level of pedestrian use if very low (unlikely in the grid, but possible), and 2) that there is a demonstrable delay in traffic due to automatic recall. This does not mean that pedestrian buttons will not be present, as there may be valid ADA benefits to having them, including the specific announcements now being included, but they should never be required.
  2. In heavy pedestrian use area, if pedestrian buttons are present, pressing the button should actually shorten the signal cycle to provide for pedestrian crossing on demand, rather than just changing the pedestrian signal head when the signal goes through its regular slow cycle. No regular cycle should be longer than 90 seconds because long cycles unnecessarily delay pedestrian (and bicyclist) travel in favor of motor vehicle traffic.
  3. All three-lane one-way roads should be reduced to two lanes. This will make street crossings safer (by about 1/3 – what other improvement could make such a difference!) and more comfortable. There is no excuse in a walkable urban environment for there to be three-lane one-way streets.
  4. All no-pedestrian-crossing locations should be removed and replaced with regular high visibility crosswalks. Though these prohibitions are often justified by safety concerns, they are really just for the convenience of motor vehicle drivers, so that they don’t have to slow down or wait as long at signals. If a crosswalk is not safe, it means the roadway design is unsafe, and the correct solution is to change the roadway design, not to prohibit crossing.
  5. The ability to safely and comfortably cross streets is just as important to people walking as the ability to walk along streets. I don’t know that this is the case here, but transportation agencies often get so focused on travel along corridors that they forget about the need to cross corridors. The grid pattern in midtown/downtown eases this problem, and is in fact one of the major benefits to a grid, but nevertheless, significant attention must be paid to crossing.