SacCity: Franklin Blvd Phase 3

The SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting will receive a information and comment update on the Franklin Blvd Complete Street Phase 3 project. The project is at the 60% design stage, meaning that plans have been drawn (see the SacATC 2026-10-15 post), but details can still be improved. I have had some time to review the presentation and design diagrams, so have some comments, based on these and on my previous post on the Phase 1 and 2 project which is complete. The Phase 1 and 2 project ended at Fruitridge Road. There have been various city and county projects on other segments of Franklin.

The extent of this Phase 3 project is Fruitridge Road to the county line just beyond 38th Avenue, shown below. The southern part of the project (to the left) is in the city, and the northern part (to the right) is shared city and county, but the city is taking responsibility for the entire project.

I note four areas of concern.

One: RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) at 33rd Street. RRFBs have a very low rate of compliance in the City of Sacramento, in part because we have among the worst drivers in the state. The installation here includes two beacons, one on the post, and another on an overhead mast arm. This format may slightly increase compliance, but the city has not demonstrated that it increases compliance enough to be safe for people crossing here. The city knows that existing RRFB locations are not safe, but continues to specify them, against the advice of transportation advocates. Either there should be a pedestrian hybrid signal at this location, or it should not be highlighted as a safe crossing, because it is not. Of course every intersection has a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, but the presence of a marked crosswalk with RRFB signal implies a level of safety that does not exist.

Two: Flared intersection at Fruitridge. The flared intersection of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge, which I criticized in my previous post as being unsafe for all users, is proposed to be duplicated south of the intersection in this Phase 3. The Google map overview is below. North of Fruitridge, the configuration has changed somewhat. South of Fruitridge, it is as shown, with two lanes southbound, two lanes northbound, a dedicated left turn lane, and a dedicated right turn lane which is a free-right with no traffic control whatsoever.

Google map of Franklin - Fruitridge intersection
Google map of Franklin – Fruitridge intersection

The design diagram for Franklin at Fruitridge is below. It shows some improvement, with only one lane northbound, but is otherwise the same. Two lanes southbound, requiring a merge that could be avoided by making it one lane, as it is on the approach from the north, and one of the lanes is 12 feet, unnecessarily wide. The southbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, and does eventually have painted buffer ‘protection’. The dangerous dedicated right turn lane is retained, though it does add a stop sign, which would be widely ignored, and encourages the same driver behavior to look left and ignore anyone in the crosswalk. The lane is 13.5 feet wide, which is ridiculous. The marked northbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, between two motor vehicle travel lanes, with no protection whatsoever.

Three: Trees and sidewalk buffers (planting strips). Though sidewalk buffers and trees are being added along about half of the segment, both are missing from the remainder. This is better than it was, but far from the tree canopy/shade that the public has requested. Though I could not find a diagram where the width of the sidewalk buffer was specified, I estimate that they are mostly five feet, but narrower in a few locations. Healthy trees require eight feet or more, so the trees along this section will always be less healthy than they could be. Tree information starts on page 61 of the design diagrams document, with Landscape Planting Legend (LP002), and includes six street sections. A total of 50 trees are indicated, though it is doubtful, given past projects, that all of these will be planted. The diagram below shows the 37th Street section, with more trees than any other.

diagram of Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102
Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102

Four: Wide concrete bikeway medians. There are a number of locations with very wide concrete medians to separate the bikeway from travel lanes. I’m all in favor of concrete medians, which provide real protection rather than the visual protection of vertical delineators. But a narrow concrete median is just as effective in providing protection as a wide median. In many cases, these medians seem overly wide, as though to simply take up excess space. Though the stamped concrete specified for many of them is slightly better aesthetically than plain concrete, it is still an unnecessary expanse of heat generating and expensive infrastructure. If possible, this width should be reallocated to sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28

The City of Sacramento will hold an in-person community workshop on the Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan, on Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM. An RSVP is requested, but not required, and is on the project webpage at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/mobility-and-sustainability/transportation-planning/current_transportation_planning_efforts/arden-auburn-mobility-project.

The draft plan is not available at this time. The webpage says it will be available ‘by October 28’. One would hope well before that, otherwise the workshop is sooner than it should be.

The documents currently available are, in reverse chronological order, I think:

I have not taken the time to review these documents.

SacATC 2026-10-15

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, October 15, 2026, starting at 5:30 PM, at the city council chambers. People can comment on agenda items in person at the meeting, or by making an comment ahead of time online. Though comments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see comments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting or before.

The method for speaking in person has changed. Go to the city’s Public Participation Hub page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (note: this page works poorly on handheld devices), and then click on the ‘View Page’ button. Select ‘Register’ to register for the meeting and to speak on an agenda item. Select ‘Comments’ to make a comment, or view other’s comments. You may also use the meeting kiosk to register in person. There are no longer speaker cards available. Once an item has been announced by the chair, it is not possible to register to speak on that item.

Select ‘Files’ to download the agenda. Within that document are links to individual agenda item documents, and these can be downloaded. All of this is much more awkward that the previous meeting mechanism. Check it out ahead of time so you can figure it out. I have made the documents for the three primary agenda items available below, so you don’t have to go through the awkward interface.


Agenda (pdf)

Consent Calendar

  1. Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
  2. Active Transportation Commission Log

Discussion Calendar

  1. North Natomas Community Trail Naming Effort
  2. Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600): staff report | presentation | diagrams
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations: staff report | report | presentation

I do not have any comments to make at this time, but may tomorrow.

I have not had time to analyze Franklin Phase 3. My comments on the earlier and complete phase are at SacCity: Franklin Blvd complete street, and may be of use.

Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation
Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation

I have not had time to look at the SacATC annual report in detail. Meanwhile, the recent email from Slow Down Sacramento/Isaac Gonzalez is of interest. Of course, I recommend that you join the Slow Down Sacramento email list yourself.

SacCity: freeways broke the grid

As mentioned in no grid: the original sin of city planning, freeways are one of the features that constrain the grid system of the central city Sacramento. Unlike the rivers, which are a natural feature, the freeways were designed to break the grid. This was a design choice by Caltrans to priority freeway travel over local travel. It doesn’t mean freeways are a bad idea, they are good and bad, but the decision to break grid streets was an intentional one, and a mistake that has harmed the city.

I was thinking of mapping all the broken grid streets, but realized there is a useful map in the Grid 2.0 presentation. Note that Grid 2.0 was superseded by Grid 3.0, and then the Downtown Mobility Plan, and then Central City Mobility Project. The focus on broken grid locations, and the goal of correcting some of them, was lost. In the map below, you can see seven locations where Business 80 broke the grid, eight locations where Hwy 50 broke the grid, and eight locations where Interstate 5 broke the grid. There was a proposal to reconnect N Street over Interstate 5, but I’ve not heard anything about that in years.

Some of the grid streets are broken in favor of freeway onramps and off-ramps. A reconfiguration of the ramps from long, long ramps to shorter (and safer) ramps could allow reconnection of some grid streets, but not most of them. The freeways, as designed and built, are a permanent blight on city livability.

13th Street is one that could be reconnected, and would have great utility because 13th, with its route through Capitol Park, is a critical north-south bikeway through the central city. Though K Street has a freeway underpass for walkers and bicyclists, a street connection at J Street or L Street would serve to reconnect Old Sacramento Waterfront (as it is called now) to the rest of the city. Currently, it is isolated by freeway, parking lots, and broken grid streets.

Worse, from a city amenity viewpoint, was that Hwy 50 broke Southside Park, splitting it into two sections, and with the W Street and X Street traffic sewers, making it unsafe and unpleasant to get from one part of the park to the other.

grid discontinuity map from Grid 2.0 presentation by ITE
grid discontinuity map from Grid 2.0 presentation by ITE

SacCity: wither curb management?

There have been rumors for years of a curb management policy or program for the City of Sacramento, but nothing has surfaced. The Mobility and Sustainability Division of Public Works has a Mobility, Parking, and Curb Management page, but there is nothing on it about curb management.

I spend a lot of time in other cities, and am in San Francisco as I write this. Sacramento has much less of a problem than many other places. Ride hailing is all over San Francisco, both driver and automated, and traffic and bike lanes and bus lanes are blocked by ride hailing. San Francisco has a much greater density of retail business in many areas, and delivery vehicles do the same blocking. But Sacramento does have a problem, and that problem can be mitigated or eliminated by curb management.

As to curb colors, these are the patterns. California has much less clear code about curb colors than do most states, but to the degree it does, these are the colors.

  • red = no parking. Parking means getting out of your vehicle. Whether it is one second or hours, it is still parking. Red curbs may also be more restrictively signed as no standing or stopping.
  • yellow = commercial loading
  • white = passenger drop-off/pick-up
  • green = time limited parking. The amount of time is marked on the curb and/or signed
  • blue = disabled

Sacramento has recently added some painted curbs, some with marking or signing, and some simply painted. One example below, on 3rd Street at The Bernice Apartments. It is not clear whether this is a city or developer installation. The time frame is unusual, but might make sense if loading is limited to certain times (see below). I suspect that this is a white curb passenger drop-off/pick-up situation that was mis-painted and mis-labeled as yellow loading. The distinction between white and yellow is often misunderstood.

photo of yellow curb on 3rd St, Sacramento
yellow curb on 3rd St, Sacramento

But the rate of painting curbs is far slower than is needed. The city is not managing curb use as it should.

Whenever the city does come up with curb management policies or programs, here is what I’d like to see:

  • One blue disabled parking spot per block. This should not be a free spot, as is common practice, but a paid spot just like any other. Though there are certainly low income disabled people, there are also a whole lot of upper income people that park in these free handicapped spots for hours, precluding use by other handicapped users.
  • At least one green time limited spot on any block with retail business that cater to come and go customers, such as coffee shops. The limit should be 10 or 15 minutes. And it should be enforced! I often see drivers parked on green curbs for long periods of time, and when I report it to 311 for enforcement, the parking officers almost alway fail to ticket. The common city view of parking is that only staying over time paid for, or blocking a private driveway, is a violation, and nothing else is.
  • One long yellow curb spot on any block with retail business, which does not have alley access (if alley access is available, there should not be any commercial loading on the street, at all). I don’t mean ‘long’ like semi-truck long, but long like delivery truck and van long. Semi-trucks have no place in urbanized areas, and should be prohibited. Instead, there should be transfer to smaller vehicles at logistics locations.
  • One white passenger drop-off/pick-up spot on any block that has residential or retail. Both ride hailing and private vehicles should be required to use these spots, and be ticketed if they double park.
  • Limited hours for commercial deliveries. Though this could be adjusted for the characteristics of a particular block, delivery times should be limited to 3:00 AM to 10:00 AM. 3:00 AM is after the entertainment use and parking clears out. 10:00 AM is when most businesses open, and curb space is needed for other purposes.
  • Regular use of yellow curbs should require a permit, with permit fees going to the same purposes as other parking fees. Yes, this needs to be changed to parking benefit districts, but no need for a separate account. Though there may be occasional instances of a delivery that is not a regular user, almost all use is regular and repeated.
  • Regular commercial use (ride hailing) of white curbs should require a permit, with permit fees going to the same purposes as other parking fees.

These changes would result in less regular parking on each block. I am not against regular parking, but I see these other uses as higher uses that should be accommodated. Less regular parking means less driving, which is a good thing.

no grid: the original sin of city planning

The oldest parts of the City of Sacramento have a grid street pattern, meaning streets and cross-streets at regular intervals. Nearly all of the central city and much of east Sacramento have a grid. Outside that, there is a broken grid, or no grid. There are certainly constraints to a grid, such as the Sacramento River and American River, railroad tracks, and old highways that are now arterial streets, such as Stockton Blvd. And of course there are the freeways that have destroyed what grid did exist: Interstate 5, Interstate 80, Highway 99, Highway 50, cutting most local streets into two inaccessible sections.

I acknowledge that the other cities of Sacramento County, and unincorporated county, are as bad or worse than anything in the city, but I’m using the City of Sacramento as a example of a universal problem in the region. In the eastern suburbs, unincorporated Arden-Arcade, Carmichael, Fair Oaks and Orangevale, streets intentionally change directions, for example, a street that starts out north-south will end up exiting east-west to an arterial. Other streets loop back on themselves, but change names somewhere along the way. Streets that were designed wide, as through streets, suddenly end. Yes, things can be much worse.

Here is the central city grid. Not perfect, but close. This grid was largely the street layout of the original city, from 1848. The street blocks are 400 feet (122 m) on a side, supplemented by east-west alleys at 200 feet. There are some larger blocks, including the state capitol, which covers five blocks by two blocks. Many cities have a shorter block length than 400 feet, but 400 is satisfactory. Many cities have rectangular blocks, with one dimension shorter than 400 and one longer than 400.

Sacramento central city grid, Google Mapsh
Sacramento central city grid, Google Maps

Here is East Sacramento. Less regular, but not bad.

Sacramento, East Sacramento grid, Google Maps
Sacramento, East Sacramento grid, Google Maps

Here is a section in south Sacramento. There are grid streets, Florin Road, Meadowview Road, Freeport Blvd, and 24th Street. There are even a through street within this section, 21st Street. But none of the other streets are through streets. Some are straight, and some wind around.

Sacramento, south Sacramento broken grid, Google Maps
Sacramento, south Sacramento broken grid, Google Maps

And finally, here is the River Lake area of The Pocket. Few through streets, cul-de-sacs everywhere. No way to get from one area to the next.

Sacramento River Lake, no grid whatsoever, Google Maps
Sacramento River Lake, no grid whatsoever, Google Maps

So why is this important? Grids allow travel by many different routes. They allow travel on parallel streets so that some streets can emphasize car travel (well, actually, all of them do, currently), while others are or could be for slower travel by foot and bicycle. Grids allow efficient bus routes that get people to destinations with no transfers or one transfer. Our bus system that exists is a maze of zig-zags, largely trying to make the best of a no-grid street system.

Why did this happen? In the Sacramento area, developers of high income neighborhoods (see River Lake above) wanted windy streets so that only people who live there can figure out how to get places. Cul-de-sacs galore, making sure that people from outside (‘those people’) cannot get into the neighborhood, and guaranteeing low traffic on that street, while increasing traffic on all other streets as people try to get somewhere. In middle income neighborhoods (see South Sacramento above), windy streets were designed to give the feel of a high income neighborhood. If you can’t figure out where to go, isn’t that a sign of income?

Broken grid and no-grid neighborhoods make sure that amenities such as groceries, coffee shops, and medical services, are further away. Everyone must drive. All traffic must be funneled onto larger and larger, and more dangerous streets. And isn’t that the point of these neighborhoods, a sign of wealth when you can have the fancy car that exceeds the cost of some homes, and a deep bank account for gas, or charging?

Downtown Sacramento had most of its buildings removed, replaced by state buildings and massive buildings, which is why downtown is largely dead. But the street grid is mostly still there, the bones of what could someday become a livable, functional place again. As I have said many times, midtown Sacramento is the model of what a place can be, a vibrant neighborhood with a mix of uses. The grid is in large part what allowed it to develop, and to continue to exist. I doubt that most of Sacramento will ever evolve to a more economically vibrant and livable place. Without a grid street network, it can’t.

Many people have argued that single family homes, exclusionary zoning and redlining, and suburban sprawl are the original sin. They are a sin, but not the original sin. The original sin is the lack of a grid street system.

The city allowed this, by allowing developers to design any sort of street pattern they wanted. The city could have developed a grid street system, and allowed developers to design streets within this, but they did not. They also did not require that streets in one development connect to streets in an adjacent development. The lack of a grid is a problem that will haunt us forever.

But for any new development areas, the city must design and enforce a street grid. Regular north-south and east-west streets should be on a grid of one-quarter mile (400 m). Within that grid, developers can do what they want, but they can’t break the grid. Blocks, the distance between cross streets, should be no more than 800 feet.

The street grid is a topic that crosses boundaries (ha ha) between street design standards (Public Works, Street Design Standards Amendment) and development standards (Community Development, Planning Division). I am not sure where it best belongs, but I do know that it must exist, and must be enforced, no matter what bribes (mostly in the past) or campaign contributions (modern bribes) are made.

The lack of a grid has long bothered me, but I’m posting about it now because the recent How to design for cars in people-centred places suggests that not every street needs to be multi-modal, that a ‘complete network’ of parallel routes, rather than a ‘complete street’ is a better solution, hence “Complete networks, not complete streets”. I have just started to look at the design guide, but this is something that jumped out at me in the Strong Town podcast and Streetsblog post – how do you have parallel routes when there are no parallel streets, because there is no street grid?

More to come.

new perspective on street design

Strong Towns podcast today had an episode How Do We Design for Drivers?, about the recent design guide How to design for cars in people-centred places, and Streetsblog USA today had a post Walkable Cities Can Make Life Better for Drivers, Too.

I’ve listened to the podcast, and am intrigued. Though I need to read the document (which you can download by registering on the Happy City website) and reflect on it, I’m having the feeling that it may change my ideas about street design. Though I’ve criticized the functional classification system, I may have bought into the concept in my alternative suggestions for street design (tag: street design standards). I have also criticized Complete Streets as neglecting frequent and safe crossings, but maybe the whole complete streets concept is amiss (‘complete streets’ or sidewalks? and (in)complete streets). At least I have fought against the idea that is unfortunately prevalent in bicycle advocacy that every road needs bicycle facilities.

So, more to come.

SacRT: the shiny thing

Whenever the topic of Green Line light rail to the airport comes up, SacRT board members and staff claim that this is the highest priority of the public. This is false. The last board meeting spent a lot of time on the Green Line, the reserved right-of-way, light rail, and BRT ideas. There is a funded BRT study: Green Line to the Airport: A Vision for the Future. Several board members said that they supported the BRT study, but that the ultimate solution was and remains light rail. Despite one of the parts of the 2026-09-28 board presentation being on the BRT study, the three maps in the presentation were all of the ultimate light rail alignment, not of the BRT project.

SacRT ran a public outreach process to gather input from the public on what they wanted from SacRT, as part of the Comprehensive Operational Analysis, to determine both short range and long range priorities. The Transit Idea Exchange: What We Heard & What Comes Next page provide information on the process and the outcome. The page lists five public priorities: Improving bus and light rail service frequency and reliability, Increase service hours on bus and light rail, Making stations and stops more welcoming and accessible, Enhancing safety, lighting, and cleanliness, and Keeping fares affordable for seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans and students. Light rail extensions, whether to the airport or Elk Grove, were not in the top five. The page does not contain details on process and results, but there are scattered documents that are relevant.

A presentation to the board on 2025-10-27 (https://startransit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/sacrt_2025-10-27_agenda-5-1-funding-presentation.pdf) has a chart from the Transit Ideas Exchange Funding Game (page 5). Green Line light rail to the Airport ranked 10, and light rail to Elk Grove ranked 15. A separate survey by FM3 (starting page 8) conducted to gauge support for a transit sales tax measure, again indicated that the public thought light rail extension less important than maintenance.

I was only able to attend one of the workshops, in Elk Grove (STAR: Transit Ideas Exchange in Elk Grove). Despite being located in Elk Grove, and given the City of Elk Grove’s desire to see light rail extended well into Elk Grove, and SacRT board member and Elk Grove city council member Rod Brewer’s support, the public was not interested. The public wanted better bus service.

So, given these facts, why does the board and staff continue to claim Green Line light rail to the airport is the public’s top priority? Because it is the shiny thing. ‘World class cities’ have light rail to the airport, and Sacramento city and county and region want nothing more than to be considered a world class city. The politicians on the SacRT board (all are elected officials, appointed from the cities and county) also want projects for which they can do ribbon cutting. Better bus service does not involve ribbon cutting.

World class cities also have great transit systems. We do not, far from it. Things like light rail, or subway, to the airport, which indeed many cities do have, are built on a base of high-frequency, affordable, effective bus transit. Without that, light rail to the airport is an isolated and very expensive shiny thing that is not useful because the basics have not been met.

STAR advocated, in How to build successful transit and many other posts, for an incremental approach to building transit service. Yes, light rail is on the list, but it is not the starting point. SacRT is running hourly service to the airport, Route 142 Airport. Ridership is low, in part because the service schedule does not meet the needs of workers at the airport, and in part because hourly service cannot be effective. Yolobus also runs hourly service to the airport, which is more successful because it also serves Davis and Woodland, but it is very slow. SacRT and Yolobus schedules are not coordinated. The next step for the airport is high frequency bus service with a long span of service. Not BRT, not light rail.

To use an expression, service to the airport is ‘sucking all the oxygen out of the room‘, meaning that a focus on the airport is taking up time and energy that could be devoted to improving bus service and starting to address the coming funding crisis that will require SacRT to reduce service.


Three maps below show routes that are relevant to the effort to serve North Natomas and the airport. The first two maps show Route 142 Airport Express bus, with a frequency of 60 minutes. This route uses Interstate 5 for much of the distance. The third map shows Route 11 Natomas/Land Park bus, with a frequency of 30 to 45 minutes (one of the two lowest frequency regular bus routes). This route jogs briefly to Interstate 5 to connect Truxel Road and 7th Street.

map of SacRT Route 142 Airport Express, downtown segment
SacRT Route 142 Airport Express, downtown segment
map of SacRT Route 142 Airport Express, SMF airport segment
SacRT Route 142 Airport Express, SMF airport segment
map of SacRT Route 11 Natomas/Land Park
SacRT Route 11 Natomas/Land Park

SacCity: red light workshop October 7

The City of Sacramento is holding a workshop on Wednesday, October 7, 2026, on the Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Program. You can register for the workshop, but registration is not required. Background information and workshop registration is on the city’s Red Light Camera page: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/mobility-and-sustainability/transportation-planning/vision-zero/automated-red-light-camera-enforcement-program

If you want to know more about the program, go to the workshop. If you want to support program implementation, go to the workshop. If you want to comment on camera locations, or suggest additional dangerous intersections, go to the workshop.

For previous posts, see Category: Automated Red Light Camera Program.

SacCity: opaque or transparent?

Spoiler alert: Opaque and becoming more so.

A recent City of Sacramento action to handicap the function of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) was highlighted in a SacBee article (New Sacramento rule kept traffic safety projections out of commission presentation, SacBee 2026-09-29, Madison Smalstig) as well as an email by Isaac Gonzalez of Slow Down Sacramento, who is also chair of SacATC. If you aren’t on the Slow Down Sacramento email list, I strongly encourage you to join.

To summarize, the commission was prevented from showing a slide presentation on the annual report that they are going to present to council, and was prevented from even printing one slide that showed a horrible and accelerating trend in traffic violence fatalities in the city.

Though this action can be seen as an effort to suppress the actions and communication of SacATC, and it is, it is also part of a trend with the City of Sacramento to reduce transparency and to create the maximum distance between city council and the citizens of the city.

The Personnel and Public Employees Committee was created under the regime of disgraced City Manager Howard Chan to screen all communication from boards and commission to city council. Please understand that the entire reason for boards and commissions is to investigate details and make recommendations to the council. Council cannot possibly look into the details of every issue facing the city, so the board and commissions were created to help them with this task. Chan felt this was too much, and worked to prevent and/or corrupt this communication. This pattern has continued, unabated so far as I can tell, under the current administration of City Manager Maraskeshia Smith.

The longer lead times for submitting agendas, staff reports, and presentations are similarly intended to make it more difficult for boards and commissions to communicate with the public. The Brown Act requires agendas three days or more before meetings, and depending on interpretation, staff reports and presentations as well. This is reasonable. But the city is now requiring that everything be approved by administration 19 days before the three days. The purpose of this is to make sure that much of the information from boards and commissions never reaches the public.

The availability of documents on the city website has decreased. As tools for posting documents has made the process easier, requiring almost no staff intervention, the availability has gone done. Unless you know the specific name of a document, the search engine is unlikely to find it.

The city now requires people to generate public records requests (PRAs – Public Records Act) for documents that should logically be available to the public without request, and some of which were formally available but are no longer. PRAs sometimes lead to the city claiming that the information requested does not exist, which is a lie, or if it is eventually supplied, takes a ridiculously long period of time, generally past when the information was needed. Most governments complain about the expense and staff time required to comply with PRAs, but this is largely a self-inflicted problem. If they simply posted the information, they wouldn’t be subject to PRAs.

As a frequent user of GIS (Graphical Information Systems) data, I would expect that more and more data available in that format would be posted on the city Open Data website. However, the city ceased updating some data several years ago, even though internally the data is still being updated. There are datasets that the city uses internally, but have never been made public. The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan mapped planned bicycle and walking facilities, but it took more than a year and repeated requests from the public for it to show up.

So, opaque or transparent? Opaque.