can Caltrans D3 do anything right?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

An article in the SacBee today updates status on the Fix50 project to date (Sacramento Highway 50 project delayed again. When will Fix50 construction end?, SacBee, 2026-09-16, Madison Smalstig). Caltrans says the project will be ‘substantially completed’ by the end of October. October of what year? I worked for the federal government and government contractors for years early in my career, and know that the term ‘essentially complete’ is governmental-ese for ‘we are so far behind we don’t even really know when we’ll be done’.

$100M over budget, so far, and a year behind schedule, so far. But none of this really matters to Caltrans, which has its hands deep in your taxpayer pocket, and never suffers consequence for mis-managing projects. Caltrans is bad, Caltrans District 3, which includes Sacramento County, is worse. D3 is well known for its cars-first policies and projects.

And what will the project do, when it is someday complete? It will induce additional travel on Hwy 50, and on all roadways leading to and from Hwy 50, by encouraging commuters to travel longer distances and take more frequent trips. Poorer air quality, and anger-inducing congestion, guaranteed. Yet another make-work project for Caltrans engineers and construction companies. Most importantly, money spent to subsidize private motor vehicle drivers instead of meeting the multi-modal needs of citizens. Money tossed in the trash, or in this case, in the highway.

The Fix50 project is adding HOV lanes. It is well known that HOV lanes are ineffective at encouraging carpooling because they are routinely violated by many drivers, meaning the HOV lanes are just as congested, and therefore ineffective, as every other lane. This is a highway capacity expansion project, nothing more. Tolled express lanes induce some traffic, but far less than HOV lanes.

driving while black and brown

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

On August 25, I attended the ACLU Defending Democracy Tour in Sacramento. The main topic of the evening was defending election integrity (Election Safeguarding), which as we all know is under attack by the felon Trump’s administration. But a highlight was the Driving While Black and Brown report (summary) about bias in the City of Sacramento Police Department against black drivers.

ACLU Driving While Black and Brown title

The data comes from AB 953 Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015 database, which law enforcement must report to the California Attorney General’s Office. It is worth reading the report for details, data, and charts, but to summarize:

Blacks are stopped more often than whites, 33% of all stops while only 12% of population. Blacks are stopped more often for non-moving (in other words, not related to traffic safety, or much less related), than for moving violations, particularly in relation to white drivers. Blacks are much more likely than whites to be searched, but citations or arrests resulting from searches are much less likely than for white drivers. For Latino drivers, the disparities are less pronounced, but still present.

In other words, SacPD uses traffic stops of black and brown drivers for pretextual reasons, in an effort to find crime unrelated to driving, but if that is the purpose, it is failing.

I’ll make two speculations: 1) white drivers are much more likely to be in violation of traffic law and other laws than blacks, and 2) the continuance of such an ineffective pattern of traffic stops is intended to oppress blacks rather than increase public safety. The phrase ‘driving while black‘ is well known, and the pattern is also well documented across the US. Charles T. Brown coined the term ‘arrested mobility‘ to describe how law enforcement and other governmental actions suppress the ability of blacks to travel freely and safely.

The report only analyzed stops of motor vehicle drivers. It did not look at stops of walkers (pedestrians) and bicyclists and other users of micro-mobility. I suspect an analysis would reveal the same pattern.

The report makes the following Recommendation: These racial disparities are damning and paint a clear picture that the Sacramento Police Department uses minor traffic violations as a pretext to stop and search Black and Latino drivers. The ACLU of Northern California recommends that Sacramento adopt a policy prohibiting its police department from stopping drivers for non-safety related violations, such as tinted windows and failure to illuminate a license plate. Other California cities that have implemented such reforms have reduced racial disparities in traffic enforcement with no negative impact on public safety.

I agree!

SacRT: delay of zero emission buses

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

SacRT has decided to delay the hydrogen bus (fuel cell electric) plan to meet zero emission bus (ZEB) requirements, and will buy natural gas buses instead. This was the subject of a SacBee article: Sacramento RT to buy new natural gas buses, delaying zero-emission transition, 2026-09-09, Madison Smalstig. I had missed this, I think because the decision was scattered across several board meetings, and often on consent calendar rather than regular agenda item.

SacRT will require a waiver from CARB (California Air Resources Board) Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) program. SacRT has an approved Rollout Plan from 2021, and more recent proposals for a hydrogen fueling station at McClellan and a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell buses, including a grant (see below). Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) had a series of posts on SacRT’s hydrogen plans and hydrogen in general (see Tag: zero emission buses). It is clear that the hydrogen plans were not well thought out, were not environmentally sound, and were only partially funded. The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intend to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses, but will have to start over seeking money for that.

FY24 FTA Bus and Low- and No-Emission Grant Awards: “The Sacramento Regional Transportation District will receive funding to buy new hydrogen fuel cell buses to replace older buses, modernize a maintenance facility and initiate a workforce development program. The project will create jobs and improve service, reliability and air quality as SacRT works to convert its fleet to entirely zero emission by 2028. $76,847,678”

The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intends to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses (fuel cell electric), but will have to start over seeking money for that.

SFMTA is going with diesel-hybrid buses: Muni is too broke to use more eco-friendly buses, The San Francisco Standard, 2026-09-14. I assume other transit agencies will be making similar plans. By the way, SFMTA Muni has an incredibly low carbon footprint due to light rail and electric trolleys that run on overhead wires. Sacramento could have some of the same benefit without investing in fossil fuels by considering overhead wires. But it won’t.

SacATC 2026-09-17

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, September 17, 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.

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. Sacramento Valley Station: Regional Bus Stops Consolidation Project (T15029000): staff report | presentation
  2. FY2027-28 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Application: staff report | presentation
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations: staff report

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

Week Without Driving, October 1-8

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Week Without Driving is coming up in less than a month. Two headlines from the website pretty much explain the point of the celebration. “What would change in your life if driving wasn’t an option?” “More than one third of people living in the United States are nondrivers.”

To participate, act and think about these questions:

  • Take transit, walk, roll or ride.
  • Ask for a ride.
  • Who has choices, what are your choices?
  • If you still have to drive, you haven’t “failed.”

The national event is sponsored by America Walks and Nondrivers Alliance. So far as I know, there are no local events or sponsors, but please let me know if you know of any.

Week Without Driving logo
Week Without Driving logo

hit and run

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Hit-and-run crashes are epidemic in the Sacramento area, and increasing. The statistics for Sacramento County, 2019-2023, are:

YearPercent Hit and Run
202310.6%
20229.8%
20218.9%
20209.6%
20198.1%

And for the City of Sacramento, 2019 through 2023.

Year
Percent Hit and Run
202313.8%
202211.7%
202110.1%
202011.1%
20199.1%

These statistics are from OTS Crash Rankings Results. Note that the year 2020 was the first year of the pandemic, and was a year of reckless driving on largely empty roads, nationwide. It is also the year that red light running became pandemic, and has continued to increase.

We do not know what percentage of the hit and run fatalities would not have been a fatality if the driver had stopped to render aide and to call EMS. But we have to assume that at least some of them would have been, particularly the incidents where the victim did not die immediately on site, but was transported to the hospital alive, and later died.

State law treats traffic violence as a less serious crime than any other. In fact, unless there is strong evidence that the driver was either far gone DUI, or intentionally ran down a walker or bicyclist, there is little legal consequence. Perhaps a fine, perhaps a temporary suspension of license, but a judge will frequently assign no penalty. Hit and run is considered a misdemeanor under law. CVC says “(c) Any person failing to comply with all the requirements of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.“

DMV apparently has not been assigning the two points for hit and run (Negligent Operator Treatment System), in many cases. As a response to the lack of action by DMV, AB 1685 to require DMV to assign points, among other things, passed the legislature but has not yet been signed by the (windshield) governor.

Involvement in a crash does not indicate fault. But hit and run does indicate a failure to remain on the scene and render aide. What should be the penalty for that? I think it should automatically be classified as a felony, as it is a act of violence, regardless of the circumstances of the crash. However, legislation to crack down on traffic violence in the legislature has been killed, or watered down, or vetoed by the governor. Legislators are as reluctant to hold drivers accountable as law enforcement and judges. It will probably be a long time before hit and run drivers suffer any higher level of imprisonment or fine.

So I’d like to suggest a consequence that does not involve a violation of CVC or driver points. Anyone convicted of hit and run would:

  • Have their vehicle confiscated. This is not impoundment, under which the driver would get their vehicle back eventually, but confiscation in which the vehicle is sold and money goes into a fund for street safety. Confiscation is important, because the sort of driver who will leave the scene of a crash is the sort of driver who will continue to drive so long as they have a vehicle.
  • Have their drivers license suspended for 10 years. Longer if there are additional circumstances such as DUI. Yes, this would be an immense burden on people who live in low density places, or live far from where they work, or drive as part of their work. That is exactly the point, to create a consequence that will impel most drivers to remain on the scene as the law requires.

Both of these actions would cause most drivers, except the ones who intentionally cause crashes, to remain at the scene. It does not mean that they caused the crash, that is a separate issue for a separate court case. It does mean that they followed the law. For those who hit and run, I have absolutely no sympathy. These are not only criminals, they are sociopaths.

fatality on Franklin

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A bicyclist was murdered by a hit-and-run driver on Franklin Blvd four days ago. Hit-and-run driver kills bicyclist, 59, as she repairs bike on Franklin Boulevard (SacBee, 2026-09-03, Darrell Smith). I intentionally use the term ‘murdered’, as I believe that hit-and-run qualifies as murder. It is an intentional decision on the part of the driver to not provide any aide to the victim, possibly saving the life. It is the lowest of driver behavior, and that is a low bar indeed. Unfortunately, state law treats traffic violence as less important than other violence, and except in very few circumstances does the driver/murderer suffer any significant legal consequence.

The person killed, Norma Valdez, was in the southbound bicycle lane on Franklin. The murderer drifted into the bicycle lane and killed her, and then left the scene. So far as I know, the driver has not been found. A memorial has been created on the site by friends.

photo of memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd
memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd

I was initially interested because I thought the crash was within the area of Vision Zero Complete Street on Franklin, but it is south of Fruitridge Road, in Sacramento County rather than the city. The location is opposite 48th Avenue. At this location, the bike lane is a little wider than usual, about 5.5 feet. There is no protection of any sort for the bike lane.

Conventional Class 2 bike lanes should never be installed on roadways over 30 mph, and generally not over 25 mph. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3rd Edition, Constrained Bike Lanes, has the following table for ‘constrained’ (conventional) bike lanes. Nothing in this table matches Franklin Blvd at this location. It is higher speed, higher volume, and is two lanes per direction. Franklin should never have been designed this way. Caltrans CA-MUTCD and Highway Design Manual conveniently do not provide an upper speed limit for Class 2 bike lanes. Caltrans treats bicyclists with disdain, though with more respect than walkers. It is widely recognized that Class 2 bike lanes on high speed roadways will lead to fatalities. Such as this one.

The roadway is four lanes, two southbound and two northbound. A median is present in much of this section, but there is a gap here for 48th Avenue, which is only to the east, with no street to the west. La Grande Blvd to the west is a little to the south. The posted speed limit here is 40 mph. Readers will know that if a posted speed limit is 40, actual speeds are 50 to 55 mph. Even at 40 mph, and certainly above that, any collision with a bicyclist or walker will be fatal.

photo of Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave
Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave

I walked north on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, which is the southern terminus of the city’s project. City and county are mixed in this area. The county portion is actually better designed than the city portion. The city portion has no bike lanes at all, narrow sidewalks, mostly 4 feet, with either a center turn lane (‘suicide lane’) or with opposing posted 40 mph traffic separated by only a yellow stripe.

This entire area of south Sacramento, both city and county, is a place where motor vehicles dominate all other life.

It is worth noting that the bike lanes on Franklin Blvd and 47th Avenue adjacent to the former Campbells factory could have curb separation since there is only one active driveway in 2900 feet along Franklin and one in 2200 feet along 47th. These would not have prevented this murder, but any improvement is valuable.

Though I would have guessed otherwise, in the five years of TIMS/SWITRS data, 2019 through 2024, there were no bicyclist fatalities or severe injuries in the section of Franklin Blvd between Fruitridge Road and Florin Road.

WestSac: traffic calming around Sutter Health Park

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In response to a comment from a reader, I went to look at the area around Sutter Health Park, primarily the intersections of 5th Street and Cabaldon Parkway, and 3rd Street and Cabaldon Parkway. Note that Google Maps and Google Earth photos from July 2024 do not show the current configuration of these intersections with various traffic calming features, and vertical delineators often do not show up. If you want to see or experience it, you’ll need to go out there for yourself.

The city has kept adding vertical delineators to this entire area in an effort to regulate driver behavior around the ballpark. Things have improved but are still not safe. It is a comment on the drivers that pass though this area, and attend games, that so much has needed to be added, but is still insufficient. I can imagine the city saying “Well that didn’t work, lets add more of that”.

The photo below shows 5th Street southbound approaching Cabaldon Parkway. It is the only one that shows both lane delineators (white) and centerline hardening (yellow). The traffic lane adjacent to the bike lane is very narrow, and the bike lane is not protected in any way from this traffic lane. Much of the lane is in the gutter with a linear seam between the two. Which means it is not actually a legal bike lane, despite the message of green paint. This roadway need to be reconfigured to create a safe bikeway with at least a buffered separation, or ‘protected’ by vertical delineators, or best of all, a hard concrete curb. While riding this bike lane, I was passed by a large truck that drifted into the bike lane, forcing me to the curb.

This roadway design is completely UNSAFE for bicyclists, and must be corrected immediately by the City of West Sacramento.

photo of 5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy lane delineators & centerline hardening
5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy lane delineators & centerline hardening

The next set shows lane channelization delineators (white). Note that they are no longer white and unbent, they have been run over by drivers multiple times. But they do have a traffic calming effect by discouraging drivers from changing lanes in unsafe locations or at intersections.

The reader commented that motor vehicles in lanes to the right of the delineators, westbound and eastbound on Cabaldon Parkway, drift to the right and into the bike lane. I did not observe this in my time there, and I did not feel unsafe, but I am not discounting the reader’s concern. I may have felt OK because these bike lanes are wider, not the barely legal lanes found many places, including the one above.

The longer stretches of bike lanes, particularly on Cabaldon Pkwy eastbound under the bridge, should be curb protected. Except for the bus stop at West Gateway Apartments, there are no driveways in this section.

A side note: the car in the left hand turn lane in Cabaldon at 3rd photo below sat through two signal cycles because it was not detected, and finally went on the red.

photo of 3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelization
3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelization
photo of Cabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelization
Cabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelization
photo of Cabaldon Pkwy WB at 3rd St lane delineators
Cabaldon Pkwy WB at 3rd St lane channelization
photo of Cabaldon Pkwy EB at 5th St lane channelization
Cabaldon Pkwy EB at 5th St lane channelization
photo of Cabaldon Pkwy WB at 5th St lane channelization
Cabaldon Pkwy WB at 5th St lane channelization
photo of Cabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelization
Cabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelization

The next set shows centerline hardening (yellow). Most of these are more recent installations, so are mostly still yellow. These appear to be installed to keep drivers from turning into and out of the parking lot areas where they are not supposed to.

photo of 5th St SB centerline hardening
5th St SB centerline hardening
photo of 5th St SB centerline hardening
5th St SB centerline hardening

And lastly, the transition point on 5th Street southbound from the right-side traditional bike lane to the left-side two-way separated bikeway, often called a cycletrack. Note the very narrow bike lane between two lanes of motor vehicle traffic, ‘protected’ (not protected) by a line of lane channelizers on the left side of the bike lane. This is a horrible design. The bike lane should have been continued to the intersection, two-stage turn box, and an exclusive bicycle phase light.

photo of 5th St SB transition to cycletrack
5th St SB transition to cycletrack

lane channelization and centerline hardening

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Vertical delineators have been used to calm traffic at many locations in the City of Sacramento and elsewhere. There are four primary settings: temporary curb extensions (SacCity curb extensions + daylighting, or not, and many others), separated bikeway markers (Separated bikeway demo on P St, and many others), lane channelization (Strong SacTown: Things that work: traffic posts, and others), and centerline hardening.

Lane channelization and centerline hardening are often confused with each other, but serve somewhat different purposes. There are good explanations of centerline hardening and benefits at: Centerline hardening” protects pedestrian from left-turning vehicles, State Smart Transportation Initiative, 2020-07, Simple infrastructure changes make left turns safer for pedestrians, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety/Highway Loss Data Institute, 2020-04, and the street design standards of many cities (but not Sacramento).

  • Both use vertical delineators, which are often called bollards but are not. Bollards are vertical concrete or steel barriers.
  • Both serve to calm traffic.

However

  • lane channelization delineators are white, and often have gaps in between
  • centerline hardening delineators are yellow, often have bases, and often are continuous

The photo below is a location on 5th Street in West Sacramento approaching Cabaldon Parkway, showing lane channelization delineators (white) and centerline hardening delineators (yellow). This is actually a very unsafe location, which I’ll get to in a future post, but it is the only one I have showing both types.

photo of West Sacramento, 5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy, lane channelization and centerline hardening
West Sacramento, 5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy, lane channelization and centerline hardening

Lane channelization delineators prevent (or at least strongly discourage) lane changes approaching uncontrolled intersections. Uncontrolled means that at least one of the cross-streets does not have any traffic control such as a signal or stop sign. A significant portion of walker fatalities occur in crosswalks when one vehicle stops for the person crossing, and others do not. This is called the ‘multi-lane threat’, and is the main reason arterial streets (stroads) are so much more dangerous than other streets.

Centerline hardening delineators prevent (or at least strongly discourage) drivers from cutting the corner on left hand turns. This is another major source of walker fatalities. Centerline hardening is sometimes used to prevent turns to or from driveways or minor side streets.

The two diagrams below show why centerline hardening works. Not sure of the original source, but both of the posts linked above use the same diagrams.

without centerline hardening – unsafe
with centerline hardening – safer

In response to a reader comment, I went and looked at vertical delineators in the area of Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento. That will be the next post.

SacCity: more lane channelization locations

Dan Allison3 Comments

The City of Sacramento has recently installed lane channelizers at new locations in the central city. The three I’ve noticed are shown below. If you are aware of others, please let me know. The four locations that have been in place for several years are 15th Street (southbound) at O Street and at R Street, and 16th Street (northbound) at R Street and O Street. See Strong SacTown: Things that work: traffic posts and traffic calming measures, Lane Channelization, for these older locations. There are other locations where vertical delineators separate opposing lanes of traffic, which I call centerline hardening; for another post.

photo of 19th St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators
19th St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators
photo of 21st St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators
21st St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators, also yield markers
photo of W St at 8th St, channelization with vertical delineators
W St at 8th St, channelization with vertical delineators, also yield markers