The County of Sacramento determined that there were insufficient valid signatures for the SaferSacStreets initiative to be on the November 2026 ballot.
Below is an email sent to supporters.
This leaves the City of Sacramento efforts to make streets safer for all users without the funding needed, since the city allocates very little general fund money to street safety. It leaves SacRT without funding needed to enhance existing bus service, particularly increasing frequency and span of service on high ridership routes.
We are saddened today to report very disappointing news. The Sacramento County Registrar of Voters has determined that the Sacramento Safe Streets and Affordable Transit Measure of 2026 did not have enough valid signatures of registered City voters to qualify for the November ballot.
As we reported a few weeks ago, the campaign delivered over 32,000 signatures to the City Clerk on June 30, 2026. By submitting 10% more than the statutory minimum, the measure qualified for a random sample count. A full count would have taken three months and would not have allowed the measure enough time to qualify for the November ballot.
We are currently inspecting the petitions and the County’s random sample count verification process to determine if there were any possible errors or other factors that could lead to the measure qualifying for an election in 2028. However, it is clear that the measure will not be on the November 2026 ballot.
This result is heartbreaking for all of us who have invested so much time, expense, and energy into bringing this measure forward. We always knew it was a long shot to mount a citizens initiative that was so short on time and money, despite the tremendous support and enthusiasm from all of our volunteers and supporters. We will update you as soon as we can, including future options. You can also check our website for updates at http://www.safersacstreets.com
SacRT photo of Sheriffs Department officersMetro photo of LAPD officer and rider
SacRT staff Lisa Hinz presented a justification for zero tolerance fare enforcement on light rail at the 2026-07-27 board meeting. She used Metro (LA country transit agency) as an example, but mis-used it in a way that contradicts her point. So, fair game, this is real information from Metro. Hinz used the photo on the left in her presentation. The photo on the right is from the Metro Safety Team page, Law Enforcement Partners. A picture is worth a thousand words. Enough said.
If you wish to look at Metro’s approach to safety, including their nine related positions, see Metro Safety Team webpage. The position descriptions are available.
San Francisco is a transit-first city, though it falls short of that goal. Other major cities are so clearly transit-first that they don’t even remark on it. The Sacramento region will never be a transit-first place. Density is too low, almost everywhere, except the Sacramento central city. Opposition to transit, both ideological and anti-tax, is common in the region. But we could designate transit-first roads.
SacRT’s High Capacity Bus Service Study (2021) outlines several possible BRT (bus rapid transit) routes in the county, shown on the map below. It missed critical corridors, however. It missed BRT to the airport, because at that time SacRT was still selling the idea that light rail to the airport would occur in the not too distant future. It missed Greenback Road connecting Sunrise Transit Center and Historic Folsom light rail (yes, this travels through low density areas, but would provide a connection between high use areas that do not currently have any connection whatsoever). It also missed Cosumnes River College light rail to Elk Grove, as the planning effort for BRT or light rail came to prominence after 2021. It also includes some routes of doubtful utility because they extend beyond high riderships areas into areas of low density development, Sunrise south in particular.
These corridors are not designated by the cities, or Sacramento County, or Sacramento Transportation Authority. But a designation of these as transit-first roads would have several benefits for planning and funding.
A recognition that planning and projects should first consider the transit function of that road, before any consideration of motor vehicle throughput.
A recognition that there are many possible levels of transit support, not limited to or even requiring BRT. These might include signal priority, better bus stop spacing, better bus stops, bus stops in traffic rather than requiring pull-outs that cause delay and safety issues, signal queue jumps, bus only lanes full time or at congested times.
A recognition that existing arterials do not well meet the transportation needs of people because they were designed for and prioritize private motor vehicles, and are the primary location of traffic violence.
A recognition that the value of a particular transit-first road varies over time with other changes to the roadway, surrounding land use, and connections to other transit service. What has happened to date is that a focus on a particular corridor is usually a political decision (ribbon cutting) and not based on current use patterns and planning for a complete transit network. Planning then completely neglects consideration of other corridors.
If we designate a corridor as a transit-first road, then it allows incremental progress towards the eventual goal of BRT, or even light rail. We don’t need to wait until political will or funding to go for the huge project, rather, we can improve transit utility with every change to the road, and with much smaller amounts of funding.
I attended the SacRT board meeting yesterday. My report highlights things I am interested in, or grabbed my attention, and is not intended to be comprehensive. You can view the meeting video online at https://www.youtube.com/live/rtB9B2fXBck?si=p3M2Gf5JWfHK8AJg. An action summary will be available in the agenda of the next board meeting, scheduled for August 24.
One step forward, one step back. SacRT is again offering the public to make comments via Zoom, either in the Zoom app or by phone managed by Zoom. Good. Comments on the consent agenda (agenda items starting with 2) are now limited to two minutes total, rather than two minutes per item. It isn’t clear what will happen if a board member pulls an item from consent, for discussion. That did not happen in this meeting. Will that item be an exception to the two minutes total? And how would a member of the public know ahead of time that an item will be pulled, and submit a comment card?
Rosario Rodriguez was an alternate for Patrick Kennedy, as a County of Sacramento representative. She made a point in comments that she regularly uses light rail to commute. This resulted in applause from the audience, because it is unusual. Kennedy and Maple as sometimes users of transit, but not as often as Rodriguez. Yah!
Though it was not pulled from consent for separate discussion, there were several board questions and comments related to item 2.11 authorizing the Green Line BRT study. Serna was concerned by the lack of information about right-of-way easements along Truxel that will expire at some point. Dickinson, Budge, and Maple were concerned that a focus on BRT would handicap consideration of light rail in the future. As I have said many times, I don’t think light rail to the airport will ever be financially feasible. Every time there is an estimate of the cost, it goes up, is currently $2 billion, and would be billions more by that time it might come to planning and construction. There simply is no justification for such an expensive infrastructure project for such a low ridership and network benefit. I’m not opposed to the BRT planning effort, though I also believe that SacRT (and/or Yolobus) must demonstrate that there is a demand for better service by first implementing 30 minute bus service to the airport, which does not exist because SacRT did not align its schedule with the Yolobus 42A/42B schedule.
For agenda item 3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments, Lisa Hinz gave the usual glossing-over-problems presentation. The two items of most interest to me and many transit advocates are the zero tolerance policy, particularly for fare evasion, and the policy requiring strollers and carts be emptied and folded.
Hinz presented a slide, below, the implication of which is that if there were not a zero tolerance fare evasion policy, light rail would be a completely lawless zone, unsafe for everyone. BS. The previous practice of asking people who did not have proof of payment to exit the train at the next station seemed to me to be working just fine. Zero tolerance was extended not just to people who intended to not pay, but to everyone, no matter issues with the Connect Transit Card readers, or Transit Connect app, or any other method of payment. This zero tolerance policy is a typical law enforcement response to any problem to maximize enforcement no matter what the effect on riders. This is unacceptable. Hinz said that warnings are now being given rather than tickets, but I’ve seen reports that say otherwise. No explanation was given for how this zero tolerance policy came to be, nor what would replace it if it is not continued. Let me state clearly that I am not against fare checking, but what needs to be appropriate and rational is the response to evasion. Hinz used convoluted logic to imply that every fare evader is a criminal who is almost guaranteed to commit crimes on light rail. BS.
I am a moderately frequent user of Metro (LA) subway and light rail. There is a strong presence of both law enforcement and transit ambassadors, particularly on subway, and that system has more series issues than Sacramento. What I have not observed is incidents being escalated by staff, and I have observed particularly ambassadors and to some degree law enforcement being friendly and helpful when there is not an incident. This is not what is happening on SacRT light rail.
excerpt slide from 3.1 Customer Response, Fare Benefit Analysis
Hinz also addressed, vaguely, concerns about the stroller and cart policy. Again, this policy was being handled as zero tolerance, but I don’t know how it is being handled at the moment. Hinz said that a committee had been formed. I asked whether this committee included a representation of the Mobility Advisory Council (MAC), or a parent with kids in strollers, or a user of shopping carts, or a bicyclist, or for that matter, anyone who rides light rail. I strongly suspect not. I’m almost certain that it is an internal committee, composed of SacRT staff who don’t regularly use transit, if at all. Most SacRT employees, particularly administration, do not use transit.
excerpt slide from 3.1 Customer Response, Strollers, Carts, Wagons
The main agenda item was 5.1 Draft Sacramento Regional Transit District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 (staff report | draft plan). This draft plan is just the executive summary, the draft plan itself is not available at this time. I had skimmed the plan before the meeting, and was left wondering what the point of the plan is. It really says almost nothing about what SacRT will do to accomplish the four pillars (Customer Satisfaction, Operational Excellence, Community Value, Employee Engagement). The Tactical Activities slide (below) perhaps comes closest. But there are no performance standards for any of these in the document. Most of the things on the list could mean anything SacRT wants them to mean. What do they mean to riders? I’m not at all sure.
The verbal presentation used the acronym KPIs many times, without defining it. It stands for Key Performance Indicator. Reporting on implementation of the plan apparently will depend on the Quarterly Performance Reports, the most recent of which is below. This is a bean-counter approach. SacRT has been using this type of report for several years now, and every time it comes up in a board meeting, the public criticizes it for missing the point. It also always shows SacRT coming close to goals, though every rider knows that SacRT is far from reaching goals. Just more glossing over problems.
Dickinson asks where equity was in the strategic plan. The initial staff response was ‘everywhere’ but Dickinson did not accept that, and stated that it must be explicit in the document. The word equity occurs only once in the plan, on page 4. It is conspicuously absent from any of the lists. Dickinson also asked where the issue of first mile/last mile access to transit was, and why frequency of service was nowhere to be found. All good questions. Thank you!
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, July 27, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked. (pdf)
Note on item 3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments. There is no information in this document. This continues SacRT practice of making this document available much later than the rest of the agenda, often just before the board meeting, and sometimes during the board meeting. I believe the intent to be so that the public can’t review this ahead of time and develop a response. The presentation was finally posted, shortly before the meeting: 3.1 Customer presentation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of June 8, 2026
2.2 Receive and File: Quarterly Treasurer’s Report
2.3 Resolution 2026-07-088: Annual Update to Investment Policy
2.4 Resolution 2026-07-089: First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2027 Capital Budget
2.5 Resolution 2026-07-090: Approving a Sole Source Procurement and the Sixth Amendment to the Contract for Supplemental Paratransit Services with UZURV Holdings, Inc.
2.6 Resolution 2026-07-091: Approving a Contract for Supplemental Paratransit Services with Nomad Transit LLC, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc.
2.7 Resolution 2026-07-092: Approving the Second Amendment to Contract for Revenue Vehicle Tire Lease and Services with Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
2.8 Resolution 2026-07-093: Conditionally Approving an Easement for Electrical Facilities with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Between 59 th and 65 th Street
2.9 Resolution 2026-07-094: Approving a Sole Source Procurement and the Third Amendment to the Legal Support Services Contract with Hanson Bridgett for the Amendment and Restatement of Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Defined Benefit Pension Plan Documents to Incorporate Required PEPRA, Secure Act and Secure 2.0 Act Provisions and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Additional Amendments as needed up to an Aggregate Amount of $100,000
2.10 Resolution 2026-07-095: Approve Transfer of Project Funding Amendment, Approve FY27 State of Good Repair Project List and Allocation for Funding Under the Roadway Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) State of Good Repair
2.11 Resolution 2026-07-096: Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute Agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Award for the Green Line Bus Rapid Transit to Sacramento International Airport Study
2.12 Resolution 2026-07-097: Approving Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Response to the 2025-2026 Sacramento County Civil Grand Jury Report Related to SacRT GO Complementary Paratransit Services and Directing the Chair to Submit the Response to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court
2.13 Resolution 2026-07-098: Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement for Amalgamated Transit Union Local Division 256, AFL-CIO – Elk Grove, for the Term of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027
2.14 Resolution 2026-07-099: Approving the Project Agreement Between the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the City of Sacramento for Cloud-Based Transit Signal Priority Project
The Franklin Blvd complete streets project is… complete, with a ribbon cutting that occurred on Tuesday morning. This is a project that I have not been paying attention to, but I visited it to see what it is like. It spans Sutterville Road on the north to Fruitridge Road on the south, with the part south of Fruitridge to the county line not constructed. It is about 1.1 miles. Franklin Blvd runs from Broadway 25 miles to well south of Elk Grove, including the crossroads of Franklin, for which it was named. This section of Franklin is largely commercial, with small remnants of residential. The section north of here, to Broadway, is largely residential with some commercial, and is a much slower and calmer street.
The only publicly available document is the initial October 2019 plan. This plan included three similar but not same options. No information is available on what was actually built.
Though this project is complete, an analysis of what worked and what didn’t could help improve future complete streets projects that the city might undertake.
Bikeway: A separated bikeway was created along the corridor. It is protected by concrete curbs or medians for about half of its length, but some paint only sections remain, and the bikeway is interrupted by frequent driveways. Still, it was fairly well done. The initial diagrams show protected intersections with high quality bicycle facilities, but the actual construction at intersections is only slightly protected. OK.
Trees: The initial plan includes this sentence: “Plant trees along street at approximately 30 feet apart, on-center, to provide shade and cooler temperatures.” If implemented, this would result in about 350 trees along the segment. There are 30. Failure. In addition, the trees are mostly in 5.5 foot wide sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips), whereas trees need at least 8 feet to remain healthy and reduce sidewalk heaving. Failure.
The photo below is a mock-up from the initial plan. It is standard practice for city projects to show more trees than they intend to install. Gaslighting the public.
mock-up photo from initial complete streets plan
Other plantings: The initial plan indicated there would be bioswales throughout the project, but I saw only one small one. The plantings in sidewalk buffers are aesthetically pleasing, but not environmentally significant.
Sidewalks: Some sidewalks were upgraded to 6 feet, which is the modern minimum. Ramps were installed at intersections. Driveway crossings are a mix of acceptable and illegal, with cross-slopes in the sidewalk. Other sidewalks were left in their original condition of 4.5 to 5 feet. Falls short.
Sidewalk amenities: There are some trash cans provided by Franklin Blvd Business District. I did not see any other amenities. Weak.
Lighting: Pedestrian-scale lighting, with traditional poles, was installed along the length. The old motor-vehicle scale lighting was left in place. Though I did not visit the street at night, lighting looks to be a great improvement.
Driveways: There are a huge number of driveways in this section, largely due to the traditional development pattern of small business buildings on small parcels, with parking between the street and the building. This is an unfortunate pattern, but not something that can easily be fixed. Most driveways were replaced with a slope in the sidewalk buffer, or more commonly, dip down and back up, which is legal but not ideal. There are several driveways for long abandoned businesses and empty parcels, which should have been closed under the city’s driveway closure policy.
Safe crossings: There are existing signals at Sutterville Road/12th Avenue, 21st Avenue, Atlas Avenue (full pedestrian signal), 26th Avenue (to the west), and Fruitridge Road. At 18th Avenue, there is a new enhanced RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon). There are RRFBs on a signal mast arm, in addition to at the side, perhaps safer than a standard RRFB, but given driver behavior in Sacramento, not safe. The distance from 26th Avenue to Fruitridge is just over a quarter mile, though there may not be a good location for a crossing in this stretch. The distance from Sutterville/12th Avenue to 18th Avenue is well over a quarter mile, which is an unacceptable distance between safe crossings.
Curb extensions: There was an opportunity to shorten crossing distances and slow drivers by providing curb extensions on the side streets. This was not done.
Bus: SacRT Route 67 runs on Franklin from Broadway to 21st Avenue. There is a pull-out bus stop just south of Sutterville/12th Avenue, which is a timepoint and may be appropriate, though pulling out of traffic, and back in, is poor practice. The other bus stops are in shared bus/bicycle areas, which is probably fine for a low frequency route (30 minutes). It occurs to me that it might be better to run service south on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, to consistently serve the commercial area. The route on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd does serve residential areas, but those are constrained by Hwy 99 to the west and a poor street grid, and the route misses Christian Brothers High School.
Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection: This wide flared intersection is hazardous for all users, and nothing was done to improve it. Southbound, Franklin flares from one travel lane to two dedicated left turn lanes (unnecessary and unsafe), one uncontrolled dedicated right hand turn slip lane (highly dangerous for bicyclists and walkers), and one through lane. Everything that was good about the complete streets project gets tossed out the window at this intersection. I realize that it might have only been possible to fix the north leg of the intersection with this project, but no effort was made to do so. Complete failure.
Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge Rd, uncontrolled slip laneoverhead of Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection (only one southbound lane now)
“Recently the city has installed a new 6-inch curb in the center of Elvas Ave. right alongside The Line, probably to prevent Doordash drivers from making left turns in or out of there. Now if you are coming from 62nd St., you can’t turn left to get to the Hornet Tunnel. They didn’t put in curb cuts for bicyclists. The old curb had some openings. Your options are to ride to 65th St. and make a U-turn, salmon up Elvas on the wrong side of the street, ride on that horrendous excuse for a sidewalk on the east side of the street, or stop in the middle of the street and carry your bike over the curb. The section of Elvas Ave. between 62nd St. and the Hornet Tunnel should have protected bike lanes, similar to what was built on Rod Beaudry Dr. several years ago.”
So I went to take a look. This seemingly minor project has indeed made things worse for bicyclists. A bicyclist eastbound on Elvas Avenue used to be able to use the center turn lane to come close to the Hornet Tunnel entrance before having to cross to the east side of Elvas. Not ideal, but acceptable for ‘strong and confident’ bicyclists. Now, that transition must occur way back at 64th Street.
map overview of Elvas Ave between 64th St and 65th Stnew curb on Elvas Ave at The Line
I have written several times about the hazard that Elvas Ave presents to bicyclists (as well as everyone else) and requested that the city come up with a plan to fix it. A large number of other advocates have requested the same. The city has done absolutely nothing. (Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel, Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel update, M Street to Hornet Tunnel. The route which includes L Street, M Street, and 63rd Street is one of the most used bicycle routes in the city, particularly when Sac State is in session, but throughout the year. It is quite pleasant and safe, except for this short stretch along Elvas Avenue which is incredibly dangerous and uncomfortable. Stress level 4 plus.
As pointed out by the commenter, this concrete curb was probably placed to eliminate left turns into and left turns out of the driveway at The Line. (By the way, this is a 7 inch curb. The city no longer uses 6 inch curbs because drivers with large trucks just drive over them.) So for motor vehicle drivers, it is at least somewhat safer. I’m not sure how long it has been in place, but there are black tire marks on both sides of the curb, indicating that drivers are running into the curb. The city could have placed a short cut in the curb to allow bicyclists to turn left onto the sidewalk and into the tunnel. But they did not.
Probably even more egregious is that the city permitted The Line and Garden at The Line developments without any requirement for, or even plan for, calming traffic at this location. Why was the development approved without a solution. The problem was known, and it was known that traffic would get worse with this development.
When I was there today, I crossed Elvas Avenue so as to get photos from both sides. Crossing back to the west at the north end of the curb, three drivers failed to yield to me, though there is a crosswalk (unmarked) there. The fourth driver, turning out of 64th Street to Elvas, accelerated belligerently towards me and I had to run to keep from getting hit. This was broad daylight with a not particularly high volume of traffic. In the evenings when hundreds of people are trying to cross Elvas to and from Garden at The Line, it is much worse. People will die here. And those deaths will be on the city staff that has failed to fix this traffic hazard.
The City of Sacramento established a Tactical Action Group (TAG) otherwise known as Transportation Safety Team, in March 2025. Unfortunately, very slow progress has been made on this. The program lead is in place, Philip Vulliet, and an administrative assistant, but the other five positions have not. The city has a difficult time filling positions, particularly engineering position, as the pay level is low compared to other entities and private industry. A webpage for the program has not been established.
So far as I know, the only information on the program is a presentation given by Mr. Vulliet to Strong SacTown in June 2026. I think there was a presentation to SacATC, but I’ve been unable to find it. The slides are below, but they are not very specific. The Strong SacTown meeting notes have more detail, and follow the slides. Thank you, Strong SacTown.
gallery of slides from presentation on Tactical Action Group, at Strong SacTown 2026-06-04
Phil Vulliet (VOO-lee-ay) is the new lead for the city’s Safety Response Team where he will help Sacramento respond faster to urgent safety needs and continue advancing the City’s goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes.
About Phil: 20+ years of experience. Project manager for capital improvement projects (aka big road projects) for last 11 years. Managed Broadway Complete Streets, Downtown Mobility Project, and others. Prior to that, did consulting.
2018 City passed Vision Zero Action Plan. Based on 10 years previous accident data. Established list of high-injury network – responsible for >70% of serious injuries in cities. Looked at root causes of vehicular violence and impact on pedestrians and cyclists. Looked at impact on bicycles and pedestrians – 40% fatal collisions. We need to protect them.
Planning efforts came from the research – top 5 corridor study, 6-10 corridor study is now in planning and quick builds will be prioritized as well.
Parking protected bike lanes were created and then the central city mobility project was completed in 2024 as well as broadway complete streets, Franklin complete streets wrapping up and northward school access was completed.
Funds are being used to match grants.
13,000 crashes still (all mode crashes)
Transportation safety initiative was passed in 2025 – responsibility to track now.
Transportation Safety Team (TST) – established jobs for 6 FTE’s
Quick builds – rapid implementation limitations (no land acquisitions), limited electrical work, excavation only by city crews (try not to dig), Council action needed – assigned project in tiers
Tier 1 – quickest of quick builds – surface treatments (Paint and Plastic), includes alterations in traffic circulation. Community informed
Tier 2 – outside of the TST team – require full plans and bidding. Pilot projects. It takes about a year.
Quickbuilds are faster than CIP
CIP – Safety program, quick build CIP – sales tax generates the funds for the safety programs
TST – They require contracting readiness, design delivery capacity, need new processes and new tech as well as outreach, follow-up and reporting needed.
They were given an exception by the city council that they are allowed to go to contract vs. go to bid
Software platforms can share real-time speeds and volumes without having to do a traffic study (speeds up the process of evaluation)
Outreach is beyond critical – it’s about equity, some cities are more organized than others. TST only has so much staffing to support and cannot watch every intersection.
Feedback needed when the quick build has been built and if it’s not working, that’s the beauty of it, they can fix it quickly.
The public facing GIS dashboard is up and is working to create a map to show where in the city there have been quick builds implemented.
Q&A Notes
Q: Gets through
A: Budget will help, it will increase funding, but that is not the limiting factor
Q: Process to determine an LPI (Leading Pedestrian Interval)
A: Megan Carter – give pedestrians a few extra seconds of time to provide more time. LPIs will be implemented everywhere, unless we can justify not doing it. There are some lawsuits if you don’t implement LPS ( not being equitable if it does not include LPS). ATC will go with a plan next year.
Q: What are issues you face when you change the fabric of the street
A: Daylighting and recommended clearance and it was 25% parking loss. New state law that doesn’t require any parking to be provided. Willing to accept delays for cars.
Q: Streets are designed like roads and are in urban areas. When you add parking it does slow people down.
A: They do try to account for that. Ideally if he had a magic wand he would make the traffic slower.
Q: is that a tier 1 or a tier 2
A: We can look at curb usage and how we monetize it and manage uber’s, lyft’s and waymo.
Listening to the Talking Headways podcast this morning, there was a brief reference to Emergency Streets and Kevin Krizek. I immediately went to the Emergency Streets website. I have to admit that it is immensely satisfying to me when I find a formal program similar to what I have posted about before: someone died here, close the intersection (2026-02).
“Emergency Streets inculcates a sense of urgency requiring a response by every driver on the road. Reframing the problem as a public health matter has potential to shock the system and foment change. Emergency Streets can help sidestep some of the existing bureaucratic and cultural barriers to slower, safer driving, without compromising other public priorities.”
Emergency Streets is a developed program that consulted with academics and street safety staff and advocates. It is robust and innovative. I encourage you to look at the website, and I’ve linked two of the relevant documents: Emergency Streets Protocol and Emergency Streets White Paper.
In most cases, Emergency Streets does not propose to close the intersection, except as briefly necessary to set up controls and communication, but it focuses on immediately slowing traffic, within 36 hours, and notifying the public of the fatality, on the ground and through media. Signage should be in place within five days. Changes of up to a half mile before the location are recommended, though I think that depends on the context. Arterial streets with few cross-streets and fewer safe crossings? Yes, a half mile. A street with many cross-streets and possibly safe crossings at other intersections, a shorter distance would work.
The table below provides an example of treatments, but please look at the entire Protocol document for more details.
The City of Sacramento Tactical Action Group (quick build program) has not been fully defined yet, but I recommend the city consider the Emergency Streets program for adoption. At this time, the best information is a TAG presentation given to Strong SacTown. (Note that I have not posted on the TAG/quick build since it was on city council agenda in March 2025. I will correct that.)
The chart below shows the leading causes of ‘unintentional’ death in the US, 2019 to 2023. The chart is from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WISQARS Leading Causes of Death page. Change filters to see the ‘unintentional’ data. Ironically, one of the available filters is ‘Violence-Related Injuries’, but these ‘Unintentional MV (motor vehicle) Traffic’ datum are not in that category, though they are clearly violence. Traffic violence. And of course not all is ‘unintentional’. And as with all traffic violence data, it does not include crashes that occur on private property, people run over in parking lots and children killed in their own driveway.
I often see it stated that traffic violence is the leading or second leading category of preventable death, but I find this more detailed view worthwhile.
Credit to Emergency Streets for the idea, and the link to CDC WISQARS. My selection criteria is slightly different than theirs. I’ll write soon about Emergency Streets.
Getting Around Sacramento 