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.
Hit-and-run crashes are epidemic in the Sacramento area, and increasing. The statistics for Sacramento County, 2019-2023, are:
Year
Percent Hit and Run
2023
10.6%
2022
9.8%
2021
8.9%
2020
9.6%
2019
8.1%
And for the City of Sacramento, 2019 through 2023.
Year
Percent Hit and Run
2023
13.8%
2022
11.7%
2021
10.1%
2020
11.1%
2019
9.1%
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelizationCabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelizationCabaldon Pkwy WB at 3rd St lane channelizationCabaldon Pkwy EB at 5th St lane channelizationCabaldon Pkwy WB at 5th St lane channelizationCabaldon 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.
5th St SB centerline hardening5th 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.
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.
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 – unsafewith 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.
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.
19th St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators21st St at O St, channelization with vertical delineators, also yield markersW St at 8th St, channelization with vertical delineators, also yield markers
Given that the study was completed and adopted by city council in February 2021, the exact nature of the projects at each school site might now be different, but it is worth looking at what was recommended at that time. I looked at The MET Sacramento High School (pages 33-36), since it is on my morning walk. The diagram is below, followed by my comments.
diagram of improvements for The MET Sacramento, from SacCity VZ School Safety Study 2021
W Street at 8th St: The study missed what I consider to be one of the most significant safety hazards for the school, which is that there was, at that time, no safe crossing of W Street, one-half block south of the school, which would be the source area for probably half the students at the school. As part of an unrelated project (so far as I know), the crosswalks over W Street were made safer by high visibility crosswalk markings, vertical delineator lane channelizers, and RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon). I would not recommend installation of RRFBs, since most drivers ignore them, particularly on high speed roadways such as W Street, nevertheless, it is an attempt to make the crossing safer. These improvements may have been done for the heavy walker use during the Sunday farmers market, and Southside Park, but they are a value to the school. Since these crosswalks are only a half block from the school, they should be yellow. If the possible solution to parking is “…consider implementing a parking program at the W/X Parking Lot”, these crosswalks are even more important to student safety.
8th Street & V Street: The intersection of 8th Street and V Street should have school crosswalks (yellow) on both the north side (as shown) and the south side. The south side is constrained by a heritage tree on the west side of 8th Street, but a shifted alignment is possible. All crosswalks should be high visibility zebra pattern, not parallel lines. There is no excuse for excluding a crosswalk on this school corner. As mentioned, RRFBs are not safe, so should not be considered for this intersection. What should be installed are curb extensions on the west, northeast, and southeast corners. Full daylighting must be implemented on V Street westbound and 8th Street northbound (AB 413). V Street has a 15 foot, very faded, red curb, rather than 20 feet.
V Street & 9th Street: Curb extensions should be installed in the northwest and southwest corners. All crosswalks should be high visibility, not parallel lines. Curb extensions on both ends of the section of V Street between 8th Street and 9th Street would further communicate that this is a slow area, not a through route. Full daylighting must be implemented on 9th Street southbound and V Street eastbound.
Sidewalks: In addition to the repair noted for 8th Street east side sidewalk, areas officially designated for drop-off/pick-up should have hard surfaces in the sidewalk buffer (planting strip). Where it is possible to widen sidewalks without reducing the sidewalk buffer, sidewalks on all side of the campus should be eight feet rather than 5-1/2 feet (on V Street) and six feet (on 8th Street). However, the 8th Street width is narrowed to 37 inches for a tree, which is less than the required ADA/PROWAG 48 inches. The damaged sidewalk on 8th Street has been repaired.
Bicycle facilities: The city has an unfunded project to extend a parking protected separated bikeway on 9th Street from its current terminus at Q Street to W Street, or Broadway. If consistent with the existing facility, this would be on the east side of 9th Street. A two-stage turn box will need to be installed at V Street, and perhaps Victorian Alley, so that southbound bicyclists can wait for a gap in traffic and make a safe turn onto V Street or the alley. If memory serves, the limited bike racks are located off Victorian Alley, which complicates ingress and egress, but can be addressed.
The new Siemens S700 light rail cars, in service on SacRT Gold Line and eventually on SacRT Blue Line, have very limited bicycle space. SacRT’s policy is that there can be four bicycles on each rail car, in the corner by the regular (not handicapped) doors. This policy was unchanged from that for the old light rail cars, so SacRT claimed there was no issue, however, the amount of space available is quite different. Most of the older cars had seats removed to provide additional bicycle space, in addition to the bike hooks on the 200 series cars. The practical bicycle space on these old rail cars was essentially 10 per car. The model of S700 that SacRT has purchased is designated by Siemens as ‘US’, meaning ultra-short. The cars are much shorter than the standard S700, with less space for passengers, wheelchairs, and bicycles. That mistake is not something that can be corrected – the cars are in service, and more are on order, and the light rail system will eventually be exclusively S700 ‘US’ cars.
SacRT bicycle sign four bikes per car
There are conflicts between passengers and bicyclists, and in particular with wheelchair users who have priority access to the ‘priority seating’ area of fold-down-fold-up seats. There have been incidents of bicyclists who were using the ‘priority seating’ area refusing to move. There have been times when so many bicyclists have been on board that it was difficult for other to maneuver around them.
So, what can be done? Two partial solutions:
On-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at stations frequently used by bicyclists. Some bicyclists insist on bringing their bicycle on board, either because they need it at the destination, or because there is no secure bicycle storage at the station. Providing secure lockers would allow some bicyclists to leave their bike at the station, rather than bringing it on board. The standard secure bicycle storage solution is BikeLink lockers. Lockers provided by the City of Folsom at Historic Folsom, Glenn, and Iron Point are shown below. No other light rail stations have on-demand storage.
Way back in 2021, Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) made a formal request to SacRT that they provide on-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at light rail stations (secure bike parking). STAR had been talking to SacRT for several years before this on the same issue. The rental lockers provided at some stations were mostly not in use, and the public had no access to them except through a month-to-month rental. At that time, SacRT said they were ‘studying’ it. Meaning they weren’t actually doing anything. Bicyclist transit advocates have over the intervening years continued to ask SacRT about lockers. The answer is always the same – it is being ‘studied’. Nothing has happened. There is nothing related to the ‘study’ on the SacRT website. There is nothing in the board agenda. There is nothing in the budget.
The SACOG Mobility Zones program, which might site hubs at or near light rail stations has identified the Ben Ali/Swanston, Florin, and Rosemont/Western Rancho Cordova mobility zones. However, the zones so far defined do not guarantee co-location with stations. Note that the SACOG Mobility Zones map does not indicate light rail locations, so it is unlikely that it is a central part of site selection. The mobility hub diagrams show regular (unsecured) bike racks but do not show bike lockers.
SacRT is undertaking an apparently separate SacHub: Mobility Hubs Project for three light rail stations: Marconi/Arcade, Globe, and LaValentina/Alkalai Flat. There is no mention on the sparse page of secure bike storage, or even bike racks, for these hubs.
City of Folsom BikeLink lockers at Iron Point SacRT Gold Line station
Add a bicycle hanging location in place of a seat on the S700 cars. The seat location is between the handicap ramp door and the accordion section. This would change the allowable bicycles from four to six per car. The photo below shows the bicycle hanging area on a Seattle area Sound Transit S700 light rail car. These are full size cars with more space, but the smaller space on the SacRT S700 cars would probably only allow one bicycle hook per location, or two per car. It is true that some bicyclists cannot lift their bicycle to the hook, but the on-floor locations would still be available for those people. I have been on some light rail vehicles that had bicycle storage in the middle section, between the accordion sections, but it was poorly designed and awkward to use.
Sound Transit LINK 1-Line bicycle hanging storage area
In August of 2024, bicyclists at the light rail demonstration of the new S700 cars indicated that bicycle space was insufficient, and there needed to be more space to accommodate bicyclists. SacRT decided not to add this capability to the new cars.
My conclusion is that SacRT does not take the bicycles on light rail issue seriously, and does not intend to solve the problem.
Enough posts on SacRT and transit, for now, after 10 in the last two weeks. On to other transportation topics!
The work on the Watt/I-80 light rail and bus station is almost complete, with final opening due within a month. The west side was open, but is now closed again for final work. The east side is complete and open. The station is a major connecting point between Blue Line light rail and five bus routes (1, 15, 26, 84, 93).
Capital Transit Alliance was offered a tour of the station on Wednesday, August 26, with Principal Engineer Jenny Niello hosting. The project looks great, an immense improvement over the dark, urine-stained, trash filled stairwells of the old station.
The issues not resolved by the project include:
There is no public restroom at the station. It is likely that the elevators will continue to be used as bathrooms.
Wayfinding signs are not present. This includes wayfinding from the light rail terminus to the east side stair, during construction. For permanent wayfinding at the top of the stairs on the east side, there is nothing. One bus stop is north (26, 84), but the bus stop sign is hardly visible from the top of stairs. Two bus stops are to the south. For the first (1, 15), the sign is partly obscured by the bus shelter. For the second (93), the bus stop sign is not visible at all. There should be wayfinding signs at the top of the stairs that not only indicate which stops are to the right (north) and left (south), but a map showing the destinations of the five bus routes. As always, SacRT seems to be making the assumption that only regular riders, who know the stops and destinations, would be using this station. Nothing for new or inexperienced users.
The east side top of stairs and bus stops are very hot in the afternoon summer sun. For the three bus stops at 6:00 PM, there was not shade from the afternoon sun. There must be some additional shade available here. Roof? Canopy?
I had intended to do a comparison of management and non-management positions in SacRT compared to peer agencies. The data below is from the National Transit Database (NTD), operating expenses tables and employee tables, for the year 2024. I picked some other transit agencies for comparison. Please note that these numbers do no agree with the numbers presented in agency budgets, nor other online sources, but for comparison purposes, they serve. For the operations positions and the operations expenses, operations and operations maintenance are combined.
For the percentage of positions in operations, and the percentage of expenses in operations, a higher number is good, since operations are why the transit agency exists.
Getting Around Sacramento 