Davis regresses on sidewalks

2026/04/08 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This post was initiated by an article in the SacBee on Tuesday – SacBee (Yolo County News)/Daniel Lempres, 2026-04-07: Davis considers code update to shift liability of sidewalk maintenance. For prior (many) posts on sidewalk maintenance and responsibility, see category: sidewalks.

There is a misstatement in the article: “California law places the responsibility for sidewalks on the adjacent property owner, but Davis typically accepts responsibility for all repairs and replacements.” State law allows a city or county to make property owners responsible for sidewalks, but it does not require that a city or a county do so. It is not uncommon for a government, including the City of Sacramento, to claim that state law forces them, but this is a lie, and they know it is a lie. Davis was more responsible than most cities in that it generally did repair on its own dime. What has changed is that the budget crisis, which Davis and every other city faces, has them searching for ways to extract more money from citizens without raising taxes. This is just one example.

I will state, as I have many times before, that it is unconstitutional for the government to require a citizen to maintain city-owned property. Sidewalks are city-owned property on city-owned land. The adjacent property owner does not own the sidewalk, and does not own the land on which it sits (with a few exceptions when property boundaries do not reflect where curbs and sidewalks are). Sidewalks are an integral part of the transportation network, and should be maintained in the same way as the rest of the roadway. We don’t ask adjacent property owners to repave the street, and we should not ask them to fix the sidewalk. Unless of course the damage was caused by a privately-owned tree.

For the 2026-04-07 Davis city council agenda item (#7) on sidewalks, see Ordinance Adding Article 35.09 to Chapter 35 of the City’s Municipal Code Related to Responsibility and Maintenance of Sidewalks and Update on Sidewalk Inspection Program, staff report | presentation.

To the considerable credit of the City of Davis, it does have a sidewalk inspection program, under the Sidewalk Accessibility for Everyone program, which the City of Sacramento does not. Though the Davis presentation states that the City of Sacramento does, there is no evidence for a regular inspection program; rather the city inspects when there is a complaint. Also to the credit of Davis, fines paid by adjacent property owners who do not fix the sidewalk would go back into the sidewalk maintenance program, not into the general fund, as it would in the City of Sacramento.

Video of the staff presentation, council discussion, and decision is available on video at 2:35. One council member asked the question about responsibility if the sidewalk damage was caused by a city-owned tree (as it often the case). Legal counsel said that the ordinance still places responsibility on the adjacent property owner. Another council member asked about how low-income property owners and affordable housing would be handled. Counsel said that if the damage was caused by a utility, it would be paid for by the utility, whether the city or private (PG&E), but that city-owned trees were not included because most damage was caused by city-owned trees, and that would mean less income to the city from property owners (!). A number of other questions were raised by council members, which are not answered in the ordinance.

The ordinance presented and passed (first reading) is the first step in developing policy to underlie the ordinance. City staff was vague about when the policy would be in place, and when the ordinance would be enforced.

The photo below is from the City of Davis staff presentation on the sidewalk ordinance. Note that this is a city-owned tree that has caused the damage. Also, a prior repair, which did not solve the problem, is under the worker to the right side.

photo of Davis city crew measuring for sidewalk repair — *Davis city crew measuring for sidewalk repair (City of Davis)*

Stockton BRT and Broadway service

2026/04/07 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I previously wrote about the possible alternative 2 alignment of the Stockton BRT north of Broadway on Stockton, west to T Street and then on 29th/30th streets, and then on L/J streets to Sacramento Valley Station. The big advantage, and it is a big one, is that the BRT would then serve Aggie Square, and all the medical, office, and housing developments along Stockton between Broadway and T Street. Those developments already produce ridership on Route 38, and would in the future produce a large number of riders. However, as previously stated, this alternative is only workable and equitable if SacRT and the city commit to a high frequency route serving Broadway between Stockton Blvd and at least 19th Street. Though residential density drops off after 19th Street, the low-income housing of Alder Grove southwest of Broadway and Muir Way, and the developing area of The Mill southwest of Broadway and 5th Street (which is beyond the current route) should have service. How a replacement route would navigate to downtown is a decision for SacRT planners.

SacRT provided the heat map below of boardings along the existing Route 51. The two highest locations are 19th St/21st St, which is not surprising since this is a transfer point for Blue Line Light Rail at the Broadway Station, and Florin Towne Centre Transit Center at the south end of the route. This high point surprises me since when I’ve been on Route 51, there are few riders south of Fruitridge Rd, but there must be patterns that I’ve not observed. Other clusters are at J Street and N Street, which are most likely state workers and support workers, at Alhambra, at Broadway and Stockton, and on Stockton in the vicinity of 21st Avenue.

map of Route 51 ridership heatmap — *Route 51 ridership heatmap (from SacRT)*

SacRT also provided weekday ridership data (xlsx). Out of a total weekday ridership of 4787, stops in downtown and along Broadway have a total ridership of 2638 (about 55%), along Stockton 1890 (about 39%), and at Stockton & Broadway 260 (about 1%). Clearly, Broadway and downtown stops along the existing Route 51 are critical to riders, even more so than Stockton Blvd. Therefore, bus service along Broadway must be maintained as frequent service, 15 minutes or better, if a new alignment for BRT is implemented.

No high frequency service on Broadway, no alternative route 2. Period.

CTC = the highway lobby

2026/03/242026/03/24 Dan Allison1 Comment

California OKs a lot of new freeway lanes during climate change-fueled heat wave (SacBee, Ariane Lange, 2026-03-21)

The California Transportation Commission (CaTC; CTC is Commission on Teacher Credentialing) has approved yet more of your tax dollars to serve a small segment of the population, those who commute long distances. Freeways will be expanded all over the state. Why is more highway capacity needed? Because more lanes equals more driving, equals more gas tax, equals more money for highways. It is a circular loop, also known as a growth ponzi scheme.

The CTC has long been in the pocket of the highway lobby, which is composed of the asphalt and concrete providers and construction companies, the fossil fuel companies, and the politicians who love ribbon cuttings over actually doing something to benefit their voters (of course, as we all know, most politicians first consider their campaign contributors, and only if it doesn’t conflict, citizens).

But because CTC continually funds highway expansion, basically giving Caltrans everything that asks for, so long as it is capacity expansion, and refuses to give serious discussion or attention to climate change and the evolved transportation environment, it has really become the highway lobby.

Because nearly all transportation funding (otherwise known as your tax dollars) goes to highway expansion, there is little left at the state level for maintaining highways. And little at the regional (SACOG) level. And almost nothing at the county and city level. Your street is likely falling apart, because the money is going elsewhere.

Caltrans has built a transportation system based almost solely on the needs of commuters and freight, though because of congestion induced by commuters, it no longer serves freight very well. Active transportation was not just an afterthought, but was actively planned against. The most dangerous roadway locations in the state are highway onramps and off ramps, which were designed for the highest possible motor vehicle speed, and usually have minimal or no accommodation for people walking and bicycling. As if the ramps were not bad enough, Caltrans retains control of overpasses and underpasses, though they spend none of their money on improving those, forcing local entities to spend their own limited funds to fix Caltrans mistakes. And there are plenty of Caltrans mistakes to be fixed. Billions of dollars worth. Instead of fixing things, Caltrans builds more. More problems to solve, more infrastructure to maintain, but without asking for very much for that maintenance.

Nine of the eleven members of the CTC are appointed by the governor. So our windshield governor owns the misallocation of taxpayer dollars. Of these members, only two could be considered advocates for active transportation, transit, and rail: Adonia Lugo and Darnell Grisby. A few others are not opposed to these, but not very supportive. Some are actively opposed to spending state money on anything but highways.

Strong Towns has addressed this travesty by documenting how the era of Interstate Highway expansion is and should be at an end:

Mission Accomplished: The Interstate Was Finished. The Program Wasn’t. (with link to Mission Accomplished white paper)
The Highway Expansion Lightning Lane (2026-03-09)
What If Federal Transportation Spending Is the Reason Your City Feels Broke? (2026-02-23)
Transportation After the Age of Expansion (2026-01-25)
We’ve Been Fighting the Wrong Transportation Fight (2026-02-16)

Of course Caltrans and its enabler CTC is not just expanding the Interstate system, which they are, but the entire state highway system.

CTC is broken. Can it be reformed? It seems to me unlikely. Since CTC largely serves to give Caltrans whatever it wants, maybe it would be better to just give the budget directly to Caltrans. Nothing would improve, but at least active transportation, transit, and rail advocates would only have to monitor one agency instead of Caltrans and CTC.

Hwy 50 at 48th St, looking east, 2026 — Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2026

Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2013 — Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2026

SacCity VZ Action Plan: focus on disadvantaged

2026/03/22 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In an earlier post on City Council discussion of the Vision Zero Action Plan update, which happened on March 17, I did not identify which if any of the vulnerable users and locations of concern I would support, but implied that the criteria should simply be the incidents of fatality and serious injury.

I’ve been reflecting on this over the last week, and have spent time in a disadvantaged, low-income community in Del Paso Heights, and some moderate to high income communities in other parts of Sacramento, as well as several other cities in Northern California. As a result I am not going to clearly say that I think the primary, not only, criteria should be disadvantaged communities, which is item 6 on the list, under ‘in sensitive areas’.

Use of the term ‘disadvantaged communities’ doesn’t really get at the issue. The term implies that there is something innate to these places that causes them to be naturally disadvantaged, and even more insidious, that the people there have made themselves disadvantaged. I’m not saying this is the prevalent attitude, but I have certainly heard if from many people.

However, I think the more accurate term is ‘disinvested communities”. The City of Sacramento has, over many years, spent significantly less money in the low-income and high-minority communities of south Sacramento and north Sacramento, which includes Del Paso Heights. The city has allowed public resources, including but not limited to roadways, to deteriorate. Instead, the city has widened roadways from neighborhood streets to wide arterials, for the benefit of higher-income and whiter commuters passing through. These wide streets are where the highest crash rates are, and where people do not feel safe walking and bicycling, or even in their cars. The neighborhoods suffer from higher air pollution levels attributable to these wide roads, and the concentration of pollution-generating land uses. These neighborhood are now host to abandoned and deteriorated building, and empty lots where there used to be buildings – homes and businesses. The city shrugged its shoulders and allowed this to happen, rather than investing in these places. The city has expressed concern about this decline, and made plans to mitigate it, but has done almost nothing. And it shows.

So, yes to the ‘disadvantaged communities’ focus area. Yes to undoing at least some of the damage of past disinvestment.

thinking outside the metal box (car)

2026/03/20 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The war of aggression started by The Felon Trump (grifter in chief) has sent gas prices soaring. Though the administration said this war was about nuclear weapons, I suspected from the beginning that is was not just about that. Whatever it was, the actions of Iraq and Israel and the US have now made it about oil.

This has had an impact on those who drive, and will eventually have an impact on those who fly and and even those who take the train, though long term contracts will stretch that increase out over time. For those who drive, this is a big issue. The cost of nearly everything has gone up, in part but not only due to Trump’s tariffs, and now this further increase on top of that. The cost of living is up, up, up. I have noticed myself that there are fewer cars on the street in Sacramento except during commute hours, when there are just as many as ever.

I have also noticed a remarkable lack of thoughtfulness on the part of people about what this means, and how to respond. In California, and elsewhere, politicians who were thought to be progressive are now touting the Republican talking points of reducing gas prices by suspending gas taxes, undoing climate change actions, and using oil reserves.

Several national media articles have summarized what drivers are thinking and how they are responding, with a few below, and thousands more in search (note: There were similar but more apropos articles, but I could not track back to them. Please comment if you have better links):

‘It’s Just Crazy’: High Car Payments Make Ownership Feel Impossible. NY Times, March 16
The War in Iran Is Driving Costs Up. Here Are Some Ways to Save. NY Times, March 13
Divided on so many things, Americans find unity in frustration at higher gas prices PBS News, March 10

What nearly every article seems to miss is that dependence on gas prices is the result of decisions made, individually and by government.

Has anyone said “I’m going to get to work on transit.”? Has anyone said “I’m not going to drive to get coffee.”? Has anyone said “I’m considering a different place to work, or a different place to live, so I don’t have to drive to work.”? Has anyone said “I’m going to contact my representative to insist that transportation funds be spent on transit, walking, and bicycling instead of increasing highway capacity.”? Well, actually, yes, to this one, that is the message of transportation advocates every day.

The appropriate response to a crisis, and yes, this is a crisis for low income people, should be to step back and think about what is not working, and how to not get caught by the same crisis next time. The appropriate response is NOT to say “I want gas prices lower so that I can keep on doing what I’ve always been doing.”

An recent article on Streetsblog USA (2026-03-16), What If The Rising Costs of Car Dependency Were As Visible As Gas Prices?, addresses not just the higher prices for gas, but the overall higher prices for everything related to driving. And those higher prices don’t even come close to accounting for the external costs of driving to health, environment, and livability. The degree of car dependency in the US is not some natural effect that somehow just happened. It is the result of the automative industry (“…what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” – Charles Erwin Wilson, Wikiquote) and fossil fuel industries convincing Americans that driving a personal vehicle was the only way to live the good life, and that other ways of getting around were un-American. Of course the government went whole-hog on this, investing trillions of dollars on making it easier to drive (and harder to live). The automotive industry and the fossil fuel industry were wildly successful. Few Americans, and even fewer politicians, believe that any other life is possible. And so long as the government, at all levels, continues to expand highways and invest most of our transportation funds in cars, this will not change.

So, what to do against this backdrop of car dominance and forced car dependency? Resist! Protest! Change!

Most of the foreign actions of our government, under primarily Republican policy, but Democratic as well, have been about oil. We invaded Iraq and overthrew their government because their president had the temerity to think that their oil belonged to the people of Iraq (and himself, or course). We deposed the leader of Venezuela because he could not produce enough oil at low prices for the US desires. The list goes on and on. Though someday our wars may be about water, for now they are about oil.

What can you do? Stop driving for choice trips. Yes, it is convenient, and yes, it harms us all. Start making a long range plan to free yourself of car dependency. It might be quick, it might be slow, but please move in that direction. Speak up to your representatives, and attend meetings, asking that we stop funding highways and cars, are start funding transit, walking and bicycling.

The first image below is from the Streetsblog article. But the City of Sacramento Vision Zero program does, to its credit, have a Crash Dashboard, graphic following.

graphic from City of Sacramento Vision Zero Crash Dashboard — *City of Sacramento Vision Zero Crash Dashboard*

SacCouncil VZ High Injury priority locations

2026/03/17 Dan Allison2 Comments

Prior posts on Vision Zero in category: Vision Zero.

The Sacramento City Council will tonight (2026-03-17 agenda) hear a presentation on the Vision Zero High Injury Network (staff report | presentation) and give direction to staff on whether specific victims or locations should be considered in addition to the pattern of fatal and severe injury locations. New state law allows consideration of and weighting of other victim or location criteria: walking, bicycling, youth, older adults, schools, disadvantaged communities.

This same question was presented to the Vision Zero Task Force (stakeholder) meeting on February 12. I am a member of that group. Participants spoke in favor of most of the ‘vulnerable road users’ and ‘sensitive areas’ criteria, but there did not seem to be a consensus about which criteria, or how to weight them. I’m honestly not sure. There are good arguments for each of them, but there is also an argument for keeping it simple, with just fatality and severe injury locations. The city has already prioritized school locations in many policies and projects, and I’m not sure whether an additional emphasis is needed. The city has over many, many years disinvested in low-income and high-minority communities, so there is a valid argument for making up for that past neglect by prioritizing those areas. And of course people walking are, and have always been, at the bottom of society’s list of people worth investing in and protecting.

What do you think?

graphic from Sac Council 2026-03-17 agenda 02, staff seeks council input, page 13 — *Sac Council 2026-03-17 agenda 02, staff seeks council input, page 13*

Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts

2026/03/162026/03/17 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

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

diagram of Marysville Blvd collision history — *Marysville Blvd collision history*

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

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

photo of Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade — *Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade*

diagram of Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals — *Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals*

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

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

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

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

Stockton BRT alternative alignment

2026/03/15 Dan Allison1 Comment

For additional posts on Stockton Blvd, both the current STEP project and earlier iterations, see category: StocktonBlvd.

Part of the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) is consideration of changing the BRT (bus rapid transit) route north of Broadway to part of SacRT Route 38. In a presentation at the STEP stakeholder meeting on February 19, and in the similar presentation to SacATC on March 12, this alternative was presented by a slide (page 7) and additional discussion. That slide is below, followed by a slightly more detailed Alternative 2 – Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment.

*STEP BRT Route Alternatives, from SacATC presentation*

*STEP Alternative 2 Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment*

At SacATC, Commissioner David Moore raised the issue that the existing Route 51 along Broadway is also a very high ridership corridor, serving to connect equity neighborhoods to downtown and to Stockton. Replacing Route 51 high-frequency (15 minute) service with a moderate-frequency (30 minute) route, as Route 38 currently is, would be a disservice to these riders and raise major equity issues.

The segment of Broadway from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, and probably into downtown, MUST have high-frequency (15 minute) service.

The two existing routes, 51 with a high-frequency (in SacRT terms, though this would be considered moderate frequency in major cities), and 38 with a moderate-frequency, are shown below (pdf).

map of SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing — *SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing*

Though it is not stated anywhere, the STEP alternative 2 map implies that the BRT route would end at Sacramento Valley Station rather than 8th St & F St as Route 51 currently does.

The western part of Route 38, which would become Stockton BRT under the alternative 2 51-38 hybrid, follows Stockton from Broadway north to T Street, then northbound on 30th Street or southbound on 29th Street, then west on L Street or east on J Street, and thence to Sacramento Valley Station.

map of SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT — *SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT*

The west portion of the existing Route 51, from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, is the segment that must have high-frequency (15 minute) to continue to serve the present high ridership. It is possible that this route would terminate at Sacramento Valley Station as well. It is unknown whether ridership on the existing Route 38 to the east, terminating at 65th Street light rail station, would also justify high-frequency service, and whether it this would be combined with existing Route 51 west. Map below (pdf).

map of SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown — *SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown*

SacATC 2026-03-12: T St Bikeway comments

2026/03/122026/03/12 Dan Allison1 Comment

I will make comments at SacATC tonight on the T Street Bikeway Gap closure project.

This should be called an active transportation project. There are pedestrian improvements as well as bicyclist improvements, which is appropriate.
Overall, the project addresses several known safety issues, but could be improved. The modification of Gerber Ave is appreciated.
As unsafe as bicycling is through the Stockton Blvd/T Street intersection, crossing of Stockton in the south crosswalk is even more unsafe. This crosswalk must be made safe for walkers by the addition of a long leading pedestrian interval (LPI), a minimum of 8 seconds, or an exclusive pedestrian phase.
The diagram seems to show the T Street eastbound bike lane at Stockton to the right of an optional right-turn lane. The diagram indicates ‘modify traffic signal’ but does not show a bicycle signal face. Unless there is an exclusive bicycle phase for at least a part of the overall signal cycle, this is unacceptably dangerous for bicyclists.
Removal of the intersection setback on T Street eastbound is good, but will require a ‘no right turn on red’ sign or blank-out sign.
No RRFBs! They are not safe in the City of Sacramento due to driver non-compliance.
The presentation does not make it clear why the Stockton Blvd Corridor Plan recommendation to change eastbound T Street at Stockton Blvd to a single through lane was dropped. This change would greatly simplify the intersection for walkers, bicyclists, and drivers, and remove the need for a merge east of Stockton Blvd.
Caltrans should be forced to add additional lighting, which was neglected during the Fix 50 project, where 34th Street and T Street pass under Hwy 50. This should not be a city responsibility.

diagram of T St & Stockton intersection — *T St & Stockton intersection diagram, from the presentation*

Safer Sac Streets

2026/03/122026/03/10 Dan Allison2 Comments

The website for Safer Sac Streets (Sacramento Safe Streets and Affordable Transit Measure of 2026) is now up. The website includes the full text of the measure. It has links to donate, get involved, and endorse.

The measure is a citizen measure, developed by a variety of walking, bicycling and transit advocacy organizations and others, unlike the fake ‘citizen’ measure of 2022 which was a Trojan horse for sprawl developer interests, and failed spectacularly. As a citizen measure, it requires only 50% + 1 to pass. It is also limited to the City of Sacramento, which has been strongly supportive of transportation and transit funding in past measures.

Signature gathering will start as soon as the city clerk signs off and assigns a letter, very soon. The measure will require about 31,000 signatures. Though some funds are available to signature gathering, most will be done by advocates, which is good since they will know more about the measure and local needs and perspectives, unlike the signature gatherers at grocery stores and farmers markets who often know nothing about the measures and propositions they are gathering signatures for.

The campaign kickoff will occur Sunday, March 15 at 1:00 PM, New Helvetia Brewing Company, 1730 Broadway, Sacramento.

Getting Around Sacramento will have more posts about the measure.