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?
Sac Council 2026-03-17 agenda 02, staff seeks council input, page 13
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.
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.
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.
Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgradeMarysville 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.
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 presentationSTEP 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).
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.
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).
SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown
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.
T St & Stockton intersection diagram, from the presentation
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.
The City of Sacramento is considering closing two streets in William Land Park to cars in order to open them to people. The SacBee article has more details: City could test closing streets in Sacramento’s William Land Park. The article does not have a map, so I created one, below. This is my best guess from the text description in the SacBee article. I have not found any other documents on this proposal.
Note that the terminology ‘closing’ is not the one used by active transportation advocates. The preferred term is ‘opening’, because the road, formerly used mostly by motor vehicles, with concomitant danger to those not in a motor vehicle, is now open to walkers and bicyclists.
I wrote, way back in 2022, about my suggestion for closing roads in William Land Park to motor vehicles (Land Park open (car free) roads?). This new proposal does not match mine, but it is a good proposal. At this time, only a very small roadway and gate at the far southeast corner of the park is closed to motor vehicles.
William Land Park is dominated by motor vehicles, so any ‘closing’ / ‘opening’ is welcome. This is a good first step. Parks are for people, not for cars.
Sacramento City Express newsletter of March 4 includes an item about improvements to four intersections with a grant from the federal HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) program. The article is below.
This is not part of the city’s new quick build program, rather it is from a grant submitted some time ago. Though the city is not planning for or applying for new RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) installations, they were specified in this grant application and will be installed.
Safety upgrades coming to four high-injury intersections across Sacramento
Pedestrians crossing some of Sacramento’s busiest corridors will soon see brighter warning beacons, clearer markings and improved accessibility features designed to make walking safer and more accessible.
All four intersections are located on arterial roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network in the Vision Zero Action Plan, which focuses on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets.
The project includes installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon systems at each location, upgraded curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces, new signage, flexible posts and refreshed striping and pavement markings to improve driver awareness and pedestrian accessibility. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are pedestrian-activated flashing yellow lights that alert drivers someone is crossing the street.
“These intersections are on our High Injury Network, and additional visibility and warning features are designed to improve driver awareness to yield to pedestrians,” said James Kragh, associate engineer with the Department of Public Works. “Installing rapid flashing beacons and upgrading curb ramps will enhance conspicuity and accessibility for people using these crossings.”
The City applied for and received $193,600 in HSIP Cycle 10 construction funding to help deliver the project.
Construction is expected to begin later this month and be completed this summer.
Once complete, the upgraded crossings will provide stronger visual cues to drivers and safer, more accessible routes for people walking and rolling along some of Sacramento’s most heavily traveled corridors.
The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, March 12, starting at 5:30 PM. This is not the usual third Thursday, but the second. The meeting may be held in the old city hall, rather than council chambers, but the agenda is not clear about that.
The agenda is below (pdf). I have not had a chance to look at the four agenda items to make comments here, but will if I am able. The linked items contain both staff reports and presentations. I find it useful to separate these into two documents, but again, only if I have the time. All of these are review and comment items, not for decision.
The City of Sacramento Budget and Audit Committee will consider the recommendations of SacATC (Sacramento Active Transportation Commission tomorrow, Tuesday, March 10. The commission is asking that the city invest in implementing the recommendations of the report. Though Sacramento seeks grants to improve street safety, that process is slow and not always successful. The city’s new quick-build program is a first step forward, but not yet active. We cannot afford to wait while people die and are severely injured on our streets.
The email from Slow Down Sacramento/Isaac Gonzalez is included below, and has all the information you need.
On Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., the Sacramento City Council’s Budget and Audit Committee will consider recommendations from the Active Transportation Commission’s 2025 Annual Report. These recommendations focus on funding practical steps that would make Sacramento’s streets safer for people walking, biking, and rolling.
The commission is asking the City to invest in proven safety strategies, such as expanding traffic-calming tools, strengthening the city’s quick-build program, developing a citywide Safe Routes to School effort, and implementing safety improvements, such as Leading Pedestrian Intervals at traffic signals. These are not abstract ideas. They are practical tools that cities across the country are using to reduce serious injuries and save lives. Right now, none of these recommendations have identified funding attached to them. That means the Budget Committee will play an important role in deciding whether these ideas move forward or remain just another report sitting on a shelf.
If you care about safer streets in Sacramento, this is a moment where public voices matter.
Budget and Audit Committee Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. Sacramento City Hall 915 I Street
Even a brief statement reminding decision-makers that street safety matters to Sacramento residents can make a difference.
Why this matters Sacramento has declared a Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic deaths, yet serious injuries and fatalities continue to rise. The Active Transportation Commission’s recommendations outline practical steps the City can take now to address dangerous streets and protect people who simply want to move through their neighborhoods safely. Plans alone do not save lives. Investment and action do.
If you are able, please submit a comment or come to City Hall on Tuesday and speak up for safer streets. Thank you for continuing to stand with us.
A workshop on the H Street Bikeway was held Thursday, February 26. There were at least 30 members of the public who attended, which is pleasantly surprising, indicating strong public interest in the project. Most workshops have far less participation.
The group presentation was brief. Most of the discussion was with city staff and consultants at the display boards. There were some renderings which I had not seen before, below. None of these three is the same as the rendering shown at the top of the project page.
I did not capture the display boards showing each block segment. They are very similar to the ones presented at the SacATC meeting, but some corrections and enhancements were made after feedback from that meeting. Among them:
A 10 foot width will be maintained throughout the project, except 9th to 10th Streets, where the bikeway is at the level of and within a pedestrian area, where a narrowing may help maintain lower bicyclist speeds.
Every intersection will have bicycle signal faces; this was an oversight in the images.
An alternative was proposed for 10th Street, narrowing the east side parking in order to create a buffer on both sides of the bike lane. The option to place the bikeway against the curb, for parking protection, was much discussed but is so far not the option being presented.
There are other details. Hopefully the brief presentation and the updated images and cross-sections will be posted to the webpage.
A lot of discussion between the public and the staff and consultants revolved around the issue that a clear design criteria was the preservation of parking. The lead consultant, Mr. Wright, mentioned a number of times how they had managed to preserve parking. This is sad. The purpose of the TIRCP grant is to enhance transit and active transportation access to the station. Preservation of parking is not one of the criteria. I don’t object to street parking. It has the safety problem of vehicles entering and leaving, but also has the safety benefit of slowing traffic due to the perceived friction. However, when roadway width is needed for other purposes, such as sidewalks and bikeways, it should be removed or reduced.
The primary reason for the right turn lanes at 7th Street and 9th Street is so that bicyclist can move while the straight through motor vehicle traffic is moving, but not when right turns are prohibited. The city feels that creating an exclusive bicyclist phase, where only bicyclists are moving and motor vehicles are stopped in all directions, would slow traffic too much.
For these two right turn situations, blank-out no right turn signs will be used. The city recognizes that regular no right turn on red signs don’t have much effect on driver behavior, but the blank-outs do. See no turn on red for Sacramento? for more info on blank-out signs. One is installed on Broadway at Land Park Drive (more on Broadway-Land Park bike signal).
To everyone who came, asking questions and providing opinions and experiences, thank you! Improvements may be incremental, but without you, they would be none.
Getting Around Sacramento 