A transit advocate has flagged that her stop on Q Street at 7th Street had all indications that it was a bus stop removed. There is no bus stop sign. What is there is a new concrete pad, presumably to host some bus stop amenities. In February 2025, the most recent date, Google Maps shows a bus shelter there, with bus stop sign. Google Earth shows streetview with shelter on the same date, but the most recent aerial, February 2026, is too fuzzy to tell, and earlier ones are obscured by trees.
Google Maps and Transit.app show this as a valid bus stop, which means that it is in SacRT’s GTFS file. However, I observed a Route 51 bus taking the turn from 7th Street southbound to Q Street eastbound in such a way that they could not have pulled into the bus stop if there were a rider waiting. Note in the photo below that half of the pad area is also a parking space, which it should not be. A bus needs space to pull in, and pull out, and that parking space prevents a bus from using the pad area. This is a failure by the city to properly manage parking. I hadn’t realized it at the time, but the construction cone probably covers an electrical feed.
SacRT bus stop pad, no sign or amenities, Q St at 7th St
This reminded me of my experience with the bus stop on 9th Street southbound at Q Street, for Route 51 (and some other buses). This is not a stop that I often use, so don’t know the history. On June 12, 2026, there was no bus stop sign, but the Route 51 bus did stop for me. This is not a heavily used bus stop, but I always see one or more people here. A large concrete bus stop pad was installed, close to 20 feet long. Clearly, amenities were intended here, otherwise there would be no point in such an expansive pad. It appears that some construction was going on July 2025, maybe the bus stop pad, but I can’t be certain. I am certain that nothing has happened since June 2026.
SacRT bus stop pad, no amenities, 9th St at Q St
Apparently whatever was intended for these two bus stops was abandoned. By SacRT? By the city? I don’t know. What is clear is that riders on Route 51 are not being served by bus stops with amenities, or even signing.
I almost alway use light rail transit in downtown, or am walking or riding my bike, so I don’t know if there are other such locations. If you know of others, including the stop you use, please let me know and I’ll add it here.
Agenda item 4.1 was to adopt the SacRT Strategic Plan 2026-2030. As I had previously commented, the plan seems very general and vague. Board member Roger Dickinson had the same impression, and specifically wondered where a budget and funding projection was for this period of time. The plan document is only 18 pages long, most of it filler, and is labeled on one page an executive summary. Where is the rest of the document? Staff member Shelley Valenton said that the plan is based on a large number of other documents, so the detail is not in the plan, as these other documents change about once per year. Roger asked where these document were. They have not been posted or linked, so the board and public can’t view them. It was promised they would be. The Strategic Plan 2021-2025 is even briefer, 12 pages. The plan webpage lists several scorecards, but does not contain a single background document.
The board presentation includes a page below, Work Plan Tactics, which is the only page that presents useful information, and this is NOT in the plan document.
If the strategic plan is general and vague, with supporting documents not available, it would not provide any information for board or staff on where SacRT is going over five years. What then is the point in having the plan, or presenting it to the board and public?
excerpt from SacRT_2026-08-24 agenda item 04, page 5
Agenda item 6.1, adoption of locally preferred alternative (LPA) for Stockton Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) was presented and adopted. Though there was lot of unrelated filler in the presentation, about the benefits and characteristics of BRT in general, the key points are that the alignment of the existing SacRT Route 51 will be the BRT route (not hybrid Route 51/38), and that the BRT will be curb running and not center running. All other decisions are for future planning, this is just the first step.
I participated in both the stakeholder meetings and the public meeting on STEP. My sense of the consensus is that there wasn’t one, that the participants saw value in both alignments, and in center running and curb running. After quite of bit of research on my part, I still was not sure. So I do appreciate SacRT doing this analysis, and it was probably time to make a decision. However, there was some fuzziness and missing information in the staff report and presentation.
The heart of the argument is in the table below, from the staff report and also in the presentation. The data point highlighted are daily ridership forecast, which favors Route 51, though I don’t believe that the analysis considered that there will be considerably more development – medical, commercial and residential – between Broadway and Alhambra, with the Aggie Square / UC Davis Medical Center developments, than on either the Stockton segment to the south or on Broadway. The second point was the ‘increase in annual O&M cost’ of $2.7M per year. I searched for why the cost for Broadway service was included, but not the savings that would result from running BRT on the former Route 38 into downtown. The two routes would essentially be swapped under the hybrid alignment. There might be some additional cost, but $2.7M per year is not justified in the report.
In the stakeholder and public meetings, representatives of UC Davis Medical Center/Aggie Square spoke enthusiastically about extending BRT north on Stockton to serve that development. They stated that they really wanted a partnership with SacRT, and the city, to make the most of transit service. This fact does not show up anywhere in the staff report or presentation. Staff did several times say, ‘well, its only a quarter mile walk’. Yes, to the middle of campus on Stockton, but not to the north edge, and not to the east edge. I think this was just a spurious justification of a decision made for other reasons.
The third point that struck me as critically important, but was not really mentioned, is the ’employment with 1/4 mile of stations’. The hybrid route would serve 25% more employees than Route 51. That is nothing to be glossed over, particularly since UC Davis Medical Center was enthusiastic about promoting transit use to employees and others.
The decision was made, and it is probably not a bad decision. The devil is in the details, as they say, and the details are yet to come. But I continue to be concerned that SacRT planning either misses important information that should be included, or suppresses information that doesn’t support a foregone conclusion. Is this report and presentation unbiased? I’m not sure.
Agenda item 5 ‘Public Addresses Board on Matters Not on the Agenda’ saw an number of comments, most of them about service and continuing issues with the zero tolerance policy. I did not capture these, so I refer you to the meeting recording.
Note that the STEP project is a joint City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, and SacRT project. If you are looking for my previous posts on Stockton, they might be attributed to the city or SacRT.
The City of Sacramento is working on a secure bike parking pilot program. This was first presented at the February 2025 SacATC meeting (sacatc_2025-02-20_05-bicycle-parking), and an update was providing at the August 2026 SacATC meeting (SacATC_2026-08-20_agenda-04-bicycle-parking-staff). The presentation provided the following graphic for the secure bike parking solution:
BikeLink mini-station or cage
These secure bike parking facilities from eLock Technologies would use the same BikeLink access, by card or app, that is used for the city’s existing bike lockers located at parking garages. Sacramento Valley Station also has two types of secure bike storage, BikeLink lockers provided by Capitol Corridor, and the BikeHub provided by the city, which uses BikeLink for access but has different rental policies. In the region, Capitol Corridor also provides lockers at Davis, Roseville, Rocklin, and Auburn. City of Folsom has BikeLink lockers at its three light rail stations, and City of Roseville has lockers at transit centers. You can view locations on the BikeLink map. Some but not all locations accept ClipperCards for access, but payment is through BikeLink.
Seeing vandalized and stolen bikes (cut locks, wheels missing, or just wheels remaining, missing seats, etc.) at the outside bike racks in many locations where these lockers are available, leaves me scratching my head about why more people don’t use the lockers. At 5 cents per hour for most locations, this is a tiny price to pay for protecting your bike.
Part of the discussion at the SacATC meeting was about whether this secure parking design would accommodate cargo bikes. It appears not. Though the footprint of this design is 84 inches, it seems that the cage or shell only allows the same traditional bike sizes that standard BikeLink lockers allow, with a depth of 67 or 72 inches.
The BikeLink website mentions large and extra large lockers, so I inquired about these and was provided with the following three diagrams. The ‘large’ size has been installed at the Davis Amtrak (Capitol Corridor) station, 12 lockers. I am not aware that this larger size has been installed at any of the other Capitol Corridor stations. As you can see from the diagram, this larger size is designed to accommodate most long-tail bikes and some cargo bike sizes, with a 36 inch width and 85 inch depth. It does not have the wedge design of the standard lockers, so can accommodate bicycles that are wider front and back.
I was told that the mini-station or cage design was a done deal because there was a contract, though the device has not been delivered or even manufactured, so it seems to me that the contract could be modified.
This is a pilot, and as such, it makes sense to explore additional BikeLink options. I recommend that one of the five secure bike parking locations, which have not been identified yet, include at least two BikeLink large size lockers. The city needs to gain experience with these, as do bicyclists.
All of the existing BikeLink lockers in the Sacramento region seem to be underutilized. For the city garage locations, these are not destinations bicyclist think of when planning their trips. Garages are for cars, not for bicyclists. The K Street tunnel locker is accessible from the path, and the city hall parking garage locker was moved to I Street due to the fire, but still, these are not bicyclist destinations. Since Capitol Corridor makes it so easy to take bikes with you on the train, the Capitol Corridor lockers in this region are underutilized, though in the bay area they are much more highly utilized. BART stations have lockers or BikeHubs.
So the key to the pilot program is to identify where bicyclists want to store their bike securely. The best way to determine that is to ask them. City staff could hang out at some existing traditional bike racks, and ask bicyclists how important secure parking is to them, and where they would most want to see it.
For previous posts on BikeLink and secure bicycle parking, see Tag: BikeLink.
As part of the separated bikeways projects in the central city, turn wedges were installed at 30 locations, initially on the P Street and Q Street bikeways, and later on the 19th Street, 21st Street, and I Street bikeways. Though there is a bikeway on J Street, it does not have turn-wedges. My earliest posts on turn wedges, turn wedges of death and Central City Mobility update: turn wedges, I expressed doubt about these features, and added posts about real turn wedges and NACTO protected intersection and Sac semi-protected intersection showing how the designs fell short of best practice designs from NACTO and Alta Design+Planning.
However, after extensive observations of driver behavior around turn wedges, I now believe that these are a positive addition to streets in the central city. These features slow turning drivers, and cause them to face crosswalks more directly. I observe much higher rates of yielding to walkers than at other intersections. Not perfect, by any means, but better. Though these were installed as part of the Central City Mobility Project for bikeways, their greatest benefit is to people walking.
Some turn wedges work better than others, depending on the details of the wedge and the intersecting streets.
Five of the wedges are concrete. Initially, these were being hit by drivers almost constantly. You can see the tire marks on all of the concrete wedges, and even chipping of the concrete. The city added reflective strips to the edges of the wedges, though almost all of the strips have fallen off over time. It would have been good to add delineators or more reflective markings (see the Santa Monica example in real turn wedges). But drivers have adjusted, and I have not seen a driver hit a wedge in quite some time. These concrete wedges are at the intersection of two bikeways, though not all these intersections have concrete.
Two types of vertical delineators were added, initially green K-71 delineators, and later white FG 300 delineators. All of these have been hit by drivers, sometimes repeatedly with significant damage. I don’t see this as necessarily a failure – better a delineator than a walker or bicyclist. There is nothing in the world that can prevent all drivers from hitting objects in or close to the roadway, but good designs reduce the chances of those objects being walkers and bicyclists. This is critically important.
One turn wedge, northeast corner of I Street and 13th Street, is paint only, no delineators. As such, it doesn’t really serve any purpose.
Where buffers, and particularly wide buffers exist, the turn wedges work better because there is a longer approach for the driver before reaching the crosswalk.
Two wedges do not work because the gap between the wedge and the curb is too wide, inducing drivers to cut the corner inside the wedge and negating the benefit of the wedge to walkers and bicyclists. These are at the northeast corner of 9th Street southbound and Q Street eastbound, and the northeast corner of 10th Street northbound and S Street. These locations could be corrected, but they have not been. The 9th Street & Q Street location is particularly problematic because there is a high volume of turning drivers at this location, and speeds are higher due to the design of these two roadways.
There are projects to extend the bikeway on 9th Street south to Broadway, and to extend the P Street and Q Street bikeways to the west. Hopefully these projects will take the lessons of these initial turn wedges to improve the designs. The closer the designs come to the NACTO model, the better. And of course fully protected intersections, all four corners, are the optimal.
Photos of the 30 turn wedges are below. If you are aware of any other locations, please let me know. If you have experiences with any of these, as a walker, bicyclist or driver, please comment.
I-St at 13th-St turn-wedge paint only21st-St at T-St turn-wedge21st-St at O-St turn-wedge21st-St at L-St turn-wedge21st-St at K-St turn-wedge19th-St at V-St turn-wedge19th-St at T-St turn-wedge19th-St at S-St turn-wedge19th-St at N-St turn-wedge19th-St at K-St turn-wedge19th-St at Capitol turn-wedgeQ-St and 21st-St turn-wedgeQ St and 19th-St turn-wedge-concreteQ-St and 10th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 18th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 17th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 16th-St turn-wedgeP-St and 21st-St turn-wedge-concreteP-St and 19th-St turn-wedge-concreteP-St at 18th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 17th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 16th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 15th-St turn-wedge10th-St at X-St turn-wedge10th-St at T-St turn-wedge10th-St at S-St turn-wedge10th-St at Q-St turn-wedge9th-St and Q-St turn-wedge-concrete9th-St and P-St turn-wedge-concrete9th-St at N-St turn-wedge
Automated Red Light Cameras are NOT Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR).
Recently Flock Safety cameras, and similar cameras by other vendors, including the Motorola cameras used in the City of Sacramento, have been much in the news, and there growing public concern and desire to ban or tightly control their use. You can read up on how they have been mis-used by law enforcement agencies. They are a step toward a univeral surveillance state. ALPRs continuously record license plate numbers, and depending on the setup, also other information including vehicle identification and even facial recognition of the driver. Though law enforcement claims that license plates are correctly identified, and that data is shared only with those who need to know, it has been demonstrated that they are very inaccurate, and that the data is being accessed by almost anyone associated with law enforcement or government agencies. Including stalking by law enforcement officers.
Automated Red Light Cameras (and similar Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras) are completely different. They record only incidents of violation, such as running red lights, and capture only license plate numbers. They are not continuous, do not record any other information, and have retention periods only long enough to resolve the civil citations. You can read a good summary of the privacy safeguards on City of Sacramento’s Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Program page, or more detail on the SB 770 legislation page.
If you get into or overhear a discussion that confuses ALPRs with red light cameras, I hope that you will jump in with the correct information. Being anti-Flock should not means being anti-red light cameras.
Some of this confusion is understandable. To the public, any camera may seem like the camera of concern. At a typical intersection, there may be upwards of ten cameras, all for different purposes, or overlapping purposes. Probably some are ALPRs. Some are for detection, that allow the signal to detect motor vehicles and bicyclists, some are for traffic detection, allowing an agency to adjust for traffic flows. Sadly, most agencies do not actively manage traffic, even though they have spent huge sums on the signals, controller boxes, and central traffic centers that would allow them to do so.
I know that much of the ‘confusion’ is intentional. There is a large subset of motor vehicle drivers who do not want to be held responsible for their driving behavior and the traffic violence they create. Lumping red light cameras (and speed cameras) in with surveillance cameras furthers their attempt to ban all cameras. Don’t fall for it! Help educate your friends, co-workers, agencies, elected officials, and organizations.
The plans of Californians for Electric Rail for the Greater Sacramento Region were promoted today in a meeting I participated in. I think this is a great organization. They have correctly identified the roadblocks thrown up by special interests, the freight railroads and business as usual government agencies, and solutions to those roadblocks. It is well worth looking at their website and materials. I have long supported serious consideration of electrifying (overhead catenary) Capitol Corridor, at least the Sacramento to Oakland Jack London section.
I am glad to see that light rail extension beyond Cosumnes River College into Elk Grove is not on the map. That would be a total waste of funds for a low ridership route, better served by bus.
However, I have concerns with some of the specifics for the Sacramento region.
I support more frequent service between Sacramento and Davis. There are a lot of Capitol Corridor Riders on this section. However, I question ridership for Sacramento to Roseville. The once-a-day Capitol Corridor to Auburn has few riders on or off at Roseville. The Amtrak buses to Reno have few riders on or off at Roseville. The once-a-day Amtrak California Zephyr has few riders on or off in Roseville. The Placer County Transit Route 10 has few riders on or off at Roseville, though admittedly the Galleria transit stop is not what most transit riders want. There are ways of increasing rider demand on this corridor, but without a plan to do so, I don’t think this should be a ‘Primary Buildout’ project, regardless of whether it is in the State Rail Plan. The Sacramento to Roseville 3rd track project has been delayed by years, due to funding issues and Union Pacific intransigence and delay. I think a focus on Sacramento to Davis would be much more useful.
Light rail to the airport (Green Line to the Airport) has an unproven demand. The hourly SacRT Route 142 bus is frequently empty. The hourly Yolobus 42A/B bus has more passengers, but that is because it serves Davis and Woodland as well as downtown Sacramento. If a regular bus isn’t being used, the idea that light rail will be used is speculative, and not the basis for spending $2 billion plus on rail. The SacRT study of BRT along a similar route is useful, but again, is a step well beyond basic bus service.
The idea of using the Woodland Division of the Sierra Northern railroad on the west side of the Sacramento River, and new tracks from there to the airport is intriguing. I’d never seen that proposal before. Using mostly existing track, and some new, might provide a much lower cost alternative to new light rail construction to the airport. Apparently there is a recreational train on a portion of this route, leading me to wonder what the condition of the tracks is.
Valley Rail is shown with a suggested connection into Sacramento Valley Station (SVS). I have not heard of any such proposal from San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. So far as I can tell, their intent is to remain separate from SVS, with connections via light rail, but not passenger rail. There is also no bus service shown from this line to the airport. Without such a connection, the Valley Rail project probably will remain low ridership. Again, these issues can be addressed, but I’m concerned that they are not in this proposal.
map of Greater Sacramento Regional Rail Concept, from Californians for Electric Rail
Train speed
The Sacramento region page says “Existing railroad infrastructure could support up to 125 mph top speeds” under ‘Advantages of regional rail’. The current maximum speed, set by the state based on both train equipment and track condition, is 79 mph (127 kph). But actual speeds on Capitol Corridor are often about 55 mph, reaching 79 mph only on some sections. It would require significant improvement of track quality and better trainset maintenance to accomplish faster speeds. I have heard that Capitol Corridor’s target speed is 110 mph (177 kph). The new Siemens Charger locomotives can go 125 mph (201 kph), but the still in use P42 locomotives can only go 110 mph. This isn’t to say better speeds won’t be achieved, but it is not a simple process.
I last wrote about this intersection of 21st Street & I Street when the bikeway project was just finished, Central City Mobility: 21st & I bike signals (2024-01-26). A bicyclist signal face had been installed, but the arrangement of the signal phases was dangerous and discriminatory against bicyclists northbound on the 21st Street bikeway. I assumed that the issues would be fixed. They have not.
Drivers continue to turn left from 21st Street to I Street, against the red arrow. If this were a regular round red light, this would be permitted, as it is from a one-way street to a one-way street. However, it is not legal against a red arrow.
If a bicyclist uses the bicyclist actuator button on the southwest corner, they do get an exclusive bicyclist phase to turn left to the bikeway on the north side of I Street, or to go north on 21st Street, or east on I Street (which becomes two-way at this intersection). The pedestrian signal on the west leg of the intersection is ganged with the bicyclist signal, which introduces a small conflict between people bicycling and walking, but this can usually be negotiated without problems. The problem is that criminal drivers still turn left against the red arrow, endangering both bicyclists and walkers.
The larger issue is that the bicyclist actuator button is not located in a place usable by bicyclists. As shown in the photo, the button is four feet away from the curb. A bicyclist cannot reach the button without dismounting their bike. This is such an obvious mis-design that I assumed the city would fix it. It was reported as an issue to the city via 311, by myself and other bicyclists. But it was never fixed.
There are two possible solutions. The bicyclist actuator button could be replaced with a ‘push or wave at’ actuator/button. These distance at which these actuators sense a ‘wave’ can be adjusted, and could be adjusted so that bicyclists are detected without additional action. If the location is already a ‘wave’, it fails to function as such. The other option is to use video detection for bicyclists waiting at the intersection. It appears that there is a video detection camera located on the mast arm over 21st Street on the north leg of the intersection, but it is not being used to detect bicyclists.
As is so typical of city projects, a lot was changed, to the good, but the projects always fall short of transformative safety.
bicyclist actuator button at 21st St & I St is inaccessible for bicyclists
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, August 24, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked. There is no ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ item on the agenda, which means that the ongoing controversy over SacRT’s zero tolerance policy for fare evasion, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles will not be addressed. This issue is not mentioned in the General Managers Report.
SacRT has added a ‘public participation‘ document, which addresses remote participation and comments. Comments in person and via email remain the same, as explained in the agenda.
I may have comments on agenda items between now and the board meeting.
2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of July 27, 2026
2.2 Resolution 2026-08-100: Amending Title II (Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics) of Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Administrative Code to Revise Appendix A
2.3 Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreements for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at Three Locations
A) Resolution 2026-08-101: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 39 th Street and R Street; and
B) Resolution 2026-08-102: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 59 th Street North of S Street; and
C) Resolution 2026-08-103: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 65 th Street and Q Street
2.4 Resolution 2026-08-104: Approving a Contract for Facilities Pest Control Services with California Professional Pest Control, a California Corporation doing Business as California Pest Control
2.5 Resolution 2026-08-105: Designating the General Manager/CEO as the Accountable Executive for Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Transit Asset Management Plan
2.6 Resolution 2026-08-106: Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding From the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs; Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to submit SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities; and Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute all Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements
2.7 Resolution 2026-08-107: Approving the Transfer of Title of 3701 Dudley Boulevard, McClellan, CA from MP-655 LLC to Sacramento Regional Transit District
2.8 Resolution 2026-08-108: Awarding a Contract for Purchase of Transit Buses to Gillig LLC Under the Basin Transit Contract No. 23-01 and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Amendments to the Contract
2.9 Resolution 2026-08-109: Conditionally Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Approve Contracts for Verizon Connect Fleet Equipment and Subscription Service
INTRODUCTION -OF SPECIAL GUESTS
3.1 Employee and Retiree Recognitions – First and Second Quarters 2026
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4.1 Resolution 2026-08-110: Adopting the Sacramento Regional Transit District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 (staff report | plan | presentation)
PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Bus Rapid Transit Efforts – Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative for Stockton Boulevard & Retention Strategy for Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (staff report | Stockton presentation)
a) Resolution 2026-08-111: Adopting the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project; and
b) Information: Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication
The City of Sacramento has been installing temporary curb extensions, with vertical delineators mounted on bases, at intersections. The extension is ‘temporary’ in the sense that it is not a concrete or hardened extension, though in most cases they will not be replaced with ‘permanent’ due to the expense of permanent installations. These curb extensions slow turning drivers, and reduce the crossing distance for people walking, or rolling. These are an effective countermeasure that increases safety, and I am very happy to see them being installed. In the photo below, on the northeast corner of S Street and 27th Street, the crosswalks have also been freshly painted in a high visibility pattern. The marked crosswalk over 27th Street may be new, and seems to be a new pattern for the city to use.
This particular installation also serves as daylighting, by preventing parking in the daylighting area approaching the intersection. I did not measure it, so am not sure if it meets the legal 20 foot requirement, but it does serve the purpose of increasing visibility by precluding parking. However, many of the installations do not set off the daylighting area, for example the northwest corner in the photo. I do not know why the city has decided in some cases to include daylighting in the curb extensions, and in other cases, not.
Though it would increase the materials cost of installations, requiring more delineators, all curb extension installations should also include daylighting, unless the location already has red curbs and/or signing for daylighting. AB 413 (2023), the daylighting law, does not require red curbs, signing, or delineators, however, the city’s intent is to ticket only where there is an indication for drivers of the law.
It appears that these vertical delineators are Pexco FG 300 Turnpike Grade Curb System. The bases discourage but don’t prevent motor vehicle drivers from running over the delineators ‘just for fun’, and provide more visibility than simple vertical delineators. I have so far not seen any curb extension locations where the delineators have been damaged by drivers. Delineators on the bikeway turn wedges have definitely been damaged by motor vehicle drivers.
I wonder if the lane channelizing vertical delineators on 15th Street and 16th Street should be replaced by this type (Hmm. 16th St traffic calming). These installations really do reduce lane changes at the last moment, which endanger walkers using the crosswalks, the ‘multi-lane threat’ that kills people. They are a success story for Sacramento, and should be used in more locations.
temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner
Note: I decided I would map the proposed Automated Red Light Camera and SB 535 areas, and the map is at bottom. Note that SB 535 is not the only criteria for identifying disadvantaged communities, but it is the one most commonly used.
Item 03 on the SacATC agenda for 2026-08-20 is ‘Automated Red Light Camera Program’ (staff report | presentation). This is a new program being established under Senate Bill 720 2025 (SB 720, Ashby. Automated traffic enforcement system programs.). Though this bill did not eliminate earlier programs, the City of Sacramento does not currently have a program because they participated in a county-wide program which the county cancelled. The new program addresses many of the objections that had been raised to the older program.
I support this program, and these locations.
The staff report contains the map below.
map of Automated Red Light Camera Program, from SacATC 2026-08-20
I like the distribution of locations, though would hope for more locations. Maybe in time. The locations demonstrate two things: the equity concerns about concentrating red light cameras, and any type of enforcement, in low-income neighborhoods, does not seem to be a significant issue. Most of the locations are in moderate to high income neighborhoods. This fits with my observations that most red light running is by drivers of high-value motor vehicles, not low-income people. It would be interesting to map the intersections against disadvantaged communities, and probably the city did so, but I don’t have time for that, and the city did not provide it. (see below)
To some degree, I’m not sure how important the distribution of red light camera is. I strongly believe that the majority of red light running is by a minority, but a significant minority, of drivers. Many of these drivers run red lights all over the city. It is also contagious behavior. Yes, it is an epidemic, and the disease spreads though observation of other drivers behavior. It is a visual contagion. Though the enforcement mechanism here is civil and not criminal, it would allow Public Works to identify repeated and egregious red light runners, and pass that information along to law enforcement.
I was curious about how these 20 recommended intersection locations overlapped with the Vision Zero Action Plan Update. The Red Light Camera list is in order of broadside crashes, which are almost always caused by red light running. However, the ordered list in the staff report does not match the ordered list on the map. I don’t know which is correct. The Top 20 intersections in the VZ Action Plan Update are numbered, but not in ranked order. There is an overlap of eight intersections. I also bold-faced the roadways that show up more than once in the list. There is a pattern here – these are the arterial roadways that the city designed to encourage unsafe speeds and unsafe driver behavior. No surprise that these are the locations of red light running crashes.
Rank
Red Light Camera intersections
Vision Zero Top 20 intersections
1
5th Street & I Street
no
2
Truxel Road & Arena Boulevard
yes
3
Del Paso Boulevard & Evergreen Street/Lampasas Avenue
yes
4
65th Street & Lemon Hill Avenue
no
5
Freeport Boulevard & Florin Road
no
6
Folsom Boulevard & Howe Avenue/Power Inn Road
no
7
Truxel Road & Gateway Park Boulevard
yes
8
Stockton & Elder Creek Road/47th Avenue
no
9
Fruitridge Road & Power Inn Road
no
10
65th Street & Fruitridge Road
no
11
Mack Road & Valley Hi Drive/La Mancha Way
yes (as La Mancha Way & Mack Rd)
12
El Camino Avenue & Northgate Boulevard
yes (as Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave)
13
16th Street & J Street
yes
14
12th Street & North 16th Street
yes (as North 12th St & Richards Blvd, and North 16th St & Richards Blvd)
15
3rd Street & Capitol Mall
no
16
El Camino Avenue & Evergreen Street
no
17
Florin Road & Greenhaven Drive
no
18
Franklin Boulevard & Brookfield Drive
no
19
Cosumnes River Boulevard & Bruceville Road
yes (as Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd)
20
Truxel Road & Del Paso Road/Natomas Boulevard
no
Map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations, and SB 535 disadvantaged communities.
map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations and SB 535 disadvantaged communities
Of the 20 locations, seven are not in SB 535 areas, four at at the edge of SB 535 areas, and nine are within SB 535 areas. I would not say that the cameras are concentrated in low-income communities, however, many equity organizations have raised concerns about camera locations. My observations of red light running are that most violations are by drivers of high-value vehicles, not low-income drivers. The seven not-in-SB 535 locations are moderate to high-income communities. The three downtown Sacramento locations are not generally low-income, though the SB 535 criteria identifies them as such. SB 535 uses a variety of measures in addition to income.
Getting Around Sacramento 
