Franklin Blvd complete street

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Franklin Blvd complete streets project is… complete, with a ribbon cutting that occurred on Tuesday morning. This is a project that I have not been paying attention to, but I visited it to see what it is like. It spans Sutterville Road on the north to Fruitridge Road on the south, with the part south of Fruitridge to the county line not constructed. It is about 1.1 miles. Franklin Blvd runs from Broadway 25 miles to well south of Elk Grove, including the crossroads of Franklin, for which it was named. This section of Franklin is largely commercial, with small remnants of residential. The section north of here, to Broadway, is largely residential with some commercial, and is a much slower and calmer street.

Though this project is complete, an analysis of what worked and what didn’t could help improve future complete streets projects that the city might undertake.

Bikeway: A separated bikeway was created along the corridor. It is protected by concrete curbs or medians for about half of its length, but some paint only sections remain, and the bikeway is interrupted by frequent driveways. Still, it was fairly well done. The initial diagrams show protected intersections with high quality bicycle facilities, but the actual construction at intersections is only slightly protected. OK.

Trees: The initial plan includes this sentence: “Plant trees along street at approximately 30 feet apart, on-center, to provide shade and cooler temperatures.” If implemented, this would result in about 350 trees along the segment. There are 30. Failure. In addition, the trees are mostly in 5.5 foot wide sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips), whereas trees need at least 8 feet to remain healthy and reduce sidewalk heaving. Failure.

The photo below is a mock-up from the initial plan. It is standard practice for city projects to show more trees than they intend to install. Gaslighting the public.

mock-up photo from initial complete streets plan
mock-up photo from initial complete streets plan

Other plantings: The initial plan indicated there would be bioswales throughout the project, but I saw only one small one. The plantings in sidewalk buffers are aesthetically pleasing, but not environmentally significant.

Sidewalks: Some sidewalks were upgraded to 6 feet, which is the modern minimum. Ramps were installed at intersections. Driveway crossings are a mix of acceptable and illegal, with cross-slopes in the sidewalk. Other sidewalks were left in their original condition of 4.5 to 5 feet. Falls short.

Sidewalk amenities: There are some trash cans provided by Franklin Blvd Business District. I did not see any other amenities. Weak.

Lighting: Pedestrian-scale lighting, with traditional poles, was installed along the length. The old motor-vehicle scale lighting was left in place. Though I did not visit the street at night, lighting looks to be a great improvement.

Driveways: There are a huge number of driveways in this section, largely due to the traditional development pattern of small business buildings on small parcels, with parking between the street and the building. This is an unfortunate pattern, but not something that can easily be fixed. Most driveways were replaced with a slope in the sidewalk buffer, or more commonly, dip down and back up, which is legal but not ideal. There are several driveways for long abandoned businesses and empty parcels, which should have been closed under the city’s driveway closure policy.

Safe crossings: There are existing signals at Sutterville Road/12th Avenue, 21st Avenue, Atlas Avenue (full pedestrian signal), 26th Avenue (to the west), and Fruitridge Road. At 18th Avenue, there is a new enhanced RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon). There are RRFBs on a signal mast arm, in addition to at the side, perhaps safer than a standard RRFB, but given driver behavior in Sacramento, not safe. The distance from 26th Avenue to Fruitridge is just over a quarter mile, though there may not be a good location for a crossing in this stretch. The distance from Sutterville/12th Avenue to 18th Avenue is well over a quarter mile, which is an unacceptable distance between safe crossings.

Curb extensions: There was an opportunity to shorten crossing distances and slow drivers by providing curb extensions on the side streets. This was not done.

Bus: SacRT Route 67 runs on Franklin from Broadway to 21st Avenue. There is a pull-out bus stop just south of Sutterville/12th Avenue, which is a timepoint and may be appropriate, though pulling out of traffic, and back in, is poor practice. The other bus stops are in shared bus/bicycle areas, which is probably fine for a low frequency route (30 minutes). It occurs to me that it might be better to run service south on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, to consistently serve the commercial area. The route on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd does serve residential areas, but those are constrained by Hwy 99 to the west and a poor street grid, and the route misses Christian Brothers High School.

Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection: This wide flared intersection is hazardous for all users, and nothing was done to improve it. Southbound, Franklin flares from one travel lane to two dedicated left turn lanes (unnecessary and unsafe), one uncontrolled dedicated right hand turn slip lane (highly dangerous for bicyclists and walkers), and one through lane. Everything that was good about the complete streets project gets tossed out the window at this intersection. I realize that it might have only been possible to fix the north leg of the intersection with this project, but no effort was made to do so. Complete failure.

photo of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge Rd, uncontrolled slip lane
Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge Rd, uncontrolled slip lane
overhead of Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection
overhead of Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection (only one southbound lane now)

bad to worse on Elvas

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A reader just commented on my Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel update post with:

“Recently the city has installed a new 6-inch curb in the center of Elvas Ave. right alongside The Line, probably to prevent Doordash drivers from making left turns in or out of there. Now if you are coming from 62nd St., you can’t turn left to get to the Hornet Tunnel. They didn’t put in curb cuts for bicyclists. The old curb had some openings. Your options are to ride to 65th St. and make a U-turn, salmon up Elvas on the wrong side of the street, ride on that horrendous excuse for a sidewalk on the east side of the street, or stop in the middle of the street and carry your bike over the curb. The section of Elvas Ave. between 62nd St. and the Hornet Tunnel should have protected bike lanes, similar to what was built on Rod Beaudry Dr. several years ago.”

So I went to take a look. This seemingly minor project has indeed made things worse for bicyclists. A bicyclist eastbound on Elvas Avenue used to be able to use the center turn lane to come close to the Hornet Tunnel entrance before having to cross to the east side of Elvas. Not ideal, but acceptable for ‘strong and confident’ bicyclists. Now, that transition must occur way back at 64th Street.

map overview of Elvas Ave between 64th St and 65th St
map overview of Elvas Ave between 64th St and 65th St
photo of new curb on Elvas Ave at The Line
new curb on Elvas Ave at The Line

I have written several times about the hazard that Elvas Ave presents to bicyclists (as well as everyone else) and requested that the city come up with a plan to fix it. A large number of other advocates have requested the same. The city has done absolutely nothing. (Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel, Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel update, M Street to Hornet Tunnel. The route which includes L Street, M Street, and 63rd Street is one of the most used bicycle routes in the city, particularly when Sac State is in session, but throughout the year. It is quite pleasant and safe, except for this short stretch along Elvas Avenue which is incredibly dangerous and uncomfortable. Stress level 4 plus.

As pointed out by the commenter, this concrete curb was probably placed to eliminate left turns into and left turns out of the driveway at The Line. (By the way, this is a 7 inch curb. The city no longer uses 6 inch curbs because drivers with large trucks just drive over them.) So for motor vehicle drivers, it is at least somewhat safer. I’m not sure how long it has been in place, but there are black tire marks on both sides of the curb, indicating that drivers are running into the curb. The city could have placed a short cut in the curb to allow bicyclists to turn left onto the sidewalk and into the tunnel. But they did not.

Probably even more egregious is that the city permitted The Line and Garden at The Line developments without any requirement for, or even plan for, calming traffic at this location. Why was the development approved without a solution. The problem was known, and it was known that traffic would get worse with this development.

When I was there today, I crossed Elvas Avenue so as to get photos from both sides. Crossing back to the west at the north end of the curb, three drivers failed to yield to me, though there is a crosswalk (unmarked) there. The fourth driver, turning out of 64th Street to Elvas, accelerated belligerently towards me and I had to run to keep from getting hit. This was broad daylight with a not particularly high volume of traffic. In the evenings when hundreds of people are trying to cross Elvas to and from Garden at The Line, it is much worse. People will die here. And those deaths will be on the city staff that has failed to fix this traffic hazard.

SacCity Tactical Action Group (TAG)

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento established a Tactical Action Group (TAG) otherwise known as Transportation Safety Team, in March 2025. Unfortunately, very slow progress has been made on this. The program lead is in place, Philip Vulliet, and an administrative assistant, but the other five positions have not. The city has a difficult time filling positions, particularly engineering position, as the pay level is low compared to other entities and private industry. A webpage for the program has not been established.

So far as I know, the only information on the program is a presentation given by Mr. Vulliet to Strong SacTown in June 2026. I think there was a presentation to SacATC, but I’ve been unable to find it. The slides are below, but they are not very specific. The Strong SacTown meeting notes have more detail, and follow the slides. Thank you, Strong SacTown.

gallery of slides from presentation on Tactical Action Group, at Strong SacTown 2026-06-04
  1. Presentation: Quick Builds & Transportation Safety Initiative

Phil Vulliet (VOO-lee-ay) is the new lead for the city’s Safety Response Team where he will help Sacramento respond faster to urgent safety needs and continue advancing the City’s goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes.

  • About Phil: 20+ years of experience. Project manager for capital improvement projects (aka big road projects) for last 11 years. Managed Broadway Complete Streets, Downtown Mobility Project, and others. Prior to that, did consulting. 
  • 2018 City passed Vision Zero Action Plan. Based on 10 years previous accident data. Established list of high-injury network – responsible for >70% of serious injuries in cities. Looked at root causes of vehicular violence and impact on pedestrians and cyclists. Looked at impact on bicycles and pedestrians – 40% fatal collisions. We need to protect them.
  • Planning efforts came from the research – top 5 corridor study, 6-10 corridor study is now in planning and quick builds will be prioritized as well. 
  • Parking protected bike lanes were created and then the central city mobility project was completed in 2024 as well as broadway complete streets, Franklin complete streets wrapping up and northward school access was completed.
  • Funds are being used to match grants. 
  • 13,000 crashes still (all mode crashes)
  • Transportation safety initiative was passed in 2025 – responsibility to track now.
  • Transportation Safety Team (TST) – established jobs for 6 FTE’s
  • Quick builds – rapid implementation limitations (no land acquisitions), limited electrical work, excavation only by city crews (try not to dig), Council action needed – assigned project in tiers
  • Tier 1 – quickest of quick builds – surface treatments (Paint and Plastic), includes alterations in traffic circulation. Community informed
  • Tier 2 – outside of the TST team – require full plans and bidding. Pilot projects. It takes about a year. 
  • Quickbuilds are faster than CIP
  • CIP – Safety program, quick build CIP – sales tax generates the funds for the safety programs
  • TST – They require contracting readiness, design delivery capacity, need new processes and new tech as well as outreach, follow-up and reporting needed. 
  • They were given an exception by the city council that they are allowed to go to contract vs. go to bid
  • Software platforms can share real-time speeds and volumes without having to do a traffic study (speeds up the process of evaluation)
  • Outreach is beyond critical – it’s about equity, some cities are more organized than others. TST only has so much staffing to support and cannot watch every intersection. 
  • Feedback needed when the quick build has been built and if it’s not working, that’s the beauty of it, they can fix it quickly. 
  • The public facing GIS dashboard is up and is working to create a map to show where in the city there have been quick builds implemented.

Q&A Notes

  • Q: Gets through
  • A: Budget will help, it will increase funding, but that is not the limiting factor
  • Q: Process to determine an LPI (Leading Pedestrian Interval)
  • A: Megan Carter – give pedestrians a few extra seconds of time to provide more time. LPIs will be implemented everywhere, unless we can justify not doing it. There are some lawsuits if you don’t implement LPS ( not being equitable if it does not include LPS). ATC will go with a plan next year.
  • Q: What are issues you face when you change the fabric of the street
  • A: Daylighting and recommended clearance and it was 25% parking loss. New state law that doesn’t require any parking to be provided. Willing to accept delays for cars. 
  • Q: Streets are designed like roads and are in urban areas. When you add parking it does slow people down.
  • A: They do try to account for that. Ideally if he had a magic wand he would make the traffic slower. 
  • Q: is that a tier 1 or a tier 2
  • A: We can look at curb usage and how we monetize it and manage uber’s, lyft’s and waymo.

Emergency Streets

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Listening to the Talking Headways podcast this morning, there was a brief reference to Emergency Streets and Kevin Krizek. I immediately went to the Emergency Streets website. I have to admit that it is immensely satisfying to me when I find a formal program similar to what I have posted about before: someone died here, close the intersection (2026-02).

“Emergency Streets inculcates a sense of urgency requiring a response by every driver on the road. Reframing the problem as a public health matter has potential to shock the system and foment change. Emergency Streets can help sidestep some of the existing bureaucratic and cultural barriers to slower, safer driving, without compromising other public priorities.”

Emergency Streets – Why

Emergency Streets is a developed program that consulted with academics and street safety staff and advocates. It is robust and innovative. I encourage you to look at the website, and I’ve linked two of the relevant documents: Emergency Streets Protocol and Emergency Streets White Paper.

The program is not dissimilar to the Strong Towns Crash Analysis Studio, but is a much quicker response. See Strong Towns: Safe & Productive Streets.

In most cases, Emergency Streets does not propose to close the intersection, except as briefly necessary to set up controls and communication, but it focuses on immediately slowing traffic, within 36 hours, and notifying the public of the fatality, on the ground and through media. Signage should be in place within five days. Changes of up to a half mile before the location are recommended, though I think that depends on the context. Arterial streets with few cross-streets and fewer safe crossings? Yes, a half mile. A street with many cross-streets and possibly safe crossings at other intersections, a shorter distance would work.

The table below provides an example of treatments, but please look at the entire Protocol document for more details.

The City of Sacramento Tactical Action Group (quick build program) has not been fully defined yet, but I recommend the city consider the Emergency Streets program for adoption. At this time, the best information is a TAG presentation given to Strong SacTown. (Note that I have not posted on the TAG/quick build since it was on city council agenda in March 2025. I will correct that.)

graphic of Emergency Streets logo
Emergency Streets logo

leading causes of death

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The chart below shows the leading causes of ‘unintentional’ death in the US, 2019 to 2023. The chart is from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) WISQARS Leading Causes of Death page. Change filters to see the ‘unintentional’ data. Ironically, one of the available filters is ‘Violence-Related Injuries’, but these ‘Unintentional MV (motor vehicle) Traffic’ datum are not in that category, though they are clearly violence. Traffic violence. And of course not all is ‘unintentional’. And as with all traffic violence data, it does not include crashes that occur on private property, people run over in parking lots and children killed in their own driveway.

I often see it stated that traffic violence is the leading or second leading category of preventable death, but I find this more detailed view worthwhile.

Credit to Emergency Streets for the idea, and the link to CDC WISQARS. My selection criteria is slightly different than theirs. I’ll write soon about Emergency Streets.

Capitol Corridor Vision 2026

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Capitol Corridor, running regional train service between Sacramento and San Jose (and Auburn, once a day) is updating its vision plan, from the last one in 2016. Tonight (2026-07-23) there will be a webinar at 6:30, and comments are open until August 7. See the Capitol Corridor Vision Plan webpage for more information.

There is a slide deck for this webinar, but no draft plan as of yet. The heart of the presentation seems to be three slides which ask for input on amenities, improvements, and extensions. There are below.

Though it is not possible to tell from the slide deck exactly what will be emphasized in the plan document, it seems as though some actions are under-emphasized. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”.

  • electrification: the corridor from Sacramento to Oakland Jack London should be electrified, and is identified in the 2024 State Rail Plan/electrified corridors; though the new Siemens locomotives are about 10 times cleaner than the old F59 locomotives, there isn’t any near-term plan to replace the dirty locomotives, and in fact, used Caltrain diesel locomotives have been added to the fleet
  • level boarding: though this would be expensive and difficult at some stations, it would be easy at others, but this seems to be deferred; level boarding is key to accessibility for all users; sometimes another track would be added at a station, sometimes gauntlet tracks would be used, as was done for the SMART stations
  • ownership: most of the operational and infrastructure constraints are due to ownership by private railroads, whose objectives rarely align with passenger rail; consideration of transfer (willing or condemnation) to the state should be included
  • operations: operations by contract with Amtrak is less than optimal; consideration of a different operator should be included; most of the surly conductors have been moved off Capitol Corridor, but some remain

Capitol Corridor seems to want to defer planning for electrification off into the future, but somehow that future never arrives. Planning for electrification must start now. I realize that electrification would be very expensive, but probably no more so than a new Carquinez bridge or second by crossing (Link 21). It has been and will be resisted by UP, but see bullet three above. If UP is not willing, then they should lose control of the corridor.

Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide "which three amenities"
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide “which three amenities”
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide "which improvement"
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide “which improvement”
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide "which extension"
Capitol Corridor Vision Plan 2026 slide “which extension”

SacATC 2026-06-18 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I attended the SacATC 2026-06-18 meeting.

I spoke briefly on the Arden Way-Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan (item 3), mostly just to say this is a walker and bicyclist hostile area, and it will take significant changes to make it useable and welcoming to people. Arden Way adjacent to the Arden Fair Mall is extremely wide, and crossing there is uncomfortable even with signals and walk signs. Of course the worst intersection of all is Arden Way, Alta Arden Expressway, Exposition Blvd, and Ethan Way, a complex and dangerous intersection for all modes, where it is not even obvious where one could go, let alone what might be safe (spoiler: there are no safe ways here). This intersection is partly in the city, and partly in the county, which may be why it was not included here. Commissioners commented that RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons) should be removed from this plan and from the city’s toolbox, as drivers do not yield to walkers at these location in this city. There were also comments about the lack for a direct path and wayfinding for moving from the levee trail to the soon to be opened bicycle path on the Business 80 bridge, and through CalExpo to the Arden Fair area.

My longer comments were about the Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft (item 5). The draft plan has just been released, and I will be looking at it in more detail. I’m also part of the task force. The draft plan does not at this time include the appendices, so my comments were based on the SacATC documents and a quick read of the plan.

Positive:

  • overall, an improvement over the 2018 plan
  • added focus on Top 20 intersections, as that is where most crashes occur and are prominent in areas of persistent poverty; this was a major weakness of 2018 plan
  • prioritization of vulnerable users and sensitive areas is good
  • recognition that arterials are almost entirely the problem, which is due to outmoded and unsafe design; though a lot of complaints are made about speed and driver behavior on local streets, that is mostly not where the fatalities and severe injuries are happening
  • I particularly like high priority action H7, addressing 10 priority intersections 

Would like to see:

  • case studies on completed corridor projects showing change since completion
  • identification of which Top 20 intersections are good candidates for quick-build under Transportation Safety Team; some intersections are so bad that nothing but major reconstruction will make them safer
  • Top 20 intersections should be explicitly added to the Transportation Priorities Plan, not just corridors

Negative:

  • this is really just a plan, not an action plan; an action plan would detail what actions will be taken, when, and with what funding
  • rejection of using the city’s general fund (p.66) to mitigate safety issues is a mistake; city staff including the City Manager should promote use of general funds, and the council should provide the political leadership to allocate significant funds to the program; failure to use general funds will stretch efforts out by decades
  • because traffic signals are so expensive ($1M plus), new and major modifications should be de-prioritized in favor of other actions, though timing modifications are appropriate; new signals are not an affordable safety solution

There will be several more chances to comment on the plan, June 22, July 1, and July 30 for in-person, and June 25 and June 29 for online. You can also comment directly on the plan document with the Konveio tool. See the city plan update webpage for more detail and to register for these workshops.

Slow Down Sacramento has offered a ten points for comment on the Vision Zero plan, listed below. These are well worth considering in your own comments.

  1. Annual reduction targets for deaths and serious injuries, not just a general goal that crashes should go down.
  2. A public implementation dashboard showing each action, responsible department, funding status, timeline, and progress.
  3. A stronger funding strategy that treats traffic violence as a public safety crisis.
  4. Quick-build safety reviews after every fatal and serious injury crash on the High-Injury Network.
  5. A higher priority for project evaluation, so the City measures whether completed safety projects are actually reducing crashes.
  6. A higher priority for the Speed and Conflict Management Plan, because speed is one of the most important factors in whether a crash becomes fatal.
  7. Default use of proven safety tools like daylighting, leading pedestrian intervals, no right turn on red, protected left turns, and safer signal timing where conditions warrant them.
  8. A stronger Safe Routes to School commitment, especially near schools, parks, transit stops, and high-speed streets.
  9. Clear prioritization for Disadvantaged Communities and Areas of Persistent Poverty, where the burden of traffic violence is greatest.
  10. Ongoing meetings of the Vision Zero Task Force after adoption, so community voices remain part of implementation and accountability.
Sac Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft - table of Top 10 corridors and Top 20 intersections
Sac Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft – table of Top 10 corridors and Top 20 intersections
Sac Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft - map of Top 10 corridors and Top 20 intersections
Sac Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft – map of Top 10 corridors and Top 20 intersections

Caltrans gives the middle finger to walkers on 15th St

Dan Allison1 Comment

As part of the Fix 50 project, which has been going on for an indeterminate period of time, and may be complete sometime in this century, Caltrans tore up sidewalks and curbs under the freeway overpasses so that they could use the area under the freeways to store construction material and equipment. One locations was 15th Street under Highway 50. The sidewalk was replaced by uneven asphalt pavement, accessible for some people walking, but certainly not people with mobility devices.

15th Street under the freeway has never had sidewalks on the west side. As with almost all Hwy 50 underpasses, the design was for high-speed on-ramps and off-ramps which would have made walking there suicide. And bicycling as well. Cars first, cars only, the Caltrans motto.

Caltrans started to repair the damage to sidewalk and curb on the east side of 15th. Sometime before June 3, a fence was put up blocking the sidewalk. The result is that there is no path for people walking to follow 15th Street under the freeway. This is a violation of PROWAG, which Caltrans, along with every transportation agency, is legally mandated to follow. Though the regulations provide more detail, the summary says it well: “When an entity closes a pedestrian access route for construction, it must provide a temporary alternate pedestrian access route with basic accessible features. Alternate pedestrian access routes ensure that construction in the public right-of-way does not prevent pedestrians with disabilities from reaching their destinations.” Caltrans did not do so. It could have done so by closing one of the motor vehicle lanes and providing a protected pedestrian access route (and a bicyclist route as well, which is not required by PROWAG but is required by the California MUTCD).

So far as I can determine (remember, Caltrans has fenced off this area), the work remaining to be done is to patch the pavement between the curb and the existing roadway. This is something that would take one day, at most. But as of today, June 16, nothing had changed, nothing had been done. Two weeks. This is the middle finger that Caltrans is giving to people walking. Thirteen days, or more, of no access for people walking, for no good reason, just because Caltrans can’t get its act together to fix something it broke.

First, what it looks like going south to north on 15th Street. The detour is to… 16th Street, a full block away. That intersection is even more hazardous than this one, with two lanes with high volumes of high speed drivers turning left from 16th Street northbound to W Street westbound. You take your life in your hands there. Actually, you take your life in your hands whenever and wherever you use a facility designed by Caltrans, but 16th Street is one of the worst.

photo of 15th St at X St, pedestrian detour sign
15th St at X St, pedestrian detour sign

Second, what it looks like going south on 15th Street. You can see the fence that blocks access, but you can’t see, from here, the minor fix that would remove this problem. Apparently the person walking had gone around the fence, unwilling to go two blocks out of their way, to and from 16th Street. This is the target audience for Caltrans, and by ‘target’, I mean a person at risk of bodily injury or death at the hands of Caltrans. At least Caltrans put up a small ‘bicycles share the road’ at a locations where drivers are sure not to see it. This should be an illegal sign in any case, as drivers take it to mean, bicyclists should get out of the way and ‘share’ the road with cars. California MUTCD also required bicyclist accommodation in this situation.

photo of 15th St at W St, pedestrian access blocked
15th St at W St, pedestrian access blocked

And this is what it looked like today, June 16. No change, except that the ‘bicyclists share the road’ sign is gone. Again, the suggested detour is to the even more hazardous intersection of 16th Street and the freeway.

photo of 15th St at W St, pedestrian detour, sidewalk blockage
15th St at W St, pedestrian detour, sidewalk blockage

I have said before, but it bears repeating, that Caltrans District 3, which includes Sacramento county, is a rogue agency, funded by taxpayers (your tax money) but accountable to no one. Not Caltrans headquarters, not California Transportation Commission, not the governor, not the federal government. And most particularly, not the citizens of Sacramento. They do what they want, when they want. They want you to just accept that they are killing you, using your own money for the crime.

I sometimes wonder if the felon Trump got his ideas for grift, criminality and incompetence from observing Caltrans District 3.

Am I pissed? You bet.

end of my driving

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This I got cataract surgery this spring. The most noticeable difference is how I see color, as my cataracts were very brown. It is amazing how bright colors are now. My vision had deteriorated to the point where I could not have passed the drivers license vision test, and even after the surgery, probably could not have until I got new eyeglasses. So my drivers license, which required in-person renewal with vision test due to my age (74) expired. I had been pondering whether to renew my license. I last drove in 2020, as part of work, before retiring. Though I appreciated the possibility of driving, ‘just in case’, I didn’t think it likely that I would. I hate cars, and don’t even like being in them, let alone driving them.

So, expired license. What to do? Well, I had no identification for a while, and in fact got challenged about that once. I was staying a place that would not accept my expired license, though expiration really has nothing to do with identification, and would not accept my passport as identification, even though it is a legal form of identification. Grrr. It took quite a while to get this straightened out.

So, I went to DMV, and got an ID, rather than drivers license. No vision test required. And no more driving.

How do I feel about this? Great! I am happy to be done with that part of my life. Free of the expense of driving (my ID was free). Free of participation in the culture of car dominance. Free! Of course not owning a car since 2011 was one of the best decisions I ever made in my life, financially, morally, environmentally. This is just the next step, logical step, to really being free.

Though I’m not generally in favor of hard rules, such as making people give up drivers licenses at a certain age, I do think that there are way too many old people still driving who should not be driving. At the same time, there are many, many people of all ages who should not be driving. The sociopathic and moral failings of privilege, impatience, and “I’m a much better driver than others” should have no place.

SacATC 2026-06-18

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, June 18, starting at 5:30 PM, at the city council chambers. People can comment on agenda items in person at the meeting, or by making an eComment ahead of time on the city Upcoming Meeting Materials webpage. Though eComments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see eComments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting.

The city seems to have changed its document storage to Google Drive, with no ability to download the main agenda, and the agenda pdf is corrupted, but I finally managed to get a copy, below.

There are three main agenda items. I have not had the chance to look at these items in detail, so have no recommendations to make at this time.

Agenda (pdf)

3. Arden Way-Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan – Phase 2: staff report | workshop boards | presentation

4. Fruitridge Safety and Mobility Plan: Proposed Alternatives: staff report | presentation

5. Vision Zero Action Plan Update Draft Plan: staff report | presentation