Stockton BRT alternative alignment

2026/03/15 Dan AllisonLeave a 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.

opening Land Park roads to people

2026/03/112026/03/09 Dan Allison2 Comments

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.

SacCity intersection improvements

2026/03/102026/03/09 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

The Sacramento City Council this week approved the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)-10 Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project, which will enhance crossings at:

Folsom Boulevard and Seville Way
Raley Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue
W Street and 8th Street
Alhambra Boulevard and X Street

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.

SacATC 2026-03-12

2026/03/092026/03/12 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

SacBee 2026-03-11, Madison Smalstig: What changes could come to Sacramento’s dangerous Fruitridge Road corridor?

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.

I have written about Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) previously, but am not sure if the presentation will be the same as the stakeholder workshop.

Agenda

Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan: staff report | presentation
Arden-Auburn Mobility Plan: staff report | presentation
Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project: staff report | presentation
T Street Bikeway Gap Closure Project: staff report | presentation

graphic of Fruitridge Rd collisions — Fruitridge Rd collisions

SacATC annual report to budget committee tomorrow

2026/03/09 Dan Allison2 Comments

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.

You can view the report for yourself by clicking here.

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.

Two ways you can help
1. Submit an e-comment
Take a few minutes to tell the committee that you support funding the Active Transportation Commission’s recommendations. Personal stories about safety in your neighborhood are especially powerful. The agenda item is #6.
2. Speak in person
You can also attend the meeting and provide public comment.

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.

H Street Bikeway: workshop

2026/03/012026/02/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

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.

rendering of H-St-Bikeway 5th St to 6th St

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.
The StreetMix cross-sections now show widths.
The consultants will consider the driveway speed bumps that I proposed: H Street Bikeway: driveway speed bumps.

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.

SacRT Safe Routes to Transit

2026/02/282026/02/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Safe Routes to Transit (SRTT) Plan held its first workshop on February 24 in Rancho Cordova. I attended the Rancho Cordova workshop, not because I live in that area, but because it was the only one that worked for my schedule. There is a virtual workshop on March 4, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM (registration), and three in-person workshops on March 5, 10, and 11.

I was the only member of the public at the workshop in Rancho Cordova. That is sad.

The workshop had some display boards, two showing bus and light rail stops in two areas, captured below.

What the workshop, and the program, was soliciting was input on specific stops. What was not solicited was policy ideas, but I provided them anyway.

The most important policy for SacRT to implement is that all bus stops located on arterial roadways (which is most though not all bus routes) must have safe crossings of the roadway located very near the stop. Stops away from safe crossings encourage riders to cross mid-block (which is not illegal, but is not safe), or require them to walk distances to a safe crossing. I suggest that every bus stop be evaluated, and changes made. Either a safe crossing would be provided, or the bus stop removed. There are many locations where no safe crossing exists anywhere close to the stop. Implementation of safe crossings would require cooperation between SacRT and the local government (cities and county). There should be a deadline for identifying a solution, and implementing the solution. I’d suggest two years, and five years.

Though not common in the cities, there are legacy bus stops in the county that do not have sidewalk access, at all. Those stops must either be provided with new sidewalks, or be removed. Again, there should be a deadline. I’d suggest five years.

I asked if SacRT had talked to riders on the bus to gather information for this project. The answer was no. Apparently this was done in the past, but not recently, and not specifically about this issue. Advocacy organizations have surveyed bus riders on the bus, but not on this specific issue.

The two light rail stations about which I have safety concerns are Swanson and Watt/I-80 West. Not because of access, but because they are so seldom used that a rider might well be the only transit user there at the time. That doesn’t feel safe. There is safety in numbers! I question whether these two stations should be kept open.

Bus stop amenities are critical for encouraging people to ride, but are not necessarily safety issues. Every stop should have a place to sit. Most stops should have a shelter and trash can. Some stops should have bike racks and live arrival displays. Many stops do not have enough space for a a wheelchair user to wait safely for ramp deployment. This must be fixed. Placing amenities often requires a bus stop pad wider than the sidewalk (sidewalks throughout the county are often narrower than desired). Sometimes the pad will fit within the public right-of-way, but often it requires either purchase or an easement on private property. The government agency should be responsible for the arrangements, and placing the concrete pad, not SacRT. SacRT would then place amenities.

H Street Bikeway: 10th St alternative

2026/02/272026/02/25 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For other posts on the H Street Bikeway project, see category: H Street Bikeway. For the city webpage on the project, see H Street Bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station.

The 30% design for the 10th Street connection to the H Street Bikeway is shown below (these were also in the overview post H Street Bikeway: overview). The overall width of the roadway is 105.5 feet, and the ‘FOC face of curb’ width is 50 feet. The street narrows to 34 feet at the curb extensions at I Street and H Street.

*H St Bikeway 10th St section, proposed (from SacATC presentation)*

I have created a StreetMix cross-section duplicating the design cross-section so that it can be compared to an alternative recommendation.

*H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, proposed (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)*

The design proposes a 7 foot bike lane northbound, with a 3 foot stripped buffer, and a parking lane to the right against the curb. Despite the cross-section showing a vertical delineator in the buffer, this is not possible with a parking lane to the right of the bike lane. The bike lane continues the separated, mostly parking-protected, bikeway from the south, which is a good thing. But a buffered bike lane is less safe than a separated bike lane, so detracts from the safety and low-stress goals of the project. The design encourages drivers, whether parking or drop-off/pick-up, to cross the bike lane, a poor practice.

Instead, the design should create a parking-protected separated bikeway. This reduces the utility for drop-off/pick-up, but an larger area could be set aside in the parking lane for this purpose, and the conflict zone crossing the bikeway can be clearly marked. Bikeways that swing into the curb past curb extension, and out again past curb extension, feel awkward for bicyclists, but they have been installed in several locations along the separated bikeway network, and don’t seem to engender safety issues.

The design also proposes sharrows within a southbound general purpose lane. You will have to look closely at the image to see the sharrows, but there are there. They are placed far to the right, in the door zone. This is a very poor design. New sharrows should not be installed, as they don’t decrease crash risk over unmarked routes. If they were there, they should be placed in the exact middle of the travel lane, and supplemented by ‘bicycles allowed use of full lane’ signing (MUTCD R9-20). to make is clear that drivers should not be passing bicyclists in this block. It is particularly likely that drivers will squeeze out bicyclists against the curb extension at I Street. An alternative is to stripe a narrow 5 foot bike lane, without buffer or protection, marked with green. Not ideal, but better than sharrows.

The design retains existing parking. Though it is not clear that removing parking would allow a better design, this should always be a consideration. There is ample and never-full parking in the city garage on the south side of I Street between 11th and 10th Streets. The curb extensions at I Street and H Street are critical features for the safety of walkers, but they do constrain design in this block.

My suggested design is below.

H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, alternative design *(StreetMix created by Dan Allison)*

I do not have the time it would take to create an image of the street with the new design, but I think the cross-section will communicate clearly enough.

What is different? A southbound traditional bike lane (Class II) has been added. Both general purpose lanes have been reduced to 10 feet. There is no reason for over-wide lanes in this section. No buses, no delivery. The east side parking lane, an over-generous 9 feet, has been reduced to 7.5 feet. And the parking-protected separated bikeway is up against the curb, still with a 3 foot buffer from parked cars.