SacATC: what’s it for?

2026/10/282026/10/28 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At the SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting, a commissioner, I’ve forgotten who, commented that these details of policy and expenditure were exactly what the commission should be focused on and spending time to come up with consensus. And that leads to this post.

In my opinion, the commission spends too much time reacting to staff presentations on projects already in planning, and too little time talking about where the city should be going with active transportation, and policies that would support that direction.

The Sacramento City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee (SacBAC) ceased operation at the end of 2017, mostly through my advocacy. The committee was ineffective largely because the county representative, Dan Klinker, would routinely try to kill any city ideas or actions to improve safety for bicyclists. My vision was for a city-only committee, people sitting around a table, that would have deep discussions on policy and actions, come to consensus, and relay this to city council. I was disappointed that the city instead formed a commission, in the traditional commission format of city-appointed members sitting on the dais, separate from advocates and the public, an ‘us and them’ structure. I am glad walkers (pedestrians) were added, becoming ‘active transportation’ rather than just bicycles. In practice, the main function of the commission is to review and respond to city staff presentations on projects that are already in planning stages.

Again and again, projects are brought to the commission that have the same flaws and oversights, and again and again, the commission must express the same concerns. If there were clear policy in place, and modern street design standards, this would not be necessary. The city has delayed an update of street design standards for years. Every project that modifies streets, or reallocates right-of-way width, should include wide sidewalks and wide sidewalk buffers with trees. Again and again, the projects fall short in this respect. Every project should include narrower and/or fewer lanes and reduced speed limits. Again and again, the projects fall short in this respect.

It is possible to reform the commission and its charter so that most of the meetings are spent on analyzing existing policy and developing new policy aimed at making city streets safe and welcoming to those who walk, bicycle and roll. That would be incredible useful, and a true fulfillment of its mission to advise city council. On the other hand, if the current practice to use the commission as a checkbox or rubber stamp for city staff continues, then it serves little purpose. Perhaps it should be disbanded.

It would not be in the nature of the current city manager and senior staff to allow anything like a effective committee to exist, so it might be necessary for the advocacy community to form and formalize its own committee, and speak directly to city council, without screening by city staff and P&PE. The Personnel & Public Employees Committee (P&PE), was formed by the city manager for the purpose of screening the work of commissions and boards, isolating the city council from the commissions and boards. It has been quite effective at doing so.

The SacATC ‘charter’, from the Active Transportation Commission webpage, is:

The commission is established for the purpose of providing advice on strategies related to walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city. The powers and duties of the commission are as follows:

Advise city council on the implementation, criteria, and priority of pedestrian, bicycling, and rolling related policies and projects.
Provide input to city council on the pursuit of grant funding opportunities.
Provide input on program development in walking, bicycle safety, and rolling education, law enforcement, and other areas pertinent to walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city.
Review and discuss current walking, bicycling, and rolling issues and advise city council.
Advise city council on the need for periodic updates of the pedestrian master plan and bikeway master plan.
Provide for public participation and involvement regarding the implementation of walking, bicycling, and rolling projects and programs, and other active transportation matters.
Annually, report to and make recommendations to the city council regarding the status of walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city and activities of the commission.

I want to acknowledge that despite the structural limitations imposed by the city, the commission, and particularly the ad-hoc committee that developed the annual report, have put in a lot of time, and a whole lot of passion, to make Sacramento safer from traffic violence, and more livable and economically vibrant place.

SacATC: 2026-10-15 notes

2026/10/282026/10/28 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The meeting recording is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWun1r4Na3A.

Comments were not available for posting or viewing leading up to this meeting. I note that there are comments in the meeting archive, but I don’t know where they came from, they were not there at the time of the meeting. The livestream was also not available to me, but I have viewed it after the fact.

Item 4: Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600)

Four commission members questioned why there are RRFBs (rapid rectangular flashing beacons) included in this project since they are known to be ineffective in slowing or stopping drivers, and are especially inappropriate for a higher speed and higher volume roadway. Chair Gonzalez pointed out that Public Works staff had promised in an earlier meeting that there would be no new RRFBs in projects, but they have since backpedaled on that promise and are including them in new projects. He stated that RRFBs might work on a seriously constrained street like Folsom at One Speed Pizza, but that is not the situation on Franklin. He stated that RRFBs are not a traffic calming measure, and a HAWK/PHB or regular signal should be used.

One commission member questioned the design of a green painted but unprotected bike lane at the intersection of Franklin and Fruitridge, saying it was not comfortable for less confident bicyclists.

The city engineer presenting admitted that no study was being done on Franklin Phase 1 and 2 to determine if traffic had been slowed or yielding behavior increased. This is typical for city projects, that they project safety improvements, but don’t gather data to see what the actual improvements are.

Item 5: Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations (this item was by far the bulk of the meeting)

Staff (JDW) said that the reason for the high cost of LPIs (leading pedestrian intervals) is due to the need to add Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) as required by PROWAG, and many of the locations have such old signal controllers and signals that there are significant costs to modify them. (slide 9)

The cost of ‘no turn on red’ is high because the use of blank-out no turn signs are more expensive than regular signs (MUTCD R10-11), and also require new cabling and sometimes controllers. If only regular signs were used, the cost would be $1.2M rather than $36M. I can state that the blank out signs are far more effective than regular signs, but am not sure that it is worth delaying installation over cost. One commissioner questioned the effectiveness of the blank-out signs. So far as I know, there is no research on this.

Item 2 g) lower downtown speed limits to 20 mph, was removed from the list as not being a critical safety measure, and likely to happen as part of other city initiatives.

There was considerable discussion about the most expensive projects, LPIs and ‘no turn on red’. There was also discussion on the timing of projects, that the commission recognized that major projects take ten years or more, while the city is estimating less (though they have previously recognized the very long time lines).

The commission realized that the funding table showed cost for all Top 10 Corridor intersections and Top 20 intersections, not a per-year expenditure, which would be considerably less as action on LPIs, no turn on red, and daylighting would take place over several years, with a significantly lower per-year cost.

*Summary of Recommendations Table, from draft 2026 SacATC Annual Report presentation*

During my viewing of the meeting, YouTube had an outage, so I will add important information to this post when it becomes available again.

The Commission

A commissioner, I’ve forgotten who, commented that these details of policy and expenditure were exactly what the commission should be focused on and spending time to come up with consensus. My next post on SacATC will address the question, what is SacATC for?

SacRT: Board 2026-10-26 notes

2026/10/272026/10/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The recording of the meeting is available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU9mHZUbwKE&list=PLAfWRxJkwPon701gc9cUsUqqBDlmiWJnt&index=3.

Consent Calendar: There was extensive discussion of item 2.6: ‘Resolution 2026-10-123: Rescinding Resolution No. 12-04-0050 and Revising SacRT’s Voting Procedures for Property and Business Improvement District Assessments’. Though the issue was a change in voting, board members discussed relationship with PBIDs (Property Business Improvement District) and the assessments on SacRT properties. The item was continued to another board meeting.

Item 3.1: Linda Hinz presented on ‘customer service response’. Her presentation was all about law enforcement and and a defense of a zero tolerance policy on fare evasion. She touted her law enforcement experience and defended the decisions that had been made to increase law enforcement action and personnel (without board discussion or approval). She said there were 2000 citations a month for fare evasion, but did not mention how many involved law enforcement. She said the target for transit ambassador employees was 51, though her slide said there were currently 60. She said a training program for Transit Ambassadors would be established. Apparently the only training is from existing ambassadors on the job. She said that a single incident of a fare evader not being cited could result in loss of all federal funding. This is her questionable reading of SB 5492 (Hagerty), which has been introduced but not passed. SacRT is piloting the use of drones, which is a further militarization of law enforcement.

SacRT has hired one ‘Social Services Practitioner’ to work with unhoused people in the right-of-way. This compares to 161 personnel dedicated to law enforcement. The priorities of Ms. Hinz are clear.

Ms. Hinz’s over-dramatization of everything in a whiny voice is typical. Listen for yourself to the recording.

My comments were:

Policy on zero-tolerance on fare evasion, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles has still not been brought back to the board. It was on the MAC agenda for four meetings, but there was only brief mention during one of the four, and was not addressed in the other three.
The ‘customer relations’ approach presented by Ms. Hinz is a law enforcement priority approach, with no consideration of riders.
Ms. Hinz mentioned a red line that could not be crossed several times. Apparently this line is not being able to produce proof of fare within five seconds of being asked. This is a very sad policy for an agency which is supposed to be providing transit service to member of the public.

Helen O’Connell spoke about the difficulty that some disable people are having using the ticket vending machines (TVMs) and presenting proof of fare due to difficulties with manual dexterity, and that some of these riders have been ticketed for not being able to produce fare quickly enough.

There was also a presentation on the incident in Folsom when crossing gates were down for an extended period of time. Apparently a lack of prompt communication between SacRT staff and Folsom Police exacerbated the issue. SacRT promised to do better next time.

Item 4: Public Addresses Board on Matters Not on the Agenda

My comments were:

Police vehicles parked illegally for a long period of time in the commercial loading and passenger loading zones in front of the SacRT building at 1102 Q Street caused a UPS delivery truck to have to park in the bus stop (all nearby spaces were occupied), thereby causing a SacRT bus to stop in the street instead of at the curb, thereby causing two riders to have to step off the curb to reach the bus. One of the riders seemed to have disability and had a hard time stepping off the curb. This is unacceptable.
When one of the light rail lines is delayed, the information displays at overlapping stations are changed to indicate that delay, and the schedule for the line that is not delayed is not displayed until the delay is resolved. As a result, riders don’t have any information about the line not delayed. This is ridiculous.
The new Dos Rios station is wonderful, by far the best station on the system.
Advocates were excited that GTFS-RT (realtime) would be implemented on the Gold Line with the new S700 rail cars, since SacRT now had GPS information about railcar locations. For unknown reasons, SacRT chose to now implement GTFS-RT for light rail. It is implemented for buses.

Other commenters:

Evan Siroky: talked about the lack of GTFS-RT (realtime) information, which apps use to present train location and arrival information; he has professional expertise in GTFS
Mattie Parfit: people without phones or printers can’t use free fare; the readers should be turned off for the day and covered up
Margie Donovan: no AC on some buses; passenger names have been used on radio, in violation of rider privacy

Item 6.1 General Managers Report

Henry Li tried to address the real time question by saying that the digital messaging signs at stations would eventually be updated to provide real time information. It is not clear when new signs and a display system with this capability will be implemented. See the 2026-09-28 report, scroll down to 7.1 General Managers Report, for more information on the signs. He said this was intentionally delayed under Light Rail Modernization was completed so that there would not be new signs in old trains. At that time, he said a contract had been awarded to Clever Systems in April, but there is not known timeline.

Though the signs (and announcements?) within the new light rail cars and the station could use the same system to display information, it is not necessary to delay one for the other. Henry then launched into a discussion of vandalism at the light rail stations, apparently blaming the lack of real time information on vandalism. When questioned by a board member about how vandalism was related to the signs, Henry could not answer. The Connected Transit Card readers have been routinely vandalized, but this has nothing to do with information signs, or with GTFS-RT.

Henry announced that there would be no Green Line BRT/LRT study, due to Caltrans delay and lack of funding. His slide, not in the provided presentation, is below. Henry implied that the grant amount, $700K, might be repurposed.

*SacRT Board 2026-10-26 6.1 GM Report online presentation slide (captured from video)*

SacCity: Arden-Auburn update

2026/10/272026/10/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts, see Category: Arden-Auburn.

The draft plan for the Arden Way – Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan has finally been released. If you wish to comment on the draft, you will need to go through the project webpage, and answer questions, before receiving access to the document online. The list of documents down the page has not been updated, but a tile for the draft plan has been added near the top of the page.

The community workshop is this Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at 2200 Harvard Street, Sacramento.

I have briefly reviewed the draft, and have some initial comments.

The document refers to appendices, but they are not part of the viewable or downloadable document. I think that Appendix D may contain design information critical to understanding the project.

Appendix A. Existing Conditions Assessment
Appendix B. Community Feedback
Appendix C. Draft Concept Assessment Memorandum
Appendix D. Preferred Corridor Improvement Concepts
Appendix E. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

The draft plans start on page 26 (6.1 Draft Plans).

The design and marking of ‘shared use path’ is not shown. Most of it is 10 feet wide, which needs some sort of marking for differentiation between bicyclist ‘lane’ and walker ‘lane’. The portion which is 12 feet wide may not require differentiation.

SR-160 ramps on the south side of Arden Way at the interchange will have signals added to protect walkers crossing the otherwise high-speed ramps. The ramps on the north side are identified for ‘mid-term improvements’, after uncertain negotiation with Caltrans. This is concerning.

Addition of sidewalk buffers (planting strips/landscaping) in several location is good, providing increased safety and comfort for walkers and bicyclists, but these should be on the entire corridor. The cross-sections for Harvard Way (page 35) and Auburn Blvd (page 36) show a sidewalk buffer of 7 feet. Eight feet is a minimum for healthy trees.

A cross-section of Arden Way (East Arden Way, page 27) shows double left-turn lanes. Double turn lanes are a known hazard that should not be retained or present in any safety project.

The intersections of Arden Way with Point West Way and Heritage Lane are shown as the highest crash rate intersection in the project, and Heritage Lane is the location of a KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) crash within the five year window. Yet no design is shown for these two intersections. It is likely that these are the most important locations on the entire project, and in fact should be the site of an immediate project to make them safer for everyone, and not deferred to this longer-term corridor project. This lack of attention makes me concerned that the planning effort to date has overlooked important safety issues.

SacRT: 7th & Railyards station

2026/10/222026/10/22 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I visited the new SacRT light rail station at 7th & Railyards yesterday. The station has been open several days. Green Line service started October 12, and the station opened October 15.

The station is very bare bones, especially compared to the new Dos Rios Station. There are two benches, at either far end of the platform. There are shelters, but they are small, don’t fully shelter the benches. I was not there at night, so I don’t know how well lit the station is. There are two trash cans, and both had been vandalized already. There is some planting, not much.

There are two Tap2Ride readers, at both ends of the platform, but they were out of service when I visited. This was supposed to be the second pilot site for Tap2Ride on light rail. There is no ticket vending machine (TVM) at the station.

There is single track, so the 30-minute headway train from the end point at 7th & Richards/Township 9 Station just returns through the same station and platform. Since there is not much to see, I caught the same train southbound that had brought me northbound. The trains are single car S700s.

There are signs that indicate destination, but there are no signs to indicate that the northbound train stops at the north end of the platform, and the southbound train at the south end of the platform. This is a major flaw, since a person waiting at the wrong end would likely not be able to get to the other end in time to catch a train.

This station was paid for and built by the Sacramento Republic FC (soccer) owners, not by SacRT. SacRT said that when the developments in the Railyard come on line, the station will be upgraded with access to the soccer stadium, a wider plaza, and double-tracking at least for the station. It is not clear whether the route along 7th Street will ever be double-tracked.

The gallery below is my photos from the brief visit.

photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound — 7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound

photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards platform looking south — 7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound

SacRT Board 2026-10-26

2026/10/222026/10/23 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, October 26, 2026, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked.

A policy response on zero-tolerance, strollers, carts, and bicycles is not part of this agenda, so far as I can determine.

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.

Agenda (pdf)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT CALENDAR
- 2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of September 28, 2026
- 2.2 Receive and File: Quarterly Treasurer’s Report
- 2.3 Conditionally Awarding Contracts for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements
  - a) Resolution 2026-10-119: Conditionally Awarding a Contract for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations, and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements to Agile Occupational Medicine PC; and
  - b) Resolution 2026-10-120: Conditionally Awarding a Contract for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations, and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements to Dignity Health Medical Foundation, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, dba Mercy Medical Group
- 2.4 Resolution 2026-10-121: Approving Sole Source Procurements for Supply Purchases and Maintenance and Repair Services for Equipment, Components, and Parts for Light Rail Maintenance and Wayside Contractors and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Contracts
- 2.5 Resolution 2026-10-122: Approve the First Amendment to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transportation Development Act Claim
- 2.6 Resolution 2026-10-123: Rescinding Resolution No. 12-04-0050 and Revising SacRT’s Voting Procedures for Property and Business Improvement District Assessments
- 2.7 Resolution 2026-10-124: Authorizing the Execution of the Cycle A and Cycle B Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Project(s) and Certifications and Assurances, and Submittal of Project Nominations and Allocation Requests to Caltrans for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
- 3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments: staff report | presentation
PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
- 5.1 General Manager’s Report: staff report | presentation
  - a. Major Developments and Updates
  - b. SacRT Meeting Calendar
  - c. Next Stop News
  - d. Monthly Social Work Report (September)
REPORTS, IDEAS AND QUESTIONS FROM DIRECTORS, AND COMMUNICATION
- 6.1 Mobility Advisory Council Meeting Summary – September 17, 2026
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
CLOSED SESSION REPORT
ADJOURN

SacCity: failure on Arden-Auburn plan & workshop

2026/10/222026/10/26 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I expressed concern in my 2026-10-14 post SacCity: Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28 that the plan to be considered at the workshop was not yet available. As of 2026-10-22, it is still not available, so this workshop is premature.

Plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

I did not see a map of crashes in the available documents, so I created one, below (pdf). Though this section of Arden Way and most of this section of Auburn Blvd are on the High Injury Network, neither is among the 2020 Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors report [I had missed that Arden Way is in the list of five ‘additional priority corridors’ that were added in 2018], nor in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 10 Corridors. None of the intersections along these roadways are in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 20 Intersections. I suspect that this project continues the city’s focus on big, expensive corridor projects, for which it has only a moderate chance of receiving funding, rather than focused projects on specific problem areas, which are often but not always intersections.

*map of fatal & severe injury crashes (KSI) on the Arden Way and Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan corridors*

SacCity: Fruitridge SMP workshop November 12

2026/10/22 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento will hold the third and final community workshop on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan (Fruitridge SMP) on Thursday, November 12, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at Fruitridge Community Center, 4000 Fruitridge Rd, Sacramento, CA 95822. RSVP is available on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan webpage, but is not required.

As of today (2026-10-22), the draft plan is still not available. If it is not available by 2026-10-29, then the workshop is premature, as plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

Previous posts on Fruitridge:

SacCity: Fruitridge Road walker and bicyclist collisions (2026-07-31)
SacCity: Fruitridge Road crossings (2026-07-31)
SacCity: Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan observations (2026-07-30)
SacCity: Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan (2026-02-21)
SacCity: Fruitridge Road community workshop April 23 (2025-04-17)
Freeport & Fruitridge intersection (2023-01-23)

SacRT: police arrogance endangers riders

2026/10/21 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Today, I observed a UPS truck parked in the bus stop red curb zone on Q Street at 11th Street. When I asked the driver why he had parked illegally in a bus stop, he pointed out that police were parked in both the white passenger loading zone and the yellow commercial loading zone in front of 1102 Q Street, SacRT Headquarters. These police vehicles were not ‘on call’, they were still parked there an hour later. Of course there were also SacRT and Sac County Sheriffs vehicles parked illegally in a no parking zone on 12th Street. Again, these were not ‘on call’, they were simply choosing convenience for themselves over safety for the public.

Because the UPS truck was in the bus stop, the SacRT bus (presumably Route 109, though I did not catch the head sign) had to stop in the travel lane on Q Street, and the two waiting passengers had to step off the curb and cross the parking lane to reach the bus. One passenger had a disability and was challenged by stepping off the curb.

So, illegal and arrogant parking by SacRT police ends up endangering SacRT passengers. No surprise on my part.

photo of SacRT police parked illegally in passenger loading zone, 1102 Q St — *SacRT police parked illegally in passenger loading zone, 1102 Q St*

photo of SacRT police parked illegally in commercial loading zone, 1102 Q St — *SacRT police parked illegally in commercial loading zone, 1102 Q St*

SacCity: Franklin Blvd Phase 3

2026/10/15 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting will receive a information and comment update on the Franklin Blvd Complete Street Phase 3 project. The project is at the 60% design stage, meaning that plans have been drawn (see the SacATC 2026-10-15 post), but details can still be improved. I have had some time to review the presentation and design diagrams, so have some comments, based on these and on my previous post on the Phase 1 and 2 project which is complete. The Phase 1 and 2 project ended at Fruitridge Road. There have been various city and county projects on other segments of Franklin.

The extent of this Phase 3 project is Fruitridge Road to the county line just beyond 38th Avenue, shown below. The southern part of the project (to the left) is in the city, and the northern part (to the right) is shared city and county, but the city is taking responsibility for the entire project.

I note four areas of concern.

One: RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) at 33rd Street. RRFBs have a very low rate of compliance in the City of Sacramento, in part because we have among the worst drivers in the state. The installation here includes two beacons, one on the post, and another on an overhead mast arm. This format may slightly increase compliance, but the city has not demonstrated that it increases compliance enough to be safe for people crossing here. The city knows that existing RRFB locations are not safe, but continues to specify them, against the advice of transportation advocates. Either there should be a pedestrian hybrid signal at this location, or it should not be highlighted as a safe crossing, because it is not. Of course every intersection has a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, but the presence of a marked crosswalk with RRFB signal implies a level of safety that does not exist.

Two: Flared intersection at Fruitridge. The flared intersection of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge, which I criticized in my previous post as being unsafe for all users, is proposed to be duplicated south of the intersection in this Phase 3. The Google map overview is below. North of Fruitridge, the configuration has changed somewhat. South of Fruitridge, it is as shown, with two lanes southbound, two lanes northbound, a dedicated left turn lane, and a dedicated right turn lane which is a free-right with no traffic control whatsoever.

Google map of Franklin - Fruitridge intersection — *Google map of Franklin – Fruitridge intersection*

The design diagram for Franklin at Fruitridge is below. It shows some improvement, with only one lane northbound, but is otherwise the same. Two lanes southbound, requiring a merge that could be avoided by making it one lane, as it is on the approach from the north, and one of the lanes is 12 feet, unnecessarily wide. The southbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, and does eventually have painted buffer ‘protection’. The dangerous dedicated right turn lane is retained, though it does add a stop sign, which would be widely ignored, and encourages the same driver behavior to look left and ignore anyone in the crosswalk. The lane is 13.5 feet wide, which is ridiculous. The marked northbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, between two motor vehicle travel lanes, with no protection whatsoever.

Three: Trees and sidewalk buffers (planting strips). Though sidewalk buffers and trees are being added along about half of the segment, both are missing from the remainder. This is better than it was, but far from the tree canopy/shade that the public has requested. Though I could not find a diagram where the width of the sidewalk buffer was specified, I estimate that they are mostly five feet, but narrower in a few locations. Healthy trees require eight feet or more, so the trees along this section will always be less healthy than they could be. Tree information starts on page 61 of the design diagrams document, with Landscape Planting Legend (LP002), and includes six street sections. A total of 50 trees are indicated, though it is doubtful, given past projects, that all of these will be planted. The diagram below shows the 37th Street section, with more trees than any other.

diagram of Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102 — *Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102*

Four: Wide concrete bikeway medians. There are a number of locations with very wide concrete medians to separate the bikeway from travel lanes. I’m all in favor of concrete medians, which provide real protection rather than the visual protection of vertical delineators. But a narrow concrete median is just as effective in providing protection as a wide median. In many cases, these medians seem overly wide, as though to simply take up excess space. Though the stamped concrete specified for many of them is slightly better aesthetically than plain concrete, it is still an unnecessary expanse of heat generating and expensive infrastructure. If possible, this width should be reallocated to sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)