SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: Vision Zero Network

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Other posts on the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan update are available at category: Vision Zero.

The Vision Zero Network is a national organization which provide leadership and resources for local vision zero efforts.

The organization offers a Resource Library, which has a wealth of documents and references on vision zero. The city’s action plan documents seem to rely on some of these resources, which is a good thing.

One of particular interest to me is a one page chart titled 9 Components of a Strong Vision Zero Commitment, below and pdf. It isn’t just about the action plan, but a strong overall approach.

graphic of nine components of a strong vision zero commitment

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: automated enforcement

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan update will very likely include two elements related to automated enforcement:

  • #11: Implement red light running camera program.
  • #25: Support legislation on Automated Speed Enforcement allowances in Sacramento.

The city had automated red light cameras under a program operated by the county, and a private contractor. When the county dropped its program, supposedly because they were not gaining enough income from tickets to pay for the program, the city also dropped its program (the end of red light enforcement). Not confirmed, the cameras may still be installed, though not in use. SB 720 (2025) established new guidelines for red light cameras, which the city will follow in implementing a new program. The Streetsblog California post SB 720 and What You Need to Know about Red Light Cameras, written before passage, is a good summary of the program. Fines are reduced for low-income people, there are provisions for more equitable implementation, and fines may be used for traffic calming.

At this time, the city has no authorization to implement automated speed enforcement, so ‘support legislation’ means supporting adding Sacramento to the list of pilot cities under AB 645 (2023), or creation of a statewide program after the pilot. There are varying opinions about when the state will move to a permanent program, but I remain hopeful.

The advocacy and equity community has long had concerns about bias in in-person law enforcement, and some of these concerns also apply to automated enforcement. Views range from ‘automated enforcement is worth it to save lives’ to ‘automated enforcement must be carefully designed and implemented to prevent bias’. There are a few advocates that don’t believe that an equitable automated enforcement program can be designed, and are opposed until proven otherwise.

Conversations among transportation and equity advocates, and with the city, will continue during development of the Vision Zero Action Plan update.

The best single summary I have found is How To Improve Social Equity in Automated Traffic Enforcement (Elovate, 2024-11). This is a commercial company that sells automated enforcement, but the post seems unbiased. A search for ‘equitable automated enforcement’ will surface many, many articles and posts.

Another great source is Fair Warnings: Recommendations to Promote Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs (Vision Zero Network, 2024-12). It includes a section, ‘Recommendation 1: Consideration & Placement of Speed Safety Cameras

Issues addressed by SB 720 and AB 645:

  • reduction of fines: .“..a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level.” This provision is present in both.
  • use of fines: “Program costs include, but are not limited to, the construction of traffic-calming measures…” and “Traffic-calming measures” include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (A) Bicycle lanes; (B) Chicanes; (C) Chokers; (D) Curb extensions; (E) Median islands; (F) Raised crosswalks; (G) Road diets; (H) Roundabouts; (I) Speed humps or speed tables; (J) Traffic circles.” This provision is present in both, though the speed camera program also requires that cities implement traffic calming in several situations. The legislation strongly encourages but does not require that income be spent on traffic calming.
  • relation to existing expenditures: “Jurisdictions shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for traffic-calming measures…” This provision is present in both, though more restrictive in the speed camera program.
  • bias reporting: “A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups.” in the speed camera program, and “… jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups…” in both. However, it is not clear whether the selection of locations requires analysis of geographic bias beforehand.

SacATC 2026-02-19

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will meet on Thursday, February 19, starting at 5:30 PM, in city council chambers.

The agenda includes two consent items and two discussion items.

Item 3 is Vision Zero Action Plan Update 2026: staff report | presentation

Item 4 is H Street Bikeways: staff report | presentation

My previous posts on Vision Zero cover many topics related to it, and make some recommendations. A draft plan will be available in the spring, at which time I’ll no doubt have many comments. If you haven’t been following the Action Plan update process, this is a good chance to catch up.

This is the first time preliminary plans for creating a safe bikeway on H Street, leading to and from Sacramento Valley Station, have been presented to the public. I will take a closer look and perhaps post again before Thursday.

High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation
High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: more info

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I am a member of the Vision Zero Action Plan update Task Force (stakeholder) group, which met last week, Thursday, February 12 (meeting #4 presentation). The meeting made some additional information available.

  • On the Draft Actions sheet, the numbers in the left hand column just reference elements, they do not indicate any priority. The only priorities, on which feedback was being sought, are the three ‘buckets’ of high, medium, and low priority.
  • The updated plan is intended to cover a span of five years. Where a number of actions are specified within an element, those are over a period of five years, not necessarily evenly distributed.
  • No information is yet available on prioritization within each bucket.
  • No information is yet available on sequencing of action elements. Some can be completed in a short time, some will be ongoing throughout the plan time period, and some will not start until later.
  • No information is yet available on the cost of each element. For engineering actions, some cost information is in the Top Collision Profiles and Countermeasures memo.
  • The Draft Actions sheet mentions ‘new laws’ in two elements (#2 and #3). References to the legislative bills or state code should be made available.
  • Element #7 adds intersections to the program, which is great, since the original plan largely ignored intersections in favor of corridors. However, it is not clear what criteria might be used to identify these intersections. The draft High Injury Network continued the focus on corridors, so this intersection element indicates some progress towards considering intersections, which are the location of most crashes.
  • Crossing guidelines are not part of the plan so far, but could be the location for prohibiting RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons), which have proven ineffective in Sacramento. There is an existing Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines document (2021-04), but it isn’t clear how the two documents will relate to each other.
  • Questions were raised about repaving and pavement condition index (PCI), which is deteriorating in Sacramento (and nearly everywhere). The answer was that there is no clear nexus between pavement and crashes, though obviously there are instances.
  • Questions were raised about the elements that mention law enforcement (#25 & #28). There is consensus among the stakeholders that in-person law enforcement is too subject to law enforcement bias and escalation, and that automated enforcement must be very carefully implemented to prevent racial, geographic, or income bias.
  • I asked that an item #32 be added, to make the sidewalk inventory publicly accessible. It is not available on the city’s GIS Open Data Portal, and another person’s PRA (Public Records Act) for sidewalk data did not produce anything useful. See previous post where the streets have no… sidewalks.

SacCity LPI location update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In 2018, I posted a list of leading pedestrian interval (LPI) locations (Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) signals), which were provided by the city. Today I field-checked those locations.

Two locations have apparently been removed, 29th & K, and 8th & Q. Six of the locations where I only indicated ‘and’ have LPIs on only one of the cross streets, and I have changed those to ‘at’, 9th at I, I at 10th, J at 10th, I at 13th, 15th at K, and Q at 9th. Three locations have LPIs for both cross streets, 10th & K, 9th & P, and 8th & P.

  • 9th Street at I Street: across 9th only
  • I Street at 10th Street: across I only
  • J Street at 10th Street: across J only
  • I Street at 13th Street: across I only
  • 15th Street at K Street: across 15th only
  • 29th Street and K Street: removed
  • 30th Street and K Street: both directions
  • 9th Street and P Street: both directions
  • Q Street at 9th Street: across Q only
  • 8th Street and P Street: both directions
  • 8th Street and Q Street: removed

The intersection of J Street at 13th has LPI across J. However, this intersection is unsafe for walkers since the signals allow southbound drivers on 13th Street to turn left across the sidewalk while the walk sign is on. This is the most common vehicle movement, and this is one of the most heavily used crosswalks in the central city since the convention center is on the southeast corner. This must be fixed. I have written before about this intersection (13th & J intersection), but nothing has been improved.

Other intersections of note are

  • 29th Street and K Street which has ‘wave or press’ pedestrian signing, but pedestrian signal is on auto-recall, which it should be.
  • L Street and 29th Street has no LPIs, but it does have an exclusive pedestrian phase on north leg only.

The Pocket Greenhaven Transportation Plan (2023-11) recommends three LPIs

  • Florin Rd & Rush River Dr
  • Greenhaven Dr & Rush River Dr
  • Pocket Rd & Little River Way

I don’t know the status of this project. It is odd that only three locations were recommended, out of dozens of location with new or modified traffic signals.

If readers know of other locations with leading pedestrian interval (LPI) signals, please comment on this post or email allisondan52@icloud.com.

SacCity LPI background

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Previous posts on Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), in the City of Sacramento and more generally, at available at tag: LPI.

The Strong SacTown Street Design Standards Working Group has a team working on Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) at traffic signals. If LPI grabs your interest, I encourage you to join the working group. Meetings are posted on Luma, a calendaring application. Go to Luma (app or website: https://luma.com/strongsactown). The next working group group meeting is not listed there yet, but it is normally on the third Sunday of the month at 1:00 PM. Meetings are open to the public; one need not be a member of Strong SacTown or Strong Towns to join in (though you should be!).

The City of Sacramento has a Traffic Signal Operations and Standards page. The prose is garbled, to say the least. The linked documents have nothing to do with operations. It does not include a Traffic Signal Operations Manual (TSOM). Though the plan is supposed to be updated, it is not clear if it even exists.

Streets for People Active Transportation Plan (2025-08, page 105): “An evaluation of best practice to establish guidelines for leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at signalized intersections is currently (2025) underway and will be included in the updated City of Sacramento Traffic Signal Operations Manual (TSOM). The TSOM and the guidelines for LPIs will be presented to the Active Transportation and Disability Advisory Commissions to allow for public discussion of the proposed standard practices.”

Vision Zero Action Plan Update Safety Improvement Strategies presentation includes the following graphic:

graphic for Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan Update, Safety Improvement Strategies, presentation, page 48

The Vision Zero Action Plan Update Top Collision Profiles and Countermeasures memo includes the following graphic, which has more detail. It is identified as Tier 3, Engineering Countermeasures, Managing conflicts in time.

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan Update, Top Collision Profiles and Countermeasures, memo, Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), page 44

The Vision Zero Action Plan Update draft recommendations includes #9: “Update City Traffic Signal Operations Manual (TSOM) to reflect complete streets and designs reflective of reducing exposure, likelihood, and severity. Include application of Leading Pedestrian Intervals, No Right Turn on Red, Protected Left-Turn Phasing, Rest on Red, and other similar strategies.” Items 19 and 26 might also include LPIs, though they are not called out there.

barricades

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

An article in the MinnPost makes me very happy, and engenders thoughts of what citizen action could do on the streets of Sacramento.

In occupied Minneapolis, neighborhood barricades rightly slow injustice, MinnPost, 2026-02-11

Here upon these stones
We will build our barricade
In the heart of the city
We claim as our own!
Each man to his duty
And don’t be afraid.

Les Miserables, Upon These Stones (At the Barricade)

Though nothing currently happening in Sacramento rises to the level of government initiated violence and oppression in Minneapolis, it is true that motor vehicle hegemony here creates a hostile city for people who walk and bicycle. Law enforcement, both CHP and SacPD, are either supportive of this hegemony, or indifferent to its effects.

There are parts of the city government trying to change this, but the cultural norm is still an acceptance and celebration of car dominance. It is not just the people killed and injured, but the intimidation of walkers and bicyclists that denies them their right to the city, and to the streets of the city.

Is it time for citizens to rise up, and erect barricades?

Horace Vernet: On the barricades on the Rue Soufflot

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: draft recommendations

Dan Allison1 Comment

The recent City of Sacramento meetings on the Vision Zero Action Plan update, both virtual and in-person, included slides with draft recommendations for the Action Plan. This same information is also available as a chart (pdf). The three categories, high priority, medium priority, and low priority, are presented below.

Each of these items deserves discussion, and possible movement from one category to another. The one item that I would add to the high priority list, consistent with item 11, is ‘implement speed camera program’ when authorized by state law. I feel strongly, and hopefully, that the state will include Sacramento in the pilot program, and will authorize a permanent program within the span of the Action Plan.

chart of High Priority draft recommendations for Vision Zero Action Plan
chart of Medium Priority draft recommendations for Vision Zero Action Plan
chart of Low Priority draft recommendations for Vision Zero Action Plan

SacCity Vision Zero funding

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The approach of the previous Vision Zero Action Plan (2018, with minor update 2023) was to seek grants from federal, state and regional (SACOG) sources to implement complete streets projects on corridors. For some corridors, grants were received and implemented, or are in progress. For other corridors, the grants were not received and nothing has occurred. As presented in previous posts (category: Vision Zero), I believe this approach is why Vision Zero has failed in the city. We have far too many dangerous roadways to ever fix, with grants or without. We must use other methods, though continuing to implement major projects, so long at they don’t take away a focus on what can be done now, and best use of staff time (it takes hundreds of hours of staff time to write and submit a grant application).

Instead, the city must fund Vision Zero directly. A good start would be an allocation of $20,000,000 in the 2026-2027 budget. That amount would be increased every budget cycle until there is a documented downward trend in fatalities and serious injuries of at least 10% per year.

Where would the money come from, in this time of budget deficits? Let me be blunt. Out of the police department budget.

The police department received $256,280,944 in the 2025-2026 budget, including $9,156,810 from Measure U, which should have been spent on other priorities. This is more than the entire Public Works budget of $237,586,768, which includes everything the city does to maintain and enhance the transportation network, including efforts to improve the safety of our roadways. Fatalities related to violent crime, and fatalities related to traffic violence, are about on parity in the city, competing for the top spot, with traffic violence usually coming out on top. We should be investing just as much to reduce and prevent traffic violence fatalities as we do to respond to – not prevent – violent crime. Is a life claimed by mis-designed and unsafe roadways, particularly of vulnerable users, walkers and bicyclists, of less value than a life claimed by violent crime? I don’t think so, but our existing budget priorities say yes.

A shift of $20,000,000 from the police budget to Public Works, specifically allocated to Vision Zero, would be a minor reduction of the police budget but a major step towards reducing traffic violence and fatalities.

City Council has consistently increased the police department budget while reducing the budget of other departments. That seems to be the politically expedient thing to do, but it is not the courageous action necessary to address our real problems in the city.

From the 2025-2026 budget: “The Public Works Department is dedicated to maintaining safer streets, sustainable infrastructure, and innovative mobility solutions. Over the past year, we have implemented tens of millions of dollars in transportation improvements, expanded electric vehicle charging and transit access, enhanced traffic safety, and completed critical road and facility upgrades. Additionally, the department has strengthened parking management through expanded permit programs and automated enforcement, while continuing to improve operations at the Sacramento Marina to better serve the boating community.”

SacCity Vision Zero priorities: 80% quick-build

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento is updating its Vision Zero Action Plan. Both the in-person and online meetings have passed, but the survey is still open through Sunday, February 22. See SacCity Vision Zero Update for my comments on the survey, as well as other posts on vision zero (category: Vision Zero).

I believe that the most effective short term approach for reducing fatalities is quick-build projects at locations which have seen fatalities, or are likely to have fatalities based on poor roadway design and driver behavior. The city has implemented a quick build program, with a transportation safety team and some funding. Still no webpage that I have been able to find.

This is not to say that other elements should not be included in the action plan, but I believe that 80% of the funding, and 80% of staff time, should be devoted to quick-build.

What should not be included is education and in-person law enforcement. However, given that we have an epidemic of fatality-inducing red light running and failure to yield to people in crosswalks in the city (and the county, and the region, and the state), a limited period of in-person enforcement of these violations, with strict guardrails to prevent pretextual stops and law enforcement bias, may be appropriate. Research has proven that education is ineffective, though a favorite of people who don’t really want to solve problems.

I am not sure what the other elements of the action plan should be. Therefore, I’d want to see a commitment to minor updates to the plan on a frequency of about every two years, to reflect lessons learned and evolving legislation about what cities are permitted or required to do to reduce fatalities and address traffic violence.