SacRT Board 2026-08-24

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, August 24, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked. There is no ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ item on the agenda, which means that the ongoing controversy over SacRT’s zero tolerance policy for fare evasion, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles will not be addressed. This issue is not mentioned in the General Managers Report.

SacRT has added a ‘public participation‘ document, which addresses remote participation and comments. Comments in person and via email remain the same, as explained in the agenda.

I may have comments on agenda items between now and the board meeting.

Agenda (pdf)

  1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  2. CONSENT CALENDAR
    • 2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of July 27, 2026
    • 2.2 Resolution 2026-08-100: Amending Title II (Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics) of Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Administrative Code to Revise Appendix A
    • 2.3 Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreements for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at Three Locations
      • A) Resolution 2026-08-101: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 39 th Street and R Street; and
      • B) Resolution 2026-08-102: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 59 th Street North of S Street; and
      • C) Resolution 2026-08-103: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 65 th Street and Q Street
    • 2.4 Resolution 2026-08-104: Approving a Contract for Facilities Pest Control Services with California Professional Pest Control, a California Corporation doing Business as California Pest Control
    • 2.5 Resolution 2026-08-105: Designating the General Manager/CEO as the Accountable Executive for Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Transit Asset Management Plan
    • 2.6 Resolution 2026-08-106: Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding From the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs; Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to submit SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities; and Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute all Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements
    • 2.7 Resolution 2026-08-107: Approving the Transfer of Title of 3701 Dudley Boulevard, McClellan, CA from MP-655 LLC to Sacramento Regional Transit District
    • 2.8 Resolution 2026-08-108: Awarding a Contract for Purchase of Transit Buses to Gillig LLC Under the Basin Transit Contract No. 23-01 and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Amendments to the Contract
    • 2.9 Resolution 2026-08-109: Conditionally Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Approve Contracts for Verizon Connect Fleet Equipment and Subscription Service
  3. INTRODUCTION -OF SPECIAL GUESTS
    • 3.1 Employee and Retiree Recognitions – First and Second Quarters 2026
  4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
    • 4.1 Resolution 2026-08-110: Adopting the Sacramento Regional Transit District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 (staff report | plan | presentation)
  5. PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
  6. NEW BUSINESS
    • 6.1 Bus Rapid Transit Efforts – Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative for Stockton Boulevard & Retention Strategy for Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (staff report | Stockton presentation)
      • a) Resolution 2026-08-111: Adopting the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project; and
      • b) Information: Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication
  7. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
  8. REPORTS, IDEAS AND QUESTIONS FROM DIRECTORS, AND COMMUNICATION
    • 8.1 Sacramento Placerville Transit Corridor Joint Powers Authority Meeting Summary August 3, 2026
    • 8.2 Mobility Advisory Council Meeting Minutes – July 16, 2026
  9. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA (If Necessary)
  10. ADJOURN

SacCity curb extensions + daylighting, or not

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento has been installing temporary curb extensions, with vertical delineators mounted on bases, at intersections. The extension is ‘temporary’ in the sense that it is not a concrete or hardened extension, though in most cases they will not be replaced with ‘permanent’ due to the expense of permanent installations. These curb extensions slow turning drivers, and reduce the crossing distance for people walking, or rolling. These are an effective countermeasure that increases safety, and I am very happy to see them being installed. In the photo below, on the northeast corner of S Street and 27th Street, the crosswalks have also been freshly painted in a high visibility pattern. The marked crosswalk over 27th Street may be new, and seems to be a new pattern for the city to use.

This particular installation also serves as daylighting, by preventing parking in the daylighting area approaching the intersection. I did not measure it, so am not sure if it meets the legal 20 foot requirement, but it does serve the purpose of increasing visibility by precluding parking. However, many of the installations do not set off the daylighting area, for example the northwest corner in the photo. I do not know why the city has decided in some cases to include daylighting in the curb extensions, and in other cases, not.

Though it would increase the materials cost of installations, requiring more delineators, all curb extension installations should also include daylighting, unless the location already has red curbs and/or signing for daylighting. AB 413 (2023), the daylighting law, does not require red curbs, signing, or delineators, however, the city’s intent is to ticket only where there is an indication for drivers of the law.

It appears that these vertical delineators are Pexco FG 300 Turnpike Grade Curb System. The bases discourage but don’t prevent motor vehicle drivers from running over the delineators ‘just for fun’, and provide more visibility than simple vertical delineators. I have so far not seen any curb extension locations where the delineators have been damaged by drivers. Delineators on the bikeway turn wedges have definitely been damaged by motor vehicle drivers.

I wonder if the lane channelizing vertical delineators on 15th Street and 16th Street should be replaced by this type (Hmm. 16th St traffic calming). These installations really do reduce lane changes at the last moment, which endanger walkers using the crosswalks, the ‘multi-lane threat’ that kills people. They are a success story for Sacramento, and should be used in more locations.

photo of temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner
temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner

SacATC 2026-08-20: red light camera program

Dan Allison2 Comments

Note: I decided I would map the proposed Automated Red Light Camera and SB 535 areas, and the map is at bottom. Note that SB 535 is not the only criteria for identifying disadvantaged communities, but it is the one most commonly used.

Item 03 on the SacATC agenda for 2026-08-20 is ‘Automated Red Light Camera Program’ (staff report | presentation). This is a new program being established under Senate Bill 720 2025 (SB 720, Ashby. Automated traffic enforcement system programs.). Though this bill did not eliminate earlier programs, the City of Sacramento does not currently have a program because they participated in a county-wide program which the county cancelled. The new program addresses many of the objections that had been raised to the older program.

I support this program, and these locations.

The staff report contains the map below.

map of Automated Red Light Camera Program, from SacATC 2026-08-20
map of Automated Red Light Camera Program, from SacATC 2026-08-20

I like the distribution of locations, though would hope for more locations. Maybe in time. The locations demonstrate two things: the equity concerns about concentrating red light cameras, and any type of enforcement, in low-income neighborhoods, does not seem to be a significant issue. Most of the locations are in moderate to high income neighborhoods. This fits with my observations that most red light running is by drivers of high-value motor vehicles, not low-income people. It would be interesting to map the intersections against disadvantaged communities, and probably the city did so, but I don’t have time for that, and the city did not provide it. (see below)

To some degree, I’m not sure how important the distribution of red light camera is. I strongly believe that the majority of red light running is by a minority, but a significant minority, of drivers. Many of these drivers run red lights all over the city. It is also contagious behavior. Yes, it is an epidemic, and the disease spreads though observation of other drivers behavior. It is a visual contagion. Though the enforcement mechanism here is civil and not criminal, it would allow Public Works to identify repeated and egregious red light runners, and pass that information along to law enforcement.

I was curious about how these 20 recommended intersection locations overlapped with the Vision Zero Action Plan Update. The Red Light Camera list is in order of broadside crashes, which are almost always caused by red light running. However, the ordered list in the staff report does not match the ordered list on the map. I don’t know which is correct. The Top 20 intersections in the VZ Action Plan Update are numbered, but not in ranked order. There is an overlap of eight intersections. I also bold-faced the roadways that show up more than once in the list. There is a pattern here – these are the arterial roadways that the city designed to encourage unsafe speeds and unsafe driver behavior. No surprise that these are the locations of red light running crashes.

RankRed Light Camera intersectionsVision Zero Top 20 intersections
15th Street & I Streetno
2Truxel Road & Arena Boulevardyes
3Del Paso Boulevard & Evergreen Street/Lampasas Avenueyes
465th Street & Lemon Hill Avenueno
5Freeport Boulevard & Florin Roadno
6Folsom Boulevard & Howe Avenue/Power Inn Roadno
7Truxel Road & Gateway Park Boulevardyes
8Stockton & Elder Creek Road/47th Avenueno
9Fruitridge Road & Power Inn Roadno
1065th Street & Fruitridge Roadno
11Mack Road & Valley Hi Drive/La Mancha Wayyes (as La Mancha Way & Mack Rd)
12El Camino Avenue & Northgate Boulevardyes (as Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave)
1316th Street & J Streetyes
1412th Street & North 16th Streetyes (as North 12th St & Richards Blvd, and North 16th St & Richards Blvd)
153rd Street & Capitol Mallno
16El Camino Avenue & Evergreen Streetno
17Florin Road & Greenhaven Driveno
18Franklin Boulevard & Brookfield Driveno
19Cosumnes River Boulevard & Bruceville Roadyes (as Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd)
20Truxel Road & Del Paso Road/Natomas Boulevardno

Map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations, and SB 535 disadvantaged communities.

map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations and SB 535 disadvantaged communities
map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations and SB 535 disadvantaged communities

Of the 20 locations, seven are not in SB 535 areas, four at at the edge of SB 535 areas, and nine are within SB 535 areas. I would not say that the cameras are concentrated in low-income communities, however, many equity organizations have raised concerns about camera locations. My observations of red light running are that most violations are by drivers of high-value vehicles, not low-income drivers. The seven not-in-SB 535 locations are moderate to high-income communities. The three downtown Sacramento locations are not generally low-income, though the SB 535 criteria identifies them as such. SB 535 uses a variety of measures in addition to income.

For earlier posts on red light running, see Category: traffic violence, Tag: red light camera, and Tag: red light running.

SacATC 2026-08-20

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, August 20, 2026, 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 format for speaking in person has changed. You can register ahead of time to speak on an agenda item, but apparently you can still fill out a speaker card at the time of the meeting. The comments format has changed a bit, but apparently works the same. Go to the city’s Public Comment page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission to see registration and comments.

I may post comments on the agenda items. Added a post on Automated Red Light Camera Program. If the bicycle parking program presentation is fixed (it appears to be corrupted), I may post on that item.

Agenda (full agenda pdf)

Discussion Calendar

  1. North Natomas Community Trail Naming Effort (staff report | presentation)
  2. Automated Red Light Camera Program (staff report | presentation)
  3. City of Sacramento Bicycle Parking Program 2026 Update (staff report | presentation note: the presentation seems to be corrupted, lacking most of the graphic elements)

Marysville Blvd phase 2

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I wrote in March and May about the Marysville Blvd Vision Zero project phase 1: Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts and Marysville Blvd VZ Phase 1 complete. Now for a closer look at phase 2. The city’s project page is Marysville Blvd Vision Zero.

Marysville Blvd is one the 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan top 5 corridors. The 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Update (page 33 list and map) draft includes Marysville Blvd south of Arcade Blvd as part of the Del Paso Blvd top 10 corridor, and two intersections. It also includes the intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue in the top 20 intersections, which is within and central to the Marysville project. The Marysville Blvd Vision Zero project is the result of the 2018 identification.

The city has a preliminary design for phase 2, but engineering is not complete, nor is funding available. That means that citizen input can improve the project. Phase 2 would extend the project north from Grand Avenue to North Avenue, and south from Nogales Avenue to Arcade Blvd. There is no official public outreach at this time, but you can always email the city with your concerns and ideas: MarysvilleVZ@cityofsacramento.org.

The project page has a list of ‘Project Features’:

  • Road Diet: A road diet is a reduction of a travel lane to slow down traffic and improve safety.
  • Bicycle Lanes: Upgrading existing bike lanes to protected bike lanes.
  • Pedestrian Safety: New pedestrian signals and controlled crossings.
  • Infrastructure: Pavement repair and sidewalk improvements.

Five maps of the project area were provided in a presentation to SacATC 2025-09-18, and these are shown below, south to north. There are gaps in these maps, but I think they serve to show the kinds of changes proposed. There were preliminary designs, final designs and engineering are now being developed by a consultant.

My comments on the project start below the maps.

Read More »

What’s next: transit

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Part four of what’s next, part three being What’s next: squeeze roadways, part two being What’s Next: parking, and part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.

The SaferSacStreets citizens initiative would have provided about half of the funds to transit, mostly SacRT. SacRT is a seriously underfunded transit agency, surviving on about 1/6 of a cent sales tax, which is far less than any other city transit system. What is does get is about a 1/3 part of the Sacramento County Measure A transportation sales tax, 1/3 of 1/2 equals 1/6. Of course SacRT gets some other funds from state and federal sources, but these are mostly for infrastructure, and it also obtains grants from time to time, which help, but again, are for infrastructure and not operations. Infrastructure is important, as it maintains and replaces buses, and maintains and replaces light rail vehicles, as well as other needs including expansion. If you have seen or ridden the old light rail cars, which are far, far past their expected lifespan, you will know what neglect of maintenance and replacement looks like. Fortunately, SacRT has replaced part of its fleet with new Siemens S700 light rail cars, now used on the Gold Line, and to be used throughout once enough new cars are purchased.

The other significant issue for SacRT is that they have been using money designated for infrastructure to pay for operations, for several years now. The state encouraged this, and federal government allowed it with some funds, but the state funds are running out, and under this administration federal funds are uncertain, so a crisis is coming when there won’t be these extra funds for operations. Without a new revenue source, cutbacks will be necessary. The new sales tax in City of Sacramento would have allowed SacRT to shift funds back to maintenance, and to at least some expansion of service. SacRT is in a planning process, SacRT 2025, which identified what an additional 1/4 cent or 1/2 cent of sales tax would do. The 1/4 cent summary and map is below. Note that this planning is for the entire system, basically Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento would have generated about 1/3 of this amount (in very rough terms, 1/3 of the population and 1/3 of the sales tax income is from the city), and would have been spent on enhancing transit in the city, though of course expenditures in the city would have beneficial impact throughout the system.

diagram of SacRT summary and map of 1/4 cent options
SacRT summary and map of 1/4 cent options

So, no new income. What can be done to maintain service, and to mitigate the cutbacks that will be needed? I have more uncertainty and fewer ideas than I did with the three previous posts that focused on the roads portion of the initiative. But here are some:

Third lanes become transit lanes: I recommended that the third lane of roadways be closed to reduce motor vehicle capacity. Instead of closure, these can be converted to full time transit-only lanes. Most arterials with three lanes per direction are also bus routes, so there is overlap in the benefit. Transit-only lanes would require some paint and signing, so probably somewhat more expensive than closure, but on the other hand, no concrete barriers, and vertical delineators only in some locations. Probably just as important is making light rail tracks exclusive to transit use, for example on 12th Street where motor vehicle traffic interferes with light rail trains. But the locations where transit-only lanes for buses and trains are few enough that this is not going to make huge difference for the system. Eventually, there should be transit-only lanes on smaller streets, but that requires planning that will take time, and money.

Rebalance frequency vs coverage: It is time for a quick system revision process, similar to the SacRT Forward process in 2019. There won’t be the money to do a comprehensive cut, so this would be rougher. My preference is to eliminate low ridership routes, or reduce span of service to higher ridership times. I realize this would leave people in lower density areas with poorer service, or without any service, but something must be cut, and I’m less sympathetic to people who have chosen to live in lower density areas where efficient bus service is just not possible. When there was extra money, lower density areas were served by SmartRide, but those funds are long gone, and the current on-demand Flex program only serves seniors, disabled and low-income riders. There won’t be money for in-depth planning and public engagement process, so staff’s best guesses will have to do.

Drop light rail extension ideas: Green Line light rail to the airport, and Blue Line light rail to Elk Grove projects continue to receive support from politicians, SacRT board members, and some SacRT staff. Under current funding and reasonable likelihood of funding, these project will never happen. There are other longer term light rail extension projects that are still on the table but not current focus. I think SacRT should drop planning, and discussion, for all of these extensions. Someday, once society shifts interest and funding away from private motor vehicles and towards transit, these projects might come back, but by that time, current planning would be so out of date as to be largely useless. Let it go!

Evaluate staff: It is characteristic of SacRT that staff decisions often turn out to be wrong. Sometimes they are reversed or modified after public feedback, and sometimes they aren’t. These poor decisions are, I think, the result of significant incompetence with some staff. Not all staff, not even most staff, but staff in key decision making positions. Repeated mistakes are not held to account, but are glossed over. This must end. Under constrained funding, every decision should be the best that can be made with current knowledge and experience. Some current staff is just not capable of that. They should be held to account or let go.

That’s it for my radical proposals, for now. I look forward to hearing from other individuals and organizations about their ideas. One the standards answers is ‘do more with less’, but we were already doing more with less. At least for the time being, less is what it is. I have doubts about future funding, from sales tax or other sources, and I’ll write about that eventually.

What do you think?

What’s next: squeeze roadways

Dan Allison1 Comment

Part three of what’s next, part two being What’s Next: parking, and part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.

Without additional funding, the city will continue to seek grants for infrastructure projects, and will continue to make some traffic calming changes such as temporary curb extensions, both of which are good. But the huge number of poorly designed roadways, and in particular unsafe intersections, means that progress would be measured in decades if not longer. The capacity of arterial and collector streets must be reduced, but with actions that don’t require much money, since there won’t be much money.

Immediately close all slip lanes: Slip lanes allow high speed turns with drivers looking only left for other vehicles, never right for people walking. Even when stop signs are present, drivers make high speed turns. These are a clear and present danger to people walking, and should immediately be closed, with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers. This would also have the effect of reducing roadway capacity.

Close all dedicated right turn lanes: Similar to slip lanes, dedicated right turn lanes increase roadway capacity and decrease safety. Again, drivers look left for other motor vehicles and not right for walkers. These lanes also lengthen crossing distance for walkers at the intersection. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Close all dedicated left turn lanes beyond one: Multiple left turn lanes are a hazard to drivers, increase the capacity of a roadway in such as way as to encourage drivers to consider the roadway a highway, and lengthen crossing distances for walkers. Drivers are paying attention to the vehicle beside them and not to what is ahead of them. Left turn lanes are a positive for traffic flow, but one does it. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Close unnecessary center turn lanes: Center turn lanes may be appropriate where there is a density of driveways and therefore turning movements, and only one general purpose lane per direction. Otherwise, all traffic must wait behind turners, and people turning onto the roadway create conflicts with through traffic. Center turn lanes are a hazard – a common name for them is ‘suicide lanes’ – but they can be useful in some areas. However, they are unnecessary where there are two or more lanes in a direction, increasing capacity but with a significant negative safety effect. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.

Remove all lanes over two per direction: This is probably the most expensive suggestion, since there are miles of three lane arterials in Sacramento, and far more outside the city. Transportation advocates refer to these roadways as ‘traffic sewers’, intended to flush motor vehicles in and out of the city during commute times. They feel like highways, and they are used like highways, drivers traveling at high speeds and not expecting any conflicts. Intersections on these roadways have much higher crash rates than other locations. Perhaps we could start with roadways with a demonstrated higher crash rate.

Reducing roadway capacity is directly contrary to the design of roadways over the last 70 years, which is to speed and ease the flow of motor vehicles. It is also contrary to the desires of most traffic engineers. But it is exactly what we need to do, to discourage motor vehicle use, to reduce environmental impacts, and to make our roadways safer places for everyone. And in particular, to start the process of making people walking and bicycling to once again feel welcome on our streets.

I’ve mentioned closures with concrete barriers. What I have in mind is pieces of K-rail, the concrete barriers that one sees at construction projects, to separate motor vehicle traffic from the construction area. They are ugly, and they tend to become worse with reuse, gradually deteriorating into rounded hunks of concrete, but they are relatively cheap and widely available. They also require simple installation. Vertical delineators are somewhat more expensive and require more complicated installation, but are more aesthetically pleasing. Of course concrete is most effective, since vertical delineators can easily be run over by drivers, but I still prefer delineators. Other cities have used a number of creative solutions and objects to reduce roadway capacity, and to keep motor vehicle out of places they don’t belong, so there are widely available ideas on the Internet.

What’s Next: parking

Dan Allison2 Comments

Part two of what’s next, part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.

Parking is the gateway drug to greater motor vehicle use. Drivers have the expectation that parking will be available at home, at work, and any place else you’d like to go. Preferably free, but if not, at least low cost. Free parking or below cost parking is socialism, pure and simple. Society as a whole paying to provide goods or services to those who demand them. Drivers have a high demand for parking, they want it not only free, but very close to where they are going. This extends from homeowners thinking they own the parking space in front of their home, to not wanting to walk more than a few feet to your destination. Drivers spend an incredible amount of time driving around streets and parking lots and parking garages until they find that perfect spot, just outside where they want to go, steps away. Ironically, one of the places they are going is the gym, to get physical activity otherwise lacking in their life, or to the park or river to walk their dog.

Parking is a gateway drug. And our transportation planners and engineers have spent huge amounts of time and money providing for that demand. So long as parking is easily available, drivers will continue to drive, making unnecessary trips, and making trips that may be necessary but could be taken by other modes: walking, bicycling, transit.

There is a common thought among transportation advocates that if we make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer, people will drive less. The evidence doesn’t support that, beyond a gradual transition for some people. But now we don’t have the money needed to make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer.

I believe that we must directly reduce driving by making it more difficult. One of the best ways of doing that is to reduce parking, so that there is not easy parking where people are driving to. The more difficult parking becomes, the less people will chose to make trips by driving.

Solutions. Make parking less available and more expensive.

  • Daylighting: Enforce AB 413 (2023) to prohibits parking within 20 feet upstream of a crosswalk [VEH 22500 (n)]. As staff resource allows, install red curbs or temporary curb extensions. Red curbs or extensions are not required bu law, but they do help drivers understand. There are some material costs for this, and staff time to do the work, but far less than signing and permanent curb extensions. This is consistent with Slow Down Sacramento’s bullet five of then, ‘Fully implementing and physically reinforcing intersection daylighting’.
  • Reduce available parking: Though daylighting should be the first step, for its dual benefit of reducing parking and increasing safety, there should be a gradual reduction in available parking. I’d suggest 10% per year over five years. Some curb space would become unavailable for any use, but most would be converted to more productive uses, such as short term up to 15 minute parking, delivery, and drop off and pickup. Where parking is needed for a higher use, including bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, or street dining (al fresco), all parking should be removed as needed. Of course any new street must be limited to parking on one side only. This solution would require some curb paint and some staff time, but would not be expensive.
  • Charge for street parking everywhere: In Sacramento, only the central city charges for parking. In the rest of the city it is free. Parking ‘meter’ fees should be increased to discourage motor vehicle use and to maintain some open space on every block (the Shoup goal). Parking fees should go exclusively to maintain the parking infrastructure, and to neighborhood improvements, as in, a parking benefit district. In areas where ‘meters’ are not present or not practical, street parking should require a parking permit with fee. Yes, a permit would be required for that parking space in front of your home. The city is providing a service to you, and it should not be free, it should not be subsidized by other taxpayers. I am not sure what the fee should be, but I would start with $20 per month per vehicle. Again, these fees should go to maintenance of the parking area, and neighborhood improvements. No parking fees should go into the general fund or to other uses not related to the streets. In the suburbs of Sacramento, and the county and other cities, almost everyone has a driveway and a garage. These should be used for parking, not the common resource of the street. This solution would require setting up a mechanism to charge for parking permits everywhere, but once set up, it would be a source of income and not an expense.

As we reduce parking, there will be less driving because driving will be less convenient. That has a clear safety benefit, but also strong support for livability. It is a gradual but directional movement towards fewer cars in our cities, in our lives.

What’s next: freeways

Dan Allison3 Comments

As I said in my post Slow Down Sacramento’s response to the initiative failure, I really like Slow Down’s thoughts about where to go after the failure of the Safer Sac Streets initiative to make the November ballot. But of course I also have some more radical ideas. It will probably take a few posts to get to them.

Our transportation system is broken. Seriously broken. It kills people on a regular basis, to a level that is unheard of in the developed world, and puts us solidly down in the third world statistics. It damages the earth, most prominently as the primary cause of climate change, but in many other ways as well. Perhaps most importantly, it has led to a society that is fragmented and unhappy, because we have turned much of our urban form into a lonely, sad place. Except for those lucky enough to live in diverse, walkable communities (I am one), the livability of our places is declining at an accelerating rate. I take that as a given, and it is not my purpose here to amplify that argument. If you don’t buy that, you probably won’t be interested in what comes next.

The interstate highway system was probably a plus for society, and for our economy, though it made the mistake of destroying central cities for the benefit of through traffic. But as Strong Towns has so well documented, we finished that project in 1992, and mostly earlier, The Interstate Was Finished. The Program Wasn’t (Mission Accomplished). See a local focus, End Highway Expansion by Strong SacTown’s Troy Sankey. Caltrans has not slowed down in its expansions of highway capacity, and despite the lip service of Caltrans headquarters, our regional District 3 has recommitted itself to the maximum number of new lanes miles, and a never ending supply of make-work projects.

Why is this important? Caltran’s mission is to supply all the highway capacity that anyone might ask for. If there is congestion, add capacity. If traffic slows below 65 mph, add capacity. If new interchanges are needed to support sprawl development, add capacity. This is really all District 3 knows how to do. Their world view is that the purpose of our transportation system is to ease and speed motor vehicle travel, and their constituency is people who want to drive more at a faster pace. The engineers, and particularly the leadership of District 3, is living in the 1950s.

So, highway capacity is increased. Yolo Causeway on Interstate 80, add a lane. Hwy 50, add one or more lanes. Interstate 80, add lanes (this was already done, but I’m sure they are planning more). Interstate 5, add lanes. Hwy 99, add lanes (this was already done, but I’m sure they are planning more). Sacramento is not really a city of trees, it is a city of highways.

Each and every capacity expansion induces more traffic, and in particular encourages longer distance travel. Want to live far from where you work? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. Want to get to the coast or Lake Tahoe with a short easy drive? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. Want to develop agricultural lands into suburbs? Sure, Caltrans will accommodate. What Caltrans does not do, and seems uninterested in, is ensuring that freight traffic, which we all depend upon to some degree whether we drive or not, has the capacity to move. The freeways are full of commuters and travelers, with freight crawling along in the traffic. Stand on a bridge over any of our freeways, and notice who the freeway was designed for. For private cars, not for freight and commerce.

Why is this pattern so important? When highway capacity is expanded, it induces more motor vehicle traffic. That in turn induces more traffic on local roadways, particularly arterials and collectors. So the local agencies (SACOG, counties, cities) have to expand their roadways to accommodate all the induced traffic. And just as with the freeways, there is no apparent end to capacity expansion. In more urban areas, some cities are now moving in the other direction, reducing capacity for safety, but at the edges, capacity is still being increased, in many cases at a rapid rate. Caltrans has its hands deep in the taxpayers pockets, and gets essentially unlimited funds to expand capacity (with the complicity of California Transportation Commission (CaTC), the governor, and the legislature), while local agencies don’t have the money to even maintain what they already have, let alone expand capacity. Yet the actions of Caltrans forces them into expanding capacity and accumulating debt and deferred maintenance that they will never, ever be able to catch up on.

So, solutions. Discourage freeway use for commuting and non-essential travel. That would include:

  • stop current and planned capacity increases
  • all freeway lanes in excess of two per direction to be tolled (and eventually, all lanes)
  • convert all existing HOV lanes to tolled lanes

Stopping capacity expansion would free up the money (and more) to create the tolling infrastructure on all freeways in the region, including converting HOV (high occupancy vehicle) lanes to tolled lanes. The not yet finished Hwy 50 project, Fix50, added an HOV lane, which should have been a tolled lane. Now is the time to fix that. We already have a regional tolling agency, Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority, ready to operate the tolled lanes, and redirect income to maintenance and mitigation.

I have no illusions that this change would be easy. There are vast forces that will try to delay and subvert it. Not just Caltrans, not just commuters, but politicians who want to cut ribbons on increased capacity. The asphalt lobby, as it is called, though it includes concrete and everything that goes into a freeway. Suburban and exurban land developers. Owners of remote shopping malls who want an interchange just for their development. And the forces of status quo: ‘we’ve been doing this for 80 years, why would we change now?’

To make this change, it would take a strong, organized, and committed coalition of organizations that support equity, environment and financial solvency and transparency, and are willing to do whatever it takes to rein in Caltrans. And every citizen who knows we are on the wrong road, which is a continually growing group.

Caltrans District 3 is a rogue agency, not controlled in any significant way by anyone outside the district. Not Caltrans Headquarters, not the CaTC, not the governor, not the legislature. Bringing it under control might well be the hardest thing that could be accomplished, it will take years, and labor, and tears, and money. The best time to start was 50 years ago, the next best time is tomorrow.

are there Flock cameras in the City of Sacramento?

Dan Allison2 Comments

I was incorrect in saying there don’t seem to be automated license plate readers (ALPR) in the City of Sacramento. I was looking at a map that showed only Flock cameras, and the ones in the city are not Flock. I think they are Motorola L5F devices. In looking at the devices at J Street and 5th Street, I looked up the pole, but failed to look far enough up, and out on the street light mast arm, which is where several cameras are. The DeFlock app shows all ALPRs, Flock and other brands. I checked two other locations that are in the app, and they have the same cameras. The locations also have video cameras with a dome shape.

The first photo below is a Motorola L5F camera at J Street and 10th Street. The second photo shows multiple devices all in one location, none of which seem to this camera. I don’t know what they are all for. It is possible some are for traffic, not surveillance.

It appears that I was also incorrect that SacPD ShotSpotters are only listening devices. At least some of them, maybe all of them, have cameras on the bottom.

My apologies for missing and minimizing the prevalence of surveillance devices in our city.

photo of J St & 10th St, Motorola L5F ALPR camera
J St & 10th St, Motorola L5F ALPR camera
photo of J St & 5th St, multiple camera devices
J St & 5th St, multiple camera devices

I recently noticed anti-Flock signs at J Street and 5th Street in the City of Sacramento. This made me wonder if the identification as a Flock camera was accurate. It appears not.

If you look the the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) website and map, it appears that the Flock camera in Sacramento county are in unincorporated Sacramento County and Elk Grove. In the region, Roseville and Rocklin in Placer county have a number, and there are a few in Davis and Woodland in Yolo county. None in the City of Sacramento. Note that this map is very hard to use, but it is still useful.

photo of Anti-Flock signs at J St & 5th St, misidentified
Anti-Flock signs at J St & 5th St, misidentified

The device on the pole above is a SacPD ShotSpotter, which is not a camera, but a listening device intended to identify and pinpoint gun shots. The only criticism that I have noted of ShotSpotters is that they are expensive and ineffective, mis-identifying sounds, and often resulting in too-late arrivals of law enforcement. By the way, the blank out ‘no left on red’ and ‘turning vehicles yield to pedestrians’ sign below the ShotSpotter is an attempt by the city to reduce the likelihood of drivers running over walkers at this dangerous intersection. I have not had the chance to observe this one in operation, but will.

photo of SacPD ShotSpotter at J St & 5th St
SacPD ShotSpotter at J St & 5th St

I am in no way minimizing the concerns of the anti-Flock movement (flockout and others). Flock is a disreputable company, and the data gathered has been misused by law enforcement everywhere it is installed.

My concern is that the public’s opposition to Flock cameras, and similar license plate readers from other companies, will be used as an excuse by drivers and organizations who do not want automated speed enforcement and automated red light enforcement to be installed anywhere. These are people who would rather others die in traffic violence, than that their ‘privacy’ be invaded by any type of enforcement.

So, please, anti-Flock people, learn about the different types of devices and their uses, and then correctly identify Flock locations. Don’t label other devices as Flocks.