‘complete streets’ or sidewalks?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts on sidewalks and walkability, see category: sidewalks, and category: walkability.

Almost every complete streets and safety project the City of Sacramento has undertaken has focused on the roadway part of the street, the part where motor vehicles and bicycles travel. They have not focused on the sidewalks.

The ‘complete streets’ concept (note that I’ve placed it in quotes) emphasizes travel along corridors, not local travel and life. Lanes are narrowed or reduced. Bicycle facilities are added. A few safer crossings are added. Sometimes parking is reduced or eliminated. This is all good. But by designing and building this definition of ‘complete streets’, sidewalks are usually neglected. If a sidewalk is present, that is considered good enough. ADA ramps are added at corners, which is good, but the sidewalks in between corners are often untouched. There is a reason for this: repaving a street and then re-striping for different roadway width allocation is cheap (relatively). Replacing and widening sidewalks, and moving curb lines, is expensive. The result of a ‘complete street’ is a street that eases, and perhaps makes safer, travel by bicyclists and motor vehicle drivers, but does little for people walking.

It is bad enough that sidewalks are not improved, but by refusing to move curb lines, and/or to remove private development within the public right-of-way, the common issue of sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips, though they may be used for many purposes in addition to planting) is perforce neglected.

Sidewalk width

Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet, with widths up to 16 feet where the frequency of people walking justifies it. Many city sidewalks are five feet, and there are relict sidewalks of four feet. And of course there are many streets in the 50’s to 70’s developments that have no sidewalks at all. If a sidewalk is less than six feet, on a roadway that is being reconfigured or reconstructed, the sidewalk should be widened to at least six feet. Wider if justified by walking.

Driveways

In locations with sidewalk buffers, the slope of a driveway in often across the sidewalk, which makes the sidewalk dangerous for anyone in a mobility device, and uncomfortable for all walkers and rollers. Much of south and north Sacramento suffer from this design. Where it is present, it must be corrected. There is a correction available which ramps the sidewalk down and then up again across the driveway, and this is legal in PROWAG, but it is and should be the design of last resort. The better design is to slope the driveway across the buffer. And to remove unnecessary driveway. Strong SacTown and I will write more about this.

Sidewalk buffers

Sidewalk buffers, where they are present, are almost always too narrow to support healthy, mature trees. A healthy tree needs a sidewalk buffer of eight feet or more. If the buffer is six feet, as is common, an assessment should be made about the health and type of trees, to determine whether a wider buffer is needed. If the tree is healthy, and the sidewalk not heaved by roots, probably best to leave it alone. If the buffer is narrower than six feet, it should be widened, with curb line moved if necessary. And if a buffer is absent, it must be installed. Sacramento is the ‘city of trees’. Unfortunately, it is also the city of constrained and unhealthy trees that have heaved sidewalks, because the city and developers did not care to create a safe, healthy place for them to grow. In neighborhoods of north and south Sacramento, where buffers were not created, there are often almost no trees at all. The trees on private property have died and not been replaced, and the city has not provided trees. These are miserable places to live and walk.

Funding constraints

So, given that curbs and sidewalks are more expensive than re-striping a street, what is the solution? The city’s solution is to neglect the sidewalks, and thereby neglect the trees. My solution is that corridors being reconstructed need to be shortened in order to free up money to do the sidewalks, and sidewalk buffers, right. This is a long term investment. Streets usually only last about 40 years before needing significant work. Sidewalks and sidewalk buffers are a long-term investment, that pays off for livability and reduces city liabilities every day, every budget cycle. The sidewalks and 12 foot sidewalk buffers in the Poverty Ridge area of Sacramento (see sidewalk buffer widths) are in good condition after 100 years or more. Sidewalks have required minor repairs in a few places, but most of the work was for utilities. The buffers have been used for a variety of purposes: trees, gardens, seating areas, play equipment, etc. Not just planting.

If a street is being reconstructed, do it right. Make sure there are wide sidewalks and wide sidewalk buffers. If that means that 10 blocks can be completed instead of 40 blocks, so be it. Do it right, and it will last, and will contribute far more to livability and walkability that a roadway reconfiguration.

The photo below shows a section of Stockton Blvd with a sufficiently wide buffer (wider would be better), and healthy trees (at least until they mature). But this is an unusual section of Stockton. Much of Stockton has narrow sidewalks and no sidewalk buffers. The city is planning to spend a lot of money on reconfiguring the roadway on Stockton, but is not fixing the sidewalks nor adding sidewalk buffers except in a few places.

photo of sidewalk buffer with trees, Stockton Blvd
sidewalk buffer with trees, Stockton Blvd

Sacramento neglects walking

Dan Allison2 Comments

Vital City NYC: To Prioritize Pedestrians, We Need to Walk the Walk, 2026-04-16

A recent article on the Vital City NYC website documents a program in New York City to not only document sidewalks, but how they are used by people walking. It was a cooperative project between MIT and the city. It is amazing what can happen when a city really pays attention to the needs of citizens who walk. Sacramento is not that city.

Of course Sacramento is nothing like Manhattan. A favorite saying of people who dislike change is that Sacramento is not New York. Or San Francisco. Or Portland. Or Paris. Or Amsterdam. Or any other city on the planet that has made progress on recognizing that people walking are the core of the city and city life. It is most certainly not any of those places people visit for its walkability. But parts of Sacramento are not dissimilar to the other boroughs of NYC, so I think this program is very indicative of what Sacramento could do, if it wanted to. If you look at the map in the article, scroll the map to the right, you will see the medium to low density boroughs.

I do travel to many places where the sidewalks are much worse than Sacramento. Looking at you, City of Los Angeles. Sacramento has decent sidewalks, where they exist, but there are sections of the city where they do not exist. And sidewalk buffers are lacking in most of the city, the topic of a future post.

The program started by documenting where the sidewalks and crosswalks are. Sacramento does not have information about where the sidewalks are and are not, where the painted crosswalks are and are not. I have done PRAs (Public Records request) for sidewalk data, and the city states that it does not exist. The fact is, some exists, but it is of low quality, and the city has apparently decided that it is better to deny existence. The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan did collect sidewalk data, but since the data has not been released to the public, it is unknown how comprehensive it is.

A good sidewalk inventory would include: presence or absence of sidewalks, width of sidewalk, presence or absence of sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips) and the width of buffer, condition (deterioration, cracking, root heaves), and driveway crossings, whether flat or sloped. A crosswalk inventory would include the presence or absence of ADA ramps or ramps of any sort even if they are not PROWAG compliant, the crosswalk design (including width and length), and visibility of the crosswalk (visible or faded or non-existent).

The program then modeled sidewalk and crosswalk throughout the city, using existing studies of smaller typical areas and field counts. This is the most innovative part. That data can be used to estimate exposure, the number of people injured or killed, divided by the number of people walking. It is the measurement of rate, which is the best measure of anything related to transportation and in particular, traffic violence.

map of Where New Yorkers Walk, and When
Where New Yorkers Walk, and When (MIT City Form Lab)

“Walking, after all, is not a niche activity. It is the connective tissue of urban life. It links transit to destinations, homes to neighborhoods, individuals to one another. It is also the most equitable mode of transportation we have. To take it seriously — to measure it with the same rigor we have long applied to driving — is to begin to see cities more clearly. And perhaps, in doing so, to design them more wisely.” – Andres Sevtsuk

Stockton Blvd workshop

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Prior posts on this project, and previous permutations, are available at category: StocktonBlvd.

The City of Sacramento (and partners SacRT and Sacramento County are hosting a public workshop on Thursday, April 15, on the Stockton Blvd Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP). The workshop will start 5:30 PM at the Oak Park Community Center, 3425 Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95817. Registration is available (Eventbrite) but not required.

There will probably be a slide presentation, and display boards showing in some detail aspects of the project. These workshops offer the public sticky notes that can be placed on the display boards, and comment cards. If you’d like to see these ahead of time to ponder, or to visit specific sites, tough luck. The city doesn’t do that.

Though the project is about the entire SacRT Route 51, the highest ridership of the system and one of only a few high-frequency (15 minute) routes, the roadway changes would almost entirely be on Stockton Blvd.

The project has three main aspects:

  • Create a transit priority street for Stockton Blvd between Florin Road and Broadway, or perhaps T Street. This will be a bus rapid transit (BRT)-light facility, with dedicated bus lanes (red) in part, and improved bus stops.
  • Add bike lanes, usually buffered but not separated, to Stockton Blvd.
  • Add and improve pedestrian crossings of Stockton Blvd, which current has few safe crossings.

Two bus route alignments are being considered, the existing Route 51, and an alternative 2 that would continue on Stockton north of Broadway to T Street, thereby serving Aggie Square/UC Davis Medical Center.

What the project neglects is:

  • Wider sidewalks. These should be a minimum of 8 feet. Existing sidewalks are often 4 to 6 feet, and are curb-attached, immediately adjacent to motor vehicle danger.
  • Trees, and the wide sidewalk buffers (8 feet minimum) necessary to host healthy trees without root heaves that buckle sidewalks over time.

Though the project benefits include “More inviting public spaces with improved lighting and landscaping”, there are so far no details on what that means. Lighting is often ‘motor vehicle scale’ on tall standards and illuminating the roadway, not ‘pedestrian scale’ and illuminating the sidewalk for safety and aesthetics. Though there are a few locations in Sacramento with pedestrian scale lighting, these were installed by developers long ago when people walking were considered more important than people driving.

What are your thoughts? Concerns? Ideas? If you aren’t able to make the workshop, there is also a survey. The survey asks for your use and interest pattern, but is not intended to gather detailed feedback.

Yolo causeway bike path to close

Dan AllisonLeave a comment
Yolo causeway bike path closed sign

The Yolo causeway bike path will close for a week and a half starting Monday April 13 (tomorrow). The part that will close is actually very short, from the path rest area in West Sacramento to the beginning of the causeway bridge, but since there is no alternative route, the entire distance from West Sac to Davis is closed.

Presumably the closure will be to improve or replace the section of very deteriorated path as it ramps up to bridge level. This is a good thing. The problem is that most users of the path would have no way of knowing beforehand. It is not signed where the path departs West Capitol Avenue westbound, nor is it signed where the path departs County Road 32A eastbound.

Yolo causeway bike path deteriorated pavement

The west end has been improved. Rather than turning on to the levee, it follows the off-ramp from the freeway, protected from motor vehicles by concrete barrier ( sometimes called K-rail or Jersey barrier, but it isn’t clear if this is the term for permanent barriers). However, the junction with County Road 32A is not complete, and may have safety issues.

Yolo causeway bike path approaching County Road 32A

The drainage problems on the causeway portion of the path have not been solved, so there will be extensive puddles after rain, as yesterday. The path continues to collect debris from the highway, car and truck parts and trash. Caltrans passed on the opportunity to provide path lighting, even though electric was embedded in the new barrier. And of course noise from the highway is oppressive. As with all Caltrans projects, two steps forward and one step back.

Davis regresses on sidewalks

Dan Allison1 Comment

This post was initiated by an article in the SacBee on Tuesday – SacBee (Yolo County News)/Daniel Lempres, 2026-04-07: Davis considers code update to shift liability of sidewalk maintenance. For prior (many) posts on sidewalk maintenance and responsibility, see category: sidewalks.

There is a misstatement in the article: “California law places the responsibility for sidewalks on the adjacent property owner, but Davis typically accepts responsibility for all repairs and replacements.” State law allows a city or county to make property owners responsible for sidewalks, but it does not require that a city or a county do so. It is not uncommon for a government, including the City of Sacramento, to claim that state law forces them, but this is a lie, and they know it is a lie. Davis was more responsible than most cities in that it generally did repair on its own dime. What has changed is that the budget crisis, which Davis and every other city faces, has them searching for ways to extract more money from citizens without raising taxes. This is just one example.

I will state, as I have many times before, that it is unconstitutional for the government to require a citizen to maintain city-owned property. Sidewalks are city-owned property on city-owned land. The adjacent property owner does not own the sidewalk, and does not own the land on which it sits (with a few exceptions when property boundaries do not reflect where curbs and sidewalks are). Sidewalks are an integral part of the transportation network, and should be maintained in the same way as the rest of the roadway. We don’t ask adjacent property owners to repave the street, and we should not ask them to fix the sidewalk. Unless of course the damage was caused by a privately-owned tree.

For the 2026-04-07 Davis city council agenda item (#7) on sidewalks, see Ordinance Adding Article 35.09 to Chapter 35 of the City’s Municipal Code Related to Responsibility and Maintenance of Sidewalks and Update on Sidewalk Inspection Program, staff report | presentation.

To the considerable credit of the City of Davis, it does have a sidewalk inspection program, under the Sidewalk Accessibility for Everyone program, which the City of Sacramento does not. Though the Davis presentation states that the City of Sacramento does, there is no evidence for a regular inspection program; rather the city inspects when there is a complaint. Also to the credit of Davis, fines paid by adjacent property owners who do not fix the sidewalk would go back into the sidewalk maintenance program, not into the general fund, as it would in the City of Sacramento.

Video of the staff presentation, council discussion, and decision is available on video at 2:35. One council member asked the question about responsibility if the sidewalk damage was caused by a city-owned tree (as it often the case). Legal counsel said that the ordinance still places responsibility on the adjacent property owner. Another council member asked about how low-income property owners and affordable housing would be handled. Counsel said that if the damage was caused by a utility, it would be paid for by the utility, whether the city or private (PG&E), but that city-owned trees were not included because most damage was caused by city-owned trees, and that would mean less income to the city from property owners (!). A number of other questions were raised by council members, which are not answered in the ordinance.

The ordinance presented and passed (first reading) is the first step in developing policy to underlie the ordinance. City staff was vague about when the policy would be in place, and when the ordinance would be enforced.

The photo below is from the City of Davis staff presentation on the sidewalk ordinance. Note that this is a city-owned tree that has caused the damage. Also, a prior repair, which did not solve the problem, is under the worker to the right side.

photo of Davis city crew measuring for sidewalk repair
Davis city crew measuring for sidewalk repair (City of Davis)

Stockton BRT and Broadway service

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I previously wrote about the possible alternative 2 alignment of the Stockton BRT north of Broadway on Stockton, west to T Street and then on 29th/30th streets, and then on L/J streets to Sacramento Valley Station. The big advantage, and it is a big one, is that the BRT would then serve Aggie Square, and all the medical, office, and housing developments along Stockton between Broadway and T Street. Those developments already produce ridership on Route 38, and would in the future produce a large number of riders. However, as previously stated, this alternative is only workable and equitable if SacRT and the city commit to a high frequency route serving Broadway between Stockton Blvd and at least 19th Street. Though residential density drops off after 19th Street, the low-income housing of Alder Grove southwest of Broadway and Muir Way, and the developing area of The Mill southwest of Broadway and 5th Street (which is beyond the current route) should have service. How a replacement route would navigate to downtown is a decision for SacRT planners.

SacRT provided the heat map below of boardings along the existing Route 51. The two highest locations are 19th St/21st St, which is not surprising since this is a transfer point for Blue Line Light Rail at the Broadway Station, and Florin Towne Centre Transit Center at the south end of the route. This high point surprises me since when I’ve been on Route 51, there are few riders south of Fruitridge Rd, but there must be patterns that I’ve not observed. Other clusters are at J Street and N Street, which are most likely state workers and support workers, at Alhambra, at Broadway and Stockton, and on Stockton in the vicinity of 21st Avenue.

map of Route 51 ridership heatmap
Route 51 ridership heatmap (from SacRT)

SacRT also provided weekday ridership data (xlsx). Out of a total weekday ridership of 4787, stops in downtown and along Broadway have a total ridership of 2638 (about 55%), along Stockton 1890 (about 39%), and at Stockton & Broadway 260 (about 1%). Clearly, Broadway and downtown stops along the existing Route 51 are critical to riders, even more so than Stockton Blvd. Therefore, bus service along Broadway must be maintained as frequent service, 15 minutes or better, if a new alignment for BRT is implemented.

No high frequency service on Broadway, no alternative route 2. Period.

CTC = the highway lobby

Dan Allison1 Comment

California OKs a lot of new freeway lanes during climate change-fueled heat wave (SacBee, Ariane Lange, 2026-03-21)

The California Transportation Commission (CaTC; CTC is Commission on Teacher Credentialing) has approved yet more of your tax dollars to serve a small segment of the population, those who commute long distances. Freeways will be expanded all over the state. Why is more highway capacity needed? Because more lanes equals more driving, equals more gas tax, equals more money for highways. It is a circular loop, also known as a growth ponzi scheme.

The CTC has long been in the pocket of the highway lobby, which is composed of the asphalt and concrete providers and construction companies, the fossil fuel companies, and the politicians who love ribbon cuttings over actually doing something to benefit their voters (of course, as we all know, most politicians first consider their campaign contributors, and only if it doesn’t conflict, citizens).

But because CTC continually funds highway expansion, basically giving Caltrans everything that asks for, so long as it is capacity expansion, and refuses to give serious discussion or attention to climate change and the evolved transportation environment, it has really become the highway lobby.

Because nearly all transportation funding (otherwise known as your tax dollars) goes to highway expansion, there is little left at the state level for maintaining highways. And little at the regional (SACOG) level. And almost nothing at the county and city level. Your street is likely falling apart, because the money is going elsewhere.

Caltrans has built a transportation system based almost solely on the needs of commuters and freight, though because of congestion induced by commuters, it no longer serves freight very well. Active transportation was not just an afterthought, but was actively planned against. The most dangerous roadway locations in the state are highway onramps and off ramps, which were designed for the highest possible motor vehicle speed, and usually have minimal or no accommodation for people walking and bicycling. As if the ramps were not bad enough, Caltrans retains control of overpasses and underpasses, though they spend none of their money on improving those, forcing local entities to spend their own limited funds to fix Caltrans mistakes. And there are plenty of Caltrans mistakes to be fixed. Billions of dollars worth. Instead of fixing things, Caltrans builds more. More problems to solve, more infrastructure to maintain, but without asking for very much for that maintenance.

Nine of the eleven members of the CTC are appointed by the governor. So our windshield governor owns the misallocation of taxpayer dollars. Of these members, only two could be considered advocates for active transportation, transit, and rail: Adonia Lugo and Darnell Grisby. A few others are not opposed to these, but not very supportive. Some are actively opposed to spending state money on anything but highways.

Strong Towns has addressed this travesty by documenting how the era of Interstate Highway expansion is and should be at an end:

Of course Caltrans and its enabler CTC is not just expanding the Interstate system, which they are, but the entire state highway system.

CTC is broken. Can it be reformed? It seems to me unlikely. Since CTC largely serves to give Caltrans whatever it wants, maybe it would be better to just give the budget directly to Caltrans. Nothing would improve, but at least active transportation, transit, and rail advocates would only have to monitor one agency instead of Caltrans and CTC.

Hwy 50 at 48th St, looking east, 2026
Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2026
Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2013
Hwy 50 at 48 St, looking east, 2013
Hwy 50 at 48th St, looking east, 2026 on left, 2013 on right, $511M of your tax dollars

SacCity VZ Action Plan: focus on disadvantaged

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In an earlier post on City Council discussion of the Vision Zero Action Plan update, which happened on March 17, I did not identify which if any of the vulnerable users and locations of concern I would support, but implied that the criteria should simply be the incidents of fatality and serious injury.

I’ve been reflecting on this over the last week, and have spent time in a disadvantaged, low-income community in Del Paso Heights, and some moderate to high income communities in other parts of Sacramento, as well as several other cities in Northern California. As a result I am not going to clearly say that I think the primary, not only, criteria should be disadvantaged communities, which is item 6 on the list, under ‘in sensitive areas’.

Use of the term ‘disadvantaged communities’ doesn’t really get at the issue. The term implies that there is something innate to these places that causes them to be naturally disadvantaged, and even more insidious, that the people there have made themselves disadvantaged. I’m not saying this is the prevalent attitude, but I have certainly heard if from many people.

However, I think the more accurate term is ‘disinvested communities”. The City of Sacramento has, over many years, spent significantly less money in the low-income and high-minority communities of south Sacramento and north Sacramento, which includes Del Paso Heights. The city has allowed public resources, including but not limited to roadways, to deteriorate. Instead, the city has widened roadways from neighborhood streets to wide arterials, for the benefit of higher-income and whiter commuters passing through. These wide streets are where the highest crash rates are, and where people do not feel safe walking and bicycling, or even in their cars. The neighborhoods suffer from higher air pollution levels attributable to these wide roads, and the concentration of pollution-generating land uses. These neighborhood are now host to abandoned and deteriorated building, and empty lots where there used to be buildings – homes and businesses. The city shrugged its shoulders and allowed this to happen, rather than investing in these places. The city has expressed concern about this decline, and made plans to mitigate it, but has done almost nothing. And it shows.

So, yes to the ‘disadvantaged communities’ focus area. Yes to undoing at least some of the damage of past disinvestment.

thinking outside the metal box (car)

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The war of aggression started by The Felon Trump (grifter in chief) has sent gas prices soaring. Though the administration said this war was about nuclear weapons, I suspected from the beginning that is was not just about that. Whatever it was, the actions of Iraq and Israel and the US have now made it about oil.

This has had an impact on those who drive, and will eventually have an impact on those who fly and and even those who take the train, though long term contracts will stretch that increase out over time. For those who drive, this is a big issue. The cost of nearly everything has gone up, in part but not only due to Trump’s tariffs, and now this further increase on top of that. The cost of living is up, up, up. I have noticed myself that there are fewer cars on the street in Sacramento except during commute hours, when there are just as many as ever.

I have also noticed a remarkable lack of thoughtfulness on the part of people about what this means, and how to respond. In California, and elsewhere, politicians who were thought to be progressive are now touting the Republican talking points of reducing gas prices by suspending gas taxes, undoing climate change actions, and using oil reserves.

Several national media articles have summarized what drivers are thinking and how they are responding, with a few below, and thousands more in search (note: There were similar but more apropos articles, but I could not track back to them. Please comment if you have better links):

What nearly every article seems to miss is that dependence on gas prices is the result of decisions made, individually and by government.

Has anyone said “I’m going to get to work on transit.”? Has anyone said “I’m not going to drive to get coffee.”? Has anyone said “I’m considering a different place to work, or a different place to live, so I don’t have to drive to work.”? Has anyone said “I’m going to contact my representative to insist that transportation funds be spent on transit, walking, and bicycling instead of increasing highway capacity.”? Well, actually, yes, to this one, that is the message of transportation advocates every day.

The appropriate response to a crisis, and yes, this is a crisis for low income people, should be to step back and think about what is not working, and how to not get caught by the same crisis next time. The appropriate response is NOT to say “I want gas prices lower so that I can keep on doing what I’ve always been doing.”

An recent article on Streetsblog USA (2026-03-16), What If The Rising Costs of Car Dependency Were As Visible As Gas Prices?, addresses not just the higher prices for gas, but the overall higher prices for everything related to driving. And those higher prices don’t even come close to accounting for the external costs of driving to health, environment, and livability. The degree of car dependency in the US is not some natural effect that somehow just happened. It is the result of the automative industry (“…what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” – Charles Erwin Wilson, Wikiquote) and fossil fuel industries convincing Americans that driving a personal vehicle was the only way to live the good life, and that other ways of getting around were un-American. Of course the government went whole-hog on this, investing trillions of dollars on making it easier to drive (and harder to live). The automotive industry and the fossil fuel industry were wildly successful. Few Americans, and even fewer politicians, believe that any other life is possible. And so long as the government, at all levels, continues to expand highways and invest most of our transportation funds in cars, this will not change.

So, what to do against this backdrop of car dominance and forced car dependency? Resist! Protest! Change!

Most of the foreign actions of our government, under primarily Republican policy, but Democratic as well, have been about oil. We invaded Iraq and overthrew their government because their president had the temerity to think that their oil belonged to the people of Iraq (and himself, or course). We deposed the leader of Venezuela because he could not produce enough oil at low prices for the US desires. The list goes on and on. Though someday our wars may be about water, for now they are about oil.

What can you do? Stop driving for choice trips. Yes, it is convenient, and yes, it harms us all. Start making a long range plan to free yourself of car dependency. It might be quick, it might be slow, but please move in that direction. Speak up to your representatives, and attend meetings, asking that we stop funding highways and cars, are start funding transit, walking and bicycling.

The first image below is from the Streetsblog article. But the City of Sacramento Vision Zero program does, to its credit, have a Crash Dashboard, graphic following.

graphic from Streetsblog USA
graphic from Streetsblog USA
graphic from City of Sacramento Vision Zero Crash Dashboard
City of Sacramento Vision Zero Crash Dashboard

SacCouncil VZ High Injury priority locations

Dan Allison2 Comments

Prior posts on Vision Zero in category: Vision Zero.

The Sacramento City Council will tonight (2026-03-17 agenda) hear a presentation on the Vision Zero High Injury Network (staff report | presentation) and give direction to staff on whether specific victims or locations should be considered in addition to the pattern of fatal and severe injury locations. New state law allows consideration of and weighting of other victim or location criteria: walking, bicycling, youth, older adults, schools, disadvantaged communities.

This same question was presented to the Vision Zero Task Force (stakeholder) meeting on February 12. I am a member of that group. Participants spoke in favor of most of the ‘vulnerable road users’ and ‘sensitive areas’ criteria, but there did not seem to be a consensus about which criteria, or how to weight them. I’m honestly not sure. There are good arguments for each of them, but there is also an argument for keeping it simple, with just fatality and severe injury locations. The city has already prioritized school locations in many policies and projects, and I’m not sure whether an additional emphasis is needed. The city has over many, many years disinvested in low-income and high-minority communities, so there is a valid argument for making up for that past neglect by prioritizing those areas. And of course people walking are, and have always been, at the bottom of society’s list of people worth investing in and protecting.

What do you think?

graphic from Sac Council 2026-03-17 agenda 02, staff seeks council input, page 13
Sac Council 2026-03-17 agenda 02, staff seeks council input, page 13