Freeport Blvd as a failure of vision and possibility

Another post on the Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan. See the category Freeport Blvd for other posts.

It should be obvious, if you have been reading, that the City of Sacramento’s Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan is a failure of vision and possibility. How so?

The city removes from all planning efforts the possibility of reducing speed limits on streets that are reconstructed, usually complete streets projects. Whatever the speed limit is before the project will be the speed limit after the project. I’ve written about this before: lower speed limits on complete streets in Sac. I get that changing posted speed limits without changing roadway design has only limited effect in lowering speeds. But we are talking about reconstructing streets, the very design changes that are necessary to effectively lower motor vehicle speeds. Yet the city refuses to consider lowering speed limits when planning reconstructed roadways. Posted speed is like a rachet, it can only increase but never decrease. Some planners and engineers go so far as to claim that the law prevents lowering of speed limits on reconstructed streets. That is a lie.

The city also refuses to consider lane reductions (also called road diets, roadway reallocation, or right-sizing) when average daily traffic counts (ADT) are above certain thresholds. It will not consider that ADT is above what it should be because the city earlier widened roadways and induced the travel that is now resulting in high ADT. Again, lane counts are like a rachet that goes only one direction. You can increase lanes, but you can’t decrease lanes, except in situations where the roadway is so obviously overbuilt that it would be ridiculous to suggest maintaining that number of lanes.

The city has a responsibility to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the city, under state law, under SACOG guidance, and its own policy in the Mayor Climate Change Commission Report and Climate Emergency declaration. Yet in transportation planning, the city seems to be fully committed to maintaining the current levels of VMT by ensuring that the current levels of traffic are not reduced. This is climate arson.

Community input to the Freeport Blvd planning process provided high priorities: safety, economic vitality, and walkability. Yet the plan maintains motor vehicle capacity, ensuring that the community priorities will be only partially met. This is not a compromise between drivers and walkers and bicyclists. It is throwing crumbs to the walkers and bicyclists so that drivers may eat nearly the entire cake.

Freeport Blvd, today, is a suburban form. Uninviting streets, hostile walking and bicycling, many small businesses in strip malls and a few big box stores (some of them closed or failing). The built environment is an artifact of the time and way in which Sacramento grew in this direction. It is a fact. But the city, in its transportation plan, makes no effort to change or mitigate that fact. In no way does it even suggest transformation to a more vibrant and interesting place. At the simplest level, it just adds bike lanes and changes nothing else. I’m not against bike lanes, and certainly not against separated (protected) bikeways, but they are not transformative. What would be transformative is shifting Freeport towards a walking-first transportation corridor, a destination for people who live there and people who travel to there.

The city intends to add a number of new crosswalks to the corridor. That is good news, as distances between safe crossings are too great. The problem is, most of these will require extensive signalization to protect the people crossing there, because speed limits are such that a person hit by a motor vehicle will be seriously injured or killed. Lower speed limits, not just posted but enforced by design, would allow much less expensive crossings. Money matters. The city will put very little of its own funds toward these changes, depending mostly on regional, state and federal funds, which will always be too little and too slow.

This plan is only the first step in changing the roadway. Grants will be solicited for major project work. A few critical locations will be improved in the near term. But the plan as a whole is decades away from completion, particularly if the probably unnecessary section south of 35th St is included. The city has done pretty well obtaining grants for complete streets, but with an entire city full of streets needing improvement, Freeport Blvd can’t be and won’t be the only priority. Once the plan projects are complete, the street won’t likely be changed for 30 years. So 50 years from now, more or less, the roadway will look like what the city has planned today. Will it meet the needs of citizens at that time? Very, very unlikely. In the future, VMT will be and must be much lower than it is now. A much higher percentage of trips will be made by walking and bicycling. The built environment will densify, with more small businesses, though some stretches won’t make it and will fail. That’s OK. Properties with failed businesses are good candidates for infill housing, which will support those businesses remaining. But housing along a dangerous traffic sewer, as Freeport Blvd currently is and will largely remain under the city plan, is a disservice to everyone who lives there. Who wants to live on a busy arterials stroad, where you can’t let your kids outside because the risk of traffic violence is too great, and the air hazardous to breathe, and the noise of traffic is a constant psychological and health danger? Riding to the grocery store may be slightly more pleasant and somewhat more safe, but many people still won’t want to because they aren’t comfortable with regular bike lanes beside high speed traffic, and complicated intersections. People won’t want to walk during the summer because the city failed to plan for and install trees along the sidewalks.

Enough said for now. I may write some more or post others if people point out important issues that I have not addressed. Otherwise, the next post will be just before the plan goes to city council, in hopes that citizens will urge the council to reject this plan as too flawed for use. I was very disappointed that the City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission rubber-stamped the plan and passed it along to council, but that is water under the bridge.

The city can do better, but only if a significant number of citizens press their council members to set a higher standard for transportation planning than is exhibited in the final draft plan.

3 thoughts on “Freeport Blvd as a failure of vision and possibility

  1. Hi Dan,

    I’m no expert, but I can’t find any relevant standard that specifies a 20,000 ADT in any Sacramento, California, or National transportation design guidelines or codes. I’m guessing it does exist somewhere that I just can’t find, but I’m hoping to understand how explicit/restrictive the wording of the standard is. The city of Santa Monica implemented a lane reduction on a street with 23,000 vehicles-per-day back in 2008:

    By comparison, the measured volumes of Freeport Blvd range between 20,000 and 27,000 which is not very different than the Santa Monica case:

    If I’m understanding my findings correctly, Santa Monica either has a lower threshold locally, or the threshold itself is not a hard threshold. I think this information about the exact code/standard in its current form could help inform how to pressure the Sac transportation department to permit a lane reduction on Freeport Blvd, especially considering that it’s measured to be 20,600 vehicles-per-day for the majority of the redesign segment.


  2. Hello Dan, I found this blog the other day and am glad that there is a local transportation blogger, and also that you also find the city’s plan extremely disappointing. I have been playing attention to the street on foot, bike, and car ever since the study phase began, and agree with all your points. I found the worst pedestrian element to be the constant high-speed turning traffic into innumerable parking lots and minor side streets. The extreme cross-slope of the driveway crossings themselves was a close second.

    Given the prevalence of parking lots fronting the street, what would you think of implementing a “multilane boulevard” (usually on one side of the street at a time), incorporating the parking strips as a frontage/parking road? This would also allow the termination of several lesser-used side streets into the frontage, and remove most (or all) access to parking from the main road. If you remove a traffic lane, there is easily space for trees, a separated bikeway, and nicer bus stops. ( Did you notice the bus stop in front of the new Raley’s? There’s not even a concrete path to the curb!)

    You could initially implement the scheme block-by-block, converting the outside traffic lane into a combination of parking, bus bays, loading zones, and landscaping depending on need. Use the existing bike and parking lanes for a new median, and then replace the parking lots in front of the shops with a one-way lane and parallel or diagonal parking, and then extend sidewalk to the storefront (depending on the specific buildings and setback). Crossings of Freeport would be 3 lanes at most between Sutterville W and Fruitridge. Midblock crossings would be signalized and only 2 lanes wide. I’ve gone so far as to draw it out over a google map if you have any interest.

    Anyhow, now that presumably the plan is approved, can anything be done to improve it? I don’t normally advocate for things. Is the best thing to do to contact our council member and argue for improvement of the plan? Should we spend effort developing a concrete alternative so there is something to sell?


    • Thank you for your comment. I am not sure how to best solve the problem of narrow parking lots fronting the street, which is both a safety hazard and an aesthetic nightmare. Yes, some of the street space should be converted to parking, so that some of those narrow parking lots could be converted to more productive uses.

      I seem to have gained some traction with two city council members that I could not with staff and SacATC. The projects to actually change the street will have to be developed, and funded, and that is a potential chance for public input and improvement. But the city often plays the game of “it is too early to get into those details”, as they did here, and then later says, “t is too late to get into those details, but plan was already adopted”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s