SacMoves Coalition hosts an event calendar at https://sacmoves.org/events/, which is maintained by STAR (Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders) and Getting Around Sacramento.
Monday
Sacramento Climate Coalition: To participate in this monthly meeting, please email info@sacclimate.org to be added to the list and receive Zoom link.
Tuesday
CalBike 2025 Agenda Reveal: Shaping The Next Thirty Years: registration
Wednesday
Wonk Wednesday: Darrell Steinberg: in-person at New Helvetia Brewing, 7:00 PM; can’t confirm time
City of Sacramento held the second of two workshops on the Neighborhood Connections element of the Active Transportation Plan on Wednesday at noon. About 40 people participated, and there were many questions and comments. I was not able to participate in the first workshop a week ago, but I imagine the content and discussions were similar. The presentation given during the workshop is available.
You can comment in the body of these documents by using the Konveio tool (scroll down on the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan webpage to the box with a green bar at the top), or submitting by email to StreetsForPeople@cityofsacramento.org.
The city has confirmed that crosswalk daylighting, as required by AB 413 (2023, Lee), will not be a part of the Parking Strategies project. The city has also confirmed that it will not be a part of the Streets for All Active Transportation Plan, though that plan will recognize that where there is space created by daylighting, it may be used for bicycle and scooter parking.
So where will crosswalk daylighting be addressed? So far as can be determined, the city does not intend to address it at all. A search of the city website for ‘AB 413’ or ‘daylighting’ produces nothing. City staff seems to be suggesting that it will be addressed somewhere else, not part of the current projects, though that somewhere else has not been mentioned.
It is going to take public pressure to convince the city to take action on crosswalk daylighting.
San Francisco has been proactive in implementing the state law, with warning notices now being given, and enforcement starting January 1. Parking is far more contentious in San Francisco than Sacramento, so it is surprising that Sacramento is stalled while San Francisco is moving forward.
Note: I have always thought it was part of my role to say the things that other people are afraid to say, for fear of rocking the boat or retribution. But this needs to be said.
On November 12, the city Law & Legislation Committee considered agenda item 6, Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration – Declaring a State of Emergency Regarding Traffic Deaths. This was introduced by Council Member/Vice Mayor Caity Maple and also sponsored by Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Mayor Pro-tem Karina Talamantes. The item was amended before the committee meeting to remove item 3, ‘Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Department to ramp up enforcement of traffic laws, especially around distracted driving, speed enforcement, and crosswalk violations’ which was opposed by most of the transportation advocacy community including Civic Thread and SABA, which led community discussion of the proposal and made recommendations for improvements. This is a sign of progress, though many have questioned whether it will make a difference, given that there is only support for and not specific funding tied to quick-build projects to make our streets safer, now.
How did we get to the point of emergency?
I believe City of Sacramento City Manager Howard Chan is the person most responsible for creating this emergency. Chan has opposed including any funds in the city budget for addressing the crisis. When the proposal from Sacramento Active Transportation Commission for $10M in funding to address the problem came before the council, he nixed it. Chan has a regressive understanding of public safety, which counts the number police officers and ignores other threats to the safety and lives of citizens. Chan is uninterested in public health. Chan has supervised the Department of Public Works, accepting and promoting the idea that roadways are for moving cars, and not community resources for access and life. Chan has created a city staff culture that avoids innovation and accountability, live in fear of getting sued or getting fired. Chan carries out projects and programs that he is interested in, and ignores everything else.
The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, November 21, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM. The meeting is held at city council chambers, 915 I Street, and can be viewed online via the link available when the meeting starts, on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. People may comment in person (preferred) or make an eComment on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. Though all eComments become part of the public record, only those submitted before noon of the meeting date will be seen by the commissioners.
I have not had the time to review these documents, so have no comments at the moment, beyond my earlier posts on the Parking Strategy (05) which is OK for what it says, but is not OK for what it neglects, and Neighborhood Connections (04).
SacMoves Coalition hosts an event calendar at https://sacmoves.org/events/, which is maintained by STAR (Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders) and Getting Around Sacramento. Two conflicts this week, Sacramento Climate Coalition and ECOS Climate Committee on Monday, and SacATC and House Sacramento on Thursday. No meetings next week, Thanksgiving week, that I am aware of, so there won’t be a ‘this week’ post.
The city is developing what it calls a ‘Parking Strategy‘ with a ‘Parking Management Toolkit’. This is not a parking management plan, which the 2040 General Plan requires. Though the city keeps claiming that it already has a Parking Management Plan, that is being revised, no such plan exists. More than half the 190 page Parking Strategy document is Appendix A ‘Economic Conditions and Housing Development Funding Assessment’ (page 68 of the pdf) and Appendix B ‘Best Practices Research’ (page 83 of the pdf) with examples from other cities and standards. A twelve page Executive Summary provides key information for those who don’t have time for the whole document.
The parking revision process is led by Community Development Department, under Senior Planner Vic Randall, vrandall@cityofsacramento.org, but Public Works is also participating, under Parking Manager Staci Hovermale, shovermale@cityofsacramento.org. The presentation was mostly by the W-Trans consultant, Brian Canepa.
I encourage you to attend and comment. In particular, pay attention to what is excluded as well as included. Kendra Ramsey of CalBike had some of the best questions and comments, so I hope she can be on the Zoom again today.
SacMoves Coalition hosts an event calendar at https://sacmoves.org/events/, which is maintained by STAR (Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders) and Getting Around Sacramento.
It is understandable when agencies and organizations schedule events in conflict, as there are only so many days and times in the week, but when a single agency schedules in conflict with itself, ack! Get it together, City of Sacramento.
Denver is implementing a unique approach to sidewalk maintenance (Denver’s Sidewalk Program). Rather than making the individual property owner responsible for sidewalk maintenance, the city will charge all property owners a fee which will be pooled city-wide to maintain or install sidewalks. It is a flat fee for most parcels, but with a progressive fee based on sidewalk footage for parcels with a lot of sidewalk.
The City of Sacramento, and most governments in California, make sidewalk maintenance the responsibility of individual property owners. State law allows this, though does not require it. You can see the results for yourself: broken sidewalks due to root heaves, discontinuous sidewalks, lack of ADA ramps. And the city and cities within the county and the county are not the worst in California. If you want to see truly horrible sidewalks, visit the City of Los Angeles, where root heaves from too narrow sidewalk buffers have broken or destroyed most sidewalks in the city.
Denver, recognizing that the model of individual property owners paying was not working, and under the threat of lawsuits, decided to take a different approach, making maintenance and installation the responsibility of all property owners. This is an immense improvement over the Sacramento and California model, though still falls short.
Sidewalks are a part of our transportation network, in fact are the most important part of that network. As such, they should be maintained, and gaps filled, as part of the regular transportation budget of cities, counties and the state. Making them a special case with special funding, or ignoring them completely, leads to a deteriorated and missing sidewalk network that actively discriminates against people who use the sidewalks to walk, roll, and, in some cases, bicycle. Every broken sidewalk and every missing sidewalk is a abject failure of the government to fulfill its responsibility to citizens to create a transportation system that serves everyone. Transportation engineers will always, if given the choice, prioritize motor vehicles over everyone and everything else, so we must compel them to meet their true responsibilities.
Getting Around Sacramento 