Category: Active Transportation

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)

where the streets have no… sidewalks

Dan Allison1 Comment

Where the Streets Have No Name, U2, 1987

The City of Sacramento has a GIS database of sidewalks, but has not made it available to the public. The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission has requested that the data be made public. A number of active transportation advocates have requested that it be made public. The response is usually vague, but includes the excuses: the quality of the data is too low to make public; it is incomplete, as some streets were never surveyed; it was developed by the consultants and the city doesn’t have permission to publish.

It was shared in Streets for All Active Transportation Plan (Appendix 2, Gap Analysis, page 13). But this is a screen capture of a map, and can’t be zoomed in for detail. (pdf)

The Neighborhood Connections Network Map probably has sidewalk information, and can be zoomed in, but it shows only recommended improvements to create a network, not sidewalk details, and a legend is lacking, so it is not possible to say for certain what the lines indicate. It may be the same information as the Neighborhood Connections Network map that is in the Neighborhood Connections Existing Conditions appendix. (pdf) This map does have a legend, but can’t be zoomed.

The final Streets For People Active Transportation Plan includes the ‘Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Sacramento map on page 67 (pdf), but again, it can’t be zoomed in, and includes recommendations, not existing sidewalk conditions. One could assume that the New Sidewalk on Both Sides indicates that there is no existing sidewalk, and New Sidewalk on One Side indicates that a sidewalk exists on the other side, but not both sides. The plan contains six detailed maps, so it is easy to pick out streets, but again, no information about existing.

There is also a recommendations map that was part of public outreach in developing the plan, the Streets for People Draft Network Recommendations. It can be zoomed in, but it is not clear whether the street designations came from the city, or the public, or both.

All of this uncertainty could be resolved if the city would post the data to its GIS (Geographic Information Systems) portal. If the data needs a disclaimer, this is easy to include.

Sidewalks are part of the transportation network, and should be repaired as such

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

California Streets and Highways Code (SHC) Division 7, Part 3, Chapter 22, Article 2: Repairs, states that the responsibility for repairing sidewalks lies with the adjacent property owner. This is, on its face, unconstitutional, regardless of state code. The state is saying that a government agency can require a property owner to maintain property that belongs to the government, without any compensation. It has long been hoped that a public interest entity would sue the state to declare this code unconstitutional, but so far that has not happened. The ability of the public to sue is overmatched by the power of the cities and counties to fight any such lawsuit. Therefore, it is imperative that the legislature remove this unconstitutional requirement from state law.

It is worth noting that this code dates from 1941. Society’s view of the responsibility of governments to its citizens, what characterizes a livable and walkable place, and equitable transportation systems, have evolved considerably since that time. State law, on the topic of sidewalks, has not.

Code defines sidewalk (paragraph 5600): “As used in this chapter “sidewalk” includes a park or parking strip maintained in the area between the property line and the street line and also includes curbing, bulkheads, retaining walls or other works for the protection of any sidewalk or of any such park or parking strip.” The lack of a definition for ‘parking strip’ is concerning. Is it the buffer area, or does it include parking areas on the roadway? Does the use of this term allow people to park motor vehicles in the buffer? The code is vague.

It is not clear that state code should require, or not require, adjacent property owners to maintain the ‘park or parking strip’, most commonly called sidewalk buffers. These buffers are not part of the transportation network, but they are a key part of enhancing walkability and overall livability through provision of shade trees.

Note that this does not address the day-to-day maintenance of sidewalks in the sense of removal of leaf fall and snow. However, neither does existing code. This is left to policy of the individual city or county, as it probably should be.

The replacement language would be very simple. Chapter 22 would read:

“Sidewalks and curbs are an integral part of the transportation network, and will be maintained for the benefit of all citizens using all modes of transportation, in a state of good repair, under the same requirements that apply to adjacent roadways.”

It is worth noting that the most poorly repaired sidewalks are often adjacent to government-owned property. Governments seem to view this code as applying to private property owners, and not to themselves.

Nothing in state law precludes a local government, city or county, from taking on responsibility for repairing sidewalks. They generally have not done so, because by shifting the responsibility for maintaining part of the transportation network onto private citizens, they can spend more money on infrastructure for motor vehicles. That is the real reason for this state law, and its continuance into modern times.

it’s not just transportation infrastructure

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

It has been increasingly common to refrain from blaming traffic violence on drivers, and instead to point to transportation infrastructure which encourages drivers to speed and to act in such a way as to create crashes. There is truth in this, and equity to some degree. But I think the pendulum has swung too far in that direction, and it is time to bring back driver responsibility.

We have invested trillions of dollars to create a transportation system that kills and mains countless people, with an emphasis on harming people who walk and bicycle. This was not an ‘accident’. Traffic engineers knew that their roadway designs would kill people, but absolved themselves of responsibility by pointing to the ‘standards’, which promote these designs, but are based on nothing but speculation and bias. It is always easier to blame crashes on driver behavior than to design safe roadways. Well, here we are. It will cost trillions to fix. We don’t have that money. That is not to say we should not be fixing what we can, with a priority on those designs and locations that have killed the most people, or seem most likely to.

Read More »

9th Street Separated Bikeway at SacATC

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At last night’s Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) meeting, the 9th Street Separated Bikeway was item 3 on the agenda. As is usual, I did not have a chance to review the item until shortly before the meeting, so did not post comments ahead of time, but did make comments during the meeting. I’ve broken the agenda item into staff report, plans, and presentation slides for easier access.

This was the preliminary presentation on this project, and it will be revised and come back to the commission at least once more.

My comments text, thought some particulars were left out due to the two-minute time limit:

I am glad to see the project, since it closes one of the gaps that makes the existing separated bikeways less useful.

Widths

The six-foot bikeway width does not meet NACTO recommendations (preferred width) of 8 feet or more for separated bikeways. Six feet does not allow for passing or wider bicycles, and is NOT a best practice.

NACTO table of Unidirectional Protected Bike Lane Widths

I support bin/leaf zones, but the entire buffer should be wide enough to accommodate bins, as has been implemented on some blocks of P and Q streets. I am not sure how wide this is, but it is more than 3 feet.

In order to gain the necessary width for bicycles and buffers, the street right-of-way needs to be reallocated:

  • One of the two general purpose lanes should be 9 feet (the left lane), the other 10.5 feet (the right lane), which gains 2.5 feet. The wider lane would be used by buses on SacRT Route 51. The wider lane should be marked as such, with the width painted on the pavement at every intersection to inform drivers.
  • Similarly, one of the two parking lanes should be 7.5 feet, which gains 0.5 feet, and signed or marked as a narrower parking lane. The city does not need to accommodate car bloat on every street and every parking lane.

Bikeway Protection

I support turn wedges, but they should be concrete, not solely paint and posts. Though the paint and post turn wedges provide some safety for bicyclists, and particularly for walkers, they are less safe than concrete, which the city calls ‘rolled curb turn wedge’.

SacCity photo of a rolled curb turn wedge
SacCity photo of a rolled curb turn wedge

Any block with only an alley break in the separated bikeway should be protected by concrete curbs, not simply by paint and posts. Where driveways occur, it may be better to use paint and posts.

Marking

Whenever a bikeway crosses general purpose lanes, as it does approaching Broadway, the merge zone must be marked with green backed sharrows. Anything less is unsafe for bicyclists.

Any place where a bikeway transitions from one side to the other side is designed, there must be a bike signal to control motor vehicle traffic. In general, bicyclists need an exclusive bike phase, where no motor vehicles are turning. The side-to-side transitions on 19th Street (from left to right, just past W Street), and 21st Street (from right to left at W Street) are NOT safe for bicyclists, and as a result, there are many fewer bicyclists using these streets than was intended or is desirable. The city has resisted using bike signal faces, though the expense is a fraction of what the city routinely spends replacing functional signals and signal boxes.

Any time a bikeway is between two general purpose lanes, as it is approaching Broadway, the bikeway must be marked with continuous green paint. Somehow the plans dropped green paint between W Street and Broadway, the most confusing and potentially deadly part of the entire project.

Commissioners made a few comments:

  • Generally supportive of the project intent
  • Moore commented on green paint approaching Broadway, and asked if the transition could be earlier to reduce conflicts at the W intersection; staff response it that right-turning vehicles at W Street are the biggest conflict, other than X Street and Broadway
  • Hodel supported the red paint daylighting, and asked for green paint approaching Broadway

Apparently there were a large number of eComments on the agenda items, though I’m unsure how many related to this agenda item or the other three main items. When the meeting is over, all the eComments disappear, apparently into the ether. This is not just a problem for SacATC, but for all city meetings. Unless a citizen takes care to capture the eComments before the meeting ends, they will never know what others commented online.

The NACTO Urban Bicycle Design Guide (3rd edition, 2024) includes the diagram below within the ‘Designing Protected Bike Lanes‘ section.

diagram of NACTO One-Way Protected Bike Lanes Design Guidance
NACTO One-Way Protected Bike Lanes Design Guidance

sustainable transportation planning grants

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants for 2025-2026 have been awarded.

Davis received a grant to develop an Active Transportation Plan, described as:

“The City of Davis proposes to develop a city-wide Active Transportation Plan (Plan) with the goal to increase the active mode share trips by 5% by 2040 with the development of innovative and data-proven successful projects, programs and policies that will reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (transportation accounts for 74% of GHG emissions in the City of Davis), improve access to transit stops, and enhance safety for all. The Plan will be informed by robust community outreach and the City will work with both our vocal and underrepresented community members and advocacy groups such as Cool Davis, Bike Davis, Strong Towns Davis, Davis Downtown Business Association, Davis Chamber of Commerce, Yolo Cares, Yolo County, the school district, church-based groups, SACOG, identity-based organizations, aging community organization and homelessness service providers to inventory the existing conditions, identify resident’s needs and desires, and identify projects, programs and policies and prioritize the outcomes. Major deliverables include an executive summary designed for decisionmakers and community members filled with graphics and easy to read maps and a technical document which includes recommended prioritized short- and long-term projects, programs and policies to increase active transportation mode share. The Plan will have a strong nexus with existing plans such as the City of Davis’ 2023 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and 2023 Local Road Safety Plan; SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy; and the California Transportation Plan 2050, thereby furthering California’s goal of creating a transportation system that is equitable, safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient for all.”

SACOG received a grant for CARTA Regional Toll Equity Study, described as:

“Consistent with local and statewide plans, the Sacramento Region (Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Yuba, and Sutter counties) is developing our first toll lanes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve transit reliability, and manage freeway congestion in our growing region. To deliver an equitable toll lane system, the Sacramento Region needs to evaluate the impact of toll lanes on low-income, disadvantaged, and other equity-priority communities; reduce disparities in benefits and burdens for those communities; and enhance transportation access for all users. The CARTA Regional Toll Equity Study (Study) will fill this gap by reviewing toll equity best-practices, analyzing how toll lanes will impact travel for equity-priority communities, and providing a clear and actionable roadmap to deliver an equitable toll lane network in the Sacramento Region. The Study will be led by the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA), a joint power authority between SACOG, Caltrans District 3, and Yolo Transportation District (YoloTD) that is the new designated tolling authority for the Sacramento Region.”

City of West Sacramento received a grant for West Sac Forward Transit Priority Plan, described as:

“With West Sacramento experiencing some of the strongest growth in the region this century; planned Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit construction into West Sacramento starting in 2026; public On-Demand Rideshare services growing in popularity; and existing Yolo County Transit District (YoloTD) bus and paratransit service changes anticipated – the City of West Sacramento in partnership with SacRT, YoloTD, and Via, with support from Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) proposes to develop the “West Sac Forward Transit Priority Plan”: an innovative sustainable public transit plan rooted in community feedback and collaborative public participation.

Using Sustainable Communities funding, our agencies will team-up to analyze existing systems targeting efficiency, effectiveness, and seamless integration of public bus, rail, rideshare, and planned rapid transit systems to better serve residents and local workforce through new policies, strategies, and recommended infrastructure improvements. Objectives include reducing transit delay, increasing reliability and resiliency, increasing ridership, improving access and mobility for equity priority communities and transit-dependent populations, reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, reducing congestion and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), and improving traffic safety while balancing service cost and system performance.

The final deliverable: a transformative plan with recommended improvements that support healthy, diverse communities and strengthen the economy by implementing the City’s Strategic Plan and Mobility Action Plan, YoloTD’s Short Range Transit Plan, and the SACOG 2025 Blueprint Triple Bottom Line strategic goals of Equity, Economy, and Environment – which complement Caltrans’ six Strategic Plan Goals, meet grant objectives, and achieve CTP 2050 vision and Statewide Transit Strategic Plan objectives prioritizing cost-effective public transit services with improved mobility, social equity, and reduced GHG emissions.”

There are other grants in the region, which can be viewed on the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants page.

disconnected bike network

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A recent article on CapRadio: Sacramento’s bike network received a failing grade. City officials disagree was also reference on Streetsblog California.

The People for Bikes analysis on Sacramento is at https://cityratings.peopleforbikes.org/cities/sacramento-ca. Note that only cities are rated, not counties, so there is no rating for unincorporated Sacramento County. Sacramento’s score was 36, Rancho Cordova’s 29, Folsom 37, Elk Grove 23, West Sacramento 25, and Citrus Heights not scored.

The lead photo on CapRadio is a concrete-separated bikeway on Broadway. But it is only one block long, and is the only one in the city.

A quote from Jennifer Donlon Wyant is revealing of exactly the problem with Sacramento bike facilities:

“M Street from Sac State to Midtown through East Sacramento is known to be an all-ages and abilities bikeway connecting schools and health care and retail, and that is shown as a high-stress facility,” she noted. “When known low-stress facilities like this are showing up as high stress, that concerns me.” 

Yes, parts of M Street are great, and should be recognized with a neighborhood or greenway status. Though it is an overly wide street along much of its length, traffic is slow and light, and it meets the definition of a low-stress bikeway.

However, what happens at either end? Approaching Alhambra, M Street ends, with no bike lanes on Alhambra, and no wayfinding for how to shift to a low-stress route to continue westward. At the east end is Elvas Avenue, one of the most hazardous bike routes in the city. Bicyclists exiting onto Elvas Avenue from 62nd Street must cross four lanes of high-speed, high volume motor vehicle traffic to reach the safety of the Hornet Tunnel and SacState. Most bicyclists cross early and ride against traffic. It is slightly less hazardous to go westbound to M Street. There is no wayfinding for how to best deal with this situation.

The city has been aware of the Elvas problem for years. Nothing has been done. This blog has written about it many times: tag:Elvas-Ave.

All of the parking-protected, separated bikeways in the city are discontinuous:

  • 10th Street northbound: starts at W Street with an awkward transition from east side to west side; ends at I Street
  • 9th Street southbound: starts at I Street; ends at Q Street; design is very inconsistent with bike lane-only blocks
  • P Street westbound: starts at 21st Street; ends of 9th Street
  • Q Street eastbound: starts at 9th Street; ends at 21st Street
  • J Street eastbound: starts at 19th Street; ends at 28th Street
  • 19th Street southbound: starts at H Street; ends at W Street with an awkward transition from east side to west side; at Broadway the route transitions to Freeport Blvd with no bike facilities
  • 21st Street northbound: starts at W Street with an awkward transition from east side bike lane to west side separated bikeway; ends at H Street with a semi-protected bike signal

For few of these routes do the separated bikeways take you to a final destination. There are transitions to regular bike lanes, or no bike lanes at all, at the ends of each segment. That is not a connected network. It is disconnected!

Almost every advocate in the city is supportive of Jennifer Donlon Wyant and all she has accomplished to make the city more bikeable, more walkable, more livable. However, the city policy, by staff at a higher level, and city council, to spend almost none of its general fund on transportation safety, and to rely only on state and federal grants. means that the city will continue to rank low on any assessment of bicycle friendly.

Sacramento needs a connected network, and we are far from that.

Google map of Elvas Ave from 62nd St to Hornet Tunnel
Google map of Elvas Ave from 62nd St to Hornet Tunnel

I’m not looking at you

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Everywhere I travel, and walk, most other people walking will at least glance at me, and often acknowledge or smile, and sometimes say hi or good morning or good evening, or even talk. But that is rare in Sacramento. At least on the sidewalk, this is the least friendly place I’ve ever lived.

People passing look studiously at their phones, as though there were something important there, or look at the ground, or look away to the other side. 95% of people walking will not make eye contact, let alone give a positive vibe.

Why is this a transportation issue? The message is that I am an island (Simon and Garfunkel), I don’t need you, I don’t acknowledge you, I don’t care about you. Communities are built on trust, and trust does not occur if people don’t interact with other people. Sacramento (the city and region) has serious problems that can only be solved by group action and personal engagement. In particular, we have a very serious problem with traffic violence. That we are so bad at solving our problems is not surprising when we don’t think of anyone else except close friends as ‘our people’. Of course this is worse since the pandemic, but it has existing as long as I have lived in Sacramento (14 years) and spent time in Sacramento (22 years).

Is it different elsewhere? Yes, it is. In San Francisco, almost everyone I pass on the sidewalk will at least nod their head, and frequently more. Los Angeles. Portland. Seattle. Las Vegas. Denver. Salt Lake City. San Diego. And on and on.

I am very sad about this. But I do not know the cause, and I do not know the solution.

Bike Advocacy Workshop

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I attended a Bike Advocacy Workshop hosted by the League of American Bicyclists in late March in Santa Monica. This was the third time the League had hosted the workshop, so it is evolving. It is intended to provide professional development for advocates in a similar way to that League Cycling Instructor (LCI) seminar. Though many LCIs and LCI Coaches have been requesting for many years that the League either add advocacy information to the LCI seminar, or create a separate track, apparently this was developed on the initiative of a League staff member, not on those requests.

I took this workshop, not because I necessarily think I need training in advocacy, or need the certification, but curiosity about the League’s approach to advocacy. Most League activities are at the national level, not at the state or local level, with that role taken on by other bicycle advocacy organizations. Santa Monica Spokes, the local advocacy organization, co-lead the workshop.

The workshop was a combination of presentations by advocates, field trips to look at bike facilities in Santa Monica, or which there are many, some role-playing exercises, and of course evenings outings for beer and pizza. Many of the participants work for bicycle advocacy organizations, mostly local in southern California, but with others not directly affiliated and from other regions.

The workshop was good. It would benefit from more role-playing and discussion to address the objections to bicycle facilities that often crop up, not just from an infrastructure perspective but from a livability perspective.

Santa Monica does have a lot of bicycle facilities, focusing now on physically separated bikeways on arterials and collector streets. There is a multi-use paths associated with the E/Expo light rail line. In a few places there are bicycle-only connections between streets. Some of the separated bikeways feel squeezed in, installed on relatively narrow streets without removing parking. It is better, in my view, to either remove parking from one side to create enough space for a comfortable bikeway, or just do a regular bike lane. The new NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide makes clear the importance of wider separated bikeways to accommodate all types of bikes, and to allow safe and comfortable passing of wider bikes such as cargo bikes and three-wheeled bikes.

A few times during the workshop the ghost of John Forrester, Effective Cycling, and vehicular cycling was trotted out to beat the dead horse. This horse has been beat for so long by so many that it is not recognizable as a horse. Advocates of bicycle infrastructure keep bringing this up, though I know of no advocates who advocate against infrastructure, though there are still, and should be, voices for the right to use the roadway.

photo of Bike Advocacy Workshop role-playing exercise
Bike Advocacy Workshop role-playing exercise
photo of Bike Advocacy Workshop field trip on multi-use path
Bike Advocacy Workshop field trip on multi-use path