fatality on Franklin

2026/09/06 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A bicyclist was murdered by a hit-and-run driver on Franklin Blvd four days ago. Hit-and-run driver kills bicyclist, 59, as she repairs bike on Franklin Boulevard (SacBee, 2026-09-03, Darrell Smith). I intentionally use the term ‘murdered’, as I believe that hit-and-run qualifies as murder. It is an intentional decision on the part of the driver to not provide any aide to the victim, possibly saving the life. It is the lowest of driver behavior, and that is a low bar indeed. Unfortunately, state law treats traffic violence as less important than other violence, and except in very few circumstances does the driver/murderer suffer any significant legal consequence.

The person killed, Norma Valdez, was in the southbound bicycle lane on Franklin. The murderer drifted into the bicycle lane and killed her, and then left the scene. So far as I know, the driver has not been found. A memorial has been created on the site by friends.

photo of memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd — *memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd*

I was initially interested because I thought the crash was within the area of Vision Zero Complete Street on Franklin, but it is south of Fruitridge Road, in Sacramento County rather than the city. The location is opposite 48th Avenue. At this location, the bike lane is a little wider than usual, about 5.5 feet. There is no protection of any sort for the bike lane.

Conventional Class 2 bike lanes should never be installed on roadways over 30 mph, and generally not over 25 mph. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3rd Edition, Constrained Bike Lanes, has the following table for ‘constrained’ (conventional) bike lanes. Nothing in this table matches Franklin Blvd at this location. It is higher speed, higher volume, and is two lanes per direction. Franklin should never have been designed this way. Caltrans CA-MUTCD and Highway Design Manual conveniently do not provide an upper speed limit for Class 2 bike lanes. Caltrans treats bicyclists with disdain, though with more respect than walkers. It is widely recognized that Class 2 bike lanes on high speed roadways will lead to fatalities. Such as this one.

The roadway is four lanes, two southbound and two northbound. A median is present in much of this section, but there is a gap here for 48th Avenue, which is only to the east, with no street to the west. La Grande Blvd to the west is a little to the south. The posted speed limit here is 40 mph. Readers will know that if a posted speed limit is 40, actual speeds are 50 to 55 mph. Even at 40 mph, and certainly above that, any collision with a bicyclist or walker will be fatal.

photo of Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave — *Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave*

I walked north on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, which is the southern terminus of the city’s project. City and county are mixed in this area. The county portion is actually better designed than the city portion. The city portion has no bike lanes at all, narrow sidewalks, mostly 4 feet, with either a center turn lane (‘suicide lane’) or with opposing posted 40 mph traffic separated by only a yellow stripe.

This entire area of south Sacramento, both city and county, is a place where motor vehicles dominate all other life.

It is worth noting that the bike lanes on Franklin Blvd and 47th Avenue adjacent to the former Campbells factory could have curb separation since there is only one active driveway in 2900 feet along Franklin and one in 2200 feet along 47th. These would not have prevented this murder, but any improvement is valuable.

Though I would have guessed otherwise, in the five years of TIMS/SWITRS data, 2019 through 2024, there were no bicyclist fatalities or severe injuries in the section of Franklin Blvd between Fruitridge Road and Florin Road.

WestSac: traffic calming around Sutter Health Park

2026/09/04 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In response to a comment from a reader, I went to look at the area around Sutter Health Park, primarily the intersections of 5th Street and Cabaldon Parkway, and 3rd Street and Cabaldon Parkway. Note that Google Maps and Google Earth photos from July 2024 do not show the current configuration of these intersections with various traffic calming features, and vertical delineators often do not show up. If you want to see or experience it, you’ll need to go out there for yourself.

The city has kept adding vertical delineators to this entire area in an effort to regulate driver behavior around the ballpark. Things have improved but are still not safe. It is a comment on the drivers that pass though this area, and attend games, that so much has needed to be added, but is still insufficient. I can imagine the city saying “Well that didn’t work, lets add more of that”.

The photo below shows 5th Street southbound approaching Cabaldon Parkway. It is the only one that shows both lane delineators (white) and centerline hardening (yellow). The traffic lane adjacent to the bike lane is very narrow, and the bike lane is not protected in any way from this traffic lane. Much of the lane is in the gutter with a linear seam between the two. Which means it is not actually a legal bike lane, despite the message of green paint. This roadway need to be reconfigured to create a safe bikeway with at least a buffered separation, or ‘protected’ by vertical delineators, or best of all, a hard concrete curb. While riding this bike lane, I was passed by a large truck that drifted into the bike lane, forcing me to the curb.

This roadway design is completely UNSAFE for bicyclists, and must be corrected immediately by the City of West Sacramento.

photo of 5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy lane delineators & centerline hardening — *5th St at Cabaldon Pkwy lane delineators & centerline hardening*

The next set shows lane channelization delineators (white). Note that they are no longer white and unbent, they have been run over by drivers multiple times. But they do have a traffic calming effect by discouraging drivers from changing lanes in unsafe locations or at intersections.

The reader commented that motor vehicles in lanes to the right of the delineators, westbound and eastbound on Cabaldon Parkway, drift to the right and into the bike lane. I did not observe this in my time there, and I did not feel unsafe, but I am not discounting the reader’s concern. I may have felt OK because these bike lanes are wider, not the barely legal lanes found many places, including the one above.

The longer stretches of bike lanes, particularly on Cabaldon Pkwy eastbound under the bridge, should be curb protected. Except for the bus stop at West Gateway Apartments, there are no driveways in this section.

A side note: the car in the left hand turn lane in Cabaldon at 3rd photo below sat through two signal cycles because it was not detected, and finally went on the red.

photo of 3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelization — *3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelization*

photo of Cabaldon Pkwy EB lane channelization — *3rd St NB at Cabalon Pkwy lane channelization*

The next set shows centerline hardening (yellow). Most of these are more recent installations, so are mostly still yellow. These appear to be installed to keep drivers from turning into and out of the parking lot areas where they are not supposed to.

photo of 5th St SB centerline hardening — *5th St SB centerline hardening*

And lastly, the transition point on 5th Street southbound from the right-side traditional bike lane to the left-side two-way separated bikeway, often called a cycletrack. Note the very narrow bike lane between two lanes of motor vehicle traffic, ‘protected’ (not protected) by a line of lane channelizers on the left side of the bike lane. This is a horrible design. The bike lane should have been continued to the intersection, two-stage turn box, and an exclusive bicycle phase light.

photo of 5th St SB transition to cycletrack — *5th St SB transition to cycletrack*

sidewalk-level bikeway in Philadelphia

2026/04/30 Dan Allison2 Comments

One of the many reasons that I travel is to see transportation facilities in different places, ways in which cities have made active transportation and transit better, or worse. I’m in Philadelphia at the moment, and one of the features that has been implemented is…

photo of sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia — *sidewalk-level bikeway on Market St in Philadelphia*

These sidewalk-level separated/protected bikeways are on several blocks of Market Street, the main east-west street in Philadelphia. These are new, and were under construction during my last visit a year ago. NACTO calls these Raised Protected Bike Lanes, with designs on the Separating Protected Bike Lanes page (scroll down for this design section).

These bikeways are visually distinctive from the adjacent sidewalk, composed of different materials and colors, red brick for the sidewalk (many sidewalks in Philadelphia are brick), grey granite for the separation, and black asphalt for the bikeway. NACTO recommends a tactile warning delineator (TWD) between the sidewalk and bikeway. The granite separator and change of texture may or may not meet this criteria for visually impaired people. Though

Philadelphia downtown has a significant bicyclist mode share, but it mostly seems to be on the north-south arterials and collectors, not on east-west streets. But this may be an artifact of the time of day I observed. It has a wide variety of bike facilities: traditional bike lanes, vertical delineator ‘separated’ bikeways, two-way separated bikeways (cycle tracks), parking protected bikeways, bikeways along transit islands. I don’t know the criteria, but I suspect that available roadway width is a determinant.

Sacramento is proposing a sidewalk-level bikeway (2-way cycle track) on H Street between 9th Street and 10th Street, at City Hall. I believe the design is for paint on the existing sidewalk, not reconstruction of that section. It will be interesting to see if this design works.

Yolo causeway bike path to close

2026/04/12 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

9th Street Separated Bikeway at SacATC

2025/09/19 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.

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*

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*

disconnected bike network

2025/07/16 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*

Bike Advocacy Workshop

2025/04/17 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*

Caltrans D3 says ‘fuck you’ to Yolo bicyclists

2025/03/182025/03/18 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The bike path along I-80 along the Yolo causeway is closed this afternoon (Tuesday, 2:00 PM). The sign at the east entry to the bike paths says:

*Bike Path Closed sign on east entry to Yolo causeway bike path*

Note that this sign indicates that the path will not be closed until 8 PM on Tuesday, March 18.

This is what the Caltrans website says (UPDATE: Extended 79-hour Closure for Eastbound U.S. Highway 50 in Yolo County Postponed due to Weather Forecast, 2025-03-13, retrieved 2025-03-18 3:00 PM):

*screen capture from Caltrans D3 website*

Note that this press release says that the path will be open again by 6:00 AM on Tuesday, March 18.

And this is the reality is:

*construction on Yolo causeway bike path*

Construction is completely blocking the path, at this location and several others. The work to remove the concrete barrier from the freeway is ongoing along the western section of the causeway. Some parts of the freeway are also torn up, awaiting reconstruction.

I talked to the supervisor at this construction location, and he said they are just a subcontractor, not responsible for Caltrans signing, or lack thereof. He called the general contractor, who apparently said it is my problem, not theirs. After exiting at the I-80 off-ramp (the normal entry to the path north to Yolo County 32A is not accessible), I saw a CHP officer, and reported the issue to him. He said he would pass it along. He probably will, but I doubt that either CHP nor Caltrans will do anything about it.

This is an active construction project which was not properly signed for construction. This is a violation of Caltrans procedure, and state law, and federal law.

It is absolutely typical of Caltrans District 3 (which includes Yolo and Sacramento counties) to not care about the travel or safety of bicyclists. What would it take to correct the signing, and to correct the website? Not much, but it is beyond the care and interest of Caltrans D3.

Caltrans has said that as a result of the Yolo 80 project, there would be an improved bike path. I’ve previously written about why that is very likely to be a lie: Yolo causeway bike path. Note that though Caltrans claims the current construction is just bridge rehabilitation and has nothing to do with the Yolo 80 project, that is a lie. It is safe to assume that everything Caltrans D3 says is a lie. Caltrans is a highway department, not a transportation department. They care about motor vehicles. They do not care about walkers or bicyclists or air quality or the state budget. In fact, given the high fatality rate on both under-construction and completed highway projects, they don’t really care about motor vehicle drivers either.

I will also note that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) is complicit in Caltrans D3 malfeasance, as they continue to fund projects no matter what the behavior or violation of the law. And above CTC, California State Transportation Agency, which is intended to oversee both CTC and Caltrans, but does not.

CalBike’s Agenda for 2025

2024/12/22 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A number of organizations have come out with agenda’s for next year, and I’ll cover a few of those in several posts. First, CalBike. I participated in CalBike’s agenda reveal on December 3, and it was disappointing. Mostly videos of talking heads about the past, not much about the future. The breakout I participated in was dominated by a single person who wanted to talk about specific locations and wouldn’t let anyone get a word in edgewise about policy. But CalBike now has a page dedicated to CalBike’s Agenda for 2025, which is clearly presented. CalBike has organized support statewide for progressive legislation which encourages bicycling and makes it safer, and has supported legislation for walkers as well. There isn’t an active statewide organization for walking, unfortunately.

The agenda lists:

bicycle highways
shared streets
quick-build pilot
bike omnibus #2
bicycle safety stop
new bike boulevard classification
e-bike policy

Though e-bikes modified to be (illegal) motorcycles is not a big problem in Sacramento area, yet, it is in other places. San Francisco, where I am right now, is full of deliveristas on bikes that have pedals and chains, but top out about 40 mph. In the Lake Tahoe region, it is rich high school students. I’d like to see legislation to clearly define what is and is not an e-bike, and make sure high speed devices are banned from bike lanes and bike facilities. It is already illegal (AB 1774 Dixon, 2024) to modify an e-bike for higher speeds, or to sell devices which bypass design speed, but of course enforcement is uncertain.

The bicycle safety stop should be a no-brainer, except of course that Newsom and CHP probably don’t have brains. Treating stop signs as yield signs, slowing and yielding when necessary, is what almost all bicyclists already do, and there is nothing unsafe about it. Research has indicated that the rate of full and complete stops at stop signs is nearly the same for bicyclists and drivers, but when bicyclists stop, then are in danger of getting hit from behind by drivers not stopping, and the energy to get started again is significant, not just a press of the gas pedal.

Shared street standards are a good idea. Many locations have implemented shared streets, with different designs. As a new idea to be experimented with, wide variation was OK, but enough is known about designs now to create a standard. Some cities have continually lessened the protection and messaging on shared streets (or removed them completely, in the case of Sacramento), and standards would help prevent this erosion. I think shared streets should be more common that ‘regular’ streets. Shared streets are where people live, regular streets are where people drive.

I’m not sure whether state-recognized quick-build designs would help much. Cities are already doing these projects, and the best thing Caltrans could do is get out of the way.

photo of Sacramento 26th St slow & active street, since terminated — *Sacramento 26th St slow & active street, since terminated*

Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel update

2024/12/202025/07/16 Dan Allison3 Comments

Re-upping the Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel post from earlier this year. It has been reported to me by a number of bicyclists, and I have experienced it myself, that this section of Elvas between the Hornet Tunnel and the signal at 62nd Street has become significantly more hazardous due to the motor vehicle traffic generated by The Line (a collection of various food vendors, opened 2022) and Garden at the Line (an outdoor eating and drinking area adjacent to The Line, opened this December). There is a lot more come and go parking on Elvas, and a lot more motor vehicle traffic in and out of the parking lots. Most bicyclists ride on the sidewalk to avoid the fast-moving traffic, otherwise the crash rate would be higher. The M Street to Elvas Avenue to Hornet Tunnel route is probably the busiest in the city.

In addition to the previous post (reblog below) about the hazards for bicyclists, this area is now hazardous for walkers along and crossing Elvas.

I was there last night for the SABA social gathering, and the place was packed. People were parking along the west side of Elvas as well as on 63rd Avenue and 64th Avenue, and then trying to cross Elvas to Garden at the Line. It was nearly impossible to cross, as there are no marked crosswalks over Elvas at either street, drivers are going fast, and Elvas is not well lit. The speed limit in this section is 40 mph, which almost guarantees that walkers hit by cars will die. Sidewalks on both sides of Elvas are in poor condition, and rolled curbs are common, which are less safe for people walking than vertical curbs. There are no sidewalk buffers. While this section of Elvas is not one of the top 5 or top 10 Vision Zero corridors, it will quickly become so. In the last five years, there have been two injury crashes on this stretch, one bicyclist and one walker, both in the vicinity of Hornet Tunnel.

The city has no plans to improve safety for bicyclists or walkers on this stretch of Elvas.

Elvas Ave and Hornet Tunnel

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)

Category: bikeability