Category: City of Sacramento

SacCity parking for free

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts on parking in the City of Sacramento, see category: parking management.

The proposed City of Sacramento budget has increases in penalty fees for parking illegally, as documented in the recent SacBee article (Sacramento proposes hiking parking violation fees amid $66M budget shortfall, Ishani Desai, 2026-04-30). Not explicitly stated, but implied, is that parking fees will not be increased at this time.

I am glad that penalties will be increased, though I think they should be increased a great deal more. The ‘The fee for parking in a bike lane could increase to $150, up from $50.’ is great, though it should be much higher. Not called out in the list is parking blocking crosswalks. This may fall under one of the other categories, or it may not. When I have reported blocked crosswalks via 311, the report back is usually either no citation was issued, or the vehicle was gone, though I have observed many times that the vehicle is still there. Apparently the parking officers don’t consider blocking crosswalks to be a big deal. I do! The penalty for blocking a crosswalk should be enforced, should be a separate listed category, and should be $500. When people walking have to go outside the crosswalk to cross a street, it reduces their visibility and increases their exposure to traffic violence. This is not a victimless habit.

Increasing parking fees was one of the possible budget solutions proposed by Public Works, which controls parking in the city. The proposed budget does not increase parking fees. I understand this, given the current focus on affordability. But I think increased fees should be on the table. Even in the highest rate zones, the parking fee does not cover the true cost of providing that on-street parking space.

But the elephant in the room is that the city gives away free parking almost everywhere.

Residential parking permits, required to park in non-metered parking spots in the central city (the map below shows more or less where those zones are), are available to any resident. The cost? Free, zero, nada, zip. Residents can park their privately owned vehicle on the street within three blocks of their residential address, and pay nothing to the city for that privilege. See Residential Permit Parking (RPP). Charging a minimal fee for a residential parking permit would be a good start on actually managing parking in the city. How about $20 per month, or $240 per year?

How many vehicles are on the street with free residential parking permits? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a big dent in the city budget deficit.

Even more egregious is that the city charges absolutely nothing in the vast majority of the city. The map below shows metered parking in the city, which is essentially just the central city. Outside this area, parking is free. Storing a private vehicle on public property provided by the city, and taxpayers? Nothing! These areas outside the central city are probably not a ‘valuable’ as the central city (though the cost of providing free parking is just the same), so maybe a offer a deal, $10 per month, or $120 per year.

How many vehicles are on the street in this vast free parking area? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a huge dent in the city budget deficit.

Note that I am not proposing that additional areas of the city be metered, though there are arguments for metering some locations with high commercial and residential activity. The investment in meters, installation and maintenance, is worthwhile only where parking is heavily used, and turn-over is highly desirable.

map of SacCity boundary, and metered parking
SacCity boundary, and metered parking

There is no such thing as free parking. The cost of parking includes, but is not limited to:

  • the original cost of constructing the parking lane
  • the land value of parking lane that could be occupied instead by more productive uses
  • maintenance of the parking lane, including street sweeping, leaf season pickup, and pavement replacement
  • resistance from people parking for free to any change in the street that might decrease parking, while improving safety and livability; this might include wider sidewalks, bike facilities, and traffic calming measures such as curb extensions
  • increased heat island effect from black asphalt in the parking lane
  • increased storm runoff from the parking lane

I am not against on-street parking. It does serve a public need, and it does slow traffic speeds a bit through ‘friction’. But why do we give it away for free, ever, and particularly under a budget crisis? Because we privilege the desires of private motor vehicle owners over all other people and all other priorities.

‘complete streets’ or sidewalks?

Dan Allison1 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.

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.

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.

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

Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Marysville Blvd Vision Zero Safety Project, Quick Build Phase 1, started today, Monday, March 16. The overview from the SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025, shows Phase 1, which is from Grand Avenue to Nogales Avenue only. Phase 2 will cover from North Avenue to Arcade Blvd. Phase 2 will include more extensive work, but is not being called a ‘complete streets’ project. Only Phase 1 is fully funded. The city has in the past applied for grants to convert the entire stretch of Marysville Blvd into a complete street, but has been unsuccessful in that effort, which has led to this quick build project in order to improve safety now rather than someday. Phase 1 will cost $1.4M and be completed in 2026. Phase 2 is about $18M and only partially funded.

map of Marysville Blvd Phase 1 and Phase 2
Marysville Blvd Phase 1 and Phase 2

A diagram from the SacATC presentation September 18, 2025, shows collision history for the segment. This is the issue that the city if trying to solve. The diagram is rather dense with information, but of note is that of the four fatalities, three are outside the current phase, and only one is inside, at Roanoke Aveue.

diagram of Marysville Blvd collision history
Marysville Blvd collision history
Read more: Marysville Blvd VZ Safety Project starts

Marysville Blvd is narrowed for construction to one lane, starting just south of Harris Avenue and continuing to south of Roanoke Avenue. During my time of observation, I did not observe any significant backup of traffic, however, it was mid-day, not commute hours.

The work on this day is focused on the intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue. Signal wiring at the intersection has been exposed and torn up, in preparation for installing a modified signal at this intersection. The diagram from the SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025 (below), shows a modified signal at Marysville and Grand. It is hard to reconcile the signal wiring being torn out with the term ‘modified signal’, but no other information is available.

photo of Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade
Marysville at Grand Ave, construction and signal upgrade
diagram of Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals
Marysville Blvd new and modified traffic signals

The SacATC presentation on September 18, 2025, includes existing and new for the section from Roanoke Avenue to Grand Avenue, and shows a complete rebuild of the intersection, but this is Phase 2, and it isn’t clear what the intersection and signal will look like at the end of Phase 1. Though the wording is not clear, the pedestrian hybrid signal (HAWK) at Roanoke Avenue may be completely replaced with a new regular traffic signal, but again, in Phase 2. I will have another post on Phase 2, but this one is focused on the Phase 1 Quick Build.

Future post will follow the construction project, and look more closely at Phase 2.

So far as I can determine from the presentation diagrams and the plan diagrams, no sidewalk improvements other than ADA ramps at intersections are planned. Though there are sidewalks nearly throughout the segment, they are narrow and unbuffered. The majority of the driveways ramps are sloped, many to such as degree that they present a barrier to wheelchair travel.

Sadly, most of this segment of Marysville Blvd is characterized by closed businesses, long abandoned buildings, and empty lots. This is not to denigrate the existing businesses, health services, and parks, but it will take much more than this project to energize this corridor. This is an area that has been disinvested by the City of Sacramento since it became part of the city, and it shows. A Marysville and Del Paso ‘Forward Together’ Action Plan lays out some of the actions necessary to heal this community.

Stockton BRT alternative alignment

Dan Allison1 Comment

For additional posts on Stockton Blvd, both the current STEP project and earlier iterations, see category: StocktonBlvd.

Part of the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) is consideration of changing the BRT (bus rapid transit) route north of Broadway to part of SacRT Route 38. In a presentation at the STEP stakeholder meeting on February 19, and in the similar presentation to SacATC on March 12, this alternative was presented by a slide (page 7) and additional discussion. That slide is below, followed by a slightly more detailed Alternative 2 – Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment.

STEP BRT Route Alternatives, from SacATC presentation
STEP BRT Route Alternatives, from SacATC presentation
STEP Alternative 2 Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment
STEP Alternative 2 Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment

At SacATC, Commissioner David Moore raised the issue that the existing Route 51 along Broadway is also a very high ridership corridor, serving to connect equity neighborhoods to downtown and to Stockton. Replacing Route 51 high-frequency (15 minute) service with a moderate-frequency (30 minute) route, as Route 38 currently is, would be a disservice to these riders and raise major equity issues.

The segment of Broadway from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, and probably into downtown, MUST have high-frequency (15 minute) service.

The two existing routes, 51 with a high-frequency (in SacRT terms, though this would be considered moderate frequency in major cities), and 38 with a moderate-frequency, are shown below (pdf).

map of SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing
SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing

Though it is not stated anywhere, the STEP alternative 2 map implies that the BRT route would end at Sacramento Valley Station rather than 8th St & F St as Route 51 currently does.

The western part of Route 38, which would become Stockton BRT under the alternative 2 51-38 hybrid, follows Stockton from Broadway north to T Street, then northbound on 30th Street or southbound on 29th Street, then west on L Street or east on J Street, and thence to Sacramento Valley Station.

map of SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT
SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT

The west portion of the existing Route 51, from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, is the segment that must have high-frequency (15 minute) to continue to serve the present high ridership. It is possible that this route would terminate at Sacramento Valley Station as well. It is unknown whether ridership on the existing Route 38 to the east, terminating at 65th Street light rail station, would also justify high-frequency service, and whether it this would be combined with existing Route 51 west. Map below (pdf).

map of SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown
SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown

SacATC 2026-03-12: T St Bikeway comments

Dan Allison1 Comment

I will make comments at SacATC tonight on the T Street Bikeway Gap closure project.

  1. This should be called an active transportation project. There are pedestrian improvements as well as bicyclist improvements, which is appropriate.
  2. Overall, the project addresses several known safety issues, but could be improved. The modification of Gerber Ave is appreciated.
  3. As unsafe as bicycling is through the Stockton Blvd/T Street intersection, crossing of Stockton in the south crosswalk is even more unsafe. This crosswalk must be made safe for walkers by the addition of a long leading pedestrian interval (LPI), a minimum of 8 seconds, or an exclusive pedestrian phase.
  4. The diagram seems to show the T Street eastbound bike lane at Stockton to the right of an optional right-turn lane. The diagram indicates ‘modify traffic signal’ but does not show a bicycle signal face. Unless there is an exclusive bicycle phase for at least a part of the overall signal cycle, this is unacceptably dangerous for bicyclists.
  5. Removal of the intersection setback on T Street eastbound is good, but will require a ‘no right turn on red’ sign or blank-out sign.
  6. No RRFBs! They are not safe in the City of Sacramento due to driver non-compliance.
  7. The presentation does not make it clear why the Stockton Blvd Corridor Plan recommendation to change eastbound T Street at Stockton Blvd to a single through lane was dropped. This change would greatly simplify the intersection for walkers, bicyclists, and drivers, and remove the need for a merge east of Stockton Blvd.
  8. Caltrans should be forced to add additional lighting, which was neglected during the Fix 50 project, where 34th Street and T Street pass under Hwy 50. This should not be a city responsibility.
diagram of T St & Stockton intersection
T St & Stockton intersection diagram, from the presentation