Category: City of Sacramento

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

opening Land Park roads to people

Dan Allison2 Comments

The City of Sacramento is considering closing two streets in William Land Park to cars in order to open them to people. The SacBee article has more details: City could test closing streets in Sacramento’s William Land Park. The article does not have a map, so I created one, below. This is my best guess from the text description in the SacBee article. I have not found any other documents on this proposal.

Note that the terminology ‘closing’ is not the one used by active transportation advocates. The preferred term is ‘opening’, because the road, formerly used mostly by motor vehicles, with concomitant danger to those not in a motor vehicle, is now open to walkers and bicyclists.

I wrote, way back in 2022, about my suggestion for closing roads in William Land Park to motor vehicles (Land Park open (car free) roads?). This new proposal does not match mine, but it is a good proposal. At this time, only a very small roadway and gate at the far southeast corner of the park is closed to motor vehicles.

William Land Park is dominated by motor vehicles, so any ‘closing’ / ‘opening’ is welcome. This is a good first step. Parks are for people, not for cars.

Land Park pilot road 'closure'

SacCity intersection improvements

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Sacramento City Express newsletter of March 4 includes an item about improvements to four intersections with a grant from the federal HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) program. The article is below.

This is not part of the city’s new quick build program, rather it is from a grant submitted some time ago. Though( the city is not planning for or applying for new RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) installations, they were specified in this grant application and will be installed.

Safety upgrades coming to four high-injury intersections across Sacramento

Pedestrians crossing some of Sacramento’s busiest corridors will soon see brighter warning beacons, clearer markings and improved accessibility features designed to make walking safer and more accessible.

The Sacramento City Council this week approved the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)-10 Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project, which will enhance crossings at:

  • Folsom Boulevard and Seville Way
  • Raley Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue
  • W Street and 8th Street
  • Alhambra Boulevard and X Street

All four intersections are located on arterial roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network in the Vision Zero Action Plan, which focuses on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets.

The project includes installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon systems at each location, upgraded curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces, new signage, flexible posts and refreshed striping and pavement markings to improve driver awareness and pedestrian accessibility. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are pedestrian-activated flashing yellow lights that alert drivers someone is crossing the street.

“These intersections are on our High Injury Network, and additional visibility and warning features are designed to improve driver awareness to yield to pedestrians,” said James Kragh, associate engineer with the Department of Public Works. “Installing rapid flashing beacons and upgrading curb ramps will enhance conspicuity and accessibility for people using these crossings.”

The City applied for and received $193,600 in HSIP Cycle 10 construction funding to help deliver the project.

Construction is expected to begin later this month and be completed this summer.

Once complete, the upgraded crossings will provide stronger visual cues to drivers and safer, more accessible routes for people walking and rolling along some of Sacramento’s most heavily traveled corridors.

SacATC 2026-03-12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

SacBee 2026-03-11, Madison Smalstig: What changes could come to Sacramento’s dangerous Fruitridge Road corridor?

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, March 12, starting at 5:30 PM. This is not the usual third Thursday, but the second. The meeting may be held in the old city hall, rather than council chambers, but the agenda is not clear about that.

The agenda is below (pdf). I have not had a chance to look at the four agenda items to make comments here, but will if I am able. The linked items contain both staff reports and presentations. I find it useful to separate these into two documents, but again, only if I have the time. All of these are review and comment items, not for decision.

I have written about Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) previously, but am not sure if the presentation will be the same as the stakeholder workshop.

Agenda

  1. Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan: staff report | presentation
  2. Arden-Auburn Mobility Plan: staff report | presentation
  3. Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project: staff report | presentation
  4. T Street Bikeway Gap Closure Project: staff report | presentation
graphic of Fruitridge Rd collisions
Fruitridge Rd collisions