I last wrote about this intersection of 21st Street & I Street when the bikeway project was just finished, Central City Mobility: 21st & I bike signals (2024-01-26). A bicyclist signal face had been installed, but the arrangement of the signal phases was dangerous and discriminatory against bicyclists northbound on the 21st Street bikeway. I assumed that the issues would be fixed. They have not.
Drivers continue to turn left from 21st Street to I Street, against the red arrow. If this were a regular round red light, this would be permitted, as it is from a one-way street to a one-way street. However, it is not legal against a red arrow.
If a bicyclist uses the bicyclist actuator button on the southwest corner, they do get an exclusive bicyclist phase to turn left to the bikeway on the north side of I Street, or to go north on 21st Street, or east on I Street (which becomes two-way at this intersection). The pedestrian signal on the west leg of the intersection is ganged with the bicyclist signal, which introduces a small conflict between people bicycling and walking, but this can usually be negotiated without problems. The problem is that criminal drivers still turn left against the red arrow, endangering both bicyclists and walkers.
The larger issue is that the bicyclist actuator button is not located in a place usable by bicyclists. As shown in the photo, the button is four feet away from the curb. A bicyclist cannot reach the button without dismounting their bike. This is such an obvious mis-design that I assumed the city would fix it. It was reported as an issue to the city via 311, by myself and other bicyclists. But it was never fixed.
There are two possible solutions. The bicyclist actuator button could be replaced with a ‘push or wave at’ actuator/button. These distance at which these actuators sense a ‘wave’ can be adjusted, and could be adjusted so that bicyclists are detected without additional action. If the location is already a ‘wave’, it fails to function as such. The other option is to use video detection for bicyclists waiting at the intersection. It appears that there is a video detection camera located on the mast arm over 21st Street on the north leg of the intersection, but it is not being used to detect bicyclists.
As is so typical of city projects, a lot was changed, to the good, but the projects always fall short of transformative safety.
bicyclist actuator button at 21st St & I St is inaccessible for bicyclists
The City of Sacramento has been installing temporary curb extensions, with vertical delineators mounted on bases, at intersections. The extension is ‘temporary’ in the sense that it is not a concrete or hardened extension, though in most cases they will not be replaced with ‘permanent’ due to the expense of permanent installations. These curb extensions slow turning drivers, and reduce the crossing distance for people walking, or rolling. These are an effective countermeasure that increases safety, and I am very happy to see them being installed. In the photo below, on the northeast corner of S Street and 27th Street, the crosswalks have also been freshly painted in a high visibility pattern. The marked crosswalk over 27th Street may be new, and seems to be a new pattern for the city to use.
This particular installation also serves as daylighting, by preventing parking in the daylighting area approaching the intersection. I did not measure it, so am not sure if it meets the legal 20 foot requirement, but it does serve the purpose of increasing visibility by precluding parking. However, many of the installations do not set off the daylighting area, for example the northwest corner in the photo. I do not know why the city has decided in some cases to include daylighting in the curb extensions, and in other cases, not.
Though it would increase the materials cost of installations, requiring more delineators, all curb extension installations should also include daylighting, unless the location already has red curbs and/or signing for daylighting. AB 413 (2023), the daylighting law, does not require red curbs, signing, or delineators, however, the city’s intent is to ticket only where there is an indication for drivers of the law.
It appears that these vertical delineators are Pexco FG 300 Turnpike Grade Curb System. The bases discourage but don’t prevent motor vehicle drivers from running over the delineators ‘just for fun’, and provide more visibility than simple vertical delineators. I have so far not seen any curb extension locations where the delineators have been damaged by drivers. Delineators on the bikeway turn wedges have definitely been damaged by motor vehicle drivers.
I wonder if the lane channelizing vertical delineators on 15th Street and 16th Street should be replaced by this type (Hmm. 16th St traffic calming). These installations really do reduce lane changes at the last moment, which endanger walkers using the crosswalks, the ‘multi-lane threat’ that kills people. They are a success story for Sacramento, and should be used in more locations.
temporary curb extension at S St & 27th St, northeast corner
Note: I decided I would map the proposed Automated Red Light Camera and SB 535 areas, and the map is at bottom. Note that SB 535 is not the only criteria for identifying disadvantaged communities, but it is the one most commonly used.
Item 03 on the SacATC agenda for 2026-08-20 is ‘Automated Red Light Camera Program’ (staff report | presentation). This is a new program being established under Senate Bill 720 2025 (SB 720, Ashby. Automated traffic enforcement system programs.). Though this bill did not eliminate earlier programs, the City of Sacramento does not currently have a program because they participated in a county-wide program which the county cancelled. The new program addresses many of the objections that had been raised to the older program.
I support this program, and these locations.
The staff report contains the map below.
map of Automated Red Light Camera Program, from SacATC 2026-08-20
I like the distribution of locations, though would hope for more locations. Maybe in time. The locations demonstrate two things: the equity concerns about concentrating red light cameras, and any type of enforcement, in low-income neighborhoods, does not seem to be a significant issue. Most of the locations are in moderate to high income neighborhoods. This fits with my observations that most red light running is by drivers of high-value motor vehicles, not low-income people. It would be interesting to map the intersections against disadvantaged communities, and probably the city did so, but I don’t have time for that, and the city did not provide it. (see below)
To some degree, I’m not sure how important the distribution of red light camera is. I strongly believe that the majority of red light running is by a minority, but a significant minority, of drivers. Many of these drivers run red lights all over the city. It is also contagious behavior. Yes, it is an epidemic, and the disease spreads though observation of other drivers behavior. It is a visual contagion. Though the enforcement mechanism here is civil and not criminal, it would allow Public Works to identify repeated and egregious red light runners, and pass that information along to law enforcement.
I was curious about how these 20 recommended intersection locations overlapped with the Vision Zero Action Plan Update. The Red Light Camera list is in order of broadside crashes, which are almost always caused by red light running. However, the ordered list in the staff report does not match the ordered list on the map. I don’t know which is correct. The Top 20 intersections in the VZ Action Plan Update are numbered, but not in ranked order. There is an overlap of eight intersections. I also bold-faced the roadways that show up more than once in the list. There is a pattern here – these are the arterial roadways that the city designed to encourage unsafe speeds and unsafe driver behavior. No surprise that these are the locations of red light running crashes.
Rank
Red Light Camera intersections
Vision Zero Top 20 intersections
1
5th Street & I Street
no
2
Truxel Road & Arena Boulevard
yes
3
Del Paso Boulevard & Evergreen Street/Lampasas Avenue
yes
4
65th Street & Lemon Hill Avenue
no
5
Freeport Boulevard & Florin Road
no
6
Folsom Boulevard & Howe Avenue/Power Inn Road
no
7
Truxel Road & Gateway Park Boulevard
yes
8
Stockton & Elder Creek Road/47th Avenue
no
9
Fruitridge Road & Power Inn Road
no
10
65th Street & Fruitridge Road
no
11
Mack Road & Valley Hi Drive/La Mancha Way
yes (as La Mancha Way & Mack Rd)
12
El Camino Avenue & Northgate Boulevard
yes (as Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave)
13
16th Street & J Street
yes
14
12th Street & North 16th Street
yes (as North 12th St & Richards Blvd, and North 16th St & Richards Blvd)
15
3rd Street & Capitol Mall
no
16
El Camino Avenue & Evergreen Street
no
17
Florin Road & Greenhaven Drive
no
18
Franklin Boulevard & Brookfield Drive
no
19
Cosumnes River Boulevard & Bruceville Road
yes (as Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd)
20
Truxel Road & Del Paso Road/Natomas Boulevard
no
Map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations, and SB 535 disadvantaged communities.
map of proposed Automated Red Light Camera locations and SB 535 disadvantaged communities
Of the 20 locations, seven are not in SB 535 areas, four at at the edge of SB 535 areas, and nine are within SB 535 areas. I would not say that the cameras are concentrated in low-income communities, however, many equity organizations have raised concerns about camera locations. My observations of red light running are that most violations are by drivers of high-value vehicles, not low-income drivers. The seven not-in-SB 535 locations are moderate to high-income communities. The three downtown Sacramento locations are not generally low-income, though the SB 535 criteria identifies them as such. SB 535 uses a variety of measures in addition to income.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, August 20, 2026, starting at 5:30 PM, at the city council chambers. People can comment on agenda items in person at the meeting, or by making an eComment ahead of time on the city Upcoming Meeting Materials webpage. Though eComments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see eComments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting. The format for speaking in person has changed. You can register ahead of time to speak on an agenda item, but apparently you can still fill out a speaker card at the time of the meeting. The comments format has changed a bit, but apparently works the same. Go to the city’s Public Comment page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission to see registration and comments.
I may post comments on the agenda items. Added a post on Automated Red Light Camera Program. If the bicycle parking program presentation is fixed (it appears to be corrupted), I may post on that item.
City of Sacramento Bicycle Parking Program 2026 Update (staff report | presentation note: the presentation seems to be corrupted, lacking most of the graphic elements)
Marysville Blvd is one the 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan top 5 corridors. The 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Update (page 33 list and map) draft includes Marysville Blvd south of Arcade Blvd as part of the Del Paso Blvd top 10 corridor, and two intersections. It also includes the intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue in the top 20 intersections, which is within and central to the Marysville project. The Marysville Blvd Vision Zero project is the result of the 2018 identification.
The city has a preliminary design for phase 2, but engineering is not complete, nor is funding available. That means that citizen input can improve the project. Phase 2 would extend the project north from Grand Avenue to North Avenue, and south from Nogales Avenue to Arcade Blvd. There is no official public outreach at this time, but you can always email the city with your concerns and ideas: MarysvilleVZ@cityofsacramento.org.
The project page has a list of ‘Project Features’:
Road Diet: A road diet is a reduction of a travel lane to slow down traffic and improve safety.
Bicycle Lanes: Upgrading existing bike lanes to protected bike lanes.
Pedestrian Safety: New pedestrian signals and controlled crossings.
Infrastructure: Pavement repair and sidewalk improvements.
Five maps of the project area were provided in a presentation to SacATC 2025-09-18, and these are shown below, south to north. There are gaps in these maps, but I think they serve to show the kinds of changes proposed. There were preliminary designs, final designs and engineering are now being developed by a consultant.
The SaferSacStreets citizens initiative would have provided about half of the funds to transit, mostly SacRT. SacRT is a seriously underfunded transit agency, surviving on about 1/6 of a cent sales tax, which is far less than any other city transit system. What is does get is about a 1/3 part of the Sacramento County Measure A transportation sales tax, 1/3 of 1/2 equals 1/6. Of course SacRT gets some other funds from state and federal sources, but these are mostly for infrastructure, and it also obtains grants from time to time, which help, but again, are for infrastructure and not operations. Infrastructure is important, as it maintains and replaces buses, and maintains and replaces light rail vehicles, as well as other needs including expansion. If you have seen or ridden the old light rail cars, which are far, far past their expected lifespan, you will know what neglect of maintenance and replacement looks like. Fortunately, SacRT has replaced part of its fleet with new Siemens S700 light rail cars, now used on the Gold Line, and to be used throughout once enough new cars are purchased.
The other significant issue for SacRT is that they have been using money designated for infrastructure to pay for operations, for several years now. The state encouraged this, and federal government allowed it with some funds, but the state funds are running out, and under this administration federal funds are uncertain, so a crisis is coming when there won’t be these extra funds for operations. Without a new revenue source, cutbacks will be necessary. The new sales tax in City of Sacramento would have allowed SacRT to shift funds back to maintenance, and to at least some expansion of service. SacRT is in a planning process, SacRT 2025, which identified what an additional 1/4 cent or 1/2 cent of sales tax would do. The 1/4 cent summary and map is below. Note that this planning is for the entire system, basically Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento would have generated about 1/3 of this amount (in very rough terms, 1/3 of the population and 1/3 of the sales tax income is from the city), and would have been spent on enhancing transit in the city, though of course expenditures in the city would have beneficial impact throughout the system.
SacRT summary and map of 1/4 cent options
So, no new income. What can be done to maintain service, and to mitigate the cutbacks that will be needed? I have more uncertainty and fewer ideas than I did with the three previous posts that focused on the roads portion of the initiative. But here are some:
Third lanes become transit lanes: I recommended that the third lane of roadways be closed to reduce motor vehicle capacity. Instead of closure, these can be converted to full time transit-only lanes. Most arterials with three lanes per direction are also bus routes, so there is overlap in the benefit. Transit-only lanes would require some paint and signing, so probably somewhat more expensive than closure, but on the other hand, no concrete barriers, and vertical delineators only in some locations. Probably just as important is making light rail tracks exclusive to transit use, for example on 12th Street where motor vehicle traffic interferes with light rail trains. But the locations where transit-only lanes for buses and trains are few enough that this is not going to make huge difference for the system. Eventually, there should be transit-only lanes on smaller streets, but that requires planning that will take time, and money.
Rebalance frequency vs coverage: It is time for a quick system revision process, similar to the SacRT Forward process in 2019. There won’t be the money to do a comprehensive cut, so this would be rougher. My preference is to eliminate low ridership routes, or reduce span of service to higher ridership times. I realize this would leave people in lower density areas with poorer service, or without any service, but something must be cut, and I’m less sympathetic to people who have chosen to live in lower density areas where efficient bus service is just not possible. When there was extra money, lower density areas were served by SmartRide, but those funds are long gone, and the current on-demand Flex program only serves seniors, disabled and low-income riders. There won’t be money for in-depth planning and public engagement process, so staff’s best guesses will have to do.
Drop light rail extension ideas: Green Line light rail to the airport, and Blue Line light rail to Elk Grove projects continue to receive support from politicians, SacRT board members, and some SacRT staff. Under current funding and reasonable likelihood of funding, these project will never happen. There are other longer term light rail extension projects that are still on the table but not current focus. I think SacRT should drop planning, and discussion, for all of these extensions. Someday, once society shifts interest and funding away from private motor vehicles and towards transit, these projects might come back, but by that time, current planning would be so out of date as to be largely useless. Let it go!
Evaluate staff: It is characteristic of SacRT that staff decisions often turn out to be wrong. Sometimes they are reversed or modified after public feedback, and sometimes they aren’t. These poor decisions are, I think, the result of significant incompetence with some staff. Not all staff, not even most staff, but staff in key decision making positions. Repeated mistakes are not held to account, but are glossed over. This must end. Under constrained funding, every decision should be the best that can be made with current knowledge and experience. Some current staff is just not capable of that. They should be held to account or let go.
That’s it for my radical proposals, for now. I look forward to hearing from other individuals and organizations about their ideas. One the standards answers is ‘do more with less’, but we were already doing more with less. At least for the time being, less is what it is. I have doubts about future funding, from sales tax or other sources, and I’ll write about that eventually.
Part three of what’s next, part two being What’s Next: parking, and part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.
Without additional funding, the city will continue to seek grants for infrastructure projects, and will continue to make some traffic calming changes such as temporary curb extensions, both of which are good. But the huge number of poorly designed roadways, and in particular unsafe intersections, means that progress would be measured in decades if not longer. The capacity of arterial and collector streets must be reduced, but with actions that don’t require much money, since there won’t be much money.
Immediately close all slip lanes: Slip lanes allow high speed turns with drivers looking only left for other vehicles, never right for people walking. Even when stop signs are present, drivers make high speed turns. These are a clear and present danger to people walking, and should immediately be closed, with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers. This would also have the effect of reducing roadway capacity.
Close all dedicated right turn lanes: Similar to slip lanes, dedicated right turn lanes increase roadway capacity and decrease safety. Again, drivers look left for other motor vehicles and not right for walkers. These lanes also lengthen crossing distance for walkers at the intersection. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.
Close all dedicated left turn lanes beyond one: Multiple left turn lanes are a hazard to drivers, increase the capacity of a roadway in such as way as to encourage drivers to consider the roadway a highway, and lengthen crossing distances for walkers. Drivers are paying attention to the vehicle beside them and not to what is ahead of them. Left turn lanes are a positive for traffic flow, but one does it. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.
Close unnecessary center turn lanes: Center turn lanes may be appropriate where there is a density of driveways and therefore turning movements, and only one general purpose lane per direction. Otherwise, all traffic must wait behind turners, and people turning onto the roadway create conflicts with through traffic. Center turn lanes are a hazard – a common name for them is ‘suicide lanes’ – but they can be useful in some areas. However, they are unnecessary where there are two or more lanes in a direction, increasing capacity but with a significant negative safety effect. Closure can be with vertical delineators, or concrete barriers.
Remove all lanes over two per direction: This is probably the most expensive suggestion, since there are miles of three lane arterials in Sacramento, and far more outside the city. Transportation advocates refer to these roadways as ‘traffic sewers’, intended to flush motor vehicles in and out of the city during commute times. They feel like highways, and they are used like highways, drivers traveling at high speeds and not expecting any conflicts. Intersections on these roadways have much higher crash rates than other locations. Perhaps we could start with roadways with a demonstrated higher crash rate.
Reducing roadway capacity is directly contrary to the design of roadways over the last 70 years, which is to speed and ease the flow of motor vehicles. It is also contrary to the desires of most traffic engineers. But it is exactly what we need to do, to discourage motor vehicle use, to reduce environmental impacts, and to make our roadways safer places for everyone. And in particular, to start the process of making people walking and bicycling to once again feel welcome on our streets.
I’ve mentioned closures with concrete barriers. What I have in mind is pieces of K-rail, the concrete barriers that one sees at construction projects, to separate motor vehicle traffic from the construction area. They are ugly, and they tend to become worse with reuse, gradually deteriorating into rounded hunks of concrete, but they are relatively cheap and widely available. They also require simple installation. Vertical delineators are somewhat more expensive and require more complicated installation, but are more aesthetically pleasing. Of course concrete is most effective, since vertical delineators can easily be run over by drivers, but I still prefer delineators. Other cities have used a number of creative solutions and objects to reduce roadway capacity, and to keep motor vehicle out of places they don’t belong, so there are widely available ideas on the Internet.
Part two of what’s next, part one being What’s next: freeways. Radical ideas for what to do now that the road safety and transit initiative SaferSacStreets did not make the November ballot.
Parking is the gateway drug to greater motor vehicle use. Drivers have the expectation that parking will be available at home, at work, and any place else you’d like to go. Preferably free, but if not, at least low cost. Free parking or below cost parking is socialism, pure and simple. Society as a whole paying to provide goods or services to those who demand them. Drivers have a high demand for parking, they want it not only free, but very close to where they are going. This extends from homeowners thinking they own the parking space in front of their home, to not wanting to walk more than a few feet to your destination. Drivers spend an incredible amount of time driving around streets and parking lots and parking garages until they find that perfect spot, just outside where they want to go, steps away. Ironically, one of the places they are going is the gym, to get physical activity otherwise lacking in their life, or to the park or river to walk their dog.
Parking is a gateway drug. And our transportation planners and engineers have spent huge amounts of time and money providing for that demand. So long as parking is easily available, drivers will continue to drive, making unnecessary trips, and making trips that may be necessary but could be taken by other modes: walking, bicycling, transit.
There is a common thought among transportation advocates that if we make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer, people will drive less. The evidence doesn’t support that, beyond a gradual transition for some people. But now we don’t have the money needed to make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and safer.
I believe that we must directly reduce driving by making it more difficult. One of the best ways of doing that is to reduce parking, so that there is not easy parking where people are driving to. The more difficult parking becomes, the less people will chose to make trips by driving.
Solutions. Make parking less available and more expensive.
Daylighting: Enforce AB 413 (2023) to prohibits parking within 20 feet upstream of a crosswalk [VEH 22500 (n)]. As staff resource allows, install red curbs or temporary curb extensions. Red curbs or extensions are not required bu law, but they do help drivers understand. There are some material costs for this, and staff time to do the work, but far less than signing and permanent curb extensions. This is consistent with Slow Down Sacramento’s bullet five of then, ‘Fully implementing and physically reinforcing intersection daylighting’.
Reduce available parking: Though daylighting should be the first step, for its dual benefit of reducing parking and increasing safety, there should be a gradual reduction in available parking. I’d suggest 10% per year over five years. Some curb space would become unavailable for any use, but most would be converted to more productive uses, such as short term up to 15 minute parking, delivery, and drop off and pickup. Where parking is needed for a higher use, including bicycle facilities, wider sidewalks, or street dining (al fresco), all parking should be removed as needed. Of course any new street must be limited to parking on one side only. This solution would require some curb paint and some staff time, but would not be expensive.
Charge for street parking everywhere: In Sacramento, only the central city charges for parking. In the rest of the city it is free. Parking ‘meter’ fees should be increased to discourage motor vehicle use and to maintain some open space on every block (the Shoup goal). Parking fees should go exclusively to maintain the parking infrastructure, and to neighborhood improvements, as in, a parking benefit district. In areas where ‘meters’ are not present or not practical, street parking should require a parking permit with fee. Yes, a permit would be required for that parking space in front of your home. The city is providing a service to you, and it should not be free, it should not be subsidized by other taxpayers. I am not sure what the fee should be, but I would start with $20 per month per vehicle. Again, these fees should go to maintenance of the parking area, and neighborhood improvements. No parking fees should go into the general fund or to other uses not related to the streets. In the suburbs of Sacramento, and the county and other cities, almost everyone has a driveway and a garage. These should be used for parking, not the common resource of the street. This solution would require setting up a mechanism to charge for parking permits everywhere, but once set up, it would be a source of income and not an expense.
As we reduce parking, there will be less driving because driving will be less convenient. That has a clear safety benefit, but also strong support for livability. It is a gradual but directional movement towards fewer cars in our cities, in our lives.
I was incorrect in saying there don’t seem to be automated license plate readers (ALPR) in the City of Sacramento. I was looking at a map that showed only Flock cameras, and the ones in the city are not Flock. I think they are Motorola L5F devices. In looking at the devices at J Street and 5th Street, I looked up the pole, but failed to look far enough up, and out on the street light mast arm, which is where several cameras are. The DeFlock app shows all ALPRs, Flock and other brands. I checked two other locations that are in the app, and they have the same cameras. The locations also have video cameras with a dome shape.
The first photo below is a Motorola L5F camera at J Street and 10th Street. The second photo shows multiple devices all in one location, none of which seem to this camera. I don’t know what they are all for. It is possible some are for traffic, not surveillance.
It appears that I was also incorrect that SacPD ShotSpotters are only listening devices. At least some of them, maybe all of them, have cameras on the bottom.
My apologies for missing and minimizing the prevalence of surveillance devices in our city.
J St & 10th St, Motorola L5F ALPR cameraJ St & 5th St, multiple camera devices
I recently noticed anti-Flock signs at J Street and 5th Street in the City of Sacramento. This made me wonder if the identification as a Flock camera was accurate. It appears not.
If you look the the Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) website and map, it appears that the Flock camera in Sacramento county are in unincorporated Sacramento County and Elk Grove. In the region, Roseville and Rocklin in Placer county have a number, and there are a few in Davis and Woodland in Yolo county. None in the City of Sacramento. Note that this map is very hard to use, but it is still useful.
Anti-Flock signs at J St & 5th St, misidentified
The device on the pole above is a SacPD ShotSpotter, which is not a camera, but a listening device intended to identify and pinpoint gun shots. The only criticism that I have noted of ShotSpotters is that they are expensive and ineffective, mis-identifying sounds, and often resulting in too-late arrivals of law enforcement. By the way, the blank out ‘no left on red’ and ‘turning vehicles yield to pedestrians’ sign below the ShotSpotter is an attempt by the city to reduce the likelihood of drivers running over walkers at this dangerous intersection. I have not had the chance to observe this one in operation, but will.
SacPD ShotSpotter at J St & 5th St
I am in no way minimizing the concerns of the anti-Flock movement (flockout and others). Flock is a disreputable company, and the data gathered has been misused by law enforcement everywhere it is installed.
My concern is that the public’s opposition to Flock cameras, and similar license plate readers from other companies, will be used as an excuse by drivers and organizations who do not want automated speed enforcement and automated red light enforcement to be installed anywhere. These are people who would rather others die in traffic violence, than that their ‘privacy’ be invaded by any type of enforcement.
So, please, anti-Flock people, learn about the different types of devices and their uses, and then correctly identify Flock locations. Don’t label other devices as Flocks.
For other posts on Fruitridge Road, see category: Fruitridge Road.
In my main post on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan, I used the collisions map from the existing conditions report. On further reflection, I should have also used the Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI map, below. KSI is ‘killed or severely injured’, so addresses more serious collisions, and not the abundant but less severe collisions that occur on Fruitridge.
Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan – Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions
For this ten year period, there are four bicycle collisions and 17 pedestrian collisions shown. The pie chart in the existing conditions report certainly justifies a focus on bicyclists and walkers, given that they are a much smaller portion of roadway users than motor vehicle drivers.
Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan – KSI by mode
Yet the project as proposed focuses on bicyclists and not much if at all on people walking. In many cases, roadway reallocation gives wider and/or protected space to bicyclists, but it is not clear if sidewalks will be improved at all, and I was unable to find any reference to more frequent safe crossings of the roadway.
While the existing conditions report does not provide detail about these collisions, one could speculate that the two at the Fruitridge Park and Community Center pedestrian crossing is due to drivers ignoring that signal. This crossing is within the county, not the city. Another speculation is that the high density of collision just west of Stockton Blvd is due to the high density of driveways with turning in and turning out conflicts, 53rd Street, and likely people crossing outside crosswalks between the many businesses on the north and south side of Fruitridge, recognizing that the distance between safe marked crossings is too long and encourages crossing in between.
I had thought that I could gather more information on the collisions in the city’s Vision Zero Dashboard and Map, but unfortunately that map and the existing conditions report do not match closely. I don’t know why.
Getting Around Sacramento 
