The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, October 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers. The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page at the time of the meeting. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting. No comments are taken online.
Open Session Roll Call Land Acknowledgement Pledge of Allegiance Consent Calendar All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one Motion.
Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
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.
NACTO One-Way Protected Bike Lanes Design Guidance
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, September 18, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers. The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page at the time of the meeting. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting. No comments are taken online.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, August 21, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers. The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page at the time of the meeting. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting. No comments are taken online.
This is a big meeting! I hope you can attend and comment, or use eComment. I have not yet reviewed the documents, but may add additions to this post if appropriate.
Tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, there will be at least three transportation-related public meetings:
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) Board of Directors, 10:15 AM to about 12:00 PM, at Conzelmann Community Center, 2201 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95814 (not at SACOG offices on L Street). agenda
Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA): 1:30 PM to about 3:00 PM, at the County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 700 H St, Ste 1450, Sacramento. agenda
Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC): 5:30 PM to about 7:30 PM, at City of Sacramento Council Chambers, 915 I Street, Sacramento. Note, SacATC usually meets on the third Thursday of the month, but the June meeting is on the second Thursday. agenda
Added comments on agenda 3 ‘Vision Zero School Safety Project’, below.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers, The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting.
Agenda (pdf; the agenda below is abbreviated; consult the pdf agenda for details)
Consent Calendar
Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Nomination and Appointment of One Active Transportation Commission Member to the Secure Bike Parking Pilot Evaluation Panel
Commission Staff Report
Commissioner Comments – Ideas and Questions
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Adjournment
Agenda item 3 Vision Zero School Safety Project
I support this project. The focus on lower-income schools with existing safety issues, and use of relatively inexpensive measures such as high visibility crosswalks, and curb and bike lane paint, are good.
The diagrams, both in the staff report and the presentation, should include the posted speed limit of each street. RRFBs are inappropriate for speeds over 25 mph, due to driver non-compliance, so the posted speed is an important consideration.
APS (accessible pedestrian signal) ‘upgrades’ (West Campus, Natomas, Smythe, Kenney) should implement appropriate accessible messages, but SHOULD NOT implement required push buttons. Nothing in PROWAG requires that APS signals require button press for permission to cross. Required ‘beg buttons’ are inappropriate at these locations, and at all locations in the city.
Though permanent curb extensions are probably beyond the funding of these school projects, I was surprised to not see any temporary or quick-build curb extensions, which are one of the most effective measures for calming traffic.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, Aprll 17, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meetings are held in city council chambers at 915 I St, Sacramento, CA 95814. The meeting can be viewed online via the link provided on the city Upcoming Meeting Materials page at the time of the meeting, but comments may only be made in person, or via eComment ahead of time.
I have concerns about the use of RRFBs (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) at unsignalized crosswalks. They may be better than crosswalks without, however, they may provide a false sende of security for walkers. I have noticed (anecdotal evidence only) that the rate of driver compliance with RRFBs is poor, only about 40%, which is not much better than unprotected crosswalks, and it has not improved at drivers have gotten used to the RRFB as they are installed in more locations. I would suggest that before the city install any additional RRFBs, there a literature survey to see if there are recent indications of driver non-compliance increasing hazard for people walking, and on-the-ground observation of at least two existing locations in the city. I know that compliance with the RRFB on J Street at 17th Street is poor. I have almost been hit in both the west and east crosswalks, both of which have RRFBs. I kinow not to trust drivers to yield, but what about people walking who do not know to not trust drivers. The other enhancements proposed seem good.
In Audible Signals Phase 1, a number of locations in the central city where pedestrian signals were on auto-recall were converted, or downgraded, to locations requiring the push of a button. These are called beg-buttons) because the pedestrian indicator will never come on unless the button is pushed, though with many of the locations, the pedestrian signal is set to auto-recall even though the button says it must be pressed. This is an unofficial city policy, that people walking will NOT be informed of the operation of the pedestrian signal, left to guess whether it is auto-recall or requiring a push. The recently installed ‘push or wave to cross’ signals do not overcome this issue. The staff report claims that all of the new locations already have push buttons, though it does not say whether any are on auto-recall.
The city is claiming as support for the past and proposed audible signals project that citizens are requesting beg buttons. They are not. What they are requesting is audible signals that communicate effective crossing information to visually impaired walkers (or rollers), to comply with current ProWAG requirements. The city is conflating audible signals with push buttons, but they do not need to go together. Audible signals can be installed at auto-recall intersections.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will meet this Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 5:30 PM. Comments may be made in person during the meeting, or beforehand via the eComment capability on the Upcoming Meetings page. Though the meeting is live-streamed on that same page, comments may not be made in that way.
In the webinar today, a comment was made that the information in the plan and in the webinar is very complex and hard to get a handle on. I agree. Even as a transportation nerd, it is very hard to digest. I’d suggest the city come up with a simple presention, even simpler than the Executive Summary, that speaks to people who just want better and safer transportation for walking and bicycling, but know little about transportation planning and infrastructure. Some people will want to focus on the streets in their neighborhood where they live, or the routes they travel. Others will want to focus on the policy and approach of the plan. It is probably not possible to look at and understand both.
As I’ve said, I hope to post more detailed information and comments on the plan, but haven’t gotten to that yet.
Once every few months, there are four transportation-related meetings on a single day, and that day is tomorrow, February 20, 2025. Except for retired folks with nothing better to do (me), no one could attend all four meetings. Three of the meetings are during the work day, which are scheduled then for two purposes: 1) because the members don’t want to do anything in the evening, and 2) to ensure that most of the public cannot participate. Nevertheless, I encourage readers to pick one meeting that seems of most interest, and attend in person or watch online. And comment! Though you may not have expertise on the topic being discussed, you have expertise and lived experience as a member of society.
Of the four meetings, one accepts comments online, the SacRT Mobility Advisory Council (MAC). The others do not. To comment, you must either attend in person, or submit comments online ahead of time. Comments submitted at the last moment will be included in the meeting record, but the board/commission/council/committee members will only see those comments submitted well ahead of time, usually three hours, though it varies with meeting. Meeting agendas, and select agenda items are below. I picked some agenda items of interest to me, but your interests may be different, so I suggest you take a look at the entire agenda and documents. You won’t find any presentations, because, well, that is the games agencies play with agenda presentations. Though, as a pleasant surprise, all the CARTA presentations are already available.
9:30 AM, SACOG Board of Directors, Meetings and Agendas page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at SACOG’s offices, or Written comments: May be submitted via email to the clerk at lespinoza@sacog.org.
12:00 noon, Capitol Area Tolling Authority, Board Meetings page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or Written comments: May be submitted via email to the clerk at rtadevich@sacog.org.
2:30 PM, SacRT Mobility Advisory Council (MAC), MAC page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or online via Zoom.
5:30 PM, Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), Upcoming Meetings page. Comment In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings page. eComment is open when the agenda is posted, and remains open until the beginning of public comment on an agenda item. Commissioners will not see eComments submitted during the meeting, but these will be part of the public record.
06 Commission Log: The SacATC log is a list of topics that the commission has requested from staff a discussion or presentation. The log is a running list, so may contain items of high priority, low priority, or superseded by events. Each item has a commissioner name attached as the requestor. I believe this item will ask for sponsors of items where the commissioner is no longer on the commission, and prioritize items.
SacATC (City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission) met Thursday, January 16, 2025.
The agenda included:
3. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2025: Arlete Hodel was re-elected as Chair, and Isaac Gonzalez was re-elected as Vice Chair. Juanluis Licea-Cruz joined the commission as seat K youth representative, a high school student at West Campus joined the comission. David Moore was appointed to the Seat J. Ali Doerr-Westbrook has completed her term on the commission.
4. Caltrans American River Bridge Rehabilitation Project: The presentation by Caltrans staff was frustrating. A number of questions about details of the bike path being added as part of the freeway rehabilitation (widening) project went unanswered. Commission concerns were that there are a limited number of connections from the new path to existing bikeways, and that Caltrans has demonstrated an inability to maintain bike paths by the horrible condition of the Causeway path. The Caltrans staff claimed that some other agency would be responsible for maintaining the path, but seemed unclear about what agency. Federal law requires that the host agency is responsible for maintenance of multi-use paths in perpetuity, but Caltrans has rarely complied with that requirement. Completion of the entire project is December 2026, but it is unknown whether the path will be available before then. I hadn’t realized, but this path was part of a lawsuit settlement over widening of the freeway; it was not a project initiated by or desired by Caltrans.
5. Alternative Recommendation: Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study: See the STAR blog post for this topic, which includes all the agenda document parts. The commission voted for recommendation 3, “reject the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study and instead recommend that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative without personal motor vehicles.’ It was clear from the large number of in-person comments and eComments, as well as commissioner comments, that the city commitment to a multi-modal bridge with private motor vehicles is unacceptable.
My comments added two details: 1) SacRT board has never approved the city concept, though discussions at the staff level indicate that it might. The approved SacRT project is a transit/walking/bicycling only bridge. 2) The light rail to the airport Green Line might never be completed due to very high cost and uncertain ridership. If bus rapid transit (BRT) is implemented instead, the benefits of a direct bridge route are not clear. The current bus Route 11 jogs to the freeway, and is not signficiantly delayed by that. This BRT is not part of the current regional plans because it was assumed that light rail would be implemented, but it is quite possible that it might be added to the high capacity bus network plans.
It is assumed that the city study will proceed until the city council makes a decision on the SacATC recommentation.
6. Streets for People: Neighborhood Connections Draft Final Plan: staff report and Neighborhood Connections Plan: There was strong community and commission support for the plan, and it will be forwarded to council, probably next month. The toolbox part of the plan is outstanding. Nearly all of the 13 treatments in toolbox can be implemented as quick-build projects with low-cost materials, and eventually replaced by hardened infrastructure. Community and commission comments addressed the lack of likely funding for implementation, but it is hoped that the city will allocate some funds to the project, particularly now that the primary resister Howard Chan is no longer city managert.
For ‘not on the agenda’, I commented on the much delayed maintenance (sweeping) of the separated bikeways in the central city. The bikeways became nearly impassible during leaf season, except where they were cleared by landscaping services supplied by adjacent property owners, which is not their responsibility, but is appreciated.
Commissioners requested an update on the staff effort to inform council about what quick-build means. and this topic may also come back to the commission.
Traffic Diverter / Street Closure page from Streets for People Neighborhood Connections
Getting Around Sacramento 