Category: Active Transportation Commission

SacATC: what’s it for?

Dan Allison1 Comment

At the SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting, a commissioner, I’ve forgotten who, commented that these details of policy and expenditure were exactly what the commission should be focused on and spending time to come up with consensus. And that leads to this post.

In my opinion, the commission spends too much time reacting to staff presentations on projects already in planning, and too little time talking about where the city should be going with active transportation, and policies that would support that direction.

The Sacramento City/County Bicycle Advisory Committee (SacBAC) ceased operation at the end of 2017, mostly through my advocacy. The committee was ineffective largely because the county representative, Dan Klinker, would routinely try to kill any city ideas or actions to improve safety for bicyclists. My vision was for a city-only committee, people sitting around a table, that would have deep discussions on policy and actions, come to consensus, and relay this to city council. I was disappointed that the city instead formed a commission, in the traditional commission format of city-appointed members sitting on the dais, separate from advocates and the public, an ‘us and them’ structure. I am glad walkers (pedestrians) were added, becoming ‘active transportation’ rather than just bicycles. In practice, the main function of the commission is to review and respond to city staff presentations on projects that are already in planning stages.

Again and again, projects are brought to the commission that have the same flaws and oversights, and again and again, the commission must express the same concerns. If there were clear policy in place, and modern street design standards, this would not be necessary. The city has delayed an update of street design standards for years. Every project that modifies streets, or reallocates right-of-way width, should include wide sidewalks and wide sidewalk buffers with trees. Again and again, the projects fall short in this respect. Every project should include narrower and/or fewer lanes and reduced speed limits. Again and again, the projects fall short in this respect.

It is possible to reform the commission and its charter so that most of the meetings are spent on analyzing existing policy and developing new policy aimed at making city streets safe and welcoming to those who walk, bicycle and roll. That would be incredible useful, and a true fulfillment of its mission to advise city council. On the other hand, if the current practice to use the commission as a checkbox or rubber stamp for city staff continues, then it serves little purpose. Perhaps it should be disbanded.

It would not be in the nature of the current city manager and senior staff to allow anything like a effective committee to exist, so it might be necessary for the advocacy community to form and formalize its own committee, and speak directly to city council, without screening by city staff and P&PE. The Personnel & Public Employees Committee (P&PE), was formed by the city manager for the purpose of screening the work of commissions and boards, isolating the city council from the commissions and boards. It has been quite effective at doing so.

The SacATC ‘charter’, from the Active Transportation Commission webpage, is:

The commission is established for the purpose of providing advice on strategies related to walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city. The powers and duties of the commission are as follows:

  1. Advise city council on the implementation, criteria, and priority of pedestrian, bicycling, and rolling related policies and projects.
  2. Provide input to city council on the pursuit of grant funding opportunities.
  3. Provide input on program development in walking, bicycle safety, and rolling education, law enforcement, and other areas pertinent to walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city.
  4. Review and discuss current walking, bicycling, and rolling issues and advise city council.
  5. Advise city council on the need for periodic updates of the pedestrian master plan and bikeway master plan.
  6. Provide for public participation and involvement regarding the implementation of walking, bicycling, and rolling projects and programs, and other active transportation matters.
  7. Annually, report to and make recommendations to the city council regarding the status of walking, bicycling, and rolling in the city and activities of the commission.

I want to acknowledge that despite the structural limitations imposed by the city, the commission, and particularly the ad-hoc committee that developed the annual report, have put in a lot of time, and a whole lot of passion, to make Sacramento safer from traffic violence, and more livable and economically vibrant place.

SacATC: 2026-10-15 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: This post was revised to add information about the remainder of the meeting, which I had not reviewed.

The meeting recording is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWun1r4Na3A.

Comments were not available for posting or viewing leading up to this meeting. I note that there are comments in the meeting archive, but I don’t know where they came from, they were not there at the time of the meeting. The livestream was also not available to me, but I have viewed it after the fact.

Item 4: Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600)

Four commission members questioned why there are RRFBs (rapid rectangular flashing beacons) included in this project since they are known to be ineffective in slowing or stopping drivers, and are especially inappropriate for a higher speed and higher volume roadway. Chair Gonzalez pointed out that Public Works staff had promised in an earlier meeting that there would be no new RRFBs in projects, but they have since backpedaled on that promise and are including them in new projects. He stated that RRFBs might work on a seriously constrained street like Folsom at One Speed Pizza, but that is not the situation on Franklin. He stated that RRFBs are not a traffic calming measure, and a HAWK/PHB or regular signal should be used.

One commission member questioned the design of a green painted but unprotected bike lane at the intersection of Franklin and Fruitridge, saying it was not comfortable for less confident bicyclists.

The city engineer presenting admitted that no study was being done on Franklin Phase 1 and 2 to determine if traffic had been slowed or yielding behavior increased. This is typical for city projects, that they project safety improvements, but don’t gather data to see what the actual improvements are.

Item 5: Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations (this item was by far the bulk of the meeting)

Staff (JDW) said that the reason for the high cost of LPIs (leading pedestrian intervals) is due to the need to add Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) as required by PROWAG, and many of the locations have such old signal controllers and signals that there are significant costs to modify them (slide 9). The commission wants recognition in the report that complete signal upgrades were very expensive and contributed to the $48M cost line, whereas what was needed was a recognition that changes to add LPIs without full upgrade should be prioritized, and would result in a much lower cost.

The cost of ‘no turn on red’ is high because the use of blank-out no turn signs are more expensive than regular signs (MUTCD R10-11), and also require new cabling and sometimes controllers. If only regular signs were used, the cost would be $1.2M rather than $36M. I can state that the blank out signs are far more effective than regular signs, but am not sure that it is worth delaying installation over cost. One commissioner questioned the effectiveness of the blank-out signs. So far as I know, there is no research on this.

There was considerable discussion about the most expensive projects, LPIs and ‘no turn on red’. There was also discussion on the timing of projects, that the commission recognized that major projects take ten years or more, while the city is estimating less (though they have previously recognized the very long time lines).

The commission realized that the funding table showed cost for all Top 10 Corridor intersections and Top 20 intersections, not a per-year expenditure, which would be considerably less as action on LPIs, no turn on red, and daylighting would take place over several years, with a significantly lower per-year cost.

Item 2 g) lower downtown speed limits to 20 mph, was removed from the list as not being a critical safety measure, and likely to happen as part of other city initiatives.

A new Item 2 line was added, that it be city policy that all new traffic signals include LPIs, whether on the Top 10/Top 20 list or not.

There was an extensive discussion about how to ensure that recommendations from the commission are actually considered by city council, rather than just being on consent agenda (which they have been), and how to present to the council and public the importance of these programs to reduce traffic violence. The report will have language that council put the report on agenda, not consent, and that the commission make a presentation to council at that time.

Summary of Recommendations Table, from draft 2026 SacATC Annual Report presentation
Summary of Recommendations Table, from draft 2026 SacATC Annual Report presentation

The Commission

A commissioner, I’ve forgotten who, commented that these details of policy and expenditure were exactly what the commission should be focused on and spending time to come up with consensus. My next post on SacATC will address the question, what is SacATC for?

SacATC 2026-10-15

Dan Allison1 Comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, October 15, 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 comment ahead of time online. Though comments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see comments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting or before.

The method for speaking in person has changed. Go to the city’s Public Participation Hub page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (note: this page works poorly on handheld devices), and then click on the ‘View Page’ button. Select ‘Register’ to register for the meeting and to speak on an agenda item. Select ‘Comments’ to make a comment, or view other’s comments. You may also use the meeting kiosk to register in person. There are no longer speaker cards available. Once an item has been announced by the chair, it is not possible to register to speak on that item.

Select ‘Files’ to download the agenda. Within that document are links to individual agenda item documents, and these can be downloaded. All of this is much more awkward that the previous meeting mechanism. Check it out ahead of time so you can figure it out. I have made the documents for the three primary agenda items available below, so you don’t have to go through the awkward interface.

Agenda (pdf)

Consent Calendar

  1. Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
  2. Active Transportation Commission Log

Discussion Calendar

  1. North Natomas Community Trail Naming Effort
  2. Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600): staff report | presentation | diagrams
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations: staff report | report | presentation

I do not have any comments to make at this time, but may tomorrow.

I have not had time to analyze Franklin Phase 3. My comments on the earlier and complete phase are at SacCity: Franklin Blvd complete street, and may be of use.

Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation
Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation

I have not had time to look at the SacATC annual report in detail. Meanwhile, the recent email from Slow Down Sacramento/Isaac Gonzalez is of interest. Of course, I recommend that you join the Slow Down Sacramento email list yourself.

SacCity: opaque or transparent?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Spoiler alert: Opaque and becoming more so.

A recent City of Sacramento action to handicap the function of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) was highlighted in a SacBee article (New Sacramento rule kept traffic safety projections out of commission presentation, SacBee 2026-09-29, Madison Smalstig) as well as an email by Isaac Gonzalez of Slow Down Sacramento, who is also chair of SacATC. If you aren’t on the Slow Down Sacramento email list, I strongly encourage you to join.

To summarize, the commission was prevented from showing a slide presentation on the annual report that they are going to present to council, and was prevented from even printing one slide that showed a horrible and accelerating trend in traffic violence fatalities in the city.

Though this action can be seen as an effort to suppress the actions and communication of SacATC, and it is, it is also part of a trend with the City of Sacramento to reduce transparency and to create the maximum distance between city council and the citizens of the city.

The Personnel and Public Employees Committee was created under the regime of disgraced City Manager Howard Chan to screen all communication from boards and commission to city council. Please understand that the entire reason for boards and commissions is to investigate details and make recommendations to the council. Council cannot possibly look into the details of every issue facing the city, so the board and commissions were created to help them with this task. Chan felt this was too much, and worked to prevent and/or corrupt this communication. This pattern has continued, unabated so far as I can tell, under the current administration of City Manager Maraskeshia Smith.

The longer lead times for submitting agendas, staff reports, and presentations are similarly intended to make it more difficult for boards and commissions to communicate with the public. The Brown Act requires agendas three days or more before meetings, and depending on interpretation, staff reports and presentations as well. This is reasonable. But the city is now requiring that everything be approved by administration 19 days before the three days. The purpose of this is to make sure that much of the information from boards and commissions never reaches the public.

The availability of documents on the city website has decreased. As tools for posting documents has made the process easier, requiring almost no staff intervention, the availability has gone done. Unless you know the specific name of a document, the search engine is unlikely to find it.

The city now requires people to generate public records requests (PRAs – Public Records Act) for documents that should logically be available to the public without request, and some of which were formally available but are no longer. PRAs sometimes lead to the city claiming that the information requested does not exist, which is a lie, or if it is eventually supplied, takes a ridiculously long period of time, generally past when the information was needed. Most governments complain about the expense and staff time required to comply with PRAs, but this is largely a self-inflicted problem. If they simply posted the information, they wouldn’t be subject to PRAs.

As a frequent user of GIS (Graphical Information Systems) data, I would expect that more and more data available in that format would be posted on the city Open Data website. However, the city ceased updating some data several years ago, even though internally the data is still being updated. There are datasets that the city uses internally, but have never been made public. The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan mapped planned bicycle and walking facilities, but it took more than a year and repeated requests from the public for it to show up.

So, opaque or transparent? Opaque.

SacATC 2026-09-17

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, September 17, 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 comment ahead of time online. Though comments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see comments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting.

The method for speaking in person has changed. Go to the city’s Public Participation Hub page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (note: this page works poorly on handheld devices), and then click on the ‘View Page’ button. Select ‘Register’ to register for the meeting and to speak on an agenda item. Select ‘Comments’ to make a comment, or view other’s comments. You may also use the meeting kiosk to register in person. There are no longer speaker cards available. Once an item has been announced by the chair, it is not possible to register to speak on that item.

Select ‘Files’ to download the agenda. Within that document are links to individual agenda item documents, and these can be downloaded. All of this is much more awkward that the previous meeting mechanism. Check it out ahead of time so you can figure it out. I have made the documents for the three primary agenda items available below, so you don’t have to go through the awkward interface.

Agenda (pdf)

Consent Calendar

  1. Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
  2. Active Transportation Commission Log

Discussion Calendar

  1. Sacramento Valley Station: Regional Bus Stops Consolidation Project (T15029000): staff report | presentation
  2. FY2027-28 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Application: staff report | presentation
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations: staff report

I do not have any comments to make at this time, but may tomorrow.

SacATC 2026-08-20

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

Agenda (full agenda pdf)

Discussion Calendar

  1. North Natomas Community Trail Naming Effort (staff report | presentation)
  2. Automated Red Light Camera Program (staff report | presentation)
  3. City of Sacramento Bicycle Parking Program 2026 Update (staff report | presentation note: the presentation seems to be corrupted, lacking most of the graphic elements)

SacATC 2026-06-18

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, June 18, 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 city seems to have changed its document storage to Google Drive, with no ability to download the main agenda, and the agenda pdf is corrupted, but I finally managed to get a copy, below.

There are three main agenda items. I have not had the chance to look at these items in detail, so have no recommendations to make at this time.

Agenda (pdf)

3. Arden Way-Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan – Phase 2: staff report | workshop boards | presentation

4. Fruitridge Safety and Mobility Plan: Proposed Alternatives: staff report | presentation

5. Vision Zero Action Plan Update Draft Plan: staff report | presentation

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

SacATC annual report to budget committee tomorrow

Dan Allison2 Comments

The City of Sacramento Budget and Audit Committee will consider the recommendations of SacATC (Sacramento Active Transportation Commission tomorrow, Tuesday, March 10. The commission is asking that the city invest in implementing the recommendations of the report. Though Sacramento seeks grants to improve street safety, that process is slow and not always successful. The city’s new quick-build program is a first step forward, but not yet active. We cannot afford to wait while people die and are severely injured on our streets.

The email from Slow Down Sacramento/Isaac Gonzalez is included below, and has all the information you need.

On Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., the Sacramento City Council’s Budget and Audit Committee will consider recommendations from the Active Transportation Commission’s 2025 Annual Report. These recommendations focus on funding practical steps that would make Sacramento’s streets safer for people walking, biking, and rolling.


You can view the report for yourself by clicking here.


The commission is asking the City to invest in proven safety strategies, such as expanding traffic-calming tools, strengthening the city’s quick-build program, developing a citywide Safe Routes to School effort, and implementing safety improvements, such as Leading Pedestrian Intervals at traffic signals. These are not abstract ideas. They are practical tools that cities across the country are using to reduce serious injuries and save lives. 
Right now, none of these recommendations have identified funding attached to them. That means the Budget Committee will play an important role in deciding whether these ideas move forward or remain just another report sitting on a shelf.


If you care about safer streets in Sacramento, this is a moment where public voices matter.


Two ways you can help
1. Submit an e-comment
Take a few minutes to tell the committee that you support funding the Active Transportation Commission’s recommendations. Personal stories about safety in your neighborhood are especially powerful. The agenda item is #6.
2. Speak in person
You can also attend the meeting and provide public comment.


Budget and Audit Committee
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m.
Sacramento City Hall
915 I Street


Even a brief statement reminding decision-makers that street safety matters to Sacramento residents can make a difference.

Why this matters
Sacramento has declared a Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic deaths, yet serious injuries and fatalities continue to rise. The Active Transportation Commission’s recommendations outline practical steps the City can take now to address dangerous streets and protect people who simply want to move through their neighborhoods safely.
Plans alone do not save lives.
Investment and action do.


If you are able, please submit a comment or come to City Hall on Tuesday and speak up for safer streets.
Thank you for continuing to stand with us.

SacATC 2026-02-19

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will meet on Thursday, February 19, starting at 5:30 PM, in city council chambers.

The agenda includes two consent items and two discussion items.

Item 3 is Vision Zero Action Plan Update 2026: staff report | presentation

Item 4 is H Street Bikeways: staff report | presentation

My previous posts on Vision Zero cover many topics related to it, and make some recommendations. A draft plan will be available in the spring, at which time I’ll no doubt have many comments. If you haven’t been following the Action Plan update process, this is a good chance to catch up.

This is the first time preliminary plans for creating a safe bikeway on H Street, leading to and from Sacramento Valley Station, have been presented to the public. I will take a closer look and perhaps post again before Thursday.

High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation
High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation