Category: Active Transportation Commission

SacATC April 18

Dan Allison4 Comments

The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, April 18, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.

The agenda includes three discussion items:

  1. Traffic Signal Safety Project
  2. Kastanis Way Shared Use Path
  3. Grand Avenue Sidewalk Infill

Kastanis Way Shared Use Path looks like a great project, connecting two dead-end streets for walkers and bicyclists, but not motor vehicles. These are the kinds of projects that should be implemented everywhere the opportunity exists.

diagram of Kastanis Way shared use path
Kastanis Way shared use path

Grand Avenue Sidewalk Infill also looks good, providing improvements to the crossing Grand Avenue by the Sacramento Northern multi-use path.

diagram of Grand Avenue Sidewalk Infill project
Grand Avenue Sidewalk Infill project

The Traffic Signal Safety project is questionable. There are nine locations:

  1. 16th Street at D Street (Traffic Signal)
  2. Franklin Boulevard at 36th Avenue (Traffic Signal)
  3. Freeport Boulevard at Kitchner Road (Traffic Signal)
  4. Fruitridge Road at 60th Street (Pedestrian Signal)
  5. Rio Linda Boulevard at Harris Avenue (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon)
  6. Stockton Boulevard at 11th Avenue (Pedestrian Signal)
  7. 24th Street at 25th Street (Pedestrian Signal)
  8. Munroe Street at Latham Drive (Traffic Signal)
  9. Rio Linda Boulevard at Roanoke Avenue (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon)

I haven’t had a chance to look at each of these proposals, though I will note that the city traffic engineers love to install traffic signals. At $100K to $500K per intersection, these are major investments. Many of the new signals the city has installed, for example on 5th Street and S Street, are unneeded, and waste of money. They have also converted a number of pedestrian signals from auto-recall (the pedestrian signal comes on at every signal cycle) to beg buttons (the person walking or rolling must activate the sensor, or the pedestrians signal will never come on). The city has a number of unnecessary signals, 60 in the central city alone. Maybe a one-for-one program is called for, install a new signal, take out an existing signal.

I don’t trust city traffic engineers. They label projects as safety projects for walkers and bicyclist, when they are really motor vehicle infrastructure projects. So-called pedestrian and bicyclist safety projects are often motor vehicle enhancements in disguise.

I cross 16th Street at D Street several times a week on bicycle, and occasionally walking, most often to access the American River bike trail via Sacramento Northern path over the river. Yes, I have to wait for a gap in traffic on 16th Street, which sometimes takes a while. But rarely longer than I would have to wait for a traffic signal, given that the arterial street (16th Street) always has a long green and the cross street (D Street) has a short green. I think that funds would be better spent slowing motor vehicle traffic on 16th Street, or adding bike facilities to 16th Street, or reducing the travel lanes on 16th Street, which is a four-lane traffic sewer. Traffic signals do not calm traffic. They irritate drivers, and cause them to quickly accelerate out of the signal to make up for time lost at the signal. They may allow for safer pedestrian crossing, or at least would if red light running were not an epidemic in Sacramento. The fact is, many drivers do not stop for red lights, and certainly don’t stop for people walking in crosswalks. Measures other than traffic signals are necessary to solve the issue.

diagram of traffic signal at 16th St & D St
traffic signal at 16th St & D St

The proposal for an RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) for Rio Linda Blvd at Roanoke Avenue is inappropriate. The posted speed limit in this section of Rio Linda Blvd is 40 mph, meaning that actual speeds are more like 50 mph. This is too fast for an RRFB to have any effect on drivers. Even at slower speeds drivers often ignore RRFBs. If there is to be a safe crossing at Roanoke, there must be a HAWK signal, or a full traffic signal. Again, funds would be better expended slowing traffic on Rio Linda. At this time, there is no connection between Roanoke Avenue and the Sacramento Northern Bike Trail, so it isn’t clear why this location has been picked for a signal.

diagram for RRFB for Rio Linda Blvd & Roanoke Ave
RRFB for Rio Linda Blvd & Roanoke Ave

I will leave it to others to examine the other seven locations. Are signals needed? Are they the right kind of signal for the context, particularly the speed and volume of motor vehicle traffic? Are there projects that would improve safety for walkers and bicyclists more than expensive traffic signals? Are these the best locations, the ones that best serve routes of travel for walkers and bicyclists? I have doubts that these questions were considered.

Note: Readers Sean Rogers has suggested a better, and less expensive, solution for Monroe and Latham, in comments. The solution may be calming traffic, not just installing a signal.

SacATC March 21 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

These are not intended to be, and are not, comprehensive, but rather, things that grabbed my attention.

Announcements

  • The city received a Reconnecting Old North Sacramento (Del Paso) grant through SACOG Green Means Go program. (https://www.sacog.org/Home/Components/News/News/117/)
  • At the city council meeting in which the SacATC Annual Report was discussed, Councilmember Venezuela directed staff to come back with a plan for a quick-build program, which will be developed over time
  • Ali Doeer-Westbrook relayed that Councilmember Vang requested that if the city is not going to act on a recommendation, they respond with reasons why; it is not clear how this will play out

Agenda 3 Streetcar (SacRT Anthony Adams presentation): went over the new proposal and alignment, and said this is phase 1, West Sac plans to extend way south; $160M project, with $130 secured so far, includes federal SmallStarts, construction 2027 if remainder of funding obtained; just submitted RAISE grant application and will submit state TIRCP grant; short segment on N will be shared sidewalk with bicycles, otherwise not, MAC asked for physical barrier on shared section, N Street will remain one way (per city direction, not converted to two-way), several of the slides presented were not in the agenda document but had additional detail

I commented on the 3rd St bike lane, it has only a narrow buffer, which is unacceptable adjacent to three high-speed traffic lanes, shared should be removed from 11-foot lanes and given to bike facilities; Matt Anderson talked about Class 2 bike lanes on the bridge (may be too narrow as well), which would be unsafe, and alternate routes; Deb Banks said the bike lanes could be raised to provide protection from motor vehicles

Agenda 4 Parks Plan: no public comment, David asked about parks designated as high need, which was not available tonight

Agenda 5 T-Street gap closure: this is a preliminary plan, but intended to fix issues with T Street rather than waiting for the Stockton Blvd reconstruction which is a ways off; presentation followed the agenda item document

My comments: good project, reduction 4 to 2 lanes under freeway is great, parking shown on 34th Street to 35th Street not needed; and removing it on the north side would allow a completely separated and protected bikeway for that block; most traffic turns right on Stockton, so right lane could be right turn only rather than pushing the merge onto T Street east of Stockton Blvd

Several people spoke in favor of a bike box for T Street at Stockton Blvd, but I’m not sure what exactly that means.

Agenda 6 ATP7, Jennifer Donlon Wyant presenting: She presented briefly on each of the projects; she said if the Freeport grant was approved, it would come back to the commission for design comment, which was a surprise as the agenda item did not indicate that; this guarantee seemed to make the commision comfortable enough that Freeport was included in the unanimous motion to recommend to council; when asked about priority of the three projects, Jennifer said they were not prioritized, but Northgate Blvd was highest on the Transportation Priorities Plan list

For items not on the agenda, I mentioned several items:

SacATC March 21

Dan Allison2 Comments

Update: Diagrams were added for agenda item 3 streetcar-related bikeway on 3rd Street and agenda item 5 T Street bikeway improvements with unneeded parking.
Update 2: Information added about Envision Broadway in Oak Park, one of the project applications desired for ATP7.

The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, March 21, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.

The agenda includes four discussion items:

  1. Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project – Active Transportation Elements
  2. Draft Parks Plan 2040 Public Release
  3. T Street Bikeway Gap Closure Rehabilitation Project (R15200030)
  4. Active Transportation Program Cycle 7 Grant Applications 

Item 6 is mislabeled as a discussion item since it says: “Pass a Motion to recommend to City Council the approval of applications to the Active Transportation Program Cycle 7 grant applications for the following projects: a) Envision Broadway in Oak Park; b) Freeport Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project; and c) Northgate Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project.”

The Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project, for a streetcar or light rail extension from Sacramento Valley Station to Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento, with an alignment over Tower Bridge, south on 3rd Street, east on N Street to 7th Street (southbound) and 8th Street (northbound), and along existing tracks to Sacramento Valley Station. Class IV bikeway is proposed on 3rd Street southbound, off or left side, and N Street eastbound, off or left side. There is no detail about what kind of Class IV bikeway, which can be: ““A bikeway for the exclusive use of bicycles and includes a separation required between the separated bikeway and the through vehicular traffic. The separation may include, but is not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible posts, inflexible barriers, or on-street parking.” Since the bikeway is not parking protected, a high level of protection and separation is appropriate. Both the map and StreetMix diagram are too fuzzy to determine bikeway and buffer width, but it appears the bikeway buffer is narrow and without vertical delineators. The three general purpose lanes are 11 feet, unnecessarily wide and unsafe, so there is additional space that could be allocated to the bikeway or buffer.

StreetMix diagram of 3rd St, excerpted from agenda item
StreetMix diagram of 3rd St, excerpted from agenda item

The Parks Plan 2040 (to align with the General Plan 2040) includes many mentions of trails, particularly in the context of Parkways: “Parkways: There are 14 parkways across the city. All parkways contain multi-use trails; some have artwork, gardens, river/beach access, and picnic areas. A select few offer sports recreation facilities such as basketball, soccer, and volleyball.” Key Direction 6, Foster Nature and Trail Connections includes “Collaborate to Improve Trail Connections: As noted in Appendix D, YPCE will continue to coordinate and collaborate with Public Works, other City departments, Sacramento County, and other agency partners to improve trail connections to parks, parkway use, and recreation via trails. While YPCE is not the primary provider of the City’s shared use paths, the Department brings an important perspective to conversations regarding priorities for shared use paths that support recreation and park access in addition to active transportation. Going forward, YPCE will proceed with the development of planned future parkways, especially where these provide access to rivers, connect missing trail links, and provide access to new parks and neighborhoods.” The Community Voices section (04) indicates strong community support for trails.

The T Street bikeway improvement project is needed, from 34th Street to Stockton Blvd. I bicycle this section regularly, on my way to Trader Joe’s and other destinations. The bike lane comes and goes, and drivers often refuse to yield to bicycles taking the lane, trying to force them to the side, and then right-hooking them at Stockton Blvd. The included diagrams seem to indicate there will be parking along the north side of T Street between 35th Street and 34th Street, which is completely unnecessary since the north side is entirely a Caltrans corporation yard with no need for parking. About two-thirds of the south side is also Caltrans property under the freeway, again with no need for parking. T Street is reduced from four travel lanes to two travel lanes from 34th Street to 36th Street, which is a great traffic calming improvement over the overly wide street that exists (or did, before the Hwy 50 construction narrowed it). The right hand lane approaching Stockton Blvd should be right turn only, so that T Street drops to one lane east of Stockton, without the need for a merge which endangers bicyclists. My observation is that at least half the eastbound traffic on T Street turns right onto Stockton, rather than continuing straight onto T Street or turning left onto Stockton. There are also bike lane improvements on the section of 34th Street approaching T Street.

Google map of T St between 34th and 35th streets, showing unneeded parking
T St between 34th and 35th streets, showing unneeded parking

The city is proposing to submit three applications to the Active Transportation Program Cycle 7: a) Envision Broadway in Oak Park; b) Freeport Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project; and c) Northgate Boulevard Safety and Mobility Project.

I have not looked in any detail at the Envision Broadway in Oak Park project, which lies to the east of the current Broadway Complete Streets project. If the same street cross-section and neglect of sidewalks is continued east, it will be a bad project, but perhaps this is an opportunity to correct the design mistakes built into Broadway Complete Streets.

Added information on Envision Broadway. Overall, the plan looks good. Of concern is the section from 36th Street to 38th Street, where the right-of-way is narrower, and existing sidewalks are mostly 5 feet, which is unacceptably narrow for this corridor. The plan says “South of 36th St the rolled curb and gutter and attached sidewalks should be replaced with vertical curbs and wider sidewalks where feasible”. The phrase ‘where feasible’ is concerning. Would we say that general purpose lanes would be installed ‘where feasible’? Of course not. Sidewalks must be a minimum of 6 feet throughout this section, even if other modes are reduced. The sidewalks will not have sidewalk buffers for planting trees, so this section will be unshaded, except for a very short area between 36th Street and 4th Street, where there is a buffer, and a few trees on private property.

The project should still be recommended by SacATC, but with recognition that the plan falls short in facilities for walkers.

The initial Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan was deeply flawed, but perhaps this preliminary engineering and environmental clearance phase can correct some of those flaws. If not, then Freeport will stand as an example of how the city still prioritizes motor vehicles over all other users, and over trees. If the the city does not make a commitment to significantly improving the plan during this phase, then I believe the community should oppose this grant application, at SacATC, and California Transportation Commission, and at SACOG.

Previous posts on Freeport Blvd: Freeport Blvd to council today, Freeport ideas from Kevin, Freeport Blvd as a failure of vision and possibility, Freeport roundabout(s), Freeport trees and sidewalk buffers, Where are the trees on Freeport?, Freeport Blvd photo essay, Freeport & Fruitridge intersection, make Freeport 3 segments, wide lanes on Freeport, Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan, Freeport Boulevard Transportation Plan Emerging Design Concepts. These posts are included under the category Freeport Blvd.

The Northgate Blvd Mobility Plan was much better, with just a few areas of improvement, so this application should be supported.

SacATC Annual Report to Sac Council March 12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The 2023 Annual Report from the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission is agenda 5 for the Sacramento City Council on March 12, 2024, starting 5:00PM. Unfortunately, the item has been placed on the consent agenda. Every transportation advocate in Sacramento is disappointed that it is on consent, because we feel that the report deserves discussion by council. The report is critical to the future of active transportation in the city, and all the livability and safety benefits of active transportation, so the consent agenda minimizes its importance.

The public may comment on items on the consent agenda, both in eComment beforehand, and at the meeting. In-person comments are always weighted more than eComments, but if eComment is all you can do, please do! However, unless a council member pulls the item from consent, it will not be discussed by the council. If it were pulled from consent, I assume that City of Sacramento Transportation Planning Manager Jennifer Donlon Wyant and 2024 SacATC chair Arlete Hodel might present the report to the council.

To comment in person, you must submit a request to speak before the agenda item comes up, which will be very close to the beginning of the meeting at 5:00PM. Once the consent agenda comes up, it is not possible to submit a request. Speaker cards are on the back counter, to your left when you walk in to chambers, and the basket for cards is at the left front of chambers. Though you can of course comment on anything during the ‘items not on the agenda’ at the end of the meeting, it is much better if you can comment directly on the agenda item in question.

Even if you cannot comment, the Annual Report is well worth a read. The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission has shifted to a much more progressive and activist stance over the last two years, and the ten recommendations in the report (starting on page 8) should be implemented by the city. These are listed below, but read the document for supporting details.

  1. Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
  2. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
  3. Expand Speed Management Programs
  4. Pilot an Electric Bike Library
  5. Promote E-Bike Incentives
  6. Create a Sacramento Quick-Build Bikeways Program
  7. Increase Bike Parking
  8. Re-establish Slow & Active Streets
  9. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
  10. Develop an ATC Dashboard

If you are going to comment, I recommend that you pick one item of most importance to you, and comment on that. Personal perspectives are best, why the lack of these programs has harmed you, or why the implementation of these programs will benefit you.

photo of SacATC members

SacATC February 15, includes Truxel Bridge

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, February 15, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. The agenda includes five items. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.

Agenda item 3 is a presentation on the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study. The Truxel crossing of the American River was originally proposed and approved by SacRT and the county as a transit-walking-bicycling bridge, carrying light rail from downtown to Natomas. The city is now proposing a motor vehicle-transit-walking-bicycling bridge. They are claiming that the bridge would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the provision of alternative modes, and a shorter trip between downtown and Natomas, but has not presented data to justify this claim. New roadway capacity induces more motor vehicle trips, a well-established fact, so to claim otherwise requires proof. Walking and bicycling would be unlikely to be the major component of bridge users. Transit availability could reduce motor vehicle trips, but the Green Line to the Airport is probably decades away, and anything short of service to North Natomas would be unlikely to replace many car trips.

The city intends to go full speed ahead (pun intended) with the bridge, based on a 2013 city council approval, seeking public input only on the southern approach to the bridge and the bridge cross-section. Since 2013, the city has declared a climate emergency, the Mayors Commission on Climate Change goal is to achieve Carbon Zero by reducing VMT, the soon-to-be-adopted General Plan 2040 and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan aim for reducing VMT rather than increasing it, and SB 745 required VMT impacts as the primary criteria for judging projects. Most importantly, public awareness of the risk of motor vehicle induced climate change has emerged and strengthened.

Read More »

SacATC review of work zone policy

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Please see previous posts in category ‘Work Zones‘.

The City of Sacramento is hosting a webinar on the draft Work Zone and Event Detour Policy Update, today, January 24, 6:00PM. You can register for the Zoom webinar here(registration is not available on the Work Zone webpage).

I have neglected to post on the SacATC (Sacramento Active Transportation Commission) review of the Work Zone and Event Detour Policy. Commission members had several good ideas and questions, which are worth capturing. You can view the meeting video at https://sacramento.granicus.com/player/clip/5786. Note that the sound quality is very poor, with many dropouts. Since I was at the meeting, I have filled in some details on the comments.

Comments/questions from commissioners:

  • Houpt: advocates should have a chance for input, is that part of the noticing process?
  • Hodel: Old Sac boardwalk (promenade) has been completely closed to bicycles for events; should be consequences for blocking access; supports rerouting motor vehicles is necessary; hefty fines for non-compliance
  • Moore: Class 2 bike lanes are already dangerous so reproducing them as diversions or detours is still dangerous; provide physical safety; rely on automated enforcement, not police presence
  • Gonzalez: is there a definition for ‘short pinch point’?; concerned about monitoring, suggested QRcode at location for immediate report of dangerous situation
  • Gibson: asked for details on enforcement at events; should be separate for short term events versus long-term construction project
  • Banks: how will the city get word out about events and construction that impact access; suggested more photos, particularly for events
  • Erasmus: assistance for event sponsors who may not have the resources to post events
  • Doerr Westbrook: could longer term projects be reflected in Google maps?; there may be some more recent Caltrans info on bicyclist detours; is there a database for locations and TCP documents? Can the document refer to federal guidelines on bicycle facilities for ADT levels, rather than city? (Reply was that the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan will update that guidance, and replace old Bicycle Master Plan at that time)

The Community Development AgencyCounter map (https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/) could be one location to store TCP locations. It does not appear to have document links, but would at least allow people to find locations and request documents.

SacATC recommendations supported by city council

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Agenda item 11 on the Sacramento City Council agenda last night (2023-08-29) was ‘Active Transportation Commission 2022 Annual Report Regarding the Status of Walking and Bicycling in the City of Sacramento and Activities of the Commission‘. Twenty members of the public and organizations spoke in support of the recommendations, no one against, and all council members spoke in support. Comments of both the public and council focused on the need for more funding to make infrastructure changes to our roadways, in order to fix the unsafe roadway network we have.

I have written twice before about the SacATC recommendations: support SacATC status on walking/biking (now!) and SacATC meeting Jan 19 with report, Northgate, Freeport. I recommend you read the full set of recommendations. Do they go far enough? No. Do they miss some important issues? Yes. But these recommendations are beyond anything that the city has considered before, and deserve the support of everyone in the city (and county and region).

Several representative from Land Park talked about how much they loved the slow streets in the park, and how disappointed they were when the city nixed them. They want them back! So do a number of other speakers. Grace Bartley talked about how she was hit by a driver while riding her bike to McClatchy High on Freeport, probably the most impactful speaker of the evening. Several speakers mentioned the imperative to control motor vehicle speeds, by whatever means necessary. (The ultimate solution to this issue is not any action of the city, but speed-limited motor vehicles.)

Eric Guerra mentioned again, as he has other times, that many parents seem to care about only their own children, once their children are safely dropped off at school, they speed away, endangering other people’s children. And some not ever their own children, encouraging their kids to run across the street at drop-off and pick-up. There was general agreement that there needs to be more money in next year’s budget for active transportation, though no one said what would be cut to accomplish that. SacATC had wanted their recommendations to go to the council for consideration in adopting this year’s budget, but a roadblock (intentional?) was thrown up by requiring that the report go first to the Personnel and Public Employees Committee, which meant that it did not come to the council until August. Katie Valenzuela suggested that Public Works come up with guidelines for citizen-initiated ‘tactical urbanism’ projects so that quick-builds can happen now, when the city does not have the funds or materials or personnel to complete in a timely manner. Jennifer Donlon Wyant was open to the idea, but I’m sure it would get nixed in Public Works. Darrell Steinberg talked about his proposal for a housing and transportation measure in 2024, that would provide some of the additional funding needed. This will be the topic of my next post.

I spoke along with the other 19 people, and my comments are below:

I strongly support all of the recommendations included in the 2022 report from the ATC to the city council. In particularly, I would like to address two of those, 3. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program, and 4. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy. 

I was the Safe Routes to School Coordinator for San Juan Unified for 10 years. Having that position funded through federal and ATC grants, and district funding, allowed the completion of many infrastructure project though collaboration with the City of Citrus Heights and Sacramento County. Most of these would not have occurred without the position. We also offered an extensive program of walking and bicycling education to students, and to the community. Civil Thread/WALKSacramento was a key partner in these efforts. I recommend that Sac City schools and the city create and fund a Safe Routes position to head an ongoing program in the support of students and their families.

It is long past time for a policy to accommodate walkers and bicyclists during construction projects. Nearly every construction project that has occurred in the central city has violated ADA guidelines, which require accommodation. City staff is on record as saying that walkers and bicyclists would be accommodated when it does not remove capacity from motor vehicles. So every project presents dangers to walkers and bicyclists. The are poorly signed and do not provide detectable barriers. I spend a lot of time reporting these violations, and over time many though not all of them are corrected. However, it should not be the responsibility of citizens to hold the city to ADA requirements. A progressive city would develop traffic plans that accommodate all travel modes, and would then inspect and enforce those plans.

support SacATC status on walking/biking (now!)

Dan Allison2 Comments

I encourage you to support the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission’s (SacATC) sending the Status of Walking/Biking committee report to city council. The report is on the agenda for SacATC on this Thursday, 6:00PM to about 8:00PM.

The report is the first attempt since the early days of the SacATC to actually address transportation policy. The SacATC has unfortunately become a rubber stamp for city grant applications, and has not delved into policy since the early days when an update of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan being completed, and the ATC was able to make some improvements to that. The commission was formed to advise council on policy (it is NOT advisory to staff, but to the council), but has not done so. Now is the time, and this status report should be supported because it finally starts to address policy.

The status report includes nine recommendations:

  1. Increase Funding for Active Transportation
  2. Expand Speed Management Program
  3. Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
  4. Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
  5. Develop an ATC Dashboard
  6. Create a Sacramento Quick-Build Bikeways Program
  7. Pilot an Electric Bike Library & Promote E-Bike Incentives
  8. Increase Bike Parking
  9. Re-establish Slow & Active Streets

I’m sure you can think of many other recommendations that might be made, but this is a great start. If the council pays attention to these recommendations, and takes action to create and fund programs, the status of walking and bicycling will have improved by next year, and more items can be added.

You an express your support in several ways:

Consult the agenda for more detail on making public comment. It used to be possible to submit email to the city clerk, but this option is no longer mentioned.

City of Sac blind adherence to ADT

Dan Allison2 Comments

Another post on the Freeport Blvd Transportation Plan. See the category Freeport Blvd for other posts.

“We are designing for the traffic we have, not for the traffic we want.”

Ali Doerr Westbrook, Chair of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission

I could stop at that, but perhaps you’d like some more detail. This comment was made during the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) meeting on January 18, 2023. The context was the admission by the two city planners, Leslie Mancebo and Jennifer Donlon Wyant, that the city eliminated the possibility of a road diet (roadway reallocation) before even starting planning for Freeport Blvd. The reason expressed is that the ADT (Average Daily Traffic count) is above 20,000 for Freeport, and that requires more than two lanes (one each direction). Interestingly, ADT counts for various locations along Freeport are nowhere to be found in the plan or appendices. In a different location on the City of Sacramento website, Traffic Counts, the ADT for various locations along Freeport Blvd, rarely exceed 20,000, and have not exceeded 20,000 since 2011. There is no indication that the city even did new traffic counts in preparation for this planning effort. So far as can be determined, they just decided to not consider a road diet from four lanes to two lanes, or two+one lanes, 3/2 configuration) because they wanted to prioritize motor vehicle traffic over all other uses of the roadway.

The city planners also acknowledged that a road diet was a prominent request of the community during the planning process. But, community input be damned, the city is going to serve car drivers before anyone else.

A reduction of lanes from four to two is the single most important traffic calming effort that can be made on a roadway. That does not mean it is the appropriate solution for Freeport Blvd, or for all of Freeport Blvd in the planning area. What is does mean is the that city should have considered it in the planning process.

Back to Ali’s comment. The city is planning for a roadway configuration that should have already been in place years ago, before the city over-widened the roadway, and in several cases narrowed sidewalks to accommodate the widening. They are not planning for a roadway which would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or increase safety and access for those outside cars. The city’s responsibility, under the Mayors Commission on Climate Change report, is to reduce VMT in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), not to maintain VMT at current levels. But this Freeport plan is a plan to guarantee current VMT for at least 30 years in the future, which is about the length of time before the city will be able to reconstruct the roadway again, and correct the mistakes they made this time around.

The intent of the city in this plan is made very clear in the common design principles: “10. Maintained necessary travel lanes, turn lanes, and parking: Maintaining travel lanes and turn lanes ensures that drivers traveling along the corridor will not be compromised, and preserving parking spaces where 5 the utilization is higher so it serves better adjoining businesses.” Though this is the last item in the list of ten, it is clear that this is the highest priority for the city.

The refusal to consider a road diet/lane reduction/roadway reallocation is a fatal flaw in this plan. The effort should be sent back to staff to re-do. It should not be adopted by city council. If the city council does not reject this kind of flawed planning, city staff will continue to make the same mistake, again and again and again.

I’ll post on some of the other flaws in the plan, but this is the most important, not just because it misses the best opportunity for traffic calming, but because it retains roadway width for the exclusive use of motor vehicles that could be better used for walking, bicycling, trees, and even parking for businesses.

Added graphic below, which I had not noticed in the plan, that documents vehicular counts on sections of Freeport Blvd. Is it suspicious that half of the plan area is ‘just’ over the city’s criteria of 20,000 ADT? Remember, the plan itself and the city’s traffic counts website do not indicate this level of ADT.

SacATC meeting Jan 19 with report, Northgate, Freeport

Dan Allison2 Comments

Update: The letter on the status of walking/biking was deferred to the next meeting, where a modified letter will be considered and hopefully passed. The Freeport and Northgate Transportation Plans were forwarded to council. I spoke in favor of Northgate and against Freeport, for reasons I will detail in the near future. The applications for planning grants were supported.

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) is meeting online Thursday, January 18, 2023, 6:00PM to about 8:00PM, via Zoom. See http://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21 for agenda and eComment.

The three main topics are:

A read of the subcommittee report, formatted as a letter to the mayor since the commission is advisory to the council, is good and should be supported. I particularly like the emphasis on completing the construction detour policy, since city staff otherwise do not care about the safety of walkers and bicyclists in navigating construction projects that close or change sidewalks and bikeways. Two items missing are bike/scooter share, and Vision Zero. These two items may or may not fall under the purview of SacATC, however, the city is not making information available to the public on these efforts, so it seems to fall to SacATC to do so.

In general, the Northgate and Freeport plans are an immense improvement over existing conditions, so meet needs of the moment, but it is less clear they are going to meet the needs of the future, which will be much less private motor vehicle driving, and more walking, bicycling and transit. If time is available to look at the plans more closely, I’ll add posts.