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.
A map in the existing conditions report for Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan shows the location and nature of 20 crosswalks, including which legs of the intersection are present, or not. Of course these are the marked crosswalks. Under state law, there are crosswalks at every intersection, which is about 55 intersections. Of course on a high speed roadway, 35 mph or 40 mph posted and much higher actual speeds, it may not be safe to use legal but unmarked crosswalks.
It may be that the section between Martin Luther King Jr Blvd and 44th Street is over-signalized. Though I’m not against frequent safe crossings, a high density of signals just frustrates drivers and reduces the usefulness of the roadway for all modes. It is sort of like Trump passing out paper towels – you get one, you get one, you get one. Too many signals slow everyone.
I wasn’t happy with the detail of the map, and did not find in the existing conditions report distances between marked crossings. So I modified the map, below, to add distances for every segment over 1/4 mile, 1320 feet, and add street names. Two of the signals are pedestrian signals, not intersection signals, one for Fruitridge Park and Community Center, the other for the Del Rio Trail. These are greyed on the map.
Though obviously ignoring the existing street pattern would not make sense, the distances of more than 1/4 mile do deserve more analysis, since this exceeds the recommended distance for safe crossings on any collector or arterial roadway.
The crosswalks at Freeport are 101 and 111 feet long, with no refuge island and no pedestrian actuators on the medians. At Franklin, they are 106 feet and 125 feet, with no refuge islands or even usable medians. At Stockton, they are 82 feet and 100 feet, with no refuge islands or even usable medians. These are unacceptably long crossing distances, and must be shortened in the project. Reducing travel lanes from four to three, and eliminating dedicated right turn lanes and double left turn lanes will help with these crossing distances, but even when the roadway width is reallocated, it may be necessary to provide median refuge islands with pedestrian actuators.
The City of Sacramento charges fees for it’s ‘Al Fresco’ dining program, where restaurants may apply for an encroachment permit, and an ongoing revocable permit in order to provide a dining area within re-purposed parking spots. The city used to have hundreds of these setups, and during the early days of the pandemic, several streets were closed completely so that restaurants could offer outside safe dining. The number of such setups has shrunk considerably. Many businesses did not find it worthwhile to go through the process, and the expense. The city established strict criteria, that some locations could not or did not want to meet. They ‘grandfathered in’ existing sidewalk dining, for a while, but those locations must transition to the new program, which was established in 2023.
Al Fresco dining often removes sidewalk buffers and street parking. As such, the city charges, for use of the space (though the city does not maintain sidewalk buffers, it does own them) and loss of parking revenue. Though the fees are not posted anywhere on the city website, a presentation to city council on October 14, 2025, provides the fee structure for fees adopted in January 2023. So far as is known, the fees have not changed. (Note that this does not include the encroachment permit fee, a one-time fee.) pdf of the entire SacCouncil presentation
SacCouncil 2025-10-14 presentation on Al Fresco program, page 14
So, the city is giving away space for a 30 foot wide driveway on R Street, including loss of about 1.7 parking spots and the income therefrom. Note that this parking area has access through Rice Alley; the R Street curb cut and driveway is not actually needed.
On the other hand, the city is charging the business on L Street for the Al Fresco area, about $455/month, for the same curb space and parking spots. Note that the two areas are not the same size, L St is about 90 feet long, so the Al Fresco cost is estimated for the same size area.
How does the city value curb space and parking spaces?
The City of Sacramento, Department of Public Works, has an map or dashboard of transportation projects available online, Public Works Transportation Projects. You can select by project phase (planning, preliminary engineering, final design, in construction, and construction complete), and by council district. You can zoom in or out on the map.
Public Works Transportation Projects map/dashboard
Clicking on a project line or point opens a popup with details. Some of the data seems a little out of date for Project Manager and project phase, but this is nevertheless the best source of information on projects that I am aware of.
For transportation advocates, selecting planning will probably be of the most interest. Once a project is past the planning stage, it is unlikely that it can be improved by community input.
Public Works Transportation Projects map, selected for ‘Planning’
Sacramento County does not seem to have an equivalent map/dashboard, but it does have a project page.
Folsom does not seem to have an equivalent map/dashboard.
Rancho Cordova has a robust set of GIS data, but does not seem to have an equivalent map/dashboard.
Elk Grove has a robust set of GIS data. It has a CIP (capital improvement program) map, which may contain similar information, but does not seem to be working at this time.
I posted on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan (2026-02-21), which was before the first community meeting on March 4, which I attended. There were a number of display boards with details that are not necessarily in other documents, but I did not capture those. A second workshop, on July 6, which presented updated concepts based on the first workshop and other outreach, I was not able to attend. The project website has a number of documents of interest, including all those that I reference below. Note that there is another city project, Fruitridge Road Improvement Project, east from Stockton Blvd to Power Inn Road, that is separate from this project.
The public outreach for Phase 2 is complete, and there is no formal process at this time for public input. However, you have the right as a citizen to email the project lead, Virginia Morgan, VMorgan@cityofsacramento.org.
Overall
The map below shows the corridor, and related transportation projects.
map of Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Project
The project extends from Riverside Blvd to on the west to Stockton Blvd on the east. The roadway from Riverside to South Land Park Drive is named Seamas Avenue, which is important if you are looking at details in the documents, but I’ll refer to the entire corridor as Fruitridge Road. The section from Riverside to Freeport Blvd is four lanes, but with fairly low traffic volumes and speeds. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. From Freeport to 24th Street, volume and speeds are higher, and the roadway has frontage roads on south and then north side. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. From 24th all the way to Stockton Blvd, the corridor is mostly commercial, with some residential here and there. Volume and speed are again higher. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, but observed speeds are much higher, particularly in the vicinity of the Hwy 99 interchange, where drivers reach highway speeds at the onramps, and continue highway speeds coming off the off-ramps. The section from east edge of the freeway interchange to Stockton Blvd is mostly within Sacramento County, not the city. This section has paint-only bike lanes, which apparently were added in 2024.
Traffic Violence
The corridor map below shows collisions. As is no surprise, they are concentrated at major intersections, but also occur in between, most likely at side streets or driveways. Few collisions are shown for the Hwy 99 onramps and off-ramps, possibly because this data was not included. Though the interchange is within the city, it is completely controlled by Caltrans and collisions would be reported by CHP, not the city. When I asked the consultants why the collision density was so much higher in the county section than the city section, they speculated that it was because there was so much more commercial activity and driveways in that section.
Sidewalks
With few exceptions, sidewalks throughout the corridor are five feet wide. Though there are problems here and there, including utility poles in the sidewalk, and a gap east of the Del Rio Trail, they are overall in decent condition. The lack of trees along this corridor does reduce sidewalk heaving. Driveways are frequent, particularly between Franklin Blvd and Stockton, including the county section. More than half of the driveways have a steep cross-slope in the sidewalk, not meeting current PROWAG/ADA requirements. Some, mostly within the county section, have been fixed with the ramp down, ramp up solution, which is legal but not optimal. Many of the unmodified driveways present barriers to travel with mobility devices, and discomfort for all walkers. All sidewalks and driveways within the project area should be upgraded to PROWAG compliance. The best way of doing so it to install a sidewalk buffer (which the city calls planting strips) so that the driveway slope in within the buffer, not within the sidewalk.
side-sloped sidewalk at driveway, not PROWAG/ADA compliant (and overly wide driveway)
Sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet wide, with additional width where higher walker use justifies it. Initially, the project proposed to leave almost all of the sidewalks untouched, only widening them where there are bus stops. The new Alternative 2 – Enhanced Improvements, considers but does not promise widening sidewalks along the corridor. More on this below.
I keep harping on the city’s user prioritization diagram, from the 2024 General Plan, but it is worth remembering for every single project. Not only does it show pedestrians (walkers and rollers) as the top priority, it shows a tree with the walker. The tree is essential for creating a welcoming and safe environment for people walking. But trees are the one feature most neglected in transportation planning and infrastructure. Every city project has resulted in fewer trees than were promised, despite trees being one of the top requests by the public.
Roadway re-allocation
The project plan focuses on lane number reductions and lane width reduction, and the question of whether the eastern Segment 2 from 24th Street to Stockton Blvd will be two lanes (three with center turn lane) or four lanes. I don’t think this is the most important issue, except as re-allocation allows for wider sidewalks and sidewalk buffers. I find that Alternative 2, illustrated below, is the only acceptable design of the three presented. The diagram shows a section without driveways, but frequent, poorly designed driveways are characteristic of much of Segment 2. Only this alternative allows continuous level sidewalks, with driveway ramps in the sidewalk buffer. Though at this stage of planning, the width of the widened sidewalks and new sidewalk buffers is not specified. I believe that sidewalks should be a minimum of six feet, and wider where walkers and rollers are more frequent. Bus stops should have at least eight feet of sidewalk, and most bus stops should have bus shelters and other amenities that are not within that eight feet. Buffers should be a minimum of eight feet, to allow for tree health and growth without sidewalk buckling. The city has been using buffers of 4 to 6 feet on many projects, which is too narrow.
The Phase 2 Design Alternatives document, which I assume must have been the display boards at Workshop 2, does have widths shown for the various segments, but unfortunately, these diagrams do not exactly match the diagrams in the presentation. For example, the presentation Alternative 2, below, indicates widened sidewalks, but the design alternatives document continues to show the existing five foot sidewalks.
Sidewalks should also be continuous across intersections with local streets. These raised crosswalk/sidewalks clearly communicate to drivers that they need to slow, and look, when crossing a sidewalk, that they are guess in the walker space, not the preeminent user. There may be intersections with collector and arterial roadways, and other signalized intersections, where continuous sidewalks/raised crosswalk are appropriate.
Bicycle facilities
Alternative 1 shows paint-only Class 2 bicycle lanes. These are unacceptable on roadways over 30 mph, and with the current speed limits at 35 mph and 40 mph, they are not safe. Unless posted and design speed limits are reduced to 30 mph on the corridor, bicycle facilities must be protected with at a minimum, wide buffers with vertical delimiters, and preferably and safer, concrete medians and curbs. Without width specification, it is unknown whether these facilities will accommodate modern bicycles and riders. But as with all bicycle facilities, the more important issue is how bicycles are accommodated at intersections. The city has not done well with this issue.
Intersections
Intersections are where most collisions occur, and the locations where walkers and bicyclists are most at risk, and most discouraged, but the documents available to date don’t show intersection modifications.
There are two intersection in the corridor that must be significantly modified to make them safe for all users. At Fruitridge Road and Freeport Blvd, the intersection flares to have five westbound lanes, with two dedicated left turn lanes, two through lanes, and one dedicated right turn lane. A crossing distance of 113 feet! Eastbound, four lanes, with one dedicated left turn lane, two through lanes, and one dedicated right turn lane. A crossing distance of 100 feet! There are problems with the design of Freeport Blvd as well.
Fruitridge Rd & Freeport Blvd flared intersection
The intersection of Fruitridge and 24th Street is acceptable, though it could certainly be improved.
The intersection of Fruitridge and Franklin Blvd is unacceptable, with a similar flared design. The free right turn slip lanes from Franklin to Fruitridge are a clear and present danger to all users of the roadway, particularly walkers and bicyclists. These should have been removed as part of the Franklin Blvd Complete Streets project. And they should be removed citywide.
Fruitridge Rd & Franklin Blvd flared intersection
The intersection of Fruitridge Rd and Stockton Blvd is the third problematic intersection, though it isn’t clear to me whether changes will be part of this project, or the future Stockton Blvd Stockton Transportation Enhancement Project. On Fruitridge, it is not as bad as the two preceding intersections, but the intersection is a vast area of pavement, unfriendly and unsafe for walkers and bicyclists.
These flared intersections create large number of conflict points for motor vehicles, and lengthen crossing distances for walkers to unacceptably long distances. Long crossing distances also slow signal cycles due to the longer pedestrian crossing time, frustrating drivers as well. They also encourage drivers to jockey for position at intersections, and accelerate hard to get ahead of others. Though not a common behavior, belligerent drivers also use turn lanes as bypasses for slow traffic in front of them, creating a high level of danger for everyone. The city has, in the past, installed these flared intersections to create stacking space for motor vehicles at signals, but shortening signal cycles can have the same beneficial impact.
I believe intersections should never have dedicated right turn lanes, and particularly, not ones leading to free right turn slip lanes. Right turning drivers can wait their turn with everyone else. Intersections should only have one dedicated left turn lane. Two or more turn lanes lead to motor vehicle conflict on turns, higher speed turns, and inattention by drivers to people in the crosswalk and bicyclists. Whether there are one or two through lanes (never three or more), depends upon the intended design use of the road. Not on existing traffic counts, but on intended use.
Hwy 99
The worst ‘intersection’ of all is the Fruitridge Road & Hwy 99 interchange. This interchange features three high speed onramps from Fruitridge Road to Hwy 99, and three high speed off-ramps onto Fruitridge Road. It is not a true cloverleaf interchange, which would have four of each, but it is bad enough.
On eastbound Fruitridge, the south side, bicycle lanes are dropped, and so are sidewalks. There are ‘no pedestrian’ signs approaching from the west and east. There are no marked crosswalks or pedestrian warning signs or ramps over the two onramps and one off-ramp. The sidewalk on that side is basically an isolated fake. I watched these ramps for some while. Drivers were entering the onramp to Hwy 99 southbound at highway speeds, far over the posted 40 mph speed limit. The off-ramp on northbound onramp were not as bad because they lead to fairly tight turns, and presumably most drivers know that excessive speeds will cause roadway departures.
On westbound Fruitridge, the north side, bicycle lanes are dropped, but there is sort of a sidewalk. There are sidewalk ramps to unmarked crossings of the one onramp and two off-ramps. There are even pedestrian crossing signs at each, and the west off-ramp, even added yield signs, though those may be for merging to Fruitridge, and not for the crosswalk. I watched the west off-ramp for a while. Every driver was exiting at highway speeds, though the posted speed limit is 40 mph.
I believe that all freeway interchanges should have right-angle entry and exits from surface streets, which cause drivers to stop, or at least greatly slow. If a walker or bicyclist got hit at such a ramp, it would be a low speed collision, and probably survivable. For the high speed ramps of this interchange, a collision with walker or bicyclist would almost certainly be fatal. When a city or county want to redesign an interchange to be safe, Caltrans response is almost always: ‘we’ll work with you on the design, but you are going to pay for the infrastructure, 100%’. Caltrans knows that its interchanges are deadly, but has no interest in fixing them. Cities and counties can rarely afford to do so. As for the lack of mapped collisions (see diagram above), I believe that collisions that happen at the exit of the off-ramps and entry of the onramps are considered to be on a state highway, under the jurisdiction of CHP and not Sacramento Police, so don’t show up in the city’s data.
Fruitridge Rd & Hwy 99 interchange
Bus stops
The designs use the phrase ‘Transit stops will need to be designed to accommodate bikeways’, but there are no diagrams or descriptions of what these would look like. This is a very important issue. The optimal bus stop is at a transit boarding island where the bus stops in the travel lane rather than pulling out of traffic. However, other options are possible and may be more compatible with the overall roadway design. An unanswered question.
The Upshot
Segment 1, from Riverside Blvd to Freeport Blvd, at perhaps at far as 24th Street, should be delayed. The traffic on this section is lower volume and lower speed than the rest of the corridor. Though it would be easier to re-allocate roadway width here, it does not have the same safety value. For Segment 2, to the east of 24th Street, and perhaps including the section from Freeport Blvd, the nature of the roadway, driver behavior, conflict points, and adjacent land uses changes completely. This is where the real problem is, and should be the focus of the project.
Hazardous intersections, particularly at Freeport and Franklin, must be fixed in this project, and these intersections are more important than fixing the corridor, because intersections are where the most conflicts occur, and therefore the most collisions. Even if the city fixed only those two intersections, the project would be progress.
Sidewalks for walkers and rollers are the most important aspect of any re-allocation project, of course more important than motor vehicle throughput, and even more important that bicyclists. Only Alternative 2 provide reasonable infrastructure for walkers and rollers. Sidewalks must be a minimum of six feet wide, even in low-use sections, and wider or much wider in heavily used sections. These sidewalk must be shaded by trees, which must be planted at about 30 foot intervals within sidewalk buffers (planting strips) of at least eight feet wide. Of course that means robust irrigation for trees and other plants during the period of establishment.
Wide concrete buffers, of the sort shown in Alternative 1 – Base Improvements, are a waste of concrete. Wide concrete buffers (8.5 feet!) are no more protective of bicyclists than 18 inch buffers, are a waste of project funds, and add to heat island effects of the roadway. The new Franklin Blvd Complete Streets unfortunately has a number of these. Don’t use them!
The city continuously refuses to reduce posted speed limits on reconstructed streets, with their faulty logic that speeds cannot be reduced without a speed study that shows lower 85th percentile speeds. But reconstructed, complete streets are essentially new streets, as though they had been constructed from scratch. The city can, and should, determine an optimal design and posted speed (which should be the same, not the over-engineered forgiving design speed of 10 mph or more over the posted speed). For this project, the design and posted speed should be 30 mph. Designing for slower traffic is even more important than reducing travel lane numbers.
