The City of Sacramento is considering closing two streets in William Land Park to cars in order to open them to people. The SacBee article has more details: City could test closing streets in Sacramento’s William Land Park. The article does not have a map, so I created one, below. This is my best guess from the text description in the SacBee article. I have not found any other documents on this proposal.
Note that the terminology ‘closing’ is not the one used by active transportation advocates. The preferred term is ‘opening’, because the road, formerly used mostly by motor vehicles, with concomitant danger to those not in a motor vehicle, is now open to walkers and bicyclists.
I wrote, way back in 2022, about my suggestion for closing roads in William Land Park to motor vehicles (Land Park open (car free) roads?). This new proposal does not match mine, but it is a good proposal. At this time, only a very small roadway and gate at the far southeast corner of the park is closed to motor vehicles.
William Land Park is dominated by motor vehicles, so any ‘closing’ / ‘opening’ is welcome. This is a good first step. Parks are for people, not for cars.
Sacramento City Express newsletter of March 4 includes an item about improvements to four intersections with a grant from the federal HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) program. The article is below.
This is not part of the city’s new quick build program, rather it is from a grant submitted some time ago. Though( the city is not planning for or applying for new RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) installations, they were specified in this grant application and will be installed.
Safety upgrades coming to four high-injury intersections across Sacramento
Pedestrians crossing some of Sacramento’s busiest corridors will soon see brighter warning beacons, clearer markings and improved accessibility features designed to make walking safer and more accessible.
All four intersections are located on arterial roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network in the Vision Zero Action Plan, which focuses on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets.
The project includes installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon systems at each location, upgraded curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces, new signage, flexible posts and refreshed striping and pavement markings to improve driver awareness and pedestrian accessibility. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are pedestrian-activated flashing yellow lights that alert drivers someone is crossing the street.
“These intersections are on our High Injury Network, and additional visibility and warning features are designed to improve driver awareness to yield to pedestrians,” said James Kragh, associate engineer with the Department of Public Works. “Installing rapid flashing beacons and upgrading curb ramps will enhance conspicuity and accessibility for people using these crossings.”
The City applied for and received $193,600 in HSIP Cycle 10 construction funding to help deliver the project.
Construction is expected to begin later this month and be completed this summer.
Once complete, the upgraded crossings will provide stronger visual cues to drivers and safer, more accessible routes for people walking and rolling along some of Sacramento’s most heavily traveled corridors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A workshop on the H Street Bikeway was held Thursday, February 26. There were at least 30 members of the public who attended, which is pleasantly surprising, indicating strong public interest in the project. Most workshops have far less participation.
The group presentation was brief. Most of the discussion was with city staff and consultants at the display boards. There were some renderings which I had not seen before, below. None of these three is the same as the rendering shown at the top of the project page.
I did not capture the display boards showing each block segment. They are very similar to the ones presented at the SacATC meeting, but some corrections and enhancements were made after feedback from that meeting. Among them:
A 10 foot width will be maintained throughout the project, except 9th to 10th Streets, where the bikeway is at the level of and within a pedestrian area, where a narrowing may help maintain lower bicyclist speeds.
Every intersection will have bicycle signal faces; this was an oversight in the images.
An alternative was proposed for 10th Street, narrowing the east side parking in order to create a buffer on both sides of the bike lane. The option to place the bikeway against the curb, for parking protection, was much discussed but is so far not the option being presented.
There are other details. Hopefully the brief presentation and the updated images and cross-sections will be posted to the webpage.
A lot of discussion between the public and the staff and consultants revolved around the issue that a clear design criteria was the preservation of parking. The lead consultant, Mr. Wright, mentioned a number of times how they had managed to preserve parking. This is sad. The purpose of the TIRCP grant is to enhance transit and active transportation access to the station. Preservation of parking is not one of the criteria. I don’t object to street parking. It has the safety problem of vehicles entering and leaving, but also has the safety benefit of slowing traffic due to the perceived friction. However, when roadway width is needed for other purposes, such as sidewalks and bikeways, it should be removed or reduced.
The primary reason for the right turn lanes at 7th Street and 9th Street is so that bicyclist can move while the straight through motor vehicle traffic is moving, but not when right turns are prohibited. The city feels that creating an exclusive bicyclist phase, where only bicyclists are moving and motor vehicles are stopped in all directions, would slow traffic too much.
For these two right turn situations, blank-out no right turn signs will be used. The city recognizes that regular no right turn on red signs don’t have much effect on driver behavior, but the blank-outs do. See no turn on red for Sacramento? for more info on blank-out signs. One is installed on Broadway at Land Park Drive (more on Broadway-Land Park bike signal).
To everyone who came, asking questions and providing opinions and experiences, thank you! Improvements may be incremental, but without you, they would be none.
The 30% design for the 10th Street connection to the H Street Bikeway is shown below (these were also in the overview post H Street Bikeway: overview). The overall width of the roadway is 105.5 feet, and the ‘FOC face of curb’ width is 50 feet. The street narrows to 34 feet at the curb extensions at I Street and H Street.
H St Bikeway 10th St section, proposed (from SacATC presentation)H St Bikeway, 10th St section, proposed, 105.5 feet (from SacATC staff report)
I have created a StreetMix cross-section duplicating the design cross-section so that it can be compared to an alternative recommendation.
H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, proposed (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)
The design proposes a 7 foot bike lane northbound, with a 3 foot stripped buffer, and a parking lane to the right against the curb. Despite the cross-section showing a vertical delineator in the buffer, this is not possible with a parking lane to the right of the bike lane. The bike lane continues the separated, mostly parking-protected, bikeway from the south, which is a good thing. But a buffered bike lane is less safe than a separated bike lane, so detracts from the safety and low-stress goals of the project. The design encourages drivers, whether parking or drop-off/pick-up, to cross the bike lane, a poor practice.
Instead, the design should create a parking-protected separated bikeway. This reduces the utility for drop-off/pick-up, but an larger area could be set aside in the parking lane for this purpose, and the conflict zone crossing the bikeway can be clearly marked. Bikeways that swing into the curb past curb extension, and out again past curb extension, feel awkward for bicyclists, but they have been installed in several locations along the separated bikeway network, and don’t seem to engender safety issues.
The design also proposes sharrows within a southbound general purpose lane. You will have to look closely at the image to see the sharrows, but there are there. They are placed far to the right, in the door zone. This is a very poor design. New sharrows should not be installed, as they don’t decrease crash risk over unmarked routes. If they were there, they should be placed in the exact middle of the travel lane, and supplemented by ‘bicycles allowed use of full lane’ signing (MUTCD R9-20). to make is clear that drivers should not be passing bicyclists in this block. It is particularly likely that drivers will squeeze out bicyclists against the curb extension at I Street. An alternative is to stripe a narrow 5 foot bike lane, without buffer or protection, marked with green. Not ideal, but better than sharrows.
The design retains existing parking. Though it is not clear that removing parking would allow a better design, this should always be a consideration. There is ample and never-full parking in the city garage on the south side of I Street between 11th and 10th Streets. The curb extensions at I Street and H Street are critical features for the safety of walkers, but they do constrain design in this block.
My suggested design is below.
H St Bikeway, 10th St cross-section, alternative design (StreetMix created by Dan Allison)
I do not have the time it would take to create an image of the street with the new design, but I think the cross-section will communicate clearly enough.
What is different? A southbound traditional bike lane (Class II) has been added. Both general purpose lanes have been reduced to 10 feet. There is no reason for over-wide lanes in this section. No buses, no delivery. The east side parking lane, an over-generous 9 feet, has been reduced to 7.5 feet. And the parking-protected separated bikeway is up against the curb, still with a 3 foot buffer from parked cars.
The H Street Bikeway project extends from 5th Street to 10th Street along H Street, and along 10th Street from I Street to H Street. It is intended to improve transit connectivity by double-tracking two blocks of light rail between 5th Street and 7th Street, and to improve bicycle access by providing a two-way separated bikeway (cycle-track) on H Street, which links to bikeways or bike lanes on 9th Street (southbound) and 10th Street (northbound). The project provides a reasonable solution, though it could be improved in a number of details (see H Street Bikeway: overview).
A map in the SacATC presentation shows the bikeway network in the central city, highlighting the gap on 10th Street from I Street to H Street.
Preferred Bicycle Network, showing gap on 10th St between I St and H St (from SacATC presentation)
It does not highlight the glaring gap on I Street between 12th Street and 10th Street. The separated, parking-protected bikeway on I Street, that starts at 21st Street, ends at 12th Street (it is just a bike lane in front of the fire department just west of 13th Street, but resumes further west).
For a bicyclist wanting to access the proposed two-way separated bikeway on H Street, they must use regular Class II (paint only) bike lanes from 12th Street to 10th Street, then proceed north one block in a buffered bike lane to H Street. I Street between 12th Street and 10th Street is three general purpose lanes. As it typical of any three-lane one-way street, motor vehicle speeds are well above the posted speed limit of 25 mph, except when congested. By the way, it is not posted at all in this section, though the change from two lanes to three lanes at 12th Street would make posting logical if not imperative.
There are other gaps, including 9th Street south of Q Street, and L Street and N Street. The map refers to a L & N Street Bikeways Project, but neither the planning or engineering sections of Public Works seem to have a webpage on that project. Strangely, the streets adjacent to Capitol Park are shown as Class II, paint only bike lanes, though these two sections without mid-block driveways are the most logical place for separated bikeways in the entire city.
The map from the H Street Bikeway project presentation at SacATC was adapted from an old Grid 3.0 map (2016), below.
Grid 3.0 map of central city preferred bicycle network
A more up-to-date map, with legend, is in the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan, page 80, ‘Figure 30 – Recommendations for People Biking in Central West Sacramento’, excerpted below. This map shows a separated bikeway (purple) continuing from 21st Street to 9th Street.
In designing a safe and welcoming two-way bikeway (cycletrack), design of intersections is critical. This post highlights the intersection. Both the staff report and presentation diagrams split the roadway at the intersections, obscuring the intersections themselves. The diagrams below show the intersections, and not the blocks in between the intersections. The diagrams are from the presentation, which offer more details about the intersections than the staff report. The images are rough because I glued together two parts which were not the same pixel resolution, but they provide a good idea of the intersections.
Key points:
bicycle signal faces are required at every intersection from 5th Street to 9th Street, but are indicated only at 5th Street and 6th Street
protecting bicyclists is particular critical at 7th Street and 9th Street to guard against right turning drivers heading southbound onto these one-way streets
5th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway. The transition from the bikeway to Sacramento Valley Station looks awkward, and will be until the station itself is revised, which is also part of the TIRCP grant project.
H St Bikeway, 5th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
6th Street: This intersection has a bicycle signal face for the two-way bikeway.
H St Bikeway, 6th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
7th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 7th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 7th Street is one-way southbound south of H Street, and two-way north of H Street.
H St Bikeway, 7th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
8th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. 8th Street is one-way northbound.
H St Bikeway, 8th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
9th Street: This intersection does not have a bicycle signal face. It is particularly required here to protect bicyclist against drivers turning right onto 9th Street. No turn on red signing would not protect bicyclists on the two-way bikeway. 9th Street is one-way southbound to the south of H Street, but two-way to the north of H Street.
H St Bikeway, 9th St intersection, proposed (from SacATC presentation)
The H Street Bikeway design has 6 driveways crossing it, 2 on 5th Street to 6th Street, 3 on 6th Street to 7th Street, 1 on 7th Street to 8th Street, and none on 8th Street to 10th Street. Though none of these driveways are heavily used, all are potential conflict points for the bikeway. The 30% design diagrams do not detail how these driveways crossing the separated bikeway will be handled. It is imperative that motor vehicles using the bikeway are moving slowly enough that drivers will see and yield to bicyclists, and bicyclists have time to avoid collisions with drivers who do not yield.
San Francisco has a two-way separated bikeway (cycletrack) on Battery Street in the financial district. Each driveway has speed control devices to ensure that drivers are moving slowly entering and exiting the driveways. The photo below shows one installation, between Pine Street and Bush Street. As a frequent user of this bikeway, I can attest that they are a critical safety feature.
A note about speed bumps. Speed bumps are illegal across roadways in the US. They are most often seen in parking lots, where they are still legal. This use across driveways, and not streets, is legal. The traffic calming devices that are legal across roadways are speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables.
speed bumps across driveway on Battery St two-way bikeway, San Francisco
And there are several more in the planning or development stages. The city has a list at Transportation Planning: Current Efforts, There is also a map, Public Works Transportation Projects that shows the number of projects and status. Selecting for ‘planning’ shows Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan, Truxel Road Bridge Over American River, Norwood Ave Complete Streets Plan, Arden Way and Auburn Boulevard Vision Zero and Mobility Plan, Reconnecting Old North Sacramento, and Howe Ave Transportation Vision Zero Plan, which is mostly planned and about to go to council. You can also select for preliminary engineering, final design, in construction, and construction complete.
This is just within the City of Sacramento. Widening out, there are projects in each of the cities within the county, and Sacramento County itself. Widening our even further, there are projects and transportation policy development in the region, and for the region, under SACOG, and the other five counties within SACOG.
There are more projects and policies than any one person, or even an advocacy organization, can keep up with. Many of these projects depend on funding from the regional, state, or federal government to be implemented, and so many will sit on the shelf. Many of the policies will remain theoretical because there is not the political will to overcome the inertia of government and dedication of staff to doing things the way they have always been done. But sometimes writing about a project or policy does lead to positive change.
For me, I will focus on only a few of these, and quite possibly never write again on most of them. My current focus is Vision Zero Action Plan Update, H Street Bikeway, and Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP).
So why do I bring this up? I’d like to plant the seed of interest. If one of these projects, or one of the many others, piques your interest because it is in your neighborhood, or along your route of travel, or aligns with something you are passionate about, I’m inviting you to research and write about it, here. Getting Around Sacramento is the only regular local source of information about what is going on with transportation. I don’t wish to claim to much, but it is essentially Streetsblog Sacramento. If writing for this blog appeals to you, please get in touch – allisondan52@icloud.com. We can of course talk directly, but you will need to ask for my phone number, or arrange coffee/tea. What one project appeals to you? What, in general, do you want to say about it? You need not be familiar with WordPress, which is the host for this blog, as you could write directly or I can post your writing.
Getting Around Sacramento 