Category: City of Sacramento

SacCity: VZ intersection 2: Fruitridge Rd & Stockton Blvd

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1. Other posts on Top 20 intersections are available at Tag: Top 20 Intersections.

I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 2 is Fruitridge Road and Stockton Blvd.

Design

Lanes: Stockton Blvd at this intersection is 7 lanes wide (two through, two left turn, one right turn, and two opposing). Fruitridge westbound is 5 lanes wide (two through, one left turn, two opposing) while eastbound is 6 lanes wide (two through, one left turn, one right turn, two opposing). Double left turn lanes are a known safety hazard. Total lane count is 25.

Medians: Each leg has medians approaching the intersection.

Crosswalks: All four legs of the intersection have crosswalks, however, they are low-visibility parallel lines.

Bike Facilities: There are Class 2 bike lanes both roadways, but they are discontinuous, become advisory approaching the intersection, and are poorly marked.

Speed: The posted speed limit on Stockton is 35 mph, and on Fruitridge is 40 mph. Both streets are classic suburban sprawl stroads which were designed for, and driven at, much higher speeds than posted.

Transit: The intersection area is served by SacRT route 51 Stockton/Broadway on Stockton, and SacRT route 68 Oak Park on 47th and Stockton.

Crashes

In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection, two with pedestrians and two with motor vehicles, mapped below (pdf). Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.

The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); there are no red dots (fatal). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘The other categories of crashes, ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, on both Stockton and Fruitridge, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.

map of Fruitridge Rd & Stockton Blvd crashes
Fruitridge Rd & Stockton Blvd, VZAP update Top 20

The crash details, available in the Vision Zero Crash Dashboard Interactive Map, are below.

SacCity: VZ intersection 1: Elder Creek/47th & Stockton

Dan Allison11 Comments

Note: This is only one of 20 intersections. It is unlikely that I will be able to map and analyze all, but this post will provide an indication of the information available. General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, follows the information about this intersection.

I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. The intersection at the top of the list is Elder Creek Road/47th Avenue and Stockton Blvd. This is mis-labeled in the document, as Elder Creek Rd and 47th Ave, but the east-west roadway changes names at Stockton Blvd, so the intersection is with both roads and Stockton Blvd.

Design

Lanes: Stockton Blvd at this intersection is 7 lanes wide (two northbound, two southbound left turn, two southbound through, and one southbound right turn). 47th Avenue is 6 lanes wide (two westbound, two eastbound through, and two eastbound left).

Elder Creek Road is 6 lanes wide (two eastbound, two westbound left turn, two westbound through), but also has a 6.5 foot wide ‘lane’ on the right that appears to be used as a right turn lane by some drivers. This indeterminate lane seems to be the locale of four of the five crashes at this intersection.

The intersection has two uncontrolled slip lanes, which are a known safety hazard, from Stockton Blvd southbound to 47th Avenue westbound, and Stockton Blvd northbound to Elder Creek Road eastbound. However, these were not the location of the crashes shown.The intersection has double left turn lanes on all legs, which are a known safety hazard. However, these were not the location of the crashes shown.

Total lane count is 26.

Medians: All four legs of the intersection have concrete medians.

Crosswalks: All four legs of the intersection have crosswalks, however, these are low-visibility parallel lines.

Bicycle Facilities: All roadways have Class 2 bike lanes, however, they have major gaps, are poorly marked, become advisory approaching the intersection. None have green paint or protection.

Speed: The posted speed limit on Stockton is 40 mph, on Elder Creek is 45 mph (!), and on 47th is 40 mph.

Transit: The intersection area is served by SacRT routes 51 Stockton Broadway and 68 Oak Park.

Crashes

In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there was one fatality and four severe injuries at this intersection, all of pedestrians, mapped below (pdf). Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.

The red dot is the fatal, and the orange dots (one is covered by another) are severe injuries. Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. The other categories of crashes, ‘other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, concentrated on the crosswalk over Elder Creek Road on the east side of the intersection, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.

map of Elder Creek Rd/47th Ave & Stockton Blvd crashes
SacCity Elder Creek Rd/47th Ave and Stockton intersection crashes

The crash details, available in the Vision Zero Crash Dashboard Interactive Map, are below.

General Information on Top 20 Intersections

The selection criteria for the Top 20 Intersections is: “These intersections scored within the top 0.5 percentile of all intersections on the updated High-Injury Network. They are sorted by KSI crashes within a 150 foot radius.”

It is not clear how this criteria was used. Though there is some information about how the the High Injury Network (HIN) was developed, there is none on the Top 20 intersections, nor are there scores that led to the ranking. For intersection 3 Truxel & Arena, and 7 San Juan Rd & Northgate Blvd, there aren’t any KSI crashes, so I don’t know how they ended up on the list.

The list (pdf) of Top 10 corridors and Top 20 intersections is shown below, followed by the map (pdf) of these.

SacCity VZAP Top10/20 list
SacCity ZVAP Top 10/20 map

Halloween streets?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Halloween is traditionally one of the most dangerous days/nights of the year for children, due to traffic violence.

Last year I was in Davis by chance for their downtown kids-oriented Halloween celebration, Treat Trail. The sidewalks are filled with kids in costumes, and their parents sometimes too. Local businesses give out candy and other treats. I have never seen such a community oriented celebration, not just of Halloween, but of Davis. Several things make this event safe. It is in the afternoon, not in the dark. The mass of kids and families makes everyone pay attention, including drivers. Drivers in Davis are much more respectful of people walking (and bicycling) than are drivers in Sacramento.

Yes, I realize Halloween, on Saturday, October 31, is only two days away, too late to organize something for this year. But since I forgot to post in a timely manner, better now so that I can re-post it next year.

In Sacramento, many families won’t let their kids go out, for fear of traffic violence. There are organized ‘trunk-or-treat’ events where people give out candy from the trunk of their cars, which is as far from the spirit of Halloween as I can imagine, and a sure sign of motor vehicle hegemony, that it is only safe to be around motor vehicles when they are not moving.

Could Sacramento do something like Davis? Yes, but only on streets closed to cars. The danger from drivers is just too great on streets open to cars in Sacramento. Where could this happen? It could happen anywhere that the neighbors or businesses got a permit and bought or rented barriers, and paid for police overtime.

But there are two locations in central city Sacramento where the streets are already set up to be closed to cars, and open to trick-or-treat, R Street corridor, and the 20th Street & K Street farmers market area, where the streets can be closed with bollards. Bollard bases have been installed at a number of intersections, and at many of these, the bollards are waiting in bollard corrals to be placed. The photo below shows bollards on R Street at 15th Street, during the pandemic closure of R Street, but the bollard bases and bollards are still being used for special events. What better special event than a Halloween street for kids?

I don’t know which blocks would provide the best experience for kids and business owners. It requires a certain density of supportive local businesses to be successful.

Just showing up today, the post ‘Map: Where are San Francisco’s Halloween events and car-free streets?‘ on Mission Local. Note that searching for ‘halloween car free streets sacramento’ turns up nothing. There are events in parking lots, and parks, and community locations, but nothing on streets. Absolutely nothing.

And, Why Halloween Can Be Dangerous in America (Bloomberg 2026-10-28).

Midtown 20th Street & K Street

The map below (pdf) shows the bollard base ‘fences’ at intersections, the bollard ‘corrals’ where bollards are stored when not in use, and the ‘bollard streets’ that can be easily closed to motor vehicles and opened to people walking, including kids. The streets segments are 20th Street between Capitol Avenue and L Street, L Street and K Street, and K Street and J Street; and K Street between 19th Street and 21st Street, 21st Street and 22nd Street, 22nd Street and 23rd Street, and 23rd Street to 24th Street. The Saturday Midtown Farmers Market uses 20th Street between Capitol Avenue and K Street (to north to I Street), and K Street between 19th Street and 21st Street. I have not been the eastern segments being used, but they may be.

R Street Corridor

The map below (pdf) shows the bollard base ‘fences’ at intersections, and the ‘bollard streets’ that can be easily closed to motor vehicles and opened to people walking, including kids. There are five segments from 10th Street to 15th Street. The cross-sections do not have bollard base ‘fences’. There are no ‘bollard corrals’ for storage, so they must be stored elsewhere. I have seen several of these segments in use for night market, craft markets, and other community events.

SacATC: what’s it for?

Dan Allison1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SacATC: 2026-10-15 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Commission

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

SacCity: Arden-Auburn update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts, see Category: Arden-Auburn.

The draft plan for the Arden Way – Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan has finally been released. If you wish to comment on the draft, you will need to go through the project webpage, and answer questions, before receiving access to the document online. The list of documents down the page has not been updated, but a tile for the draft plan has been added near the top of the page.

The community workshop is this Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at 2200 Harvard Street, Sacramento.

I have briefly reviewed the draft, and have some initial comments.

The document refers to appendices, but they are not part of the viewable or downloadable document. I think that Appendix D may contain design information critical to understanding the project.

  • Appendix A. Existing Conditions Assessment
  • Appendix B. Community Feedback
  • Appendix C. Draft Concept Assessment Memorandum
  • Appendix D. Preferred Corridor Improvement Concepts
  • Appendix E. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

The draft plans start on page 26 (6.1 Draft Plans).

The design and marking of ‘shared use path’ is not shown. Most of it is 10 feet wide, which needs some sort of marking for differentiation between bicyclist ‘lane’ and walker ‘lane’. The portion which is 12 feet wide may not require differentiation.

SR-160 ramps on the south side of Arden Way at the interchange will have signals added to protect walkers crossing the otherwise high-speed ramps. The ramps on the north side are identified for ‘mid-term improvements’, after uncertain negotiation with Caltrans. This is concerning.

Addition of sidewalk buffers (planting strips/landscaping) in several location is good, providing increased safety and comfort for walkers and bicyclists, but these should be on the entire corridor. The cross-sections for Harvard Way (page 35) and Auburn Blvd (page 36) show a sidewalk buffer of 7 feet. Eight feet is a minimum for healthy trees.

A cross-section of Arden Way (East Arden Way, page 27) shows double left-turn lanes. Double turn lanes are a known hazard that should not be retained or present in any safety project.

The intersections of Arden Way with Point West Way and Heritage Lane are shown as the highest crash rate intersection in the project, and Heritage Lane is the location of a KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) crash within the five year window. Yet no design is shown for these two intersections. It is likely that these are the most important locations on the entire project, and in fact should be the site of an immediate project to make them safer for everyone, and not deferred to this longer-term corridor project. This lack of attention makes me concerned that the planning effort to date has overlooked important safety issues.

map of Arden Way Intersection Crashes

SacCity: failure on Arden-Auburn plan & workshop

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I expressed concern in my 2026-10-14 post SacCity: Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28 that the plan to be considered at the workshop was not yet available. As of 2026-10-22, it is still not available, so this workshop is premature.

Plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

I did not see a map of crashes in the available documents, so I created one, below (pdf). Though this section of Arden Way and most of this section of Auburn Blvd are on the High Injury Network, neither is among the 2020 Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors report [I had missed that Arden Way is in the list of five ‘additional priority corridors’ that were added in 2018], nor in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 10 Corridors. None of the intersections along these roadways are in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 20 Intersections. I suspect that this project continues the city’s focus on big, expensive corridor projects, for which it has only a moderate chance of receiving funding, rather than focused projects on specific problem areas, which are often but not always intersections.

map of fatal & severe injury crashes (KSI) on the Arden Way and Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan corridors
map of fatal & severe injury crashes (KSI) on the Arden Way and Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan corridors

SacCity: Fruitridge SMP workshop November 12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento will hold the third and final community workshop on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan (Fruitridge SMP) on Thursday, November 12, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at Fruitridge Community Center, 4000 Fruitridge Rd, Sacramento, CA 95822. RSVP is available on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan webpage, but is not required.

As of today (2026-10-22), the draft plan is still not available. If it is not available by 2026-10-29, then the workshop is premature, as plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

Previous posts on Fruitridge:

SacCity: Franklin Blvd Phase 3

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting will receive a information and comment update on the Franklin Blvd Complete Street Phase 3 project. The project is at the 60% design stage, meaning that plans have been drawn (see the SacATC 2026-10-15 post), but details can still be improved. I have had some time to review the presentation and design diagrams, so have some comments, based on these and on my previous post on the Phase 1 and 2 project which is complete. The Phase 1 and 2 project ended at Fruitridge Road. There have been various city and county projects on other segments of Franklin.

The extent of this Phase 3 project is Fruitridge Road to the county line just beyond 38th Avenue, shown below. The southern part of the project (to the left) is in the city, and the northern part (to the right) is shared city and county, but the city is taking responsibility for the entire project.

I note four areas of concern.

One: RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) at 33rd Street. RRFBs have a very low rate of compliance in the City of Sacramento, in part because we have among the worst drivers in the state. The installation here includes two beacons, one on the post, and another on an overhead mast arm. This format may slightly increase compliance, but the city has not demonstrated that it increases compliance enough to be safe for people crossing here. The city knows that existing RRFB locations are not safe, but continues to specify them, against the advice of transportation advocates. Either there should be a pedestrian hybrid signal at this location, or it should not be highlighted as a safe crossing, because it is not. Of course every intersection has a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, but the presence of a marked crosswalk with RRFB signal implies a level of safety that does not exist.

Two: Flared intersection at Fruitridge. The flared intersection of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge, which I criticized in my previous post as being unsafe for all users, is proposed to be duplicated south of the intersection in this Phase 3. The Google map overview is below. North of Fruitridge, the configuration has changed somewhat. South of Fruitridge, it is as shown, with two lanes southbound, two lanes northbound, a dedicated left turn lane, and a dedicated right turn lane which is a free-right with no traffic control whatsoever.

Google map of Franklin - Fruitridge intersection
Google map of Franklin – Fruitridge intersection

The design diagram for Franklin at Fruitridge is below. It shows some improvement, with only one lane northbound, but is otherwise the same. Two lanes southbound, requiring a merge that could be avoided by making it one lane, as it is on the approach from the north, and one of the lanes is 12 feet, unnecessarily wide. The southbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, and does eventually have painted buffer ‘protection’. The dangerous dedicated right turn lane is retained, though it does add a stop sign, which would be widely ignored, and encourages the same driver behavior to look left and ignore anyone in the crosswalk. The lane is 13.5 feet wide, which is ridiculous. The marked northbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, between two motor vehicle travel lanes, with no protection whatsoever.

Three: Trees and sidewalk buffers (planting strips). Though sidewalk buffers and trees are being added along about half of the segment, both are missing from the remainder. This is better than it was, but far from the tree canopy/shade that the public has requested. Though I could not find a diagram where the width of the sidewalk buffer was specified, I estimate that they are mostly five feet, but narrower in a few locations. Healthy trees require eight feet or more, so the trees along this section will always be less healthy than they could be. Tree information starts on page 61 of the design diagrams document, with Landscape Planting Legend (LP002), and includes six street sections. A total of 50 trees are indicated, though it is doubtful, given past projects, that all of these will be planted. The diagram below shows the 37th Street section, with more trees than any other.

diagram of Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102
Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102

Four: Wide concrete bikeway medians. There are a number of locations with very wide concrete medians to separate the bikeway from travel lanes. I’m all in favor of concrete medians, which provide real protection rather than the visual protection of vertical delineators. But a narrow concrete median is just as effective in providing protection as a wide median. In many cases, these medians seem overly wide, as though to simply take up excess space. Though the stamped concrete specified for many of them is slightly better aesthetically than plain concrete, it is still an unnecessary expanse of heat generating and expensive infrastructure. If possible, this width should be reallocated to sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

SacCity: Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28

Dan Allison1 Comment

Update: The draft plan is now available (24.8 MB). Though the document date is 2026-10-23, it was not posted until today (2026-10-26).

The City of Sacramento will hold an in-person community workshop on the Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan, on Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM. An RSVP is requested, but not required, and is on the project webpage at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/mobility-and-sustainability/transportation-planning/current_transportation_planning_efforts/arden-auburn-mobility-project.

The draft plan is not available at this time. The webpage says it will be available ‘by October 28’. One would hope well before that, otherwise the workshop is sooner than it should be.

The documents currently available are, in reverse chronological order, I think:

I have not taken the time to review these documents.