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.
The Franklin Blvd complete streets project is… complete, with a ribbon cutting that occurred on Tuesday morning. This is a project that I have not been paying attention to, but I visited it to see what it is like. It spans Sutterville Road on the north to Fruitridge Road on the south, with the part south of Fruitridge to the county line not constructed. It is about 1.1 miles. Franklin Blvd runs from Broadway 25 miles to well south of Elk Grove, including the crossroads of Franklin, for which it was named. This section of Franklin is largely commercial, with small remnants of residential. The section north of here, to Broadway, is largely residential with some commercial, and is a much slower and calmer street.
The only publicly available document is the initial October 2019 plan. This plan included three similar but not same options. No information is available on what was actually built.
Though this project is complete, an analysis of what worked and what didn’t could help improve future complete streets projects that the city might undertake.
Bikeway: A separated bikeway was created along the corridor. It is protected by concrete curbs or medians for about half of its length, but some paint only sections remain, and the bikeway is interrupted by frequent driveways. Still, it was fairly well done. The initial diagrams show protected intersections with high quality bicycle facilities, but the actual construction at intersections is only slightly protected. OK.
Trees: The initial plan includes this sentence: “Plant trees along street at approximately 30 feet apart, on-center, to provide shade and cooler temperatures.” If implemented, this would result in about 350 trees along the segment. There are 30. Failure. In addition, the trees are mostly in 5.5 foot wide sidewalk buffers (which the city calls planting strips), whereas trees need at least 8 feet to remain healthy and reduce sidewalk heaving. Failure.
The photo below is a mock-up from the initial plan. It is standard practice for city projects to show more trees than they intend to install. Gaslighting the public.
mock-up photo from initial complete streets plan
Other plantings: The initial plan indicated there would be bioswales throughout the project, but I saw only one small one. The plantings in sidewalk buffers are aesthetically pleasing, but not environmentally significant.
Sidewalks: Some sidewalks were upgraded to 6 feet, which is the modern minimum. Ramps were installed at intersections. Driveway crossings are a mix of acceptable and illegal, with cross-slopes in the sidewalk. Other sidewalks were left in their original condition of 4.5 to 5 feet. Falls short.
Sidewalk amenities: There are some trash cans provided by Franklin Blvd Business District. I did not see any other amenities. Weak.
Lighting: Pedestrian-scale lighting, with traditional poles, was installed along the length. The old motor-vehicle scale lighting was left in place. Though I did not visit the street at night, lighting looks to be a great improvement.
Driveways: There are a huge number of driveways in this section, largely due to the traditional development pattern of small business buildings on small parcels, with parking between the street and the building. This is an unfortunate pattern, but not something that can easily be fixed. Most driveways were replaced with a slope in the sidewalk buffer, or more commonly, dip down and back up, which is legal but not ideal. There are several driveways for long abandoned businesses and empty parcels, which should have been closed under the city’s driveway closure policy.
Safe crossings: There are existing signals at Sutterville Road/12th Avenue, 21st Avenue, Atlas Avenue (full pedestrian signal), 26th Avenue (to the west), and Fruitridge Road. At 18th Avenue, there is a new enhanced RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon). There are RRFBs on a signal mast arm, in addition to at the side, perhaps safer than a standard RRFB, but given driver behavior in Sacramento, not safe. The distance from 26th Avenue to Fruitridge is just over a quarter mile, though there may not be a good location for a crossing in this stretch. The distance from Sutterville/12th Avenue to 18th Avenue is well over a quarter mile, which is an unacceptable distance between safe crossings.
Curb extensions: There was an opportunity to shorten crossing distances and slow drivers by providing curb extensions on the side streets. This was not done.
Bus: SacRT Route 67 runs on Franklin from Broadway to 21st Avenue. There is a pull-out bus stop just south of Sutterville/12th Avenue, which is a timepoint and may be appropriate, though pulling out of traffic, and back in, is poor practice. The other bus stops are in shared bus/bicycle areas, which is probably fine for a low frequency route (30 minutes). It occurs to me that it might be better to run service south on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, to consistently serve the commercial area. The route on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd does serve residential areas, but those are constrained by Hwy 99 to the west and a poor street grid, and the route misses Christian Brothers High School.
Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection: This wide flared intersection is hazardous for all users, and nothing was done to improve it. Southbound, Franklin flares from one travel lane to two dedicated left turn lanes (unnecessary and unsafe), one uncontrolled dedicated right hand turn slip lane (highly dangerous for bicyclists and walkers), and one through lane. Everything that was good about the complete streets project gets tossed out the window at this intersection. I realize that it might have only been possible to fix the north leg of the intersection with this project, but no effort was made to do so. Complete failure.
Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge Rd, uncontrolled slip laneoverhead of Franklin Blvd & Fruitridge Road intersection (only one southbound lane now)
The City of Sacramento established a Tactical Action Group (TAG) otherwise known as Transportation Safety Team, in March 2025. Unfortunately, very slow progress has been made on this. The program lead is in place, Philip Vulliet, and an administrative assistant, but the other five positions have not. The city has a difficult time filling positions, particularly engineering position, as the pay level is low compared to other entities and private industry. A webpage for the program has not been established.
So far as I know, the only information on the program is a presentation given by Mr. Vulliet to Strong SacTown in June 2026. I think there was a presentation to SacATC, but I’ve been unable to find it. The slides are below, but they are not very specific. The Strong SacTown meeting notes have more detail, and follow the slides. Thank you, Strong SacTown.
gallery of slides from presentation on Tactical Action Group, at Strong SacTown 2026-06-04
Phil Vulliet (VOO-lee-ay) is the new lead for the city’s Safety Response Team where he will help Sacramento respond faster to urgent safety needs and continue advancing the City’s goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes.
About Phil: 20+ years of experience. Project manager for capital improvement projects (aka big road projects) for last 11 years. Managed Broadway Complete Streets, Downtown Mobility Project, and others. Prior to that, did consulting.
2018 City passed Vision Zero Action Plan. Based on 10 years previous accident data. Established list of high-injury network – responsible for >70% of serious injuries in cities. Looked at root causes of vehicular violence and impact on pedestrians and cyclists. Looked at impact on bicycles and pedestrians – 40% fatal collisions. We need to protect them.
Planning efforts came from the research – top 5 corridor study, 6-10 corridor study is now in planning and quick builds will be prioritized as well.
Parking protected bike lanes were created and then the central city mobility project was completed in 2024 as well as broadway complete streets, Franklin complete streets wrapping up and northward school access was completed.
Funds are being used to match grants.
13,000 crashes still (all mode crashes)
Transportation safety initiative was passed in 2025 – responsibility to track now.
Transportation Safety Team (TST) – established jobs for 6 FTE’s
Quick builds – rapid implementation limitations (no land acquisitions), limited electrical work, excavation only by city crews (try not to dig), Council action needed – assigned project in tiers
Tier 1 – quickest of quick builds – surface treatments (Paint and Plastic), includes alterations in traffic circulation. Community informed
Tier 2 – outside of the TST team – require full plans and bidding. Pilot projects. It takes about a year.
Quickbuilds are faster than CIP
CIP – Safety program, quick build CIP – sales tax generates the funds for the safety programs
TST – They require contracting readiness, design delivery capacity, need new processes and new tech as well as outreach, follow-up and reporting needed.
They were given an exception by the city council that they are allowed to go to contract vs. go to bid
Software platforms can share real-time speeds and volumes without having to do a traffic study (speeds up the process of evaluation)
Outreach is beyond critical – it’s about equity, some cities are more organized than others. TST only has so much staffing to support and cannot watch every intersection.
Feedback needed when the quick build has been built and if it’s not working, that’s the beauty of it, they can fix it quickly.
The public facing GIS dashboard is up and is working to create a map to show where in the city there have been quick builds implemented.
Q&A Notes
Q: Gets through
A: Budget will help, it will increase funding, but that is not the limiting factor
Q: Process to determine an LPI (Leading Pedestrian Interval)
A: Megan Carter – give pedestrians a few extra seconds of time to provide more time. LPIs will be implemented everywhere, unless we can justify not doing it. There are some lawsuits if you don’t implement LPS ( not being equitable if it does not include LPS). ATC will go with a plan next year.
Q: What are issues you face when you change the fabric of the street
A: Daylighting and recommended clearance and it was 25% parking loss. New state law that doesn’t require any parking to be provided. Willing to accept delays for cars.
Q: Streets are designed like roads and are in urban areas. When you add parking it does slow people down.
A: They do try to account for that. Ideally if he had a magic wand he would make the traffic slower.
Q: is that a tier 1 or a tier 2
A: We can look at curb usage and how we monetize it and manage uber’s, lyft’s and waymo.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, June 18, starting at 5:30 PM, at the city council chambers. People can comment on agenda items in person at the meeting, or by making an eComment ahead of time on the city Upcoming Meeting Materials webpage. Though eComments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see eComments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting.
The city seems to have changed its document storage to Google Drive, with no ability to download the main agenda, and the agenda pdf is corrupted, but I finally managed to get a copy, below.
There are three main agenda items. I have not had the chance to look at these items in detail, so have no recommendations to make at this time.
In the 2025 book Dividing Lines: How Transportation Infrastructure Reinforces Racial Inequity (2025; ISBN 978-1-324-13056-7), Deborah N Archer lays out the issues that have long plagued the Black community as their neighborhoods were underinvested, and broken up by transportation infrastructure built for the convenience of white people. She also covers the past legal frameworks that encouraged this, as well as the laws which can be used to fight it and correct it. I am part way though reading the book, but it has deepened my understanding of the racial bias built into our transportation system.
This is not just a problem of other cities. The alignment of Interstate 5 was designed to both erase low income housing and the people of color that lived there, as well as related businesses, and to isolate what remained from the rest of the city. The alignment of Highway 50 was designed to remove low income housing and the people of color that lived there, to isolate the higher income Land Park neighborhood from the city, and erased part of Southside Park. Highway 99 cut directly through south Sacramento and isolated the Black neighborhoods on both sides. And this is just the freeways. Arterial roadways were placed, and widened, and widened again, to separate people of color, and to cater to higher income while people. Many of these were not directed just at Black neighborhoods, but at all immigrant and low income people.
In Chapter 6, ‘The White Man’s Right of Way’, Archer delves more deeply into the issue of sidewalks:
“Even in cities that were not segregated by law, sidewalks in predominantly Black neighborhoods are less common and of poorer quality, often as the result of a legal regime that places greater reliance on private property owners. More than perhaps any other means of transportation, pedestrian infrastructure is highly localized in its construction, funding, and maintenance; the federal government does little to oversee or force accountability on sidewalk quality or even whether sidewalks are required on a particular road. Sidewalks are in some ways “public,” but are also closely associated with adjacent properties or lots. The result is that neighborhood socioeconomic disparities map directly onto pedestrian infrastructure quality, as poorer neighborhoods that are disproportionately Black and Brown are less able to invest private capital into maintaining their sidewalks.”
The City of Sacramento responds to complaints about sidewalk condition such as root heaves by making the adjacent property owner repair the sidewalk, or if the property owner does not do so, doing the repair through a contractor and billing the property owner. This is the city’s policy. State law allows the city to impose this, though it does not require the city to impose it. And just because something is in state law does not make it constitutional. As I have said before, requiring a private property owner to maintain city property is prima facie unconstitutional.
The city could take on responsibility, if it so chose. It is worth noting that some of the most poorly maintained sidewalks in the city are adjacent to property the city itself owns. The city often does not apply the requirement to itself.
The cost of a sidewalk repair does not fall equitably. A commercial property owner or a high income property owner may be able to handle the cost of repair, which can be quite expensive. A low income or even moderate income property owner cannot. So where are low income and moderate income property owners located? In those parts of the city where sidewalks were narrow or nonexistent, where the standards of construction were lower or overlooked, where sidewalk buffers, if they were present at all, were too narrow to allow for healthy trees. In other words, north Sacramento and south Sacramento.
Archer says: “Municipalities that require private property owners to maintain sidewalks can worsen disparities when they enforce those rules in inequitable or unreasonable ways. For example, when cities pay for the cost of repairs themselves, they often will bill the adjacent property owner. This debt can be enforced through a lien that may ultimately result in foreclosure on the property. It should not be a surprise that Black communities bear the brunt of this practice.”
I used to file 311 reports on sidewalks, before I understood that the financial burden fell on property owns, and not on the city. Once I realized this, I stopped reporting. Archer says:
“A related problem comes when cities rely on private complaints to determine where and when the city should repair damaged sidewalks. Several cities use voluntary complaint systems like “311” phone calls to assess which sidewalks need work. Low-income communities of color are far less likely to call to request help. Seattle, Washington, switched from a 311 system to a fixed repair schedule after officials realized that relying on 311 led the city to make a disproportionate number of repairs in high-income, white neighborhoods. Those residents were more comfortable filing complaints and likely had higher expectations that those complaints would be addressed. When Boston embarked on a citywide campaign to address sidewalk inequities in 2017, it opted not to use a 311 system. Instead, city officials went block by block over Boston’s 1,600 miles of sidewalk to set repair priorities. But not all cities have the interest or the resources to follow Seattle’s and Boston’s leads.”
One can argue about whether these disparities were intentional on the part of the city, or inattention by the city, or the result of private developers, or any number of other excuses. The fact remains that Black, Latinx, and immigrant communities have lower quality walking environments, and lower quality sidewalks, and many of the property owners there cannot afford to maintain these sidewalks.
Placing the burden of sidewalk repair on adjacent property owners is racist, if not in intent, then in practice. It is time to change this. It is time for the city to take on responsibility for maintaining sidewalks. I am not talking about situations where damage to a sidewalk is clearly the result of trees planted on private property too close to the sidewalk, or where driving over sidewalks by private property owners (or their tenants) caused damage. But I am most certainly talking about sidewalks where trees in the city right-of-way, which includes sidewalk buffers (planting strips), have caused the damage, and deterioration due to natural causes or substandard construction led to damage. I have looked at miles of sidewalks in the city, and can say with certainty that the city often accepted substandard sidewalk construction because it did not care about the neighborhoods where this shoddy construction was the pattern.
I have written about Denver’s solution (Denver’s approach to sidewalk maintenance, 2024-11-05), and will have more (much more) to say about sidewalks. They are the neglected part of our transportation system.
Northbound, the project starts just beyond Los Robles Blvd, and ends at Grand Avenue. Southbound, the project starts just beyond Harris Avenue, and ends just beyond Nogales Street. The focus of the project is narrowing the roadway from four lanes to two lanes with adjacent bike lanes or separated bikeways. Some bicycle facilities are just paint on the ground, while some stretches use vertical delineator (both green K-71 and white ‘wands’ with bases). A typical section is below. The bike lanes at the north and south ends are of poor quality, depending on the gutter pan with a strong linear seam to achieve minimum width. In the middle section, the quality varies but is mostly acceptable.
Marysville Blvd northbound, north of Rosalind St, separated bikeway with K-71 delineators
The project uses shared bike lane/turn lane areas at Grand Avenue, below. This is not the worst design, placing bike lanes to the right of right-turning vehicles, but neither will it be comfortable for many bicyclists.
Marysville Blvd northbound at Grand Ave, shared bike lane and right turn lane
Observing motor vehicle traffic on a Saturday, it appears that drivers have adjusted to the change. Though the varying treatment of the right-of-way might be confusing, it seems to be handled OK. The only issue is that a police motorcycle used the bike lane to bypass traffic, and almost hit me. I did not see anyone bicycling along Marysville, though I did see a number of bicyclists crossing Marysville at side streets.
The signal faces at Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue were replaced. Other signals were not changed, so far as I can determine. One of the signal faces for Marysville northbound at Grand is out, probably due to mis-wiring.
SacRT bus Route 86 runs on this section of Marysville Blvd. Bus stops were marked with dashed (skip) green markings for sharing with bicyclists, below. I suspect the bus area is not long enough for bus use, but since I did not see an buses along the route today, I’m not sure. The bus only runs once per hour on Saturdays. I think the design is safe for bicyclists since it is such a clearly marked area. The only better design would be a bikeway behind (curb-side) from a bus boarding island, though with only one lane for motor vehicles, the city is very reluctant to have buses stop in traffic. I’ve got not problem with it, transit riders have no problem with it, but engineers just can’t stomach giving priority to buses.
Marysville Blvd shared bus and bike area
No improvements to sidewalks were made, not even corner curb ramps at the most critical intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue.
This section of Marysville Blvd is characterized by:
moderate to poor sidewalk conditions and width
sidewalk cross-slopes at nearly every driveway, which is a hazard for mobility devices and many walkers
abandoned business building, and abandoned parcels that may have once been occupied by businesses or residences
an excess for driveways, most of are not in use; a number of the parcels have two or more abandoned driveways; even the City of Sacramento Hagginwood Park has an abandoned driveway
One example of a driveway that slopes across the sidewalk is below. There are dozens of locations just in this section of Marysville, to say nothing of north and south of the project. Some are active driveways for commercial buildings and residences, but probably at least one-third are abandoned, serving no purpose whatsoever except to make the walking/rolling experience less pleasant and more dangerous.
3617 Marysville Blvd, abandoned driveway with cross-sidewalk slope
The project has done nothing to improve the walkability of Marysville Blvd.
The signal which seems to be most confusing to walkers and drivers is the partial signal at Los Robles Blvd on the east and Hagginwood Park on the west. It was not improved in any way. Drivers are unclear about the signal, and so are not sure whether to yield to walkers in the two crosswalks.
I will have at least one more post on Phase 2 of the project, which is not fully funded and has not started.
For previous posts on parking in the City of Sacramento, see category: parking management.
The proposed City of Sacramento budget has increases in penalty fees for parking illegally, as documented in the recent SacBee article (Sacramento proposes hiking parking violation fees amid $66M budget shortfall, Ishani Desai, 2026-04-30). Not explicitly stated, but implied, is that parking fees will not be increased at this time.
I am glad that penalties will be increased, though I think they should be increased a great deal more. The ‘The fee for parking in a bike lane could increase to $150, up from $50.’ is great, though it should be much higher. Not called out in the list is parking blocking crosswalks. This may fall under one of the other categories, or it may not. When I have reported blocked crosswalks via 311, the report back is usually either no citation was issued, or the vehicle was gone, though I have observed many times that the vehicle is still there. Apparently the parking officers don’t consider blocking crosswalks to be a big deal. I do! The penalty for blocking a crosswalk should be enforced, should be a separate listed category, and should be $500. When people walking have to go outside the crosswalk to cross a street, it reduces their visibility and increases their exposure to traffic violence. This is not a victimless habit.
Increasing parking fees was one of the possible budget solutions proposed by Public Works, which controls parking in the city. The proposed budget does not increase parking fees. I understand this, given the current focus on affordability. But I think increased fees should be on the table. Even in the highest rate zones, the parking fee does not cover the true cost of providing that on-street parking space.
But the elephant in the room is that the city gives away free parking almost everywhere.
Residential parking permits, required to park in non-metered parking spots in the central city (the map below shows more or less where those zones are), are available to any resident. The cost? Free, zero, nada, zip. Residents can park their privately owned vehicle on the street within three blocks of their residential address, and pay nothing to the city for that privilege. See Residential Permit Parking (RPP). Charging a minimal fee for a residential parking permit would be a good start on actually managing parking in the city. How about $20 per month, or $240 per year?
How many vehicles are on the street with free residential parking permits? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a big dent in the city budget deficit.
Even more egregious is that the city charges absolutely nothing in the vast majority of the city. The map below shows metered parking in the city, which is essentially just the central city. Outside this area, parking is free. Storing a private vehicle on public property provided by the city, and taxpayers? Nothing! These areas outside the central city are probably not a ‘valuable’ as the central city (though the cost of providing free parking is just the same), so maybe a offer a deal, $10 per month, or $120 per year.
How many vehicles are on the street in this vast free parking area? I don’t know, and there is no indication that the city knows, either. But is is clear that this income would make a huge dent in the city budget deficit.
Note that I am not proposing that additional areas of the city be metered, though there are arguments for metering some locations with high commercial and residential activity. The investment in meters, installation and maintenance, is worthwhile only where parking is heavily used, and turn-over is highly desirable.
SacCity boundary, and metered parking
There is no such thing as free parking. The cost of parking includes, but is not limited to:
the original cost of constructing the parking lane
the land value of parking lane that could be occupied instead by more productive uses
maintenance of the parking lane, including street sweeping, leaf season pickup, and pavement replacement
resistance from people parking for free to any change in the street that might decrease parking, while improving safety and livability; this might include wider sidewalks, bike facilities, and traffic calming measures such as curb extensions
increased heat island effect from black asphalt in the parking lane
increased storm runoff from the parking lane
I am not against on-street parking. It does serve a public need, and it does slow traffic speeds a bit through ‘friction’. But why do we give it away for free, ever, and particularly under a budget crisis? Because we privilege the desires of private motor vehicle owners over all other people and all other priorities.
Getting Around Sacramento 