Category: City of Sacramento

Whither daylighting?

Dan Allison2 Comments

See crosswalk daylighting in SacCity? for more information.

The city has confirmed that crosswalk daylighting, as required by AB 413 (2023, Lee), will not be a part of the Parking Strategies project. The city has also confirmed that it will not be a part of the Streets for All Active Transportation Plan, though that plan will recognize that where there is space created by daylighting, it may be used for bicycle and scooter parking.

So where will crosswalk daylighting be addressed? So far as can be determined, the city does not intend to address it at all. A search of the city website for ‘AB 413’ or ‘daylighting’ produces nothing. City staff seems to be suggesting that it will be addressed somewhere else, not part of the current projects, though that somewhere else has not been mentioned.

It is going to take public pressure to convince the city to take action on crosswalk daylighting.

San Francisco has been proactive in implementing the state law, with warning notices now being given, and enforcement starting January 1. Parking is far more contentious in San Francisco than Sacramento, so it is surprising that Sacramento is stalled while San Francisco is moving forward.

Howard Chan and traffic deaths emergency

Dan Allison1 Comment

Note: I have always thought it was part of my role to say the things that other people are afraid to say, for fear of rocking the boat or retribution. But this needs to be said.

On November 12, the city Law & Legislation Committee considered agenda item 6, Councilmember Proposal Request for Committee Consideration – Declaring a State of Emergency Regarding Traffic Deaths. This was introduced by Council Member/Vice Mayor Caity Maple and also sponsored by Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Mayor Pro-tem Karina Talamantes. The item was amended before the committee meeting to remove item 3, ‘Direct the City Manager to work with the Police Department to ramp up enforcement of traffic laws, especially around distracted driving, speed enforcement, and crosswalk violations’ which was opposed by most of the transportation advocacy community including Civic Thread and SABA, which led community discussion of the proposal and made recommendations for improvements. This is a sign of progress, though many have questioned whether it will make a difference, given that there is only support for and not specific funding tied to quick-build projects to make our streets safer, now.

How did we get to the point of emergency?

I believe City of Sacramento City Manager Howard Chan is the person most responsible for creating this emergency. Chan has opposed including any funds in the city budget for addressing the crisis. When the proposal from Sacramento Active Transportation Commission for $10M in funding to address the problem came before the council, he nixed it. Chan has a regressive understanding of public safety, which counts the number police officers and ignores other threats to the safety and lives of citizens. Chan is uninterested in public health. Chan has supervised the Department of Public Works, accepting and promoting the idea that roadways are for moving cars, and not community resources for access and life. Chan has created a city staff culture that avoids innovation and accountability, live in fear of getting sued or getting fired. Chan carries out projects and programs that he is interested in, and ignores everything else.

Read More »

SacATC 2024-11-21

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, November 21, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM. The meeting is held at city council chambers, 915 I Street, and can be viewed online via the link available when the meeting starts, on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. People may comment in person (preferred) or make an eComment on the city’s Upcoming Meetings page. Though all eComments become part of the public record, only those submitted before noon of the meeting date will be seen by the commissioners.

The agenda is full, with the following items:

I have not had the time to review these documents, so have no comments at the moment, beyond my earlier posts on the Parking Strategy (05) which is OK for what it says, but is not OK for what it neglects, and Neighborhood Connections (04).

SacCity parking revisions meeting

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Revised 2024-11-14, to add detail

Yesterday the city held a Zoom meeting entitled ‘SacCity Parking Revisions Community Project Update Meeting’. The second and last meeting is today, 5:30PM, via Zoom. Registration is required, at https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZMlf–gqjwsHdbLbRtxQ1_-59HFgLSajWJx#/registration.

The city is developing what it calls a ‘Parking Strategy‘ with a ‘Parking Management Toolkit’. This is not a parking management plan, which the 2040 General Plan requires. Though the city keeps claiming that it already has a Parking Management Plan, that is being revised, no such plan exists. More than half the 190 page Parking Strategy document is Appendix A ‘Economic Conditions and Housing Development Funding Assessment’ (page 68 of the pdf) and Appendix B ‘Best Practices Research’ (page 83 of the pdf) with examples from other cities and standards. A twelve page Executive Summary provides key information for those who don’t have time for the whole document.

The parking revision process is led by Community Development Department, under Senior Planner Vic Randall, vrandall@cityofsacramento.org, but Public Works is also participating, under Parking Manager Staci Hovermale, shovermale@cityofsacramento.org. The presentation was mostly by the W-Trans consultant, Brian Canepa.

I encourage you to attend and comment. In particular, pay attention to what is excluded as well as included. Kendra Ramsey of CalBike had some of the best questions and comments, so I hope she can be on the Zoom again today.

In addition to the meeting, you can also comment via email to ParkingRevisions@cityofsacramento.org, or by adding comments to the document via konveio at https://sacramento.konveio.com/parking-strategy-public-review-draft.

Read More »

SacCity mayoral candidates on transportation

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I don’t know anyone who hasn’t already voted, but information about the City of Sacramento mayoral candidates, Flo Cofer and Kevin McCarty, will be valuable beyond the election. SABA (Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates) sent in a Gear’d Up email a compilation of candidate positions and perspective on transportation, which I’ve copied below.

Sacramento Mayoral Candidates on Transportation and the Environment
SABA is taking a look at the stances of the two Sacramento mayoral candidates – Dr. Flojaune Cofer and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty – related to environmental issues. While we understand that there are many important issues facing Sacramento, especially with regard to the unhoused population, our focus here is on issues related to transportation and the climate crisis. 
The views presented here are taken from forums conducted by the League of Women Voters, the Sacramento Bee, and KCRA 3.
Flo Cofer - a Black woman wearing a purple jacket and yellow blouse.Dr. Flojuane Cofer is an epidemiologist, policy director, and advocate for change. She worked at the California Department of Public Health and then as a Senior Policy Director at Public Health Advocate. Cofer served on Sacramento’s Active Transportation Commission, Mayor’s Commission on Climate Change, Sacramento County Sheriff’s Outreach Community Advisory Board, and the Measure U Community Advisory Commission. 
Kevin McCarty - a man with light brown skin wears a gray jacket and blue shirt.Since 2014, Kevin McCarty has served as Sacramento’s Assembly member – representing the 6th Assembly District. McCarty serves as Chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. From 2014 to 2023, he served as the Chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance. A lifelong Sacramentan, McCarty began his career as a Housing and Redevelopment Commissioner, and then served on the Sacramento City Council for a decade.
SABA does not endorse either candidate. (Disclosure: Cofer is a member of SABA and McCarty has lent financial support to a project that will launch in 2025.)
Here’s where they stand on the issues:
Climate Action & Adaptation Plan, which includes a greenhouse gas reduction target for 2030 and a carbon neutrality goal for 2045.
Cofer: As a commissioner on the Mayor’s Climate Commission, Cofer helped develop Sacramento’s Climate Action Plan and would like to move the dates up to accomplish carbon neutrality sooner. As mayor she would commit to setting priorities for the city council and plan how the city can take on more to achieve climate goals sooner.
McCarty: He would like to achieve the goals that were set out in the plan and figure out how to pull down resources from the state and federal governments. When the city was in a budget crisis, he found resources to support city services like the firefighters and would do the same for the Climate Action Plan.

Funding for the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan Including Proposed 2026 Sales Tax (the Plan is budgeted at over $3 billion)
Cofer: She believes we need to look at the Plan and figure out how to implement it; set a goal and figure out where to start; and decide on the major investments we need to make now to save money down the line and yield us dividends. Cofer says we should look at matching funds from the state and federal government, as well as local partnerships. She believes neighborhood associations, unions, nonprofits and businesses will step up and that we should see them as partners rather than adversaries. The public was frustrated that the sales tax from 2019 was not spent on homelessness, affordable housing and the arts, and Cofer says we need to build trust with the voters by righting things before going and asking for more money; and we also shouldn’t impose a tax on people with lower incomes.
McCarty: He wants to look at opportunities to leverage funding for state efforts. McCarty says the State of California is our largest employer and landowner and we need them to step up to help us achieve our climate goals. Voters are very frustrated that things aren’t getting done and McCarty believes we have to restore confidence in city leadership to pass traditional revenue. He says the sales tax is regressive and that people of lower income are disproportionately impacted by climate and should not bear disproportionate burden.

Commitments to Climate Initiatives
Cofer: She believes we need new leadership. Cofer has built coalitions and served on five different boards, committees, and coalitions. In the first 100 days, she commits to 1) set priorities for the city of Sacramento that include our climate goals and take action every year. 2) Make sure we have a standing committee on climate where we have community members helping us to figure out new innovative solutions.
McCarty: His top two initiatives are to promote active transportation and build more infill housing.

Public Transit & Active Transportation
Cofer: She supported a resolution to expand transit and make it free for kids K-12. She believes the best way to expand transit is to provide it at low or no cost and wants to get young people to ride so they become lifelong transit riders. Cofer wants to expand free rides to college students and to make public transit accessible for disabled and older people. She would like to see it kept running for major events – make it convenient and useful for everyone, not just low-income people.Cofer served on the Active Transportation Commission because she is an avid bike rider and has been hit by a car. She wants to implement design features to make it safer for people to bike and walk. When there is new construction, Cofer wants to make bikes and pedestrians a priority to signal that safety is paramount.
McCarty: When he lived in Boston, McCarty took public transportation everywhere, but Sacramento’s transit system isn’t as comprehensive. McCarty believes we need more routes and frequency, and to look at land use so people can live closer to the things they need and won’t always need to drive. He believes our transportation infrastructure prioritizes cars. As a medical consultant for a school district, McCarty tried to get kids to walk more. He says there’s a need to make walking safer by not having people camping on sidewalks and by addressing other public safety issues.  

Cycling and Pedestrian Safety
Cofer: She acknowledges that traffic is the number one cause of fatalities and serious injuries. Cofer wants to invest money to draw matches at the state and federal level. She says traffic safety should be proactive.
McCarty: He believes that roads should be fixed to proactively eliminate deaths. He would like to improve bike and pedestrian infrastructure across Sacramento, not just midtown. McCarty acknowledges that there is an equity issue – some people ride by choice; some don’t have another option.

Sprawl and Urban Development & Downtown Revitalization
Cofer: One of the things in the CAAP is prioritizing infill development. Cofer wants to develop housing and build near existing infrastructure to not increase emissions. As someone who served on the Climate commission, she doesn’t want to start building in places where we already have trouble with transit. She believes we need to start building in places where we already have rail and bus lines and not create another car-centric community. Cofer doesn’t want to offer downtown properties to developers “for free.” She would like to use adaptive re-use for example, bringing Sacramento State downtown. Cofer says downtown needs to be an entertainment hub. She believes that bringing state workers back to the office is not the way – it goes against our climate goals.
McCarty: He says we have a housing shortage and we have people coming to Sacramento. McCarty believes we’re not going to end sprawl by simply limiting construction within the city; we can’t control what happens across another border. He says we need to facilitate infill development and that telework is here to stay. 45% of downtown property is state or federally owned and they pay zero property tax. McCarty would like to instead, put that property in private hands such as housing, entertainment, restaurants. He wants to work with Sacramento State to bring student housing downtown.

SacCity Neighborhood Connections workshops

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento is holding two online workshops on the Neighborhood Connections portion of the Streets For All Active Transportation Plan, on Wednesday, November 13 at 6:00 PM, and Wednesday, November 20 at 12:00 noon. Registration is available on the Streets for People webpage. The Neighborhood Connections Public Draft Plan will be available on November 4 on the Streets for People webpage.

The Neighborhood Connections Story Board is the most valuable document to come out of the project so far, well worth a look. I’ve written about traffic calming features in Neighborhood Connections before, as well as other topics in Streets for People and Street Design Standards. There is a great deal of overlap, and should be, between the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan and the Street Design Standards Amendment.

“The Neighborhood Connections Network is made up of residential streets and minor collectors that connect to neighborhood destinations, such as parks and retail. The network includes proposed traffic-calming treatments to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes to support people walking, biking, and rolling.”

diagram Streets for People Active Transportation Network, Neighborhood Connections, Neighborhood Destinations
graphic Neighborhood Connections workshops

SacCity parking revisions

Dan Allison2 Comments

The City of Sacramento is undertaking revisions to parking requirements for private motor vehicles and bicycles, as directed by council and the 2040 General Plan.

The draft parking strategy is available for review, as a document review webpage, and here as pdf.

Two online meetings are being held, Wednesday, November 13 at 10:00 AM, and Thursday, November 14 at 5:30 PM. Registration is required, and available on the city Parking Revisions webpage. You can also email the city, address on the webpage.

The city removed parking mandates in the central city in 2013, and within 1/4 mile of transit in 2019, and state law now prohibits mandates within 1/2 mile of ‘major transit stops’.

I have not had a chance to review, so don’t have any comments at this time.

Truxel Bridge Community Open House, November 13

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento is holding a community open house on the Truxel Bridge project, on Wednesday, November 13, 5:30 – 7:00 PM. The event will be at SMUD Museum of Science and Curiosity (MOSAC), 400 Jibboom St, Sacramento, CA 95811. There is an Eventbrite registration, though registration is not required.

Truxel Bridge was originally proposed as a light rail and walking/bicycling bridge across the American River, part of the Green Line (light rail) to the Airport Project. Though it is unlikely light rail will ever go to the airport, it is possible that it will go to south and north Natomas, though the two council members from north and south Natomas don’t want to wait for light rail and would like to see bus rapid transit (BRT), sooner rather than later. The American River Parkway Plan, adopted by the county and the state, recognizes a transit bridge across the river though does not specify the location. The plan very specifically prohibits a private motor vehicle bridge.

The city, however, wants an all-modes bridge, including private motor vehicles. The addition of motor vehicles to the bridge would require a significantly wider bridge, and significantly more impact on the natural environment of the American River Parkway. The city is willing to pay for part of the bridge, but apparently expects SacRT to pay for much of it. The city is claiming the bridge will reduce VMT (vehicle miles traveled) and therefore GHG emissions, by shortening the drive from Natomas to downtown by a small distance, but has offered absolutely no proof for this claim. New motor vehicle capacity always induces more VMT. The city has also claimed that the selected crossing, from Sequoia Pacific Blvd to Truxel Road, is the best or only viable crossing, and has larded on all sorts of not-required improvements that would argue against using the existing river crossing at Highway 160. It is recognized that the Highway 160 bridges are substandard and will need to be replaced, but the city would rather fund a new bridge than fix the old. City staff has also claimed that since this project was approved by city council in 2014, only the exact alignment is under discussion. BS.

Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) has a number of posts on the Truxel Bridge project, category Truxel Bridge.

I hope that you will attend this meeting and speak up for the original concept, which is a transit/walking/bicycling bridge.

what’s going on? (SacCity version)

Dan Allison1 Comment

In compiling this list, I realized that it was becoming very long, so I’m splitting it into two lists, the second on non-City of Sacramento to be posted shortly.

There are so many actions and possibilities for improving the efficient, equity, and safety of our transportation system that I can’t keep up with it all, and even nonprofits that have staff are unable to keep up. So, what’s going on? The list below is not in any priority order, but may give you ideas about what you would like to get involved in. It takes a village!

City of Sacramento

  • Street Design Standards Amendment: This is ongoing. The organization most involved is Strong SacTown, and of course, Getting Around Sacramento
  • Streets for All Active Transportation Plan: This is ongoing. The neighborhood connections part of the plan, perhaps the most important element, will open a public input process in November, with two online workshops.
  • Work Zone and Event Detour Policy: This is ongoing, however, opposition in Public Works has delayed this policy by many months, and it will take public pressure to free it up.
  • Active Transportation Commission (SacATC): Though it has been pretty ineffective since founding in 2018, the addition of strong leaders to the commission and the notice of supportive city council members has opened the opportunity for real progress.
  • Vision Zero: Though the city committed to Vision Zero in 2017, the rate of traffic fatalities and severe injuries has increased every year since, because of the city’s unwillingness to take dramatic action, and the very very slow process of depending on grant funding to improve streets. The focus on corridors and inattention to intersections is also a flaw. The Vision Zero plan is being updated, but so far there has been no public involvement.
  • Speed limits: The city reduced speed limits in many school zones several years ago, on a few streets recently, and is working towards additional reductions under AB 43.
  • Emergency Declaration on Roadway Safety: Vice Mayor Caity Maple, Mayor Darrell Steinberg, and council member Karina Talamantes are sponsoring an emergency declaration on roadway safety, to address the epidemic (pandemic?) of traffic violence in the city. The initial proposal focused on ineffective traditional responses, but they seem open to more innovative and effective approaches.
  • Climate Action and Adaptation Plan: This plan, now part of the 2040 General Plan, set targets for walking, bicycling, and transit mode share, that were less ambitious than proposed in the Mayors Climate Action Plan, but nevertheless significant. Reaching these targets will require proactive changes to transportation funding allocation, street redesign, and implementation of quick-build projects.
  • Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP): This plan was adopted in 2022, to guide city investment and grant seeking based on objective criteria, rather than the whims of traffic engineers. Though the priorities could have been better weighted towards equity, active transportation, and climate action, it is nevertheless an immense improvement. Citizens will have to monitor the city’s decisions to ensure that the plan is followed, and improved over time.
  • Shared Mobility/Shared Rideables: The city has a shared rideables program which has resulted in a plethora of electric scooters in some parts of the city, and almost none in others, and almost no bike share at all, though we once had the second most successful bike share in the US. The city has chosen to let the market decide, the commercial companies, and has refused to consider city subsidy or a city program to ensure more widespread and equitable availability.
  • Quick-build: The active transportation community has requested that the city implement a quick-build program, with funding, that can respond quickly to crashes and traffic safety issues. Leadership has primarily been by Slow Down Sacramento. Though the city has discussed a program, they have so far refused to implement or fund a program.
  • Red light camera enforcement (no link because the city removed its page): The city participated in the county’s red light camera program, but when the county dropped the program, the city did as well, and so far as is known, has no plans to develop their own program. Red light running is epidemic (pandemic?) in Sacramento, and elsewhere, and there must be an automated enforcement program, with equity guardrails, to address this traffic violence issue.
  • Daylighting: State law (AB 413) prohibits parking with 20 feet of intersections, in order to increase visibility between drivers and people walking. The city has not said whether it will enforce this law, nor whether it will add signing or red curbs to communicate it to drivers. So of the benefits of daylighting can also be achieved through temporary (quick-build) or permanent curb extensions.
  • Speed camera enforcement: The city is not part of the speed camera enforcement pilot program (though to its credit, it asked to be). The city should continue to ask to be part of the pilot program, and to fully participate when the program becomes permanent.
  • The 2040 General Plan: The plan sets a new vision for mode priority in the city (graphic below). This is a seismic shift in priorities, and will be resisted by many city staff, so it will take citizen pressure to ensure that it is followed.
graphic of User Prioritization from City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
User Prioritization from City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan

This list no doubt misses some important topics. Please suggest them in the comments. The next post will include some actions that are applicable to City of Sacramento, but also to other cities, the county, and the region.