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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, October 17, 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 includes three discussion items, below, and is available as pdf.
At the last meeting, the commission decided to reduce the list of recommendations to those directly impacting street safety. In the updated draft annual report, these six are:
Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Expand Speed Management Programs
Create a Sacramento Quick- Build Bikeways Program
Re-Establish Slow & Active Streets
Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
They are listed in inverse order of funding. with #1 requesting the highest level of funding, $3M per year.
It is important for the community to support the annual report with its focus on priority safety actions, to support the report when it goes to city council, and to support the city prioritizing these funds in the mid-year budget revision and in next year’s budget.
The city reduced speed limits in many school zones several years ago, and recently reduced speed limits on a few streets, and is gradually working to reduce speed limits on more streets, including alleys, business districts, local roads, and senior zones. The graphic below shows the approach. The presentation will bring the commission up to date on the project.
City staff is asking the commission to recommend two grant applications under Caltran’s Sustainable Communities Planning Grants for Transit Needs in Sacramento to meet Climate, Equity and Mobility Goals; and the Walking, Bicycling and Transit Access Wayfinding Project.
The city’s Department of Public Works Transportation Planning Newsletter has more information on these topics and others. I recommend you sign up if you aren’t already getting the email newsletter, which comes out once a month.
I had hoped to observe bicyclists reacting to the signal, but unfortunately there were no bicyclists. Despite the city devoting much of the street right-of-way to bike lanes (not protected, on only sometimes buffered), it appears that no one is riding their bicycle on Broadway. I’m not surprised. Broadway continue to be an unpleasant place for bicyclists and walkers, and regular bike lanes are unlikely to change that.
The last post I had noted that there was a required beg button for bicyclists to trigger the bike signal, but had failed to look up and notice that there was a complete set of regular signal, bike signal, and blank-out no-right-turn sign on the same post. It looks like:
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blank-out no right turn
For those unfamiliar with the blank-out signs, which are relatively uncommon in the city, it illuminates when turns are prohibited, and is blank when not prohibited. See photo below for the blank-out phase.
This signal array is definitely mis-communicating to drivers. When the bicycle signal is on, the no-right-turn sign should be on, and the regular signal red. This is mounted close to the right hand turn lane, and drivers see it as applying to that lane.
Most of the time, it is necessary to press the pedestrian beg button to trigger the bike signal. But then sometimes it is triggered without any press, and not due to the presence of bicyclists, as there were no bicyclists. Most signal cycles the bike signal remains red.
When the bike signal is on, there is a period of time when the no-right-turn sign is not on (blanked out), as below.
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, signal, bike signal, blanked-out no-right-turn
Do drivers follow the no-right-turn sign? In an hour of observation, I did not see one driver follow the sign. Every driver turned across the no-right-turn sign and across the green bike signal. Every. Though I did not observe it at this time, I have experienced drivers yelling at me, and other bicyclists have reported being yelled at, by drivers who think they have the right of way and wonder why bicyclists are proceeding and interfering with cars. The photo below shows just one of about 70 drivers who turned against the no-right-turn sign.
Broadway eastbound at Land Park Dr, driver turning against no-right-turn sign
Solutions
The regular signal should remain red while the bike signal is green. The placement of this signal is interpreted by drivers as applying to the right hand turn lane, so it must be red.
The bike signal must have an exclusive phase where all other vehicle movements are prohibited. A properly designed intersection with a properly designed signal system probably would not need an exclusive phase, but this is NOT a properly designed intersection and NOT a properly designed signal system.
The pedestrian beg button should be removed from the bike lane, and automatic detection of bicyclists installed. The city knows how to do this, and has done it at a few other intersections, but chose not to here.
Bicyclists will be fatally or severely injured here, and the cause of the crash will be mis-designed roadways, for which city engineers are directly responsible. Drivers are just responding to a mis-designed roadway, the guilty party is the traffic engineers.
The design document for Broadway Complete Streets, and as built, has a through lane, a dedicated left hand turn lane, and a dedicated right hand turn lane. This right hand turn lane is the source of the conflict, the source of the danger. The roadway as built prioritizes motor vehicle throughput over safety.
The City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission is holding a hearing on the Stockton Blvd Plan this Thursday, October 10, 5:30 PM. It is item 3 on the overall agenda.
The Stockton Blvd Plan is largely about development and necessary utility infrastructure along the corridor between Alhambra Blvd and 65th Street. I am making documents available here. Note that two of these are huge. I’ve downsampled them a bit, but if something you wish to see is fuzzy, you will have to go back to the original documents on the city website, Upcoming Meeting Materials.
I do not have time to look at these documents, but I’m posting them in the hopes that someone will. Though I use Stockton Blvd a few times a year, I don’t spend enough time there to have useful comments from a community perspective.
The Stockton Blvd Plan is NOT about transportation, which is addressed by a separate Stockton Blvd Corridor Plan. In fact, the Stockton Blvd Plan EIR refers all transportation related comments to this document. This plan was a draft in 2021 (Stockton Blvd Corridor Study, Stockton Blvd needs trees, Stockton Blvd draft available). The related project page has disappeared from the city’s website, and the draft plan is quite hard to find (which is why I’ve linked to my copy). The city and SacRT came to an agreement to consider Stockton Blvd for bus rapid transit (BRT), or something approaching that, rather than the weak tea attention to transit in this draft plan. However, there doesn’t seem to be any trace of that project on the city website. SacRT has a webpage about the project: Ride the Future: Sacramento’s Bus Rapid Transit Solution, but there are few details and no timeline.
Additional posts on Broadway Complete Streets are available at category ‘Broadway Complete Streets‘.
The bicycle signal face for Broadway eastbound at Land Park Drive/16th Street did not work for several weeks after it was turned on. Then it was ‘fixed’ so that it was part of every signal cycle. Now it has been further ‘fixed’ by the installation of a beg button which the bicyclist must press to trigger the bicycle signal. The beg button is the standard pedestrian button, it says nothing about bicyclists.
This signal should detect bicyclists and trigger the bicycle phase, without requiring any action by the bicyclist.
This is yet another example of the incompetence of city traffic engineers, who not only cannot design a signal that works properly, but will actively make things worse for bicyclists. Their concern is foremost, and only, with the free flow of motor vehicle traffic.
Bike signal for Broadway eastbound requires button push
Since 2014, 
Getting Around Sacramento 