Category: Vision Zero

SacCity intersection improvements

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Sacramento City Express newsletter of March 4 includes an item about improvements to four intersections with a grant from the federal HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) program. The article is below.

This is not part of the city’s new quick build program, rather it is from a grant submitted some time ago. Though the city is not planning for or applying for new RRFB (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon) installations, they were specified in this grant application and will be installed.

Safety upgrades coming to four high-injury intersections across Sacramento

Pedestrians crossing some of Sacramento’s busiest corridors will soon see brighter warning beacons, clearer markings and improved accessibility features designed to make walking safer and more accessible.

The Sacramento City Council this week approved the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)-10 Pedestrian Crossings Improvement Project, which will enhance crossings at:

  • Folsom Boulevard and Seville Way
  • Raley Boulevard and Santa Ana Avenue
  • W Street and 8th Street
  • Alhambra Boulevard and X Street

All four intersections are located on arterial roadways identified on the City’s High Injury Network in the Vision Zero Action Plan, which focuses on reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries on City streets.

The project includes installation of Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon systems at each location, upgraded curb ramps with detectable warning surfaces, new signage, flexible posts and refreshed striping and pavement markings to improve driver awareness and pedestrian accessibility. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons are pedestrian-activated flashing yellow lights that alert drivers someone is crossing the street.

“These intersections are on our High Injury Network, and additional visibility and warning features are designed to improve driver awareness to yield to pedestrians,” said James Kragh, associate engineer with the Department of Public Works. “Installing rapid flashing beacons and upgrading curb ramps will enhance conspicuity and accessibility for people using these crossings.”

The City applied for and received $193,600 in HSIP Cycle 10 construction funding to help deliver the project.

Construction is expected to begin later this month and be completed this summer.

Once complete, the upgraded crossings will provide stronger visual cues to drivers and safer, more accessible routes for people walking and rolling along some of Sacramento’s most heavily traveled corridors.

Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP)

Dan Allison2 Comments

And yet another City of Sacramento planning effort, the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project. This is a Vision Zero project. Two segments are on the Vision Zero High Injury Network Top 5, Broadway and Stockton (Broadway between Martin Luther King Blvd and Stockton Blvd, and Stockton Blvd between Broadway and 13th Street), and Stockton Blvd South (Stockton between 65th Street and 37th Avenue). However, the project includes the entire route of SacRT 51, from downtown, along 8th and 9th Streets, Broadway, and Stockton as far as Florin Road. It is also a transit project, to enhance bus service along the Stockton part of Route 51, in particular.

Stockton has long been a focus for the city, and county, with many plans developed but none implemented. The current effort is a revision of those efforts to emphasize a potential Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along Stockton Blvd, and perhaps some enhancements to the other sections.

A community workshop was held this week at the Southgate Library, with city staff, consultants, and county staff present. Some issues that came up during the workshop include:

  • ridership on bus 51 drops off sharply south of Fruitridge Road, so investment should be focused on the section of Stockton between Broadway and Fruitridge; the nature of the neighborhoods north and south of Fruitridge are quite different, with south being significantly more car-dominated, and so less likely to generate ridership
  • sloped driveway ramps, common along Stockton, must be repaired so that they are compliant with PROWAG; provision of sidewalk buffers which contain the sloped driveways are the optimal solution
  • earlier outreach for Stockton, and every project the city has planned, surfaced a strong community desire for more street trees; healthy street trees need wide sidewalk buffers (the city calls them planting strips) of 8 feet; tiny sidewalk buffers lead to unhealthy trees and root heaves of the sidewalks
  • additional housing going in right now on Stockton, particularly around 8th to 10th Avenues, will generate a lot of walking, and the sidewalks there need to be improved and widened, not in the future, but now
  • several of the design concepts show a center turn lane throughout the project; in most sections, these are a waste of valuable roadway right-of-way; instead, left turn pockets should be provided where clearly needed
  • businesses have concerns about unhoused people using bus shelters and shelter, and crossing Stockton at random places
  • though rail is not being proposed for Stockton, the BRT design should not preclude rail being added at a later time as adjacent density and high ridership develop to justify an investment in rail

The project is also considering changing SacRT Route 51 so that it runs on Stockton from Broadway to Alhambra, and thence on surface streets to downtown. This section of Stockton has a narrower right-of-way, but it also hosts UC Davis Medical Center which could be a major generator of ridership for the bus. The existing Broadway Complete Streets project, and the additional segments from 24th Street to Stockton, have designs with a single general purpose lane in each direction and a center turn lane, which is not a good setting for BRT. The map below shows this option. If SacRT Route 51 was re-routed, there would need to be additional bus service along Broadway, since it is a high transit use corridor.

City and county staff, and consultants, seem to be supportive of a transformed Stockton Blvd, which will effectively serve transit riders, bicyclists, and walkers (and rollers). But there is likely to be pushback from the car-centric people who drive through on their way somewhere else, and who feel that time saving is more important than safety. It will take concerted effort to ensure a strong project.

map of Stockton Blvd Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP)

Arden-Auburn Mobility Plan

Dan Allison1 Comment

Yet another City of Sacramento planning project, Arden-Auburn Mobility Plan.

A community workshop will be held March 11, details on the webpage, including an optional Eventbrite registration. There will also be a survey and pop-up workshops. You can also sign up for email updates.

These two roadway segments are on the city’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, so attention is appropriate.

Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan

Dan Allison1 Comment

Yet another planning project starting up for the City of Sacramento, webpage at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/mobility-and-sustainability/transportation-planning/current_transportation_planning_efforts/fruitridge-road-safety-and-mobility-plan.

A community workshop will be held March 4. See the webpage for details. There is an Eventbrite registration link, though you do not need to register to attend.

You can also sign up for email updates.

Fruitridge is on the city’s Vision Zero High Injury Network, so attention is appropriate.

updating the nonexistent

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan Update process has produced a Draft Actions chart. Item 9 in the high priority list is:

“Update City Traffic Signal Operations Manual (TSOM) to reflect complete streets and designs reflective of reducing exposure, likelihood, and severity. Include application of Leading Pedestrian Intervals, No Right Turn on Red, Protected Left-Turn Phasing, Rest on Red, and other similar strategies.”

Sounds great. The problem is, the TSOM apparently does not exist. I did a PRA (Public Records Act) request with the city for the existing document. The city first referred me to the Traffic Signal Operations and Standards webpage. That page contains links to short documents that might or might not be part of the manual, but the manual does not exist on that page.

So I submitted another PRA, stating that the document I wanted is not on that page, and again requested it. The city’s response was that the document does not exist.

I suspect the document does exist, but the city is unwilling to admit it. But it is also possible that the city has been managing signals based on whim, not on documented policy and guidelines. A lot of the signal work the city does, including new signals, tends to support the second explanation.

It might be challenging to update something that doesn’t exist (snark).

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: why intersections?

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Other posts on the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan update are available at category: Vision Zero.

The 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan focused entirely on corridors. It did not identify high injury intersections, nor suggest actions at those intersections, unless they were also part of a high injury corridor.

The update does recognize that intersections should be addressed, but at least so far doesn’t focus on them. It should. Element 6 says “Continue developing designs and securing grant funding for the Top 10 priority corridors identified in the 2018 Action Plan, with a focus on roadway designs for reduced speeds and in Areas of Persistent Poverty” which is fairly specific. Element 7 says
“Complete 10 projects that separate severe vehicle-vehicle conflicts as well as vehicle-people or vehicle-bike conflicts at intersections” which is rather vague.

Why are intersections important? Because that is where most of the fatalities occur. Fatality locations are not, and should not, be the only criteria for focus. Serious injuries are also important, and the pattern of these is both more dense and different from fatalities. Actions that prevent fatalities or serious injuries are important.

The map below, an except from the Vision Zero Crash Dashboard Interactive Map, shows only fatalities in the central city (American River to Broadway, Sacramento River to Alhambra). Of the 34 fatal crash locations shown, it appears that five are not at intersections, therefore 29 are at intersections.

This is a visual screen based on the map location of the crashes. The map shows primary road and secondary road for every crash, but does not show distance from the intersection. It would take an analysis of ever crash location to determine for certain whether it is at, near, or away from an intersection.

The only pattern that might be considered a corridor is X Street, the roadway just south of Hwy 50, known to be a high-speed traffic sewer.

The next maps shows 39 crashes in an area of northeast Sacramento. Of the 39, it appears that 15 are not at intersections, therefore 24 are at or very near intersections.

This is a visual screen based on the map location of the crashes. The map shows primary road and secondary road for every crash, but does not show distance from the intersection. It would take an analysis of ever crash location to determine for certain whether it is at, near, or away from an intersection.

A corridor pattern is more evident on this map. Both El Camino Ave (at the bottom) and Marysville Blvd (middle north) have been identified as high injury corridors.

Confirming the intersection dominant pattern, the chart below is from the Collision Landscape Summary and Collision Profiles memo.

chart of collisions near intersections

The map below shows the Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors from the 2018 Action Plan.

map of Vision Zero Action Plan Top 5 corridors

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: Vision Zero Network

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Other posts on the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan update are available at category: Vision Zero.

The Vision Zero Network is a national organization which provide leadership and resources for local vision zero efforts.

The organization offers a Resource Library, which has a wealth of documents and references on vision zero. The city’s action plan documents seem to rely on some of these resources, which is a good thing.

One of particular interest to me is a one page chart titled 9 Components of a Strong Vision Zero Commitment, below and pdf. It isn’t just about the action plan, but a strong overall approach.

graphic of nine components of a strong vision zero commitment

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: automated enforcement

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento’s Vision Zero Action Plan update will very likely include two elements related to automated enforcement:

  • #11: Implement red light running camera program.
  • #25: Support legislation on Automated Speed Enforcement allowances in Sacramento.

The city had automated red light cameras under a program operated by the county, and a private contractor. When the county dropped its program, supposedly because they were not gaining enough income from tickets to pay for the program, the city also dropped its program (the end of red light enforcement). Not confirmed, the cameras may still be installed, though not in use. SB 720 (2025) established new guidelines for red light cameras, which the city will follow in implementing a new program. The Streetsblog California post SB 720 and What You Need to Know about Red Light Cameras, written before passage, is a good summary of the program. Fines are reduced for low-income people, there are provisions for more equitable implementation, and fines may be used for traffic calming.

At this time, the city has no authorization to implement automated speed enforcement, so ‘support legislation’ means supporting adding Sacramento to the list of pilot cities under AB 645 (2023), or creation of a statewide program after the pilot. There are varying opinions about when the state will move to a permanent program, but I remain hopeful.

The advocacy and equity community has long had concerns about bias in in-person law enforcement, and some of these concerns also apply to automated enforcement. Views range from ‘automated enforcement is worth it to save lives’ to ‘automated enforcement must be carefully designed and implemented to prevent bias’. There are a few advocates that don’t believe that an equitable automated enforcement program can be designed, and are opposed until proven otherwise.

Conversations among transportation and equity advocates, and with the city, will continue during development of the Vision Zero Action Plan update.

The best single summary I have found is How To Improve Social Equity in Automated Traffic Enforcement (Elovate, 2024-11). This is a commercial company that sells automated enforcement, but the post seems unbiased. A search for ‘equitable automated enforcement’ will surface many, many articles and posts.

Another great source is Fair Warnings: Recommendations to Promote Equity in Speed Safety Camera Programs (Vision Zero Network, 2024-12). It includes a section, ‘Recommendation 1: Consideration & Placement of Speed Safety Cameras

Issues addressed by SB 720 and AB 645:

  • reduction of fines: .“..a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level.” This provision is present in both.
  • use of fines: “Program costs include, but are not limited to, the construction of traffic-calming measures…” and “Traffic-calming measures” include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (A) Bicycle lanes; (B) Chicanes; (C) Chokers; (D) Curb extensions; (E) Median islands; (F) Raised crosswalks; (G) Road diets; (H) Roundabouts; (I) Speed humps or speed tables; (J) Traffic circles.” This provision is present in both, though the speed camera program also requires that cities implement traffic calming in several situations. The legislation strongly encourages but does not require that income be spent on traffic calming.
  • relation to existing expenditures: “Jurisdictions shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for traffic-calming measures…” This provision is present in both, though more restrictive in the speed camera program.
  • bias reporting: “A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups.” in the speed camera program, and “… jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups…” in both. However, it is not clear whether the selection of locations requires analysis of geographic bias beforehand.

SacATC 2026-02-19

Dan Allison1 Comment

The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will meet on Thursday, February 19, starting at 5:30 PM, in city council chambers.

The agenda includes two consent items and two discussion items.

Item 3 is Vision Zero Action Plan Update 2026: staff report | presentation

Item 4 is H Street Bikeways: staff report | presentation

My previous posts on Vision Zero cover many topics related to it, and make some recommendations. A draft plan will be available in the spring, at which time I’ll no doubt have many comments. If you haven’t been following the Action Plan update process, this is a good chance to catch up.

This is the first time preliminary plans for creating a safe bikeway on H Street, leading to and from Sacramento Valley Station, have been presented to the public. I will take a closer look and perhaps post again before Thursday.

High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation
High Injury Network Key Questions, slide from Vision Zero Action Plan update presentation

SacCity Vision Zero Action Plan update: more info

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I am a member of the Vision Zero Action Plan update Task Force (stakeholder) group, which met last week, Thursday, February 12 (meeting #4 presentation). The meeting made some additional information available.

  • On the Draft Actions sheet, the numbers in the left hand column just reference elements, they do not indicate any priority. The only priorities, on which feedback was being sought, are the three ‘buckets’ of high, medium, and low priority.
  • The updated plan is intended to cover a span of five years. Where a number of actions are specified within an element, those are over a period of five years, not necessarily evenly distributed.
  • No information is yet available on prioritization within each bucket.
  • No information is yet available on sequencing of action elements. Some can be completed in a short time, some will be ongoing throughout the plan time period, and some will not start until later.
  • No information is yet available on the cost of each element. For engineering actions, some cost information is in the Top Collision Profiles and Countermeasures memo.
  • The Draft Actions sheet mentions ‘new laws’ in two elements (#2 and #3). References to the legislative bills or state code should be made available.
  • Element #7 adds intersections to the program, which is great, since the original plan largely ignored intersections in favor of corridors. However, it is not clear what criteria might be used to identify these intersections. The draft High Injury Network continued the focus on corridors, so this intersection element indicates some progress towards considering intersections, which are the location of most crashes.
  • Crossing guidelines are not part of the plan so far, but could be the location for prohibiting RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons), which have proven ineffective in Sacramento. There is an existing Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines document (2021-04), but it isn’t clear how the two documents will relate to each other.
  • Questions were raised about repaving and pavement condition index (PCI), which is deteriorating in Sacramento (and nearly everywhere). The answer was that there is no clear nexus between pavement and crashes, though obviously there are instances.
  • Questions were raised about the elements that mention law enforcement (#25 & #28). There is consensus among the stakeholders that in-person law enforcement is too subject to law enforcement bias and escalation, and that automated enforcement must be very carefully implemented to prevent racial, geographic, or income bias.
  • I asked that an item #32 be added, to make the sidewalk inventory publicly accessible. It is not available on the city’s GIS Open Data Portal, and another person’s PRA (Public Records Act) for sidewalk data did not produce anything useful. See previous post where the streets have no… sidewalks.