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.
Adoption of the Sacramento County Community Climate Action Plan is item 2 on the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting on Wednesday, November 6, at 2:00 PM. I have not been following the Sacramento County CAP, as it is beyond my capacity, but several organizations have, and they are opposed to the plan under consideration. To summarize, the county has created a plan that won’t stand in the way of low density development at the edge of and beyond the county growth boundary. Translation: sprawl!
The best reference I’ve found is an email from 350Sacramento, so this is duplicated below.
“Tell supervisors: Don’t Approve
In 2011 Sac County promised to adopt a climate action plan (CAP), “within a year”. We’ve pushed them hard for five years to do that, and critiqued five technically and legally insufficient drafts. The problem is that the County is committed to approving several very large, high-GHG, sprawl developments outside the County’s growth boundary, and an effective CAP would get in the way.
This Wednesday the County will try to steam-roll us, adopting a final CAP with the same deficiencies as before, claiming the CAP isn’t subject to environmental requirements. We’re not buying it… Please click and send a pre-written email to County supervisors.
We’re making legal points, but feel free to substitute or add your own thoughts and feelings. Think of pointing out that elected officials are irresponsibly embracing land speculators and sprawl over protecting our environment.
All this proposed sprawl would do nothing to solve the housing crises: The County has already approved over a 100 years-worth of growth in infill and new projects. With the new sprawl they will have adopted almost 200-years of growth capacity. That won’t build-out in anyone’s lifetime; but it will start to build-out as small tracts scatter across the County – the worst possible land use for climate stabilization.
Make your voice heard and share this issue with others in your network!”
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.
This Saturday, October 19, 2024, the River District Open Streets Festival will occur 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM at Mirasol Village, 400 Pipestem St, in the River District. Civic Thread is the primary host, working with a number of other partners and supporters. Registration is not required to participate, but is available on Eventbrite.
From the festival info page:
“Get ready to experience the heartbeat of our community at the Open Streets Festival in the vibrant River District this fall!
Join us for a day filled with family fun, local flair, and exciting activities for all ages. Discover live music, delicious food from local vendors, arts and crafts. Participate in interactive games, enjoy street performances, and explore the many pop-up shops that line the streets. It’s a perfect opportunity to connect with neighbors, celebrate our diverse culture, and support local businesses. Don’t miss out on this unforgettable event that brings everyone together in the heart of our beloved community.
This event is intended to showcase the power of community connection, healthy and active lifestyles, and the multitude of what the River District has to offer whether it be arts, food, or fun. There will be tables from community organizations, food vendors, and performances, along with interactive community activities such as a bike rodeo.”
Rancho Cordova and SABA also hosted an open street event last Saturday, which I hope to post about soon. Several other open streets events have happened recently, and more are in the planning stages, which is good to see after the long pause since the Sunday Street on Broadway event in 2017.
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!
Items specific to City of Sacramento were in a previous post, while these items are about other locations, and/or applicable to all the cities and counties in the region.
Transportation funding in Sacramento County: Transportation sales tax measures in 2016 and 2022 failed, and a 2020 measure was withdrawn. Each measure was weak on active transportation and transit (and the sprawl developer sponsored ‘citizens initiative’ in 2022 was horrible), and also suffered from anti-tax sentiment in the county. There are three efforts to place a funding measure on the 2026 ballot, Sacramento Transit Authority (SacTA) new Measure A, SMART/Steinberg citizen measure for housing, active transportation, and roadway maintenance, and SacRT transit measure for City of Sacramento and Elk Grove. All of these are in early stages, not yet formalized. Sales taxes are regressive, making low-income people pay a much higher percentage of their income on these taxes, so efforts to identify other mechanisms are critically important.
Sacramento County Climate Action Plan: The county has delayed a climate action plan by years, going through a series of revisions that aren’t much better than the previous. Sacramento Climate Coalition and 350Sacramento have been the most active on this issue. It will take citizen pressure on staff and on the Board of Supervisors to ensure an effective plan.
Other climate action plans: Every city and county is required to come up with a climate action plan. I don’t know the status of plans other than City of Sacramento and Sacramento County.
SACOG 2025 Blueprint: SACOG is developing a new version of the MTP/SCS called Blueprint ‘Linking land use and transportation in the Sacramento region’. There is a constant tension between the desires of cities, in particular Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Davis, and the smaller cities and rural counties of the six county SACOG region, over what kinds of transportation investment to make. SACOG is required to come up with a plan that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 19%, and the transportation policies and projects selected will make all the difference in whether the region has a chance for achieving that goal. Citizen pressure for infill and livable communities is required to counteract the small city and rural voices that just want money to continue doing what they’ve always done, which is encourage low density sprawl development with a motor-vehicle focused transportation network.
Caltrans District 3: While other entities are beginning to meet the public demand and legal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and improve roadway safety, Caltrans District 3 is continuing to expand highway capacity, inducing travel demand and increasing GHG/VMT, and making it very hard for cities and counties to make their roadways that are state highways or that cross state highways (underpasses and overpasses) to improve safety. Caltrans headquarters has been unable to rein in District 3.
This list no doubt misses some important topics. Please suggest them in the comments.
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.
I have long looked askance at the emphasis on electric vehicles (EVs) for solving our climate change challenge and other issues. As has been said, they are necessary but insufficient. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is as important, or more important. Now comes a report, highlighted in the Streetsblog USA article EVs — What Are They Good For? that indicates just how insufficient they are. (The Effects of ‘Buy American’: Electric Vehicles and the Inflation Reduction Act)
If EVs were competing in the marketplace, they would be gradually replacing fossil fueled vehicles (also called ICE – internal combustion engines), but in an effort to accelerate adoption, the federal government and California are subsidizing the conversion to the tune of billions of dollars. Is this a good investment, compared to other investments that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and increase roadway safety? I doubt it. EVs will kill and severely injure more people than ICE vehicles. EVs will generate more tire and brake pollution. Most importantly, EVs support the faux environmentalist attitude that I can keep on driving my private vehicle while ignoring the damage to the livability and financial stability of cities, and the mis-allocation of transportation investments towards motor vehicles and away from walking, bicycling and transit.
For those who might miss the cultural reference of the Streetsblog headline, it is from the Motown ‘War‘ – “War, what is it good for, absolutely nothing”.
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.
Getting Around Sacramento 