At last night’s Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) meeting, the 9th Street Separated Bikeway was item 3 on the agenda. As is usual, I did not have a chance to review the item until shortly before the meeting, so did not post comments ahead of time, but did make comments during the meeting. I’ve broken the agenda item into staff report, plans, and presentation slides for easier access.
This was the preliminary presentation on this project, and it will be revised and come back to the commission at least once more.
My comments text, thought some particulars were left out due to the two-minute time limit:
I am glad to see the project, since it closes one of the gaps that makes the existing separated bikeways less useful.
Widths
The six-foot bikeway width does not meet NACTO recommendations (preferred width) of 8 feet or more for separated bikeways. Six feet does not allow for passing or wider bicycles, and is NOT a best practice.

I support bin/leaf zones, but the entire buffer should be wide enough to accommodate bins, as has been implemented on some blocks of P and Q streets. I am not sure how wide this is, but it is more than 3 feet.
In order to gain the necessary width for bicycles and buffers, the street right-of-way needs to be reallocated:
- One of the two general purpose lanes should be 9 feet (the left lane), the other 10.5 feet (the right lane), which gains 2.5 feet. The wider lane would be used by buses on SacRT Route 51. The wider lane should be marked as such, with the width painted on the pavement at every intersection to inform drivers.
- Similarly, one of the two parking lanes should be 7.5 feet, which gains 0.5 feet, and signed or marked as a narrower parking lane. The city does not need to accommodate car bloat on every street and every parking lane.
Bikeway Protection
I support turn wedges, but they should be concrete, not solely paint and posts. Though the paint and post turn wedges provide some safety for bicyclists, and particularly for walkers, they are less safe than concrete, which the city calls ‘rolled curb turn wedge’.

Any block with only an alley break in the separated bikeway should be protected by concrete curbs, not simply by paint and posts. Where driveways occur, it may be better to use paint and posts.
Marking
Whenever a bikeway crosses general purpose lanes, as it does approaching Broadway, the merge zone must be marked with green backed sharrows. Anything less is unsafe for bicyclists.
Any place where a bikeway transitions from one side to the other side is designed, there must be a bike signal to control motor vehicle traffic. In general, bicyclists need an exclusive bike phase, where no motor vehicles are turning. The side-to-side transitions on 19th Street (from left to right, just past W Street), and 21st Street (from right to left at W Street) are NOT safe for bicyclists, and as a result, there are many fewer bicyclists using these streets than was intended or is desirable. The city has resisted using bike signal faces, though the expense is a fraction of what the city routinely spends replacing functional signals and signal boxes.
Any time a bikeway is between two general purpose lanes, as it is approaching Broadway, the bikeway must be marked with continuous green paint. Somehow the plans dropped green paint between W Street and Broadway, the most confusing and potentially deadly part of the entire project.
Commissioners made a few comments:
- Generally supportive of the project intent
- Moore commented on green paint approaching Broadway, and asked if the transition could be earlier to reduce conflicts at the W intersection; staff response it that right-turning vehicles at W Street are the biggest conflict, other than X Street and Broadway
- Hodel supported the red paint daylighting, and asked for green paint approaching Broadway
Apparently there were a large number of eComments on the agenda items, though I’m unsure how many related to this agenda item or the other three main items. When the meeting is over, all the eComments disappear, apparently into the ether. This is not just a problem for SacATC, but for all city meetings. Unless a citizen takes care to capture the eComments before the meeting ends, they will never know what others commented online.
The NACTO Urban Bicycle Design Guide (3rd edition, 2024) includes the diagram below within the ‘Designing Protected Bike Lanes‘ section.





















