Tag: Active Transportation

more on Steinberg’s transportation and housing proposal

Dan Allison2 Comments

My previous post on Mayor Darrell Steinberg’s transportation measure proposal was based on the August 25 press conference and panel discussion which included Elk Grove Mayor Bobbie Singh-Allen, Steve Cohn of SMART (Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit), Cathy Creswell, Chair of Sacramento Housing Alliance, Luke Wood, President of Sacramento State, and Gabby Trejo of Sacramento Area Congregations Together (SacACT).

A ten page summary of the proposal offers more detail on ‘The Climate, Clean Transportation, and Affordable Housing Act of 2024‘. The proposal offers three major program areas, each of which would receive about one-third of the revenue generated.

  1. Affordable housing and displacement prevention
  2. Investing in public transportation
  3. Safe streets and active transportation

For affordable housing, there are three sub-programs:

  • Creation of new affordable housing on vacant or underused infill sites and along existing commercial corridors and/or transit lines: infill housing rather than greenfield development (which can never be affordable because lower housing costs are more than counterbalanced by higher transportation costs)
  • Preventing displacement and homelessness: keeping people in their homes so they don’t become homeless
  • Green Means Go: enhancing infrastructure needed to support affordable infill housing

For public transportation, it would fund high priority public transit improvements, with four elements:

  • Bus rapid transit countywide. This element was important enough to Steinberg that he highlighted it on his webpage, table below. Note that light rail extension is a possible future enhancement to BRT to Elk Grove and the airport, but it does lock in these extensions are other proposals have.
  • Expanding service & frequency on existing transit lines
  • Light rail fleet replacement and station renewal
  • Regional (Intercounty) Transit Network/ express bus services
table of Proposed Bus Rapid Transit Corridors

For safe streets and active transportation, there are two sub-programs:

  • Fixing the roads and active transportation
  • Innovative mobility: unfortunately, the focus is on motor vehicle electrification, and not e-bikes and shared mobility devices

Note that though the documents calls for a half-cent sales tax, Steinberg said he is open to other funding ideas including property tax. He also implied that if the rest of the county is not on board with an innovative investment strategy or tries to water it down with the traditional road building and widening methods, the city would go its own way.

Certainly we need more detail, but I support the vision that Steinberg’s proposal puts forth. Almost of all of our transportation expenditures in the past have disinvested in, or active harmed, communities of low income and people of color. They have continuously widened and extended roadways, mostly for the benefit of high income suburban commuters. They have built and over-built transportation infrastructure that we will never have enough money to maintain, and insisted on building more rather than taking care of what we have. They have actively discriminated against people who walk and bicycle. They have ignored the established fact that adding roadway capacity induces more travel, so that ‘congestion relief’ is always out of reach.

It is time for a new approach, and I believe that Steinberg’s proposal is an important step along the way to a better future.

Sac CAAP: non-motorized and MCCC

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), preliminary draft, sets targets for active transportation and transit. The Mayors’ Climate Change Commission (MCCC) Achieving Carbon Zero in Sacramento and West Sacramento by 2045, set different targets.

MCCC 2020MCCC 2045CAAP 2030CAAP 2045
Active Transportation30%40%6%12%
Transit & Shared30%50%11%11%
MCCC page 26, CAAP page 66

The CAAP states (page 100) “This level of active transportation mode share by 2030 is consistent with outcomes of comparable case studies and peer-reviewed literature and anticipated level of investment through 2030, all of which are necessary factors to consider for quantifying evidence-based reductions for a qualified GHG reduction plan.” and (page 102) “Planning for at least an 11 percent transit mode share by 2030 is an evidence-based goal that the City considers achievable given current understanding of transit behaviors in Sacramento and comparable case studies, given that sufficient funding can be obtained to implement the necessary infrastructure.”

The justification for the mild targets is in the CAAP Appendix C – Community Measures GHG Emissions Quantification, page 20 for Active Transportation (TR-1) and page for Transit (TR-2). The document active transportation section cites work commute trips, which misses the point that all trips are an opportunity for GHG reduction, and that only about 15% of all trips now are work-related (pre-pandemic). It also states that we can’t be compared to European cities (nor does it even use up-to-date data from Europe), but implies that Sacramento won’t be taking the actions to significantly increase mode share, so therefore uses a much lower number. No actual research is cited. For transit, the document states that we could achieve a 21% mode share based on peer city Oakland, but then inexplicably sets the target of 11%.

Why is the city setting such low goals? Reading between the lines, it is because they don’t intend to spend the funds necessary to reach these goals, and they know they can’t fund this all with competitive grants. This is not climate leadership, in my opinion. The city should be doing everything it possibly can to shift trips aways from motor vehicles to active transportation and transit.

Some elements of the MCCC were included in the CAAP, some were not. I’ve found it valuable to compare the two. If you have the time, please do that yourself. The MCCC is a much stronger document.