Tag: Franklin-Blvd

SacATC: 2026-10-15 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Note: This post was revised to add information about the remainder of the meeting, which I had not reviewed.

The meeting recording is on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWun1r4Na3A.

Comments were not available for posting or viewing leading up to this meeting. I note that there are comments in the meeting archive, but I don’t know where they came from, they were not there at the time of the meeting. The livestream was also not available to me, but I have viewed it after the fact.

Item 4: Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600)

Four commission members questioned why there are RRFBs (rapid rectangular flashing beacons) included in this project since they are known to be ineffective in slowing or stopping drivers, and are especially inappropriate for a higher speed and higher volume roadway. Chair Gonzalez pointed out that Public Works staff had promised in an earlier meeting that there would be no new RRFBs in projects, but they have since backpedaled on that promise and are including them in new projects. He stated that RRFBs might work on a seriously constrained street like Folsom at One Speed Pizza, but that is not the situation on Franklin. He stated that RRFBs are not a traffic calming measure, and a HAWK/PHB or regular signal should be used.

One commission member questioned the design of a green painted but unprotected bike lane at the intersection of Franklin and Fruitridge, saying it was not comfortable for less confident bicyclists.

The city engineer presenting admitted that no study was being done on Franklin Phase 1 and 2 to determine if traffic had been slowed or yielding behavior increased. This is typical for city projects, that they project safety improvements, but don’t gather data to see what the actual improvements are.

Item 5: Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations (this item was by far the bulk of the meeting)

Staff (JDW) said that the reason for the high cost of LPIs (leading pedestrian intervals) is due to the need to add Audible Pedestrian Signals (APS) as required by PROWAG, and many of the locations have such old signal controllers and signals that there are significant costs to modify them (slide 9). The commission wants recognition in the report that complete signal upgrades were very expensive and contributed to the $48M cost line, whereas what was needed was a recognition that changes to add LPIs without full upgrade should be prioritized, and would result in a much lower cost.

The cost of ‘no turn on red’ is high because the use of blank-out no turn signs are more expensive than regular signs (MUTCD R10-11), and also require new cabling and sometimes controllers. If only regular signs were used, the cost would be $1.2M rather than $36M. I can state that the blank out signs are far more effective than regular signs, but am not sure that it is worth delaying installation over cost. One commissioner questioned the effectiveness of the blank-out signs. So far as I know, there is no research on this.

There was considerable discussion about the most expensive projects, LPIs and ‘no turn on red’. There was also discussion on the timing of projects, that the commission recognized that major projects take ten years or more, while the city is estimating less (though they have previously recognized the very long time lines).

The commission realized that the funding table showed cost for all Top 10 Corridor intersections and Top 20 intersections, not a per-year expenditure, which would be considerably less as action on LPIs, no turn on red, and daylighting would take place over several years, with a significantly lower per-year cost.

Item 2 g) lower downtown speed limits to 20 mph, was removed from the list as not being a critical safety measure, and likely to happen as part of other city initiatives.

A new Item 2 line was added, that it be city policy that all new traffic signals include LPIs, whether on the Top 10/Top 20 list or not.

There was an extensive discussion about how to ensure that recommendations from the commission are actually considered by city council, rather than just being on consent agenda (which they have been), and how to present to the council and public the importance of these programs to reduce traffic violence. The report will have language that council put the report on agenda, not consent, and that the commission make a presentation to council at that time.

Summary of Recommendations Table, from draft 2026 SacATC Annual Report presentation
Summary of Recommendations Table, from draft 2026 SacATC Annual Report presentation

The Commission

A commissioner, I’ve forgotten who, commented that these details of policy and expenditure were exactly what the commission should be focused on and spending time to come up with consensus. My next post on SacATC will address the question, what is SacATC for?

SacCity: Franklin Blvd Phase 3

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting will receive a information and comment update on the Franklin Blvd Complete Street Phase 3 project. The project is at the 60% design stage, meaning that plans have been drawn (see the SacATC 2026-10-15 post), but details can still be improved. I have had some time to review the presentation and design diagrams, so have some comments, based on these and on my previous post on the Phase 1 and 2 project which is complete. The Phase 1 and 2 project ended at Fruitridge Road. There have been various city and county projects on other segments of Franklin.

The extent of this Phase 3 project is Fruitridge Road to the county line just beyond 38th Avenue, shown below. The southern part of the project (to the left) is in the city, and the northern part (to the right) is shared city and county, but the city is taking responsibility for the entire project.

I note four areas of concern.

One: RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) at 33rd Street. RRFBs have a very low rate of compliance in the City of Sacramento, in part because we have among the worst drivers in the state. The installation here includes two beacons, one on the post, and another on an overhead mast arm. This format may slightly increase compliance, but the city has not demonstrated that it increases compliance enough to be safe for people crossing here. The city knows that existing RRFB locations are not safe, but continues to specify them, against the advice of transportation advocates. Either there should be a pedestrian hybrid signal at this location, or it should not be highlighted as a safe crossing, because it is not. Of course every intersection has a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, but the presence of a marked crosswalk with RRFB signal implies a level of safety that does not exist.

Two: Flared intersection at Fruitridge. The flared intersection of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge, which I criticized in my previous post as being unsafe for all users, is proposed to be duplicated south of the intersection in this Phase 3. The Google map overview is below. North of Fruitridge, the configuration has changed somewhat. South of Fruitridge, it is as shown, with two lanes southbound, two lanes northbound, a dedicated left turn lane, and a dedicated right turn lane which is a free-right with no traffic control whatsoever.

Google map of Franklin - Fruitridge intersection
Google map of Franklin – Fruitridge intersection

The design diagram for Franklin at Fruitridge is below. It shows some improvement, with only one lane northbound, but is otherwise the same. Two lanes southbound, requiring a merge that could be avoided by making it one lane, as it is on the approach from the north, and one of the lanes is 12 feet, unnecessarily wide. The southbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, and does eventually have painted buffer ‘protection’. The dangerous dedicated right turn lane is retained, though it does add a stop sign, which would be widely ignored, and encourages the same driver behavior to look left and ignore anyone in the crosswalk. The lane is 13.5 feet wide, which is ridiculous. The marked northbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, between two motor vehicle travel lanes, with no protection whatsoever.

Three: Trees and sidewalk buffers (planting strips). Though sidewalk buffers and trees are being added along about half of the segment, both are missing from the remainder. This is better than it was, but far from the tree canopy/shade that the public has requested. Though I could not find a diagram where the width of the sidewalk buffer was specified, I estimate that they are mostly five feet, but narrower in a few locations. Healthy trees require eight feet or more, so the trees along this section will always be less healthy than they could be. Tree information starts on page 61 of the design diagrams document, with Landscape Planting Legend (LP002), and includes six street sections. A total of 50 trees are indicated, though it is doubtful, given past projects, that all of these will be planted. The diagram below shows the 37th Street section, with more trees than any other.

diagram of Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102
Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102

Four: Wide concrete bikeway medians. There are a number of locations with very wide concrete medians to separate the bikeway from travel lanes. I’m all in favor of concrete medians, which provide real protection rather than the visual protection of vertical delineators. But a narrow concrete median is just as effective in providing protection as a wide median. In many cases, these medians seem overly wide, as though to simply take up excess space. Though the stamped concrete specified for many of them is slightly better aesthetically than plain concrete, it is still an unnecessary expanse of heat generating and expensive infrastructure. If possible, this width should be reallocated to sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

fatality on Franklin

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

A bicyclist was murdered by a hit-and-run driver on Franklin Blvd four days ago. Hit-and-run driver kills bicyclist, 59, as she repairs bike on Franklin Boulevard (SacBee, 2026-09-03, Darrell Smith). I intentionally use the term ‘murdered’, as I believe that hit-and-run qualifies as murder. It is an intentional decision on the part of the driver to not provide any aide to the victim, possibly saving the life. It is the lowest of driver behavior, and that is a low bar indeed. Unfortunately, state law treats traffic violence as less important than other violence, and except in very few circumstances does the driver/murderer suffer any significant legal consequence.

The person killed, Norma Valdez, was in the southbound bicycle lane on Franklin. The murderer drifted into the bicycle lane and killed her, and then left the scene. So far as I know, the driver has not been found. A memorial has been created on the site by friends.

photo of memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd
memorial for Norma Valdez on Franklin Blvd

I was initially interested because I thought the crash was within the area of Vision Zero Complete Street on Franklin, but it is south of Fruitridge Road, in Sacramento County rather than the city. The location is opposite 48th Avenue. At this location, the bike lane is a little wider than usual, about 5.5 feet. There is no protection of any sort for the bike lane.

Conventional Class 2 bike lanes should never be installed on roadways over 30 mph, and generally not over 25 mph. The NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 3rd Edition, Constrained Bike Lanes, has the following table for ‘constrained’ (conventional) bike lanes. Nothing in this table matches Franklin Blvd at this location. It is higher speed, higher volume, and is two lanes per direction. Franklin should never have been designed this way. Caltrans CA-MUTCD and Highway Design Manual conveniently do not provide an upper speed limit for Class 2 bike lanes. Caltrans treats bicyclists with disdain, though with more respect than walkers. It is widely recognized that Class 2 bike lanes on high speed roadways will lead to fatalities. Such as this one.

The roadway is four lanes, two southbound and two northbound. A median is present in much of this section, but there is a gap here for 48th Avenue, which is only to the east, with no street to the west. La Grande Blvd to the west is a little to the south. The posted speed limit here is 40 mph. Readers will know that if a posted speed limit is 40, actual speeds are 50 to 55 mph. Even at 40 mph, and certainly above that, any collision with a bicyclist or walker will be fatal.

photo of Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave
Franklin Blvd near 48th Ave

I walked north on Franklin to Fruitridge Road, which is the southern terminus of the city’s project. City and county are mixed in this area. The county portion is actually better designed than the city portion. The city portion has no bike lanes at all, narrow sidewalks, mostly 4 feet, with either a center turn lane (‘suicide lane’) or with opposing posted 40 mph traffic separated by only a yellow stripe.

This entire area of south Sacramento, both city and county, is a place where motor vehicles dominate all other life.

It is worth noting that the bike lanes on Franklin Blvd and 47th Avenue adjacent to the former Campbells factory could have curb separation since there is only one active driveway in 2900 feet along Franklin and one in 2200 feet along 47th. These would not have prevented this murder, but any improvement is valuable.

Though I would have guessed otherwise, in the five years of TIMS/SWITRS data, 2019 through 2024, there were no bicyclist fatalities or severe injuries in the section of Franklin Blvd between Fruitridge Road and Florin Road.