The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, October 16, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers. The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page at the time of the meeting. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting. No comments are taken online.
Open Session Roll Call Land Acknowledgement Pledge of Allegiance Consent Calendar All items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered and acted upon by one Motion.
Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Added comments on agenda 3 ‘Vision Zero School Safety Project’, below.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet Thursday, May 15, 2025, at 5:30 PM. The meeting will be at Sacramento City Hall, council chambers, The meeting is livestreamed from the Upcoming Meetings Materials page. Comments may be made in-person, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings Materials page up to the time of the meeting, but should be submitted well ahead of time if you wish the commission members to see the comment before the meeting.
Agenda (pdf; the agenda below is abbreviated; consult the pdf agenda for details)
Consent Calendar
Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
Nomination and Appointment of One Active Transportation Commission Member to the Secure Bike Parking Pilot Evaluation Panel
Commission Staff Report
Commissioner Comments – Ideas and Questions
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Adjournment
Agenda item 3 Vision Zero School Safety Project
I support this project. The focus on lower-income schools with existing safety issues, and use of relatively inexpensive measures such as high visibility crosswalks, and curb and bike lane paint, are good.
The diagrams, both in the staff report and the presentation, should include the posted speed limit of each street. RRFBs are inappropriate for speeds over 25 mph, due to driver non-compliance, so the posted speed is an important consideration.
APS (accessible pedestrian signal) ‘upgrades’ (West Campus, Natomas, Smythe, Kenney) should implement appropriate accessible messages, but SHOULD NOT implement required push buttons. Nothing in PROWAG requires that APS signals require button press for permission to cross. Required ‘beg buttons’ are inappropriate at these locations, and at all locations in the city.
Though permanent curb extensions are probably beyond the funding of these school projects, I was surprised to not see any temporary or quick-build curb extensions, which are one of the most effective measures for calming traffic.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission will meet this Thursday, March 20, 2025, at 5:30 PM. Comments may be made in person during the meeting, or beforehand via the eComment capability on the Upcoming Meetings page. Though the meeting is live-streamed on that same page, comments may not be made in that way.
In the webinar today, a comment was made that the information in the plan and in the webinar is very complex and hard to get a handle on. I agree. Even as a transportation nerd, it is very hard to digest. I’d suggest the city come up with a simple presention, even simpler than the Executive Summary, that speaks to people who just want better and safer transportation for walking and bicycling, but know little about transportation planning and infrastructure. Some people will want to focus on the streets in their neighborhood where they live, or the routes they travel. Others will want to focus on the policy and approach of the plan. It is probably not possible to look at and understand both.
As I’ve said, I hope to post more detailed information and comments on the plan, but haven’t gotten to that yet.
SacATC (City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission) met Thursday, January 16, 2025.
The agenda included:
3. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2025: Arlete Hodel was re-elected as Chair, and Isaac Gonzalez was re-elected as Vice Chair. Juanluis Licea-Cruz joined the commission as seat K youth representative, a high school student at West Campus joined the comission. David Moore was appointed to the Seat J. Ali Doerr-Westbrook has completed her term on the commission.
4. Caltrans American River Bridge Rehabilitation Project: The presentation by Caltrans staff was frustrating. A number of questions about details of the bike path being added as part of the freeway rehabilitation (widening) project went unanswered. Commission concerns were that there are a limited number of connections from the new path to existing bikeways, and that Caltrans has demonstrated an inability to maintain bike paths by the horrible condition of the Causeway path. The Caltrans staff claimed that some other agency would be responsible for maintaining the path, but seemed unclear about what agency. Federal law requires that the host agency is responsible for maintenance of multi-use paths in perpetuity, but Caltrans has rarely complied with that requirement. Completion of the entire project is December 2026, but it is unknown whether the path will be available before then. I hadn’t realized, but this path was part of a lawsuit settlement over widening of the freeway; it was not a project initiated by or desired by Caltrans.
5. Alternative Recommendation: Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study: See the STAR blog post for this topic, which includes all the agenda document parts. The commission voted for recommendation 3, “reject the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study and instead recommend that the City Council direct staff to evaluate and study a Truxel Bridge alternative without personal motor vehicles.’ It was clear from the large number of in-person comments and eComments, as well as commissioner comments, that the city commitment to a multi-modal bridge with private motor vehicles is unacceptable.
My comments added two details: 1) SacRT board has never approved the city concept, though discussions at the staff level indicate that it might. The approved SacRT project is a transit/walking/bicycling only bridge. 2) The light rail to the airport Green Line might never be completed due to very high cost and uncertain ridership. If bus rapid transit (BRT) is implemented instead, the benefits of a direct bridge route are not clear. The current bus Route 11 jogs to the freeway, and is not signficiantly delayed by that. This BRT is not part of the current regional plans because it was assumed that light rail would be implemented, but it is quite possible that it might be added to the high capacity bus network plans.
It is assumed that the city study will proceed until the city council makes a decision on the SacATC recommentation.
6. Streets for People: Neighborhood Connections Draft Final Plan: staff report and Neighborhood Connections Plan: There was strong community and commission support for the plan, and it will be forwarded to council, probably next month. The toolbox part of the plan is outstanding. Nearly all of the 13 treatments in toolbox can be implemented as quick-build projects with low-cost materials, and eventually replaced by hardened infrastructure. Community and commission comments addressed the lack of likely funding for implementation, but it is hoped that the city will allocate some funds to the project, particularly now that the primary resister Howard Chan is no longer city managert.
For ‘not on the agenda’, I commented on the much delayed maintenance (sweeping) of the separated bikeways in the central city. The bikeways became nearly impassible during leaf season, except where they were cleared by landscaping services supplied by adjacent property owners, which is not their responsibility, but is appreciated.
Commissioners requested an update on the staff effort to inform council about what quick-build means. and this topic may also come back to the commission.
Traffic Diverter / Street Closure page from Streets for People Neighborhood Connections
SacATC (City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission) will meet this Thursday, starting 5:30 PM, in city council chambers at 915 I Street, Sacramento. Comments may be made in person or via eComment ahead of time. Note that there are two commission meetings scheduled at the same time, so it is possible that this meeting will be in another location in city hall.
The agenda includes:
3. Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2025
4. Caltrans American River Bridge Rehabilitation Project: This project includes the addition of a shared use path (walking and bicycling) to the State Route 51 (Capitol City Freeway) bridge over the American River.
5. Alternative Recommendation: Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study: See the STAR blog post for this topic, which includes all the agenda document parts.
The Neighborhood Connections Plan is largely unchanged from the 2024-10 draft. As such, I support it. It is important to remember that this plan only addresses residential and minor collector streets, which are important for encouraging walking and bicycling, but rarely are the location of fatalities and severe injuries. Those occur on major collector and arterial roadways, which are the subject of a separate Streets for People document, coming sometime later this year.
On page 19 the following info from the last round of public outreach is added:
PHASE THREE: PUBLIC DRAFT PLAN
Project Funding and Prioritization: How the plan will be moved forward into implementation, prioritization, and funding was a common theme. Community members requested clarification on the next steps for project implementation.
Speeding Implementation: Some workshop participants called for faster implementation of the recommended network via “quick build” projects.
Equity Considerations: Community members asked how equity would be considered for implementation, particularly where fewer active transportation facilities currently exists.
Youth Safety: School area improvements and other projects focused on addressing youth transportation needs was a theme in the virtual workshops.
The ‘Funding and Ways to Get the Network Built’ (page 123) is unfortunately unchanged. The city still does not identify even the possibility of using general funds for implementing this plan.
The City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet today, May 16, 2024, 5:30PM in city council chambers, 915 I Street.
The main agenda items are:
Folsom Boulevard Safety Improvements Project
Envision Broadway in Oak Park Project
Broadway Vision Zero Project
Draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Public Release
These are all discussion and feedback items, not for decisions.
The first item looks like a good project. For each segment, option 2, with buffered bike lanes, is the best option. Wider bike lanes have an advantage in that they accommodate more kinds of bicycles, but most bicyclists appreciate the visual if not actual protection of buffers and vertical delineators.
This project is the result of community pressure on the city to respond to the fatality that occurred at Phoebe Hearst Elementary, and the generally hazardous and hostile environment for walkers and bicyclists.
Folsom Blvd cross-section, 53rd St to 63rd St, option two buffered bike lanes
For all three complete street projects, I feel that center turn lanes are given way too much prominence, while in many segments they are unneeded because there are few driveways and few turning movements too/from cross streets. As always, the problem with with planning streets from the inside out, whereby motor vehicle space is set aside before anything else. Planning from outside in ensures that sidewalks and bicycle facilities are taken care of and of high quality, and then driving and parking needs are taken care of secondarily.
You can comment via eComment at the city’s meeting page, http://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21, before the meeting starts, or in person. Of course in-person is more powerful, but eComments are valuable and the only method many people can use.
The 2023 Annual Report from the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission is agenda 5 for the Sacramento City Council on March 12, 2024, starting 5:00PM. Unfortunately, the item has been placed on the consent agenda. Every transportation advocate in Sacramento is disappointed that it is on consent, because we feel that the report deserves discussion by council. The report is critical to the future of active transportation in the city, and all the livability and safety benefits of active transportation, so the consent agenda minimizes its importance.
The public may comment on items on the consent agenda, both in eComment beforehand, and at the meeting. In-person comments are always weighted more than eComments, but if eComment is all you can do, please do! However, unless a council member pulls the item from consent, it will not be discussed by the council. If it were pulled from consent, I assume that City of Sacramento Transportation Planning Manager Jennifer Donlon Wyant and 2024 SacATC chair Arlete Hodel might present the report to the council.
To comment in person, you must submit a request to speak before the agenda item comes up, which will be very close to the beginning of the meeting at 5:00PM. Once the consent agenda comes up, it is not possible to submit a request. Speaker cards are on the back counter, to your left when you walk in to chambers, and the basket for cards is at the left front of chambers. Though you can of course comment on anything during the ‘items not on the agenda’ at the end of the meeting, it is much better if you can comment directly on the agenda item in question.
Even if you cannot comment, the Annual Report is well worth a read. The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission has shifted to a much more progressive and activist stance over the last two years, and the ten recommendations in the report (starting on page 8) should be implemented by the city. These are listed below, but read the document for supporting details.
Increase Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure Projects
Develop a Citywide Safe Routes to School Program
Expand Speed Management Programs
Pilot an Electric Bike Library
Promote E-Bike Incentives
Create a Sacramento Quick-Build Bikeways Program
Increase Bike Parking
Re-establish Slow & Active Streets
Finalize the Construction Detour Policy
Develop an ATC Dashboard
If you are going to comment, I recommend that you pick one item of most importance to you, and comment on that. Personal perspectives are best, why the lack of these programs has harmed you, or why the implementation of these programs will benefit you.
The monthly meeting of the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will be this Thursday, February 15, 2024, starting at 5:30 PM in the city council chambers. The agenda includes five items. You can comment on these items, or on topics not on the agenda, ahead of time via eComment, or in person at the meeting. I encourage people to attend these commission meetings. There are usually very few members of the public in attendance, which means that your voice is important. Though eComments are valuable, in-person comments carry a lot more weight. The city’s planning staff is usually progressive and innovative, but Public Works in general is not, so it is important the citizens show up to push for progressive and innovative projects and policies. With some new appointments to the commission, and support of the public, the commission itself has been much more progressive than in past years.
Agenda item 3 is a presentation on the Truxel Bridge Concept and Feasibility Study. The Truxel crossing of the American River was originally proposed and approved by SacRT and the county as a transit-walking-bicycling bridge, carrying light rail from downtown to Natomas. The city is now proposing a motor vehicle-transit-walking-bicycling bridge. They are claiming that the bridge would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the provision of alternative modes, and a shorter trip between downtown and Natomas, but has not presented data to justify this claim. New roadway capacity induces more motor vehicle trips, a well-established fact, so to claim otherwise requires proof. Walking and bicycling would be unlikely to be the major component of bridge users. Transit availability could reduce motor vehicle trips, but the Green Line to the Airport is probably decades away, and anything short of service to North Natomas would be unlikely to replace many car trips.
The city intends to go full speed ahead (pun intended) with the bridge, based on a 2013 city council approval, seeking public input only on the southern approach to the bridge and the bridge cross-section. Since 2013, the city has declared a climate emergency, the Mayors Commission on Climate Change goal is to achieve Carbon Zero by reducing VMT, the soon-to-be-adopted General Plan 2040 and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan aim for reducing VMT rather than increasing it, and SB 745 required VMT impacts as the primary criteria for judging projects. Most importantly, public awareness of the risk of motor vehicle induced climate change has emerged and strengthened.
Update: The letter on the status of walking/biking was deferred to the next meeting, where a modified letter will be considered and hopefully passed. The Freeport and Northgate Transportation Plans were forwarded to council. I spoke in favor of Northgate and against Freeport, for reasons I will detail in the near future. The applications for planning grants were supported.
(earlier reduced versions replaced because they dropped important design elements)
A read of the subcommittee report, formatted as a letter to the mayor since the commission is advisory to the council, is good and should be supported. I particularly like the emphasis on completing the construction detour policy, since city staff otherwise do not care about the safety of walkers and bicyclists in navigating construction projects that close or change sidewalks and bikeways. Two items missing are bike/scooter share, and Vision Zero. These two items may or may not fall under the purview of SacATC, however, the city is not making information available to the public on these efforts, so it seems to fall to SacATC to do so.
In general, the Northgate and Freeport plans are an immense improvement over existing conditions, so meet needs of the moment, but it is less clear they are going to meet the needs of the future, which will be much less private motor vehicle driving, and more walking, bicycling and transit. If time is available to look at the plans more closely, I’ll add posts.
Getting Around Sacramento 