Marysville Blvd is one the 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan top 5 corridors. The 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Update (page 33 list and map) draft includes Marysville Blvd south of Arcade Blvd as part of the Del Paso Blvd top 10 corridor, and two intersections. It also includes the intersection of Marysville Blvd and Grand Avenue in the top 20 intersections, which is within and central to the Marysville project. The Marysville Blvd Vision Zero project is the result of the 2018 identification.
The city has a preliminary design for phase 2, but engineering is not complete, nor is funding available. That means that citizen input can improve the project. Phase 2 would extend the project north from Grand Avenue to North Avenue, and south from Nogales Avenue to Arcade Blvd. There is no official public outreach at this time, but you can always email the city with your concerns and ideas: MarysvilleVZ@cityofsacramento.org.
The project page has a list of ‘Project Features’:
Road Diet: A road diet is a reduction of a travel lane to slow down traffic and improve safety.
Bicycle Lanes: Upgrading existing bike lanes to protected bike lanes.
Pedestrian Safety: New pedestrian signals and controlled crossings.
Infrastructure: Pavement repair and sidewalk improvements.
Five maps of the project area were provided in a presentation to SacATC 2025-09-18, and these are shown below, south to north. There are gaps in these maps, but I think they serve to show the kinds of changes proposed. There were preliminary designs, final designs and engineering are now being developed by a consultant.
Below is a graphic from the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan (Chapter 8 Mobility Element, page 8-9). As a transportation advocate, I obviously have a bias, but I think this is the most important graphic, and the most important message in the entire general plan.
User Prioritization from City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan
This is in complete contrast to the transportation system we have built. Below is the transportation system we have. One could argue endlessly about how this varies with parts of the city, and whether active transportation should be lumped together, but the graphic communicates the problem.
I follow the city’s transportation projects, some in great detail, others only superficially. There are far too many for one person to cover, or even a group of people.
What I see in these projects is a very gradual shift from what we have to what we want. We might reduce general purpose (car) lanes, in number or width, but not always. We might add bicycle facilities. We might, occasionally, improve sidewalks for people walking and rolling (but not if we can get away with making property owners do it). We might make it easier for transit. Though the central city, and some neighborhoods outside the central city, have a reasonable tree canopy, north and south Sacramento are largely lacking a tree canopy, and every transportation project neglects solving this issue. We don’t plan in trees from the beginning, saying we’ll get to them later in the process, but at the end, they are usually missing.
We have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in making things better for drivers and motor vehicles, and very, very little on anything else. It is time to almost completely reverse that, so spend nothing on drivers and motor vehicles, and almost everything on transit, active transportation, and trees.
Cross-sections
Another way of exhibiting this is street cross-sections. These are from StreetMix (https://streetmix.net/), for an 80 foot right-of-way. Neither is meant to represent an actual street, but rather illustrative of the way in which we can allocate street space to different uses.
In the ‘what we have’ cross-section, motor vehicles are dominant. Sidewalks are narrow, trees are present but in few numbers, and probably not healthy because they have been squeezed into small spaces, bicycle facilities are not present or are of low quality, ample space is allocated to cars in general purpose lanes, and left turn lanes and right turn lanes. Ample parking is provided, whether needed or not. I have intentionally picked low density and low productivity uses to line this roadway, parking lots and single story buildings, though most often there is a parking lot before you even get to the building. StreetMix only offers a few options for each element, and what is shown is what is available.
In the ‘what we want’ cross-section, private motor vehicles are strictly limited. There is parking, but not ample parking. Transit, where is makes sense to have it, operates in its own right of way. Since the general purpose lane is one-way, a two-way bikeway (cycle track) is provided so that bicyclists have more freedom of movement than drivers. Sidewalks are ample, 8 foot on average. Sidewalk buffers are ample, 8 feet on average, so that trees have space to grow and thrive. The buffers are not just for trees, though, they can host dining and bike racks and street furniture. Reflecting the people-centered nature of this street, there are higher density uses of housing and business, and the buildings come to the sidewalk rather than being set back. The city is not proposing ‘what we want’ anywhere.
This street is far, far safer than multi-lane streets. By reducing the amount of space devoted to motor vehicle through traffic, space is freed up for people, people walking, people bicycling, people eating and socializing, and people just hanging out. It is quiet. It is friendly. It not only feels safe, but feels welcoming. This reflects my axiom that we should design streets from the outside in, not from the inside out (street design from the outside in). Outside in preferences walkers and trees, inside out preferences drivers and motor vehicles.
I’ve written before that streets should be planned from the outside in. Nearly every street I travel and nearly every plan I see for changing street width allocation clearly shows that the reverse is what was built, and what is planned.
There are a number of streets where center turn lanes are provided in blocks where there are few to no driveways. S Street near where I live is just one example. Many blocks have few to no driveways, yet the center turn lane exists all the way from 3rd Street to Alhambra Blvd. Could the street width be better used? You bet.
The most egregious example, however, is the Broadway Complete Streets project. I’ve written quite a number of posts, about the ways in which the project is successful, and the ways in which is it not. The project is such a disappointment to all the transportation advocates I talk to. Why?
Broadway was planned from the inside out. A center turn lane, all the way, whether needed or not. I’ll point out the expression, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”, Ralph Waldo Emerson, from the essay Self-Reliance“. Next, two motor vehicle lanes, one each way (which is an improvement over two each way before the project). The lanes are overly wide, 11 feet when they could have been 10 feet (not less than 10, because it is a bus route). Next, traditional bike lanes, mostly five feet wide but sometimes six, sometimes with a painted buffer (no vertical delineators), sometimes without. The bike lanes could have been parking protected, but they were not. They could have been wider, so that two bicyclists could safely pass each other, and accommodate cargo bikes and three-wheeled bikes. They were not. There is a short one block section between 15th Street and 16th Street where these a curb-protected bikeway. But nowhere else.
Then comes the sidewalks. The city apparently had a design policy to not touch the sidewalks, which then engenders ADA requirements, which are somewhat expensive to meet (though a small fraction of the entire project). But they did touch the sidewalks in places, and in each of these places, the sidewalks are narrower than they were before the project. In several locations, the sidewalks do not even meet ADA or PROWAG guidelines. The city has claimed that since PROWAG has not been adopted by FHWA, the requirements don’t apply to the city. In other words, go ahead and sue us, but we aren’t going to do the right thing. That is what city staff said when challenged about this.
Has the city learned its lesson? No. The two additional segments of Broadway to the east have exactly the same design.
The city’s stated objective for this project was to slow and reduce motor vehicle traffic so that people would stop for businesses along the street, increasing economic vitality. Broadway has real problems currently, as you can see by traveling along the corridor. A lot of empty buildings, a lot of parking lots, a lot of low value fast food joints. But is also has a number of great locally owned businesses, many of which were beginning to fail due to the street design and the pandemic. I admire the city’s intent, but mourn their failure to create a street than will accomplish that.
CalBike has published the first two of a series of reports on the failure of Caltrans to follow their own complete streets policy when designing and building streets which are also state highways. It is telling that the first of the series is on the failure of Caltrans District 3, which includes Sacramento county, to actually provide complete streets – Incomplete Streets Part 1: How Caltrans Shortchanges Pedestrians. District 3 is perhaps the worst of the Caltrans districts, which operate as independent (or rogue) agencies and regularly subvert Caltrans policy and direction from headquarters. Though they have a lot of competition for the title of worst.
“District 3 is perhaps best known as the district pushing through the Yolo Causeway highway expansion project. The project, which has been approved despite internal and external opposition, led to the firing of Caltrans Deputy Director Jeanie Ward-Waller after she blew the whistle on improper use of funds for freeway widening and insufficient environmental review.”
I encourage you to read these first two, and to follow CalBike investigative reporting. Caltrans must be held to account, as otherwise they will continue to design projects that kill and injure walkers and bicyclists, will continue to resist fixing the design mistakes they have made in the past, and will continue to commit fraud on the people of California by lying about what they are doing with your tax money.
I’m traveling, first in Las Vegas area, and now in Los Angeles area. Traveling to other places is a good reminder that Sacramento is not all that bad. There are worse places!
In Las Vegas, everyone drives everywhere. I observed a person jump in his Jeep, drive a half block to his mailbox, and drive back home. Walking to and from his front door, and to and from his mailbox (clustered mailbox), I saw no sign of disability. In fact, the prevalence of Jeeps is amazing. Every third suburban house has one. Cause you know, its wild out there. The number of them with dirt on the undercarriage, however, is infinitesimal. I see people leaving their house to drive and get coffee, and drive back home. Not as part of a chain of errands, but a drive just to get coffee, for no other purpose. Of course much of Las Vegas is so spread out, that it may to a long ways to a coffee shop (see coffee shops (tea) on the grid for a contrast). Every new development I saw is a gated community. I’m not aware of any being built or recently built that are anything but gated. Even the apartments are gated. People live in, and want to live in, a world where they don’t have to interact with other people, any more than absolutely necessary. They drive large vehicles with darkly tinted windows. They don’t know their neighbors, nor do they want to. The ‘living in a quiet neighborhood where you know your neighbors’ is a mythology perpetrated by people who want to defend their lifestyle, while preserving their isolation.
The worse thing about the neighborhood where my sister lives is the lack of any real shade. Though I celebrate the end of front yard lawns, trees seem to have been thrown out with the bathwater (‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’). Most front yards do not have trees at all, and the ones that do, they are mesquites and related trees, which are beautiful but provide almost no real shade. Except in the very oldest parts of the Las Vegas area, all sidewalks are attached, meaning no space for street trees. If they aren’t on private property, they pretty much don’t exist. Of course that doesn’t matter, because no one walks, so there is no need for shade. Not quite true. Everyone has a dog, or multiple dogs, and takes their dog for a 10-minute walk every day so they can leave their dog waste in someone else’s front yard. If you haven’t spent time in the Las Vegas area, it is always at least 5 degrees hotter than Sacramento, and up to 20 degrees hotter. It is a place that could really benefit from sidewalk shade, but doesn’t have it. Wait, I haven’t been fair. There are palm trees, everywhere. Shade? Nope. Wildlife value? Nope. Aesthetics? Nope.
There are a lot of bicycle riders in southern Nevada. They drive to the paved trails and to unpaved trails at the edge of the city. They don’t ride in the city.
Now I’m in Los Angeles. I have to say that people are much more friendly here. Complete strangers will start up conversations. And you do see a lot more people walking. There are sidewalks on every street. However, except along the main arterial roads, every block has a major issue the sidewalk, often root heaves that make the sidewalk impassible to people with mobility devices, and sometime even to abled walkers. If not root heaves, then there is just deterioration, big cracks and gaps. Bike lanes are scarce in the City of Los Angeles and unincorporated areas of the county. A few of the cities have really put in bike facilities, but in general, they just don’t exist. Because most of Los Angeles is on a grid, there are often lower speed, lower volume parallel streets to ride, but don’t bother with the major streets, or trying to get somewhere quickly.
I have been walking around Koreatown this afternoon, refreshing my memory and experience of the sidewalks. It is nearly impossible to walk a block, on any street except the arterial roadways, without running into a sidewalk issue that would make it difficult or impossible for someone in a wheelchair to navigate. The reason root heaves are so prevalent here is that the sidewalk buffers are only three feet, except in richer neighborhoods. Even Sacramento has six feet or more for sidewalk buffers (where they exist). So every tree that is older has root heaved the sidewalk (photo below). If it isn’t a root heave or deterioration, then a motor vehicle is parked across the sidewalk, blocking it. In several miles of walking, I have yet to see anyone using a mobility device, except in the grocery store. Are they staying home? Are they driving? Are they using transit? They aren’t rolling on the sidewalks!
impassible root heave, 9th St in Koreatown, Los Angeles
I know I complain often about the built environment in Sacramento, and the very slow progress in correcting the mistakes and disinvestment of the past. All of that is true. But…
Sacramento has a great tree canopy in much of the city, and where it does not, everyone recognizes that there is a problem and I believe the city is making an honest effort to correct that (though handicapped by the same issue that lower income neighborhoods were built with attached sidewalks (no sidewalk buffer for trees). Though there are some areas of gated communities, they are mostly in the county, not the city. Other than our governor, most people don’t live behind gates. It seems to me that there is nowhere near as much dislike of other people as is present in southern Nevada.
The central city has good bike facilities, and relatively polite drivers, at least for bicyclists (not walkers), and is flat. Flat. And the central city is getting better, and work is or will be done on some of the arterial roads in the suburbs, though it is many years late and many dollars short. But it is happening.
I really like living in Sacramento. Of course I go to the bay area frequently, and it in most ways does not compare well with that. But it certainly compares well with Los Angeles, and Las Vegas area. Las Vegas is really just a suburb of LA anyway. 75% of the people came from LA, and the rest from Utah. But every place has its challenges, and I know my perception is just one of many.
Summary: Complete streets concept is a failure because it doesn’t address frequent safe crossings. It leaves streets dominated by motor vehicle traffic while not necessarily increasing safety or welcoming design for walkers and bicyclists.
A recent post on Strong Towns (Ager Road: Where Complete Streets Fell Short) shows a street that was converted to a ‘complete street’, and won awards, but is actually less safe and less pleasant than what was there before. A fatality occurred shortly after the conversion, perhaps as a result of the conversion increasing vehicle speeds, perhaps not, but the conversion did nothing to reduce the likelihood.
From the post: “This is a stroad in disguise,” remarked Strong Towns Director of Community Action Edward Erfurt when examining Ager Road in Hyattsville, Maryland. And a Twitter post below.
My response:
The complete streets concept is largely a failure, everywhere it is implemented. I’m sure the original intentions were good, but every complete street project I’ve seen affirms the primacy of motor vehicles over other modes. The greatest failure of all is not what happens along the street, but that the concept does not even address the need for frequent safe crossings of the roadway. No wonder traffic engineers have embraced the concept – it allows them to continue motor vehicle dominance and accept traffic violence.
Dan Allison
So you can see the present ‘complete street’ more clearly:
Google Street View of Agar Rd, referenced on Strong Towns
The complete Streets concept is all about travel ALONG streets. Though it recognizes that crossings of streets are important, and encourages designs that make crossing safer and more welcoming, it does NOT address the frequency of safe crossings. The Complete Streets Coalition, part of Smart Growth America, does not require that complete streets policies include anything about the frequency of safe crossings. And so nearly all polices do not address that. The Caltrans policy, which applies only to state highways but is often applied to other streets, does not mention the frequency of safe crossings.
Traffic planners and engineers have embraced the Complete Streets concept, and tout policies and implementation. But what do we really end up with in most cases? Just more motor vehicle dominated streets, which is what most traffic planners and engineers want anyway, and claiming a complete street isolates them from criticism of the roads being designed and built, while making it more likely that they will be a federal, state, or regional grant for their project. Very few projects are awarded grants these days unless they claim to be a complete streets project. That is good, but the bar is set so low for what can be called a complete street, that the result is just more car infrastructure.
The project shown in the Strong Towns post checks off the following elements:
sidewalk, check
bike lane, check
green paint, check
general purpose lane(s), check
fence to prevent walkers from crossing any place other than the signalized intersection, check (I put this here with tongue in cheek)
What it does not check:
narrow the travel lanes to calm traffic
reduce the speed limit or actual speed through design
remove slip lanes (ask any bicyclist how they feel about bike lanes that cross high speed slip lanes)
reduce the corner radius at driveways
install or maintain street trees to calm traffic and provide shade for walkers
widen sidewalk buffers to ensure healthy trees and vegetation
create a pleasant walking environment
provide wayfinding to the nearby Metro station
The next time you hear a planner or engineer mention ‘complete streets’, hold on to your wallet (because, after all, it is your tax dollars that fund ineffective projects), and look around you to identify the traffic violence that will remain or even be increased.
The first step in designing a safe and welcoming streets is top ensure that there are safe and welcoming sidewalks and crossings of the street. Everything else comes after that, if at all. Adding bicyclist facilities that are neither safe nor welcoming, and reducing the the environment for walkers in trade, is going the wrong direction, and will lead to less walking and more traffic violence.
The most important aspect to the plan is that travel lanes (general purpose lanes) have been reduced from two each direction to one each direction. A reduction of lanes and narrowing of lanes (from 12 feet or more to 11 feet) is probably the single most effective action for calming traffic. When there is a single lane, the prudent driver who is traveling at or near the speed limit controls the behavior of other drivers, many of which would be traveling at excessive and incredibly dangerous speeds.
Trees?
Of the 10 common design elements on page 20 (23 of the pdf), none are about trees. Yet the lack of trees and shade for walking was a major issue in community input. The city has a tendency to minimize trees in transportation planning, because they are a detail beneath the interest of traffic engineers, and the city doesn’t want responsibility for maintaining street trees. Trees are often treated on the standard timeline of it is either a) too soon to address that (which was the response to early plans lack of attention to trees), or b) decisions already made so it is too late to address that (which will be the answer on trees now). Yet trees are a critical element of walkability, and walkability is a critical element of economic vitality. No trees, no walkers, no economic vitality.
On page 26 (29 of the pdf), the proposed cross-section does not show any trees within the public right-of-way, only on private property. Sidewalks are shown as eight feet, which is great, but without trees, many fewer people will walk there than if there were trees for shade. The wide-open viewshed also encourages higher speed driving, counteracting efforts to reduce speed.
Driveways?
One of the unfortunate aspects of the corridor is the prevalence of driveways. In most cases, each and every business has its own driveway or driveways, and its own parking. That is a characteristic of how the area developed, and in some ways it is a strength, because many small businesses make for a more vibrant economy (not to mention higher property tax and sales tax income). But crossing driveways are also the biggest impediment to a safe and welcoming walk, and to bicycling.
The city seems to have decided that it is not worthwhile addressing the number of curb cuts for driveways. The plan acknowledges wide and number driveways, but offers no solution.
Page 28 (31 of the pdf) shows a diagram for Wilson Avenue intersection. In just this short section, three properties are shown as having double in-out driveways for a single business. Not only is this unnecessary interruption of the sidewalk, but an interruption of the bikeway (green color in the diagram).
I believe the city should proactively reduce driveways by eliminating all double in-out driveways. It could be left to the property owner or business to decide if they want to have one in driveway and one out driveway, or a wider in-out driveway, though clearly one in-out is better for walkers and bicyclists.
The City of Sacramento, that bastion of doing the least amount possible, has failed to notice that progressive cities in the US and worldwide are making changes to their environment to make is safer for people who walk and bicycle, and more efficient and welcoming for people outside of cars.
What the city is NOT doing, that it could:
Accept responsibility for maintaining sidewalks, as an integral part of the transportation network. The city continues to shirk its responsibility, spending funds on motor vehicle infrastructure instead of maintaining walker infrastructure.
Installing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at every traffic signal in the city. The same eleven have been in place for years; none have been added. The recent legislation, AB 2264, only applies to state highways; it is up to cities and counties to implement on other roadways.
Daylighting intersections. This means removing parking from within 15-20 feet of the crosswalk or stop bar, either by painting and enforcing red curbs, or building curb extensions (bulb-outs) at every intersection. Upstream, approaching the intersection, is the big safety feature, downstream, leaving the intersection is much less important. There are interim solutions here, such as painting curb extensions and using soft-hit posts (vertical delineators).
Implementing construction zone requirements that accommodate walkers and bicyclists. The current city policy is to provide safe bypasses only if it does not in any way inconvenience drivers. The public has asked that a policy be developed along the lines of the Oakland construction policy, but the city has stonewalled against that.
Making transportation improvements that benefit walkers and bicyclists, except with county, state or federal grants. The city simply will not spend any of its general funds on improving transportation safety.
Waiting until a roadway is completely repaved to reallocate roadway width to bicycle lanes or separated bikeways, or transit. Compounding this issue is that the city doesn’t share with the public the repaving projects that it intends to do, so the public has no chance to comment beforehand.
Lowering speed limits citywide. While it is true that spot reductions have little effect on travel speeds, there are a growing number of cities that have lowered speed limits citywide, with a significant reduction in speed.
Enforce traffic laws. The Sacramento Police Department has essentially stopped enforcing laws related to the safety of walkers and bicyclists. This of course is also true in many other places. Police don’t see traffic safety as an issue worthy of concern. Of course so much of law enforcement is used as pretext to oppress, and I’m not in favor of any of that, but if the police won’t even enforce failure to yield to people in the crosswalk, what use are they? We would all be much safer if traffic law enforcement were removed from the police, largely automated, and the money saved diverted to real community needs. Yes, defund the police.
Painting marked crosswalks at every intersection. Yes, I know that unmarked crosswalks are legal crossings, but most drivers either don’t know or don’t care, so marking crosswalks is critical.
Remove beg buttons. These buttons, which sometimes a walker must press to get a walk sign, and sometimes don’t need to press (this is called auto-recall) are a direct attempt to discriminate against people walking. The city, after much pressure from the public at the beginning of the pandemic, set five crossings to auto-recall, out of the thousands. Of course they didn’t change the signing, so people walking don’t know this. The city it being intentionally obstinate in its defense of this outmoded requirement.
Remove pedestrian prohibition signs unless that is a demonstrable safety reason for the prohibition. There are numerous signs all over the city that were placed solely to preference motor vehicle drivers over people walking. The default should be that every one is removed unless the city wishes to do a traffic study to justify them.
Install traffic diverters (mode filters) all over the city. These diverters, which allow bicyclists free travel but turn motor vehicle drivers aside, are the single most effective safety measure that city could implement. But the city has decided to take these off the menu of solutions, for no reason that it has ever been made public. The few that exist are in the central city, almost none in other neighborhoods. Another example of privileging the already privileged over lower income neighborhoods.
Charge for parking, eveCavrywhere. Residential neighborhoods, where there is usually open parking space, would be charged through permits for the cost of maintaining that portion of the street. Any place where parking is in short supply, market rates for parking should be charged. Giving away free parking is subsidizing drivers and throwing your tax money in the trash.
I could go on with this list for pages. In fact, I have: walking policies for SacCity, and many related posts. But the city is still not taking meaningful action on any of these items, so I will keep reposting. For as long as it takes. And it will probably take quite some while before the city gets over its culture of doing the least amount possible.
Caveat: The city has disinvested in lower income and high minority neighborhoods, probably for its entire history. The first steps should be taken in these neighborhoods, with input from the residents, of course, and not in higher income and non-minority neighborhoods which have always gotten more than their share.
City of Sacramento staff (Drew Hart) presented to the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission last Thursday on the Freeport Boulevard Emerging Design Concepts. The presentation slides are here. The city’s Freeport webpage has a lot of background material. A link to the virtual open house on April 28 (tomorrow!) is available. This project and the Northgate project are being supported by the same consultant, so you will notice similarities in the process and graphics.
The northern section, between Sutterville Road to the east and Sutterville Road to the west, should look exactly like the traffic-calmed, complete street to the north. This project on Freeport was successful. There is no reason for five lanes in this section. One lane northbound, one lane southbound, and one left turn lane southbound is all it needs. If traffic backs up at the Freeport and Sutterville Road to the east intersection, then shorten the signal cycle.
The emerging design document skips over the issue of whether four general purpose lanes are even needed. A concept should be presented that reduces general purpose lanes to two, and reallocates roadway width to other modes.
Dedicated right hand turn lanes should be removed everywhere. Dedicated left hand turn lanes should be provided only where traffic studies have shown a clear need, and should never reduce the roadway width for other uses.
Green lanes are shown behind protection for separated bikeways. Since the protection does or should prevent vehicle incursion, the paint is not needed.
Dedicated transit lanes should be considered. Though SacRT has not identified this as a high frequency route in the High Capacity Bus Service Study (Route 62 is 30-minute frequency), reconstruction of the roadway must consider the possibility of dedicated transit lanes and transit supporting infrastructure. Appendix A, available on the project webpage, provides a lot of detail about existing transit stops, which are mostly quite poor.
Some businesses along Freeport have multiple driveways, more than are justified by the amount of vehicle traffic access. Closure and narrowing of driveways should be considered. Since almost every business has parking fronting the street, no on-street parking is needed anywhere. This is poor urban design, but it is the nature of the corridor and could not be corrected without wholesale reconstruction of the corridor.
While separated bikeways are often a good solution, the frequency of driveways might make for poor quality infrastructure. Unless driveways can be closed or reconfigured, separated bikeways may not be the best solution.
Posted speed AND design speed should be considered for reduction. Posted speed is 30 mph from Sutterville Rd (to the east) to Arica Way, 35 mph from Arica Way to Fruitridge Rd, and 40 mph from Fruitridge Rd to Blair Ave. The section from Sutterville Rd (to the east) to Fruitridge Rd should be posted and designed for 25 mph, in recognition of the density of businesses and driveways. The section from Fruitridge to Blair Ave should be posted and designed for 30 mph, as it has a lower density of businesses and driveways, and is adjacent to the airport for a significant distance.
Prioritization of the modes for Sutterville (to the east) and Fruitridge Rd should be:
walking
bicycling
transit
motor vehicle
Prioritization of the modes for Fruitridge Rd to Blair Ave should be:
bicycling
transit
walking
motor vehicle
Crash/collision map of the Northgate Blvd corridor for pedestrians (walkers) and bicyclists. Data is from SWITRS for the years 2015-2019. (pdf)
Update: Added a crash/collision map at the bottom. Though prevention of pedestrian and bicyclist killed and severe injury is always a top priority, this is not a high risk corridor as compared to many arterials in the city.
City of Sacramento staff (Leslie Mancebo) presented to the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission last Thursday on the Northgate Boulevard Emerging Design Concepts. The presentation slides are here. The city’s Northgate webpage has a lot of background material. A link to the virtual open house on May 11 is available.
I rode Northgate Blvd yesterday to refresh my memory about the street, as I’d not gone that way in a while. So, some comments:
The section of Northgate from Rio Tierra to I-80 is a standard suburban arterial, with low quality development and a completely uninteresting place to be. Changes to the roadway may make it safer, but won’t make it any more interesting or economically successful. The city should not focus on this area. It is unpleasant, and not particularly safe, but leave it be.
The section of Northgate from Rio Tierra to Garden Hwy has serious issues, but I see it as a place that could be transformed into an interesting, welcoming, and vibrant place. The number of small businesses, each with a driveway, is a challenge, but also an opportunity. At least half of the businesses are locally owned. This is not the home of big box and chain stores like much of the suburbs. It IS a place where people could walk if provided a safe and encouraging environment, and there are multiple destinations used by local residents.
I think that this entire segment should have buffered and wide sidewalks. The bike facilities could provide some buffer, but the sidewalk buffer is critical because it allows street trees. This section desperately needs street trees! Of course to be successful, the buffer/planting strip needs to be at least six feet, and the sidewalk at least six feet, but eight-ten foot buffer and eight foot sidewalk would be better. I think that the walking mode should take precedence over all other modes, even bicycling and transit, so whatever right-of-way the buffer and sidewalk needs, it should get. Don’t compromise this away.
I realize this project is at the gathering community input stage. However, diagrams will be used, and I’d like to see the diagrams include significant improvement to the pedestrian environment, wide sidewalks buffered from other modes, with trees in the buffer.
The presentation resulted in a number of questions from commission members about bicycle facilities. One of the ideas that got support is a two-way separated bikeway (or cycletrack) to provide a connection between the Ninos multiple use trail and the American River Parkway multiple use trail (the ‘special section’ in the presentation). There was less agreement about bicycle facilities north of there. One of the ideas is separated bikeways (protected bike lanes). Though of course separated bikeways are the best solution overall, I’m not sure they make sense for the east side of the street. Separated bikeways work best when there are few or no driveways, but there is a huge numbers of driveways here. The west side of the street has far fewer driveways.
There are some opportunities on the corridor for reducing driveways, and certainly some of the driveways can be narrowed to reduce entry and exit speeds. But short of a wholesale revision of the area, most driveways will remain, so the street design must accommodate this fact.
Transit on the part of the corridor between Arden Way and San Juan Road is provided by SacRT Route 13 Natomas/Arden, with a 45 minute frequency on weekdays. The route has a fairly low ridership, but it is a long route of which the Northgate section is a small part.
Crash/collision map of the Northgate Blvd corridor for pedestrians (walkers) and bicyclists. Data is from SWITRS for the years 2015-2019. (pdf)
Take the information about fault below with a huge grain of salt. It is well known that law enforcement officers assume walkers and bicyclists to be at fault, without any serious investigation, and often on the sole word of the driver involved.
Pedestrian (walker):
Northgate near Rosin Ct: killed, 60 yo male, unknown detail, no fault, no alcohol
Northgate near Ozark Cir: severe injury, 74 yo female, crossing, at fault, alcohol
Northgate at Wisconsin: severe injury, 36 yo female with two children, crossing, driver fault
Northgate at Peralta: severe injury, 48 yo, crossing Peralta, at fault (very unlikely)
Bicyclist:
Northgate near Winter Garden: severe injury, 49 yo male, left turn, at fault
Northgate at Bridgeford: killed, 47 yo male, crossing, at fault, alcohol or drug
Northgate at Harding: killed, 31 yo female, left turn, at fault
Northgate at Garden Hwy: severe injury, 40-44 yo male, broadside, at fault CVC 21453
The intersections of Northgate and San Juan Rd, West El Camino, and Garden Hwy/Jefferson Ave are particularly problematic because they are flared out to accommodate turning lanes, thereby lengthening crossing distances for walkers and creating a walker-hostile environment. Fixing these intersections would probably do more to improve the safety and feeling of this corridor than changes along the corridor.
Getting Around Sacramento 
