I am a member of the Vision Zero Action Plan update Task Force (stakeholder) group, which met last week, Thursday, February 12 (meeting #4 presentation). The meeting made some additional information available.

• On the Draft Actions sheet, the numbers in the left hand column just reference elements, they do not indicate any priority. The only priorities, on which feedback was being sought, are the three ‘buckets’ of high, medium, and low priority.
• The updated plan is intended to cover a span of five years. Where a number of actions are specified within an element, those are over a period of five years, not necessarily evenly distributed.
• No information is yet available on prioritization within each bucket.
• No information is yet available on sequencing of action elements. Some can be completed in a short time, some will be ongoing throughout the plan time period, and some will not start until later.
• No information is yet available on the cost of each element. For engineering actions, some cost information is in the Top Collision Profiles and Countermeasures memo.
• The Draft Actions sheet mentions ‘new laws’ in two elements (#2 and #3). References to the legislative bills or state code should be made available.
• Element #7 adds intersections to the program, which is great, since the original plan largely ignored intersections in favor of corridors. However, it is not clear what criteria might be used to identify these intersections. The draft High Injury Network continued the focus on corridors, so this intersection element indicates some progress towards considering intersections, which are the location of most crashes.
• Crossing guidelines are not part of the plan so far, but could be the location for prohibiting RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons), which have proven ineffective in Sacramento. There is an existing Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines document (2021-04), but it isn’t clear how the two documents will relate to each other.
• Questions were raised about repaving and pavement condition index (PCI), which is deteriorating in Sacramento (and nearly everywhere). The answer was that there is no clear nexus between pavement and crashes, though obviously there are instances.
• Questions were raised about the elements that mention law enforcement (#25 & #28). There is consensus among the stakeholders that in-person law enforcement is too subject to law enforcement bias and escalation, and that automated enforcement must be very carefully implemented to prevent racial, geographic, or income bias.
• I asked that an item #32 be added, to make the sidewalk inventory publicly accessible. It is not available on the city’s GIS Open Data Portal, and another person’s PRA (Public Records Act) for sidewalk data did not produce anything useful. See previous post where the streets have no… sidewalks.