Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Howard Chan, City Manager John Colville, City Treasurer City Council Report
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2022-00279 March 15, 2022 Discussion Item 12
Title: Transportation Priorities Plan Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution approving Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points related to various transportation investments and funding.
Contact: Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Transportation Planning Manager, 916-806-1026, [email protected]; David Edrosolan, Engineering Manager, 916-808-5974, [email protected]; Ryan Moore, Director of Public Works, 916-808-6629, [email protected]; Department of Public Works
Presenter: Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Transportation Planning Manager, 916-806-5913, [email protected], Department of Public Works
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-TPP-Phase-1-Community-Engagement-Summary-20210908
3-Resolution
4-Attachment A - Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points
File ID: 2022-00279 Discussion Item 12
March 15, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: On December 10, 2019, City Council adopted interim guidelines for transportation funding opportunities until City Council adopts criteria and priorities as part of the Transportation Master Plan (Transportation Priorities Plan) (Resolution 2019-0475). This staff report proposes criteria, metrics, and points for prioritizing transportation investments and funding. Staff seeks City Council’s input and approval on the recommendations.
The Transportation Priorities Plan began with community engagement. City staff engaged Sacramento communities from April through July 2021 and focused on listening to community transportation values and priorities. Engagement was conducted in four ways and included:
1. Virtual Gathering Series
2. Priorities Road Show
3. Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
4. Community Survey
A report of community engagement activities and community input is in Attachment 2 - Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary. A key component of engagement was striving for an equitable process. To do that, staff tracked survey responses by zip code and focused the Priorities Road Show in neighborhoods with low survey response. The majority of these neighborhoods are predominately Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and/or Indigenous, and are lower income.
Through the engagement effort, staff found Sacramentans values the following for transportation investment and funding:
1. Air Quality and Health
2. Equity
3. Connections to Places
4. Maintenance
5. Safety
Staff have taken these community values and developed recommended project prioritization criteria, metrics, and scoring points. The criteria and metrics have been shared with the City Attorney’s Office; City Council’s Racial Equity Ad Hoc Committee; City Department Directors; City Manager’s Office; Transportation Priorities Plan Community Consultants Equity Round Table; Transportation Priorities Plan Project Development Team as well as community organizations including 350 Sacramento, Environmental Council of Sacramento, United Latinos and others.
File ID: 2022-00279 Discussion Item 12
March 15, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Criteria are the values the community shared, such as “Improve Air Quality and Health”. The value is then defined in terms of City investments around transportation which for “Improve Air Quality and Health” include infrastructure that supports bicycling, walking, transit, and electric vehicles.
Metrics are the proposed way to measure a project for meeting the criteria. For example, if the criteria is improving air quality and health, the proposed metrics could include, among others, projects that include sidewalks, pedestrian scale lighting, street trees or marked crosswalks. Each metric is then given recommended points that will be applied if that project meets that metric.
Staff recommended transportation investment prioritization criteria, metrics and scores are in Attachment A.
After City Council approval of the criteria, metrics, and points, staff will prioritize the over 700 projects Sacramentans have invested in planning and City Council has approved in the last two decades. City staff will then take the criteria, metrics, and prioritized project list to the public for review and input. Projects will be presented as high priority; mid-priority; or long-term projects.
Public comment will be incorporated, and a Draft Transportation Priorities Plan will be produced and taken back to the public for their review and input.
Policy Considerations: The recommendation in this report is in accordance with the following policies from the Sacramento 2035 General Plan:
M 1.2.1 Multimodal Choices - The City shall develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system that improves the attractiveness of walking, bicycling, and riding transit over time to increase travel choices and aid in achieving a more balanced transportation system and reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
M 1.2.4 Multimodal Access - The City shall facilitate the provision of multimodal access to activity centers such as commercial centers and corridors, employment centers, transit stops/stations, airports, schools, parks, recreation areas, medical centers, and tourist attractions.
M 1.3.2 Eliminate Gaps - The City shall eliminate “gaps” in roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian networks.
M 4.1.3 Community Outreach - The City shall conduct public outreach to community organizations and members of the general public in corridor planning early in the project development process to identify feasible opportunities to provide community benefits and to lessen any potential impacts of modifications to local streets and roadways.
File ID: 2022-00279 Discussion Item 12
March 15, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
M 4.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle-Friendly Streets - In areas with high levels of pedestrian activity (e.g., employment centers, residential areas, mixed-use areas, schools), the City shall ensure that all street projects support pedestrian and bicycle travel. Improvements may include narrow lanes, target speeds less than 35 miles per hour, sidewalk widths consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan, street trees, high-visibility pedestrian crossings, and bikeways (e.g. Class II and Class III bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, separated bicycle lanes and/or parallel multi- use pathways).
M 4.2.5 Multi-Modal Corridors - Consistent with the Roadway Network and Street Typologies established in this General Plan, the City shall designate multi- modal corridors in the Central City, within and between urban centers, along major transit lines, and/or along commercial corridors appropriate for comprehensive multimodal corridor planning and targeted investment in transit, bikeway, and pedestrian path improvements if discretionary funds become available.
M 4.2.6 Identify and Fill Gaps in Complete Streets - The City shall identify streets that can be made “complete” either through a reduction in the number or width of travel lanes or through two-way conversions, with consideration for emergency vehicle operations. The City shall consider including new bikeways, sidewalks, on-street parking, and exclusive transit lanes on these streets by re-arranging and/or re-allocating how the available space within the public right of way issued.
The City’s Climate Emergency Declaration (Resolution No. 2019-0465) establishes the following commitment to nearer-term GHG emissions reductions:
Section 2. The City of Sacramento commits to building on existing climate commitments and to taking significant action to sustain and accelerate municipal and community carbon elimination in the short term, with maximum feasible efforts to implement emergency- speed carbon reduction actions towards eliminating emissions by 2030 as much as possible, recognizing that such a goal can only be reached through collaboration with regional partners as well as appropriate financial and regulatory assistance from state and federal authorities.
On November 12, 2019, the City Council adopted the following relevant Guiding Principles for the 2040 General Plan Update:
7. Take bold action to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and become a leading voice in the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
File ID: 2022-00279 Discussion Item 12
March 15, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
12. Prioritize the most vulnerable (e.g., individuals with disabilities, linguistically isolated, and seniors) and underserved communities in developing climate solutions, and take action to build resilience at the household, neighborhood, and citywide scale.
13. Develop infrastructure to support zero emission transportation and provide viable options for low-income households.
14. Work to ensure that Sacramento is an equitable, inclusive, and just city for people of all ages, abilities, ethnicities, races, genders, sexual identities, incomes, and cultures, such that everyone can achieve their full potential here.
17. Prioritize community resources towards historically disadvantaged communities in an equitable manner
21. Promote equity, justice, and accountability with a concerted application of resources toward youth in greatest need.
26. Support workforce participation by improving access to efficient, affordable transportation, training, childcare, and senior care.
39. Strengthen connections between Sacramento neighborhoods, to neighboring communities, and to the wider region by expanding and enhancing the range of transportation options for people of all ages and abilities.
40. Reduce reliance on single-occupant vehicles, prioritize and promote active transportation and, high-occupancy transport.
41. Improve the efficiency of the multi-modal transportation system and plan infrastructure that can flexibly accommodate rapidly emerging modes of transportation.
42. Recognize that traffic deaths and serious injuries are a public health issue and, with a goal of reaching zero traffic by 2027 through the Vision Zero initiative, the City will make safety of human life the City's highest priority, taking proactive, preventative steps.
Economic Impacts: None at this time; however, the recommendations and direction from City Council on this matter will have a direct relationship on future transportation investments funded through local funding (e.g.. Gas Tax, Major Street, Measure A) and grants (regional, State and Federal).
Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): This transportation planning study is exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning Studies. Section 15262 exempts projects involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions, which have not been approved, adopted, or funded. It is anticipated that future projects identified in this plan may be subject to environmental evaluation under CEQA guidelines and possibly National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
File ID: 2022-00279 Discussion Item 12
March 15, 2022
powered by Legistar™
City of Sacramento
Sustainability: The prioritization strategy recommended by City staff supports the City Council’s sustainability priorities. The transportation sector accounts for over 50% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, the largest single sector in the community.
The City’s Climate Action Plan includes several implementation measures to reduce vehicle trips. The strategy would support City Council approved transportation projects and programs that will increase active transportation, reduce vehicular trips, and help ensure more efficient vehicular flow. These actions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help improve local air quality.
Commission/Committee Action: None.
Rationale for Recommendation: City staff conducted extensive community engagement and learned from the many Sacramento communities that their values around transportation and their beliefs that the City should prioritize these transportation improvements:
1. Air Quality and Health
2. Equity
3. Connections to Places
4. Maintenance
5. Safety
Financial Considerations: None at this time; however, the recommendations and direction from City Council on this matter will have a direct relationship on future transportation investments funded through local funding (e.g., Gas Tax, Major Street, Measure A) and selection of grant applications (regional, State, and Federal).
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
City of Sacramento
Transportation Priorities Plan
Phase 1 Community Engagement Summary
PAGE 2 OF 35
Executive Summary
Funding for transportation projects almost
exclusively come from state and
federal grant funds, gas taxes, or countywide
transportation sales taxes. Unfortunately, these
funding sources cannot fund all of Sacramento’s
transportation needs.
The Transportation Priorities Plan will identify
which transportation improvements the City
should prioritize.
In this phase of the development of the
Transportation Priorities Plan, the City engaged
communities to hear about their transportation
values and to gather feedback on
recommendations.
This community engagement was conducted from
April 15 through July 15
th, 2021, and focused on
Transportation Values and included:
• Virtual Gathering Series
• Priorities Road Show
• Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
• Community Survey
Each are highlighted in this executive summary.
Virtual Gathering Series Summary
In April and May of 2021, the City of Sacramento hosted a virtual gathering series to introduce the Plan and gather community feedback. The gatherings took place on Wednesday, April 28 and Thursday, May 6 through Zoom due to Sacramento County regulations regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 141 community members participated.
Staff presented the plan background and shared information about the community survey.
Community members were also asked what they would like to see improved in Sacramento. Popular improvements to
transportation included calmed traffic, improved connectivity, improved safety, and more bikeways.
The City estimates it would
cost $5 billion to build all
the transportation projects
identified in plans created
over the last 20 years.
However, the City only has
about $42 million (including
grants) each year to make
this happen.
It would take more than
100 years to build what
we currently have planned.
This Plan will identify
priority investments.
Attendees expressed a need for:
• Calmed traffic
• Improved connectivity
• Improved safety
• More bikeways
PAGE 3 OF 35
Priorities Road Show
City staff understood that in addition to holding community Virtual Gathering meetings, it is vital to go to communities at meetings already being held. The Priorities Road Show involved City Staff taking the Virtual Gathering Series to communities, rather than the communities having to come to a City meeting.
To help with an equitable outcome, staff tracked the online survey responses by zip code and focused the Priorities Road Show in neighborhoods with lower numbers of
surveys submitted. The majority of these neighborhoods are Black, Latino, and Asian, and are lower income.
Staff contacted over 70 organizations in areas where online survey responses were low and asked if there was an
upcoming meeting that staff could attend or if not, could they distribute information on the planning effort and the survey to its members. Of those 70 organizations, 37 were able to support the effort and staff presented to many of these organizations and their members.
In the conversations with the groups and the meetings staff attended, the following summarizes input received:
• Equity should not be a value that is decided by community vote but should be a standard City value. • Community members felt that equity should also include consideration for gender equity because women have different safety considerations when traveling through communities and certain elements in the built environment, such as street lighting or separated bikeways, can influence a woman’s decision to walk or bicycle rather than drive.
• Community members do not want to discuss values but instead want to see sidewalks installed where there are none, more controlled crosswalks so they can reach destinations, more trees to shade sidewalks, and potholes fixed so cars are not damaged. • Community members felt they have told the City what they need and want, but they do not see that transportation infrastructure getting built.
• Residents had questions about general City processes such as:
o What is the process for a transportation improvement from idea to construction? o Who should the community call with concerns/comments? o It’s not clear that the City, Regional Transit, and the school districts are separate entities.
How are they separate? And more importantly, how do all three work together?
In the Priorities Road Show
conversations, staff heard:
• Equity should not be decided by
community vote but should be a
standard City value.
• Equity should include
consideration for gender.
• Communities have told the City
what they want, they do not want
to discuss values, they want
projects constructed.
PAGE 4 OF 35
Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
To involve the younger generation in a conversation about transportation in Sacramento, the project team developed and implemented a two-month long creative youth engagement program entitled “On Our Streets.” The program provided a platform for youth in Sacramento to share a story of their experience traveling around their neighborhood and the city through photos, videos, artwork, poetry, short stories, or other creative formats.
A total of 20 youth participated in the program and sent in submissions. When asked, “What makes a good street?” participating youth responded with:
• Have a smooth road to do something on.
• A good street allows any form of transportation move quickly and efficiently. • What makes a good street are the people that live within that street and the community that revolve around that street.
• The thing that makes a good street is where everyone is patient. • I like the fact that people hang outside a lot I think it's fun. • What makes a street good is that it saves time, but it is a good and safe way to get around. Also, that there is not too much traffic or activity. It should be visually appealing not just rocks and dirt beside you.
• Complete street: cars, bikes, pedestrians all are comfortable. • No potholes.
On Our Streets youth submission by Marwa S.
sharing the story of traveling around their
neighborhood.
PAGE 5 OF 35
Community Survey
The purpose of the community survey was to gather input on community values around transportation.
Those values that receive the most votes will be those used to evaluate transportation projects for priority investments.
The survey was available online and in a modified paper format. Both versions offered the survey in Chinese, English, Hmong, Spanish, and Vietnamese. A total of 962 responses were received with 845 online responses and 117 paper responses. Areas where Sacramento’s Black, Latino, and Asian residents live and locations with higher concentrations of poverty had lower response rates than more affluent and white neighborhoods. An analysis of responses by race, income, and zip code found no significant difference in responses.
The transportation values most supported by the survey respondents include, listed in order of importance from most important:
1. Air Quality and Health
2. Equity
3. Connections to Places
4. Maintenance
5. Safety
6. Technology
Those who took the survey could also write in
their own values. The most common write in
topics included increased traffic
enforcement, expanded and improved transit,
and improved biking.
PAGE 6 OF 35
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Virtual Gathering Series Summary ............................................................................................................................... 2 Priorities Road Show ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 Youth Engagement “On Our Streets” ............................................................................................................................ 4 Community Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Virtual Gathering Series Summary ................................................................................................................................... 8 Virtual Gathering Purpose & Format ............................................................................................................................ 8 Public Awareness & Notification .................................................................................................................................. 8 Meeting Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 Community Input ........................................................................................................................................................ 13 Priorities Road Show Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Priorities Road Show Purpose & Format ................................................................................................................... 19 Community Consultants: Equity Advisory Group ..................................................................................................... 19 Organizations Contacted ........................................................................................................................................... 20 Community Input ........................................................................................................................................................ 21 Youth Engagement “On Our Streets” Summary ........................................................................................................... 22 Youth Engagement Purpose & Format ...................................................................................................................... 22 Guidance to Youth ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 Public Awareness & Notification ............................................................................................................................... 24 Youth Submissions .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Youth Input .................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Community Survey Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Community Survey Purpose and Format .................................................................................................................. 30 Public Awareness and Notification ........................................................................................................................... 31 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................................ 31 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................................................... 35
PAGE 7 OF 35
Introduction
Funding for transportation projects almost exclusively come from state and federal grant funds, gas taxes, or countywide transportation sales taxes. Unfortunately, these funding sources cannot fund all of Sacramento’s transportation needs. The City estimates it needs about $5 billion to build all the transportation projects identified in plans created over the last 20 years. However, the City only has about $42 million (including grants) each year to make this happen. It would take more than 100 years to build what we currently have planned.
The Transportation Priorities Plan will identify which transportation improvements the City should prioritize.
In this phase of the development of the Transportation Priorities Plan, the City engaged communities to hear about their transportation values and to gather feedback on recommendations.
This community engagement was conducted from April 15 through July 15 th and focused on Transportation
Values and included:
• Virtual Gathering Series
• Priorities Road Show
• Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
• Community Survey
This memo summarizes the Phase 1 of
engagement conducted from April 15
through July 15
th and focused on
Transportation Values. Phase 1 included:
• Virtual Gathering Series
• Priorities Road Show
• Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
• Community Survey
Each are described in this memo.
What transportation improvements
in Sacramento will be prioritized?
PAGE 8 OF 35
Virtual Gathering Series
Summary
In April and May of 2021, the City of Sacramento
hosted a virtual gathering series to introduce the
Transportation Priorities Plan and obtain community
feedback. The virtual gatherings took place on
Wednesday, April 28 and Thursday, May 6 virtually
through Zoom due to Sacramento County regulations
regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Approximately 86
community members attended the April gathering and
55 attended in the May gathering, for a total of 141
community participants.
Virtual Gathering Purpose & Format
The virtual gatherings provided participants with an
introduction to the Transportation Priorities Plan, an
understanding of potential “priorities,” an overview of the project schedule, and an opportunity to ask
questions and discuss the information shared during
the meeting. Following a presentation, the project
team facilitated a large group discussion where
participants asked questions and provided input
through the virtual “chat box” or by verbally asking
their questions.
Public Awareness & Notification
Following is a summary of the notification efforts and
strategies the project team implemented to build
awareness about the Transportation Priorities Plan
and notify community members about the virtual
gathering series.
Project Website
The City of Sacramento hosts an informational website on the City’s official site, focused on the Transportation Priorities Plan. The project website included graphics and links to sign up for the virtual gathering series, along with information about the meetings.
Direct Calls and Emails
The project team reached out to more than 100 stakeholder groups representing active transportation and mobility advocates, business interests, disadvantaged communities, persons with disabilities, the elderly community, environmental groups and public health organizations, schools, public transit, and neighborhood associations in Sacramento. Through personal phone calls and emails, the project team notified these groups about the upcoming meetings and requested them to share the information to their organization through email newsletters, social media posts, website updates, or other communication links.
Community members participating in the virtual
gathering series through Zoom.
PAGE 9 OF 35
The following groups shared information:
1. Asian Resources
2. Black Child Legacy
3. City Council District 2
4. City Council District 3
5. City Council District 5
6. City Council District 6
7. City Council District 8
8. Colonial Village Neighborhood Association
9. Community Partners Advocate of Little Saigon
Sacramento (CPALSs)
10. Del Paso Boulevard Partnership
11. Environmental Council of Sacramento
12. Greater Broadway Partnership
13. House Sacramento
14. La Familia Counseling Center
15. Midtown Association
16. Natomas JIBE
17. Oak Park Neighborhood Association
18. Power Inn Alliance
19. Sacramento Area Bicycling Advocates (SABA)
20. Sacramento Black Chamber of Commerce
21. Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
22. Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment
Agency (SHRA)
23. Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce
24. Sacramento Rainbow Chamber of Commerce
25. South Oak Park Neighborhood Association
26. Southeast Village Neighborhood Association
27. Stockton Boulevard Partnership
Email Blast
The City distributed an e-mail notification to 2,049
community members and one reminder to a
database of 2,186 community members who have
signed up for the city’s newsletter.
City Express Blog Post
The City published a City Express blog post on April
22, 2021 with information about the plan and the
virtual gatherings.
Social Media
Additionally, targeted social media advertisements
were posted prior to the virtual gathering series and
reached 12,705 community members.
Social Media advertising the Virtual Gatherings
PAGE 10 OF 35
Meeting Summary
Group Icebreaker
At the beginning of each virtual gathering, the project team facilitated a short icebreaker activity through Mentimeter, a tool which allows for real-time input, to hear from community members about which neighborhoods they live in, what they love about Sacramento, and their thoughts around key areas for improving transportation and mobility in Sacramento.
Responses from each virtual gathering group are shown below and organized by question.
Which neighborhood do you live in?
Gathering #1
Gathering #2
PAGE 11 OF 35
What do you love about Sacramento?
Gathering #1
Gathering #2
PAGE 12 OF 35
What are key areas for improving transportation and mobility in Sacramento?
Gathering #1
Gathering #2
PAGE 13 OF 35
Potential Priorities
To help community members begin thinking about what their priorities could be for the city’s transportation system, the project team shared potential priorities. These priorities were developed based on City Council’s Guidelines for Transportation Funding Opportunities Resolution 2019-0475 as well as what staff hear from communities. The potential priorities were also reviewed by the Community Consulting team consisting of residents from marginalized communities and transportation equity advocates. The potential priorities included:
• Air quality and Health: Prioritizing air quality and health would mean prioritizing projects that encourage walking, biking, and electric vehicles such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, access to transit, or electric vehicle charging stations.
• Connections to Places: Prioritizing connections to places would mean prioritizing projects that make it easier to reach schools, parks, libraries, community centers, local shops, jobs, and other places and include sidewalks, crosswalks, bikeways, bridges and street improvements. • Equity: Prioritizing equity would mean improving transportation conditions in communities that have not seen investment historically, lack basic infrastructure, or are low-income communities of color. • Maintenance: Prioritizing maintenance would mean fixing potholes, repaving streets and walking/biking paths, and adding curb ramps at crosswalks. • Safety: Prioritizing safety would mean prioritizing improvements where the most serious and deadly collisions occur and could include signs, pavement striping, crosswalks, bike lanes, traffic signals, pedestrian signals, or speed and lane reductions.
• Technology: Prioritizing technology would mean upgrading traffic signals and signal operation and adding pedestrian signals and other safety equipment.
Community Input
During the virtual community gatherings and the Priorities Road Show, community members were provided with opportunities to ask questions and provide their informed input. A summary of all the questions and feedback obtained is below, organized by topic.
Project background / process
• What are the city’s current “priorities”? Is there a list?
• Is this related to the Transportation Programming Guide? • Does the City already have some existing priorities that these will be modifying? • It seems to me that the process is more project-driven than policy driven. Is there an overarching set of transportation policy that are already defined by Council? • How important is “data” in determining priorities?
• Are the Prioritization of Transportation Needs final results weighted by population/density of neighborhoods? i.e. even if a more-populated neighborhood has less completed surveys than a less- populated area, will their results be weighted to reflect its larger population?
• The idea of a 15-minute neighborhood is something the city is interested in. How does that idea overlay/intersect with the prioritization process you are presenting?
• While you continually say that you are going to respond to our priorities, what if people ask for more roads and which creates more congestion and allows more speeding. At times, the City DOES know better than its residents, so how to manage that tension between what some people want and what’s best for the whole city/community?
• Does the City have an existing Policy to evaluate roundabouts as an alternative in addition to signals or stop signs?
PAGE 14 OF 35
Access and connections to places
• If people have the opportunity to travel by other means than automobiles, they will use the other means.
• If you make bicycling and walking and transit more usable, people will choose not to drive.
• Safe bicycling from Oak Park and other less-privileged neighborhoods to downtown is a priority for me (i.e. connectivity!)
• We should be able to walk or bike throughout all of Sacramento and not have to drive somewhere, park, and then get the bike or people out to bike or walk.
• Will we be increasing crosswalks to mirror walking patterns better? I walk to the Bel Air on Fruitridge a lot, but it's discouraging to go to add a couple of blocks to cross at Fruitridge and 62nd Street rather than having a crosswalk at the corner of 61st Street across the street. This happens on Stockton Boulevard a lot, too.
• What is the potential to grow Slow Active Streets that address many of the values? Seems like it could be a low-cost way to provide safe connections to the better facilities like bike paths.
Equity
• Sacramento keeps focusing on new areas over established areas. When they do focus on established areas, such as Oak Park, gentrification happens, and the established residents and their transportation needs are ignored. Will this priority survey touch on this? • How will the Sacramento Environmental Justice Collaborative Governance Committee be included as a working group in these priorities?
• How will projects be implemented in regard to new versus established areas, I live in South Natomas and used Oak Park as an example. Look at North Natomas and South Natomas and see the difference
Safety
• Does ‘safety’ include reduction of crime? So that walking is safer? • People might be more inclined to walk rather than drive if perceived as safe to do so. • Have consequences related to life loss, reduced economic growth, etc. been evaluated for different projects? What is the consequence for not doing some of the 700 projects? • How current is the High Injury Network? Does it reflect safety needs which have emerged since 2015?
• There have been several random assaults in my area and nearby areas in broad-day light, one involving a child on Freeport Boulevard and anther involving a woman near W/V Streets – that’s the reason I’m feeling less comfortable walking around. I would choose to drive to be safer. Also keeping the area clean is important — people are less likely to want to get out and walk if there’s litter and garbage everywhere.
• Caltrans hasn't deviated from safety being it's #1 priority, even though equity is also super high. Won't it be bad press for the city to deviate from safety being #1?
• I’ve heard parking fees inhibit City transportation projects because of reluctance to make changes that might result in less revenue collected.
• Gas taxes have been decreasing. Could we develop other funding sources?
• Has there been talk about educating bicyclists and motorists about rights and responsibilities? All this talk about infrastructure is great but if people do not have a clear understanding of the Rules of
PAGE 15 OF 35
the Road, including their and motorists responsibilities, collisions are bound to happen and people will not 'feel' safe when riding.
• Safety can also mean slowing traffic and slowing volume to make streets safer to vulnerable road users.
• Traffic light synchronization is cost effective and also improves safety.
Maintenance
• I was surprised that sidewalks have no repair funding just grants.
Bicycle infrastructure
• Where are the dedicated bike lanes like we have freeways that do not permit bikes or pedestrians. Where is the reciprocal to the freeway for bikes.
• Are separated bikeways with a barrier too expensive to put in?
• It's interesting that we're still talking about the bikeways and the bike plans. I used to be on the Bikeway Task Force a way a long time ago.
• Let's fund bike lanes as we fund automobile lanes.
• Has the question been asked about repainting bike lane demarcations, pedestrian crosswalks, limit lines, etc.? Also, did the project team give feedback on Protected Bike Lanes and enforcement thereof? Often I observe people riding against traffic in these so-called Protected Bike Lanes.
• Great point about what I call the "one-off bike route"....one block off the main arterial. Much more pleasant and safe!
• As Walk San Francisco documented in “Getting to the Curb,” a guide it released last November, early protected bike lane designs had specific problems, such as buffers that are too narrow for people in wheelchairs. They now have to cross “…a lane of bike traffic and a greater distance to get to the curb,” added Medeiros, showing a bike lane configured as the one seen in the lead image. “There’s just no accessible way to reach the curb…this [configuration] is frequent.”
• Paint does NOT create a barrier that magically repels cars! Nor do the ridiculous plastic bollards on Franklin Boulevard.
• If a vehicle can park in a bike lane, it isn't a bike lane. • Create dedicated bike streets and separate cars and bikes and pedestrians. • I'm not thrilled with the paint and bollards on Florin Road at Riverside! Congestion
• Is congestion (hours of vehicle delay) a performance measure for “mobility?” What other “measures” does the city use or value?
• Mode shift to walk and bike reduces congestion.
• How will the city work to reduce traffic congestion? It’s nice to move toward electric vehicles to improve air quality and reduce climate change, but they do not address traffic congestion.
• Is the City considering congestion pricing to deal with the rise in congestion you are talking about?
Other priorities
• How does “Livability” figure into Prioritization of Transportation Needs, Projects, etc.? The city’s recent “L” survey did not include questions about traffic safety issues (e.g. speed, aggressive driving, crossing width, etc.)
PAGE 16 OF 35
• We need to prioritize people over automobiles in the transportation department. • How will the recommendations from the Mayors’ Climate Commission be used in this project? • Will this effort impact and improve the Electrify Sacramento effort? Will improve the electric vehicle charging network? Will there be efforts towards electric busses or trolleys? • A value I'd like to see reflected in the priorities plan is a broader set of stats and performance measures beyond those focused on automobile traffic and volume. I'd like to know how our transportation system performs from the perspective of more transportation modes and how it performs in ways relevant to performance objectives for other modes. For example, congestion happens on transit at peak times or stations, and I experience congestion at some bike racks that are surrounded by scooters and I can't access the bike rack when I arrive to park. (FedEx store at Sutterville and Freeport...)
• New study from MIT creating a model that predicts project impacts on pedestrians. Fantastic! https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/04/26/new-traffic-model-predicts-how-changes-affect-walkers/
• The bike and walking paths in my neighborhood are covered with dog waste. • Don't forget the shade trees, they encourage biking and walking.
Funding
• What is the City going to do about the transportation Revenue stream or lack thereof? • How does the City’s investigation of other state capitols and how they fund transportation tie into this?
• I understand the Capital City tax exempt ya-ti-da but with $5B backlog it seems like a waste of time to be discussing the crumbs when we need to make the transportation pie much bigger. What new revenue stream can council come up with so that we are not just digging the maintenance hole deeper every year???
• How does this priorities plan integrate with SACOG’s priorities? I believe they distribute federal funding to local agencies.
• Do parking meter fees and other fees charged to those driving cars on our streets fund transportation projects? Does this transportation plan include considering proposals like increasing car-use fees like parking or tolls to fund projects that encourage biking and walking, like traffic calming?
• How do we get EV's to contribute to the road funding?
• Does Sacramento collect traffic impact fees?
• Transportation should be regarded as a utility that is paid for by all. • Nobody looks at long term maintenance costs.
• Stephanie Parent: Santa Monica has an award winning blue bus system. They have good ridership and funding - are there other cities that are doing that? How can we do that? • I would guess Santa Monica has a higher density and property value revenue stream than Sacramento...more money.
• Prop 13 makes local funding quite difficult, hence the money from elsewhere.
• Ok, so I’m going to just say it: if Prop 13 is hamstringing funding for maintenance and transit (and given the failure of Prop 15 last year), then I’m just going to say it: we’re hosed. Things are just going to get worse, not better. I hate to be the “wet blanket” here, but that’s just a fact. If we can’t make the funding pot bigger, then things are just going to get progressively worse. • The limited budget is the problem. You need to figure out how to make a limited budget not so limited. The over reliance on grants seems to be a problem. Not the only problem of course, but a problem.
PAGE 17 OF 35
• What percentage of “transportation resources” are budgeted and expended on the different “programs” (e.g. safety, mobility, traffic calming, maintenance, operation of signals, capital funding, etc.)?
• I’ve been at this off & on since I moved here almost 14 years ago. I’ve heard the same phrase “funding sources need to be identified” in different variations the entire time. One thing I can say unequivocally is that nothing has changed.
Project implementation
• Has the city adopted a “performance-based” approach (using measures, indicators and practical goals) to identify the “best” way to invest resources?
• Why can’t the city move forward with fixing the high injury network locations mentioned before? • Along Stockton Boulevard there is city on one side of the street and county on the other side of the street. How will the city ensure improvements to this type of area given the mixed oversight? I'm looking for something more than we will or may coordinate.
• Will Projects be prioritized differently based on areas of the City (i.e. Natomas vs. downtown) as they may have differing priorities?
• Has the City evaluated Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)? Is this something that can be utilized to prioritize project locations in this Plan?
Transit
• Isn't there some transit infrastructure that needs to be directly considered by the City.
• Yes, more buses, not more light rail. Buses are more flexible. And more safe crossings for pedestrians and routes for bicyclists.
• It shouldn't take an hour to go 7 miles to work via bus when driving takes 10 minutes. Buses need to have realistic schedules if folks are to use them.
• Electric vehicles don't address economic equity. Lower income folks can't afford EVs; we need affordable accessible public transportation, and not just limited to the downtown area but throughout the region.
• Light rail doesn't have the flexibility of buses. There are areas in the city with no public transit and where Uber and Lyft drivers won't take people who need to work. • We need to prioritize public transit over single occupancy vehicles. • It would be awesome to have an easy way to get the airport, do I address that to Transit?
• Yes, thanks to Uber/Lyft for chasing out SuperShuttle and leaving less competition for service to/from airport...I notice it is now more expensive and rental car companies are raising their prices exorbitantly, too, these days. Trying to 'congestion price' post-covid demand for air travel and rental cars.
• For anyone interested in what's happening with rail and transit here (a lot and it's great!) sign up for e-newsletter of Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit at www.sactosmart.org. • I think that asking people on transit in the lower income neighborhoods about their transportation challenges would provide useful information.
• Future generations are being failed because “funding sources need to be identified.”
PAGE 18 OF 35
Miscellaneous
• Has the Sacramento Active Transportation Commission chimed in? They have representation from each of the Council districts.
• I hope you also find ways to engage seniors. Transportation is a key lifeline and affects their vulnerability.
• New development needs to pay the real costs of their impact on our community. • Is the transportation department looking at other models of people-transportation worldwide for all our streets?
• Any thoughts on secure bicycle parking structures?
• What happens when we create a 311 item in your app about scooters and e-bikes being left in the middle of the sidewalks and parks for days? If we supply the bike/scooter number does that person have to pay a fine? What is the fine and how much money do you get in fines?
• Has there been a Universal Design Plan presented to learn from the mistakes of our neighboring city?
• Disturbed to not see the city address change for the future, new values, and redesign as the County planning is doing for Fair Oaks Boulevard, Howe to Monroe, and the revisioning of Fulton, Arden, Hurley and El Camino in Arden Arcade.
• Is there any resolve to create a slow and active street designation as a legitimate roadway designation?
• Garbage cans get in the way of bikes. The city wants to pass the 2040 General plan which allows 6 housing units on each lot in Sac. And all the parking will be on the street. How will the electric cars be able to charge their car if they have to park on the street? • Here in South Natomas there are many four lane streets that are fine for drag racing after 10pm on summer nights. They are that empty. Plenty of room for dedicated bike lanes. Still the problem remains how to cross the river without running the homeless gauntlet. • Does the city (or Public Works) have an Innovation Program, or can Transportation Advocacy Groups simply submit Pilot Project proposals for Slower AND SAFER Streets without Speed Bumps, Lumps or Humps? Low Cost / High Return on Investment solutions are waiting to be recognized and implemented systemically. Why are we waiting?
• Pre-pandemic I was bike commuting from the South Land Park area to Downtown. I know there was discussion about making the railroad tracks from Meadowview to the Zoo a multi-use path, which would make the commute to downtown a lot safer. What is happening with this project? • Is there any movement to create a permanent slow and active street designation? • What about other pilot project proposals? For example: for safety-centric solutions which are not currently part of the city’s toolbox
• What studies are done by the city to determine what works and what doesn't work? How many people are really using the bike lane on J street that costs millions of dollars? • Honestly, most streets in Sacramento city could probably be slow and active streets. • Whose responsibility is it to convince decision-makers of modern / innovative solutions which are not yet recognized by the city as proven and “best” practices.
PAGE 19 OF 35
Priorities Road Show Summary
Priorities Road Show Purpose & Format
City staff understood that in addition to holding community Virtual Gathering meetings, it is vital to go to communities at meetings already being held. The Priorities Road Show involved City Staff taking the Virtual Gathering Series to communities, rather than the communities having to come to a City meeting.
To help with an equitable outcome, staff tracked the online survey responses by zip code and focused the Priorities Road Show in neighborhoods with lower numbers of surveys submitted. The majority of these neighborhoods are Black, Latino, and Asian, and are lower income.
Survey responses by Zip Code during community engagement
Community Consultants: Equity Advisory Group
Staff understood that with city community engagement efforts, the City receives less input and feedback from under-resourced communities. To help the City have a more equitable process and an engagement strategy that meets the needs of under-resourced communities, a Community Consultants equity advisory group was formed. The Community Consultants are a team that have and will advise staff on process; terms and language used in outreach and planning; as well as feedback on staff recommendations.
The Community Consultants provided valuable advice throughout Phase 1 of engagement by providing recommended contacts with community organizations and community leaders to help share information about this planning effort.
PAGE 20 OF 35
Organizations Contacted
Staff contacted over 70 organizations and asked if there was an upcoming meeting that could be attended or if not, could they distribute information on the planning effort and the survey to its members. Of those 70 organizations, 37 were able to support the effort and staff presented to two commissions.
1. Name of Organization Attend Meeting or Materials Distributed?
2. 350 Sacramento City Staff made presentation
3. Active Transportation Commission (City) Meeting
4. AARP Materials Distributed to Members
5. Cabrillo Park Neighborhood Association Meeting
6. CARES Workforce Recovery Program Providers Meeting
7. City College Meeting
8. Youth Commission (City) Meeting
9. D2 Community Conversations Meeting
10. Deerfield/Mesa Grande Neighborhood
Association
Meeting
11. Downtown Sacramento Partnership Materials Distributed to Members
12. Edge Water Apartments (SHRA) Materials Distributed to Members
13. Fruitridge Community Collaborative Materials Distributed to Members
14. Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association Meeting
15. Golf Course Terrace Neighborhood Association Meeting
16. Greenhouse, The Materials Distributed to Members
17. Hagginwood Neighborhood Association Meeting
18. Hispanic Chamber Meeting
19. House Sacramento Meeting
20. IRC - International Rescue Committee
21. Jibe Materials Distributed to Members
22. La Familia Materials Distributed to Members
23. Lu Mien Community Services Materials Distributed to Members
24. Mack Road Partnership Materials Distributed to Members
25. Meadowview Neighborhood Association Meeting
26. Natomas Community Association Materials Distributed to Members
27. Natomas Garden and Arts Club Materials Distributed to Members
28. Natomas Unified School Board Trustees Materials Distributed to Members
29. Oak Park Neighborhood Association Meeting
30. Power Inn Alliance Materials Distributed to Members
31. Red, Black and Green Environmental Justice
Coalition
Meeting
32. Regional Transit Materials Distributed to Members
33. Resources for Independent Living Materials Distributed to Members
34. Robla Park Community Association Meeting
35. Sacramento TMA Meeting
36. SHRA Alder Grove (SHRA) Materials Distributed to Members
37. South Natomas Improvement Association Materials Distributed to Members
38. South Natomas United Materials Distributed to Members
39. Stanford Settlement Materials Distributed to Members
PAGE 21 OF 35
Community Input
In the conversations with the 39 groups and the meetings staff attended, the following summarizes input received:
• Equity should not be a value that is decided by community vote but should be a standard City value. • Community members felt that equity should also include consideration for gender equity because women have different safety considerations when traveling through communities and certain elements in the built environment, such as street lighting or separated bikeways, can influence a woman’s decision to walk or bicycle rather than drive.
• Community members do not want to discuss values but instead want to see sidewalks installed where there are none, more controlled crosswalks so they can reach destinations, more trees to shade sidewalks, and potholes fixed so cars are not damaged. • Community members felt they have told the City what they need and want but they do not see that transportation infrastructure getting built.
• Residents had questions about general City processes such as:
o What is the process for a transportation improvement from idea to construction? o Who should the community call with concerns/comments? o It’s not clear that the City, Regional Transit, and the school districts are separate entities.
How are they separate? And more importantly, now do all three work together?
PAGE 22 OF 35
Youth Engagement
“On Our Streets” Summary
Youth Engagement Purpose & Format
To involve the younger generation in a conversation about transportation in Sacramento, the project team developed and implemented a two-month long creative youth
engagement program entitled “On Our Streets.” The
program provided a platform for youth in Sacramento to
share a story of their experience traveling around their neighborhood and the city through photos, videos, artwork, poetry, short stories, or other creative formats.
On Our Streets was designed to begin a discussion among Sacramento youth about how transportation can impact,
both negatively and positively, their lives and those of their community. By creating a space for the youth to tell us their story about a street in their neighborhood, participants could help create a mosaic of the functionality and
dysfunctionality of transportation infrastructure throughout the City. Each participant’s personal experiences can help to inform the City and project team’s proposed policy
expenditures.
On Our Streets aimed to engage youth (defined as middle school, high school, and community college students
between the ages of 12 - 20) throughout Sacramento.
Priority areas included neighborhoods in under-resourced communities.
During The GreenHouse’s summer youth
program, youth participated in an activity
where they discussed and wrote down what
they see when they walk their streets.
PAGE 23 OF 35
On Our Streets website homepage where participants could learn more and submit their responses.
Guidance to Youth
Youth were provided guidance and given two months to create a submission that shared their response.
Additionally, participants were asked to answer a series of five questions – these were optional.
Submission Guidance
What do all neighborhoods have in common? They all have streets. While a street provides a pathway to get from one place to another, a street can also serve the community in many other ways. Streets connect people but they can also be barriers to connection. A street can also tell you a lot about the neighborhood itself.
Consider taking a walk down your street. Is it enjoyable? What do you like about it? What don’t you like about it? Where do you go? And how do you get there? These are the things that contribute to the story your street tells, as well as your individual experiences on that street.
You may also consider interviewing a friend, family member, or neighbor about your street (please observe safe social distancing while doing so). Then, start to answer the questions below to inspire the story you’d like to tell about your street. Based on your responses, or those you’ve received from others, share your street story through photos, videos, artwork, poetry, short stories, or other creative formats.
PAGE 24 OF 35
Optional Questionnaire
• What is the name of your featured street (example: Del Paso Boulevard, Arden Way)
• How do you and others use the street? How do you get
around? Where do you go? (example: I walk on my street to get to the school bus. My neighbors bike to the bus, so they can get to work.)
• How busy is the street?
o Are there people out and about? What are they
doing?
o Are there a lot of people driving on the street? Are
they driving fast?
o Are there sidewalks for people to walk on, and if so, are they big enough?
o Describe the activity on your street.
• How has this street changed over time?
• What has been the best thing to happen on your street? What about the worst?
• What makes a good street?
28. Public Awareness & Notification
Below is a summary of the notification efforts and strategies the project team implemented to build awareness about the On Our Streets Program.
Project Website
The project team hosted a program website at
www.OnOurStreets.com where participants could easily learn about the program and directly submit their responses.
Stakeholder Outreach
The project team reached out to more than 60 stakeholder groups to notify them about the program and request that they share the information to their organizations through email newsletters, social media posts, website updates, or other communication links. The following groups shared information:
• 80/Watt District
• Black Child Legacy – Fruitridge and
Stockton
• Black Mothers United (Her Health First)
• Boys and Girls Club of Greater
Sacramento
• First 5
Submission by Jennifer V.
Submission by Itzel L.
PAGE 25 OF 35
• Greater Sacramento Urban League
• Hmong Youth & Parents United
• Improve Your Tomorrow
• Iu-Mien Community Services
• Lao Family Community Development
• Luther Burbank High School
• Natomas Girls Softball
• Riverpark Neighborhood Association
• Sacramento LGBT Community Center
• Sol Collective
• Stanford Settlement
• The GreenHouse
• Voice of the Youth
• WALK Sacramento
• Wind Youth Services
• Youth & Families Collective (through PRO
Youth & Families)
• Youth Advisory Council
City staff also made a presentation and discussed with the City’s Youth Commission on May 3, 2021.
Presentation to Youth
The project team also made two presentations to an eighth-grade English class at Sutter Middle School on May 26, 2021 to encourage the students to participate. After a brief presentation, students were able to ask questions about the program and share some of their experiences and ideas.
The team also contacted The GreenHouse, a community-based non-profit organization who works with Sacramento youth located
Submission by Alex T.
Submission by Jose
Submission by Kiaaja H.
Submission by Sanam O.
PAGE 26 OF 35
in the Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood. The GreenHouse agreed to inform their members and host a transportation workshop for their 7th – 9th grade members. During the workshop, youth discussed transportation and created art about their experiences.
Additionally, the City staff presented to the City of Sacramento's Youth Commission on the overall Transportation Priorities Plan effort, the community survey, and the “On Our Streets” creative program.
Social Media
The project team created an On Our Streets Tik Tok account to share creative 30-second or 60-second video clips to reach youth and encourage them to participate in the program. The videos garnered more than 600 views total.
Additionally, geographically targeted social media advertisements were posted prior to the virtual gathering series and reached 2,667 community members.
Partnerships with Local Artists
To build awareness and promote the event throughout the community, the project team engaged three local Sacramento artists. Each artist promoted the On Our Streets Program through their social media / communication channels to encourage youth to participate. They each created their own short video clip, which either highlighted a street that is important to them or shared details and a call to action for the program. The three artists included:
• Paul Willis, Hip-Hop Artist
o Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL3uJXu7tMw
• Tamaira Sandifer, Teacher and dancer with Studio T Arts & Entertainment) o Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GPSZNrxxM • “Cloudy,” Chianne Rhodes, 2020 Sacramento Youth Poet Laureate o Video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxt3FS3XGU Youth Submissions
A total of 20 youth participated in the program and sent in submissions. They are presented throughout this section.
Youth Input
Nine participants also answered the optional questionnaire. Their responses are shown below.
What is the name of your featured street?
• 34th Street
• Bell Avenue
• Arden Way
• Warner Street
• J Street
• Franklin Boulevard
• Matson Drive
PAGE 27 OF 35
How do you and others use the street? How do you get
around? Where do you go?
• We use the road to go to and from our house.
• I take this street on my bike every time I go to school. • Others and I use the street for public transportation and a way of getting around. Sometimes I would bike and go out running around my neighborhood.
• We use the streets when we have something to do like going to your job, have something to pick up or then drop off, and treating yourself. How do we get around is you drive through the neighborhood that’s close to Arden and you continue to drive straight then turn right and that’s how you enter Arden. We do we go is we go park in front of the building!
• a lot of kids play in our neighborhood and I always walk to and from my family's house to hang out mostly.
• I use this street either walking or on bike from friends houses to home or from school to home.
• I walk, bike and take the bus
• Walk my dog around the block. I like to bike and walk. I bike to the park and to school.
How busy is the street? Are there people out and about? What are they doing? Are there a lot of people driving on the street? Are they driving fast? Are there sidewalks for people to walk on, and if so, are they big enough?
• No it is not busy. Yes, there are people either walking up and down the street or leaving their house. We do not drive fast, we do not have sidewalk the road is not dig enough. There are either people walking, talking, or
driving.
• There are many fast
cars because of the highway exit, but there are distinct bike lanes.
• The street is somewhat busy considering that there are apartments near the street. Also, there are occasionally homeless people.
• The streets could be busy sometimes especially when its Black Friday. There could be traffic around the building and nowhere to park.
o Yes, people could be out and about sometimes. They're sometimes hanging with family, friends, or then their loves ones.
Figures 13-16: On Our Streets
Submissions
Submission by Ghulam N.
Submission by Saul C.
Submission by Marwa A.
Submission by Emily H.
PAGE 28 OF 35
o Yes, there is a lot of people driving on the streets in front of Arden. No, the speed doesn't go fast because
there is lots of cars.
o Yes, they have sidewalks and if big plenty of space
for people and fits a family of 13+ more.
o The activity on my street is there could be lots of
traffic if it's a Black Friday day.
• People are always outside talking to one another. When people drive down the street they normally drive slow.
• Typically there are many people. Either they are going to the ATM, rite aid, the post office (48
th – 50th Streets).
o Yes, it is a very busy street and people do drive fast. o Yes, there are sidewalks, but the one closer to H
street could be bigger or when is gets father down the
forties.
o The activity is usually very chaotic, the stop lights aren’t very good meaning it’s takes too long to switch
but not long enough to walk, people drive very fast,
they don’t always look before turning, some homeless
people.
• A lot of cars, especially rush hour. Several drive too fast.
Dangerous for bikes.
• Not very busy.
o Sometimes. They are usually watering their plants or
fixing cars.
o Not really. It's a bumpy road so people drive slow.
o Yeah, it's big enough.
o Mostly walking and biking.
How has this street changed over time?
• There are more potholes.
• This street has started to become much more hectic since the streetlight stopped working.
• The street changed overtime with more population of
homeless people settling in the streets and more trash being on the street.
• Since with quarantine have started people has been really bored staying in the house earlier in the middle of 2020 people started to go out and that's when the cars started to fill up the road there has been traffic lots of cars parked in front of the building of Arden also. It's still going on until today and its 2021.
• It hasn't changed that much, but a tree on the sidewalk got knocked down in a storm.
• There are new businesses making more people come in and out, there seems to be an weird amount of homeless people, there have always been a lot of cars.
• Rush hour traffic is much worse, as US Route 99 (parallel) has been getting more congested/slower.
• It's still the same.
Submission by Breza N.
Submission by Makayla F.
Submission by Marwa S.
PAGE 29 OF 35
What has been the best thing to happen on your street? What about the worst? • The best thing is they were covered. The worst thing is they are eroding now. • The best thing was probably when multiple people let me pass even on a green light out of convenience. The worst was probably when a parked car honked at me. • The best thing that happened on my street was during 4th of July there were fireworks. The worst thing that happened was a fire that occurred and burned down a small area. • The best thing to have happened on my street is they were lots of cars and security came out and helped us out. The worst is that when there's no security and we're parking our own car people will honk at you for not hurrying up but at the same time the space is really too tiny cause there's lots of cars there.
• The best part is when people have BBQ’s outside I love the smell. The bad part is it doesn't happen a lot.
• Best: new business
• Worst: I’m not sure but with how many cars, it’s destined for an accident. • Best thing: ""plein art"" paintings on several buildings. Also, pedestrian flashing warning lights near Gunther's.
• Worst thing: increased rush hour traffic, drivers driving too fast; disobeying traffic lights. • The best thing is when truck people come clean the street once in a while. The worst is when people do donuts on the street.
What makes a good street?
• Have a smooth road to do something on.
• A good street allows any form of transportation move quickly and efficiently. • What makes a good street are the people that live within that street and the community that revolve around that street.
• The thing that makes a good street is where everyone is patient. • I like the fact that people hang outside a lot I think it's fun. • What makes a street good is that it saves time, but it is a good and safe way to get around. Also, that there is not too much traffic or activity. It should be visually appealing not just rocks and dirt beside you.
• Complete street: cars, bikes, pedestrians all are comfortable. • No potholes.
PAGE 30 OF 35
Community Survey Summary
Community Survey Purpose and Format
One of the key engagement objectives was to share information about the survey. The purpose of the survey was to gather input on community values around transportation. Those values that receive the most votes will be those used to evaluate transportation projects for priority investments.
The survey was available online and in a modified paper format. Both versions offered the survey in Chinese, English, Hmong, Spanish, and Vietnamese.
The online survey asked participants to prioritize values so that the total points for all values equaled no more than 100%. Participants could assign a number to the provided values or write in their own value. The online prioritization exercise is shown in Figure 1.
Online Survey Prioritization Page
PAGE 31 OF 35
The paper survey was important because internet access is not universal nor is everyone comfortable using the internet. Distributing paper surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic was challenging. Groups were not meeting in person, events were not being held, and community centers were not open. Community partners including the Sacramento Library, Regional Transit and the Stanford Settlement all agreed to host paper surveys and ballot boxes.
Libraries
1. Colonial Heights
2. Del Paso Heights
3. Martin Luther King Jr.
4. North Natomas
5. North Sacramento- Hagginwood
6. Robbie Waters Pocket-Greenhaven
7. South Natomas
8. Southgate
9. Valley Hi-North Laguna
Partner Locations
1. RT Customer Service Center
2. Stanford Settlement
Public Awareness and Notification
The project team used the City Express blog and social media to promote the short survey. The public awareness campaign also included an informational video to educate the community about the purpose of the Sacramento Transportation Priorities Plan and about the survey. The video featured animated graphics, interviews with community members, and information on how the community can get involved. The video was posted on AIM Consulting’s YouTube channel as well as City social media.
City Express Blog Post
The City published a City Express blog post on June 11, 2021 with information about the plan and the virtual gatherings.
Social Media
Additionally, the project team used social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram) and reached 26,953 community members.
Survey Results
A total of 962 responses were received with 845 online responses and 117 paper responses.
Staff reviewed survey responses by zip code with population by zip code. Areas where Sacramento’s Black, Latino, and Asian residents live and locations with higher concentrations of poverty had lower response rates than more affluent and white neighborhoods.
PAGE 32 OF 35
Comparison of Survey Responses by Zip Code with Population by Zip Code
PAGE 33 OF 35
Given the disparity of what neighborhoods responded to the survey, staff reviewed responses and values by race. While there was some variation in responses, the differences are not significant.
Survey Responses by Race
An analysis of income and response was also conducted. While there was some variation in responses, the differences are not significant.
Survey Responses by Income
PAGE 34 OF 35
The transportation values most
supported by the survey
respondents include, listed in order
of importance from most important:
1. Air Quality and Health
2. Equity
3. Connections to Places
4. Maintenance
5. Safety
6. Technology
Survey Response Summary
Those who took the survey could also write in their own values. There were 103 write in responses. The most common write in topics included increased traffic enforcement, expanded and improved transit, and improved biking.
PAGE 35 OF 35
Next Steps
All the community input provided through the virtual meetings, road show, “On Our Streets”, and survey provided information to staff about community priorities for transportation investment in the City. Staff will develop recommend project scoring criteria based on the priorities the community shared and present the criteria to Council for approval. Staff expect to present the criteria to Council in Fall 2021.
RESOLUTION NO.
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA, METRICS AND POINTS FOR
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENTS AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
BACKGROUND
A. On December 10, 2019, City Council adopted interim guidelines (2019-0475) for transportation funding opportunities until City Council adopts criteria and priorities as part of the Transportation Master Plan (Transportation Priorities Plan).
B. The Transportation Priorities Plan will be the guiding document for transportation investments in Sacramento.
C. City staff and community partners conducted community engagement for the Transportation Priorities Plan April through July 2021, listening to transportation values and priorities through:
a. Virtual Gathering Series
b. Priorities Road Show
c. Youth Engagement “On Our Streets”
d. Community Survey
D. Sacramentans reported their community values to be distributed relatively equally to:
a. Improving air quality and health
b. Providing equitable investment
c. Providing access to destinations (jobs, parks, schools) d. Improving transportation safety
e. Fixing and maintaining the transportation system
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council directs the Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points provided in Attachment A to be used to prioritize projects for inclusion in the Transportation Priorities Plan.
Table of Contents:
Attachment A-Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points
Attachment A-Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points
Value & Criteria Rational & Metric Points
(72 Max)
Improves Air Quality and Health
We face an existential Climate Emergency that threatens our city, region, state, nation, humanity and the natural world (Reso. 2019- 0465); and over 50% of Sacramento’s GHGs come from transportation.
Air quality, health and climate change should be drivers for our mobility investments.
12 Supports bicycling The project contains a bikeway where there are currently none or enhances an existing bikeway. 3
Supports walking The project includes sidewalks, pedestrian scale lighting, street trees, or marked crosswalks. 6
Supports transit or electric
vehicles
The project contains new transit access enchantment (sidewalk or crosswalk to a transit stop, bus lane, signal priority), transit stop improvements, or supports EV charging infrastructure.
3 Provides Equitable Investment
Sacramento acknowledges historical racial inequities
and is committed to transparent, deliberate, and actionable solutions that will remedy those inequities.
12 Benefits neighborhoods that lack
basic infrastructure
The project is in a neighborhood that lacks basic infrastructure, specifically sidewalks, streetlights, bikeways, trees or traffic signals. 6 Benefits communities that have
been recipients of racism and
bias
The project is in an area that is majority Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and/or Indigenous. 6
Provides Access to Destinations
Mobility opens doors to education, economic
opportunity, health, and personal growth. Connections to institutions and places that provide economic, educational, and health benefits should be prioritized.
12 Connects to jobs Project is in area with high employment density. 4 Connects to schools The project is within a 1/4 mile of a school. 4 Connects to parks The project is within a 1/4 mile of a park. 4 Improves Transportation Safety
Sacramento continues to rank as on the worst cites in California for transportation safety based on data from the Office of Traffic Safety. Transportation safety should be a driver for investments. 12 Improves a Vision Zero Top
10 corridor The project is on the Vision Zero Top 10 corridor. 12 Improves a Vision Zero
HIN street or is a Vision Zero
School Safety Project
The project is on the Vision Zero high injury network, a Vision Zero School Safety Project but not on the top 10. 6
Fixing and Maintains
Transportation System
Sacramento’s transportation infrastructure is in “fair” condition but is predicted to rapidly deteriorate by the end of the decade. Fixing potholes, repaving streets and maintaining traffic signals supports Sacramentan’s and our economic health.
12 Improves pavement or
bridges
The project score based on Traffic / Pavement quality ratio or bridge rating. 8
Improves traffic signals The project includes new or improved signals or signal technology. 4