Sacramento City Council
February 25, 2025

1. INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 Report Purpose 3

1.2 The 15-minute Neighborhood Concept 3

2. PEER AGENCY REVIEW 5

2.1 Peer Agency Selection 5

2.2 City of Paris, France 7

2.3 City of Utrecht, Netherlands 9

2.4 Greater Melbourne, Australia 12

2.5 City of Barcelona, Spain 15

2.6 City of Bogotá, Colombia 19

3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 21

3.1 Common Elements 21

3.2 Differences 21

3.3 Recommendations for Sacramento 22

4. REFERENCES 23

4.1 General 23

4.2 Paris 23

4.3 Utrecht 23

4.4 Melbourne 24

4.5 Barcelona 24

4.6 Bogotá 24
Colofon Copyright
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Report Purpose
The City of Sacramento is working to identify projects to make it safer and more comfortable for people to walk and bike. These changes will build upon the experience gained through the Slow Streets pilots implemented in 2021, which used temporary materials such as signs and cones to slow traffic and prioritize walking and biking on several residential streets.

The City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood Connections Plan will combine elements of a Slow Streets initiative and a 15-minute city plan. Compared to a Slow Streets initiative, the plan envisages a more permanent implementation, with more durable and aesthetically pleasing materials. Compared to a 15-minute city plan, the plan includes a lesser focus on land use, with a more specific focus on neighborhood streets.

The purpose of this report is to examine international examples of 15-Minute City or 15-Minute Neighborhood plans and implementation to identify best practices and common elements between plans, with the objective of producing lessons learned for the creation of implementing safer neighborhood streets in Sacramento.

1.2 The 15-minute Neighborhood Concept
The concept of 15-minute neighborhoods or 15-minute cities, refers to the general theory of building cities such that the residents’ frequent destination types are available within 15 minutes travel time of their homes by walking or biking. The 15-minute neighborhoods concept does not aim eliminate driving as an option. Rather, it aims to implement transportation treatments to make travel safer and more comfortable for every mode so people have options to choose how they want to get where they are going, whether it is driving, walking, biking, or riding transit.

Enabling residents to conveniently walk, bike, and/or use public transit for their daily activities has numerous benefits, such as:
• Reducing transportation costs for residents by reducing the need for or providing alternatives to driving. • Improving physical and mental health for residents by reducing stress caused by fast motor traffic and facilitating physical activities such as walking and biking. • Reducing long-term traffic congestion by shifting some trips from private motor vehicles to modes such as public transit, walking, and biking.
• Improving traffic safety by reducing motor traffic speeds and volumes in areas where people live. • Reducing the environmental impacts of transportation (local air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions) by shifting trips to zero-emission modes such as walking or biking, or low-emission modes such as micromobility (e-bikes, e-scooters, etc) or public transit.

Historically, most cities were 15-minute cities, but as part of mass-motorization following the Second World War cities became geographically larger and lower density, and the walking and biking networks were often fragmented by major roadways. There is now a renewed interest in building cities where all basic services are available within a short walk or bike ride of home.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

The term 15-minute cities was coined in 2015 by Carlos Moreno, a Colombian-French professor. Moreno became an advisor for Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, who incorporated the concept into her political platform for her reelection campaign and subsequently into City of Paris planning efforts in 2020. Around this time, the concept gained popularity in Paris as well as several other cities as a way to improve accessibility and health in neighborhoods despite the restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The concept of 15-minute cities has since been adopted in many other cities in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and the Netherlands, with varying levels of similarity to the original concept described by Moreno.

Moreno identifies six essential functions to sustain a decent urban life 1:
• Living
• Working
• Commerce
• Healthcare
• Education
• Entertainment
In a 15-minute city, neighborhoods would be equipped with sufficient facilities that residents have the option of accessing all of the essential functions within 15 minutes of their homes. Part of that process involves planning land uses to distribute the essential functions to resolve “deserts” where one or more functions are not available nearby. The other portion of the process is to improve the pedestrian and biking networks to expand the distance that residents can travel while remaining on infrastrcuture that feels safe and comfortable.

The concept is not simply a matter of minimizing the travel time between residential land uses and daily destinations, but also a vision for a more livable city.

The travel time target included in plans varies from one city to another, with some cities choosing 10 or 20 minutes rather than 15. The modes which are considered when evaluating the travel time also vary. Walking is always considered, but depending on the city, biking or public transit may not be. To account for these variances, the term “x-minute city” is used to describe the wider set of plans inspired by the 15-minute city concept. 1 Moreno et al. (2021) Introducing the “15-minute city”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identify in Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities 4, 93- 111
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2. PEER AGENCY REVIEW
To provide context and inspiration for measures and methods which could be included as part of Sacramento’s efforts, five international cities with 15-minute city or similar plans were examined.

2.1 Peer Agency Selection
The level of government implementing the 15-minute plan varies from one city to another. In most cases, the plan is led by the municipal government, but in some cases such as Melbourne, the plan is led by a regional government.

The following cities were considered for inclusion in the peer review, of which five were selected for further study.

City Municipality Urban AreaSelected
Population Density Population
Sacramento, USA 520k 5,200 p/mi² 2.4 million
Melbourne, AU 150k 10,300 p/mi² 5.0 million Yes
Utrecht, NL 370k 9,600 p/mi² 0.6 million Yes
Ottawa, CA 1,020k 900 p/mi² 1.5 million No
Guadalajara, MX 1,390k 23,800 p/mi² 5.3 million No
Barcelona, ES 1,620k 41,500 p/mi² 5.5 million Yes
Montréal, CA 1,760k 10,600 p/mi² 4.3 million No
Paris, FR 2,100k 51,600 p/mi² 13.0 million Yes
Bogota, CO 8,030k 68,800 p/mi² 12.8 million Yes
The five cities to be further investigated were selected based on:
• The city’s similarity to Sacramento
• The plan’s similarity to Sacramento’s scope
• The availability of resources describing and/or evaluating the plan The City of Melbourne was selected as it has a similar land use context to Sacramento. Although planning is done at a regional scale, which includes a much greater population, the city limits include urban, suburban, and rural lands.

The region’s 20-minute Neighbourhood Plan focuses on neighborhoods as opposed to the city as a whole and has already seen the implementation of pilot projects that can provide valuable lessons for Sacramento.

The City of Utrecht is the only city on the list which has already achieved the objective of becoming a 15-minute city based on biking, public transit, and walking. It has now set the target of becoming a 10-minute city. It is selected as an example of top-down planning, with a prominent focus on transportation network designs.

Although the City of Barcelona has a much larger population and is significantly denser than Sacramento, the superblocks approach is a unique strategy that is renowned for its innovation and success. Pilot projects have been implemented that focus on quality of life and provide evidence of the plan’s application in the real world.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

The City of Paris was the first city to include the 15-minute cities terminology as part of a municipal plan, and it has been working with Carlos Moreno, the inventor of the term. Although the city is significantly denser than Sacramento, it was selected due to its influential nature within the realm of 15-minute city plans.

The City of Bogotá has completely different geography to Sacramento, being a major metropolis in a developing nation. However, the methodology used to improve the quality of life in the city – including extensive changes to neighborhood streetscapes – is very similar to the approach envisioned for Sacramento. The implementation of neighborhood changes has increasingly adopted a bottom-up planning approach, with participatory community engagement.

The City of Ottawa includes the roughly two-thirds of the Ottawa area’s urban population, but also includes an enormous amount of rural land outside of the urban area. The portion of the City within the urban boundary is geographically similar to Sacramento, with a medium-sized pre-war North American city center surrounded by post-war low-density suburbs. Despite the physical similarities, Ottawa was not selected because its 15-minute Neighbourhoods plan is not connected to its transportation plan for biking infrastructure. The 15-minute Neighbourhoods plan is part of the City Master Plan, which is focused on land use planning and pedestrian amenities.

The City of Guadalajara was not selected because there was insufficient information available.

The City of Montréal was not selected because the plan is not yet complete, and it is primarily focused on land use rather than transportation.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.2 City of Paris, France
The City of Paris, France, has been one of the main proponents of the 15-minute city concept, with the inclusion of the “Ville de Quart d’Heure” as part of the successful mayoral campaign of Anne Hidalgo in 2020. In the subsequent years, implementation of the concept has begun with organizational reform and planning documents.

2.2.1 Urban Form
The City of Paris has a population of 2.1 million people, while Greater Paris has a population of over 7 million people. The City of Paris has an area of only 40.5 square miles, resulting in a density of 52,000 people per square mile – ten times the density of the City of Sacramento. It is served by a comprehensive subway (Metro) network, with 246 of the Paris Metro stations being located within the City of Paris. It also has a regional rail network, the RER, which allows suburban trains to travel through the city center.

The City of Paris is divided in to 20 arrondissements (districts), which were grouped into 17 administrative sectors as part of a municipal reorganization in 2020. Each sector has its own mayor and council, in addition to the City mayor and council.

2.2.2 Framework to Implement a 15-minute City
The Parisian Proximity Pact (Pacte Parisienne de la Proximité) of 2021 was a municipal reorganization which granted additional administrative powers and funding to the 17 sectors. The sectors are now responsible for maintaining the public realm, including determining or adjusting the use of street space, creating green spaces, collecting garbage and assigning police resources within the sector. A local animation fund for each sector is allocated as part of the City budget, and the mayor of the sector determines how to apply the funding.

The 2021-2026 Cycling Plan (Plan vélo 2021-2026) envisages a considerable expansion of the biking network within a short timespan. It includes a budget of €250 Million for 2021-2026. It includes:
• Building 110 miles of new permanent separated bicycle paths, of which 30 miles had been implemented as tactical urbanism projects during 2020-2021.
• A hierarchy of primary routes (Vélopoitain) and secondary routes. • Transforming one-way streets into two-way streets for biking. • Building 130,000 new bicycle parking spaces.
• Developing Dutch-style protected intersections.

Figure 1: Mode Split - Greater Paris, 2018
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

Neighborhood-focused transportation elements of the mayor’s vision statement for a 15-minute city include:
• Implementing School Streets – pedestrianized streets near schools.
• Removing roughly half of all on-street parking spaces, using the space for greenery, playgrounds or bicycle parking.
• Increasing multifunctionality of spaces such as using school yards as community spaces outside of school hours.

2.2.3 Unique Features of Paris’ Approach
The Paris implementation of the 15-minute city vision includes more substantial changes to the direction of the city than many other 15- minute city plans. Not only does it change transportation and land use policies, it also includes organizational reform in the form of Proximity Pact which increased power and funding for the sector governments.

Paris’ is the only plan which places boundaries on the neighborhoods – other plans focus solely on the principle of proximity without establishing sectors within which the full range of urban functions should be accessible.

Decentralizing control over urban functions increases the risk that different sectors receive different quality of municipal service, or different levels of control over municipal processes. The Proximity Pact combats this risk by stating that each sector will receive a similar amount of funding from the city government.

The plan includes an active focus on neighborhood equity, which it identifies as an important point given the economic disparity between sectors. However, given that the plan only covers the City of Paris, it has little ability to address the severe inequality between the City of Paris and the surrounding suburbs which are far less wealthy than the City.

2.2.4 Lessons Learned for Sacramento
• The rapid and substantial change in priorities that the City of Paris has experienced in the past half-decade was enabled by the well-organized and promoted vision with political backing. The 15-minute vision was a key election issue of the 2020 election, so by re-electing Mayor Hidalgo, the citizens created a mandate to place a high importance on neighborhood cohesion and quality of life. The lesson for Sacramento is that producing a significant change in the priorities of the City and the design of streets is most likely to be successful if accompanied by well-organized support from citizens and politians, in addition to planners and engineers.
• It is worth considering neighborhood empowerment to increase citizen buy-in to the vision. However, it is important that a similar level of control be exerted by different neighborhoods regardless of their economic status, otherwise decentralization of power could exacerbate inequality between neighborhoods.

Figure 2: Anne Hidalgo concept for a 15-
minute Paris. Image: Paris en commun, Micael
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.3 City of Utrecht, Netherlands

2.3.1 Urban Form
Utrecht is a compact city with 370,000 residents in the city proper and 660,000 residents in the urban area. It is part of the Randstad urban region, which is by far the largest urban region in the Netherlands, with a population of over 8 million people. Some other cities in the Randstad region include Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague.

Although each individual city is relatively compact, many residents in the Randstad work in a different city from where they live. In the greater Utrecht region, the urbanized area has a radius of only about 6 miles but the average distance from home to work is 15.2 miles as of 20212.

Many trips between Utrecht and other cities are by train. Utrecht Centraal Station is the busiest train station in the Netherlands, with 190,000 riders per weekday, of whom 77% are entering or exiting the station, while the remainder are only transferring between trains3. Regional rail, light rail, and bus rapid transit lines radiate out from Centraal Station, enabling fast and reliable trips across the city using public transit.

Utrecht is also one of the world’s leading cities for biking infrastructure, with a bicycle mode share of 47% in 2019 and a total active transportation mode share of 72%.

2.3.2 History of Becoming a 15-minute City
Utrecht is already a 15-minute city. A GIS-based analysis by Knap et al. (2023) found that 100% of residents in the greater Utrecht area can reach all 9 of the primary categories of destination within 15 minutes via a safe biking route. The City of Utrecht has now set the goal of becoming a 10-minute city as part of its 2040 Urban Space Strategy.

The process of redesigning the city to become safer and more livable began in the late 1970’s with measures to restrict the amount of motor traffic in densely populated areas of the city. Most of the streets in the city center are too narrow to accommodate both motor traffic and dedicated biking infrastructure, so private motor traffic is prevented from cutting through the center using one-way restrictions and dead-end streets. The small number of drivers heading to and from destinations in the center share the narrow streets with pedestrians and cyclists at a low speed. The wide streets which were created in the 1950’s for through motor traffic have been repurposed as primary transit and biking routes with dedicated busways and bicycle paths. 2 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2021). Werknemersbanen en reisafstand; woon- en werkregio. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/cijfers/detail/85481NED?q=woon-werkafstanden 3 Nederlandse Spoorwegen (2022). Reizigersgedrag 2022. https://dashboards.nsjaarverslag.nl/reizigersgedrag/utrecht-centraal Figure 3: Mode Split - City of Utrecht, 2019
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

In the 1990’s, the Netherlands introduced the principles of Sustainable Safety, a transportation planning methodology which focuses on minimizing exposure to risk and working with human psychology. As streets in Utrecht are reconstructed, they are updated to reflect the latest design standards for the particular road classification, or the network is adjusted in order to change the road classification. Streets intended to remain as through motor traffic routes are equipped with wide asphalt bicycle paths separate from the main roadway. Streets within residential neighborhoods are designated as 30 km/h (20 mph) zones where through motor traffic is prevented using modal filters and speeds are kept low using geometric features such as brick paving, sharp corners and narrow roadways.

Some recent developments in Utrecht include the opening of the world’s largest bicycle parking facility: a threelevel indoor facility at Centraal station with 12,500 public parking spaces and 1,000 rental bicycles (OV Fiets)4, and the opening of a new light rail line connecting Centraal station to Utrecht University, which is located on the eastern edge of the city.

2.3.3 Framework to Implement a 10-minute City
The 2040 Urban Space Strategy (Ruimtelijke Strategie 2040) is the City of Utrecht’s land use and transportation planning strategy from 2023 until 2040. It envisions how the city should accommodate the growing population, which is projected to increase from 370,000 people in 2023 to 470,000 people in 2040. The title objective of the plan is to have all regular destination types within 10 minutes by walking, biking, or public transit of all homes.

Land Use Strategy
The plan aims to add 60,000 new housing units while minimizing the geographic expansion of the city, to maintain residents’ access to rural areas. The plan proposes several strategies:
• Develop regional centers in addition to Utrecht’s city center, to improve access to services in outlying areas. • Direct new development to areas around railway or rapid transit stations. • Continue to encourage mixed land uses.
• Expand park space.
• Protect rural areas near the city for recreational purposes. • Build one greenfield urban expansion, Rijnenburg, with 25,000 housing units.

Transportation Network Strategy
The plan intends to continue to prioritize walking, biking and public transit. Targets of the plan include to:
• Build a new public transit ring line so fewer trips need to pass through Utrecht Centraal station. • Add more park-and-ride facilities to intercept private car trips destined to the city center. • Expand multimodal mobility-as-a-service facilities at outlying transit stations, such as carshare, bikeshare and rideshare facilities.
• Continue to expand secure indoor bicycle parking facilities at train stations and major transit stations. 4 City of Utrecht (N.D.) Fietsenstalling Jaarbeursplein: Grootste ter werld https://www.utrecht.nl/wonen-en-leven/verkeer/fiets/fiets-stallen/fietsenstalling-stationsplein-utrecht-grootste-ter-wereld/ International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

• Continue to build a dense grid of primary biking routes and expand 30 km/h zones in residential areas.

2.3.4 Unique Features of Utrecht’s Approach
• Unlike most other cities with x-minute city plans, Utrecht is already a 15-minute city. • The 10-minute city plan does not represent a new direction, but rather a strengthening of the pre-existing direction which successfully created a 15-minute city with measures such as prioritizing biking, walking and public transit through infrastructure, concentrating new development around railway or rapid transit stations, and reducing speeds in residential neighborhoods. • Land use and transportation are planned as a single process. • Utrecht already has a dense city center with strong public transit connections to outlying areas. The plan includes an increased focus on polycentric development and rapid transit connections between suburban nodes.

2.3.5 Lessons Learned for Sacramento
• The prioritization of bicycles and public transit in the transportation network is a very useful tool to implement the vision of a 15-minute city. In 15 minutes, a resident can comfortably cover two- to threemiles biking, compared to only half a mile on foot. Creating a dense network of streets or paths where biking feels safe and convenient has produced a biking mode share far higher than any of the other cities with 15-minute city plans.
• Utrecht has managed to achieve an extremely high rate of active transportation despite the fact that many trips are much longer than would be practical using active transport alone, notably the average commute length. The key to this success is the combination of biking and railways which allows people to make trips from Utrecht to other cities in a similar amount of time as driving. The active transport networks within the city allow short trips for essential functions such as accessing shops, education and healthcare, but also as the last-mile component of longer distance trips. The City of Sacramento makes up only a quarter of the population of the Greater Sacramento area, so the combination of walking or biking with public transit will be essential to conveniently connect residents with services and destinations in other parts of the urban area.
• It is difficult to create a true 15-minute city without jointly planning land use and transportation. Improving the biking, walking and transit networks will only bring destinations within 15 minutes of home if those destinations are already sufficiently nearby. Utrecht has been planning transportation and land use as a single process for decades, and the current 10-minute city plans continue to include both land use and transportation planning.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.4 Greater Melbourne, Australia

2.4.1 Urban Form
Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia with over 5 million inhabitants in the Greater Melbourne area. The urban area spans 987 square miles and has a population density of 5,097 persons per square mile, which is approximately equal to that of the City of Sacramento. Greater Melbourne is comprised of 31 local
municipalities including the City of Melbourne which covers just 14 square miles at the center of the city and has just under 160,000 residents. Melbourne’s 15-minute neighborhood plan is led at the regional level by the State of Victoria, so this case study will focus on the Greater Melbourne area.

As a result of its vast area and numerous municipalities, Melbourne has a variety of land use contexts, from dense urban centers to suburban communities and rural lands. The major transportation spines extend from the city center outward in all directions (excluding directly south, as the city is located on Port Phillip Bay) in a radial pattern with major roadways and rail lines connecting to metropolitan and major activity centers. In the city center, trips are distributed roughly evenly between private motor vehicles, public transit and active transportation modes, but in the suburban areas the vast majority of trips are taken with a private motor vehicle.5

2.4.2 Framework to Implement the 20-minute City
Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 is Greater Melbourne’s long-range plan to integrate long-term land use, infrastructure, and transport planning efforts to address the city’s environmental, population, housing, and employment needs. Through nine principles, seven outcomes, 32 directions, and 90 policies, Plan Melbourne outlines the long-term vision, goals, and how they will be achieved. References to 20- minute communities are scattered throughout the plan but is the key focus of Principle 5: Living locally – 20-minute neighborhoods and further outlined in Direction 5.1: Create a city of 20-minute neighborhoods.

Melbourne defines 20-minute neighborhoods as those where most people can meet most of their daily needs within a total trip time of 20 minutes on foot; meaning a 10-minute walk (roughly 800 meters) to their destination and a 10 minute walk home. The plan identifies the key features of a 20-minute neighborhood as six hallmarks, as shown in Figure 1. These hallmarks are addressed through a number of relevant policies throughout the plan including the following, among others:
5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021 (https://www.abs.gov.au/census) Figure 4: Mode Split - Trips to work in the City
of Melbourne, 2021
Figure 5: Mode Split - Trips to work in Greater
Melbourne, 2021
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

• Policy 2.1.1 Maintain a permanent urban growth boundary around Melbourne to create a more consolidated, sustainable city.
• Policy 2.1.2 Facilitate an increased percentage of new housing in established areas to create a city of 20- minute neighborhoods close to existing services, jobs, and public transport. • Policy 3.3.1 Create pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. • Policy 3.3.2 Create a network of biking links for local trips. • Policy 5.1.1 Create mixed-use neighborhoods at varying densities. • Policy 5.1.2 Support a network of vibrant neighborhood activity centers. • Policy 5.3.1 Facilitate a whole-of-government approach to the delivery of social infrastructure.

Figure 6. The six hallmarks of 20-minute neighborhoods, identified in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050.

In 2018, the Minister for Planning of the state of Victoria launched a 20-minute neighborhood pilot program “to embed a whole-of-government approach to 20-minute neighborhoods in established neighborhoods”. The wholeof-governent approach establishes that the initiative is to be supported by all levels of government, as well as the various agencies within a level of government. Three neighborhoods with low-rise suburban characteristics were selected for the project. Each neighborhood project was delivered in three stages, first establishing community partnerships through place-based engagement followed by technical assessments on walkability, the transport network, land use, housing density, and vegetation cover, and finalized by identifying appropriate initiatives and infrastructure opportunities for the neighborhood. Temporary activations were implemented to test ideas and longer-term concept plans were developed for pilot sites in the neighborhoods.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

Victoria State Government’s 20-Minute Neighborhoods report provides detailed information on the pilot program and a summary of neighborhood projects. Key opportunities identified in the communities addressing transportation and the public realm included:
• Streetscape improvements to revitalize activity centers, including the installation of bicycle lanes. • Enhanced connectivity and amenity of natural areas through improved walking and biking paths. • Improved pedestrian safety, particularly around schools. • “Pop up” shops and street trading.
• Public art installations and “creative spaces”.

2.4.3 Unique Features of Melbourne’s Approach
• In contrast to the typical 15-minute city approach, Melbourne applied a 20-minute neighborhood approach where the desired maximum trip length was a 10-minute walk in each direction. This was based on research finding that 800 meters (0.5 miles) was the maximum distance that people are willing to walk for daily needs. This is a remarkably optimistic target given the low-density nature of many suburban areas in Greater Melbourne.
• Given the large number of municipalities and governmental agencies within Greater Melbourne there is a great emphasis on the whole-of-government approach to reduce conflicts between government groups. • A place-based approach, as outlined in Movement and Place Victoria, was applied, putting people at the center of transportation planning and recognizing that streets are not only for the movement of people and goods but are also places for people to spend time.
• Temporary activations in the form of pilot projects and tactical urbanism were implemented and studied beginning in 2018 before the 20-minute neighborhood concept was officially incorporated into Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 in 2020.
• There is a focus on re-using and converting existing (municipal) buildings to increase density while also incorporating green corridors and green infrastructure to improve access to nature / natural features.

2.4.4 Lessons Learned for Sacramento
• A 15-minute city or 15-minute neighborhoods cannot be achieved solely through addressing one aspect of urban planning (land use, housing, transportation, etc.). The concept would need to be incorporated throughout the City’s major planning documents to address the six hallmarks of 20-minute neighborhoods as outlined in Plan Melbourne 2017-2025 and the directions and policies contained within. • Bringing together stakeholders to establish a clear framework and coordinate actions on a wider basis will result in improved outcomes. This contrasts with individualized infrastructure and planning projects delivered in isolation that may compete with other projects or goals. • Pilot projects can be very useful in testing and evaluating approaches before formalizing them. Such projects allow for flexibility, granting the City time to easily adjust approaches as needed before establishing official documents that are more difficult to amend. • Pilot projects also provide an opportunity to develop partnerships with the community and empower them to influence the direction of the work, building support from an early stage.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.5 City of Barcelona, Spain

2.5.1 Urban Form
Barcelona is the second largest city in Spain with 1.6 million inhabitants in the city proper. The city’s boundaries cover just 39 square miles resulting in a population density of 41,547 persons per square mile.

Being the center of a metropolitan region with over 5.6 million people, Barcelona has a dense, urban context with few low-density suburban neighborhoods. The city does, however, have many large parks and open spaces, particularly to the north of the urban area.

The city has a robust network of bicycle lanes following the grid pattern of the city streets and a widespread transit network built on metro lines spanning the entire city. The dense nature of the city and provision of high-quality transportation networks result in a modal share split that is more balanced than many western cities. In 2018, 37.3 percent of trips were made by public transit and 34.4 percent were made by walking. Contrary to most North American communities, 26.0 percent of trips were made by automobile. However, just 2.3 percent of trips were made by bicycle.6

2.5.2 Framework to Implement the 15-minute City
Barcelona’s superblock approach has garnered international attention for its unique method of creating vibrant streets near residents. A superblock is a cluster of nine city blocks grouped into one (as shown in Figure 8). This superblock is roughly 400 meters (0.25 miles) long by 400 meters (0.25 miles) wide and contains inner streets that are closed to through vehicle traffic. The first superblock in Barcelona was created in 1993 but wasn’t replicated until two more were implemented in 2005. It was several more years before the concept was prioritized again, becoming a key component of Barcelona’s Urban Mobility Plan (2013-2018). Within this plan, the City committed to converting 120 intersections into spaces for people through pilot projects in six neighborhoods. These projects proved to have numerous benefits including increasing the number of biking trips by 30 percent and the number of walking trips by 10 percent. Although vehicle traffic volumes increased by 2.6 percent in surrounding neighborhoods, volumes in the target area decreased by 58 percent. The Poblenou neighborhood even saw a 30.7 percent increase in ground-level commercial businesses, with the number increasing from 65 to 85.

The success of these projects led to the increased importance of the superblock concept in the 2024 Urban Mobility Plan. The current plan calls for the creation of 503 superblocks across the city as a key driver to reduce vehicle trips from 26.0 percent to 18.5 percent, leaving the remaining 81.5 percent of trips to be made by walking, biking, or transit. These projects will be funded in part by the European Investment Bank who has committed to funding 40 climate change mitigation and adaptation projects with 23 percent of funding being earmarked for projects directly related to the creation of superblocks. In tandem with superblocks, the City has identified that it will add 32 km (20 miles) of pedestrian-only streets, expand the biking network by 40 percent, and implement 67 km (42 miles) of bus 6 Pla de Mobilitat Urbana 2024, Ajuntament de Barcelona, https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/128157/1/Pla%20de%20Mobilitat%20Urbana_bcn_2024.pdf Figure 7: Mode Split - City of Barcelona, 2018
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

lanes. In the Eixample neighborhood, it will also transform the streets so one out of every three streets becomes a green hub, ensuring every resident of the neighborhood has access to a square and green hub within 200 meters (650 feet) of their home. The City identifies key co-benefits to this plan as reduced noise and air quality improvements to improve quality of life and public health.

Figure 8: Theory of superblocks. Image from Eggiman, S. (2022).

To successfully support the creation of 15-minute neighborhoods with the superblock approach, proper implementation is key. As mentioned above, nine city blocks are combined to create one superblock bound by main vehicle through routes. The internal streets of the superblock are then designed such that through traffic for private vehicles is discouraged or prevented entirely, though access is maintained for local traffic, taxis, delivery vehicles, and transit, as needed. Street design features such as curbless cross-sections, modal filters, and textured permeable pavement support the creation of pedestrian-priority shared streets where motorists must travel at 10 km/h (6 mph). Street parking is prohibited and the City aims to achieve 80 percent tree cover to provide shade and increase access to greenspace. Tactical urbanism features such as street furniture, moveable planters, and public art are also typically implemented to enhance the character of the space and invite people to spend time in it.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

Figure 9. Barcelona's superblocks from above (left) and at street level (right) left image source: https://www.fastcompany.com/90732811/how-barcelonas-superblocks-could-work-in-other-cities, right image source: https://cities-today.com/barcelona-to-expand-superblocks-to-city-centre-district/.

2.5.3 Unique Features of Barcelona’s Approach
• The superblock approach is unique in that it does not require the modification of the existing building stock or major changes to infrastructure so it is a viable approach for many cities. An analysis of superblock potential found that while potential varies by city, for some, up to 40 percent of streets can be transformed into superblocks or miniblocks (four blocks combined instead of nine) and that irregular street patterns can also be suitable for this implementation.7
• Following pushback from the community on the initial pilot projects due to a lack of public consultation, Barcelona has implemented a robust participatory planning approach including a public ideas contest for the design of streets and squares. The ideas must meet certain environmental and accessibility criteria, among others and are then shared with the public for feedback to select a winner and finalize the designs.

This results in every superblock being unique to the community for which it is designed. • The superblocks approach has a significant focus on the creation of green hubs and corridors, combining the 15-minute city concept with urban greening efforts to disperse natural areas throughout the community rather than focusing them in one area such as a large park.

2.5.4 Lessons Learned for Sacramento
• Significant change can be created with relatively simple solutions. Barcelona’s superblocks have shown that major infrastructure projects are not required to create more vibrant neighborhoods or encourage alternative transportation. Design changes through tactical urbanism and other relatively low cost measures (e.g. modal filters) can have a significant impact on how streets are used. Barcelona leveraged the redundancy intrinsic in grid networks to establish a clear road network hierarchy which distinguishes between “place” streets and “flow” streets. The prioritization of different streets for different purposes helps strengthen those streets for their defined purpose. Many portions of Sacramento also have a grid street pattern which could be leveraged in a similar way. • A robust public participation plan is valuable to minimize opposition and create neighborhoods that are representative of the community that lives there and meets their needs. 7 Eggiman, S. (2022). The potential of implementing superblocks for multifunctional street use in cities. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00855-2
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

• Reducing motor traffic on local streets has allowed both the green space and the tree canopy to be expanded along the superblock hubs and corridors. This can help reduce the effects of hot weather by increasing the available shade and reducing the urban heat island effect.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.6 City of Bogotá, Colombia

2.6.1 Urban Form
Bogotá is the capital and largest city of Colombia. Surrounded by mountains, the geographical constraint has produced a city which is incredibly dense.

It is served by a highly developed network of bus rapid transit (BRT), including dedicated busways with substantial stations. Thanks to the extensive BRT network, the city had a 43% mode share for public transit in 2019. The system suffers from its own success, with overcrowding on buses and in stations as well as bus traffic congestion even on dedicated busways. As a result, the city has begun construction of a new metro (subway) line, with additional lines being planned.

Bogotá has long been a leader in active transportation in South America, with notable initiatives including the Ciclovía open streets events which have been occurring on Sundays since 1974. In 2019 the city had an 6.6% modal share for biking, which is estimated to have increased to 8% by 20228. Bogotá’s biking infrastructure originally consisted of reserved space for biking on sidewalks, but is now being improved to consist of dedicated biking facilities designed for the operating speeds of bicycles.

2.6.2 Framework to Implement a 30-minute City
The 2021 Land Use Plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Terriotorial) includes a target of achieving a 30-minute city, where residents would be able to reach all essential services within 30 minutes by walking and biking.

The Vital Neighborhoods (Barrio Vital) vision plan is a subset of the land use plan which aims to improve the quality of life of residents by improving streets. It identifies 33 neighborhoods that can be transformed into vital neighborhoods with a strong focus on mobility. In these areas, existing street space would be repurposed to expand space for pedestrians, bicycles, and businesses. Tactical urbanism and pilot projects are a major component of the plan to enable quick and cost-effective rollout as well as facilitating public engagement. 373 streets near childcare centers will be transformed into “Children’s Priority Zones” including play streets.

As part of rapid transit expansions, secure bicycle parking facilities are being constructed at stations. Bogotá is currently constructing its first metro (subway) line, and indoor bicycle parking facilities (cycloparquerados) are being constructed at 12 of the 16 stations.
8 Institute of Transport Development & Policy (2022). From Transmilenio to Cycle Networks – Lessons Learned from Bogotá’s Comprehensive Urban Community Planning
Figure 10: Mode Split - City of Bogotá, 2019
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

2.6.3 Unique Features of Bogotá’s Approach
• Bogotá implemented 47 miles of separated bicycle lanes during the Covid-19 pandemic, and aims to continue expanding the network.
• The Vital Neighborhoods plan is not evenly applied across the city, but rather in specific areas. This is intended to enable evaluation of the impacts of changes, comparing the redesigned neighborhoods to the unchanged neighborhoods.
• During initial implementations of corridor redesigns, public opposition was significant. As a result, the planning process was adjusted to introduce participatory planning and increase resident involvement in the design process.

2.6.4 Lessons Learned for Sacramento
• Including a plan without sufficient buy-in from the public can result in the project being opposed or stopped due to public opposition. The planning process for neighborhood streets should include meaningful public engagement early in the project to identify residents’ objectives and desires and tailor the implementation tools for the (desired) activities in the neighborhood. • Tactical urbanism and pilot projects can be an effective short-term measure to observe the effects of streetscape changes. For the effects of changes to be measurable, it can be helpful to fully implement the changes in a specific set of neighborhoods while (momentarily) keeping some other neighborhoods unchanged. It is more difficult to assess the impacts of the changes if change is implemented gradually and uniformly across the city.
• Include bicycle parking and micromobility connections (bikeshare, etc) at rapid transit stations to facilitate longer trips.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

3.1 Common Elements
Many of the selected plans had common features, including the following. • X-minute city plans integrate both land use and transportation network planning. • Many plans include establishing hubs (suburban town centers in Utrecht; neighborhood hubs (schools) in Paris; green hubs in Barcelona).
• Urban growth boundaries (Utrecht, Melbourne).
• Multifunctional urban spaces (Utrecht, Paris, Melbourne), such as using school facilities outside of school hours.
• Cities vary from 10-minute city (Utrecht) to 15-minute city (Paris) and 20-minute city (Melbourne) but the x-minute concept is just a guiding principle and can be adapted for different city sizes and contexts. • When creating an x-minute city plan, all cities have a robust public participatory process, and include the community in all levels of design.
• Many cities have already implemented their plans to varying degrees (pilot projects in Melbourne, Barcelona, and Bogota; widespread application in Utrecht) to evaluate their effectiveness. • It is important to consider fears of displacement and gentrification when creating an x-minute city plan. To address this, retain and build affordable housing, remove parking minimums, and apply other concepts that will mitigate the effects of gentrification.
• All cities have a great emphasis on transforming streets and creating people-centric spaces, promoting safe walking and biking and creating greenspace. Adding greenery to cities has major benefits for biodiversity, urban heat island effect, CO2 absorption, and mental health.

3.2 Differences
There are also significant differences in implementation strategies, illustrating that 15-minute cities are not a onesize-fits all solution. • The nature of x-minute plans varies considerably. Utrecht’s is a 20-year land use and transportation master plan while Barcelona plans for shorter time periods.
• The travel time targets vary between cities:

City Travel time target Modes considered
Paris 15 minutes one-way Walking
Utrecht 10 minutes one-way Walking or Cycling
Melbourne 20 minutes round trip Walking
Barcelona N/A N/A
Bogotá 30 minutes one-way Walking or Cycling
Moreno notes that the threshold should be context dependent (i.e. consider where the city is starting from), though a 10 to 15-minute threshold is often used to define “walking distance” for the purpose of transportation planning, regardless of 15-minute city intiatives.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

• Barcelona, Melbourne, and Bogotá launched pilots when implementing their x-minute plans in a selected neighborhood to test out ideas and concepts. They also used tactical urbanism and quick-build methods to quickly and cheaply make changes to the design of the streets and observe the effects. • Utrecht, Paris, and Melbourne included the x-minute principles as part of larger master plans, to be implemented across the city.

3.3 Recommendations for Sacramento
• Public engagement is key to project success, especially for neighborhood community improvements. Initial implementations in Barcelona and Bogotá had insufficient public participation, resulting in public opposition. Giving residents more ownership over the initiative facilitated implementation. The City of Sacramento’s Slow Streets initiative – in which the neighborhood implementations were requested and approved by community members – serves a good example of a process which fosters resident ownership and involvement in the changes to neighborhood streets. • Strong political support is also helpful to effectively implement 15-minute city concepts, as is the case weith Paris’ 15-minute city plan which was a major election issue, is strongly supported by the mayor and has been approved by city council. In Sacramento, maintaining a good relationship with City councilors and providing detailed project status updates and eventual post-implementation statistics can help maintain political support for the project.
• For the greatest effectiveness over the long term, the 15-minute city concepts should be incorporated into all planning documents to ensure all land use and transportation decisions are linked and work toward the goal of creating 15-minute neighborhoods.
• Ensure the emphasis of transportation planning within the 15-minute plan is on human-centered travel such as walking and rolling (biking, scootering, rollerblading, skateboarding, etc.). • Enact zoning ordinances and other policies that are supportive of / complementary to 15-minute plans.

Such policies may include the requirement of a certain proportion of dwelling units to be designated affordable, the elimination of parking minimums, and the implementation of paking maximums. • Establish hubs which act as community focus areas. These hubs could be centered around community facilities, key commercial centers, greenspace, major transit stations, or other key land uses within Sacramento.
• Facilitate the combination of public transit with active transportation, especially at light rail or regional rail stations.
• Select key neighborhoods to implement pilot projects or phase in changes to test theoretical 15-minute plan concepts in the real world. Experiences from Melbourne, Barcelona, and Bogotá have shown that this approach can allow the municipality to evaluate the implemented approach and adjust as needed for future implementations. If the pilot project approach is taken, tactical urbanism allows for the use of relatively easy, low-cost measures and greater flexibility as ideas evolve.

International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

4. REFERENCES

4.1 General
C40 Cities (2022). Benchmark – 15-Minute Cities.
https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Benchmark-15-minutecities?language=en_US#:~:text=A%2015%2Dminute%20city%20neighbourhood,to%20social%20and%20economic% 20opportunities.

Khavarian-Garmsir, A.R., Sharifi, A., Sadeghi, A. (2022). The 15-minute city: Urban planning and design efforts toward creating sustainable neighborhoods. Cities 132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.104101
Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., Pratlong. (2021). Introducing the “15-Minute City”: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities. Smart Cities 2021, 4, 93–111. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities4010006

4.2 Paris
Mairie de Paris (2017). Pacte Parisien de la Proximité. https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2021/11/19/0928a2166c5396087124af3b4f3462d6.pdf Mairie de Paris (2021). Plan Vélo 2021-2026.
https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2021/12/08/2fc9cb8ad6db58b6bfde3e6ccfc4c48c.pdf Mairie de Paris (2022). Paris ville du quart d’heure, ou le pari de la proximité. https://www.paris.fr/dossiers/paris-ville-du-quart-d-heure-ou-le-pari-de-la-proximite-37

4.3 Utrecht
Gemeente Utrecht. (2022). Vaststelling Utrecht Dichtbij: de tien-minutenstad. Report 8272740/20210413/b Gemeente Utrecht. (2023). Utrecht dichtbij: De tien-minutenstad. www.utrecht.nl/rsu2040
Knap, E., Ulak, M.B., Geurs, K.T., Mulders, A., van der Drift, S. (2023). A composite X-minute city biking accessibility metric and its role in assessing spatial and socioeconomic inequalities – A case study in Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Journal of Urban Mobility 3 100043.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2022.100043
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

4.4 Melbourne
Victoria State Government Department of Transport & Planning (2017). Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/plan-melbourne Victoria State Government Department of Transport & Planning (2019). 20-Minute Neighbourhoods. https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/guides-and-resources/strategies-and-initiatives/20-minute-neighbourhoods/20- minute-neighbourhood-projects
Victoria State Government Department of Transport & Planning (2019). 20-Minute Neighbourhoods Checklist Tool https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0023/653252/Checklist-tool-v5.pdf Victoria State Government Department of Transport & Planning (2019). Movement and Place in Victoria https://dtp.vic.gov.au/about/planning/transport-strategies-and-plans/movement-and-place-in-victoria

4.5 Barcelona
Ajuntament de Barcelona (2011). Urban Mobility Plan 2013-2018. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/en/what-we-do-and-why/active-and-sustainablemobility/urban-mobility-plan Ajuntament de Barcelona (2016). Superblocks: Let’s Fill the Streets with Life. https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/en/bodies-involved/citizen-participation/superblocks Ajuntament de Barcelona (2022). Urban Mobility Plan 2024. https://www.barcelona.cat/mobilitat/en/about-us/urban-mobility-plan Eggimann, S. (2022). The potential of implementing superblocks for multifunctional street use in cities. Nature Sustainability 2022 5:5, 5(5), 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00855-2

4.6 Bogotá
Alcadía Mayor de Bogotá. D.C. Secretaría de Planeación. (2022). Plan de Ordiamento Territorial: Bogotá Reverdece 2022-2035.
https://www.sdp.gov.co/micrositios/pot/que-es
Movilidad Bogota (2022). Barrios Vitales.
https://www.movilidadbogota.gov.co/web/barrios_vitales
Institute of Transportation Development & Policy. (2022). From Transmilenio to Cycle Networks: Lessons Learned from Bogotá’s Comprehensive Urban Mobility Planning
https://www.itdp.org/publication/from-transmilenio-to-cycle-networks-lessons-learned-from-bogotascomprehensive-urban-mobility-planning/ International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento

Appendix B
Neighborhood Connections
Project List
The following Appendix includes project extents and summary information for each Neighborhood Connections Primary Route. The information includes:
• Project ID: A unique identifier for each Primary
Route and reflected in > Figure 19 and > Figure

20. The Project ID is for identification purposes
and does not reflect project priority.
• Corridor Streets: The streets the Primary Route
follows.
• Corridor Enhancements: A general description
of the treatments which should be considered
for implementation for the project.
• Corridor Length: Length of the corridor in miles.
• Existing Max Speed Limit: Existing highest
posted speed limit on the corridor extents.
• Existing Max Bike LTS Score: The highest
existing bike Level of Traffic Stress Score on the
corridor extents as displayed in > Figure 12.
• Existing Max Walking Comfort Score: The
highest existing Pedestrian Comfort Score on
the corridor extents as displayed in > Figure 8.
• Crossing Arterial(s): A list of the arterials the
Primary Route crosses.
• Parallel Arterial(s): A list of the arterials the
Primary Route runs parallel to or provides
parallel connectivity to.
• Disadvantaged Community Criteria Met:

Notes which criteria for a disadvantaged
community the corridor meets, if any, as noted
in > Figure 3.
• Vision Zero HIN Overlap: Identifies corridors on
the City's Vision Zero High Injury Network.
• Secondary Route Connection: Notes whether
there are any Secondary Routes which intersect
or support the Primary Route and which could
be implemented with the Primary Route.
• Estimated Project Cost: Preliminary planning
level cost estimates are based on a per mile
cost of $2.65 million. The per mile cost is
an average per mile cost based on similar
sample projects and calculated using
standard cost rates for the recommended
treatments. These cost estimates should
be considered for planning purposes only,
and new estimates should be created
once projects are designed to account for
additional information uncovered in survey
base mapping. geotechnical reports, concept
refinement, environmental reviews, right of
way availability, project phasing, and other
elements. Project costs should be reviewed
prior to grant applications or inclusion in the
Capital Improvement Program.
• Estimated Secondary Network Cost: The
secondary network is assumed to largely
consist of signage, wayfinding, and markings,
similar to a Class III bike route. As such, cost
estimates were developed using the City’s
standard estimate for Class III Bike Routes
of $200,000 per mile. As with the Primary
Network, these estimates are for planning
efforts only and should be reviewed prior to
grant applications or inclusion in the Capital
Improvement Program.

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
1 UNIVERSITY AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.06 35 4 3 FAIR OAKS BLVD & HOWE AVE HOWE AVE Yes $ 5,470,000.00 Yes 2 BEWICKS CIR & CARNEROS CREEK WAY & DUCKHORN DR & FAR

NIENTE WAY & SAINTSBURY DR & SPARROW DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.12 35 3 2 ARENA BLVD & EL CENTRO RD EL CENTRO RD $ 5,620,000.00 Yes 3 ALBORAN SEA CIR & HOVNANIAN DR & LAKE KATIE WAY & MANERA

RICA DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.82 25 2 1 EL CENTRO RD & NATOMAS CENTRAL DR NATOMAS CENTRAL DR
$ 2,180,000.00 Yes
4 GIARRE WAY & KOS ISLAND AVE & LENTINI WAY & OLIVADI WAY & PO

RIVER WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.52 25 2 1 N/A N/A $ 1,380,000.00 Yes
5 WITTER WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.59 25 2 1 EL CENTRO RD EL CENTRO RD $ 1,560,000.00 Yes 6 KOKOMO DR & N PARK DR & NORTHBOROUGH DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.47 35 3 2 E COMMERCE WAY & NATOMAS BLVD N/A $ 3,890,000.00 Yes 7 CLUB CENTER DR & DANBROOK DR & HONOR PKWY & REGENCY PARK CIR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.36 35 3 2 NATOMAS BLVD N/A $ 6,260,000.00 Yes
8 ALLARD CT & BROOKMERE WAY & Creekside Trail & MAYBROOK DR &

NORTHBOROUGH DR & ROSE ARBOR DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.31 30 2 1 NATOMAS BLVD N/A $ 6,130,000.00 Yes
9 BRIDGECROSS DR & DANBROOK DR & N BEND DR & REGENCY PARK CIR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.02 30 3 2 NATOMAS BLVD N/A $ 8,010,000.00 Yes
10 BANKSIDE WAY & KOKOMO DR & MABRY DR & NEW MARKET DR &

PARK PLACE DR & TOWN CENTER DR & VIA INGOGLIA ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

4.28 30 2 2 DEL PASO RD & E COMMERCE WAY &

NATOMAS BLVD

DEL PASO RD & E

COMMERCE WAY
$ 11,340,000.00 Yes
11 BANFIELD DR & BURBERRY WAY & CLIFF HOUSE WAY & East Drainage Canal & GREG THATCH CIR & MACON DR & NEW HAMPSHIRE WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

4.28 25 2 1 E COMMERCE WAY & NATOMAS BLVD NATOMAS BLVD $ 11,350,000.00 Yes 13 AIRPORT RD & BILSTED WAY & ENDEAVOR WAY & GLOSTER WAY &

INNOVATOR DR & NATOMAS CROSSING DR & PROSPER RD &

TANZANITE AVE & TANZANITE CT
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.76 40 4 4 E COMMERCE WAY & TRUXEL RD ARENA BLVD &

TRUXEL RD
$ 7,320,000.00 Yes
14 ARCO ARENA EAST ENTRY DR & BLACKROCK DR & GATEWAY PARK

BLVD & N BREEZY MEADOW DR & TERRACINA DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.46 45 4 3 DEL PASO RD & TRUXEL RD DEL PASO RD CJEST $ 6,520,000.00 Yes 15 AUSTIN ST & BELL AVE & DANROTH DR & ENGLEWOOD ST & GRACE

AVE & JESSIE AVE & LONE LEAF DR & SANTA ANA AVE & SULLY ST & Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.99 40 4 3 BELL AVE & MAIN AVE & NORWOOD AVE BELL AVE & MAIN AVE & NORWOOD AVE
Yes $ 7,920,000.00 Yes
16 BARANDAS DR & ENDSLEY AVE & LAVENDER JADE AVE & MOSSY CREEK

ST & NORTH COVE DR & SHEARWATER DR & SWAINSON WAY & UNITY

POINTE AVE & W RIVER DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.57 35 4 2 W EL CAMINO AVE W EL CAMINO AVE $ 4,160,000.00 Yes 17 GATEWAY OAKS DR & RIVER PLAZA DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.75 35 4 3 GARDEN HWY GARDEN HWY $ 1,990,000.00 Yes
18 BANNON CREEK DR & CAPITAL PARK DR & CROSSMILL WAY &

JIBBOOM ST & MILLCREEK DR & NATOMAS PARK DR & SAGEMILL WAY & UNNAMED RD
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.08 30 2 1 GARDEN HWY & TRUXEL RD & W EL

CAMINO AVE
TRUXEL RD $ 5,520,000.00 Yes
19 FUNSTON DR & MAMMOTH WAY & MIRAMONTE DR & SODA WAY &

URBANA WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.08 25 2 1 TRUXEL RD TRUXEL RD $ 2,870,000.00 Yes
20 BREWERTON DR & BRIDGEFORD DR & CHUCKWAGON DR & MENDEL

WAY & MILLCREEK DR & OLD WEST DR & PEBBLEWOOD DR & PONY

EXPRESS DR & SEAMIST DR & STONECREEK DR & WATERWHEEL DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.90 25 2 1 SAN JUAN RD & TRUXEL RD & W EL

CAMINO AVE

TRUXEL RD & W EL

CAMINO AVE
$ 7,690,000.00 Yes
21 EDMONTON DR & NATOMA ST & PEBBLEWOOD DR & POTOMAC AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.14 25 2 1 NORTHGATE BLVD & TRUXEL RD SAN JUAN RD $ 5,670,000.00 Yes 22 AMERICAN AVE & BOWMAN AVE & BRIDGEFORD DR & CAMARILLO DR & HAGGIN AVE & NORTHFIELD DR & NORTHSTEAD DR & NORTHVIEW

DR & REGATTA DR & RIO TIERRA AVE & SEMINOLE WAY & SOTANO DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.84 25 2 1 NORTHGATE BLVD & W EL CAMINO AVE NORTHGATE BLVD $ 7,530,000.00 Yes 23 ACACIA AVE & ALTOS AVE & ARCADE BLVD & BRANCH ST & FAIRFIELD

ST & LAS PALMAS AVE & PALO VERDE AVE & SONOMA AVE
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.78 25 2 1 MARYSVILLE BLVD & NORWOOD AVE N/A $ 7,360,000.00 Yes

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
24 ACADEMY WAY & DEL PASO BLVD & JUDAH ST & JULIESSE AVE &

KATHLEEN AVE & KENWOOD ST & LOS ROBLES BLVD & PENDLETON ST & SHELDEN ST & TESSA AVE
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.76 35 4 2 MARYSVILLE BLVD N/A $ 7,320,000.00 Yes
25 PATIO AVE & SOUTH AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.09 30 3 2 E COMMERCE WAY & MARYSVILLE BLVD &

NORTHGATE BLVD & NORWOOD AVE
SILVER EAGLE RD $ 8,180,000.00 Yes
26 BALSAM ST & CYPRESS ST & FELL ST & GRAND AVE & KERN ST & NORTH

AVE & PINELL ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.60 30 3 2 MARYSVILLE BLVD MARYSVILLE BLVD &

RALEY BLVD
$ 9,550,000.00 Yes
27 ALTOS AVE & FAIRBANKS AVE & FORD RD & HARRIS AVE & HAYES AVE & MABEL ST & MORRISON AVE & OPPORTUNITY ST & PASEO NUEVO ST & ROSE ST & TAYLOR ST & WESTERN AVE
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

4.57 30 3 2 NORWOOD AVE & SAN JUAN RD & SILVER

EAGLE RD
SILVER EAGLE RD CJEST $ 12,100,000.00 Yes
28 Y ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.92 25 2 1 ALHAMBRA BLVD & BROADWAY &

STOCKTON BLVD
BROADWAY Yes $ 2,430,000.00 Yes
29 BEAUMONT ST & BRANCH ST & CLAY ST & DIXIEANNE AVE & ELEANOR

AVE & EVERGREEN ST & FRIENZA AVE & GLENROSE AVE & LAMPASAS

AVE & LAS PALMAS AVE & LEXINGTON ST & TAFT ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.46 30 3 2 DEL PASO BLVD & EL CAMINO AVE EL CAMINO AVE $ 6,530,000.00 Yes 30 CALVADOS AVE & CANTALIER ST & CANTERBURY RD & EXPO PKWY &

GIBSON ST & OXFORD ST & REDWOOD AVE & SOUTHGATE RD &

WOODLAKE DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.44 25 2 2 ARDEN WAY & DEL PASO BLVD &

EXPOSITION BLVD
GROVE AVE $ 6,460,000.00 Yes
31 ACOMA ST & COLFAX ST & REDWOOD AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.68 25 2 2 ARDEN WAY & EL CAMINO AVE GROVE AVE $ 1,810,000.00 Yes 32 TRIBUTE RD Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.41 25 2 1 EXPOSITION BLVD N/A $ 1,090,000.00 Yes
33 ALBATROSS WAY & CORMORANT WAY & POINT WEST WAY & ROYALE

RD & SACRAMENTO INN WAY & WOOLLEY WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.25 25 2 2 ARDEN WAY & EL CAMINO AVE EL CAMINO AVE $ 3,310,000.00 Yes 34 CAMELLIA AVE & CARLSON DR & ERLEWINE CIR & MODDISON AVE &

SANDBURG DR & STATE UNIVERSITY DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.20 30 3 3 H ST & J ST N/A $ 8,470,000.00 Yes
35 39TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.44 25 2 1 FOLSOM BLVD & J ST & STOCKTON BLVD N/A $ 3,810,000.00 Yes 36 36TH WAY & 43RD ST & 45TH ST & A ST & AIKEN WAY & C ST &

DEFOREST WAY & MCKINLEY VILLAGE WAY & MEISTER WAY & TIVOLI WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.02 30 2 1 N/A N/A $ 5,360,000.00 Yes
37 51ST ST & COLOMA WAY & D ST & MCKINLEY BLVD Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.11 25 2 1 ALHAMBRA BLVD N/A $ 5,600,000.00 Yes
38 51ST ST & 53RD ST & SUTTER PARK WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.92 25 2 1 FOLSOM BLVD & J ST N/A $ 5,080,000.00 Yes
39 45TH ST & 48TH ST & F ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.02 25 2 1 FOLSOM BLVD & J ST N/A $ 5,350,000.00 Yes
40 BELMAR ST & CHESTNUT HILL DR & CLIFFWOOD WAY & LA RIVIERA DR & LAKE FOREST DR & NOTRE DAME DR & OCCIDENTAL DR & UNNAMED

RD & WISSEMANN DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.86 35 4 2 FOLSOM BLVD & WATT AVE FOLSOM BLVD CJEST $ 10,220,000.00 Yes 41 35TH ST & 58TH ST & GRANADA WAY & L ST & LOUIS WAY & M ST & N ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.51 25 2 1 ALHAMBRA BLVD FOLSOM BLVD & J ST Yes $ 6,650,000.00 Yes 42 33RD ST & 34TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.37 25 2 1 BROADWAY & FOLSOM BLVD & J ST &

STOCKTON BLVD
ALHAMBRA BLVD $ 3,620,000.00 Yes
43 11TH ST & 19TH ST & 20TH ST & C ST & D ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.71 30 3 2 12TH ST & 16TH ST 10TH ST & 12TH ST $ 4,530,000.00 Yes 44 28TH ST & V ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.89 25 2 1 J ST & L ST & P ST & Q ST 29TH ST & W ST $ 5,020,000.00 Yes 45 E ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.69 30 3 1 10TH ST & 12TH ST & 16TH ST & 29TH ST &
9TH ST & E ST
E ST $ 4,470,000.00 Yes

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
46 11TH ST & 5TH ST & F ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.25 30 3 2 10TH ST & 12TH ST & 15TH ST & 16TH ST &
29TH ST & 30TH ST & 7TH ST & 9TH ST &

ALHAMBRA BLVD
10TH ST & 12TH ST &
5TH ST & E ST & G ST
$ 5,960,000.00 Yes
47 CAPITOL AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.21 30 4 3 15TH ST & 16TH ST & 19TH ST & 21ST ST &
29TH ST & 30TH ST & ALHAMBRA BLVD &

FOLSOM BLVD
L ST & N ST $ 3,220,000.00 Yes
48 O ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.23 25 2 1 15TH ST & 16TH ST & 19TH ST & 21ST ST N ST & P ST $ 3,270,000.00 Yes 49 4TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.45 25 2 1 CAPITOL MALL & I ST & I STREET BRG & J ST
& L ST & N ST & P ST
3RD ST & 5TH ST $ 1,180,000.00 N/A
50 11TH ST & 18TH ST & O ST & R ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.62 25 2 2 10TH ST & 15TH ST & 16TH ST & 3RD ST &
5TH ST & 9TH ST & P ST & Q ST
10TH ST & 19TH ST & N

ST & P ST & Q ST
$ 4,310,000.00 Yes
51 6TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.56 25 2 1 BROADWAY & W ST & X ST 5TH ST & 7TH ST $ 1,480,000.00 Yes 52 8TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.56 25 2 1 BROADWAY & W ST & X ST 7TH ST & 9TH ST $ 1,480,000.00 Yes 53 18TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.76 25 2 1 BROADWAY & W ST & X ST 19TH ST CJEST $ 2,030,000.00 Yes 54 11TH ST & S ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.20 30 3 2 10TH ST & 15TH ST & 16TH ST & 19TH ST &
21ST ST & 29TH ST & 30TH ST & 9TH ST &

ALHAMBRA BLVD
10TH ST & T ST Yes $ 5,840,000.00 Yes
55 T ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.69 30 1 1 10TH ST & 15TH ST & 16TH ST & 19TH ST &
21ST ST & 9TH ST
T ST $ 4,480,000.00 Yes
56 17TH ST & 5TH ST & BIDWELL WAY & CRATE AVE & MUIR WAY &

VALLEJO WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.01 30 2 2 BROADWAY & FREEPORT BLVD & LAND

PARK DR
RIVERSIDE BLVD $ 7,970,000.00 Yes
56 2ND AVE & 50TH ST & 5TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.04 30 2 2 BROADWAY & FREEPORT BLVD & LAND

PARK DR
RIVERSIDE BLVD $ 100,000.00 Yes
57 MARKHAM WAY & REGINA WAY & SANTA BUENA WAY & SWANSTON DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.95 25 2 1 LAND PARK DR N/A $ 5,180,000.00 Yes
58 14TH ST & BURNETT WAY & MARTY WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.80 25 2 1 BROADWAY & LAND PARK DR LAND PARK DR $ 2,110,000.00 N/A 59 25TH ST & 26TH ST & CASTRO WAY & DONNER WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.11 25 2 1 BROADWAY & W ST & X ST N/A $ 2,950,000.00 Yes 60 2ND AVE & 50TH ST & 5TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.24 35 2 2 21ST ST & ALHAMBRA BLVD & BROADWAY
& FRANKLIN BLVD & LAND PARK DR &

STOCKTON BLVD
BROADWAY $ 8,580,000.00 Yes
61 21ST ST & 33RD ST & 35TH ST & 38TH ST & 4TH AVE & 5TH AVE &

PORTOLA WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.58 25 2 2 BROADWAY & FRANKLIN BLVD &

STOCKTON BLVD
BROADWAY $ 6,840,000.00 Yes
62 57TH ST & V ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.52 25 2 1 BROADWAY N/A $ 4,020,000.00 Yes
63 37TH ST & MILLER WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.62 30 3 2 STOCKTON BLVD N/A $ 1,640,000.00 Yes
64 49TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.56 25 1 1 BROADWAY N/A $ 1,490,000.00 N/A
65 12TH AVE & 1ST AVE & 42ND ST & 43RD ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.93 25 2 1 BROADWAY & STOCKTON BLVD STOCKTON BLVD CJEST $ 2,470,000.00 Yes 66 16TH AVE & 26TH AVE & 27TH AVE & 33RD ST & 34TH ST & 35TH ST & 36TH ST & STRAWBERRY LN
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.10 25 2 1 BROADWAY MARTIN LUTHER KING

JR BLVD
Yes $ 5,550,000.00 Yes
67 2ND AVE & 51ST ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.58 25 2 1 N/A N/A $ 1,550,000.00 N/A

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
68 69TH ST & REDDING AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.99 30 1 2 14TH AVE & FOLSOM BLVD FOLSOM BLVD $ 2,630,000.00 N/A 69 BUSINESS DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.35 25 2 1 14TH AVE N/A $ 930,000.00 N/A
70 10TH AVE & 12TH AVE & 38TH ST & 7TH AVE & 8TH AVE & 99 POC at 8th Ave & 9TH AVE & SAN JOAQUIN ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.73 25 2 2 65TH ST & FRANKLIN BLVD & STOCKTON
BLVD
BROADWAY $ 9,900,000.00 Yes
71 11TH AVE & 22ND AVE & 54TH ST & 55TH ST & 58TH ST & 60TH ST & 61ST ST & CIBOLA WAY & SAN FRANCISCO BLVD
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

4.18 25 2 1 65TH ST & BROADWAY & FRUITRIDGE RD 65TH ST & 59TH ST &

STOCKTON BLVD
$ 11,070,000.00 Yes
72 69TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.50 25 2 1 14TH AVE FOLSOM BLVD $ 1,330,000.00 N/A
73 25TH AVE & 73RD ST & EMERSON RD & VANDENBERG DR & WHITTIER DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.11 25 2 1 14TH AVE & FRUITRIDGE RD FOLSOM BLVD &

POWER INN RD
$ 2,940,000.00 Yes
74 BELLEVIEW AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.62 25 2 1 FRUITRIDGE RD N/A $ 1,650,000.00 Yes
75 17TH AVE & 18TH AVE & 76TH ST & 77TH ST & BRADFORD DR &

VANDENBERG DR & WILKINSON ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.98 25 2 1 FRUITRIDGE RD POWER INN RD $ 5,240,000.00 Yes 76 21ST AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.43 35 3 2 65TH STREET EXPY 14TH AVE &

FRUITRIDGE RD
$ 3,800,000.00 Yes
77 21ST AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.98 35 3 2 65TH STREET EXPY & STOCKTON BLVD 14TH AVE &

FRUITRIDGE RD
$ 5,250,000.00 Yes
78 46TH ST & LAWRENCE DR & PERRY AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.05 30 3 2 STOCKTON BLVD 14TH AVE &

FRUITRIDGE RD
CJEST $ 2,790,000.00 Yes
79 53RD AVE & COUGAR DR & HOMETOWN WAY & LOGAN ST & ROCK

CREEK WAY & SOMERTON WAY & STALLINGS DR & SUNRISE SOUTH DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.73 30 3 2 ELDER CREEK RD & POWER INN RD FOLSOM BLVD &

POWER INN RD
Yes $ 4,590,000.00 Yes
80 63RD ST & DIAS AVE & FOWLER AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.27 30 2 2 ELDER CREEK RD & STOCKTON BLVD 65TH STREET EXPY &

STOCKTON BLVD
$ 3,380,000.00 N/A
81 LEMON HILL AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.76 40 4 3 65TH STREET EXPY & POWER INN RD &

STOCKTON BLVD
47TH AVE $ 4,660,000.00 Yes
82 15TH AVE & 59TH ST & 61ST ST & 62ND ST & JANSEN DR & MCMAHON

DR & ORTEGA ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.71 30 2 2 65TH STREET EXPY & FRUITRIDGE RD 65TH STREET EXPY $ 7,170,000.00 Yes 83 55TH ST & CITRUS TREE WAY & LEMON PARK WAY & LEMON VIEW WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.74 25 2 1 FRUITRIDGE RD STOCKTON BLVD $ 1,950,000.00 Yes 84 21ST AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.92 30 3 2 FRANKLIN BLVD N/A $ 2,430,000.00 Yes
85 ARLINGTON AVE & E PACIFIC AVE & WILMINGTON AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.50 25 2 1 SUTTERVILLE RD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 1,330,000.00 Yes 86 10TH AVE & 18TH AVE & JEFFREY AVE & LEW WAY & W PACIFIC AVE & W

PACIFIC BYP
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.80 25 2 1 SUTTERVILLE RD N/A $ 2,110,000.00 Yes
87 26TH ST & E CURTIS DR & W CURTIS DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.74 25 2 1 SUTTERVILLE RD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 1,970,000.00 Yes 88 11TH AVE & 12TH AVE & 23RD ST & SACRAMENTO CITY COLLEGE &

SUTTERVILLE BYP
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.99 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD & SUTTERVILLE RD FREEPORT BLVD $ 2,620,000.00 Yes 89 22ND AVE & 23RD ST & HELEN WAY & JOAQUIN WAY & LARSON WAY &

MEER WAY & STACIA WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.54 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD FREEPORT BLVD $ 4,080,000.00 Yes 90 26TH AVE & 27TH AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.72 30 3 2 FRANKLIN BLVD FRUITRIDGE RD $ 1,910,000.00 N/A 91 28TH ST & 38TH AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.12 25 2 1 FRANKLIN BLVD & FRUITRIDGE RD FRANKLIN BLVD CJEST $ 2,970,000.00 N/A 92 HARIAN WAY & HILLARD ST & IRVIN WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.88 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD FRUITRIDGE RD Yes $ 2,340,000.00 Yes

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
93 34TH AVE & CARMELA WAY & HELEN WAY & NORMAN WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.34 25 2 1 FRUITRIDGE RD FRUITRIDGE RD $ 3,560,000.00 Yes 94 32ND AVE & CLAUDIA DR & GILGUNN WAY & RICKEY DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.74 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD & FRUITRIDGE RD N/A $ 1,960,000.00 Yes 95 27TH AVE & CASILADA WAY & DEL RIO RD & ELMER WAY & KARBET

WAY & NOONAN DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.35 30 3 2 SEAMAS AVE FRUITRIDGE RD $ 3,580,000.00 Yes 96 CARMELA WAY & MEAD AVE & MONTEREY WAY & OREGON DR &

POTRERO WAY & WENTWORTH AVE
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.87 30 2 2 FREEPORT BLVD & FRUITRIDGE RD &

SUTTERVILLE RD
FREEPORT BLVD $ 4,950,000.00 Yes
97 EUCLID AVE & MULBERRY LN & VOLZ DR & WARREN AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.87 25 2 2 SUTTERVILLE RD N/A $ 2,290,000.00 Yes
98 13TH AVE & 17TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.61 25 2 1 N/A LAND PARK DR &

FREEPORT BLVD
$ 1,610,000.00 Yes
99 11TH AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.93 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD N/A $ 2,460,000.00 Yes
100 14TH AVE & 15TH AVE & 17TH AVE & 18TH ST & 19TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.21 25 2 1 FREEPORT BLVD & SUTTERVILLE RD FREEPORT BLVD $ 5,860,000.00 N/A 101 13TH AVE & 13TH ST & 14TH AVE & 15TH AVE & 18TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.37 25 2 1 N/A N/A $ 3,630,000.00 N/A
102 DETROIT BLVD Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.91 30 3 2 MEADOWVIEW RD N/A $ 2,420,000.00 N/A
103 WINDBRIDGE DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.34 35 3 2 POCKET RD N/A $ 3,560,000.00 Yes
104 ALMA VISTA WAY & BRANWOOD WAY & FARM DALE WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.13 25 2 2 POCKET RD FREEPORT BLVD CJEST $ 2,990,000.00 Yes 105 EHRHARDT AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.11 30 3 2 CENTER PKWY & FRANKLIN BLVD COSUMNES RIVER
BLVD
Yes $ 2,930,000.00 Yes
106 CARLIN AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.05 25 2 1 N/A FRANKLIN BLVD &

CENTER PKWY
$ 2,770,000.00 Yes
107 COCKLE BUR DR & CRYSTAL HILL WAY & HOLLY JILL WAY & JACINTO

AVE & KEVINBERG DR & LANCRAFT DR & LANGTREE WAY & MAPLETON

WAY & RIGHTWOOD WAY & STUBBLEFIELD WAY & VALLEY LARK DR &

VILLAGE CREEK WAY & VILLAGE RIDGE WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.72 35 3 2 CENTER PKWY FRANKLIN BLVD &

CENTER PKWY
$ 7,200,000.00 Yes
108 BRENTWICK WAY & CLEARBROOK WAY & CRANLEIGH AVE &

DAMASCAS DR & DARTFORD DR & HOLLYBROOK DR & JACINTO AVE &

MILLBORO WAY & PORT HAYWOOD WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.69 35 3 2 BRUCEVILLE RD & CENTER PKWY N/A $ 4,470,000.00 N/A 109 JACINTO RD Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.59 35 4 3 BRUCEVILLE RD N/A $ 1,560,000.00 Yes
110 BEAUCANON CT & CHARENTE WAY & DAMASCAS DR & MASTERS ST &

SERIO WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.00 25 2 2 BRUCEVILLE RD SHELDON RD $ 2,660,000.00 Yes 111 JOCELYN WAY & MASTERS ST & MELVILLE DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.69 25 2 1 SHELDON RD N/A $ 1,840,000.00 Yes
112 COTTON LN & IMAGINATION PKWY & SERIO WAY & SHASTA AVE &

TOLSON ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.05 25 2 2 BRUCEVILLE RD CALVINE RD $ 2,780,000.00 N/A 113 ARROYO VISTA DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.23 25 2 1 CENTER PKWY BRUCEVILLE RD $ 3,260,000.00 Yes 114 ALPINE FROST DR & HOSPITAL DR & TIMBERLAKE WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.92 35 4 3 BRUCEVILLE RD COSUMNES RIVER
BLVD
$ 2,430,000.00 N/A
115 CHERRYWOOD CIR & GANDY DANCER WAY & GRANDSTAFF DR &

LINDBROOK WAY & LIONEL CT
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.52 25 2 1 VALLEY HI DR N/A $ 4,030,000.00 Yes

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
116 BAMFORD DR & GRANDSTAFF DR & HANFORD WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.16 25 2 1 BRUCEVILLE RD & CENTER PKWY & VALLEY
HI DR
CENTER PKWY $ 3,070,000.00 Yes
117 ALVERN WAY & CAMINO ROYALE DR & GARDEN VIEW WAY & HALKEEP

WAY & HOLLYHURST WAY & LISBON WAY & VALLEY GREEN DR &

VALLEY VALE WAY & YVONNE WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.82 25 2 1 CENTER PKWY & FRANKLIN BLVD CENTER PKWY &

COSUMNES RIVER
BLVD
CJEST $ 4,820,000.00 Yes
118 AMBLEBROOK WAY & ARMADALE WAY & BAMFORD DR & COUNTRY

SCENE WAY & GEARNY DR & KENTWAL DR & MONAGHAN CIR &

PEDRICK ST & PRAIRIE CREEK WAY & WHISPER WOOD WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.69 25 2 1 CENTER PKWY & FRANKLIN BLVD FRANKLIN BLVD Yes $ 4,480,000.00 Yes 119 DEER CREEK DR & DEER HILL DR & DEER LAKE DR & DEERGLEN WAY &

DEERLEAF DR & RED DEER WAY & VALLEY HI DR & WHITE STAG WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.04 35 4 2 FRANKLIN BLVD & MACK RD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 5,410,000.00 Yes 120 ARMADALE WAY & DEER CREEK DR & LA CORUNA DR & TORRENTE WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.39 25 2 1 FRANKLIN BLVD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 3,680,000.00 N/A 121 GRAMONT WAY & LA MANCHA WAY & LERNER WAY & OMAHA CT &

PRESCOTT WAY & SADDLEBACK WAY & SEYFERTH WAY & TANGERINE

AVE & TELFER WAY & WARDELL WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.18 40 4 3 CENTER PKWY N/A $ 3,130,000.00 Yes
122 BOYCE DR & BROOKFIELD DR & TANGERINE AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.44 30 3 2 CENTER PKWY & FRANKLIN BLVD & MACK
RD

CENTER PKWY &

FRANKLIN BLVD
$ 3,820,000.00 Yes
123 BROOKFIELD DR & NIXOS WAY & SUN CASTLE LN & SUN PASSAGE LN &

SUN SHOWER CIR & SUN SHOWER PL & VALLEY WIND WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.01 45 4 4 FRANKLIN BLVD & MACK RD &

MEADOWVIEW RD

CENTER PKWY &

FRANKLIN BLVD
$ 2,690,000.00 Yes
124 LUTHER DR Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.50 40 4 3 FLORIN RD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 1,320,000.00 N/A
125 LUTHER DR & MANDY DR & MEADOWGATE DR & MUNSON WAY &

ROBINRIDGE WAY & SHINING STAR DR & SPARROWOOD WAY &

WRENWOOD DR
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

3.31 25 2 1 FLORIN RD & FRANKLIN BLVD FRANKLIN BLVD $ 8,770,000.00 Yes 126 53RD AVE & CLIPPER WAY & WOODBINE AVE Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.21 30 2 2 47TH AVE & FLORIN RD & RIVERSIDE BLVD 24TH ST $ 3,210,000.00 Yes 127 29TH ST & INDIAN LN & LOMA VERDE CT & LOMA VERDE WAY & YREKA AVE
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.81 30 3 2 FLORIN RD & MEADOWVIEW RD 24TH ST $ 4,810,000.00 Yes 128 HITHER WAY & TORRANCE AVE & WAINSCOTT WAY & WATER MILL WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.73 25 2 1 MEADOWVIEW RD N/A $ 1,940,000.00 Yes
129 24TH ST & AMHERST ST & JOHN STILL DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.12 35 3 2 MEADOWVIEW RD MEADOWVIEW RD $ 5,620,000.00 Yes 130 19TH ST & EXPEDITION WAY & MANORSIDE DR & MONARCH AVE &

TUNGSTEN WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.22 35 4 2 N/A N/A CJEST $ 3,230,000.00 Yes
131 AMHERST ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.12 30 3 2 MEADOWVIEW RD FREEPORT BLVD Yes $ 2,960,000.00 Yes 132 69TH AVE & BALFOUR WAY & CANDLEWOOD WAY & MATSON DR &

SYLVIA WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.23 25 2 2 N/A MEADOWVIEW RD $ 5,910,000.00 Yes
133 68TH AVE & GARDENDALE RD Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.74 25 2 1 N/A FLORIN RD $ 4,610,000.00 Yes
134 19TH ST & 24TH STREET BYP & 65TH AVE & 66TH AVE & 67TH AVE &

STRATFORD ST
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.78 25 2 1 N/A FLORIN RD $ 4,720,000.00 Yes
135 22ND ST & TAMOSHANTER WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.33 25 2 1 FLORIN RD & MEADOWVIEW RD 24TH ST $ 3,520,000.00 Yes 136 20TH ST & 60TH AVE & AMHERST ST & Chorley Park Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.90 30 2 2 FLORIN RD FLORIN RD $ 2,380,000.00 Yes
137 VENTURA ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.38 25 2 1 47TH AVE N/A $ 1,000,000.00 Yes
138 23RD ST & 48TH AVE & 53RD AVE & 56TH AVE & 57TH AVE & DEMARET

DR & HOGAN DR & MIDDLECOFF WAY & TAMOSHANTER WAY
Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.64 25 2 1 FLORIN RD 24TH ST $ 6,980,000.00 Yes

Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Corridor
Length
(miles)
Existing Max
Speed Limit
Existing Max
Bike LTS
Score
Existing Max
Pedestrian
Comfort Score Crossing Arterial(s) Parallel Arterial(s) Disadvantaged
Community
Criteria Met
Vision Zero HIN
Overlap
Estimated Project
Cost ($2.65m / mi)
Secondary
Network
Adjacent
139 13TH ST Traffic Calming, Crossing
Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.03 25 2 1 N/A FREEPORT BLVD $ 5,370,000.00 Yes
140 56TH AVE & HAVENHURST DR & PARKSHORE CIR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.21 25 2 1 N/A FLORIN RD $ 3,220,000.00 Yes
141 14TH ST & 47TH AVE & S LAND PARK DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

0.96 25 2 1 N/A FREEPORT BLVD $ 2,540,000.00 Yes
142 GLORIA DR & LAKE PARK DR & SILVER LAKE DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.40 30 3 2 N/A RIVERSIDE BLVD $ 3,710,000.00 Yes
143 GLORIA DR & HAVENSIDE DR & PARK RIVIERA WAY & RIVERGATE WAY Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

4.02 35 3 2 FLORIN RD RIVERSIDE BLVD CJEST $ 10,660,000.00 Yes 144 LITTLE RIVER WAY & RUSH RIVER DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

2.21 35 3 2 N/A RIVERSIDE BLVD Yes $ 5,860,000.00 Yes
145 PARK RIVIERA WAY & POCKET RD Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.39 30 3 2 RIVERSIDE BLVD RIVERSIDE BLVD $ 3,680,000.00 Yes 146 35TH AVE & BELLEAU WOOD LN & DICKSON ST & LONSDALE DR Traffic Calming, Crossing Enhancements, Wayfinding

1.67 40 4 3 FREEPORT BLVD & SEAMAS AVE FRUITRIDGE RD $ 4,430,000.00 Yes 147 PIEDMONT DR & SEAMAS AVE & SURF WAY 1.18 40 4 3 RIVERSIDE BLVD RIVERSIDE BLVD &

SEAMAS AVE
$ 3,130,000.00 Yes
$ 638,920,000.00
Project
ID Corridor Streets Corridor Enhancements
Network
Length
(miles)
Estimated
Project Cost
($200k / mi)
N/A Secondary Route Network (Complete) Wayfinding, Signage 190.00 $ 38,000,000.00 $ 38,000,000.00 $ 676,920,000.00
Total Planning Level Cost for All Primary Routes
Total Planning Level Cost for All Secondary Routes
Total Planning Level Cost for Neighborhood Connections Network

Appendix C
Traffic Calming Toolbox
Sacramento
Neighborhood Connections Plan
Traffic Calming Toolbox Technical Memorandum
September 2024
2 Introduction
Sacramento’s Neighborhood Connections are intended to provide comfortable connections for people to walk or bike to everyday destinations on minor collectors and local streets. To do this, Neighborhood Connections utilize design treatments to:
〉 Slow traffic speeds and lower vehicle volumes to a level that people of all ages and skill levels feel comfortable sharing the road with vehicle traffic.
〉 Create comfortable, frequent, and accessible places to cross the street.

In addition to improving comfort for people walking, biking, or rolling, these treatments also can help to reduce crashes and improve travel for all roadway users. In order to achieve this, there are three main types of treatments which can be considered:

Traffic Calming Treatments
These treatments help to slow speeds. There are two types of speed control elements:
〉 Primary: These treatments are the most effective at lowering speeds when spaced approximately every 250 to 500 feet. They include any treatment which provides horizontal or vertical deflection.
〉 Secondary: These treatments help support primary elements and can provide comfort and placemaking elements, but may not sufficiently reduce speeds on their own. They include onstreet parking, street trees, painted lane narrowing, and similar visual cues.

Crossing Treatments
These treatments improve the experience crossing the street at intersections or mid-block by shortening crossing distances and increasing visibility for users.

Volume Lowering Treatments
These treatments lower traffic volumes. There are two types of volume control elements:
〉 Primary: These treatments restrict the through movement of vehicles while allowing pedestrians and cyclists – and potentially emergency and service vehicles – to pass through. If not applied across a wide area, traffic volumes may simply shift to other local streets, creating issues in a new location so it is important to consider the network during application. Traffic diverters are the main primary vehicle volume lowering treatments. 〉 Secondary: These treatments are speed reducing treatments which may encourage lower vehicle traffic, such as speed humps.

Turning Movement Treatments
These treatments slow turning vehicles and improve visibility between drivers and people walking or biking across the street.

Walking Improvements
These treatments make the walking environment feel more comfortable, and include regular crossings, shade, as well as treatments to lower vehicle speeds.

Biking Improvements
These treatments make the biking environment feel more comfortable and include shade and treatments to lower vehicle speeds and volumes.
3 Sacramento’s Traffic Calming Treatments
The table below includes the full list of treatments considered and which of the goals they address. The treatments are described in detail through the remainder of this document, including benefits, challenges, cost, application guidance, and further resources for review.

Treatment Traffic
Calming Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Speed Humps / Lumps /
Tables
Traffic Diverter / Street
Closure
Median Islands / Pedestrian
Refuge Islands
Mini Roundabouts / Traffic
Circles
Chicanes
Pinch Points
Raised Crosswalks /
Intersections
Street Trees
On Street Parking
Lane Narrowing
Curb Extensions
Geometry Changes / Curb
Radii
Hardened Centerlines
Speed Humps / Lumps / Tables
Elevated mounds 3-4” in height placed in the roadway intended to slow vehicles. The mounds may include gaps to allow emergency vehicles and bicycles to travel through without experiencing vertical deflection. To achieve effective traffic calming, features should be spaced appropriately 250 to 500 feet apart. When placed near pedestrian crossings, they can significantly enhance comfort for those crossing.

Application Guidance
Speed humps / lumps / tables are typically applied mid-block on low volume, low speed, one- or two-way local streets and minor collectors. While avoiding driveways is preferred, they may be placed in front of driveways on a case by case basis. Speed humps may be placed near intersections but not within them. Additionally, placing speed humps on either side of a pedestrian crossing can help to create a slow zone, lowering speeds and improving pedestrian comfort. Speed lumps should be installed in accordance with the City Speed Lump Program.

Issues Addressed
Traffic Calming Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $2,500 per location
〉 Range: $1,500 to $5,500 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Sacramento Speed Lump Program
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA MUTCD
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
〉 NACTO Urban Street Guide: Speed Hump
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows down drivers.
〉 Easily navigated by bicyclists.
〉 Work best when spaced frequently.
〉 May require emergency vehicles to slow down
and create discomfort for transit riders but can be
designed to minimize these impacts.

Traffic Diverter / Street Closure
Street modifications which partially or fully close the street to vehicular traffic while still allowing access for people walking and biking. Diagonal diverters prevent all through movement, and forced turn diverters prevent through traffic on one street.

Application Guidance
Traffic diverters are typically applied at intersections of low volume, low speed, one- or two-way residential streets with more than 1,500 vehicles per day. Typically, diverters should be considered only when an alternate route for vehicle traffic exists, but care should be taken not to shift cut through traffic to local streets. Diverters should be well marked and signed to alert drivers to watch for people biking through or turning at the feature.

Full street closures can provide space for community events.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Range: $15,000 to $50,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 Caltrans HDM Topic 404
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Temporary Street Closures Benefits Constraints
〉 Establishes priority for walking and biking.
〉 Reduces cut-through traffic.
〉 Can be accomplished with temporary, quickbuild materials. 〉 Limits vehicle access (may be modified to allow
emergency vehicle access).
〉 Traffic study may be conducted to evaluate
impacts to adjacent streets.
6 Median Islands / Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Medians in the center of local streets and minor collectors which shift the travel path of vehicular traffic.

Median islands at intersections or mid-block crossing locations may include a cut out to provide protected space for people walking and biking when crossing the street.

Application Guidance
Median islands are typically applied on all streets and should especially be considered on streets with higher speeds and volumes. This treatment may provide a temporary refuge, allowing a person walking or biking to navigate one direction of traffic at a time. Median islands can be applied midblock or at signalized or unsignalized intersections, and can double as a diverter to prevent cut-through traffic on a bicycle route.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $10,500 per location
〉 Range: $10,000 to $30,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 Caltrans HDM Index 405.4
〉 Caltrans HDM Topic 904
〉 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows traffic by creating a lateral shift.
〉 Increases motorist visibility of pedestrians.
〉 Reduces pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic.
〉 Allows people walking and biking to navigate only
one direction of traffic at a time.
〉 Street width should be wide enough to
accommodate a vehicle on either side of the
median (9’ minimum). Note: If intended for use as
a pedestrian refuge island, it must be consistent
with accessibility guidelines.
7 Mini Roundabouts / Traffic Circles
Mini roundabouts are unsignalized, circular intersections where incoming traffic yields to traffic in the intersection. Designs may include separated bike lanes or shared lanes to accommodate people biking. Traffic circles require less space and may be stop controlled.

Application Guidance
These treatments are typically applied on lower speed, 2-4 lane local roadways or collectors at intersections with 3 to 4 legs with enough space to provide a lateral shift to slow traffic. Treatment designs may include improvements for people walking and biking including separated bike lanes, shared lanes, or refuge islands.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $500,000 per location
〉 Range: $25,000 to $1.2 million per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA HDM Chapter 400
〉 CA MUTCD
〉 NCHRP 1043 Guide for Roundabouts
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Mini-roundabout
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows down drivers.
〉 Can improve traffic flow and reduce severity of
crashes.
〉 Provides an opportunity for landscaping or
placemaking.
〉 Works better with relatively even traffic volumes.
〉 May require additional treatments for people
walking and biking.
〉 May require additional space for transit or freight.
8 Chicanes
Segments of curb, landscaping, or other curb extension and alternate from one side of the road to the other to create a curved segment of roadway which shortens a driver’s sight lines, lowering speeds. Additional space may be utilized for parking, landscape, or other elements.

Application Guidance
Chicanes are typically applied midblock on residential or low volume streets to slow vehicular traffic without impacting emergency vehicles. Additional signage and stripping can make drivers aware of upcoming bend in the roadway. Chicanes may not be appropriate on transit priority streets.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $2,500 per location
〉 Range: $2,500 to $16,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA HDM Topic 404
〉 CA HDM Index 303.4
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Chicane
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows down drivers.
〉 Increase available public space on a corridor.
〉 Requires additional roadway space; generally
feasible for streets with on street parking.
9 Pinch Points
Horizontal extension of the curb into the street that narrow travel lanes by 1 to 2 feet or narrow a two-lane roadway into one wide travel lane shared by vehicles traveling in both directions, requiring drivers to yield to each other.

Application Guidance
Pinch points act like mid-block curb extensions and are typically installed on low volume streets. Bicycle volumes are higher, a separated pathway should be considered to enable people biking to bypass the pinch point and avoid conflict with drivers who may seek to overtake the cyclists prior to or in the narrowed portion. A bicycle bypass should be strongly considered where heavy vehicle traffic is expected. Reflective paint and other materials can be used to heighten visibility.

Issues Addressed
Traffic Calming Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $2,500
〉 Range: $2,000 to $25,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA HDM Index 303.4 and 404.4
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Curb Extensions
〉 FHWA Countermeasures
Benefits Constraints
〉 Reduces vehicle speeds.
〉 May be paired with mid-block crossings to reduce
crossing distances for people walking.
〉 Can be installed on primary emergency vehicle
routes or transit routes.
〉 Considerations should be made for bike lanes or
drainage.
〉 Stop or yield signage should be provided if the
street in narrowed to one lane.
10 Raised Crosswalks / Intersections
Crosswalks or intersections which are elevated to sidewalk level to slow vehicles and increase driver alertness.

Raised crossings are a variation which raises only the pedestrian/bicycle crossing, and they can be used as shared use path crossings. Detectable warnings and drainage should also be considered.

Application Guidance
Typically installed at intersections or midblock crossings on lower speed 2-3 lane local roads or collectors. These raised elements improve visibility and encourage drivers to yield at crossings. They may also be installed on side street crossings and driveways to prioritize nonmotorized users. While ADA compliance is required, crosswalks do not need to be marked if the intersection is flush with the sidewalk. Additionally, raised intersections may be combined with special pavers and/or murals to create visual placemaking.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: varies widely based on location
〉 Range: $25,000 to $100,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 Caltrans DIB 82
〉 NACTO Raised Intersections
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming e-Primer
Benefits Constraints
〉 Increases visibility.
〉 Slows down drivers.
〉 Easy to cross for people with mobility impairments.
〉 May require emergency vehicles to slow down.
〉 Drainage impacts should be considered.
11 Street Trees
Trees planted along a roadway can change the perception of drivers such that the road appears narrower than it is. Additionally, street trees can be used to increase comfort for people walking by lining sidewalks and for people biking by providing shade in bike lanes, helping to reduce temperatures on hot days.

Application Guidance
Street trees may be applied on local, collector, and arterial roadways. The differing maintenance needs of tree species – including soil volume, water consumption, and root systems - should be considered when selecting landscaping treatments. Street trees should ideally be installed behind curbs in buffer zones and medians.

Street trees should be trimmed regularly to preserve sight distance and allow clearance for transit and other large vehicles.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Varies widely based on tree type and
maintenance / irrigation needs
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA HDM Index 303.4 and 404.4
〉 Caltrans DIB 94
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Curb Extensions
〉 FHWA Countermeasures
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows drivers down.
〉 Trees increase comfort for people walking or
biking by providing shade.
〉 Reduces traffic noise.
〉 Helps address City’s tree canopy goals.
〉 Root systems can impact underground utilities and
nearby sidewalks.
〉 Maintenance should be considered when
selecting species.
12 On Street Parking
On-street parking reduces roadway width by allowing parking along a roadway curb, causing a driver to experience increased “friction” on the side of the road resulting in lower driver speeds.

Application Guidance
On street parking can be provided on one or both sides of the roadway, or on alternating sides to narrow the roadway (as a Chicane). On street parking, on its own, Is not effective where parking demand is low. In these cases, other features such as curb extensions and pinch points can be used to narrow the roadway even when parking is not utilized. Parking should not be allowed to obstruct driver sight lines and impede visibility of pedestrian crossings.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 On-street parking is generally installed when the
street is built without additional cost
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 NACTO Speed Reduction Mechanisms
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming e-Primer
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows drivers.
〉 Provides public service to people who drive.
〉 May require coordination with local enforcement
and signage to ensure no parking is permitted to
allow for on-street sweeping.
〉 May impact user visibility and sight distances at
driveways and intersections.
13 Lane Narrowing
Narrowing lanes to 11’ and reducing the total amount of space for vehicles can provide visual cues for drivers to slow down. This effect may be achieved via striping, adding a bikeway, adding vertical elements, or moving curb.

Application Guidance
Narrowing lanes can reduce vehicle speeds while freeing up right-of-way for other modes (e.g, bike lanes, transit stops) or placemaking amenities (e.g. parklets, landscaping). The curbside lane may be up to 11 ft to accommodate larger vehicle traffic such as transit or freight. In some cases, narrower lanes may be allowed per City guidance.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $3 per linear foot 〉 Caltrans DIB 94
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 FHWA Traffic Calming e-Primer
〉 NACTO Lane Widths
Benefits Constraints
〉 Slows down drivers.
〉 Reduces crossing distances for people walking.
〉 May provide space for placemaking amenities.
〉 If emergency vehicles or other large vehicles
frequently use the street, lane narrowing via
striping only should be considered.
14 Curb Extensions
Horizontal extensions of the curb into the street at intersections or mid-block crossings to expand the place where pedestrians can stand, narrow crossing distances for people walking, provide additional space for placemaking and landscape features, and reduce speeds of turning vehicles.

Application Guidance
Curb extensions may be raised or street level and are typically installed on 2-4 lane roadways with on-street parking. They may be applied mid-block or at intersections. Curb extensions can be used to create “bus bulbs” which prevent vehicles from parking in a bus stop and allow buses to stop in-lane, reducing their travel time.

Curb extensions can provide a visual marker to indicate the gateway to a slow speed neighborhood or area.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $13,000 per location
〉 Range: $2,000 to $20,000 per location
(pedbikesafe.org)
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 CA HDM Index 303.4 and 404.4
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide: Curb Extensions
〉 FHWA Countermeasures
Benefits Constraints
〉 Shortens crossing distances and improves visibility.
〉 Slows turning vehicles.
〉 Turning radius for large vehicles should be
considered where applicable.
〉 There may be impacts to bike lanes and drainage.

Before After
15 Geometry Changes / Curb Radii
Changing roadway geometry or narrowing curb radii increases the amount of curb space, requiring vehicles to slow down when turning. This treatment can also be used to realign skewed intersections to right angles.

Application Guidance
Typically applied at intersections which are skewed or which have wide or poorly defined corner radii. Curb radii should be designed to induce a turning speed of 15 mph or less (see NACTO guide for centerline turning radius to speed design guidelines). A variety of traffic calming elements can be used to accommodate the turning radius of large vehicles while still restricting the turning speed of smaller vehicles.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Varies widely based on location needs; see curb
extension for baseline averages.
〉 CA HDM Chapter 400
〉 Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide
〉 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
Benefits Constraints
〉 Improves visibility for everyone using the
intersection.
〉 Reduces crossing distances.
〉 Reduces vehicle turning speeds.
〉 May provide additional space for landscape.
〉 Large trucks and busses may ride over the curb if
radii are too narrow.
16 Hardened Centerline
Hardened centerlines are typically a flexible delineator post or raised speed hump placed along the road centerline at an intersection to narrow the path through the intersection.

Application Guidance
Hardened centerlines (also known as “left turn hardening”) are typically installed next to crosswalks and are applied at intersections to increase driver yielding to people in crossings by enforcing a wider turning angle. The method may include vertical elements and may be designed as mountable. 6-foot extensions are recommended but should be no less than 2 feet.

Issues Addressed
Speeds Crossings Volumes Turning Movements Walking Bicycling Planning Level Cost Estimate Additional Resources
〉 Average: $825 each
〉 Range: $500 to $1,000 per location
〉 Caltrans Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Toolbox
〉 NACTO Don't Give Up at the Intersection
Benefits Constraints
〉 Encourage drivers to turn left at lower speeds.
〉 Guides vehicles to a wider turning angle for
slower, more predicable turns.
〉 Helps drivers better see people crossing the street.
〉 Turning radius of trucks and buses should be
considered while installing.

Appendix D
Corridor Treatment Examples
The following Appendix includes existing conditions and preliminary treatment recommendations for the full extents of the 10 example Neighborhood Connections corridors, including:

1. South Ave/Altos Ave/Ford Rd (Del Paso Heights)

2. 8th Ave/9th Ave (Oak Park/Tahoe Park)

3. Tamoshanter Way (Golf Course Terrace/
Meadowview)

4. N Park Dr (North Natomas)

5. W River Dr (Willow Creek)

6. Las Palmas Ave/Sonoma Ave (Richardson
Village/Hagginwood)

7. Redding Ave/Bradford Dr/75th St (Tahoe Park/
Colonial Manor)

8. Wentworth Ave/Irwin Ave/26th Ave (South
Land Park/Hollywood Park)

9. Pebblewood Dr/Potomac St (Northgate/South
Natomas)

10. Ehrhardt Ave/Carlin Ave (Valley Hi/ North
Laguna)
Each of these corridors would be subject to
additional engineering study and design
to further understand the feasibility of the
improvements prior to seeking funding for
implementation. The example corridors
emphasized capturing as many applications
of the traffic calming toolbox treatments as
possible – ultimate treatments selected may be
different to better respond to design constraints
and/ or neighborhood preferences.
1 Sacramento
Neighborhood
Connections Plan

CORRIDOR TREATMENTS
South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Tamoshanter Way
N Park Dr
W River Dr
Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
Redding Ave / Bradford Dr /
75th St
Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave /
26thAve
Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave
Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave
2 Study Area
312547689
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
7 Shared Use Path
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Example Corridors
City of Sacramento
Park
Neighborhood
Connections
Recent Traffic Calming in Sacramento:

Vallejo Way from 5th St to Muir way
3 Pedestrian Refuge Median Island Speed Lump
Pedestrian Refuge
Speed Lump
Median Islands
Marked Crossing
N/S marked crossing
only across Vallejo Way
Neighborhood: Land Park
Feature Spacing: 50’ - 180’
Crossing Spacing: 300’ – 750’
4 Corridor Extents:

Larchwood Drive to Kern Street
(2.80 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
• Garden Valley Elementary School
• Garden Valley Park
South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento
• Del Paso Park
• Grant West High School
• Castori Park
• Michael J. Castori
Elementary
5 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Existing Conditions Bus route along Northgate
Blvd; Bus stops lack
amenities
Desire line to
access Ueda
Parkway; nearest
official entry is
>1,000 feet south.

Sidewalk gaps
between Northgate
Blvd and Norwood Ave
High stress (LTS 3) for
people biking; narrow
street width
Bus route on
Norwood
Avenue
High stress offset
crossing across
Norwood Ave
6 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Existing Conditions No north / south crossings
East/west
crosswalks; long
crossing distances
Bus route on
Rio Linda
Boulevard
High-stress
uncontrolled midblock crossing for
Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail
High stress (LTS
3) for people
biking
East/west two-way stop
control on South;
Intersection of two
neighborhood connections
in a school zone
Parking lot entrance;
park entrance
Parking lot
entrance
School
entrance
Street widens multiple
times between Fig St
and Dry Creek Rd; Street
experiences high pick
up / drop off queueing
Parking lot entrance;
stadium entrance
Park access
7 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Existing Conditions Bus route along
Marysville Blvd; Bus
stops lack amenities
High stress (LTS
3) for people
biking
8 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Recommendations Pedestrian/bike
bridge across
creek.

Provide
Pedestrian/bike
access to Ueda
Parkway.

Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
Northgate Blvd
Transportation Plan
implementation.

Enhanced
crossing to be
coordinated
with Norwood
Complete
Streets Plan.

Additional treatments:
• Shared lane markings on Patio Avenue and
South Avenue
• Evaluate lighting at all crossings
• Evaluate opportunities for street tree planting
• All crosswalks should be evaluated for
enhanced crossing treatments
Recommended Treatments
Raised intersection
Add pedestrian
refuge on South
Ave approach
to serve as pinch
point
Speed lump
9 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Recommendations North/south
pedestrian refuge
islands
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Shared lane markings on South Avenue
• Evaluate lighting at all crossings
• Evaluate opportunities for street tree planting
• All crosswalks should be evaluated for
enhanced crossing treatments
Recommended Treatments
Pinch Point
Raised Crosswalk
Evaluate for sidewalk level
separated bikeway or
wide shared use path from
Dry Creek Road to
Marysville Boulevard to
serve school access
Speed lump
10 South Ave / Altos Ave / Ford Rd 1 North Sacramento – Recommendations Additional treatments:
• Shared lane markings on South Avenue
• Evaluate lighting at all crossings
• Evaluate opportunities for street tree
planting
• All crosswalks should be evaluated for
enhanced crossing treatments
Evaluate for sidewalk level
separated bikeway or wide
shared use path from Dry
Creek Road to Marysville
Boulevard
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Recommended Treatments
Raised Crosswalk
Intersection treatments
to be coordinated
with Marysville Blvd
Top 5 Vision Zero
Corridors
implementation.

Speed lump
11 Corridor Extents:
10th Avenue to 65th Street
(3.40 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
•Hughes Stadium
• Curtis Park
2 • Bret Harte Elementary School
• Oak Park Community Center
• Tahoe Elementary
School
8th Ave / 9th Ave | Fruitridge Broadway
12 2
Crossing after the
pedestrian bridge includes
an RRFB, while the following
crossing does not. This is
near senior housing.

Traffic diverter
prevents
vehicle traffic
travel through
on 10th Ave
Marked crosswalk
facilitates crossing
10th Avenue. No
marked crossing exists
across 24th St.

Other: Vulnerable users along corridor with
senior facility and elementary school
The crossing of Franklin Blvd
includes an RRFB as traffic is
uncontrolled. The crossing
of 9th Ave is facilitated with
a stop control.

Bus stops
do not
include
amenities
Marked
crosswalk on
north leg
only
Marked
crosswalk on
south leg only
Partial crossing
facilitating
movement
across 8th Ave
Designated bike route between
33rd St and MLK Blvd
Five-foot bike lanes on both
sides of MLK Blvd
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Existing Conditions
13 2
Marked crossings
available only to
facilitate movement
across 40th St
Other:
• Fatal pedestrian crash history along Stockton Blvd
Hardened centerline
with bollards on
Stockton Blvd
approach.
• Offset intersections west of Stockton Blvd • No marked crossings east of Stockton Blvd Five-foot bike lanes on both
sides of Stockton Blvd
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Existing Conditions
14 2
Elementary school and
Tahoe Park. Vulnerable users.

Raised crosswalk to make
users seen and to slow traffic.

Other:
• No marked crossing outside of school zone
No marked
crossings. 53rd St
is uncontrolled
while 8th Ave is
stop controlled.
4-way stopcontrolled
intersection with no
marked crossings.
60th St provides
access to the
Elementary school.
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Existing Conditions
15 2
Additional treatments:
• Evaluate lighting at all crossings • Evaluate presence of street trees Existing Conditions
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Raised intersection
Chicane
Speed lump
Increase width of
path through
park
Enhanced
crossing to be
coordinated
with Franklin
Blvd Complete
Streets project.

Construct shared use
path along MLK Blvd to
connect between 8th
and 9th Avenues
Provides park
access
Improve comfort and quality
of pedestrian/bike bridge
Marked crossing
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Recommendations
Existing traffic
diverter prevents
vehicle traffic
travel through on
10th Ave
Additional treatments:
• Shared lane markings on Patio Avenue and
South Avenue
Provides
park
access
16 2
Existing Conditions
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Raised intersection
Chicane
Speed lump
Intersection treatments
to be coordinated with
Stockton Blvd Corridor
Plan implementation.

Marked crossing
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Recommendations
Median Islands
17 2
Recommended Treatments Existing Conditions
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Marked crossing
8th Ave / 9th Ave
Fruitridge Broadway – Recommendations
School
zone
Improvements to be
coordinated with separate
project; consider new
pedestrian signal with bike
boxes and curb extensions
on side street approaches
Crossing to
Tahoe Park
18 Corridor Extents:

Middlecoff Way to John Still Drive
(2.07 miles)
3 Nearby Destinations:
• HW Harkness Elementary School
• Florin Square Shopping Center
• Goethe School Park
• John H. Still K-8 School
• MLK Jr Library
• Steve Jones Park
Tamoshanter Way | South Sacramento
19 3 Tamoshanter Way | South Sacramento –
Existing Conditions
Unmarked all-way stop;
Channelized right turn
moving north on Hogan Dr
to 57th Ave
Wide crossing
Uncontrolled cross
traffic along 68th
Avenue
Missing north leg
marked
crosswalks; wide
turning radii
Speed lump
Curb extension on
NW leg; missing
west leg marked
crosswalk
Other:
• Severe pedestrian and bicycle crash history along Florin Road Uncontrolled
east/west
crossings
Four-way
uncontrolled
intersection
Bike lanes on
68th Avenue
20 3 Tamoshanter Way | South Sacramento –
Existing Conditions
Other:
• Inconsistent speed lump spacing
• Inconsistent crosswalk striping
Bus and bike
corridor on
Meadowview Road
Missing east
leg marked
crossing
21 3 Tamoshanter Way | South Sacramento –
Recommendations
Additional treatments:
• All crosswalks should be evaluated for
enhanced crossing treatments
Hardened
centerline on 68th
Avenue between
Tamoshanter Way
segments
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Marked crossing
Evaluate yield
markings or stop
control on 55th
Avenue/Diegel
Circle
Raised intersection
Add north
leg marked
crossing
Increase curb
extension; add
west leg
crossing
Close slip lane
from Hogan Drive
to 57th Avenue
Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
separate project.

Speed lump
Add traffic
diverter on
57th Avenue
Chicane
22 3 Tamoshanter Way | South Sacramento –
Recommendations
Additional treatments:
• All crosswalks should be evaluated for
enhanced crossing treatments
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Marked crossing
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
Streets for People
improvements on
Meadowview
Road.

Chicane
23 Corridor Extents:

E Commerce Way to Natomas Blvd
(1.44 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
• Natomas Middle School
•H. Allen Hight Elementary
School
4 N Park Dr| North Natomas
• Wild Rose Park
•Heron School
• North Natomas Regional Park
24 N Park Dr | North Natomas –
Existing Conditions 4
No marked crossing to
facilitate trail connection
12-foot striped median
lane
Other:
• Bike lanes along N Park Drive
• Traffic calming lacks along corridor to help slow vehicle speeds. • N Park Drive is ranked a bicycle LTS 4 and pedestrian comfort level 2
• Inconsistent crosswalk markings
• Lack of corridor traffic calming treatments
Constructed medians
Gap in northern bike
lane from Broadwater
Drive to Kankakee Drive
Curb extensions
on south corners
No marked
crosswalks
Midblock
crossing Bus service from
Fredericksburg Way to
Natomas Boulevard
No marked
crosswalks
25 N Park Dr| North Natomas -
Recommendations 4
Additional treatments:
• Evaluate lighting at all crossings
• Evaluate presence of street trees
• Speed lumps spaced approximately every
500’ along N Park Drive
• Stripe buffered bike lanes along N Park Drive
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Raised intersection
Realign trail to
Broadwater Drive with
enhanced crossing;
Include bike ramps to
the street
Connect trail crossing
between Brookmere
Way and Broadwater
Drive
Transition on-street bikes
to shared use
path/sidewalk with bike
ramps
Hardened
centerline on N
Park Drive
Speed lump
26 Corridor Extents:

Swainson Way to Lavender Jade Ave
(1.38 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
• Shorebird Park
• Two Rivers Elementary School
5 W River Dr | Willow Creek
• Leroy Greene Academy
• Orchard Park
Other:
• W River Dr is ranked as bicycle LTS 3 and pedestrian comfort level 2 • Limited marked crosswalks across Shorebird Drive
• Inconsistent crosswalk striping
27 W River Dr | Willow Creek –
Existing Conditions 5
Mid-block
crossing
Roundabout
with pedestrian
refuge islands
West leg
crossing only
Uncontrolled
marked crosswalk
on south leg
North/south
crossing only
Bike lanes on W
River Drive to
Orchard Lane
Pedestrian
refuge on east
leg
Bike lanes on
North Cove
Drive
Median Island; no
marked crossings
Two way stop;
uncontrolled
north / south
marked crosswalk
No marked
crosswalks;
two-way
stop control
28 W River Dr | Willow Creek –
Recommendations 5
Additional treatments:

Park lighting to
be evaluated
Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
separate project.

Provide shared
lane markings
on Shorebird
Drive
Expand median
island to provide
pedestrian
refuge
Remove left turn lane
and medians and add
buffered bike lanes on
W River Drive
Add shared lane
markings and
ramps for bikes to
transition to
sidewalk/path
Raised crosswalk
connecting to trail;
alternative to
provide bike
ramps at trail
entrance
Shared lane markings
from North Cove Drive
to trail entrance at
Lavender Jade
Avenue
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Marked crosswalk
Remove
parking on
east / south
side and add
bike lanes
Raised crosswalk
Mini Roundabout
Raised
crosswalk to
connect to
park and trail
Speed lump
Replace existing
traffic circle with
mini roundabout
29 Corridor Extents:

Norwood Ave to Del Paso Blvd
(1.82 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
• Las Palmas Elementary
• Richardson Village Park
Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
North Sacramento 6
•Hagginwood Elementary
School
• North Del Rio School Park
30 Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
North Sacramento – Existing Conditions 6
Other:
• Fatal pedestrian crash history at Norwood Ave
and Las Palmas Ave
• Inconsistent crosswalk striping
Midblock crossing
and connection
to Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail
Angled/
skewed
crosswalks; wide
turning radii
Connection to
Sacramento
Northern Bike
Trail
North side bike
lane on Acacia
Avenue from Altos
Avenue to Rio
Linda Boulevard
Bus service on
Rio Linda
Boulevard
Wide turning radii
and no marked
crosswalks
Chicane
Wide
intersection
Street widens
multiple times in
front of school
North- to
eastbound
slip lane at
intersection
Only
westbound
bike lane
31 Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
North Sacramento – Existing Conditions 6
Other:
• Fatal pedestrian and serious injury crash history along Rio Linda Blvd
• No marked crossings across Sonoma Avenue
• Fatal and severe pedestrian and bike crash history along Marysville Boulevard
Uncontrolled
crossing with no
marked crosswalks
Wide turning
radii
Buffered
bike lanes
on Del Paso
Boulevard
All-way stops with
wide turning radii
and no marked
crossings
32 Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
North Sacramento – Recommendations 6
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Remove parking on north
side of Las Palmas Avenue
from Forrest Street to Fairfield
Street to extend sidewalk
Intersection treatments to
be coordinated with
separate project; suggest
curb extensions and
median refuge islands.

Intersection treatments to be
coordinated with separate
project. Suggest eliminating
slip lane on Acacia Ave and
installing curb extensions and
bike boxes on Acacia Ave
approaches.

Chicane
Median
refuge to
create pinch
point at trail
crossing
Mini Roundabout
Narrow cross section in
front of Las Lamas
Elementary using flex posts
on north side or in median
(short term); in the long
term build wide sidewalk
Install traffic
diverter on Altos
Ave allowing
access for people
walking and biking
Stripe crosswalks
on all legs of mini
roundabout
Evaluate
potential to
install
eastbound
bike lane
33 Las Palmas Ave / Sonoma Ave
North Sacramento – Recommendations 6
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:

Chicane
Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
separate project
Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
separate project Median
refuge to
create pinch
point at trail
crossing
Stripe crosswalks
on all legs of mini
roundabout
Evaluate
potential to
install
eastbound
bike lane
Intersection treatments to be coordinated with
separate project. Suggest eliminating slip lane on
Acacia Ave and installing curb extensions and bike
boxes on Acacia Ave approaches
Mini Roundabout
Median Islands
34 Corridor Extents:

Power Inn Rd to Lemon Hill Ave
(3.19 miles)
Nearby Destinations:
• George Sim Community Center
• New Joseph Bonnheim Elementary School
• Max Baer Park
•Hiram W. Johnson High School
• Mae Fong Park
•University / 65th Street Light Rail Station
Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento 35 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Existing Conditions Other:
• No striped crossings across Redding Avenue,
north of Maita Circle
Median and strop
control on north leg
on Redding Avenue;
no striped crossings
across 14th Avenue
Southbound bike
lane from San
Joaquin Street to 14th
Avenue; no
northbound bike lane
Median on south leg
on Redding Avenue;
no striped crossings
across 14th Avenue;
curb extension on
northeast corner
Bike lanes on both sides
of Redding Ave north of
San Joaquin Street to
Folsom Blvd
Midblock
crossing near
Mae Fong Park
All way stop
with striped
crossings
Missing striped
crossing on south leg;
wide turning radii;
railroad crossing
Street has limited
curbs and angled
parking on south
side; no sidewalks
Bike lanes on
65th Street
Light rail
station
Hardened
centerline
approaching
65th St (200’)
36 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Existing Conditions Other:
• No striped crossings across 14th Avenue
between 21st Street and Redding Avenue
Bus service and
bike lanes and on
street parking on
21st Avenue
All way stop; no
striped crosswalks
100+ foot median
between one-way pair
along 21st Avenue
Uncontrolled
striped crossing
across south leg
Bike lanes on 14th
Avenue east of
71st St
No marked crossings,
stop control on side
street only
Striped crossings
on east and south
legs only
37 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Existing Conditions Other:
• 21st Street is ranked as bicycle LTS 4
• No striped crossings on Wilkinson Street south of Fruitridge Road (3/4 mi) • Wide turning radii on side streets along Wilkinson Street • No striped crossings on Bradford Street between Fruitridge Road and 21st Avenue (1/2 mi)
All-way stop; no
striped crosswalks
Bus route and
bike lanes on
Fruitridge Road
All way stop with
no striped
crosswalks
Bus service and
bike lanes on
21st Avenue
Bike lanes on
Lemon Hill Ave
38 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:

Chicane
Intersection treatments to
be coordinated with
separate project.

Increase size of median
to provide pedestrian
refuge; add crossings
Raised Crosswalk
Formalize parking and
add bike lanes to
connect to light rail
Add pedestrian refuge
across Q Street and
create full bike box
Add traffic diverter
with access for
walking and biking
39 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:

Intersection treatments to be
coordinated with separate
project. Consider raised
crosswalk, speed lump slow
zone, and RRFB.

Raised crosswalk
Median Islands
Speed lump Marked Crossing
40 Redding Ave / Bradford Dr / 75th St 7 Southeast Sacramento – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Tighten curb radii on
side streets along
Wilkinson Street and
add marked crossings
Intersection treatments to
be coordinated with
separate project. Consider
protected intersection.

Raised crossing to provide
park access
Raised crosswalk
Speed lump
Median Islands Marked Crossing
Add marked crossings on
all legs
41 Corridor Extents:

Normandy Lane to Franklin Boulevard
Nearby Destinations:
• Leonardo Da Vinci K-8 School
•Hollywood Park Elementary
• Fruitridge SacRT station
Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave / 26th Ave 8 Hollywood Park
42 Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave / 26th Ave
Hollywood Park – Existing Conditions 8
Other:
• No sidewalks on Del Rio Road or Wentworth Avenue from Del Rio Road to Monterey Way
• Sidewalks, sharrows, and on-street parking on Wentworth Avenue east of Monterey Way
• Garbage cans and on-street parking occupy curbside along Shielah Way New connection
to Del Rio Trail
and realigned /
tightened
intersection
No marked crosswalks,
Stop control on
Wentworth Ave
Wide
intersection
and turning
radii
All way
stop, no
marked
crosswalks
Hardened centerline
(approx. 226’, ends
40’ before stop bar)
Shielah Way intersects
Stacia way 20’ from
Freeport Blvd Intersection
All way stop,
marked
crosswalks on
north and
west legs only
School
slow
zone
Uncontrolled
marked
crosswalk on
north leg
All way stop, no
marked crosswalks
All way stop,
marked crosswalks
on all legs
Uncontrolled
marked
crosswalk
43 Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave / 26th Ave
Hollywood Park – Existing Conditions 8
Other:
• Wide street along 26th Avenue when on-street
parking is not utilized
• Limited marked crosswalks across 26th Avenue
• Wide turning radii on side streets along 26th Avenue
Uncontrolled
marked
crosswalk on
west leg
St Robert School and
Parrish Entrance;
School Zone
Marked crossings on
west and south legs
only
Marked
crossings on
north and east
legs only
Railroad
crossing
Uncontrolled
marked
crosswalk on
east leg
Marked
crossings on
north and
west legs
Wide street (40’)
44 Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave / 26th Ave
Hollywood Park – Recommendations 8
Additional treatments:

Add marked
crosswalks
Add striped buffer
between parking and
driving lane to narrow
driving lane
Install northbound
traffic diverter on
Shielah Way and
raised crosswalk
across Shielah Way
Raise existing
midblock
crosswalk
Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Marked crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Speed lump
Add RRFB
Evaluate adding
sidewalk on one side
Extend hardened
centerline to crosswalk
and add bike boxes on
Wentworth Ave and
Stacia Way
Add RRFB to
existing midblock
crosswalk
Median Islands
Raise existing
marked crosswalk
and add curb
extensions
Mark new
crosswalk and
add curb
extensions
45 Wentworth Ave / Irwin Ave / 26th Ave
Hollywood Park – Recommendations 8
Recommended Treatments
Additional treatments:
• Add marked
crosswalks and tighten
radii on side streets
along 26th Avenue
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Median Islands
Speed lump
Raised intersection
Intersection improvements to be conducted
with future 24th Street project; potential for
center running two-way separated bikeway
between Irvin Way and 26th Ave; add bike
boxes on Irvin Way and 26th Ave
Raise existing
marked crosswalk
and add curb
extensions
Mark new
crosswalk and
add curb
extensions
Add striped buffer
between parking and
driving lane to narrow
driving lane
Raise existing
marked crosswalk
and add curb
extensions
Intersection
improvements to be
conducted with future
Franklin Blvd Project
46 Corridor Extents:

Azevedo Drive to Natoma Street
Nearby Destinations:
• Jefferson School
• Bannon Creek Park and Parkway
• South Natomas Community Center
• Ninos Parkway
• John Straunch Park and Elementary
School
• E Levee Road trail
Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave 9 Northgate/South Natomas
47 Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave 9 Northgate/South Natomas – Existing Conditions Other:
• Sharrows on Pebblewood Drive
• Wide turning radii on side streets along Pebblewood Drive with no marked crosswalks
• Limited marked crosswalks cross Pebblewood Drive; up to ¾ mile between crosswalks
Curb extensions and
all way stop with
crosswalks on south
and east sides
Bus route and
bike lanes on
Azevedo Drive
School
slow zone
Midblock
crosswalk
Curb
extension
Bike lanes
on Truxel
Road
Wide
intersection and
turning radii
Wide cross section (40-50’)
may encourage faster
driving
48 Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave 9 Northgate/South Natomas – Existing Conditions Other:
• 44’ + curb to curb width on Potomac Avenue (west of
Northgate Boulevard) and Northstead Drive
Missing
connection to
Niños Parkway
Missing marked
crossings for bikes
and pedestrian
to/from Niños
Parkway
School
Slow Zone
Wide all way stop
and no marked
crosswalks
Wide turning radii;
no marked
crosswalks or
pedestrian ramps
Missing bike/ped
connection to E
Levee Road
Drivers observed
speeding around
corner in field visits
Wide cross section
(48’) may encourage
faster driving
49 Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave 9 Northgate/South Natomas – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Reduce turning radii
and add marked
crosswalks across side
streets along
Pebblewood Dr
Raised crosswalk
Add bike boxes on
Pebblewood Dr
Stripe bike lanes and
maintain on street
parking on both sides
Median Islands
Stripe bike lanes and
maintain on street
parking on one side
Speed lump
50 Pebblewood Dr / Potomac Ave 9 Northgate/South Natomas – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Additional treatments:
• Reduce turning radii
and add marked
crosswalks across side
streets along
Pebblewood Dr
Add bike/ped
connection to
E Levee Road
Add traffic diverter
that allows bike
access
Add bike/ped
connection to
Niños Parkway
Improvements to be
coordinated with
separate project;
consider bike boxes
and curb extensions on
side street approaches
Add marked
crosswalks on
all legs
Curb extension
Raised crosswalk
Median Islands
Speed lump
Raised intersection
Stripe bike lanes and
maintain on street
parking on both sides
51 Corridor Extents:

Ehrhardt Avenue from Franklin
Boulevard to Center Parkway
and
Carlin Avenue from Ehrhardt
Avenue to Jacinto Avenue and
Jacinto Avenue from Carlin
Avenue to Wingina Court
Nearby Destinations:
•Hollywood Park Elementary
• Valley High School
• Consumnes River College and
park
• John Reith Elementary School
• North Laguna Creek Wildlife
Area
10 Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave |Valley Hi/North Laguna
52 Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave 10 Valley Hi / North Laguna – Existing Conditions Other:
• Bike lane on the south side and sharrow on north side of Ehrhardt Avenue from Franklin Boulevard to Eddington Way
• No marked crosswalks across side streets along Ehrhardt Avenue west of Lockborne Drive
• Double yellow striped centerline along Ehrhardt Avenue Protected
bike lanes
on Franklin
Boulevard
All way stop
with marked
crosswalks on
east and south
legs only
All way stop
with marked
crosswalks on
south leg only
Marked
crossing on
west and south
legs only;
medians with
no refuge
Eastbound bike lane
ends east of
Eddington Way, no
westbound bike lane
Bike Boxes at
intersection to
facilitate turns
No crossing to
access Valley
High School west
of Center Pkwy
53 Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave 10 Valley Hi / North Laguna – Existing Conditions Other:
• Sharrows on Carlin Avenue
• No marked crosswalks or pedestrian ramps unless otherwise noted; distances between east/west crosswalks up to ¾ mile
• Slow School Zone from Rightwood Way to Del Vista Circle • No marked crosswalks across Carlin Avenue south of Calvine Road No north/south
crosswalk
Double yellow
center line
(80’)
Double yellow
center line
(45’)
Unsignalized
midblock
crosswalk
Bike lanes on
Calvine Road
Bike lanes
on
Jacinto
Avenue
No marked
crosswalks;
missing
connection to
shared use path
All way stop
with marked
crosswalks on
all legs
54 Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave 10 Valley Hi / North Laguna – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Reduce turning
radii and add
marked crosswalks
across side streets
along Ehrhardt
Avenue
Extend medians
on Center
Parkway to
provide refuge
for pedestrians
Raised crosswalk
Add
marked
crosswalks
on all legs
Add crossings with
RRFBs or other signage
Add bike box to mini traffic circle
on Ehrhardt
Ave
Extend median
on south leg to
provide
pedestrian
refuge
Stripe bike lanes on both
sides of street; maintain
parking on one side
Add raised
crossing to
school
Add raised crossing
to primary route on
Village Creek Way
Add bike box on
Ehrhardt Ave and
two-stage left turn
box on Center Pkwy
on northbound side
55 Ehrhardt Ave / Carlin Ave 10 Valley Hi / North Laguna – Recommendations Recommended Treatments
Curb extension
Raised intersection
Additional treatments:
• Add pedestrian
ramps and
crosswalks across
streets along Carlin
Avenue
Mini roundabout with
bike/ped crossing and
RRFBs to shared use path
Raised crosswalk
Median Islands
Mini Roundabout

§¨¦
·|þ}99
5 ·|þ}99
§¨¦5
§¨¦80
§¨¦80
)*+,-80
£¤50
£¤50
§¨¦ ·|þ}99 5
§¨¦80
·|þ}160
·|þ}16
Folsom Blvd
J St
Florin Rd
Fruitridge Rd
Franklin Blvd
Power Inn Rd
Q St
Stockton Blvd
Howe Ave
Garden Hwy
Roseville Rd
Freeport Blvd
X St
El Camino Ave
Del Paso Rd
Broadway
Auburn Blvd
I St
W St
Sheldon Rd
Marconi Ave
Calvine Rd
Elder Creek Rd
Truxel Rd
Fair Oaks Blvd
S Watt Ave
Jackson Rd
Bell Ave
L St
Mack Rd
47th Ave
W Elkhorn Blvd
21st St
N St
River Rd
Kiefer Blvd
Northgate Blvd
Center Pkwy
El Centro Rd
W El Camino Ave
Arden Way
3rd St 5th St
Florin Perkins Rd
15th St
Norwood Ave
Bruceville Rd
Raley Blvd
Arena Blvd
Del Paso Blvd
29th St
65th Street Expy
Natomas Blvd
Meadowview Rd
65th St
Exposition Blvd
Richards Blvd
Marysville Blvd
N Market Blvd
59th St
Main Ave
E Stockton Blvd
Sutterville Rd
Riverside Blvd
Elsie Ave
Pocket Rd
Seamas Ave
Ethan Way
H St
Auburn Blvd 65th St
W:\Roseville N Drive\2017 Projects\3545_Sacramento_Bike_Plan_Implementation\Graphics\GIS\MXD\Figures\ExistingBicycleFacilities.mxd Trail
Bike Lane
Bike Route
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lane
Projects Requiring
Addtional Study
Bike Route
Bike Lane
Bike Trail
Proposed Facilities
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Existing and Proposed Bike Facilities - Bicycle Master Plan Adopted 2016 See
Inset
Existing and Proposed
Bike Facilities
Central City Inset
Proposed Facilities
Bike Trail
Bike Lane
Bike Route
Separated Bikeway
Buffered Bike Lane/Separated Bikeway
Projects Requiring Additional Study
Existing Bicycle Facilities
Bike Route
Bike Lane
Bike Trail
Neighborhood Connections Network