Sacramento City Council
February 25, 2025

City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.

Streets for People: Neighborhood Connections Draft Final Plan (T15180400) File ID: 2025-00456
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution: 1) approving the Neighborhood Connections Plan; 2) amending the Bicycle Master Plan to reflect the citywide Neighborhood Connections network; and 3) rescinding the Class III (Bike Routes) network from the Bicycle Master Plan.

Contact: Jeff Jelsma, Transportation Planner, (916) 808-5347, [email protected]; Charisse Padilla, Transportation Planner, (916) 808-6788, [email protected]; Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Mobility and Sustainability Division Manager, (916) 808-5913, [email protected]; Department of Public Works Presenter: None
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Resolution
3-Neighborhood Connections Draft Final Plan
4-Bicycle Master Plan Amendments
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: In December 2022, the City of Sacramento kicked off the Neighborhood Connections Plan as part of the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan. The purpose of the Neighborhood Connections Plan (the Plan) is to identify a citywide network that connects communities to important local destinations via low-stress routes for people walking, bicycling, and rolling.

The Final Draft Plan is a result of a two-year long community engagement and transportation planning process.

This is an action item to pass a Resolution approving the Neighborhood Connections Plan, amend the Bicycle Master Plan to include these bikeways, and rescind the Class III bikeways that Neighborhood Connections bikeways will be replacing the adopted Plan will be incorporated into the final Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.

The terminology of the adopted Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan is reflective of past practices and will be replaced and renamed upon adoption of the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

Policy Considerations: The Neighborhood Connections Plan is consistent with the goals and policies from the Sacramento 2040 General Plan, including the following:

M-1: An equitable, sustainable multimodal system that provides a range of viable and healthy travel choices for users of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities.

M-2: Reduced reliance on single-occupant vehicles.

M-3: Streets designed and maintained as places that contribute to quality of life.

M-4: A safer transportation system.

M-5: Connections to the regional transportation network that facilitates the movement of people and goods.

M-6: Mobility planning and choices informed by data, technology, and innovation.

LUP-2.2: Interconnected City - The City should establish a network of interconnected activity centers, corridors, parks, and neighborhoods that promotes walking, bicycling, and mass transit use as viable alternatives to private vehicles.

LUP-2.5: Design for Connectivity - The City shall require that all new development maximizes existing and new connections with surroundings and with centers, corridors, parks, and neighborhoods to enhance efficient and direct pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle movement.

When feasible, grid patterns should be utilized to facilitate multiple routes.

The Neighborhood Connections Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, including the following:

TR-1: Improve active transportation infrastructure to achieve 6% active transportation mode share by 2030 and 12% by 2045.

TR-1.3: Complete and adopt the Streets for People: Active Transportation Plan, which will consolidate the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan and identify the physical barriers to active transportation, including network gaps and other issues affecting pedestrian and bicyclist safety, by 2025.

File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.

TR-2: Support public transit improvements to achieve 11% public transit mode share by 2030 and maintain through 2045.

Economic Impacts: None.

Environmental Considerations:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The action requested is review of a citywide planning study to be used as guidance for future engineering, design, and analysis. Projects consistent with the Plan will be subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act during the Preliminary Design and Environmental phase. The City Council will be asked to review and approve the Plan’s conceptual approach and provide general direction, an action which is covered by CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. That section provides an exemption from CEQA review for a project that involves "...only feasibility or planning studies for future actions which the...agency...has not approved, adopted or funded.” Sustainability: The Neighborhood Connections Plan is consistent with the goals outlined in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and vehicles miles traveled by increasing active mode share citywide to 6% by 2030, 12% by 2045. The Plan will also help connect communities to transit citywide, helping achieve the CAAP goal to increase public transit mode share to 11% by 2030.

Commission/Committee Action: At the January 16, 2025, Active Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission passed a motion to forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the Neighborhood Connections Plan.

Rationale for Recommendation: The action requested is to pass a Resolution approving adopting and approving the Neighborhood Connections Plan. The Neighborhood Connections Plan will help the City meet its mobility, safety, equity, and climate goals through the implementation of the recommended network and policy recommendations. The Plan will connect communities conveniently and comfortably to reach essential destinations within their neighborhoods via active transportation, which is consistent with the City’s Climate Action and Adaption Plan to increase active transportation mode share to 6% and transit mode share to 11% for everyday trips by 2030.

Financial Considerations: This plan represents the long term improvement to accomplish to plan’s goals. The planning level estimated cost to implement the Neighborhood Connections Plan is approximately $676,920,000, which includes conceptual design and environmental clearance, as well as final design and implementation. Previous bikeway plans were also estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars in improvements.

File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.

Approval of this Plan does not obligate funding for the recommendations, and no funding for implementation of the Plan has been identified at this time. Generally, these recommendations will be incorporated into private development requirements when appropriate and will be pursued through various grant programs.

Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.

Background: The Streets for People Plan will establish an all ages and abilities network for people walking, biking, and rolling citywide. The Plan will identify two types of active transportation routes:

1. The citywide Active Transportation Network serves longer distance trips on major collectors and arterial streets. These are generally regional or inter-community connections.

2. The Neighborhood Connections Network is made up of residential streets and minor collectors that connect to neighborhood destinations, such as parks and retail. The network includes proposed traffic-calming treatments to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes to support people walking, biking, and rolling.

Together, the networks will create low-stress connections for Sacramento communities to connect to the places they need to go using active modes of transportation.

The Streets for People Plan will be completed in two parts:

Part One will include completing the Neighborhood Connections portion of the Plan by February 2025.

Part Two will include completing the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan, with the Public Review Draft Plan available for review in spring 2025, and Plan adoption in summer 2025.

The Neighborhood Connections Plan provides a framework for building and maintaining a comfortable and accessible neighborhood-oriented active transportation network for people of all ages and abilities. Sometimes referred to as “bicycle boulevards” or “neighborhood greenways,” these routes are neighborhood streets designed to prioritize people walking, biking, and rolling, as well as to make neighborhood streets people-oriented rather than oriented to motor vehicles.

The Neighborhood Connections network includes all local streets and minor collectors in the city. The network identifies both primary and secondary routes; primary routes provide access to everyday destinations via traffic-calmed streets; secondary routes connect users to the Neighborhood Connections primary network using wayfinding and additional signage. The core principles guiding the development of the network include:
· Establishing direct, people-oriented connections to everyday destinations

File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.
· Connecting to or crossing major roads, rather than running parallel to them · Implementing measures to slow traffic, and
· Providing facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities.

The Neighborhood Connections Primary Network includes 237 miles of streets consisting of bike routes and bike lanes (Class III and II) with traffic-calming treatments, intersection crossing enhancements, and wayfinding and pavement markings. The Neighborhood Connections Secondary Network includes 194 miles of streets consisting of bike routes (Class III) with wayfinding and pavement markings.

The Neighborhood Connections Network will connect communities to destinations citywide, and within 200 feet of the network Sacramentans can reach:
· 58% residential parcels in disadvantaged communities
· 57% of all residential parcels
· 68% essential needs (shopping centers, health facilities, grocery stores) · 69% major institutions (government buildings, major hospitals, colleges and universities · 90% K-12 schools
· And 86% of social and civic needs (museums, libraries, parks, religious services, post offices) The Neighborhood Connections Plan has identified a number of policies and actions which could support implementation of the network. The policy recommendations were developed based on policies that have been successful in other jurisdictions in California and elsewhere for similar projects. These policies would also support previously adopted plans and policies by the City of Sacramento. The following broad categories of strategies are considered:

1. Traffic calming by default includes processes to get Neighborhood Connections treatments considered and built on city streets.

2. Design policy updates includes potential elements of design policy which could be considered in addition to the traffic calming elements to be applied with or independent of any of the “Traffic calming by default” elements.

3. Funding and partnerships includes ways the city could initiate and fund projects, outside of grant opportunities and general fund efforts.

4. Building projects fast includes ways to speed up construction and reduce costs.

The Plan is informed by feedback from community engagement that occurred in neighborhoods citywide. Engagement took place in three phases:

Phase One - Informing the Network (Summer 2023): The purpose of this phase was to introduce the project to the community, receive feedback about key destinations that

File ID: 2025-00456 2/25/2025 Consent Item 9.
community members travel to in and outside of their neighborhood, and how they typically get to those destinations. Phase One was completed in coordination with the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan team.

Phase Two - Refining the Network (Summer 2024): The purpose of this phase was to focus on confirming the draft recommendations and network, identify network gaps, and review options for neighborhood traffic-calming treatments. Phase two was completed in coordination with the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan team.

Phase Three - Public Draft Plan (Fall 2024): Phase three presented the Draft Neighborhood Connections Plan to receive feedback and comments from communities citywide.

The Neighborhood Connections portion of the Streets for People Plan is funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Grant that requires Plan adoption by the end of February 2025.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Neighborhood Connections Plan Final Draft (T15180412)

BACKGROUND
A. In December 2022 the City of Sacramento kicked off the Neighborhood Connections Plan as part of the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

B. The purpose of the Neighborhood Connections Plan is to identify a citywide network that connects communities to important local destinations via low-stress routes for people walking, bicycling, and rolling. The Neighborhood Connections network serves local and minor collector streets, while the Streets for People network serves major collectors and arterials streets.

C. Through the existing conditions analysis and community engagement with communities citywide, the following core principles were developed to guide the development of the planned network:
a. Establishing direct, people-oriented connections to everyday destinations b. Connecting to or crossing major roads, rather than running parallel to them
c. Implementing measures to slow traffic, and
d. Providing facilities that accommodate people of all ages and abilities.

D. The Final Draft Plan was developed based on community feedback, technical analysis, and best practices.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The Neighborhood Connections Plan is approved as the City’s guiding concept plan for a citywide network of traffic-calmed, neighborhood streets. Additional efforts will be taken for environmental clearance and final design for each project identified as part of the Plan.

Section 2. City Council hereby amends the City’s Bicycle Master Plan to include the Neighborhood Connections network as set forth in Attachment 4.

Section 3. City Council hereby rescinds the Class 3 Bike Route network in the Bicycle Master Plan.

Sacramento
Neighborhood Connections Plan
DRAFT FINAL | January 2025
Acknowledgments
The Neighborhood Connections plan was made possible by collaboration between City departments and with City partners including community members who gave their time to provide input at workshops and public meetings. The plan was funded by a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) planning grant and supplemented by a local match.

Kittelson & Associates, Inc. assisted the City in preparing the plan.

City of Sacramento
Jeff Jelsma, Project Manager
Leslie Mancebo, Senior Transportation Planner
Charisse Padilla, Transportation Planner
Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Division Manager, Mobility and Sustainability Project Development Team
Alex Goloveshkin, Associate Civil Engineer
Bill Shunk, Senior Engineer
Joseph Garcia-Long, Senior Engineer
Pelle Clark, Senior Engineer
Consultant Team
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Placeworks
Mobycon
Please note that this
report is intended to
be viewed as a twopage spread.

Table of Contents 3
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
Study Streets 7
Report Organization 7
Chapter 2: Why Neighborhood Connections? 10
What are Neighborhood Connections? 10
Who are We Planning For? 12
Current City Practices Related to Neighborhood Connections 13 Chapter 3: Community Engagement Process 16
Engagement Phases and Events 16
What We Heard 18
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 21
Who Lives in Sacramento? 22
Where Do We Want to Go? 24
Walking Today 28
Biking Today 34
Walking and Biking Safety 41
Summary of Existing Conditions 44
Chapter 5: Developing the Network 46
Network Principles and Network Development Process 46
What is the Network? 48
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 51
How Do We Get This Done? 51
What does a Neighborhood Connection Look Like? 54
What is Traffic Calming? 55
Traffic Calming Toolbox 56
Policy Recommendations and Implementation Guidance 120
Funding and Ways to Get the Network Built 123
Table of Contents
4 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Table of Figures
> Figure 1 – Study Streets 8
> Figure 2 – Existing Conditions Data Considered 21
> Figure 3 – Disadvantaged Communities 23
> Figure 4 – Land Use 25
> Figure 5 – Neighborhood Destinations 26
> Figure 6 – Frequent Short Trips 27
> Figure 7 – Miles of Sidewalks in Sacramento 28
> Figure 8 – Walking Comfort 31
> Figure 9 – Walk Access Barrier Example 32
> Figure 10 – Walk Access to Essential Needs 33
> Figure 11 – Mileage of Bike Facilities by Type 34
> Figure 12 – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) 37
> Figure 13 – 15-Minute Bike Shed Example 38
> Figure 14 – Bike Access to At Least One Neighborhood Destination 39 > Figure 15 – Key Facts: Collisions on Low-Speed Streets 41 > Figure 16 – Bike Facility Types in Disadvantaged Communities 43 > Figure 17 – Crashes in Disadvantaged Communities 43
> Figure 18 – Neighborhood Connections Network 49
> Figure 19 – Neighborhood Connections Routes - Northern Half of Sacramento 52 > Figure 20 – Neighborhood Connections Routes - Southern Half of Sacramento 53 > Figure 21 – Traffic Calming Treatments 54
> Figure 22 – Example Corridors 59
Appendix
Appendix A Existing Conditions Technical Memorandum
Appendix B Neighborhood Connections Project List
Appendix C Traffic Calming Toolbox
Appendix D Corridor Treatment Examples and Cost Estimates Introduction
1 6 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Chapter 1: Introduction
The City of Sacramento has been actively redesigning its streets to better connect residents, workers, and visitors to their desired destinations by walking, biking, and rolling (active transportation). This includes projects like the Central City Mobility project which has recently introduced over 60 blocks of parking-protected bikeways and crossing enhancements. In response to the City’s desire for more active transportation options that enhance connectivity, address safety concerns and comfort, and provide equitable access, the City launched the Slow and Active Streets pilot during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pilot project prioritized walking and biking on select residential streets using tools like signs and cones to temporarily reduce traffic speeds in neighborhoods. Building on the positive momentum from the pilot project, the City has developed the Neighborhood Connections network, a part of the City’s Streets for People Active Transportation Plan. Streets for People identifies two types of active transportation routes:
• Citywide Active Transportation Network:

Designed for longer trips along major
corridors, including facilities such as
separated bike lanes, standard and buffered
bike lanes, and shared use paths on major
collectors and arterials.
• Neighborhood Connections: Focused on
neighborhood streets, featuring traffic
calming treatments to slow traffic and
support more comfortable walking, biking,
and rolling to neighborhood destinations for
people of all ages and abilities.

Chapter 1: Introduction 7
The City of Sacramento’s Neighborhood
Connections plan provides a framework
for building and maintaining a comfortable
and accessible neighborhood-oriented
active transportation network for people of
all ages and abilities. Sometimes referred
to as “bicycle boulevards” or “neighborhood
greenways,” these routes are neighborhood
streets designed to prioritize biking, walking,
and rolling, as well as to make neighborhood
streets people-oriented rather than oriented
to motor vehicles. The Neighborhood
Connections network emphasizes the
importance of comfort and connectivity on
neighborhood streets, recognizing that the
transportation system significantly impacts
the physical, mental, and social well-being of
the City’s residents.

The network’s vision is to connect
Sacramentans and visitors conveniently and
comfortably to reach essential destinations
within their neighborhoods, whether a grocery
store, a school, a restaurant, a park, or a
library. This Vision is consistent with the City’s
Climate Action and Adaption Plan to mitigate
and adapt to climate change, including
increasing active transportation mode
share to 6% and transit mode share to 11% for
everyday trips by 2030. The network identifies
project opportunities designed for everyone,
from those new to biking to occasional
walkers and daily commuters.

Study Streets
The study streets for the Neighborhood
Connections network include all local
streets and minor collectors in Sacramento.

These neighborhood streets provide an
attractive alternative everyone can enjoy,
while integrating traffic calming needs and
supporting local access to destinations.

The Neighborhood Connections study area
can be seen in Figure 1 on the next page.

Report Organization
This report includes the following sections:
• Why Neighborhood Connections: Describes
what, why, and who we are planning for.
• Community Engagement: Reports on
engagement activities and how the
community informed the network.
• Existing Conditions: Shares current
multimodal, demographic, and land use
characteristics in Sacramento.
• Developing the Network: Describes the
process of defining the network.
• Implementing the Network: Identifies
strategies to effectively slow streets and
create a neighborhood connections network
for all ages and abilities.
8 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan > Figure 1 – Study Streets
Why
Neighborhood
Connections?
2 10 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Chapter 2: Why Neighborhood
Connections?
What are Neighborhood Connections?
Neighborhood Connections are defined
as neighborhood streets with fewer,
slower moving automobiles to make
streets more people-oriented and
prioritizes bicycling along the route
and enhances conditions for walking
and rolling. This slow and calm route is
achieved through a variety of tools to
help reduce the speed of cars and, in
some cases, reduce the number of cars
on a street as well. Lowering speeds
and volumes of motor vehicles creates
a more comfortable environment
for walking, biking, and rolling.

Neighborhood connections also include
enhanced crossings at intersections,
where appropriate, and wayfinding to
help guide people along the route and to
their destination.

The City of Sacramento is working to redesign its streets to better connect people who work, live, and travel here to the places they want to go and people they want to see. The Active Transportation network develops convenient and comfortable connections for people walking and bicycling across the City between neighborhoods or regionally. The Neighborhood Connections network identifies neighborhood streets that are comfortable to walk, bike, and roll for people of all ages and abilities. Once implemented, they will utilize traffic calming measures, wayfinding, and walking and biking crossing enhancements to better connect people to schools, grocery stores, parks, and other everyday neighborhood destinations through active transportation.

Chapter 2: Why Neighborhood Connections? 11
The Neighborhood Connections network was developed based on an analysis of the transportation network, including:
• Interaction: The Neighborhood Connections
Network (focused on local neighborhood
streets and minor collectors) expects most
biking to take place in a shared street
environment. Comfort in shared lanes
depends on slow and less frequent vehicle
traffic. An analysis identified where additional
traffic calming features may be needed to
reduce speeds, improve comfort, and reduce
the opportunity for conflicts.
• Connectivity: Walking and biking trips require
direct and efficient routes. The network seeks
to minimize detours by identifying parallel
routes at regular intervals and removing dead
end and looped streets to provide a cohesive
network with minimal gaps.
• Space: Roadway geometry and facility widths
also impact comfort when walking and biking.

Wider bike lanes and sidewalks accommodate
social travel, while narrower roadways and
traffic calming help manage vehicle speeds.
• Experience: Walking and biking comfort
is affected by traffic conditions and
surroundings. Lower speeds, tree shade, and
engaging environments improve the user
experience. Analysis considered these factors
for Neighborhood Connections.
12 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Who are We Planning For?
The Sacramento Neighborhood Connections Plan is a plan to create streets that are comfortable to walk, bike, and roll on for people of all ages and abilities, whether they are eight or eighty. In practice, this might mean identifying and installing treatments on streets to slow or limit vehicle traffic, provide separate space for walking and biking, or increasing shade or lighting. This includes people of all social needs in the city including:
• Children, families, and seniors
• People on small wheels (e.g. scooters, skates, etc.)
• People accessing everyday needs walking, biking, or rolling • Road bicycling enthusiasts
• People with disabilities
• Visitors
• Recreational
Each of these users are sensitive to a variety of road conditions including sensitivity to gaps in infrastructure, sensitivity to perception of safety, sensitivity to traffic volumes and speeds, and sensitivity to pavement quality.

Chapter 2: Why Neighborhood Connections? 13
Current City Practices Related to
Neighborhood Connections
The City of Sacramento has a variety of existing plans that address local street connections, lowstress routes, and pedestrian connections, all of which are pivotal components for establishing the Neighborhood Connections network. Themes among the recommendations in the adopted plans include safety and access for people who walk, bike, and roll. The City also has adopted several Citywide documents which are related to or impact Neighborhood Connections.

GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
The City has adopted roadway guidelines
and procedures that recommendations must
adhere to, including:

Criteria and Guidance for Creative
Crosswalks (2021): Outlines criteria for artistic
crosswalks in the city.

Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines – Treatment
Applications Guide (2021): Offers design
and implementation guidance for selecting
pedestrian crossing treatments for new or
existing crosswalks.

City of Sacramento Complete Streets Policy
(2019): Promotes inclusive transportation
network planning.

Design and Procedures Manual Section
15: Street Design Standards (2009): Aims
to facilitate safer and efficient movement
of people driving, biking, and walking while
considering future maintenance costs.

City of Sacramento Speed Lump Program
Guidelines (2014): Advances traffic safety,
neighborhood livability, and uniformity in the
installation of speed lumps within the city.

City of Sacramento Transportation Priorities
Plan: Council adopted strategy to prioritize
transportation investments across the City
based on five community values:

1. Improving air quality, climate, and health

2.Providing equitable investment

3.Providing access to destinations

4.Improving transportation safety

5.Fixing and maintaining the system.

Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP):
establishes Sacramento's greenhouse gas
reduction target for 2030 and a goal of
carbon neutrality by 2045. The CAAP adopted
two transportation measures related to the
Neighborhood Connections plan:
• TR-1: Improve active transportation
infrastructure to achieve 6% active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 12%
by 2045
• TR-2: Support public transit improvements
to achieve 11% public transit mode share by
2030 and maintain through 2045
14 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

CITYWIDE PLANS
Walking and Biking Plans
The existing Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plans identify planned networks of
infrastructure for people biking and walking.

These plans have been reviewed to provide
context for the Sacramento Streets for People
Plan.
• Bicycle Master Plan (2016 – amended 2018)
• Pedestrian Master Plan (2006)
The Pedestrian Master Plan echoes a lot of the
recommendations identified in the walk audit
reports: adequate crossing times, minimized
crossing distances, roadway width reduction,
pedestrian refuge islands, and countdown
signals. The Bicycle Master Plan also includes
a recommendation for hundreds of miles of
on- and off-street bikeways and amenities like
parking and wayfinding. Equity is a key focus
for prioritization in all plans.

Vision Zero
In January 2017, the City adopted a goal to
work collaboratively in a data-informed effort
to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious
injuries by 2027. Vision Zero Plans include:
• Vision Zero Sacramento Action Plan (2018)
• Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors (2020)
• Vision Zero School Safety Study (2021)
The three documents complement each
other. The Action Plan lays out goals and
policies to achieve zero traffic fatalities
and serious injuries by 2027 and provides
an extensive list of recommendations to
reach this goal. The Corridor and Safety
Study reports make more location-specific
recommendations along five one-mile
corridor segments and around 20 local
schools, including adding new signals and
increased signage, reducing vehicles speeds
to 15 mph, refreshed pavement markings and
edge line striping, slowed green waves, and
advanced dilemma zone detection.

Community
Engagement
3 16 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Chapter 3: Community
Engagement Process
Engagement Phases and Events
Data only tells part of the story. It is important to validate our conclusions, identify gaps, and refine our recommendations using local knowledge from the people who travel on City streets every day. The community is a partner in this vision, and we want to make sure that the network is one that people feel meets their needs. The project consisted of three engagement phases:

Phase One: Informing the Network (Spring
2023 – Summer 2023)
The purpose of Phase One engagement was
to introduce the project to the community,
receive feedback about key destinations
that residents travel to in and around their
neighborhood, and how they typically get to
those destinations.

Phase Two: Refining the Network (Summer
2024)
Engagement for this phase focused on groundtruthing draft recommendations and identifying neighborhood network gaps through a
combination of community-scale focus groups,
workshops, pop-in events, walking workshops,
and online resources. The primary goals of Phase
Two project engagement were to:

1. share potential destinations and network
alignments with the community,

2. review options for neighborhood connection
and traffic calming solutions, and

3. receive community feedback to help
finalize the network alignment and develop
community-supported implementation
recommendations.

Phase Three: Public Draft Plan (Fall 2024)
During Phase Three, the project team
presented the Public Draft Plan and received
community input on recommendations
for goals, network, and toolkit elements,
as well as priorities for implementation of
improvements.

Las Palmas Walking Workshop
Chapter 3: Community Engagement Process 17
The neighborhood connections plan is ultimately a series of community connections. To ensure that we were able to see both the neighborhood-scale and Citywide picture we employed several strategies designed to provide people options for how they wished to provide their input.

Focus Group Meetings
During the weeks of July 15th and 22nd,
2024, the City hosted a series of three virtual
focus group meetings with representatives
from neighborhood groups in College Area,
Natomas and Northgate Areas, and South
Sacramento as part of Phase Two.

Pop-Up Events and Community Meetings:

The City hosted pop-up events and
attended community meetings in several
neighborhoods to engage residents locally
and reduce travel barriers to participation.

These events provided project information
and gathered input on key destinations and
challenges to walking or biking in the area.

They took place at parks, farmers’ markets, and
other community spots during Phase One (May
– June 2023) and Phase Two (June – July 2024).

Online Storyboard and Engagement Map:

An engagement map for Phases One and
Two was hosted by the larger Streets for
People team but also included information
on the proposed Neighborhood Connections
network and allowed community members
to leave comments on whether the draft
neighborhood network met their needs. As
part of Phase Two, and ArcGIS StoryMap
provided project background information and
goals, described the neighborhood network
development process, and linked to the
engagement map for community feedback.

Community Planning Team
To guide the development of Streets for People,
the City created a Community Planning Team
(CPT) composed of a diverse group of residents
from the Streets for People focus plan areas.

The CPT provided feedback for Neighborhood
Connections in a June 17, 2024 meeting focused on
project engagement and recommendations to
meet the unique needs of each focus plan area.

Walking Workshops:

In-person walking workshops were held on
corridors within five neighborhoods. These
events provided the community with the
opportunity to express their concerns about
their perceptions of safety, accessibility, and
comfort in real-time and brainstorm their
vision for what the corridor could look like
in the future. During Phase One (August –
September 2023) locations included streets
surrounding Steve Jones Park, Robertson Park,
Robla Elementary School, Will C. Middle School,
Irene B. West Elementary School, and Hiram
Johnson High School. During Phase Two (July
– August 2024) walking workshops occurred
along Redding Avenue, N. Park Drive, Las
Palmas Avenue, and Potomac Avenue.

Engagement Methods
The team prepared and distributed
engagement materials including event
flyers, social media posts, City blog posts,
e-blasts, and event invitations sent directly
to stakeholders. Event information was also
provided on the project webpage at www.
sacstreetsforpeople.org. Engagement and
event materials for the general public were
provided in English, Spanish, Mandarin,
Vietnamese, and Hmong.

Robertson Community Center Popup
18 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan What We Heard
The project team used the knowledge gathered from each tool and event to refine the neighborhood connections network and the traffic calming recommendations. We recognize that not everybody has the time, capacity, or internet access to go out of their way to engage with projects like ours, which is why we went directly to many different parts of the city and provided multiple means of engagement as mentioned above. Below is a summary of what we heard during each phase of the project.

PHASE ONE: INFORMING THE NETWORK
Driver Behavior: Participants noted drivers
seemed to be traveling at high speeds and
noted concerns about driver behavior such
as not looking during turns, veering into bike
lanes, or evidence of tire marks from donuts or
burnouts.

Crossing Concerns: Crossings felt unsafe
due to traffic conditions, too infrequent, and
pedestrian signal timing.

Sidewalk Issues: Sidewalks felt like they were
too narrow to use comfortably, frequently
cracked or in poor condition, and blocked by
utility poles or boxes. Rolled curbs allowing the
drivers to park on the sidewalk was a general
concern.

Bike Facility issues: Bike lanes felt like they were
too narrow, in poor condition, or were nonexistent.

Lack of Shade: Lack of shade was a frequent
concern both along sidewalks and at bus stops.

Lack of Lighting: A lack of pedestrian scale
lighting was observed both throughout
neighborhood streets and where multi-use
paths were included, along the paths as well.

Destinations: The project team verified
destinations (like schools, stores, or community
centers) people want to go within their
communities and how they get there or what
route they would take if there were comfortable
facilities.

Northgate Walking Workshop
Chapter 3: Community Engagement Process 19
PHASE TWO: REFINING THE NETWORK
Safety Concerns: Safety for pedestrians,
cyclists, and scooter riders was a recurrent
theme. Participants repeatedly raise issues
regarding unsafe conditions for biking and
walking on busy streets.

Cut-through Traffic: Vehicles using smaller
neighborhood streets as a cut-through to avoid
traffic on arterials can often result in high traffic
speeds and safety concerns for pedestrians
and cyclists.

Connectivity Challenges: There are significant
concerns about east-west and north-south
connectivity, particularly when navigating
major roadways without a vehicle. There is
also a desire to improve connectivity for active
transportation methods to key destinations,
such as parks, shopping centers, and river trails.

Infrastructure Improvements and Equity:

There is a need for improved infrastructure,
including bike lanes, sidewalks, and raised
crosswalks to enhance walkability and safety.

Prioritization of projects should be done in an
equitable manner, with a focus on ensuring that
all neighborhoods receive adequate attention
and resources.

Environmental Considerations: Sustainable
active transportation options reduce car
dependency and air pollution. Trees and green
spaces not only provide shade for enhanced
walking and biking, but also improve air
quality, public health, and well-being for the
community.

PHASE THREE: PUBLIC DRAFT PLAN
Project Funding and Prioritization: How
the plan will be moved forward into
implementation, prioritization, and funding
was a common theme. Community members
requested clarification on the next steps for
project implementation.

Speeding Implementation: Some workshop
participants called for faster implementation
of the recommended network via "quick build"
projects.

Equity Considerations: Community members
asked how equity would be considered for
implementation, particularly where fewer
active transportation facilities currently exists.

Youth Safety: School area improvements and
other projects focused on addressing youth
transportation needs was a theme in the virtual
workshops.

Existing Conditions
4 Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 21
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions
The Existing Conditions Report describes a layered approach to identify needs and opportunities in the City. This approach involved multiple factors and perspectives to comprehensively understand and address the community’s needs. By layering various data, such as traffic patterns, safety concerns, and environmental impacts, key opportunities for improvement were identified. Understanding current mobility trends and challenges is essential for laying the foundation for Sacramento’s future.
> Figure 2 – Existing Conditions Data Considered
Street
Network
Social
Needs
Land Use &
Destinations
Travel
Patterns
Walking &
Biking Facilities
Transit Routes
& Ridership
Crashes &
Safety
22 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Who Lives in Sacramento?
To better connect people who live, work, and
travel throughout Sacramento, it is important
to understand the demographic changes in the
city. According to the 2021 5-Year ACS and 2010
5-Year ACS, Sacramento is increasing in age,
education, wealth, and diversity. The following
facts from the ACS data provide an overview of
existing and emerging demographic trends in
Sacramento:

The median age is 35.2 years old.

A significant part of the population
falls within the 24 to 34 age range,
followed by those aged 35 to 44, and
then by the 45 to 54 age group.

For residents aged 25 and older,
the percentage of those with
a bachelor's degree or higher
increased by 5% between 2010 and
2021. In 2021, those who had obtained
that level of education equated to
24% of the 25 and over population.
15% of the population lives below the
poverty line of $49,000 as income.

The city is diverse. Of the population,

31.14% of residents are white, 28.89%
are Hispanic, 20.45% are Asian or
Pacific Islander, 12.76% are black,

6.50% are two or more races, and

0.26% are American Indian. Of this
demographic makeup, 12% live with a
disability.

Compared to the State and County, the city
has a higher percentage of minority residents,
households below the federal poverty
level, and households with no access to a
vehicle. Individuals without vehicle access
and disadvantaged populations are more
likely to walk, bike, and use public transit.

Disadvantaged populations (> Figure 3) are
characterized by various factors, including
low income, racial and ethnic minority status,
limited access to grocery stores, and exposure
to water and air pollution. For this effort,
Disadvantaged Communities are identified
as Census Tracts that rank in the top 25% of
the California Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen tool or
are designated as disadvantaged by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate and
Economic Justice Screening tool (CEJST).

Additionally, the Center for Neighborhood
Technology (CNT) sets a “driving budget” for
an area based on the average household
income and the concept that no more than
15% of income should be allocated toward
transportation. The CNT estimates that the
average annual cost of vehicle ownership
in the City of Sacramento is $14,784, which is
136% higher than the area’s affordable “driving
budget”. Additionally, the CNT’s Housing &
Transportation Index sets a threshold of 45%
of household income that should reasonably
go toward housing and transportation.

Sacramento households spend 46% of their
income on housing and transportation which
means that the average resident is housing
and transportation burdened.

As shown in > Figure 3, much of the City is either
considered a Disadvantaged Community or
Housing and Transportation cost burdened.

Improving the network for people walking and
biking expands travel options for people who
do not have access to a vehicle and increases
opportunities for people to walk or bike to
access community destinations. Further details
can be found in the Sacramento Neighborhood
Connections Existing Conditions Analysis in
Appendix A.

Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 23
> Figure 3 – Disadvantaged Communities
24 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Where Do We Want to Go?
Differences in land use significantly affect active transportation access to neighborhood destinations. The current land use in the city can be seen in > Figure 4. In Midtown and Downtown, people can generally bike, walk, or roll to destinations due to the greater proximity of various services and amenities. In contrast, in much of the rest of the city where destinations are separated from neighborhood homes, people experience more limited access. Additionally, commercial development in these areas is often concentrated along major corridors, further impacting accessibility for people walking, biking, or rolling. Neighborhood Connections focus on improving connections for walking and biking to everyday needs including the following uses, located throughout the city as shown in > Figure 5.

Completing these trips by foot, bike, or other
nonmotorized means offers residents of
Sacramento more opportunities to save money,
contribute to climate action, and engage in
physical activity. To better understand the
way people move around Sacramento, the
Neighborhood Connections Plan reviewed
modeled trip lengths using Replica. Replica
is a private company that aggregates data
from cellular locations, the census, credit card
purchases, and other datasets to estimate travel
behavior for where people are going and how they
get there (such as by walking, biking, or driving).

This software was used to identify where trips of 2
miles or less – approximately a 15-minute bike ride
– are frequently taken. The results, seen in > Figure
6, provided insights on where the potential
demand for low-stress connections aligns with the
need for improved access to key destinations.

Nearly half of the trips Sacramentans take are to
do things like shop, eat, socialize, and run errands,
while work or school trips make up the other
half. While driving remains the most common
mode of transportation, Sacramentans choose
to walk or bike in certain contexts. For example,
although most trips to and from work are made
by people driving, nearly one in four students
walks or bikes to school. For trips of five miles or
less, residents choose to walk or bike nearly a
quarter of the time. Frequent walking trips often
occur along major roadways, particularly in
areas with diverse land uses. Short trips are more
prevalent in locations with a higher concentration
of neighborhood destinations. The Neighborhood
Connections Network seeks to make these short
trip connections more comfortable and appealing
when walking, biking, or rolling.

Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 25
> Figure 4 – Land Use
26 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan > Figure 5 – Neighborhood Destinations
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 27
> Figure 6 – Frequent Short Trips
28 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Walking Today
Sacramento is a diverse city that is growing in its urban and suburban areas. Mixed use infill development increases opportunities for people to walk and bike as the distances between their destinations decrease with more limited opportunities to change existing infrastructure. New suburban development offers opportunities for new infrastructure to help provide comfortable connections. As Sacramento develops, the demand for transportation options is increasing. To address these changing needs and desires, it is important to understand what makes a place feel safe and comfortable for walking. People walking are:
• Sensitive to detours that increase the time or distance to their destination; • More comfortable when routes provide shade, water, and places to rest; and • In need of walkways with accessible and comfortable designs for people who use mobility devices and people with hearing and visual impairments.

SIDEWALKS IN SACRAMENTO
Sidewalks are present on most streets in Sacramento. However, infrastructure is missing on one or both sides of the road in the north- and southeastern reaches of the City, where land uses are characterized by rural homes and industrial uses. Additionally, some local streets in residential areas are lacking sidewalks. > Figure 7 shows the miles of sidewalks and gaps in Sacramento today. > Figure 7 – Miles of Sidewalks in Sacramento

CROSSING THE STREET
One of the most significant barriers to walking is how frequently and comfortably someone can cross the street to get to their destination. Having frequent crossings and pedestrian access points can significantly decrease the distance needed to walk to a destination. In Downtown, crossings are frequent even across major roads. Outside of Downtown, there are fewer opportunities to cross. Additionally, the type of crossing can have a major impact on mobility for people walking. For example, signalized intersections generally provide a dedicated time and space for people walking to cross. However, most intersections are not signalized. The types of crossing treatments which can be found in Sacramento at unsignalized intersections are shown and described on the next page.
81% of Streets Have
Sidewalks (2,150 mi)
19% of Streets are Missing
Sidewalks (570 mi)
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 29
Full Crossings have marked crosswalks
on all legs of the intersection.

Half Crossings have marked crosswalks
on at least one leg of each street.

Partial Crossings have a marked
crosswalk that crosses one street.

Midblock Crossings facilitate crossing
to places people want to cross where no
stop signs or traffic signals regulate the
crossing.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons are user-actuated yellow flashing lights to improve safety at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks. They are used to alters drivers to yield where people walking have the right-of-way crossing a road.
30 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

WALKING COMFORT
In order to understand comfort for people walking on a given roadway, a pedestrian comfort metric was developed. A variety of factors are known to influence comfort for walking, such as the speed and volume of traffic, presence of a sidewalk, available shade, and design of the road.

As illustrated below, the walking comfort metric ranges from Level 1 through 4. Level 1 indicates facilities are comfortable for people of any age or ability to walk and roll on like neighborhood streets or shared use paths along streets with low vehicle speeds and numbers of lanes. Level 4 indicates facilities that people might only walk or roll along if they have no other choice, such as a high speed arterial or a street with no sidewalks and higher numbers of lanes or speeds. This analysis includes surface streets and shared use paths, but freeways are not analyzed as walking and biking is prohibited.

Comfort Scoring
The criteria shown in Table 1 were used to determine the walking comfort scores shown in > Figure 8 for each street in Sacramento.

Table 1 – Walking Comfort Criteria for Streets in Sacramento Posted
Speed Limit
Number
of Lanes No Sidewalk Sidewalk Shaded Sidewalk*
Shared Use
Path
25 MPH or
Lower
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4+ Lanes
30-35 MPH
2-3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
40 MPH or
Greater
2-3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
*For the purposes of this analysis, a shaded sidewalk is one in which the estimated tree canopy provides coverage over at least 50% of the street as measured in linear feet. The City’s street tree layer was utilized to identify tree locations, and an average 20’ canopy (10’ in each direction from tree trunk center point) was assumed per tree.

Walking Comfort Level (1 - Most Comfortable to 4 - Least Comfortable) 1 2 3 4
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 31
> Figure 8 – Walking Comfort
32 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

WALKING ASSESSMENT
While sidewalks are one key element in
determining comfort for people walking, they
do not tell the whole story. As noted previously,
things like missing or uncomfortable crossings,
proximity to the street, and other elements can
create barriers to walking. In order to evaluate
access to destinations via walking, a walkability
assessment was conducted which identifies
the presence of sidewalks as well as crossings,
destination locations, and other elements.

Access to the key destinations was assessed for
people walking using the following elements:
• Determine key destinations (see > Figure 5).
• Define the low stress network and crossings
and identify barriers for people walking. The
analysis assumes people of all ages and
abilities will walk along low stress streets and
cross at low stress intersections, but that not
all people will utilize higher stress streets or
intersections.
• Calculate the area people can comfortably
walk from a given destination for a person
walking four feet per second on a 15-minute
trip—just under 0.70 miles.
> Figure 9 shows an illustrative example of
the analysis of a 15-minute walk shed for the
typical rider. Notably, people living east of Truxel
Road are unable to access the Foodmaxx due
to limited places to cross the street. The high
speeds and volumes also make Truxel Rd a high
stress road.

The analysis interprets Federal Highway
Administration's (FHWA) Guidebook for
Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity
and National Association of City Transportation
Officials' (NACTO) Designing for All Ages and
Abilities, as well as taking into consideration
local conditions and available data to create
a tailored model for Sacramento. This analysis
includes surface streets and shared use paths,
but freeways are not analyzed as walking and
biking is prohibited. For more information on
the calculations, see the Existing Conditions
Analysis in Appendix A.

The results of the walking analysis can be seen
in > Figure 10 The following key observations
resulted from the walking assessment:
• Less than half (44%) of residents have access
to essential needs (grocery stores, health
care, and shopping centers) by walking.
• Proximity and directness are critical to access
destinations walking.
• Not everyone walks at the same pace or
“average speed” – people who walk slower
due to age or disability may have less access.
• Places to cross barriers like highways, rivers,
and major streets are limited, which makes it
less convenient to access some destinations.
9%
44%
57%
64%
Major Institutions
Essential Needs
K-12 Schools
Social & Civic Needs
> Figure 9 – Walk Access Barrier Example
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 33
> Figure 10 – Walk Access to Essential Needs
34 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Biking Today
A complete, connected bike network that feels safe and comfortable for people of all ages and abilities is critical to make biking a viable transportation option in Sacramento. Expanding and enhancing the bicycle network throughout the city can help reduce congestion as people can choose to bike rather than drive. This shift can lead to better health, less traffic congestion, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

BIKE FACILITIES IN SACRAMENTO
The next page shows examples of bike facilities currently provided in Sacramento. > Figure 11 shows the lane miles of each facility type in Sacramento today. State facility classes are noted in parentheses for each, as defined in the California Highway Design Manual. 60% Bike Lanes
(258.71 mi)
19% Bike Routes
(82.39 mi)
18% Shared Use Paths
(78.97 mi)
2% Buffered Bike Lanes
(7.63 mi)
> Figure 11 – Mileage of Bike Facilities by Type
1% Separated Bikeways
(3.03 mi)
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 35
Shared Use Paths (Class 1) are paved trails,
physically separated from motorized traffic and
designed for use by people biking, walking, and
rolling. These facilities are generally considered
comfortable for all users and are used for
commuting, access to everyday needs, and
recreation. Shared use paths run along the
Sacramento River and American River, as well as
in several neighborhoods throughout the city.

Bike Lanes (Class 2) are striped lanes with
pavement markings and signs that designate
an exclusive lane for bicycle use only. Bike lanes
are dispersed throughout the city. Bike lanes are
most appropriate on lower speed and volume
streets; those on multi-lane streets or those with
higher vehicle speeds and volumes may not be
comfortable for most users.

Buffered Bike Lanes (Class 2) are bike lanes
with a striped buffer between the bikeway and
vehicle traffic and/or adjacent parking lane. The
buffers can improve user comfort.

Bike Routes (Class 3) are signed and/or marked
streets where drivers share the travel lane
with people biking. Bike routes may include
additional traffic calming elements to improve
user comfort (sometimes referred to as bike
boulevards). Bike routes on higher speed and
volume roads are generally not considered
comfortable for most users. Typically bike routes
are appropriate with speeds under 25 mph and
vehicle volumes of 3,000 per day or less.

Separated Bikeways (Class 4) are physically
separated from other modes of traffic. Separated
bikeways can be designed for one direction of
traffic or bi-directional. Some forms of separation
include flex posts, curbs, planters, or other forms
of separation. Separated bikeways may be
designed at street level or elevated to sidewalk
level. These types of bikeways are generally
considered comfortable for most users.
36 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

BICYCLE COMFORT
Neighborhood connections are focused on
creating places to bike that are comfortable for
anyone, regardless of their age, skills, or ability.

As with walking, a variety of factors are known to
influence comfort for biking, such as the speed
and volume of traffic, presence and type of
bicycle facility, and the design of the road. As
illustrated below, the biking comfort metric ranges
from low-stress streets comfortable for children
(Level 1) to high-stress streets only comfortable
for experienced riders (Level 4). This analysis
includes surface streets and shared use paths, but
freeways are not analyzed as walking and biking is
prohibited. Bicycle LTS results of city streets can be
seen in > Figure 12.

Roadways without designated bike
infrastructure were analyzed as “Mixed Traffic.”
Routes with mixed traffic pose barriers to
people biking as most are major roads with
higher speeds, more travel lanes, and greater
traffic volumes. These factors also limit the
number of comfortable crossings located
throughout the city. The map shows that while
neighborhood streets might be comfortable to
most, many streets can be uncomfortable to
some due in part to the lack of traffic calming
along a roadway, lack of dedicated bicycle
facilities, and stress caused by adjacent motor
vehicles.

Posted
Speed
Limit
Number
of Lanes
Mixed Traffic
/ Bike Routes
Bicycle
Boulevards
Striped
Bike
Lane
Buffered
Bike Lane
Protected
Bike Way
Shared
Use
Path
25 MPH
or Lower
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4+ Lanes
30 MPH
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
35 MPH
2-3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
40 MPH or
Greater
2-3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
Biking Comfort Level (1 - Most Comfortable to 4 - Least Comfortable) 1 2 3 4
Table 2 – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Streets in Sacramento Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 37
> Figure 12 – Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
38 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

BIKING ASSESSMENT
People biking experience the roadway differently than people driving and may be dissuaded from riding entirely if the infrastructure does not feel safe. As with walking, the type of bike infrastructure as well as the treatment at crossings can make biking more or less comfortable. A “bikeability assessment” was conducted beginning with the “low stress network” and integrating additional elements related to crossing infrastructure and locations of destinations. Steps in the biking assessment include:
• Determine key destinations (see > Figure 5).
• Define the low stress network and crossings and identify barriers for people biking. The analysis assumes people of all ages and abilities will bike along low stress streets and cross at low stress intersections, but that not all people will utilize higher stress streets or intersections. • Calculate the area a typical bike rider that travels 8 MPH, or up to 2 miles, can reach on a 15-minute trip.

People riding electric bikes and athletic riders that may be capable of higher average speeds can likely access more destinations than the typical rider; however, using the typical rider allows the sheds to reflect a greater portion of the biking population.
> Figure 13 shows an illustrative example of
the analysis of a 15-minute bike shed for the
typical rider. Notably, the low stress network is
not continuous enough to provide typical riders
access to the K-12 schools in the area. Higher
Learning Academy has a barrier along Main
Avenue as it is a 40MPH road with unsignalized
intersections. This segregates the northern
portion of the neighborhood from accessing the
school.

The analysis interprets FHWA’s Guidebook for
Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity,
FHWAs Bikeway Selection Guide, and NACTO’s
Designing for All Ages and Abilities as well as
taking into consideration local conditions and
available data to create a tailored model for
Sacramento. This analysis includes surface
streets and shared use paths, but freeways are
not analyzed as walking and biking is prohibited.

For more information on the calculations, see
the Existing Conditions Report (Appendix A).
> Figure 13 – 15-Minute Bike Shed Example
Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 39
> Figure 14 – Bike Access to At Least One Neighborhood Destination 40 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan The results of the biking analysis can be seen in > Figure 14. The following key observations resulted from the biking assessment:
17%
47%
54%
54%
Major Institutions
Essential Needs
K-12 Schools
Social & Civic Needs
• Less than half (47%) of residents have access
to essential needs by bike.
• The distance traveled for a rider in 15
minutes varies; people using e-bikes might
travel faster and families riding with children
might travel slower.
• Places to cross barriers like highways,
rivers, and major streets are limited, which
makes it less convenient to access some
destinations. Suburban residents are most
disconnected from daily needs, schools, and
major destinations because destinations
are often located along major roads.

Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 41
Walking and Biking Safety
While the comfort scores above are centered around the perception of comfort, the feelings of comfort along a roadway are directly associated with safety experienced along a roadway.

As a result, experienced safety is a barrier for Neighborhood Connections, and streets that are perceived as unsafe are often avoided by people walking, biking, or rolling. Along the Neighborhood Connections network, a history of crashes involving people walking and biking was found at crossings of major and minor roads as well as streets without traffic calming elements in place.

Crashes were evaluated for a five-year
period between 2016 and 2020 using the
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS),
which is maintained by SafeTREC at the
University of California, Berkeley. Of the people
killed or seriously injured walking or biking on
low-speed roads, the crash analysis found that
111 involved a person walking and 80 involved a
person biking. Of the 111 walking fatal or serious
injury crashes, 31 occurred at an intersection
while 80 occurred along a roadway segment.

Of the 80 bicycle fatal or serious injury crashes,
32 occurred at an intersection while 28
occurred along a roadway segment.

Other key findings include:
• 1 in 5 pedestrian fatal or serious injury crashes
occur as people walk along the road.
• 1 in 4 pedestrian fatal or serious injury crashes
occur due to crossing outside of a crosswalk.
• 1 in 4 bicycle fatal or serious injury crashes
involve a vehicle driver turning into a person
biking.
• 1 in 4 bicycle fatal or serious injury crashes
occur due to wrong way riding.
> Figure 15 – Key Facts: Collisions on Low-Speed Streets 42 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan How Equitable is Our System?
Transportation equity is about more than making sure people have comfortable places to walk and bike. Different population groups have different needs when it comes to transportation.

We also know that historically in the United States, transportation decisions have had greater negative impacts on racial and ethnic minority groups. These groups often stand to gain the most from transportation improvements today when those investments meet their unique needs.

To understand how equitable the Sacramento transportation system is today, a screening was conducted based on the previous analyses as compared to Disadvantaged Communities as mapped in > Figure 3 and defined in the Who Lives in Sacramento? section. The findings include:
• Crashes: Generally, all crash types, including those involving people who are killed or seriously injured (KSI), are overrepresented in Disadvantaged Communities, as shown in > Figure 17. • Comfort for People Walking: 57% of street
miles considered uncomfortable streets for
walking (those scoring a 3 or 4 on the comfort
scale) are in Disadvantaged Communities.

Regarding comfortable streets (those scoring
1 or 2 on the comfort scale), 45% of street miles
are located in Disadvantaged Communities.
• Comfort for People Biking: As with walking,
street miles considered uncomfortable
for biking (those scoring LTS 3 or 4) are
slightly overrepresented in Disadvantaged
Communities and comfortable streets are
slightly underrepresented. 54% of LTS 3 or 4
street miles and 45% of LTS 1 or 2 street miles
are located in Disadvantaged Communities.
• Bike Facilities: Approximately 45% of
streets with bike facilities are located within
Disadvantaged Communities. As shown in
> Figure 16, the most comfortable facilities
(Class 1 and 4) are more often located in
Disadvantaged Communities than in other
places.
• Traffic Calmed Streets: Approximately
56% of traffic calmed streets are located in
Disadvantaged Communities.
• Households with No Vehicles: Approximately
11% of households in Disadvantaged
Communities do not have access to a vehicle,
whereas only 7% do not have access to a
vehicle citywide.

Chapter 4: Existing Conditions 43
Class 4 Separated Bike Lanes
Class 3 Shared Streets
Class 2 Bike Lanes & Buffered Bike
Lanes
Class 1 Shared Use Path
> Figure 16 – Bike Facility Types in Disadvantaged Communities > Figure 17 – Crashes in Disadvantaged Communities
44 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Summary of Existing Conditions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the existing conditions. These conclusions helped define the baseline for the Neighborhood Connections network and treatment development.

Differences in land use and development patterns contribute to variances in access to destinations
There are existing low stress streets and facilities, but they do not form a network
Sacramentans already walk and bike for short trips, and there is an opportunity to build on this pattern by connecting destinations Major roads, freeways, and rivers create gaps in comfortable networks and are barriers to destinations
Equity priority areas are overrepresented in crashes
Developing the
Network
5 46 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Chapter 5: Developing the
Network
Network Principles and Network Development
Process
Based on the existing conditions assessment
and community input, streets were identified
that are appropriate for the Neighborhood
Connections network. The destinations, as
defined in the prior chapter, include essential
needs, K-12 schools, major institutions, and
social and civic needs. Routes within the
network were identified that could provide
comfortable access to these neighborhood
destinations for people walking, biking,
or rolling. This process involved several
considerations, including routes highlighted
by community engagement efforts, the need
for access to neighborhood destinations, and
low stress routes. Streets with a high level of
activity were also identified, specifically those
with over 500 short trips per day as reported
by the Replica analysis in the prior chapter
and seen in > Figure 6.

The core principles guiding the development
of the Neighborhood Connections network
include:
• Establishing direct, people-oriented
connections to everyday destinations.
• Connecting to or crossing major roads,
rather than running parallel to them.
• Implementing measures to slow traffic.
• Providing facilities that accommodate
people of all ages and abilities.

The network development process was
comprised of five steps as outlined one the
next page.

Chapter 5: Developing the Network 47
Table 3 – Network Development Process
1 Identify
Destinations
• Identify destination type (e.g., education, retail, recreation). • Consider user needs and existing or desired travel patterns. 2 Identify
Neighborhood
Connections
• Remove Arterials and Major Collectors from consideration. • Remove disconnected or dead-end streets from consideration. • Connect to major roads but do not identify neighborhood connections on these roads.
• Close gaps in existing and planned facilities.
• Connect network to destinations.
• Meet desired network density where feasible.
3 Select Primary
Routes
• Build on the existing walking, biking, and rolling facilities. • Highlight routes identified in engagement.
• Identify direct routes to destinations.
• Avoid roads with level of traffic stress of 3 or 4 where feasible. • Identify “feeder” secondary routes to the primary network. 4 Refine Network
• Refined based on community input.
• Refined draft network with City staff to confirm the network meets neighborhood access needs.
5 Integrate Active
Transportation
Network
• Overlay the Neighborhood Connections network with the Active Transportation network.
• Identify critical crossing gaps where the Neighborhood Connections network crosses high-stress Arterials and Major Collectors roadways which can be addressed by the Active Transportation network.

Define the Network Identify
Routes
Refinement
48 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan What is the Network?
The Neighborhood Connections Network
consists of two complementary components:

Primary Routes: These routes provide access
to everyday destinations. Future efforts
will focus on implementing traffic calming
measures and enhancing the comfort
of streets and access to destinations for
individuals of all ages and abilities, facilitating
walking, biking, and rolling to destinations, as
well as additional signage and wayfinding
to assist navigation to destinations from
neighborhoods.

Secondary Routes: Serving as “feeder routes,”
these streets will extend connectivity, linking
additional users to their desired destinations.

Designed primarily as bike routes, they will
feature additional signage and wayfinding
to assist navigation to and from the main
network.

The Neighborhood Connections network,
shown in > Figure 18, will integrate with the
Active Transportation Network. The active
transportation network will establish a plan
for walking and biking facilities, including
separated bikeways and shared use paths,
to support longer-distance travel between
communities and across the region.

Network Access and
Benefits
The Neighborhood Connections network is
a part of the City’s Active Transportation
Network to ensure seamless citywide
connectivity. However, it is important
to assess the connectivity provided
by the Neighborhood Connections
network independently. As proposed, the
Neighborhood Connections network is
designed to meet access needs across much
of the City.

Within 200 feet of the Neighborhood
Connections Network, Sacramentans can
Reach...
57% All Residential Parcels
Residential Parcels in
Disadvantaged Communities
58%
Major Institutions
69%
K-12 Schools
90%
86% Social & Civil Needs
68% Essential Needs
Chapter 5: Developing the Network 49
> Figure 18 – Neighborhood Connections Network
Implementing
the Network
6 Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 51
Chapter 6: Implementing the
Network
How Do We Get This Done?
Prioritization of the implementation of the
Neighborhood Connection routes will be
done through the City’s Transportation
Priorities Plan (TPP). The TPP was adopted
by City Council in March 2022 to guide
the prioritization of investments in the
transportation system in Sacramento. This
prioritization method is based on criteria
framed around five community-identified
transportation values and priorities:
• Improves Air Quality, Climate, and Health,
• Provides Equitable Investment,
• Provides Access to Destinations,
• Improves Transportation Safety, and
• Fixing and Maintains Transportation System.

Neighborhood Connection projects identified
in this plan will be evaluated and prioritized
based on the TPP metrics to develop an overall
priority list for all of the City’s transportation
projects.

Finally, the chapter closes with consideration
of additional actions the City may undertake
or study to support implementation of the
Neighborhood Connections routes and its
associated goals.

Implementing the Neighborhood Connections
network will take place over time and within
the context of many competing priorities for
the city. This chapter lays the groundwork
for what a Neighborhood Connection route
could look like and describes the tools that
are available to support comfortable access
to neighborhood destinations for people
walking, biking, and rolling. Beyond design,
funding and building the network will require
an incremental approach. The network has
been segmented into projects to help develop
logical networks of Neighborhood Connections
and connect those routes to likely funding
sources. A map of the network broken into
routes is shown in > Figure 19 and > Figure 20. A
full list of the Neighborhood Connections route
extents can be found in Appendix B.
52 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan > Figure 19 – Neighborhood Connections Routes - Northern Half of Sacramento Notes: Route colors are for visual differentiation only. Route numbers do not indicate priority.

Neighborhood Connections
Primary Route Number
Neighborhood Connections
Primary Route
Secondary Routes
Shared Use Path
City of Sacramento
Park
#
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 53
> Figure 20 – Neighborhood Connections Routes - Southern Half of Sacramento Notes: Route colors are for visual differentiation only. Route numbers do not indicate priority.

Neighborhood Connections
Primary Route Number
Neighborhood Connections
Primary Route
Secondary Routes
Shared Use Path
City of Sacramento
Park
#
54 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan What does a Neighborhood Connection Look Like?
Once the Neighborhood Connections network is finalized, recommended treatments are evaluated to enhance comfort for people walking and biking. While some streets may already meet comfort standards, most will require a combination of additional treatments to effectively calm traffic and ensure comfortable crossings.

The City has already been implementing traffic calming treatments which could create great neighborhood connections. For example, the City recently installed improvements on Vallejo Way from 5th Street to Muir Way in Land park. The treatments included pedestrian refuges, median islands, and speed lumps spaced every 50 to 180 feet. Marked places for people to cross the street are present every 300 to 750 feet. The combination of treatments and frequent crossing opportunities makes it comfortable to walk, bike, roll, and slowly drive through the area. > Figure 21 – Traffic Calming Treatments
Pedestrian refuge
Speed lump
Marked crosswalk
Median island
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 55
What is Traffic Calming?
Traffic calming treatments are recommended on the Neighborhood Connections network to make the streets comfortable for people walking, biking, and rolling. Sacramento already has many treatments implemented on neighborhood streets, including speed humps, curb extensions, and median islands. With the establishment of the Neighborhood Connections, additional treatments are assessed to be placed in combination with existing treatments to further enhance the experience and safety of those walking and biking throughout their neighborhood. Design treatments include those that slow vehicle speeds, lower vehicle volumes, and create comfortable places to cross the street.

To successfully slow speeds, reduce traffic volumes, and provide comfortable facilities for people walking and biking, the following treatments can be considered:
• Horizontal deflection: Horizontal deflection
provides motorists visual cues to slow down
by creating horizontal shifts in long, straight
roads. These may include median islands,
roundabouts, traffic circles, chicanes, or
pinch points. These treatments are most
effective at lowering speeds when spaced
about every 250 to 500 feet.
• Vertical deflection: Vertical speed control
measures are wide, slight pavement
elevations to slow vehicle speeds. These
may include speed lumps, tables, or raised
crosswalks. These treatments are speed
reducing treatments which may also
encourage lower vehicle traffic. These
treatments are most effective at lowering
speeds when spaced about every 250 to 500
feet.
• Lane width and edge friction: Narrowing
lanes and adding visual cues creates
perception of a constrained roadway
making drivers more aware of traffic
and other road users. This treatment
helps support primary elements, such
as the horizontal and vertical deflection
treatments, and can provide comfort and
placemaking elements. This treatment
may not reduce speeds on their own and
should be used in combination with other
treatments.
• Intersection calming: Crossing and
turning movement treatments occur
at intersections. Crossing treatments
improve the experience of crossing the
street by shortening crossing distances
and increasing visibility for users. Crossing
treatments may also be implemented at
mid-block. Such treatments include curb
extensions or raised crossing facilities.

Turning movement treatments slow turning
vehicles and improve visibility between
people driving and people walking or biking
across the street. Such treatments include
geometry changes, reduced curb radii, and
hardened centerlines.
• Filtered permeability: Restricts vehicle
traffic while allowing walking and biking
traffic to proceed through an intersection.

This treatment is primarily to control traffic
volumes. Traffic diverters successfully shift
traffic to other streets.

The above list of treatment recommendations
will help make walking and biking more
comfortable through inclusion of regular
crossings, shade, and other treatments
to lower vehicle speeds and volumes.

Vertical, horizontal, and intersection calming
treatments are the most effective treatments
while lane width and edge friction should be
considered supplemental.
56 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Traffic Calming Toolbox
To slow traffic speeds and lower vehicle volumes to a level that people of all ages and abilities feel comfortable sharing the road with vehicle traffic, the following treatments were assessed for ten corridors. The full toolbox can be found in the Appendix C.

Speed Lump: Elevated mounds 3-4 inches in
height placed in the roadway to slow vehicles.

Traffic Diverter: Barriers that partially or fully
close the street to cars while still allowing
access for people walking and biking.

Median Island: Placed in the center of the road,
requiring people driving to navigate around
them to slow traffic. They may include a cut
out to provide a protected space for people
walking and biking when crossing the street.

Mini Roundabouts / Traffic Circles: An
unsignalized, circular intersection where
incoming traffic yields to traffic in the
intersection. Traffic circles require less space
and may be stop controlled.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 57
Raised Crosswalks / Intersections: Crosswalks
or intersections that are elevated to the
sidewalk level, which helps to slow drivers and
improves the visibility of people who are walking
across the street or who are waiting to cross.

Street Trees: Trees planted along a street can
change the perception of drivers such that
the road appears narrower than it is. Street
trees also provide shade and can decrease
temperatures on hot days.

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.

Lane Narrowing: Narrowing lanes to 11 feet
reducing the total of space vehicles have. This
provides a visual cue for drivers to slow down
through painted striping or adding a bikeway.

Chicanes: Segments of curb, landscaping, or
other treatments to create a narrow or curved
roadway, requiring people driving to slow down.

Pinch Point: Horizontal extension of the curb
into the street, narrowing travel lanes by 1 to 2
feet requiring drivers to yield to each other.
58 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Curb Extensions: Horizontal extensions of
the curb slowing vehicles, expanding the
space where people can stand, and providing
shorter crossing distances for people walking.

Hardened Centerline: Treatments are
typically a flexible delineator post of raised
speed hump along the road centerline at an
intersection to narrow the path through the
intersection, slowing turning drivers.

Curb Radii / Geometry Changes: 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.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 59
Example Neighborhood Connections Corridor
Applications
Ten Neighborhood Connections primary routes were selected to demonstrate application of the traffic calming toolbox and network principles to support comfortable neighborhood walking, rolling, and biking routes across a broad cross-section of community contexts within Sacramento.

The ten example corridors are shown in > Figure 22. Sample drawings are shown in the following pages and in further detail in Appendix D.

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)
> Figure 22 – Example Corridors
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.
60 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

SOUTH AVE / ALTOS AVE / FORD RD
South Avenue is on the Primary Network. South Avenue from Larchwood Drive to Kern Street is a two-lane street with on-street parking provided along the corridor. The posted speed limit ranges from 15 to 35 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor.
1 XX
Primary Network
4 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
2 Shared use path
connection

2.8 MI
Length
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Desire line to access Ueda Parkway.
• Intersection with the Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail.
• Transit route on Rio Linda Boulevard.
• Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS): 3
High Stress.
• 1 bicycle serious injury crash at the
intersection of South Avenue and
Kern Street.

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• Northgate Boulevard
• Norwood Avenue
• Rio Linda Boulevard
• Marysville Boulevard
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Garden Valley Elementary
School
• Garden Valley Park
• Del Paso Park
• Grant West High School
• Castori Park
• Michael J. Castori
Elementary
N
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Larchwood Drive to Kern Street
(2.80 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Garden Valley Elementary
School
• Garden Valley Park
• Del Paso Park
• Grant West High School
• Castori Park
• Michael J. Castori
Elementary
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 61

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Limited marked crossings across South Avenue. Add high visibility marked crossings at stop-controlled intersections.

Level of Traffic Stress 3 (High Stress). Add traffic calming along the corridor to slow vehicles; add shared lane markings on South Avenue.

Inconsistent speed lump placement. Add speed lumps along the corridor.

Vehicular speeding. Add curb extensions at placement of proposed speed lumps along South Avenue east of Taylor Street.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Missing crosswalks at Taylor Street (Primary
Network) near Del Paso Heights Elementary. Add raised intersection and high visibility marked crosswalks.

Wide turning radii on side streets. Add curb extensions at Knightlinger Street, Altos Avenue, Rio Linda Boulevard, and Cypress Street.

High-stress, uncontrolled midblock crossing at
Sacramento Northern Bike Trail. Add raised crosswalk.

Missing crosswalks at Belden Street (Secondary
Network) near Mama Marks Park. Add raised intersection and high visibility marked crosswalks.

Missing crosswalks at Dry Creek Road
(Secondary Network) near West High School. Add raised intersection and high visibility marked crosswalks.

Wide cross section near West High School. Evaluate for sidewalk level separated bikeway or very wide shared use path from Dry Creek Road to Marysville Boulevard.

High-stress, uncontrolled midblock crossing
at High Street (Secondary Network) near West
High School.

Add raised crosswalk.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
62 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan 1 SOUTH AVE / ALTOS AVE / FORD RD
High stress
(LTS 3) for
people biking.

East/west two-way
stop control on
South; Intersection
of two neighborhood
connections in a
school zone.

High-stress
uncontrolled midblock crossing for
Sacramento Northern
Bike Trail.

East/west
crosswalks;
long crossing
distances.

Bus route on Rio
Linda Boulevard.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 63
Existing Conditions
N
Parking lot
entrance; stadium
entrance.

Parking lot
entrance.

School
entrance.

Street widens multiple
times between Fig
St and Dry Creek Rd;
Street experiences
high pick up / drop off
queuing.

Parking lot entrance;
park entrance.

Park access.

No north / south crossings.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
64 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

SOUTH AVE / ALTOS AVE / FORD RD
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Raised crosswalk
1 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
North/south
pedestrian
refuge
islands.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 65
Recommendations
N
Evaluate for sidewalk level
separated bikeway or wide
shared use path from Dry Creek
Road to Marysville Boulevard to
serve school access.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
66 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS
8TH AVE / 9TH AVE
8th Avenue is on the Primary Network. The project corridor along 8th Avenue, from 10th Avenue to 65th Street is a two-lane street with on-street parking provided along the corridor. The posted speed limit ranges from 25 to 35 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor on 9th Avenue.
2 XX
Primary Network
4 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
2 Shared use path
connection

3.4 MI
Length
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Transit route on Franklin Boulevard and
Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard.
• Connection to bicycle lanes on Martin
Luther King Junior Boulevard and Stockton
Boulevard.
• Multimodal connection through Curtis
Park and Tahoe Park.
• 1 pedestrian serious injury crash at the
intersection of 9th Avenue and 33rd Street.

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• 24th Street
• Franklin Boulevard
• Martin Luther King Jr
Boulevard
• Stockton Boulevard
• 65th Street
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Hughes Stadium
• Curtis Park
• Bret Harte Elementary School
• Oak Park Community Center
• Tahoe Elementary School
• Tahoe Park
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:
10th Avenue to 65th Street
(3.40 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Hughes Stadium
• Curtis Park
• Bret Harte Elementary
School
• Oak Park Community
Center
• Tahoe Elementary School
N
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 67

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Limited pedestrian visibility. Evaluate lighting at all crossings.

Limited shade. Evaluate presence of street trees.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
High-stress, uncontrolled midblock crossing at the
Curtis Park Pedestrian Bridge. Add raised crosswalk.

Missing multimodal park connections. Add marked crosswalks at 9th Avenue and W Curtis Drive and E Curtis Drive to connect to Curtis Park.

Speeding on 10th Avenue near Curtis Park. Add speed lump between 24th Street and W Curtis Drive.

Speeding on 9th Avenue near Bret Harte Elementary
School; widely spaced speed lumps.

Add a chicane between speed lumps between E Curtis
Drive and Franklin Boulevard.

High demand for path through Curtis Park. Widen path through Curtis Park.

Wide turning radii at intersection of 9th Avenue and
Franklin Boulevard (HIN segment and bus route). Add curb extensions.

Missing connections and midblock crossing to
pedestrian overpass at 8th Avenue over the S
Sacramento Freeway.

Add raised crosswalks on 8th Avenue, east and west of
the pedestrian overpass.

Narrow path on pedestrian/bike bridge. Improve comfort and quality of bridge.

Vehicle speeding on bicycle connection on 33rd
Street from 8th Avenue to 9th Avenue.

Add speed lumps on 33rd Street spaced approximately
500’ apart north of 8th Avenue and north of 9th Avenue.

Missing marked crossings at all-way stop at 33rd
Street and 9th Avenue (Primary Network intersection). Add marked crosswalks on all intersection legs.

Missing marked crossings at all-way stop at 37th
Street (Secondary Network) and 9th Avenue. Add marked crosswalks on all intersection legs.

Missing bicycle and pedestrian connections on
Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard between 9th
Avenue and 8th Avenue.

Construct a shared use path along Martin Luther King
Junior Boulevard.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
68 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan 8TH AVE / 9TH AVE
OTHER:
• Vulnerable users along corridor with senior facility and elementary school 2 Traffic diverter
prevents vehicle
traffic travel
through on 10th Ave.

Crossing after the pedestrian
bridge includes an RRFB, while the
following crossing does not. This is
near senior housing.

Marked crosswalk
facilitates crossing
10th Avenue. No
marked crossing
exists across 24th St.

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.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 69
Existing Conditions
N
Marked
crosswalk
on north
leg only.

Marked
crosswalk
on south
leg only.

Designated bike route between
33rd St and MLK Blvd.

Five-foot bike lanes on both
sides of MLK Blvd.

Partial crossing
facilitating
movement across
8th Ave.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
70 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan 8TH AVE / 9TH AVE
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Marked crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Median island
2 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
Existing traffic
diverter prevents
vehicle traffic travel
through on 10th Ave.

Provides
park access.

Provides
park access.

Increase width
of path through
park.

Enhanced
crossing to be
coordinated
with Franklin Blvd
Complete Streets
project.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 71
Recommendations
N
Improve comfort
and quality of
pedestrian/bike
bridge.

Construct shared use
path along MLK Blvd to
connect between 8th
and 9th Avenues.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
72 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

TAMOSHANTER WAY
Tamoshanter Way is on the Primary Network. The project corridor along Hogan Drive, Tamoshanter Way, and 22nd Street, from Middlecoff Way to John Still Drive is a two-lane street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit ranges from 20 to 25 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor.
3 XX
Primary Network
2 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
0 Shared use path
connection

2.07 MI
Length
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Intersects with 68th Avenue
bike lanes and Meadowview
Road bike lanes.
• Shared lane markings on
Hogan Drive from Middlecoff
Way to 57th Avenue.
• Transit route on Florin Road
and Meadowview Road.

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• Florin Road
• 24th Street
• Meadowview Road
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• HW Harkness Elementary
School
• Florin Square Shopping Center
• Goethe School Park
• John H. Still K-8 School
• MLK Jr Library
• Steve Jones Park
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Middlecoff Way to John Still
Drive (2.07 miles)
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
N
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 73

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Missing marked crosswalk on all-way stop-controlled intersection of Middlecoff Way and Hogan Drive, near HW Harkness Elementary School.

Add raised intersection and marked
crossing on north leg.

Wide intersection turning radii at Diegel Circle and Hogan Drive. Increase curb extension on northwest leg and add marked crossing on west leg.

Wide turning radii at Hogan Drive and Sarazen Avenue. Add curb extensions.

Four-way intersection with no stop control or marked crossings. Add stop signs on 55th Avenue and add marked crosswalks.

Missing marked crossings across stop controlled 56th Avenue (Primary Network) at Hogan Drive.

Add marked crosswalks on east and west
legs of intersection.

Complex intersection with no marked crossings at Hogan Drive and 57th Avenue (Secondary Network).

Close slip lane from Hogan Drive to 57th
Avenue.

Lack of traffic calming treatments create uncomfortable conditions for people biking and walking.

Add traffic diverter on 57th Avenue
between Hogan Drive and Tamoshanter
Way.

Wide turning radii, no stop control, and no marked crossings at 57th Avenue (Secondary Network) and Tamoshanter Way (Primary Network, HIN corridor).

Add curb extensions and intersection stop
control with marked crosswalks.

Missing marked crossings at all-way stop at Tamoshanter Way and Demaret Drive (Primary Network) near Florin Square Shopping Center.

Add raised intersection and marked
crosswalks on all intersection legs.

Vehicle speeding on Tamoshanter Way south of Florin Road. Add speed lump south of Florin Road to complement existing speed lump.

Wide intersection turning radii at Tamoshanter Way and 65th Avenue (Primary Network) and no marked crossings at all-way stop-controlled intersection.

Add curb extensions and add marked
crosswalks to all intersection legs.

Wide intersection turning radii at Tamoshanter Way and 66th Avenue (Primary Network).

Add curb extensions and add marked
crosswalk across 66th Avenue.

Wide intersection turning radii at Tamoshanter Way and 68th Avenue (Primary Network) and no marked crossings at all-way stop-controlled intersection (east Tamoshanter Way).

Add curb extensions and add marked
crosswalks to all intersection legs.

Bicycle connection on 68th Avenue to Tamoshanter Way.

Add hardened centerline on 68th Avenue
to slow turning vehicles on to Tamoshanter
Way.

Wide intersection turning radii at Tamoshanter Way and 68th Avenue (Primary Network) and uncontrolled crossing (west Tamoshanter Way).

Add curb extensions to improve visibility for
people biking and walking.

Speeding on Tamoshanter Way from 68th Avenue to O’Neil Way. Add chicanes.

Wide turning radii on Tamoshanter Way at Willowick Way and uncontrolled marked crossing, near Success Academy. Add curb extensions.

Wide turning radii on Tamoshanter Way at O’Neil Way and uncontrolled marked crossing, near Success Academy. Add curb extensions.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies. 74 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

TAMOSHANTER WAY
OTHER:
• Severe pedestrian and bicycle crash history along Florin Road. 3 Curb extension on
NW leg; missing
west leg marked
crosswalk.

Four-way
uncontrolled
intersection.

Missing north leg
marked crosswalks;
wide turning radii.

Unmarked all-way
stop; Channelized
right turn moving
north on Hogan Dr to
57th Ave.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 75
Existing Conditions
N
Wide
crossing.

Uncontrolled cross
traffic along 68th
Avenue.

Bike lanes on
68th Avenue.

Uncontrolled east/
west crossings.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
76 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

TAMOSHANTER WAY
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Marked crosswalk
Chicane
Traffic Diverter
3 ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS:
• All crosswalks should be
evaluated for enhanced crossing
treatments
Add north
leg marked
crossing.

Increase curb
extension;
add west leg
crossing.

Close slip lane
from Hogan
Drive to 57th
Avenue.

Evaluate yield
markings or stop
control on 55th
Avenue/Diegel Circle.

Add traffic
diverter on
57th Avenue.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 77
Recommendations
N
Intersection
treatments to
be coordinated
with separate
project.

Hardened
centerline on 68th
Avenue between
Tamoshanter Way
segments.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
78 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

N PARK DR
N Park Drive is on the Primary Network. N Park Drive from E Commerce Way to Natomas Boulevard is a two-lane street with turn lanes at intersections. On-street parking is provided along portions of the corridor nearby Natomas Middle School and a small segment from Bessemer Court to Northborough Drive. N Park Drive has existing bike lanes.

The posted speed limit ranges from 25 to 30 mph. There are existing speed lumps and constructed/striped median lanes near the middle school. 4 XX
Primary Network
0 Connections
to HIN Streets
4 Shared use path
connection

1.44 MI
Length
XX
Not In
DAC
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Shared use path connections to Wild Rose Park and
North Natomas Regional Park.
• Transit route along the N Park Drive corridor and along E Commerce Way, Kokomo Drive, Brookmere Way,
Northborough Drive, and Natomas Boulevard.
• Existing bike lanes – gap in northern bike lane form
Broadwater Drive to Kankakee Drive.
• N Park Drive Bicycle LTS: 4.
• N Park Drive Pedestrian Comfort Level 2.

MAJOR CORRIDORS SERVED:
• E Commerce Way
• Natomas Boulevard
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Natomas Middle School
• H. Allen Hight Elementary School
• Wild Rose Park
• Heron School
• North Natomas Regional Park
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

E Commerce Way to
Natomas Blvd (1.44 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Natomas Middle School
• H. Allen Hight Elementary School
• Wild Rose Park
• Heron School
• North Natomas Regional Park
N
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 79

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Limited pedestrian visibility. Evaluate lighting at all crossings.

Limited shade. Evaluate presence of street trees.

Lack of existing traffic calming to help slow vehicle
speeds.

Place speed lumps approximately every 500 ft along N
Park Drive.

Ranked bicycle LTS 4. Stripe buffered bike lanes along N Park Drive.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
High traffic crossing at Kokomo Drive nearby school. Add raised intersection and high visibility marked crosswalks .

Four-way intersection with no stop control or marked
crossings at N Park Drive and Kankakee Drive.

Add curb extensions to the north side of the intersection and add hardened centerline on N Park Drive.

Missing marked crossings at Broadwater Drive to
facilitate trail connections.

Realign trails to Broadwater Drive with enhanced
crossing; include bike ramps to the street.

Missing marked crossings at Brookmere Way to
facilitate trail connections.

Add raised intersection and connect trail crossing
between Brookmere Way and Broadwater Drive.

Lack of traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds at
crossings.

Reconstruct existing midblock crossing at North
Natomas Regional Park Trail to be a raised crosswalk and include curb extensions.

Missing marked crosswalks at Northborough Drive. Add raised intersection.

Lack of traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds at
crossings.

Add raised intersections at Fredericksburg Way and
Banfield Drive.

Lack of connection between on-street bike facilities
and shared use paths.

Transition on-street bikes west of Natomas Boulevard to shared use path/sidewalk with bike ramps.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
80 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

N PARK DR
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.
4 12-foot striped
median lane.

Constructed
medians. Curb
extensions on
south corners.

No marked
crossing to
facilitate trail
connection.

Gap in northern
bike lane from
Broadwater Drive to
Kankakee Drive. No marked
crosswalks.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 81
Existing Conditions
N
Midblock
crossing.

No marked
crosswalks.

Bus service from
Fredericksburg
Way to Natomas
Boulevard.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
82 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

N PARK DR
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Raised crosswalk
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.

Hardened
centerline on
N Park Drive.

Realign trail to
Broadwater Drive
with enhanced
crossing; Include
bike ramps to the
street.

Connect trail
crossing between
Brookmere Way and
Broadwater Drive.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 83
Recommendations
N
Transition onstreet bikes to
shared use path/
sidewalk with bike
ramps.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
84 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

W RIVER DR
W River Drive is on the Primary Network. A portion of this corridor on Shorebird Drive is on the Secondary Network. The project corridor along Shorebird Drive, W River Drive, and N Cove Dr, from Swainson Way to Lavender Jade Avenue is a two-lane street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit ranges from 25 to 30 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor.
5 XX
Primary and
Secondary Network
0 Connections
to HIN Streets
3 Shared use path
connection

1.38 MI
Length
XX
Not In
DAC
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Existing bike lanes on W River Drive.
to Orchard Lane as well as on North
Cove Drive.
• W River Dr Bicycle LTS: 3.
• W River Dr Pedestrian Comfort Level: 2.

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• Garden Highway
• W El Camino Avenue
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Shorebird Park
• Two Rivers Elementary
School
• Leroy Greene Academy
• Orchard Park
N
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Swainson Way to Lavender
Jade Ave (1.38 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Shorebird Park
• Two Rivers Elementary School
• Leroy Greene Academy
• Orchard Park
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 85

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Limited lighting near Shorebird Park. Evaluate lighting at the park.

Uncontrolled north/south marked crosswalk near
Shorebird Park. Add raised intersection at Kittiwake Drive and Swainson Way.

Missing bike connections on Shorebird Drive. Provide shared lane markings.

Limited marked crosswalks across Shorebird Drive. Add marked crosswalks at Shearwater Court and at W River Drive.

No marked crosswalks and wide street. At the intersection of Shorebird Drive and W River Drive, expand the existing median island to provide pedestrian refuge.

Lack of traffic calming. Add speed lumps on Swainson Way, Shearwater Drive, Barandas Drive, and Nautica Court.

Missing marked crossing . Add marked crosswalk at Shearwater Drive and Swainson Way.

No marked crosswalks at two-way stop control
intersection of Barandas Drive and W River Drive. Replace existing traffic circle with mini roundabout.

High traffic crossing at 2 Rivers Drive nearby school. Add raised intersection and high visibility marked crosswalks.

Ranked bicycle LTS 3. Remove left turn lane and medians and add buffered bike lanes on W River Drive.

Concern of speeding and pedestrian comfort near
school. Raise existing midblock crossing near Discovery Shores Way.

Lack of connection between on-street bike facilities
and sidewalk/paths.

Add shared lane markings and ramps for bikes to transition to sidewalk/path at the roundabout at Orchard Lane.

Remove parking on the east /south side of W River Dr between Orchard lane and El Camino Avenue and add bike lanes.

Lack of traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds outside of school zone.

Add speed lumps on W River Drive between Orchard Lane and Unity Pointe Avenue.

Lack of traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds at
crossings.

Add raised crossing and curb extensions to connect park and trail on W River Dr south of Bergamo Way .

Inconsistent crosswalk striping and traffic calming
nearby trail approach.

Add raised intersection at N Cove Drive and Endsley Avenue.

Add raised intersection at Mossy Creek Street and Lavender Jade Avenue.

Lack of connection between on-street bike facilities
and trails.

Add shared lane markings from North Cove Drive to trail entrance at Lavendar Jade Avenue.

Add raised crosswalk and curb extensions at connection to trail.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
86 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

W RIVER DR
OTHER:
• W River Dr is ranked as bicycle LTS 3 and pedestrian comfort level 2. • Limited marked crosswalks across Shorebird Drive.
• Inconsistent crosswalk striping.
5 Two way stop;
uncontrolled north
/ south marked
crosswalk.

No marked
crosswalks;
two-way stop
control.

Median Island; no
marked crossings. Pedestrian refuge
on east leg.

Mid-block
crossing.

Bike lanes on
W River Drive to
Orchard Lane.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 87
Existing Conditions
N
Uncontrolled
marked crosswalk
on south leg.

Roundabout
with pedestrian
refuge islands.

North/south
crossing only.

West leg
crossing only.

Bike lanes on
North Cove Drive.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
88 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

W RIVER DR
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Mini roundabout
Marked crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
5 Park lighting to be
evaluated.

Provide shared
lane markings on
Shorebird Drive.

Replace existing
traffic circle with
mini roundabout. Expand median
island to provide
pedestrian refuge.

Remove left turn
lane and medians
and add buffered
bike lanes on W
River Drive.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 89
Recommendations
N
Add shared lane
markings and
ramps for bikes
to transition to
sidewalk/path.

Intersection
treatments to be
coordinated with
separate project.

Shared lane
markings from
North Cove Drive
to trail entrance
at Lavender Jade
Avenue.

Remove parking on
east / south side
and add bike lanes.

Raised crosswalk
connecting to
trail; alternative to
provide bike ramps
at trail entrance.

Raised crosswalk
to connect to
park and trail.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
90 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

LAS PALMAS AVE / SONOMA AVE
Las Palmas Avenue, Acacia Avenue, Branch Street and Sonoma Avenue are on the Primary Network while Altos Avenue is on the Secondary Network. The project corridor from Norwood Avenue to Del Paso Boulevard is a two-way street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor. 6 MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Connection to Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail.
• Transit route along
Norwood Avenue and Rio
Linda Boulevard.
• Existing north side bike
lane on Acacia Avenue
from Altos Avenue to Rio
Linda Boulevard.
• Connection to bike lanes
on Del Paso Boulevard.
• 1 fatal pedestrian crash at
Norwood Avenue and Las
Palmas Avenue.
• 1 bicycle serious injury
crash on Acacia Avenue
between Altos Avenue and
Rio Linda Boulevard.
• 1 bicycle serious injury
crash and 1 fatal
pedestrian crash at
Sonoma Avenue and Del
Paso Boulevard.

MAJOR CORRIDORS SERVED:
• Norwood Avenue
• Rio Linda
Boulevard
• Arcade Boulevard
• Marysville
Boulevard
• Del Paso
Boulevard
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Las Palmas Elementary
• Richardson Village Park
• Hagginwood Elementary School
• North Del Rio School Park
XX
Primary and
Secondary Network
4 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
1 Shared use path
connection

1.82 MI
Length
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Norwood Ave to Del Paso
Blvd (1.82 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Las Palmas Elementary
• Richardson Village Park
• Hagginwood Elementary School
• North Del Rio School Park
N
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 91

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Connection to HIN segment.

Suggest curb extensions and median refuge islands
at Norwood Avenue and Las Palmas Avenue.

Suggest eliminating slip lane on Acacia Avenue and
installing curb extensions and bike boxes on Acacia
Avenue approaches at Rio Linda Boulevard.

High traffic crossings nearby school.

Add raised intersection and high visibility marked
crosswalks at Forrest Street and Altos Avenue
Add mini traffic circle at Fairfield Street.

Wide cross section near school.

Narrow cross section in from of Las Lamas
Elementary using flex posts on north side or in
median in the short term.

Long term recommendation to construct wider
sidewalks.

High traffic volumes along Altos Avenue. Install traffic diverter on Altos Avenue allowing access for people walking and biking.

Limited traffic calming along Altos Avenue. Add to the existing chicane on Altos Avenue.

Missing crosswalks at Altos Avenue and Acacia Avenue
providing access to Richardson Village Park. Add raised intersection.

Lack of traffic calming nearby trails creating
uncomfortable conditions for people walking and biking.

Add median refuge to create pinch point at trail
crossing at Sacramento Northern Bike Trail.

Lack of biking connection to trails.

Evaluate potential to install eastbound bike lane on
Acacia Avenue between Altos Avenue and Rio Linda
Boulevard.

Wide turning radii. Add mini roundabout at Acacia Avenue and Branch Street and strip crosswalks on all legs.

Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final. Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
92 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

LAS PALMAS AVE / SONOMA AVE
OTHER:
• Fatal pedestrian crash history at Norwood Ave and Las Palmas Ave. • Inconsistent crosswalk striping.
6 Angled/skewed
crosswalks; wide
turning radii. Wide
intersection.

North side
bike lane
on Acacia
Avenue from
Altos Avenue
to Rio Linda
Boulevard.

Street widens
multiple times
in front of
school.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 93
Existing Conditions
N
Bus service on Rio
Linda Boulevard.

Connection to
Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail.

Chicane.

Wide turning radii
and no marked
crosswalks.

Midblock crossing and
connection to Sacramento
Northern Bike Trail.

North- to
eastbound slip lane
at intersection.

Only
westbound
bike lane.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
94 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

LAS PALMAS AVE / SONOMA AVE
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Raised intersection
Mini roundabout
Chicane
Traffic Diverter
6 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.

Intersection
treatments to
be coordinated
with separate
project; suggest
curb extensions
and median
refuge islands.

ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS:
• Remove parking on north side of
Las Palmas Avenue from Forrest
Street to Fairfield Street to extend
sidewalk
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 95
Recommendations
N
Evaluate
potential
to install
eastbound
bike lane.

Stripe crosswalks
on all legs of mini
roundabout.

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.

Median
refuge
to create
pinch
point
at trail
crossing.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
Install traffic
diverter on Altos
Ave allowing
access for people
walking and biking.
96 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan REDDING AVE / BRADFORD DR / 75TH ST
Redding Avenue, 21st Street, Bradford Drive, Wilkinson Street, and 33rd Avenue are on the Primary Network while 71st Street and Logan Street are on the Secondary Network. The project corridor from 65th Street to Power Inn Road is a two-way street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit ranges from 25 to 35 mph, however, requires transitions along 40 to 45 mph streets. There are existing speed lumps and existing bike lanes along portions of the corridor.
7 QUICK
FACTS 6
Connections
to HIN Streets
1 Shared use path
connection

4.54 MI
Length
XX
In
DAC
XX
Primary and
Secondary Network
MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Connection to Mae Fong Park.
• Connection to Gold Line Light Rail.
• Transit routes along 65th Street, Redding Avenue, 21st Avenue, Bradford Drive, Wilkinson Street, Logan Street, Elder Creek Road, and 75th Street.
• 21st Street Bicycle LTS: 4.
• Existing bike lanes on both sides of Redding Avenue
north of San Joaquin Street to Folsom Boulevard.
• Existing bike lanes on the southbound bike lane from
San Joaquin Street to 14th Avenue.
• Existing bike lanes on 14th Avenue east of 71st Street. • Existing bike lanes on Lemon Hill Avenue.
• 2 fatal pedestrian crashes on Lemon Hill Avenue.
• 1 fatal pedestrian crash at 65th Street and Q Street.

MAJOR CORRIDORS SERVED:
• 65th Street
• Folsom Boulevard
• 14th Avenue
• Fruitridge Road
• Elder Creek Road
• Power Inn Road
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Danny Nunn Park
• Camelia Elementary School
• George Sim Community Center
• Max Baer Park
• Hiram W. Johnson High School
• Mae Fong Park
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 97

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Threatening intersection at Q Street and 65th Street. Add pedestrian refuge across Q Street and create full bike box.

Q Street has limited curbs and angled parking on south
sides with no existing sidewalks.

Formalize parking and add bike lanes to connect to
light rail.

High traffic volumes. Add traffic diverter on Redding Avenue north of El Dorado Freeway.

Lack of traffic calming nearby trails creating
uncomfortable conditions for people walking and biking.

Add raised crosswalks at trail entrances at Mae
Fong Park.

Wide intersections.

Add curb extensions at Q Street and 69th Street
Add curb extensions at Redding Avenue and 4th
Avenue.

High traffic crossings nearby school.

Add raised intersection at Redding Avenue and San
Joaquin Street. Increase the size of the median to
provide pedestrian refuge. Add marked crossings.

Add raised intersection at Redding Avenue and 14th
Avenue.

N
CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Lemon Hill Ave to 65th St (3.18 miles)
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Danny Nunn Park
• Camelia Elementary
School
• George Sim Community
Center
• Max Baer Park
• Hiram W. Johnson High
School
• Mae Fong Park
Recommendations are for demonstration purposes and should not be considered approved or final.

Each recommendation is subject to further engineering and design studies to determine feasibility and consistency with City policies.
98 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan REDDING AVE / BRADFORD DR / 75TH ST
OTHER:
• No striped crossings across Redding Avenue, north of Maita Circle. 7 Street has limited curbs
and angled parking on
south side; no sidewalks.

Missing striped crossing
on south leg; wide turning
radii; railroad crossing.

Hardened
centerline
approaching
65th St (200’). Light rail
station.

All way stop with
striped crossings.

Midblock
crossing
near Mae
Fong Park.

Bike lanes on
65th Street.

Bike lanes on both sides of
Redding Ave north of San
Joaquin Street to Folsom Blvd.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 99
Existing Conditions
N
Median on south leg on Redding
Avenue; no striped crossings
across 14th Avenue; curb extension
on northeast corner.

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.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
100 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan REDDING AVE / BRADFORD DR / 75TH ST
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Raised crosswalk
Traffic Diverter
7 Add pedestrian
refuge across Q
Street and create
full bike box.

Formalize parking
and add bike lanes to
connect to light rail.

Add traffic diverter
with access for
walking and biking.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 101
Recommendations
N
Increase size
of median
to provide
pedestrian
refuge; add
crossings.

Intersection
treatments
to be
coordinated
with separate
project.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
102 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS
WENTWORTH AVE / IRVIN WAY / 26TH AVE
Wentworth Avenue, Irvin Way, and 26th Avenue are on the Primary Network, while Harte Way in on the Secondary Network. The project corridor from Normandy Lane to Franklin Boulevard is a two-lane street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit ranges between 25 to 30 mph, however, requires transitions along 24th Street which is posted to be 40 mph. There are existing speed lumps along the corridor and a railroad crossing.

MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Connection to shared used
path along Del Rio Road.
• Transit routes along Freeport
Boulevard.
• Connection to Blue Line Light
Rail.

CORRIDOR EXTENTS:

Normandy Lane to Franklin Boulevard
NEARBY DESTINATIONS:
• Leonardo Da Vinci K-8 School
• Hollywood Park Elementary
• Fruitridge SacRT station

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• Freeport Boulevard
• 24th Street
• Fruitridge Road
• Franklin Boulevard
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Leonardo Da Vinci K-8 School
• Hollywood Park Elementary
• Fruitridge SacRT Station
XX
Primary and
Secondary Network
2 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
1 Shared use path
connection

2.1 MI
Length
N
8 Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 103

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Gaps in the sidewalk network. Evaluate adding a sidewalk on one side on Del Rio Road and Wentworth Avenue from Del Rio Road to Monterey Way.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Lack of existing traffic calming to slow vehicle
speeds.

Add speed lumps along Del Rio Road, Wentworth Avenue, and Stacia Way approaching the corridor.

Wide intersection and turning radii with
unmarked crossings.

Add curb extensions at Monterey Way and Mead Avenue with Mead Avenue including addition of marked crosswalks.

Wide lanes. Add striped buffer between parking and driving lane to narrow driving lane.

Lack of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled
intersections.

Add RRFB at Del Rio Road and Wentworth Avenue.

Mark new crosswalk at 23rd Street and Irwin Way.

Raise existing marked crosswalk and add curb extensions at Hooke Way and Irvin Way.

Existing hardened centerline on Wentworth
Avenue approaching Freeport Boulevard ends
40’ before stop bar.

Extend hardened centerline to crosswalk and add bike boxes on Wentworth Avenue and Stacia Way.

Offset intersections are wide allowing vehicles
to speed and are uncomfortable to cross for
people walking and biking.

Install northbound traffic diverter on Shielah Way and raised crosswalk across Shielah Way.

High traffic crossings nearby school.

Add raised intersection at Shielah Way and Joaquin Way.

Add raised intersection at Carmen Way and Irvin Way.

Raise existing midblock crosswalk and add RRFB.
104 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan WENTWORTH AVE / IRVIN WAY / 26TH AVE
No marked crosswalks, Stop
control on Wentworth Ave.

New connection to Del
Rio Trail and realigned /
tightened intersection.

Wide
intersection
and turning
radii.

All way stop,
no marked
crosswalks.

Hardened centerline
(approx. 226’, ends 40’
before stop bar).

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. 8 Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 105
Existing Conditions
N
Shielah Way intersects
Stacia way 20’
from Freeport Blvd
Intersection.

All way stop, marked
crosswalks on all legs.

All way stop,
marked
crosswalks on
north and west
legs only.

Uncontrolled marked crosswalk.

School
slow
zone.

Uncontrolled marked
crosswalk on north leg.

All way stop, no
marked crosswalks.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
106 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan WENTWORTH AVE / IRVIN WAY / 26TH AVE
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Marked crosswalk
Raised crosswalk
Median island
Evaluate adding
sidewalk on one side.

Add striped buffer
between parking
and driving lane to
narrow driving lane.

Extend hardened
centerline to
crosswalk and
add bike boxes on
Wentworth Ave
and Stacia Way.

Add
RRFB.

Add marked
crosswalks.
8 Traffic Diverter
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 107
Recommendations
N
Raise existing
midblock crosswalk.

Add RRFB to existing
midblock crosswalk.

Raise existing marked
crosswalk and add
curb extensions.

Mark new crosswalk and
add curb extensions.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
Install northbound
traffic diverter on
Shielah Way and
raised crosswalk
across Shielah Way .
108 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

PEBBLEWOOD DR / POTOMAC AVE
Pebblewood Drive is on both Primary and Secondary Networks. Potomac Avenue is on the Primary Network. The project corridor from Azevedo Drive to Natoma Street is a twoway street with on-street parking. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and there are existing speed lumps along the corridor.

MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Transit route and bike lanes on
Azevedo Drive.
• Bike sharrows on Pebblewood Drive.
• Bike lanes on Truxel Road.
• Desire line to Niños Parkway.
• 1 fatal bicycle crash at Pebblewood
Drive and Truxel Road.

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

MAJOR CORRIDORS
SERVED:
• San Juan Road
• W El Camino Avenue
• Truxel Road
• Northgate Boulevard
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Jefferson School
• Bannon Creek Park and Parkway
• South Natomas Community Center
• Niños Parkway
• John Straunch Park and Elementary
School
• E Levee Road Trail
XX
Primary and
Secondary Network
2 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
In
DAC
3 Shared use path
connection

2.26 MI
Length
N
9 Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 109

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Observed speeding. Add speed lumps along Pebblewood Drive and add additional to support the existing ones along Potomac Avenue.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Missing connection to Niños Parkway. Add bike and pedestrian connection to Niños Parkway.

Observed speeding near school zone. Add raised intersection at Potomac Avenue at Northstead Drive.

Wide turning radii and no marked crossings.

Add curb extensions at Pebblewood Drive and Mendel Way.

Add curb extensions at Pebblewood Drive and Bridgeford
Drive.

Add curb extensions at Regatta Drive and Northstead Drive, approaching the corridor.

Add curb extensions and marked crosswalks on all legs at Potomac and Northview Drive.

Wide cross section may encourage faster
driving.

Stripe bike lanes and maintain on street parking on both sides on Potomac Avenue from Northstead Drive to Northgate
Boulevard.

Missing bike and pedestrian connection to E
Levee Road.

Add bike and pedestrian connection to E Levee Road.

Add traffic diverter that allows bike access.

Missing supporting bike facilities.

Consider bike boxes and curb extension on side street
approaches at the intersection of Potomac Avenue and
Northgate Boulevard.
110 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

PEBBLEWOOD DR / POTOMAC AVE
OTHER:
• 44’ + curb to curb width on Potomac Avenue (west of Northgate Boulevard) and Northstead Drive. 9 School
Slow Zone. Missing
connection to
Niños Parkway.

Missing marked crossings
for bikes and pedestrian
to/from Niños Parkway.

Drivers observed
speeding around
corner in field visits.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 111
Existing Conditions
N
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.

Wide cross section
(48’) may encourage
faster driving.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
112 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan 9 PEBBLEWOOD DR / POTOMAC AVE
RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Speed lump
Marked crosswalk
Traffic Diverter
ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS:
• Reduce turning radii and add
marked crosswalks across side
streets along Pebblewood Dr.

Add bike/ped
connection to
Niños Parkway.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 113
Recommendations
Stripe bike lanes and
maintain on street
parking on both sides.

Add marked
crosswalks on
all legs.

Improvements to
be coordinated with
separate project;
consider bike boxes
and curb extensions
on side street
approaches.

Add bike/ped
connection to E
Levee Road.

N
CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
Add traffic diverter that
allows bike access.
114 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan QUICK
FACTS

EHRHARDT AVE / CARLIN AVE
Ehrhardt Avenue and Carlin Avenue are on the Primary Network. The extents of the project corridor include Ehrhardt Avenue from Franklin Boulevard to Center Parkway, Carlin Avenue from Ehrhardt Avenue to Jacinto Avenue, and Jacinto Avenue from Carlin Avenue to Wingina Court. Ehrhardt Avenue and Carlin Avenue are two-lane streets with on-street parking and posted speeds of 30 and 25 mph, respectively. They include existing speed lumps and bike sharrows. Jacinto Avenue is a two-lane street with a center turn lane and a posted speed of 35 mph with on-street parking, speed lumps, and bike lanes.

XX
Primary Network
3 Connections
to HIN Streets
XX
Not In
DAC
1 Shared use path
connection

2.27 MI
Length
10 MULTIMODAL FEATURES:
• Existing bike lane on the south side and sharrow
on the north side of Ehrhardt Avenue from Franklin
Boulevard to Eddington Way.
• Existing bike boxes at the intersection of Ehrhardt
Avenue and Franklin Boulevard to facilitate turns.
• Existing Protected bike lanes on Franklin Boulevard.
• Existing sharrows on Carlin Avenue.
• Existing bike lanes on Calvine Road and Jacinto
Avenue.
• Nearby blue line light rail.
• 1 bicycle serious injury crash at the intersection of Ehrhardt Avenue and Franklin Boulevard.

MAJOR CORRIDORS SERVED:
• Consumnes River Boulevard
• Franklin Boulevard
• Center Parkway
• Calvine Road
DESTINATIONS SERVED:
• Hollywood Park Elementary
• Valley High School
• Consumnes River College and park
• John Reith Elementary School
• North Laguna Creek Wildlife Area
Crash data source: Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), 2016-2020
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 115

ISSUE COUNTERMEASURE

CORRIDOR-WIDE RECOMMENDATIONS
Lack of traffic calming to help slow vehicle speeds. Add median islands along Carlin Avenue narrowing lanes.

Lack of ADA ramps along Carlin Avenue. Add pedestrian ramps and crosswalks across streets.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Unmarked crosswalk facilitating north/south
movement at Ehrhardt Avenue and Carline Avenue. Add raised intersection.

Unsignalized midblock crossings near school zone
on Carlin Avenue.

Add raised intersections at Subblefield Way and Langtree Way.

Long crossings and wide turning radii at Carlin
Avenue and Calvine Road. Add curb extensions.

Wide turning radii and unmarked crossing at Carlin
Avenue and Culpepper Drive. Add curb extensions.

Unmarked crosswalks and missing connection to
shared use path.

Add mini roundabout at Carlin Avenue and Jacinto Avenue with bike and pedestrian crossing and RRFBs to shared use path.

N
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
116 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan

EHRHARDT AVE / CARLIN AVE
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. 10 All way stop with
marked crosswalks
Double yellow on all legs.
center line (80’).

Bike lanes on
Calvine Road.

Unsignalized
midblock
crosswalk.

Double yellow
center line (45’).

No north/south
crosswalk.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 117
Existing Conditions
Bike lanes
on Jacinto
Avenue.

No marked
crosswalks; missing
connection to
shared use path.

N
CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
118 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan RECOMMENDED TREATMENTS:

Curb extension
Raised intersection
Mini roundabout
Median island
ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS:
• Add pedestrian ramps and
crosswalks across streets along
Carlin Avenue.
10 EHRHARDT AVE / CARLIN AVE
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 119
Recommendations
N
Mini roundabout
with bike/ped
crossing and RRFBs
to shared use path.

CRASH HISTORY:

DESTINATIONS:

STREET CHARACTERISTICS: EXISTING TRAFFIC CALMING:

Bicycle Serious Injury
Pedestrian Serious Injury
Pedestrian Death
Bicycle Death
K-12 School
Civic / Recreation
Essential Needs
College / University
Primary Network
Secondary Network
Shared Use Path
Signalized Intersection
High Injury Network
Speed Lump
Diverter
Pedestrian Refuge
Chicane
Curb Extension
Median Island
Raised Crosswalk
Traffic Circle
120 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Policy Recommendations and Implementation
Guidance
In addition to the network recommendations discussed above, the Neighborhood Connections plan has identified a number of potential policies and actions which could be explored by the City to support implementation of the Neighborhood Connections network. The policy recommendations were developed based on policies that have been successful in other jurisdictions in California and the United States for similar projects. These policies would support previously adopted plans and policies adopted by the City of Sacramento. The following broad categories of strategies are considered:
• Traffic Calming by Default includes
processes to get Neighborhood Connections
treatments considered and built on City
streets.
• Design Policy Updates includes potential
elements of design policy which could be
considered in addition to the traffic calming
elements to be applied with or independent
of any of the “Traffic Calming by Default”
elements.
• Funding and Partnerships includes ways
the City could initiate and fund projects,
outside of grant opportunities and general
fund efforts.
• Building Projects Fast includes ways to
speed up construction and reduce costs.

The following table briefly summarizes the
various options, what they would include,
and places similar treatments have been
implemented.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 121
Table 4 – Policy Overview and Inspiration Cities
Traffic Calming by Default
POLICY
Neighborhood
Connections as a
Street Type

DESCRIPTION
Identify a new Functional Classification or Street
Typology overlay for Neighborhood Connections
which prioritizes the through movement of people
walking and biking. This would require an update to
the General Plan. In the interim the Neighborhood
Connections network may be used as an overlay
similar to the Vision Zero High-Injury Network to
support integration with other projects/efforts.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• Portland, OR
• Phoenix, AZ
• Gilbert, AZ

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
POLICY
Blanket
Neighborhood
Connections
Toolbox Approval

DESCRIPTION
Blanket approval of the use of toolbox elements
on Neighborhood Connections streets by City
Council. Requires additional minor guidance to
identify specific criteria to include or exclude each
treatment.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• San Francisco, CA

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
Design Policy Updates* (To be applied with any or all of the "Traffic Calming by Default" options) POLICY
Raised Crossings
Near Schools and
Parks

DESCRIPTION
Develop a policy which requires consideration for
raised crossings providing access to schools and
parks within 1-3 blocks.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• N/A

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
POLICY
Protected Crossings
at Arterials

DESCRIPTION
Develop a policy requiring the consideration
for protected / enhanced crossings where
Neighborhood Connections cross arterials
consistent with the Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• Portland, OR

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
Funding and Partnerships
POLICY
Integrating
Neighborhood
Connections into
Repaving and
Overlay Projects

DESCRIPTION
For repaving and overlay projects, identify if the
corridor is on a Neighborhood Connection. If so,
consider adding relevant treatments from the
Neighborhood Connections Toolbox that could
be implemented. This would require identifying a
subset of treatments which could be installed by
the repaving/overlay team.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• San Diego, CA

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
122 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Funding and Partnerships
POLICY
Tying
Implementation to
Other Projects

DESCRIPTION
For every corridor project or neighborhood plan,
identify Neighborhood Connections which tie into
it to expand the reach of the corridor projects
to nearby residents and destinations. Include
recommendations from the Toolbox on those
streets. This approach can help support stronger
grant funding applications.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• Redding, CA

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
POLICY
Online
Neighborhood
Connections Map

DESCRIPTION
Create a public-facing online map of streets
eligible to be Neighborhood Connections. This
would support slow streets implementation per
California Vehicle Code §21101.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• San Francisco, CA

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
POLICY
Require
Neighborhood
Connections in
Development
Approvals

DESCRIPTION
Implement a policy requiring developers to
build Neighborhood Connections treatments
in proximity to new developments on the
Neighborhood Connections network. Amend Street
Design Standards to define typical applications
and treatments for considerations as part of
development reviews/approvals.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• San Francisco, CA
• Los Angeles, CA

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
Building Projects Fast
POLICY
Implement Field
Engineering

DESCRIPTION
Implement an approach and establish guidance
for certain treatments to allow for limited design to
be conducted, instead having engineers address
final tweaks in the field.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• Austin, TX

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
POLICY
Develop a Quick
Build Toolbox

DESCRIPTION
Identify a set of pre-approved tools and standard
details for quick build treatments to allow quick
build projects to be implemented faster and save
on design costs.

INSPIRATION CITIES
• Orlando, FL

RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT
• Public Works
Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 123
Funding and Ways to Get the Network Built
Building the Neighborhood Connections
Network will require grant funding and
leveraging other funding sources including
developer impact fees, and formula-based
funding methods. Typical funding sources
at the local, state, and federal level are
summarized below:

LOCAL AND REGIONAL
Sacramento Transportation Authority
(STA) Measure A
This half-cent sales tax imposed in
Sacramento County, administered by STA, is
distributed to the City of Sacramento, other
incorporated cities, and unincorporated
Sacramento County to fund specific
transportation maintenance and projects.

This includes: Traffic Safety, Bicycle/Pedestrian
Safety, and Maintenance funds.

Transportation Development Act (TDA)
Article 3
TDA is administered locally by the Sacramento
Area Council of Governments (SACOG). This
act allocated federal funding toward transit
and transportation projects, including bicycle
and pedestrian facilities. 2% of the funding
is designated for bicycle and pedestrian
projects under the TDA Local Transportation
Fund (LTF).

Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Future resurfacing, maintenance, and
construction projects are one method of
providing pedestrian improvements and
traffic calming. Integrating Neighborhood
Connections as an overlay during the
development of these projects is critical to
supporting implementation through these
efforts.

Development Impact Fees and
Approval Requirements
The City of Sacramento funds and/or requires
the construction of roadway and associated
improvements needed to accommodate
traffic generated by new development in the
city of Sacramento as part of the approval
of development projects. Integrating and
establishing a nexus for fees or approval
requirements to consider Neighborhood
Connections traffic calming will help to
implement the network over time.

SACOG Active Transportation
Program
SACOG’s Active Transportation Program (ATP)
funds projects and programs consistent with
the vision of the Blueprint and support the
implementation of the region’s long range
plans for active transportation. El Dorado
County Transportation Commission (EDCTC),
Placer County Transportation Planning Agency
(PCTPA), and SACOG invest infrastructure
and programmatic projects that increase
and attract active transportation users and
provide facilities for walking, rolling, and biking
in urban, suburban, and rural areas of the
region.
124 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan SACOG Carbon Reduction Program
As part of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA)/Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law (BIL), the USDOT established the Carbon
Reduction Program to reduce transportationrelated carbon emissions from on-road highway sources. Regional funds in this
program seek to position the region to
better compete for zero emission vehicle
(ZEV) implementation grants, advance
implementation of the regional trail network,
and strategically implement programs
that will reduce carbon emission including
sustainable mobility options and alternatives
to driving alone.

SACOG Engage, Empower, Implement
(EEI)
The EEI funding program establishes and
funds community-based outreach and
engagement projects throughout the SACOG
region. Community-based organizations
(CBOs) and jurisdictions will partner to
plan and implement projects int their local
communities with assistance from the EEI
process, technical resources, and tools. EEI
will use community-led planning and design
principles to identify communities’ priorities
and develop projects that meet their needs
to develop community-drive and equitable
projects ready for federal, state, and local
funding opportunities.

SACOG Green Means Go
Green Means Go allocates state funding
to projects that create more infill housing,
increase mobility, and reduce vehicle
emissions. Funding will be directed to
locally-nominated Green Zones, areas that
cities and counties have identified for infill
development in their local plan that are within
a center, corridor, or established community
as identified in SACOG’s Metropolitan
Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy. One of the three program areas
includes accelerating travel options including
increasing transit, bicycle and walking
trips through programs, infrastructure
improvements, and new mobility options.

SACOG Mode Shift
The Mode Shift program aims to further racial
equity through projects and programs that
directly reach and engage low-income,
disabled, and/or communities of color to
address their community’s transportation
needs. The Mode Shift program award grants
for small non-infrastructure programs, events,
quick-build projects, tactical urbanism, or
projects to reduce single occupancy vehicle
trips and miles by encouraging biking,
walking, riding transit, carpooling, vanpooling,
and teleworking as options for reducing car
trips.

Chapter 6: Implementing the Network 125

STATE AND FEDERAL
California Active Transportation
Program
California’s Active Transportation Program
(ATP) funds infrastructure and programmatic
projects that support walking and bicycling,
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
improving public health. Competitive
application cycles occur every one to
two years. Eligible applications include
infrastructure projects, education and
encouragement non-infrastructure projects,
and planning projects.

Active Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program (ATIIP)
ATIIP is a competitive grant program created
by the BIL to construct projects to provide
safe and connected active transportation
facilities in active transportation networks
or active transportation spines. ATIIP project
help improve safety, efficiency, and reliability
of active transportation networks and
communities; improve access to transit; and
help protect the environment and improve the
quality of life in disadvantaged communities.

California Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
AHSC provides funding for affordable
housing developments and transportation
infrastructure. This may include sidewalks,
bikeways, transportation-related amenities,
and other programs that encourage
residents to walk, bike, and use public transit.

Competitive application cycles occur on an
annual basis.

Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
HSIP focuses on infrastructure treatments
with known crash reduction factors, such
as countermeasures at locations with
documented collision and safety issues.

Projects must be identified on the basis of
crash experience, crash potential, crash rate,
or other data-supported means.

Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
RAISE funds major infrastructure projects,
especially with road, bridge, transit, or
intermodal components consistent with
national objectives. Previously known as Better
Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development
(BUILD) and Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER), it
offers grants starting at $5 million.

Safe Streets & Roads for All (SS4A)
The BIL established the SS4A program to
fund planning, demonstration activities,
and projects to prevent roadway deaths
and serious injuries. It provides funding for
community-led projects to support safer
people, roads, and vehicles; appropriate
vehicle speeds; and improved post-crash
care.

Reconnecting Communities
The Reconnecting Communities Pilot grant
program focuses on improving access to daily
needs and fostering equitable development
and restoration. This grant program includes
capital funding for reconnecting-focused
projects and small projects focused on
reducing environmental harm and improving
access in disadvantaged communities, as
well as community planning grants.

Appendix A
Existing Conditions Technical
Memorandum
Sacramento
Neighborhood Connections Plan
Existing Conditions Analysis Technical Memorandum
December 2023
1 Table of Contents
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Background & Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Report Organization.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 2: Planning Context .............................................................................................................................................. 4 Walk Audit Projects ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Citywide Plans ................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Guidance Documents...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Neighborhood and Corridor Plans.................................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 3: Learning From Our Peers.................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Peer City Selection............................................................................................................................................................ 6 Peer City Efforts & Accomplishments.............................................................................................................................. 6 Lessons for Sacramento.................................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 4: Sacramento Today ........................................................................................................................................... 8 The People of Sacramento.............................................................................................................................................. 8 Our Social Needs............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Lay of the Land................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Neighborhood Destinations........................................................................................................................................... 19 How We Get Around ...................................................................................................................................................... 21 The Street Network .......................................................................................................................................................... 25 Walking Today ................................................................................................................................................................. 29 Biking Today ..................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Transit in Sacramento ..................................................................................................................................................... 57 Where are Crashes Occurring?..................................................................................................................................... 59 How Equitable is Our System?........................................................................................................................................ 61 Chapter 5: Summary and Key Findings............................................................................................................................ 62 Appendix
Appendix A: Links and Sources
Appendix B: National Peer Cities Review
Appendix C: International Peer Cities Review
2 Chapter 1: Introduction
Study Background & Purpose
The City of Sacramento has been working to redesign its streets to better connect the people who work, live, and travel here to the destinations they want to go and people they want to see. While the City has undertaken a number of transformative projects like the Central City Mobility project to build over 60 blocks of parking protected bikeways, the Covid-19 Pandemic showed us that Sacramentans want more – more active transportation options, more connectivity, increased safety, and more equitable and healthy access.

In response to the Pandemic, the City implemented Slow & Active Streets from December 2020 through July 2021. The Slow & Active Streets pilot prioritized walking and biking on those residential streets nominated by residents and meeting certain technical requirements. The pilot projects utilized low cost, simple tools such as signs and cones to divert pass-through traffic and reduce vehicle speeds. The feedback gathered from residents and street users was generally positive, with a majority of survey respondents reporting traffic slowed down and many reporting they walked, biked, ran, and scooted more than before the pilot. Even after the pilot ended, Sacramentans continue to request traffic calming on neighborhood streets.1 The City’s dedication to safety, as outlined in Vision Zero and the Active Transportation Plan, has set the stage for the exciting development of the Streets for People Plan. In recognition of the need for low-stress connections to everyday neighborhood destinations, the City of Sacramento is working to identify a network of Neighborhood Connections that feel safe and comfortable. Streets for People therefore includes two types of active transportation routes:
〉 The Citywide Active Transportation Network serves longer distance trips on major corridors to major destinations. These are generally regional or inter-community connections.
〉 Neighborhood Connections are generally local streets which include enhancements to slow traffic and support walking, biking, and rolling for people of all ages and abilities and which provide convenient connections to neighborhood destinations without utilizing major roads.

This report identifies the existing conditions in the City in relation to Neighborhood Connections. Unless otherwise noted, all reference sources are listed in Appendix A.

Study Area
The Study Area for Neighborhood Connections
includes every street in the City that is not a
freeway. While Arterials and Collectors are included
in the analysis, the study focus is on local streets.

While higher speed and heavier trafficked routes
may include city-wide connections via the Active
Transportation network, many people may still not
be comfortable traveling along them.

Neighborhood Connections provide an attractive
alternative everyone can enjoy, while also
addressing traffic calming needs and access to
destinations. The Neighborhood Connections study
area can be seen in Figure 1 on the next page.

Report Organization
This report includes the following sections:

1. Background & Introduction: Introduces the study
area and intent of the plan.

2. Planning Context: Describes the current and past
planning efforts related to neighborhood
connections.

3. Learning from Our Peers: Summarizes the efforts
of peer cities in implementing similar networks.

4. Sacramento Today: Reports the multimodal,
demographic, and land use characteristics in
Sacramento which may be relevant to the
development of Neighborhood Connections.

5. Summary and Key Findings: Identifies preliminary
issues, needs, and opportunities based on the
analysis presented in this report.
3 Figure 1 Study Streets
4 Chapter 2: Planning Context
The City of Sacramento has a variety of existing plans that address local street connections, low-stress routes, and pedestrian connections, all of which are pivotal components for establishing the Neighborhood Connections network. Themes among the recommendations in the adopted plans include safety and access for people who walk, bike, and roll. Recently implemented and active projects completed by the City and other partners include:

Walk Audit Projects
The City and partners such as Civic Thread and the County, have conducted walk audits with parents, students, community partners, and school staff to identify infrastructure improvements with the goals of improving safety for people walking and people biking, as well as enabling more people to choose active methods of travel.
〉 Woodbine Park Walk Audit (2021)
〉 Freeport Boulevard Walk Audit (2020)
〉 Elder Creek Elementary Walk Audit (2020)
〉 North Sacramento Walk Audit (2019)
〉 Oak Ridge Elementary Walk Audit (2019)
〉 Will C. Wood Middle School Walk Audit (2019)
〉 Fruitridge Walk Audit (2019)
〉 Peter Burnett Elementary Walk Audit (2018)
The most common recommendations by these plans were buffering existing bike lanes; adding and widening sidewalks; restriping crosswalks; and adding curb extensions. Several recommendations also focused on improving crossing conditions for people walking through leading pedestrian intervals, reduced crossing distances, pedestrian-scale lighting and high visibility crossings, pedestrian refuge islands, pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs), and increased pedestrian crossing time. Other recommendations included traffic calming, road diets, trail crossings and connections, wayfinding, upgraded signage/stop controls/pedestrian signals, and upgraded transit facilities through provision of ADA compliant facilities, benches, shade, and trash receptacles.

Citywide Plans
Walking and Biking Plans
The existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans
identify planned networks of infrastructure for people
biking and walking. These plans have been reviewed
to provide context for the Sacramento Streets for
People Plan.
〉 Bicycle Master Plan (2016 – amended 2018)
〉 Pedestrian Master Plan (2006)
The Pedestrian Master Plan echoes a lot of the
recommendations identified in the walk audit reports:
adequate crossing times, minimized crossing
distances, roadway width reduction, pedestrian
refuge islands, and countdown signals. The Bicycle
Master Plan also includes a recommendation for
hundreds of miles of on- and off-street bikeways and
amenities like parking and wayfinding. Equity is a key
focus for prioritization in all plans.

Vision Zero
In January 2017 the City adopted a goal to work
collaboratively in a data-informed effort to eliminate
traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2027. Vision Zero Plans include:
〉 Vision Zero Sacramento Action Plan (2018)
〉 Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors (2020)
〉 Vision Zero School Safety Study (2021)
The three documents complement each other. The
Action Plan lays out goals and policies to achieve
zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2027 and provides an extensive list of recommendations to
reach this goal. The Corridor and Safety Study reports
make more location-specific recommendations
along five one-mile corridor segments and around 20
local schools, including adding new signals and
increased signage, reducing vehicles speeds to 15
mph, refreshed pavement markings and edge line
striping, slowed green waves, and advanced
dilemma zone detection.
5 Guidance Documents
The City has adopted roadway guidelines and procedures that recommendations must adhere to, including:
〉 Criteria and Guidance for Creative Crosswalks (2021): Outlines criteria for artistic crosswalks in the city. 〉 Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines – Treatment Applications Guide (2021): Offers design and implementation guidance for selecting pedestrian crossing treatments for new or existing crosswalks. 〉 City of Sacramento Complete Streets Policy (2019): Promotes inclusive transportation network planning. 〉 Design and Procedures Manual Section 15: Street Design Standards (2009): Aims to ensure safer and efficient movement of people driving, biking, and walking while considering future maintenance costs. 〉 City of Sacramento Speed Lump Program Guidelines (2014): Advances traffic safety, neighborhood livability, and uniformity in the installation of speed lumps within the city.

Neighborhood and Corridor Plans
The City as well as partners such as Civic Thread, Walk Sacramento, and Neighborhood Associations, have adopted safety and mobility plans that address the needs of all users. Recommendations include:

Plan Active Transportation Related Improvements Included Pocket Greenhaven
Transportation Plan
(2023)
〉 Stop markings and advanced yield.
〉 Buffered bike lanes and conflict markings.
〉 High-visibility crosswalks and pedestrian
signal improvements such as countdowns,
extended clearance, and leading intervals.
〉 Curb extensions and refuge islands.
〉 Speed feedback signs.
〉 Hardened lane lines.
〉 Roundabouts/traffic circles.
〉 Speed lumps.

Northgate Boulevard
Transportation Plan
(2023)
〉 Sidewalk improvements: lighting, obstruction removal, widening, shade, and direct paths. 〉 Bikeway improvements: improved connections to destinations, separated bikeways, continuous bikeways through intersections, and secured bike parking at destinations. 〉 Includes transit, crosswalk, and driving improvements.

Freeport Boulevard
Transportation Plan
(2023)
〉 Wider and unobstructed sidewalks.
〉 New and enhanced crosswalks, including refuge islands and reduced crossing distances. 〉 Buffered bike facilities.

Reconnecting the
Franklin District (2022)
〉 Low stress bike routes.
〉 Safer crossings and safe routes to school.
〉 Improved signage.
〉 New connecting route.

Stockton Boulevard
Corridor Plan (2021)
〉 Concept drawings for crossings, bike facilities pedestrian-scale lighting, medians, landscaping, and signals intended to address safety and crossing needs.

Sacramento Center for
Innovation (2013;
amended 2018)
〉 Redevelopment for the Sacramento Center for Innovation study area incorporating the Ramona Avenue Extension project, the Folsom Boulevard Improvements project, the 14th Avenue Extension and Improvements project, the San Joaquin Street Extension project, and the 65th Street Transportation Plan.

Oak Park Active Travel
Study (2017)
〉 Traffic calming.
〉 Discouraging parking on sidewalks.
〉 Explore feasibility of Broadway road diet.
〉 Planting street trees.
〉 Curb bulb outs.
〉 Roundabouts/traffic circles.
〉 Reconfiguring streets to be
perpendicular.
〉 Rectangular rapid flashing beacons.
〉 Pedestrian scrambles.
〉 Leading pedestrian intervals.

South Area Community
Plan (2015)
〉 Green streets.
〉 Transit-oriented neighborhoods.
〉 Public gathering places.
〉 Coordinate transit stations with retail
and residential land use.

Southeast Sacramento
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Access Study (2008)
〉 New streets and additional on- and offstreet bicycle facilities. 〉 Sidewalk connections to schools.
〉 Pedestrian crossing and intersection
improvements.

Swanston Station
Transit Village Specific
Plan (2007)
〉 New open spaces.
〉 Improved transit stations.
〉 Pedestrian and bike overpasses.
〉 Lower parking standards and
requirements to support transit-oriented
development.

Midtown
Neighborhood
Preservation
Transportation Plan
(1999)
〉 Roundabouts/traffic circles.
〉 Half-street closures.
〉 Exploring truck route designation on C Street.
〉 This plan has been implemented and the City continues to monitor the results. 6 Chapter 3: Learning From Our Peers
Introduction
Reviewing the actions taken by other peer cities can help inform the process of implementing slow streets in Sacramento. The study team reviewed six US cities and five international cities in detail to identify successes, challenges, and lessons learned. These highlights can be applied to Sacramento for a more efficient design and implementation process.

Peer City Selection
Peer cities were identified based on several factors, including population size and density, existing and planned slow streets and neighborhood route networks, urban context and layout, and available plan documentation.

The following US and international cities were selected based on the criteria in Figure 2:

United States Cities
〉 Boston, Massachusetts
〉 Minneapolis, Minnesota
〉 Portland, Oregon
〉 Oakland, California
〉 Denver, Colorado
〉 Austin, Texas
International Cities
〉 Paris, France
〉 Utrecht, Netherlands
〉 Greater Melbourne,
Australia
〉 Barcelona, Spain
〉 Bogota, Colombia
Please see Appendix B and Appendix C for a detailed review of domestic and international peer agencies.

Peer City Efforts & Accomplishments
United States
Boston, Massachusetts
〉 Implemented traffic-calming infrastructure and
20-mph speeds in 15 neighborhoods.
〉 Reduced default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph.
〉 Plans to install 500 speed humps annually.
〉 Used gamification to reduce aggressive driving.
〉 Neighborways give priority to people walking
and biking.

Oakland, California
〉 Focused on enforcing 15-mph speeds and
connecting residents to “essential places.”
〉 Found that residents value traffic safety more than
creating space for physical activity.
〉 Using NACTO to set target speeds and volumes.
〉 Traffic Safety Requests Program works to deliver
quick-build, low-cost safety improvements.

Minneapolis, Minnesota
〉 Reduced residential speeds to 20 mph and
placed signs along the city limits to alert drivers.
〉 The annual five-phase Traffic Calming Program
accepts request forms from the public.
〉 Developed a Traffic Calming Toolbox to guide
traffic calming feature implementation.

Denver, Colorado
〉 Using narrowed streets and greenspace landscaping
to implement Open Streets and Shared Streets to
combat a history of vehicle-based infrastructure.
〉 Planning to build thousands of miles of dedicated
active and public transportation facilities.

Portland, Oregon
〉 Created a neighborhood greenway network
with more than 100 miles of 15-mph streets.
〉 The Slow Streets Program converts qualified
low-traffic streets and greenways into slow
streets with restricted through traffic.
〉 76% of the 2,100 miles of Portland streets have a
20-mph speed limit.

Austin, Texas
〉 Using a Shared Streets program to address missing
sidewalks.
〉 The Speed Management Program implements
speed limit changes and traffic calming treatments
on residential and commercial streets across the city.
〉 Traffic calming toolkit categorizes devices by device type and road/traffic characteristics.

Figure 2: Peer City Selection Criteria
7 International
Utrecht, Netherlands
〉 100% of residents can reach all primary
destinations within 15 minutes via a safe bike route;
now aiming to be a 10-minute city.
〉 Modal filters prevent through-traffic and geometric
features keep speeds low (20 mph).
〉 Home to the world’s largest bicycle parking facility.

Paris, France
〉 Individual city sectors are allocated equal parts of
the City budget to adjust street space use and
create green spaces.
〉 Focused on multifunctionality of spaces.
〉 Removing on-street parking and building new
bicycle parking spaces.

Greater Melbourne, Australia
〉 Aiming for residents to be able to meet their needs
through 20-minute round trips on foot.
〉 Pilot study report highlights key opportunities to
address transportation.
〉 Focused on increasing density and incorporating
green infrastructure.

Barcelona, Spain
〉 “Superblocks” (clusters of nine city blocks) have
increased the number of bicycling and walking
trips and decreased vehicle trips.
〉 Adding 503 more superblocks, expanding the bike
network, creating pedestrian-only streets, and
adding 40+ miles of bus lanes.
〉 Focused on user comfort through shade, street
furniture, and public art.

Bogota, Colombia
〉 Aims to be a 30-minute city by walking or
bicycling.
〉 Currently constructing its first subway line with
indoor bicycle parking facilities at 12 of the 16
stations.
〉 Applying changes to specific areas for easy
comparison to control areas to evaluate impact.

Lessons for Sacramento
Planning, Design, and
Implementation
Planning and Design
〉 A detailed, organized traffic calming toolbox can
speed up the design process.
〉 Basing network development in data and ground
truthing the analysis with lived experiences of
community members may result in more usage.
〉 Calls for applications from the community can
help build support.
〉 Consider land use and destinations when
identifying routes and developing solutions.

Implementation
〉 Quick-build features with temporary materials can
result in valuable feedback from city residents.
〉 Significant signage should be used to alert
residents of speed limit reductions.

Check in on Changes
〉 Have a strategy for monitoring progress: timelines,
quantitative goals, and control areas can help
with this.
〉 Monitor implementation and adjust projects or the
program as needed.
〉 Use a data-informed approach, considering both
data and user experience, to monitor road user
safety.

Give a Role to the Residents
〉 Allowing requests from the public helps to highlight
community needs.
〉 Providing an interactive map of eligible streets
provides transparency and helps community
members understand where improvements may
be feasible.
〉 Gamification is an interactive way to raise public
awareness of and decrease aggressive driving
habits.
8 Chapter 4: Sacramento Today
The People of Sacramento
Understanding mobility and land use trends and
challenges happening today lays the foundation
for the City of Sacramento of tomorrow. This
section provides an overview of existing
socioeconomics, land use patterns, and
economic characteristics and trends that sets a
baseline for evaluating the City’s transportation
system.

Sacramento at a Glance
According to the US Census Bureau American
Communities Survey (2021 5-Year ACS),
Sacramento has just over half a million residents.
〉 Total Population (2021): 518,605
〉 People of Color: 68.9%
〉 Total Housing Units: 194,004
Trends and Changing
According to the 2021 5-Year ACS and 2010 5-
Year ACS:
〉 We are getting a tad older. In 2010, the
median age was 33.1, in 2021 the median
age increased to 35.2. In 2021, half (50%) of
the population was under 35 years of age.
〉 We are getting more educated. In 2010, 19%
of Sacramento residents 25 years or older had
a bachelor's degree or higher. In 2021, 24% of
residents have attained a bachelor's degree
or higher.
〉 We are getting wealthier. In 2010, the median
household income was $62,464 (adjusted to
2021 dollars) and increased 14% to $71,074 in
2021. Along with this, we have more access to
vehicles; the percentage of Sacramentans
with access to a vehicle increased from 90% to
92% over the same period.
〉 We are getting more diverse. In 2010, the
percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in
the City was around 64%. In 2021, that
percentage increased to just under 69%.

White,

31.14%
Hispanic,

28.89%
Black, 12.76%
Asian or
Pacific
Islander,

20.45%
American
Indian, 0.26%
Other/Two or More
Races, 6.50%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Median Age

35.2 Figure 3: Sacramento Population by Race (2021)
Figure 5: Sacramento Population by Age (2021)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
<$25k $25k - $50k $50k - $100k $100k -
$200k
>$200k
Figure 4: Household Income in Sacramento (2021)
~14.8% of
Population
Resides Below
Poverty Level
9 Our Social Needs
Often, transportation and land use decisions place unfair burdens on disadvantaged communities. Conducting an analysis of historically underserved populations helps identify locations with high concentrations of people or groups who may not be physically or financially capable of owning or driving a vehicle and rely on walking, riding bicycle, and transit to meet their daily travel needs. Table 1 compares select socioeconomic conditions.

Table 1: Sacramento Socioeconomic Conditions
City of Sacramento County of Sacramento California Statewide Age 65 and Older 13.3% 14.1% 14.4%
Minority Population 68.9% 51.1% 60.3%
Population with a Disability 11.8% 11.8% 10.6%
Population below the Poverty Level 14.8% 13.3% 12.3%
People with Limited English Proficiency 6.4% 6.2% 8.5%
Households with no Vehicles 8.1% 6.3% 6.9%
Source: US Census 2021 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8 show where people with disabilities, people over 65, and people without access to a vehicle live, and Figure 9 shows a consolidated scoring of disadvantaged populations who face challenges related to transportation, employment, housing, health, socioeconomic conditions, and pollution, among others. Two sources were utilized to identify disadvantaged populations:
〉 CalEnviroScreen is operated by the California Office of Environmental Heath Hazard Assessment. The top 25 percentile of Census Tracts are considered the most disadvantaged and are shown in the figure. 〉 Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) is operated by the federal government as part of the Justice40 program. According to CJEST, 46.5% of Sacramentans live in disadvantaged communities.

The following conclusions can be drawn:

People with Disabilities may require specialized
services to get around, like longer time to cross an
intersection, and may be less likely to own a
vehicle. Areas with highest concentrations of
people with disabilities include South Sacramento,
Fruitridge/Broadway, and Midtown.

People over 65 may also walk slower and require
more time to cross intersections. They may also be
less likely to own a vehicle or travel during
traditional commute times, creating different
roadway needs at different times of day. The areas
with the highest concentrations of people over 65
include Pocket-Greenhaven, South Sacramento,
and East Sacramento.

People Without Access to a Vehicle are likely to walk,
bike, and ride transit and may benefit from
investments improving walking and biking. Areas
with the highest concentrations of people without
access to a vehicle include Downtown, Midtown,
and Oak Park.

Disadvantaged Populations are also likely to walk,
bike, and ride transit and have traditionally faced
transportation inequities. Areas with higher
concentrations of disadvantaged populations may
be eligible for funding opportunities to address
transportation inequities. The areas with the highest
concentrations of disadvantaged populations
include North Sacramento, Fruitridge/Broadway,
and South Sacramento.

Housing & Transportation (H&T) Affordability & Location Efficiency The H&T Affordability Index2 identifies the combined cost of housing and transportation as a percentage of income and sets a target of no more than 55% of income be spent on these costs. H&T costs make up about 46% of income in Sacramento, and neighborhoods with the largest H&T burden include Pocket-Greenhaven, Land Park, North Natomas, and East Sacramento. Central City and South Natomas have the lowest burden (Figure 10).

H+T defines a location efficient neighborhood as one that is compact, close to jobs and services, with a variety of transportation choices. According to the analysis, only 6% of Sacramento is deemed a location efficient neighborhood. Central City offers a variety of commercial and mixed-use land uses making it the most location efficient neighborhood. Compared to other U.S. neighborhoods, however, Sacramento is characterized as having a high access to a variety of jobs, good access to public transportation, and compact neighborhoods. 10 Figure 6: People with Disabilities
11 Figure 7: People Over 65
12 Figure 8: Households with No Vehicles
13 Figure 9: Disadvantaged Communities
14 Figure 10: H & T Burden
15 Lay of the Land
Having a strong understanding of the land use context and development patterns is imperative to creating a transportation network that complements surrounding character and facilitates movement. Just as land use influences the transportation network, the transportation network influences land use. For example, a local roadway in a residential neighborhood serves a very different purpose than a major roadway that connects the freeway to an industrial park.

Land Use in Sacramento
Land use data, based on General Plan land use
types, was mapped in Figure 11 to understand
development patterns along corridors. Generally,
areas with a high mix of land uses generate many
trips by people walking and biking since various
destinations are located close to one another.3
The City of Sacramento is predominantly made up
of residential uses with about 39% of the land
dedicated to this use. Low density residential
makes up about 18% of the residential use, while
medium and high-density residential uses make
up 20%. Non-residential uses include commercial,
office, industrial, public, and planned
development. Mixed-use areas are scattered
throughout the city integrating housing with other
uses on the same site. The American River
Parkway makes up a large portion of the open
space in the city, while Stone Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge contributes to the most park
acreage in the county.

Major Redevelopment Areas
There are several areas in Sacramento undergoing significant development and change. As new development continues, there is opportunity to develop completely new streets with new treatments connecting people to destinations. Example redevelopment areas include:
〉 Curtis Park Railyards: Curtis Park is a 72-acre infill development site that includes single family homes, condos, apartments, and 259,000 square feet of retail. It is located near Sacramento City College and is close to the major freeways and downtown Sacramento.
〉 Delta Shores: This is an 800-acre master planned development in the southern portion of the city. It will incorporate 1.3 million square feet of retail, 250,000 square feet of hotel and commercial uses, and 5,200 residences. Along with this project is an interchange improvement to expand and improve access to the site as it is adjacent to I-5.
〉 Sacramento Riverfront: There is a lot of potential for future development along the waterfront. Specific Plans along the river include the River District Specific Plan, Railyards Specific Plan, Central City Specific Plan, Docks Area Draft Specific Plan, and the West Broadway Specific Plan. 〉 Natomas: The Natomas community is located near two major freeways, the airport, and downtown. The community includes residential, office park, and retail development. Future employment, residential growth, and mixed-use development is planned as there is more than 1,000 acres of undeveloped land in the area.
〉 River District: The River District is located at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. It has been established as a distribution and wholesale center but is planned to incorporate mixed uses and reestablish itself with employment, entertainment, and housing. There are plans to incorporate 2,350 housing units, 150,000 square feet of retail and restaurant, and more than 800,000 square feet of office space.
16 Figure 11: General Plan Land Use Types
17 Existing Character of Selected Neighborhoods
A cross section of representative neighborhoods were selected and evaluated to understand the general development and street network patterns across the city. A focus was placed on capturing a diverse crosssection of mixing or separation of land uses, street network connectivity, and local street elements.

Natomas
〉 Generally low-density, single family, new construction residential neighborhoods.
〉 Segregated land uses with large, big box shopping
centers with large parking lots providing most daily needs.

K-12 schools and parks are dispersed throughout, and
there are industrial business parks located in the
southeastern area.
〉 Cul-de-sacs and local roads connect residential areas to higher volume collectors and arterials, leading to regional destinations.

Northgate / South Natomas
〉 Generally low-density residential neighborhoods
separated from other areas by freeways and rivers.
〉 Most shopping is located in big-box stores with large parking lots along major roads or along Northgate
Boulevard. Schools and parks are located adjacent to
residential areas but accessed via collector roads.
〉 The street network is a “broken grid” pattern, with some streets looping back on themselves and others providing through connections.

East Sacramento
〉 Established single family homes along wide, shaded local streets.
〉 Neighborhood-serving parks, shopping, grocery stores, schools, and a hospital are scattered through the
neighborhood and generally front local streets providing walk up access with limited parking.
〉 The street network is generally a grid pattern, with local streets providing connections to collectors and arterials.

Oak Park
〉 Established, cottage style, single family homes along narrow local streets.
〉 Neighborhood-serving parks, shopping, grocery stores, and schools are scattered through the neighborhood and
generally front local streets providing walk up access with limited parking. The UC Davis Health Campus is also
woven into the fabric of the community.
〉 The street network is generally a grid pattern, with local streets providing connections to collectors and arterials.

North Sacramento
〉 Established single family homes along a street network of many cul-de-sacs.
〉 The western portion of the neighborhood includes
industrial uses. A small commercial center is located in the southern portion of the neighborhood.
18 Land Park
〉 Established single family homes on large lots, large parks, and shaded streets on a curvilinear gridded street
network.
〉 Regional destinations including William Land Regional Park, the Sacramento Zoo, and Sacramento City College
are woven into the fabric of the community.
〉 Schools and street facing, neighborhood serving retail are located within the community. Big box stores, with
significant parking can also be found along Freeport Blvd.

Pocket-Greenhaven
〉 Established single family homes and scattered multi-family buildings along a street network with wide local streets and many cul-de-sacs and private streets which load
traffic onto arterials and collectors.
〉 While schools may be accessed via local streets, most daily retail and other needs are located in shopping
centers with ample parking along collectors or arterials. 〉 A trail network connects many homes to destinations,
supplementing the street network.

South Sacramento
〉 A series of neighborhoods with established single-family homes which front local streets.
〉 Most daily retail and other needs are provided in shopping centers with ample parking. These daily needs, including schools, are often located along collectors or arterials. 〉 The street network generally follows a grid or curvilinear grid pattern, with local streets providing connectivity to collectors and arterials.

Fruitridge/Broadway
〉 Low-density single-family homes interspersed with
undeveloped land. The eastern portion of the
neighborhood includes industrial uses.
〉 The street network includes both gridded streets and cul de sacs with a super grid of arterials running through it. 〉 Most daily needs are accessed via collectors or arterials, and most shopping and dining opportunities are located
in shopping centers with ample parking.

Central City (Midtown & Downtown)
〉 Midtown is generally characterized by mixed-use, low- to mid-rise development along walkable urban streets
designed in a grid pattern. The development pattern
densifies and intensifies approaching Downtown.
〉 Almost all daily needs can be accessed via walking or biking, with most buildings oriented towards the street and parking, bike facilities, and other amenities provided on the street.
19 Neighborhood Destinations
Neighborhood Connections are a chance to connect people to the destinations they want to go every day via low stress connections. Understanding where these destinations are is one key element in developing a network that feels safe, convenient, and accessible for Sacramentans. While it is important to provide access for all people to meet the City’s resilience goals, it is also important to meet equity goals by providing access to schools, jobs, healthy food, and opportunity for people who might not have access to a vehicle. Figure 12 and Figure 13 illustrates the local destinations people might want to get to every day, including:
〉 Essential Needs: Essential needs include shopping centers, health facilities, and grocery stores. • Shopping centers include both major shopping centers like malls, as well as destinations like grocery stores people need to get to every day. There are 41 major shopping centers that are scattered throughout the city including Sacramento’s Downtown Commons, Arden Fair Mall, and Old Sacramento Waterfront. Shopping centers include major national retailers as well as smaller, locally owned stores.
• Heath Care Facilities include destinations like senior centers and medical clinics, dentist offices, and other destinations people may need to access regularly. There are 4 senior centers, 7 surgery centers, and other small clinics spread throughout the city.
〉 K-12 Schools include all public and private kindergarten through 12-th grade schools within the City.

Schools represent major destination students and families may want to access via neighborhood connections. There are 156 K-12 schools and 6 school districts in Sacramento. 〉 Major Institutions: Major institutions include the 6 major hospitals in the City, government buildings such as the State Capitol, and colleges and universities. While people visiting these destinations may choose to walk or bike, these locations often have many employees who walk or bike to work. 〉 Social and Civic Needs: Social and civic needs are distributed throughout the city and consist of a variety of museums, arts and entertainment centers, community centers, religious buildings, parks and recreation opportunities, libraries, and civic uses such as the post office. Some notable destinations include the Tower Theatre, Crocker Art Museum, the Sacramento YMCA, and a variety of other art galleries, theaters, and comedy clubs to enjoy. Additionally, recreation destinations include places for people to get outdoors; places that people want to walk and bike to by default. 16% of Sacramento is dedicated to open space/parks and recreation, and there are a multitude of parks scattered throughout the city that serve many neighborhoods with playgrounds, tennis courts, jogging paths, and views of the city skyline. The Sacramento River is also a highlight in the city for outdoor activities with miles of paved bike trails, boat launches, rafting, and even swimming.

Essential Needs
Shopping Centers Health Facilities Grocery Stores
K-12 Schools
Schools
Social and Civic Needs
Museums Arts or
Entertainment
Religious
Services
Parks &
Recreation Libraries Post Office
Major Hospitals Government
Buildings Colleges &
Universities
Major Institutions
Figure 12: Neighborhood Destination Types
20 Figure 13: Neighborhood Destinations
21 How We Get Around
From scooter-share, bike-share, and e-bikes to light rail and the planned high-capacity SacRT bus corridors and transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft, we have more choices than ever for how we want to travel within and through our communities. Understanding where people want to go and how they choose to get there – regardless if that’s by walking, biking, driving, or taking transit – will help us define a future transportation network that enables safer, efficient, and comfortable travel in Sacramento.

This analysis reports average weekday and weekend days to gain an understanding of how we move around.

The analysis uses data from Replica, a software that incorporates anonymized data from a variety of sources like the US Census Bureau, mobile location data, land use, economic activity, and others to create a simulation of an area to model how people get around, where they are going, and when they travel.

Where We Want to Go
We travel for many reasons every day such as going to the doctor or getting exercise on the American River Parkway. This analysis identified several trips that we might take:
〉 Getting to Work: all trips that end at a person’s workplace (including commute trips and things like a trip back from lunch).
〉 Getting to School: all trips to a person’s school or college. 〉 Traveling for Daily Needs: all social trips and trips to destinations where people shop, dine, and run errands. 〉 Getting Outside: all trips to recreational destinations like parks and trailheads (this does not include trips without a destination, like walking the dog or jogging).

As shown in Figure 14 more than half the trips we take are to do the things that make up our quality of life like shop, eat, socialize, and run errands. However, we travel differently on weekdays and weekends. 〉 Nearly a third of all weekday trips are work or school related. 〉 While trips for shopping, eating, and socializing always make up most of our trips, we tend to do these things more on weekends than on weekdays.

Figure 14 Typical Trip Purpose (Destination)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Other
School
Errands
Recreation
Social
Work
Eat
Shop
Weekday
Weekend
22 How We Get There
We choose to travel in different ways depending on the type of trip, the day of the week, and how far away the destination is (Table 2 and Table 3). Replica data shows that while we mostly choose to drive, walking is the second most common way we choose to travel.

Getting to School:
〉 Most students are driven to school, but nearly 1
in 4 students walk or bike to school.
〉 Getting to school is the most common trip
destination for people biking on weekdays.
〉 Weekday school trips are generally shorter and
closer to home than other types of trips.
〉 Weekend students typically drive and go to
school further away.
〉 Although students are provided with free
access to bus and light rail services, public
transportation usage is low.

Traveling for Daily Needs:
〉 We generally choose to travel in the same
ways, go similar distances, and spend a similar
amount of time on weekends and weekdays.
〉 1 in 9 trips to meet daily needs are done by
walking on the weekends and 1 and 8 trips on
the weekdays.

Getting Outside:
〉 We tend to drive to get outside whether it is a
weekend or weekday.
〉 1 in 8 trips to get outside are done by walking or
biking on the weekdays and 1 in 12 trips on the
weekends.

Making Short Trips
〉 Destinations are on average no more than a 13-
mile trip and we generally choose to drive for
those trips. However, when we travel 5 miles or
less, we choose to walk or bike almost one
quarter of the time.

Getting to Work:
〉 We mostly choose to drive to work, and our
travel patterns are similar on weekdays and
weekends
Table 2 How We Get to Destinations on Weekdays
Weekday
Drive Transit Bike Walk Other Average Travel
Distance
Average Travel
Time
Getting to Work 91.5% 1% 1% 5.5% <1% 13 mi 25 min
Getting to School 76% <1% 4.5% 19% <1% 5 mi 16 min
Travel for Daily
Needs 83% <1% 1.5% 13% 2% 9 mi 19 min
Getting Outside 85% <1% 2% 11% 2% 10 mi 21 min
Table 3 How We Get to Destinations on Weekends
Weekend
Drive Transit Bike Walk Other Average Travel
Distance
Average Travel
Time
Getting to Work 91.5% 1% 1.5% 5.5% <1% 11 mi 22 min
Getting to School 90% <1% 1.5% 7% <1% 9 mi 20 min
Travel for Daily
Needs 86% <1% 1% 11% 2% 9 mi 19 min
Getting Outside 89% <1% 1% 7% 2% 11 mi 21 min
23 Where are We Going for Short Trips and How are We Getting There? When we travel shorter distances our travel patterns look different - from the routes we take to get to our destinations to the way we choose to get to those destinations. As discussed earlier, the shortest average trip distance (5 miles) had the highest occurrence of people walking and biking. For Neighborhood Connections, understanding where even shorter trips, those 2 miles or less (a 15 minute bike ride), are occurring can help identify where people might be most likely to bike.

Figure 15 shows the areas with the highest volumes of destinations for short trips as well as the top routes we are taking to make these trips.

Areas that are popular destinations for short trips
are often near:
〉 Downtown and Midtown
〉 Schools and universities
〉 Open space
〉 Commercial/retail areas
〉 Kaiser Permanente and Methodist Hospital of
Sacramento
There are some streets which stand out as preferred
north-south or east-west connectors, including:
〉 J Street
〉 21st Street
〉 Stockton Boulevard
〉 Folsom Boulevard
〉 Florin Road
〉 El Camino Avenue
〉 Truxel Road
〉 Fruitridge Rd
Short trips are often a product of mixed land uses, as can be seen in Downtown and Midtown, or of the destination, like schools or parks. However, many of the roads Sacramentans use the most for short trips, listed above, are arterials or collectors. While these roads often see high volumes of travel and are intended to serve longer distance, regional trips, this data indicates they are often also serving shorter, local trips. In this case, developing Neighborhood Connections that feel safe and comfortable may not only provide Sacramentans with better places to walk or bike, but may also shift shorter distance, local trips off of arterials and collectors. 24 Figure 15: Frequent Short Trips
25 The Street Network
Functional Classification
Functional classification is a hierarchy of roadway classes based on their role in providing access to adjacent properties and facilitating vehicle speeds and volumes. Generally, arterials are the highest speed and volume roads but have limited property access, and locals are lower speed and volume with a high degree of access.

Functional classification can impact the number of lanes and posted speeds when designing a road. Figure 16 shows the functional classification of streets in Sacramento and Table 4 shows the lane miles per street type. Neighborhood Connections are most likely to be implemented on local streets.

Table 4: Citywide Functional Classification Lane Miles
Classification Study Network Mileage
Arterial 182.13
Major Collector 58.98
Minor Collector 91.80
Local 1,183.72
Total 1,843.50
Intersection Control
Traffic control devices help manage the movement of people and goods in an efficient manner. Traffic control devices found in Sacramento today generally include:

Traffic Signals control the flow of
vehicles on the roadway network.

Improving traffic signal timing can
increase mobility and reduce
overall congestion. Traffic signals
are generally implemented on
arterials and on some collectors.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) are devices that
users can manually activate
flashing lights to increase driver
awareness of people crossing at
unsignalized intersections or
midblock crosswalks.

Traffic Signs include STOP or YIELD
signs to alert drivers to come to a
complete stop or yield at
intersections.

Roundabouts and Traffic Circles
are circular intersections in which
traffic flows in one direction
around a central island. Traffic
circles can improve safety,
promote lower speeds, and
reduce conflict points. Traffic
circles are located on local streets.

Pedestrian Signals create a more
predicable crossing environment
and give adequate warning to
people attempting to cross a
roadway.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWK)
are used to improve nonmotorized crossings of major
streets. They may also be used at
mid-block crossing locations.
26 Figure 16: Street Classification
27 Traffic Calming Devices
Sacramento has been working to calm traffic along neighborhood streets for years. With the speed lump program, the implementation of the traffic calming in West Midtown, and the new neighborhoods in Natomas designing roundabouts and other features, Sacramento has a substantial amount of traffic calmed streets, however, these streets do not form a complete network of slow streets and there are some areas with less traffic calming. The streets with traffic calming can be seen in Figure 17 and existing devices are listed below.

Chicanes create a curvy pathway
in an otherwise straight road and
encourage vehicles to slow.

Curb Extensions, also known as
bulb-outs or neckdowns, extend
the sidewalk or curb line out into
the travel or parking lane, which
reduces the effective street width.

Diverters require drivers to turn left
or right, rather than driving through
an intersection, while allowing
people walking and biking to travel
through the intersection.

Median Islands provide a
protected space placed in the
center of the street to facilitate
pedestrian and bicycle crossings.

Pedestrian Refuge Islands provide a
protected space for people
walking to cross half the roadway
and wait for vehicles to pass to
cross the remainder.

Raised Crosswalks elevate the
crosswalk to sidewalk level,
providing a level path for people
using the crosswalk, encouraging
vehicles to slow, and increasing
visibility for both drivers and people
in the crosswalk.

Undulations, speed humps, and
speed tables are elevated mounds
in the roadway intended to slow
traffic.

Roundabouts/Traffic Circles are a
type of intersection where traffic is
permitted to flow in one direction
around a center island. Traffic
approaching the roundabout
yields to traffic already within the
intersection.
28 Figure 17: Traffic Calmed Streets
29 Walking Today
Sacramento is a diverse city that is both building up in its urban neighborhoods and building out in its newer areas. Mixed use infill development increases opportunities for people to walk and bike as the distances between their destinations decrease. New suburban development offers opportunities for new infrastructure to provide comfortable connections. As Sacramento develops, the demand for transportation options is increasing.

To address these changing needs and desires, it is important to understand what makes a place feel safe and comfortable for walking. People walking are:
〉 Sensitive to detours that increase the time or distance to their destination; 〉 More comfortable when routes provide shade, water, and places to rest; and 〉 In need of walkways with accessible and comfortable designs for people who use mobility devices and people with hearing and visual impairments.

Sidewalks are generally present on most streets in Sacramento. However, infrastructure is missing on one or both sides of the road in the north- and southeastern reaches of the City, where land uses are characterized by rural homes and industrial uses. Additionally, some local streets in residential areas are lacking sidewalks.

Where Are People Walking?
As shown in Figure 18, people choose to walk the most often for trips in the City Center (Downtown and Midtown). This area of the city has a denser street network and a mix of destinations people can go to work, live, and play. While people walk frequently throughout the City, other areas with the highest frequency of walking trips include areas near parks and schools, CSU Sacramento, Folsom Boulevard, and J Street.

Crossing The Street
One of the most significant barriers to walking is how frequently and comfortably someone can cross the street to get to their destination. Having frequent crossings and pedestrian access points can significantly decrease the distance needed to walk to a destination. In Downtown, crossings are frequent even across major roads.

Outside of Downtown, there are fewer opportunities to cross. Additionally, the type of crossing can have a major impact on mobility for people walking. For example, signalized intersections generally provide a dedicated time and space for people walking to cross. However, most intersections are not signalized. The following types of crossing treatments exist in Sacramento at unsignalized intersections:

Full Crossings have marked
crosswalks on all legs of the
intersection.

Half Crossings have marked
crosswalks on at least one leg of
each street.

Partial Crossings have a marked
crosswalk that crosses one street.

Midblock Crossings facilitate
crossing to places people want to
cross where no stop signs or traffic
signals regulate the crossing.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons are user-actuated yellow flashing lights to improve safety at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks. They are used to alters drivers to yield where people walking have the right-ofway crossing a road. 30 Figure 18: Frequent Walking Routes
31 Walking Comfort
In order to understand comfort people walking on a given roadway, a pedestrian comfort metric was developed. A variety of factors are known to influence comfort for walking, such as the speed and volume of traffic, presence of a sidewalk, available shade, and design of the road. As illustrated below, the pedestrian comfort metric ranges from low-stress streets suitable for children (Level 1) to high-stress streets only suitable for experienced riders (Level 4). This analysis includes surface streets and shared use paths, but freeways are not analyzed as walking and biking is prohibited.

Comfort Scoring
The criteria shown in Table 5 were used to determine the pedestrian comfort scores shown in Figure 19 for each street in Sacramento. A sidewalk was considered shaded if a tree canopy was present that provided 50% coverage of any given segment.

Table 5: Pedestrian Comfort Criteria for Streets in Sacramento Posted Speed Limit Number of Lanes No Sidewalk Sidewalk Shaded Sidewalk*
Shared Use
Path
25 MPH or
Lower
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4+ Lanes
30-35 MPH
2 - 3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
40 MPH or Greater
2 - 3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
*For the purposes of this analysis, a shaded sidewalk is one in which the estimated tree canopy provides coverage over at least 50% of the street as measured in linear feet. The City’s street tree layer was utilized to identify tree locations, and an average 20’ canopy (10’ in each direction from tree trunk center point) was assumed per tree.

Pedestrian Comfort Level
1 2 3 4
32 Figure 19: Walking Comfort
33 Walking Assessment
Sacramento has a mostly complete network of sidewalks along its roadways. While sidewalks are one key element in determining comfort for people walking, they do not tell the whole story. In order to evaluate access to destinations via walking, a walkability assessment was conducted which identifies the presence of sidewalks as well as crossing, destination locations, and other elements. Access to key destinations as discussed in the Where We Want to Go section and shown in Figure 12 and Figure 13 were evaluated. Steps to assess walkability include:
〉 Determine key destinations (see Figure 13).
〉 Define the low stress network and crossings and identify barriers for people walking. The analysis assumes people of all ages and abilities will walk along low stress streets and cross at low stress intersections, but that not all people will utilize higher stress streets or intersections. The network and barriers were determined as follows:
• Low Stress Network: includes streets and paths scoring 1 or 2 for pedestrian comfort. • Low Stress Crossings: all intersections of streets scoring 1 or 2 on the comfort scale, signalized intersections, and signalized mid-block crossings were considered comfortable to cross. • Street Barriers: high stress streets for walking, or those scoring 3 or 4. These streets are displayed or analyzed as part of the network.
• Crossing Barriers: Any intersection with at least one street scoring 3 or 4 without a signalized crossing was considered a barrier and removed from the analysis.
〉 Walksheds (the area people can comfortably walk from a given destination) were created utilizing GIS for a person walking 4 ft per second on a 15-minute trip—just under 0.70 miles. 〉 Using Census Block data, population estimates were calculated to estimate how many residents reside within each walk shed.

The results of the analysis can be seen the following figures as follows:
〉 Figure 20: Walk Access to At Least One Neighborhood Destination 〉 Figure 21: Walk Access to Essential Needs
〉 Figure 22: Walk Access to K-12 Schools
〉 Figure 23: Walk Access to Major Institutions
〉 Figure 24: Walk Access to Civic and Social Needs
As shown in Table 6, 76% of residents can reach at least one neighborhood destination of any type by walking.

This is indicative that Sacramento has a fairly complete walking network with sidewalks adjacent to most roads.

However, not all types of destinations are as accessible. Significantly fewer residents have access to Essential Needs (44%) and Major Institutions (9%). People walking or rolling are generally comfortable traveling shorter distances than other modes. Since most Major Institutions are clustered within Downtown or adjacent neighborhoods, this means that only those who live in the immediate vicinity of destinations can access them.

While Essential Needs are scattered throughout Sacramento, low residential development and suburban land uses further from the City’s core increases the distance people must walk. Still, more than half of Sacramentans have access to at least one school and nearly 67% of residents have access to social or civic needs (mostly parks or recreational facilities). Schools, parks, and other civic destinations are distributed throughout the City even in less dense neighborhoods. While most people in Sacramento are able to get to some destinations while walking, there are still significant barriers that walkers face.

Table 6: Residents Walking Access via the Low Stress Network (by Census Block) Low Stress Network Access % of Residents with Access
Access to At Least One Neighborhood
Destination of Any Type
76%
Access to Essential Needs 44%
Access to K-12 Schools 57%
Access to Major Institutions 9%
Access to Social and Civic Needs 64%
34 Figure 20: Walk Access to At Least
One Neighborhood Destination
35 Figure 21: Walk Access to
Essential Needs
36 Figure 22: Walk Access
to K-12 Schools
37 Figure 23: Walk Access to
Major Institutions
38 Figure 24: Walk Access to
Civic and Social Needs
39 Observations
〉 Proximity and Directness is Critical to Access. Downtown, Midtown, and East Sacramento have significant access K-12 Schools, Essential Needs, Civic and Social Needs, as well as Major Institutions. In part this is due to both the density of the destinations themselves as well as the density of the low-stress network that allows residents to navigate the most direct path to these destinations. As destinations become more spread out and the walking network becomes less direct, as they do in Sacramento’s newer neighborhoods, walking access becomes lesser. The further from the core of Sacramento, the less dense and less accessible destinations become to walking.
〉 Not Everyone is an “Average Walker.” The analysis utilized a standard walking speed of four feet per second, as defined by FHWA. While this standard reflects the average person walking, not everyone is the “average walker”. Those who are 65 or older and those who use a mobility device walk at slower speeds1 and walking or rolling itself may be more of a challenge to these groups. Therefore, walking access for these groups may be more limited.
〉 Places to Cross Barriers (Highways, Rivers, Railroads, and High Stress Roads) are Limited. Highways, rivers, and high stress roads all create barriers to people walking. Additionally, there are few comfortable places where people can comfortably cross these barriers. The infrequency of these crossings leads to increases in the distance people must walk to get to their destination, this rendering some destinations less accessible.

There are limited crossings across the American River, which bisects northern and southern Sacramento.

While Business 80 has several crossings into and out of Downtown from surrounding neighborhoods there few low stress pedestrian crossings across Interstate 5 north or south of Sacramento, no low stress crossings across Interstate 80 within City limits, and limited crossings over State Routes 99, 50, and 160. 1 FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Lesson 15: Pedestrian Accommodations at Intersections (2013). 40 Biking Today
A complete, connected bike network that feels safe and
comfortable for people of all ages and abilities is critical to make biking a viable transportation option for travel in Sacramento. Expanding and enhancing the bicycle network throughout the city can help reduce congestion as people can choose to bike rather than drive.

Bike Facilities in Sacramento
The following are examples of bike facilities currently provided in Sacramento. Figure 25 shows the lane miles of each facility type in Sacramento today and Figure 26 maps bike facilities by type.

Shared Use Paths (Class 1) are paved trails, physically separated from motorized traffic and designed for use by nonmotorized modes of transportation. These facilities are generally considered comfortable for all users. Shared use paths run along the Sacramento River and American River, as well as in other northern neighborhoods.

Bike Lanes (Class 2) are striped lanes with pavement markings and signs that designate an exclusive lane for bicycle use only. Bike lanes are dispersed throughout the city. Bike lanes are most appropriate on lower speed and volume streets; those on multilane streets or those with higher vehicle speeds and volumes may not be comfortable for most users.

Buffered Bike Lanes (Class 2) are bike lanes with a striped buffer between the bikeway and vehicle traffic and / or adjacent parking lane. The buffers can improve user comfort.

Bike Routes (Class 3) are signed and/or marked streets where drivers share the travel lane with people biking. Bike routes may include additional traffic calming elements to improve user comfort. Bike routes on higher speed and volume roads are generally not considered comfortable for most users.

Separated Bikeways (Class 4) are exclusive spaces for bicycle use that are physically separated from other modes of traffic.

Separated bikeways can designed for one direction of traffic or bidirectional. Some forms of separation include flex posts, curbs, planters, or other forms of separation. Separated bikeways may be designed at street level or elevated to sidewalk level. These types of bikeways are generally considered comfortable for most users.

Shared Use
Paths,

78.97 mi
Bike Lanes,
258.71 mi
Buffered
Bike Lanes,

7.63 mi
Bike
Routes,

82.39 mi
Separated
Bikeways,

3.03 mi
Figure 25: Mileage of Bike Facilities by Type
41 Figure 26: Existing Bike Facilities
42 Existing and Funded Bike Projects
The City of Sacramento is implementing a number of projects to improve biking and complete streets, including:
〉 Central City Mobility Project: This project is part of the Central City Specific Plan which aims to improve connections in the urban center for walking, biking, and transit use. This project includes over 60 blocks of parking protected bikeways. 5th Street will also be converted from a one-way to a two-way street between Broadway and H Street with the addition of bike lanes in both directions. 〉 Bell Avenue Complete Streets Rehabilitation Project: Bell Avenue between Bollenbacher Avenue and Astoria Street completed improvements including new traffic signals, new bike lanes, new street lighting, and new sidewalks.
〉 Broadway Complete Streets: A two-mile corridor along Broadway between 3rd Street and 29th Street is currently in construction to have a road diet, new buffered bike lanes, new marked pedestrian crossings and refuge islands, and multi-modal improvements at intersections. 〉 Del Rio Trail Project: The Del Rio Trail includes a 4.8-mile inner-city trail that connects people biking and walking to local schools, parks, and retail centers.
〉 Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Project: Construction is targeted for 2024 to provide a friendly environment for people walking, biking, driving, and using transit. Improvements will be made to the roadway and streetscape along Franklin Boulevard between Sutterville Road/12th Avenue and 38th Avenue. 〉 Garcia Bend Trail: Part of the Sacramento River Parkway Project is to complete a levee top trail through Pocket-Greenhaven neighborhood. The project will include ADA-compliant paved trails and ramps and connections between Pocket-Greenhaven Canal Parkway and Sacramento River Parkway Project. 〉 I Street Bridge Replacement: Construction of a new bridge is planned for 2024-2027. The bridge will serve people walking, biking, driving, and using transit.
〉 Meadowview Road Streetscape: Complete in 2021, the City improved conditions for driving, biking, and walking on Meadowview Road and 24th Street. Improvements included the addition of bike lanes, construction of wider sidewalks, and implementation of public art. 〉 North 12th Complete Street Project: Construction began in Spring 2021 and involves the transformation of the North 12th Street Corridor from Richards Boulevard to H Street into a Complete Street including a Class IV separated bikeway.
〉 South Sacramento Parkway Trail West Project: Construction of a new 12-foot-wide Class I Bicycle Facility adjacent to I-5 will connect Freeport Shores Bike Trail to the North Delta Shores Bike Trail. 〉 Two Rivers Trail – Phase II: Trail construction is planned for Summer 2023 that will provide a 2.4 miles long multi-use path between Sutter’s Landing Park and H Street, by Sacramento State. The trail will serve residents of River Park and East Sacramento as a comfortable and convenient way to travel into downtown Sacramento.
43 Bicycle Comfort
While some people may be comfortable riding a bike in any type of environment, neighborhood connections are focused on creating places to bike which are comfortable for anyone, regardless of their age, skills, or ability. To evaluate how comfortable it is to bike on Sacramento’s streets, an analysis of Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) was completed. LTS is a method of quantifying the perceived sense of comfort for a person biking along a given roadway. As with walking, a variety of factors are known to influence comfort for biking, such as the speed and volume of traffic, presence and type of bicycle facility, and the design of the road.4,5 LTS Scoring
The criteria shown in Table 7 were used to determine the LTS scores shown in Figure 27 for each street and bike facility in Sacramento considering that roadways without designated bike infrastructure are analyzed as “Mixed Traffic.”
Table 7: Level of Traffic Stress Criteria for Streets in Sacramento Posted
Speed Limit
Number of
Lanes
Mixed Traffic /
Bike Routes
Bicycle
Boulevards
Striped
Bike Lane
Buffered
Bike Lane
Protected
Bikeway
Shared
Use Path
25 MPH or
Lower
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4+ Lanes
30 MPH
2 Lanes
3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
35 MPH
2 - 3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
40 MPH or
Greater
2 - 3 Lanes
4-5 Lanes
6+ Lanes
*For the purposes of this analysis, bicycle boulevards are defined as mixed traffic streets with at least one traffic calming device present.

LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
44 Figure 27: Bike LTS
45 Biking Conditions
LTS helps measure biking stress, but there are many other conditions which may impact a person’s level of comfort when biking. For example, observed speeds of people driving on the roadway, conditions of the infrastructure, the number of driveways that interrupt the bike path, and width or type of separation from vehicles can also impact user comfort. These factors may deter people from biking or using existing biking infrastructure when provided. This analysis includes surface streets and shared use paths, but freeways are not analyzed as walking and biking is prohibited.

Bike Lanes
Bike lanes make up a large portion of the bike infrastructure in Sacramento, but many of these bike lanes are on multi-lane and multi-lane roadways with higher speeds. Some bike lanes are combined with parking or are very narrow next to parking and do not provide enough space for the person biking to fully fit in the lane. These uncomfortable routes may push people riding to find alternative, circuitous routes or deter people from biking all together. In some cases, high stress bike lanes may result in some people riding on sidewalks or in the opposite direction of traffic.

Traffic Calming and Bicycle Routes
Low stress local and residential streets make up a large part of the existing bike network. This can pose a major challenge, as previously mentioned, as observed speeds – even on residential roads – may be higher than the posted speed limit. Traffic calming elements can help slow speeds and make it more comfortable to bike in mixed traffic. See Figure 17 for locations of existing traffic calming.

Intersections
Intersections are also uniquely challenging for people biking. Several bike lanes terminate before reaching the intersection, or do not pick up on the other side of the intersection, forcing people biking to jostle for space with cars potentially traveling high speeds and over multiple lanes as seen. Often where a bike lane is provided through an intersection, right turn pockets for cars conflict with the bike lane, requiring people biking to negotiate space with traffic regardless. Finally, with some exceptions, there is no dedicated method for people riding to turn left or right through intersections often requiring riders to exit any dedicated biking infrastructure into traffic.

Sacramento has implemented intersection improvements to enhance biking comfort, including:

Protected Intersections physically
separate bicycles from motor
vehicles through the intersection
providing people biking with a
sense of safety and comfort for all
ages and abilities. Bicycle signal
heads may also be provided.

Bike Boxes A designated area in the
front of the traffic lane at a
signalized intersection to provide
people biking a designated space
to wait ahead of traffic during the
red light.

Conflict Striping includes intersection
crossing markings to indicate a clear
path through an intersection for
people biking and alert drivers to the
presence of people biking.
46 Where are People Biking?
Strava and Replica data are used to identify biking trends in the City. For biking, Strava is advertised to recreational, and sports riders and the data collected is from a self-selecting pool of typically whiter, wealthier, and more athletic individuals. Replica utilizes a variety of sources to create a simulation of an area to model where people are going. Since Strava is self-reporting and Replica is a model that predicts travel patterns, both are useful tools to understand where people bike.

Strava Data
Figure 28 shows where people who use Strava are biking. Some conclusions from this data indicate higher levels of biking occur at:
〉 Shared use paths including Sacramento River Bike Trail and Jedediah Smith Memorial Trail/American River Bike Trail.
〉 On bike lanes within Downtown and Midtown.
〉 Along major collectors and minor collectors in Pocket-Greenhaven. 〉 On local roads in East Sacramento.

Replica Data
Replica data is mapped in Figure 29 showing the frequency of biking trips overlaid compared to concentrations of neighborhood destinations. Comparing Strava and Replica, bike trips follow similar patterns with concentrations in Downtown and Midtown, along arterials that lead to neighborhoods, and along shared use paths that follow along the rivers. As there are a lot of people biking within the Central City, it also has the densest bike destinations per square mile. This is in part because of the grid street network and the commercial opportunities that the central business district provides. The further away from the Central City, the less dense bike destinations become, which follow similar patterns to the frequency of bike trips that occur in and throughout those neighborhoods.
47 Figure 28: Strava Bike Heat Map
Low Activity
High Activity
48 Figure 29: Frequent Biking Trips
49 Biking Assessment
People biking experience the roadway differently than drivers and may be dissuaded from riding or walking entirely if the infrastructure does not feel safe. Bike LTS was used to establish a “Low Stress Network” where people biking would feel comfortable using to access destinations and develop biking sheds. Steps in the biking assessment include:
〉 Determine key destinations (see Figure 13).
〉 Define the low stress network and crossings and identify barriers for people biking. The analysis assumes people of all ages and abilities will bike along low stress streets and cross at low stress intersections, but that not all people will utilize higher stress streets or intersections. The network and barriers were determined as follows:
• Low Stress Network: includes streets and paths with a bike LTS of 1 or 2. • Low Stress Crossings: all intersections of streets with a bike LTS of 1 or 2, signalized intersections, and signalized mid-block crossings were considered comfortable to cross. • Street Barriers: high stress streets for biking (LTS 3 or 4). These streets are not displayed or analyzed as part of the network.
• Crossing Barriers: Any intersection with at least one street with a bike LTS of 3 or 4 without a signalized crossing was considered a barrier and removed from the analysis. 〉 Bikesheds (the area people can comfortably bike from a given destination) were created utilizing GIS for a typical bike rider that travels 8 MPH, or up to 2 miles, on a 15-minute trip. People riding electric bikes and athletic riders may be capable of higher average speeds can likely access more destinations than the typical rider; however, using the typical rider allows the sheds to reflect a greater portion of the biking population. Using Census Block data, population estimates were calculated to estimate how many residents reside within each bikeshed.

Figure 30 shows an illustrative example of the analysis of a 15-minute bike shed for the typical rider. Notably, the Low Stress Network is not continuous enough to provide typical riders access to the K-12 schools in the area. Higher Learning Academy has a barrier along Main Avenue as it is a 40MPH road with unsignalized intersections.

This segregates the northern portion of the neighborhood from accessing the school.

The results of the analysis can be seen the
following figures as follows:
〉 Figure 31: Bike Access to At Least One
Neighborhood Destination
〉 Figure 32: Bike Access to Essential Needs
〉 Figure 33: Bike Access to K-12 Schools
〉 Figure 34: Bike Access to Major Institutions
〉 Figure 35: Bike Access to Civic and Social Needs
Table 8 shows that 66% of residents can access at least one of the neighborhood destinations evaluated using the Low Stress Network. Just over half of residents can bike to a nearby school and essential needs by bike, but suburban neighborhoods have less access to these needs than the urban core. Most of the major institutions are clustered in Downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, making it so only 17% of people are able to access them. Finally, just over half of residents can reach social and civic needs including parks or recreation.

Table 8: Residents Biking Access via the Low Stress Network (by Census Block) Low Stress Network Access % of Residents with Access
Access to At Least One Neighborhood
Destination of Any Type
66%
Access to Essential Needs 47%
Access to K-12 Schools 54%
Access to Major Institutions 17%
Access to Social and Civic Needs 54%
Figure 30: 15-Minute Bike Shed Network
50 Figure 31: Bike Access to At Least
One Neighborhood Destination
51 Figure 32: Bike Access to
Essential Needs
Figure 33: Bike Access
to K-12 Schools
53 Figure 34: Bike Access
to Major Institutions
Figure 35: Bike Access to
Civic and Social Needs
55 Observations
〉 North-South Connections Across Rivers are Limited. There are few connections across the American River making access to each bridge critical for people walking and biking between north and south Sacramento. While the Sacramento Northern Bikeway provides a connection to Pipe’s Bridge across the American River trail, there are limited signalized intersections across 16th Street making accessing the 18th Street or C Street entrance either a circuitous journey, or one people biking may choose not to take. 〉 Freeways Limit Crossings. Freeways act as significant barriers to people walking and biking and require bridges over and/or under roads for multimodal connectivity. Not all roadways that cross over freeways feel safe and comfortable for people riding, limiting the amount of locations to cross even further. There is higher density of low stress roads to cross Business 80 in and out of Downtown compared with suburban developments further from the core. I-5 north and south of Downtown and I-80 in particular, has very few low stress crossings available to people biking.
〉 Suburban Residents are Most Disconnected from Daily Needs, Schools, and Major Institutions. Many essential needs, schools, and major institutions that are located in suburban communities are located along high stress corridors. Access is limited due in part to the location of the entrances and exits of destinations being placed along these high stress roads, effectively cutting them off from the entire neighborhood. If an entrance is available along a low stress side road, the destination then only becomes available to those who live on the same side of the road as the destination itself. Some examples include:
• In the Pocket neighborhood, the Grocery Outlet only has access on high stress roadways preventing residents from being able to comfortably bike there even though it is within a bikeable distance for most.
• A notable inaccessible destination is the State Office of Civil Defense, located in the South Area. • John F Kennedy High School only has access points on Gloria Drive and Florin Road which are high stress roads making it in accessible to residents even though it is surrounded by a residential neighborhood. 〉 Posted Speeds do not Match Roadway Context. Many roadways, such as Woodbine Avenue, C Street, or Pocket Road, are two lane roads along residential or urban contexts that are posted 30 MPH yet may be narrow, or have traffic calming (such as speed bumps), or have curves. These features encourage drivers to travel at lower speeds than the posted speed. These roadways with a lower posted speed may be appropriate for mixed traffic. However, they may show up as high stress roads in this analysis due to the posted speeds. Therefore, the actual user experience may differ from this analysis in select instances.

56 Micromobility Today
Scooters and E-bikes comprise the micromobility, or
“shared-rideables”, system in the City of Sacramento.

To prioritize pedestrian safety as per the California
Vehicle Code (CVC)6, motorized scooters are not
allowed for use on the sidewalks, and bicycles on
sidewalks must yield to people walking, including
providing an audible warning if passing a person
walking. Ride Report keeps an updated dashboard
totaling average vehicles (scooters and E-bikes), total trips, total distance, average trip speed, and
micromobility volumes.

Sacramento saw heavy micromobility usage prior to the
COVID-19 pandemic. While usage levels have not
reached pre-pandemic volumes, usage is constant,
with annual trip peaks in the spring and summer
months. Over the last year, more than 455,000 trips were made, totaling over 558,000 miles traveled.

K Street is a high-volume area for ridership. From
January 2019 to June 2023, several segments (stretch of roadway along one block) of K Street yielded 4% to 7%
of all trips (over 100,000 trips per segment, sometimes over 200,000). Capitol Mall was another location with
high rider volumes.

Rules & Regulations
The City of Sacramento and State of California have
adopted the following regulations related to
micromobility:
〉 Scooters are not permitted to use sidewalks; they
must operate in the street or in bike lanes (per
CVC).
〉 Micromobility devices shall not block sidewalks or
curb ramps and should be parked at drop zones of
bike racks (per City regulation).
〉 People may ride bikes on sidewalks, but must yield
to people walking (per CVC).

These regulations are relevant to Neighborhood
Connections. People often choose to ride on sidewalks
because the street does not feel safe, whether or not
there is infrastructure on it. Providing well designed, signed, and traffic calmed neighborhood connections
can help people feel safer when following the rules of
the road.

Figure 36. Micromobility volumes April – June 2023
57 Transit in Sacramento
Transit services in Sacramento are provided by Sacramento Regional Transit. Amtrak also serves Sacramento and provides regional connectivity. Transit routes provide important access and connectivity to key destinations and regional access to employment, education, shopping, and services. Therefore, transit stops are daily destinations for many people in Sacramento. Since most people walk, bike, or roll to reach transit stops, understanding where they are located is an important element in the development of the Neighborhood Connections.

Transit Today
The following types of transit services are available in Sacramento:
〉 Fixed Bus Route Services includes 58 routes throughout the city, providing riders connections to their homes, work, school, and other key destinations. These routes operate every day from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m. every 12 to 60 minutes, depending on the route.
〉 Light Rail Service includes 3 lines: Gold, Green, and Blue and spans almost 43 miles, 52 stations, and 97 vehicles. Service runs from 4 a.m. to midnight on weekdays (10:30 PM on weekends) and runs every 15 minutes during the day and every 30 minutes for the early morning and later evening trips. The Green Line train only operates on the weekday, while the Blue and Gold Line trains operate on the weekends until 10:30 p.m.
〉 SmaRT Ride Microtransit Service is an on-demand services where riders can use a smartphone app to request a ride that will pick up and drop off passengers within one of the eight service areas. 〉 The Neighborhood Ride is a community bus service of smaller shuttles running within communities. These shuttles operate along fixed routes but are able to deviate off their fixed routes up to ¾ mile to pick up and drop off seniors and passengers with disabilities. Routes are operated by SacRT’s Community Bus Service division and serve residents and employers. These services include the North Natomas Jibe Express, Rancho CardoVan, and The Neighborhood Ride.
〉 SacRT Go Paratransit Services offer door-to-door service and are provided for people with disabilities who may be otherwise unable to use the fixed route systems including the local bus and light rail services.

Routes and high ridership stops can be seen in Figure 37, along with the light rail stops. In total, there are over 1,700 bus stops in Sacramento with varying amenities including shelters, trash cans, lighting, seating, and / or others. The areas with the highest utilization include:
〉 J Street, L Street, 9th Street, and 10th Street in
Central City
〉 29th and 30th Street in Midtown
〉 Florin Road in Pocket-Greenhaven and South
Sacramento
〉 Broadway in Land Park and Oak Park
〉 Stockton Boulevard in Fruitridge/Broadway
〉 Several other key intersections throughout the City
Light rail amenities in Midtown Bus lane only in PocketGreenhavenBus shelter in Natomas 58 Figure 37: Transit Routes
59 Where are Crashes Occurring?
Safety is a top concern for anyone who walks, bikes, rides transit, and drives. The City of Sacramento continues to work to make its streets safer for all users through its Vision Zero efforts. The City has identified a High Injury Network, which identifies the corridors with the highest level of fatal and serious injury crashes for people walking, biking, and driving. The High Injury network generally includes major arterials throughout the City as well as many streets in Downtown and Midtown.

In addition to the Vision Zero
efforts, the Streets for People
plan has identified the top 10
collision intersections for
people walking and biking in
Sacramento. These sites are
often located at the
intersections of two high injury
network segments. For more
information on the analysis
performed, please see the
Streets for People Existing
Conditions Report.

Some relevant key conclusions
were drawn for streets posted
with low (20-30 MPH) speeds
which may be relevant in the
planning for neighborhood
connections according to the
California Transportation Injury
Monitoring System (TIMS) data
from 2016 through 2020, in
Sacramento. Figure 38 shows
the key findings from the
Streets for People analysis of
crashes on low speeds roads
involving people walking or
biking who were killed or
seriously injured (KSI) in the crash.

As can be seen in Figure 39, most of the severe crashes involving people walking and biking occurred along the High Injury Network, which generally follows arterials and collectors. There are exceptions to this statement.

Most streets in Midtown and Downtown show up on the High Injury Network. Oak Park and North Sacramento also saw more frequent deaths and serious injuries on all kinds of streets, particularly those surrounding Del Paso Boulevard and Arden Way. While there are destinations on the High Injury Network, Neighborhood Connections may provide more comfortable alternative or additional routes to the destinations.

Figure 38: Key Facts: Low Speed Roads
60 Figure 39: Walking and Biking Crashes
61 All Crashes All KSI
Crashes
Pedestrian
All
Peddestrian
KSI
Bike All Bike KSI
60% 64% 69% 72% 62% 72%
40% 36% 31% 28% 38% 28%
In Disadvantaged Communities Outside of Disadvantaged Communities Figure 41: Crashes in Disadvantaged Communities
How Equitable is Our System?
Transportation equity is about more than making sure people have comfortable places to walk and bike. As discussed in Our Social Needs, different population groups have different needs when it comes to transportation. We also know that historically in the United States, transportation decisions have had greater negative impacts on racial and ethnic minority groups. These groups often stand to gain the most from transportation improvements today when those investments meet their unique needs.

To understand how equitable the Sacramento transportation system is today, a screening was conducted based on the previous analyses as compared to Disadvantaged Communities. For the purposes of this analysis the definition of Disadvantaged Communities can be found in the Our Social Needs section and mapped in Figure 9. The findings include:
〉 Comfort for People Walking: 57% of
street miles considered
uncomfortable streets for walking
(those scoring a 3 or 4 on the
comfort scale) are in
Disadvantaged Communities.

Regarding comfortable streets
(those scoring 1 or 2 on the comfort
scale), 45% of street miles are
located in Disadvantaged
Communities.
〉 Comfort for People Biking: As with
walking, street miles considered
uncomfortable for biking (those
scoring LTS 3 or 4) are slightly
overrepresented in Disadvantaged
Communities and comfortable
streets are slightly
underrepresented. 54% of LTS 3 or 4
street miles and 45% of LTS 1 or 2
street miles are located in
Disadvantaged Communities.
〉 Bike Facilities: Approximately 45% of streets with bike facilities are located within Disadvantaged Communities. As shown in Figure 40, the most comfortable facilities (Class 1 and IV) are more often located in Disadvantaged Communities than in other places.
〉 Traffic Calmed Streets: Approximately 56% of traffic calmed streets are located in Disadvantaged Communities.
〉 Households with No Vehicles: Approximately 11% of households in Disadvantaged Communities do not have access to a vehicle, whereas only 7% do not have access to a vehicle citywide. 〉 Crashes: Generally, all crash types, including those involving people who are killed or seriously injured (KSI), are overrepresented in Disadvantaged Communities, as shown in Figure 41. 92%
44%
44%
55%
8%
56%
56%
45%
In Disadvantaged Communities
Outside of Disadvantaged Communities
Class 4 Separated
Bike Lanes
Class 3 Shared
Streets
Class 2 Bike Lanes &
Buffered Bike Lanes
Class 1 Shared
Use Path
Figure 40: Bike Facility Types in Disadvantaged Communities 62 Chapter 5: Summary and Key Findings
The existing conditions analysis findings can be summarized into the following themes. These themes will be combined with engagement results to create a baseline for the development of Neighborhood Connections.

Findings Considerations for Next Steps
Land Use Patterns. Existing land use patterns contribute to accessibility differences between neighborhoods. There are high concentrations of destinations in places like Midtown, Downtown, and East Sacramento. Therefore, residents of
these neighborhoods have greater access to destinations; they essentially operate as 15-minute neighborhoods today.

Conversely, neighborhoods like Pocket-Greenhaven, South Sacramento, and North Sacramento have sparser
development patterns and comparatively less access.
〉 Consider placing a greater focus on areas
where destinations are not already easily
accessible.
〉 Identify opportunities for small interventions to
increase access for people walking in already
walkable areas.

Destination Location & Access. There are marked
differences in development patterns which impact access.

Some neighborhood commercial destinations, schools, and other daily needs are designed to front local streets where people can easily walk or bike to access them. On the
other hand, in areas like Natomas, schools and commercial destinations are often located on major roads making them easier or more comfortable to access via driving.
〉 Identify place types based on land use and
transportation characteristics which can help
determine potential treatments.
〉 Identify improvements to low stress streets and
potential new connections to provide access
to destinations without using higher stress / less
comfortable roads.

Traffic Calming. The City of Sacramento has installed a variety of traffic calming treatments throughout the City.

However, residents continue to state a desire for additional traffic calming features and slow street treatments.
〉 Work with staff and community residents to
understand which traffic calming treatments
work best to slow traffic and increase comfort.
〉 Utilize place types / context as another input
into determining appropriate traffic calming
improvements.

Barriers. Freeways, railroads, and rivers create barriers for people walking and biking which are difficult to address.

Because the number of available crossings of these barriers are infrequent, people walking or biking are forced to travel longer distances to get around them or use high-stress
facilities. As a result, they may choose not to cross them or may instead choose to drive.
〉 Consider improvements which can make it
easier for people to walk and bike to local
destinations without crossing major barriers.
〉 Work with the Streets for People Team to
identify priority crossings for neighborhood
connections where feasible.

Safety. Crashes of all types appear to be overrepresented in Disadvantaged Communities. Additionally, the crash
analysis suggests crashes often occur away from
intersections. People walking and biking are often involved in crashes when crossing outside of crosswalks or biking in the wrong direction. These behaviors suggest the roadway design is not meeting the needs of users. For example,
signalized crossings may not be placed frequently enough. 〉 Continue placing and emphasis on traffic
calming treatments in Disadvantaged
Communities.
〉 Identify crossing improvements across
Collector and Arterial roads, including
standards for crossing frequency so people
can access their destinations without
significant out of direction travel.

Transportation System Equity. While much of the Class 1 and 4 facilities (which are most comfortable to most users) have been installed in Disadvantaged Communities, there are still relatively low lane miles of these facilities overall and they do not form a complete network.
〉 Continue to place a focus on improving
streets in Disadvantaged Communities, but
also include similar improvements in other
communities.
〉 Identify improvements to create a connected
network of low stress walking and biking
facilities which connect all communities,
providing access to opportunity for all
Sacramentans.

Appendix A
Links and Sources
64 Links and Sources
1) Slow & Active Streets Pilot Evaluation
2) H&T Index from CNT for Sacramento
3) Health and Land-Use Mix
4) Designing for All Ages and Abilities: Contextual Guidance for High-Comfort Bicycle Facilities 5) Mineta Low Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity 6) California Vehicle Code (CVC)
Notes
For all analysis based on Census blocks or tracts it is noted that city boundaries do not align fully with census geographies and therefore census-based analysis may slightly overestimate census population. Even so, analysis results should accurately predict results for people living in Sacramento.

Appendix B
National Peer Cities Review
Appendix B
Sacramento
Neighborhood
Connections Plan
National Peer Cities Review
FINAL December 2023
2 Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................3 Report Purpose ............................................................................................................................................3 Peer City Selection ......................................................................................................................................3 Peer City Review .............................................................................................................................................4 Boston, Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................4 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................... 4 Boston’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features...................................................................................... 4 Lessons Learned for Sacramento.......................................................................................................................... 5 Minneapolis, Minnesota ..............................................................................................................................6 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................... 6 Minneapolis’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features............................................................................ 6 Lessons Learned for Sacramento.......................................................................................................................... 7 Portland, Oregon.........................................................................................................................................8 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................... 8 Portland’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features................................................................................... 8 Lessons Learned for Sacramento.......................................................................................................................... 9 Oakland, California...................................................................................................................................10 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................. 10 Oakland’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features................................................................................ 10 Lessons Learned for Sacramento........................................................................................................................ 11 Denver, Colorado......................................................................................................................................12 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................. 12 Denver’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features................................................................................... 12 Lessons Learned for Sacramento........................................................................................................................ 13 Austin, Texas...............................................................................................................................................14 Urban Form and City Characteristics................................................................................................................. 14 Austin’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features ..................................................................................... 14 Lessons Learned for Sacramento........................................................................................................................ 15 Summary of Findings..................................................................................................................................16 Common Elements.................................................................................................................................................. 16 Unique Differences.................................................................................................................................................. 17 3 Introduction
Report Purpose
The City of Sacramento is working to identify projects to make it safer and more comfortable for people to walk and bike on neighborhood streets. 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 purpose of this peer city review was to examine how other US cities have implemented slow streets and multi-modal neighborhood routes that feel safe and comfortable to people of all ages and abilities. This review of common elements and lessons learned among all the peer cities will help inform best practices for the design and implementation of neighborhood streets in Sacramento that feel safe and comfortable.

Peer City Selection
A long list of potential cities for review was developed based on an assessment of cities throughout the Unites States which are successfully implementing slow streets. The list of cities identified as potential peer cities included seven California cities and twelve additional US cities. 〉 Santa Monica, CA
〉 San Francisco, CA
〉 Berkeley, CA
〉 Oakland, CA
〉 Davis, CA
〉 Palo Alto, CA
〉 San Jose, CA
〉 Long Beach, CA
〉 Portland, OR
〉 Seattle, WA
〉 Houston, TX
〉 Austin, TX
〉 Denver, CO
〉 Fort Collins, CO
〉 Tucson, AZ
〉 Minneapolis, MN
〉 Philadelphia, PA
〉 New York City, NY
〉 Boston, MA
The 19 selected potential peer cities reviewed were then scored and filtered based on six characteristics (Figure 1), and a total of six cities (Figure 2) were selected for in-depth review. The goal of this peer selection is to highlight the similarities these cities have with Sacramento, as well as the state of their current slow streets and neighborhood routes networks.

Figure 1. Peer city selection criteria
Figure 2. Final six peer cities
4 Peer City Review
Boston, Massachusetts
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Boston spans 48.3 square miles and is home to 649,768 residents.

This gives the City a population density of approximately 13,440 people per square mile, nearly three times that of Sacramento.

While Boston streets do function as a sort of grid system, it is less grid-like than a lot of other America cities.

The City is served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority public transit lines. Popular modes of land public transit through the MBTA include commuter rails, subway lines (one of the oldest in the US), and bus routes. The commuter rail has over 10 lines and over 130 active stations. The subway system is comprised of four lines, with the Red Line being the most used and serving 122,000 customers each weekday.

Boston’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features
Vision Zero Boston is taking a “people-first approach to transportation and community building.” This complements the City’s desire to achieve 15-minute city status through a variety of approaches. To achieve its goals, Boston is taking action from several angles, ranging from traditional planning, design, and implementation, to identifying high crash networks, to a more unique method of gamification, always with
some key components in mind:
〉 Redesigned streetscapes that include space for
walking, biking, and gathering.
〉 Accessible commercial spaces.
〉 Diverse housing options.
〉 Diverse and empowered resident populations.
〉 Strong social infrastructure.

The Neighborhood Slow Streets Program, though no longer active, ran successfully from 2016, when a pilot study was first conducted, to 2023. This program has developed and constructed traffic-calming projects in 15 Boston neighborhoods, with the final round of construction for the four selected neighborhoods slated for Fall of 2023. Participating neighborhoods submitted applications for traffic calming projects which were scored via a variety of categories, such as support, population under 18 and 65 or older, number of destionations, crashes, proximity to transit, and streets identified as walking and biking routes in previous plans. The selected neighborhoods received traffic calming improvements and adopted a residential speed limit of 20 mph.

Now, with the Slow Streets Program ending, Boston is separating their installation of speed humps from their intersection redesign projects to bring safety tools to neighborhoods more quickly. Their primary tool for achieving slower streets is their speed hump installation, with a plan to install up to 500 speed humps annually.

The City plans to design and install speed humps on all eligible streets with spacing of approximately 150 to 350 feet, so community members no longer need to request traffic calming separately, and the City no longer hosts community engagement sessions regarding speed hump installation as they are a standard design. Boston publishes an online map which shows streets eligible for traffic calming, streets being studied, streets with planned improvements, and streets which have already received traffic calming.

Additionally, Boston’s Safest Driver Competition was implemented as a pilot study in 2016 and a full-scale 12- week competition in 2019. Through a smartphone application, participants driving habits were monitored and scored, with a particular focus on five dangerous driving behaviors: speeding, rapid acceleration, harsh braking, sharp cornering, and phone use. In both 2016 and 2019, significant reductions (30% and greater) were observed in all five unsafe behavior categories.

Figure 4. Level of comfort by bike lane type.

Figure 3. MBTA transit map.
5 Boston is actively implementing roadway features from their safer crossing, safer turns, and safer speeds toolkits. One example is their provision of Neighborways, which give priority to bicyclists and pedestrians in residential areas. Another example is their default speed limit reduction from 30 mph to 25 mph, which was complemented by more than doubling the number of speed feedback signs. As Boston continues to strive for their goals, they continue to aggressively implement change in their streets.

Bicycle project statistics:
〉 3 recently completed projects.
〉 8 bike network projects currently in progress, featuring speed humps and separated bike lanes.
〉 15 projects in design for 2023.
〉 9 projects in design for 2024 and onward.

Lessons Learned for Sacramento
Boston saw decreases in both pedestrian/cyclist crashes and injuries from 2016 to 2017 as well as a drop in the overall number of fatal crashes (2015: 20; 2016: 21; 2017: 14). This may indicate that Boston’s actions are effective and worth replicating to some degree. 〉 Operating on an annual schedule for implementing traffic calming yielded regular progress and visible results.
〉 Inviting the community to request traffic calming features and then scoring applications based on transparent metrics helped build support from the community and equitably distribute improvements. 〉 Publishing an online map helps residents understand where traffic calming is feasible and where projects have been implemented or are planned in the future.
〉 Integrating land use to identify context appropriate traffic calming features in residential neighborhoods resulted in slower traffic, reduced crashes, and comfortable walking and biking routes on local streets. 〉 The City’s unique use of gamification to reduce aggressive and dangerous driving habits saw participation from a few thousand residents. This can be a fun and interactive way to reach various resident groups throughout a City to get them engaged in being a part of the change.

Figure 5. Completed and ongoing
j t
6 Minneapolis, Minnesota
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Minneapolis spans 54 square miles and is home to 425,104 residents, giving it a population density of approximately 7,900 people per square mile. Based on a traditional grid system, Minneapolis’ layout reflects a high degree of planning. Most of the breaks in their grid are due to bodies of water, such as the Mississippi River, and park areas. Metro Transit serves the City through bus routes, a METRO network comprised of light rail trains and bus rapid transit, and the Northstar Commuter Rail.

Additionally, the Minneapolis Skyway System is a network of enclosed footbridges covering 80 blocks over 9.5 miles of Downtown Minneapolis.

Minneapolis’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features
Minneapolis is striving for a 15-minute walkable city where 3 out of every 5 trips are taken by walking, biking, or transit by 2030 (Transportation Action Plan). The City is well on its way to achieving this goal, already sporting an unusually high bicycling trip rate, with 4.1% of residents riding their bicycle to work and 19% of all trips being made by people walking, rolling, or biking.

One way Minneapolis is focusing on bicyclist and pedestrian safety and mobility is through their Traffic Calming Program, which operates on a strict annual schedule with five basic phases:
1) Traffic calming request forms are collected from the public (Figure 7). The City identifies eligible streets via an online map prior to releasing the request for projects so residents know which streets are feasible.
2) Initial screening and preliminary scoring phase using transportation- and community-based criteria such as
traffic volumes, safety, equity, and destinations.

Community meetings are held with top scoring
communities to identify traffic safety concerns.
3) Data collection and design recommendation.
4) Final scoring and final design phase. A second round of community meetings is held to get feedback on the recommended traffic calming improvements and implementation timelines. Where more than one treatment may be appropriate, community members are invited to identify their preferred treatment.
5) Implementation. During this phase, the City turns to their ‘Traffic Calming Toolbox’ (Neighborhood Traffic Calming Report) and list of safety treatments (Vision Zero Action Plan) (Figure 8). Quick build treatments may be installed at this time. After installation, the City monitors the impact and either adjusts the treatment, re-installs the treatment with permanent materials, or re-evaluates the treatment.

Based on their 2023 traffic calming projects map (Figure 8) their preferred strategies for achieving slow streets are speed humps, bollards to reduce crossing distances for vulnerable road users, and traffic circles. Other initiatives taken to achieve their goal are through their Complete Streets (2021) and Vision Zero plans. The Complete Streets plan aims for city streets and sidewalks to foster “livable, walkable, bicycle-friending, green neighborhoods”, with safety initiatives complemented by the Vision Zero plan. The Vision Zero plan provides a list of safety treatments, including but not limited to:
〉 Slow turn wedges and removing highspeed turn lanes.
〉 Intersection daylighting.
〉 Leading pedestrian and bicyclist intervals.
〉 Medians and pedestrian safety islands.
〉 Crosswalk visibility and pavement marking
enhancements.
〉 Protected bicycle lanes and bikeway
medians.
〉 Street lighting improvements.

Figure 7. Traffic calming request map.

Figure 6. A portion of the City's public transit
7 The goal of these treatments is to reduce dangerous vehicle speeds. The strategy is to pilot speed control measures on busier streets and evaluate the results of implementing the speed control measures to determine the possibility of expanding their implementation at additional locations. In addition to these efforts, the City reduced residential speeds to 20 mph, using signs along the city border to alert drivers of the new limit.

Lessons Learned for Sacramento
Minneapolis has a very high walking, rolling, and biking trip rate but is battling a high number of severe and fatal injury crashes. Two-thirds of these crashes can be attributed to 9% of the City’s streets. Their actions are in response to this disproportionate distribution and heightened crash numbers.
〉 Operating on a strict annual schedule for implementing traffic calming services has served the City well.
〉 Using public requests as an integral part of that process has kept Minneapolis honest in effectively serving its residents where there is the highest public demand as well as the highest objective need. 〉 Releasing an online map of eligible streets helps residents understand where traffic calming requests may be considered.
〉 Integrating quick build treatments and monitoring the results allows city staff to make adjustments to treatments before permanent installation.
〉 Like Boston, Minneapolis has adopted a slow streets speed of 20 mph. With Boston’s recent success in reducing bicycle and pedestrian crashes and injuries, this may indicate significant safety benefits associated with the 20-mph speed limit.

Figure 8. 2023 traffic calming projects.
8 Portland, Oregon
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Portland spans 133.5 square miles and is home to 635,296 residents, giving it a population density just slightly less than Sacramento at approximately 4,800 people per square mile. With the Willamette River dividing the east and west sides and Burnside Street dividing the north and south, Portland residents refer to the City’s six main geographical areas as “quadrants”. The City operates on a traditional grid system and is serviced by TriMet, the public transportation service providing buses, the MAX Light Rail, and the WES Commuter Rail (Figure 9).

Portland’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features
Despite having one of the lowest traffic fatality rates among the largest fifty US cities, Portland has had a steady fatality rate over the last 20 years. To combat this statistic, the City adopted Vision Zero in 2015, a unanimous decision yielding a 26-member Vision Zero task force. The focus areas of the Vision Zero plan include street design, impairment, speed, education and enforcement, and community, each of which supports other transportation endeavors, such as slow streets and 15-minute city initiatives.

Portland’s neighborhood greenways network (Figure 10) is one way the City is implementing change to build a safer multimodal network. Neighborhood greenways are low-traffic and low-speed streets which aim to accommodate walkers, bikers, and rollers of all ages and abilities. Strategies to implement them include speed bumps, protected crossings, traffic
diversion, wayfinding signs, and sharrow street markings.

Residents living on a neighborhood greenway are able to order a free neighborhood greenway sign through the City which displays the 15 mph speed limit. Currently, Portland has over 100 miles of neighborhood greenways which connect key destinations and act as the backbone for the Safe Routes to School network. For Neighborhood Greenways, Portland has identified targets such as 20 mph as the 85th percentile speed, a goal of 1,000 average daily traffic (2,000 max), and a goal of 100 pedestrian crossing opportunities per hour where
greenways cross major streets.

Portland’s Slow Streets Program was a component of their Safe Streets Initiative, a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In May of 2020, Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT)
converted 100 miles of low-traffic streets and neighborhood greenways into slow streets to restrict through traffic and create space for safer walking, biking, rolling, and strolling. This quick implementation was made possible by use of temporary infrastructure, including temporary traffic barrels and signs. Slow street locations were selected by identifying locations on neighborhood greenways (quiet, slow streets that prioritize active transportation). Additionally, the locations had to meet one of the following criteria:
〉 Streets lacking sidewalks.
〉 More than 1/4 of a mile from parks or
open space.
〉 Streets with higher traffic volumes or
speeds that make it challenging to walk,
bike, or roll.
〉 Adjacent to multifamily housing.
〉 Streets with demonstrated support from
public health and black, indigenous, and
people of color (BIPOC) focused
community organizations.

Figure 9. TriMet service map.

Figure 11. Permanent and temporary Slow Street
installation on neighborhood greenways.

Figure 10. Neighborhood greenways map.
9 This Slow Streets Program was received well among
City residents, and the PBOT received over 2,000 public comments on the Slow Streets program with strong
support for the installations and their impact on local streets. Now, as the City transitions from response
phase to recovery phase, Portland is continuing to
keep slow speeds and encourage low traffic volumes
(Figure 11). This includes transitioning from temporary features to permanent concrete planters with 15-mph
signage.

Through Portland’s interactive Vision Zero dashboard,
it’s easy to see the data-driven changes that are
being made throughout the City (Figure 12 and Figure
13). One of these changes is a widespread reduction
in speed. Now, 76% of the 2,100 miles (does not
include freeways) of streets in Portland have a 20-mph
speed limit.

Lessons Learned for Sacramento
Portland is working hard to see a decrease in the
number of crash-induced injuries, as well as crash and
injury rates.
〉 Portland capitalized on the COVID-19 pandemic to
make rapid changes to their active transportation
infrastructure, which was received more than well
throughout the community. The key to their rapid
implementation was wide use of temporary
infrastructure, but this infrastructure was maintained
until permanent solutions could be put in place.
〉 Portland’s guidance regarding crossing
opportunities where greenways cross major streets
helps create usable connections for people walking and biking. 〉 The strategy behind their more permanent infrastructure has been placement of concrete planters far enough into the intersection that they slow down cross-traffic on larger streets. These planters double as signage and traffic-calming tools.

Figure 13. Speed limit reductions from 2019-2021.

Figure 12. High crash network safety improvements.
10 Oakland, California
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Oakland spans 56 square miles and is home to 430,531
residents. This gives it a population density of approximately 7,700 people per square mile, around 2,000 more people
per square mile than Sacramento. The City’s Street network generally follows a grid pattern and Oakland provides two main public transit services: the Bay Area Rapid Transit (the “BART”) an all-electric train service and the AC Transit bus system (Figure 14).

Oakland’s Approach: Overview and
Unique Features
Like Portland, Oakland capitalized on the COVID-19
pandemic by using temporary materials to close 21 miles of streets to through traffic. While this temporary infrastructure was removed in 2022, a framework is now in development
for implementing permanent Slow Streets. The Slow Streets Network (Figure 15) will complement the 70-mile
neighborhood bike routes network and will be comprised
of streets “designed for slowness, just as freeways are designed for speed.” Oakland DOT will be using a variety of preferred design elements (Figure 16) to enforce 15-mph speeds, although lawfully enforcing this as a speed limit is not possible due to State restrictions. The goal of the Network is to connect residents to “Essential Places,” or places that are essential to people’s well-being, including schools, health clinics, early childhood development
centers, senior centers, libraries, recreation centers, public transportation, and grocery stores.

To guide Network development, the City released a Slow
Streets Interim Findings Report in September 2020. Some key findings were that Slow Streets:
〉 Created space for physical activity.
〉 Did not impede essential street functions.
〉 Received a lot of support.
〉 Was not meeting the needs of the essential worker
population or Deep East Oakland residents.
〉 Residents valued traffic safety more than creating space for physical activity.

Recommendations for continuing the program beyond the
pandemic included the following:
〉 Use neighborhood feedback to make changes to Slow
Street corridors.
〉 Continue Slow Streets Program post-pandemic.
〉 Consider additional programs for pop-up Slow Streets
and traffic-calming in neighborhoods.

In addition to the Slow Streets Network, there is the 70-mile neighborhood bike route network. This network is comprised of local streets where bicyclists have priority but still share roadway space with vehicles. There are four actions outlined in the Bike Plan that must be implemented for a street to be a designated neighborhood bike route: improve major street crossings, reduce or prevent speeding, prevent high car volumes, and increase Figure 14. BART (top) and AC Transit (bottom) service
maps.

Figure 15. Proposed Slow Streets Network.
11 pavement quality. Target traffic speeds and volumes for these routes are set by OakDOT based on guidance from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO):
〉 Option 1: Speeds less than or equal to 20 mph, less than or equal to 2,000 average vehicles per day, and less than 50 vehicles per hour per direction at peak hour. 〉 Option 2: Speeds less than or equal to 25 mph, less than or equal to 1,500 average vehicles per day, and less than 50 vehicles per hour per direction at peak hour.

Additional details on implementing bike routes in Oakland can be found in the City of Oakland Neighborhood Bike Route Implementation Guide.

Complementing both the Slow Streets Network
and the bike route network is Oakland’s Traffic
Safety Requests Program, which works to deliver
quick-build, low-cost safety improvements to
streets and intersections to reduce vehicle
speeds and calm driving behavior. Requests
through this program are prioritized based on
three equally weighted factors to stay consistent
with Oakland’s Safe Oakland Streets initiative: traffic crashes, neighborhood equity, and adjacent land use/activities. Requests received from schools are processed separately to ensure they receive prioritization.

Lessons Learned for Sacramento
〉 Allowing “Essential Places” to guide planning of a slow streets network can help ensure neighborhood routes connect critical locations, such as schools, health clinics, public transportation, and grocery stores. 〉 Interim assessments can help identify which populations are being underserved. 〉 Guidance from external organizations, such as NACTO, can be useful in creating a quantitative definition for various shared and slow street types.

Figure 16. Design elements for Slow Streets.
12 Denver, Colorado
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Denver spans 153 square miles and is home to
713,252 residents, yielding a population density
of approximately 4,700 people per square mile.

This makes Denver slightly less dense than
Sacramento. Denver’s design is also unique,
adhering to two separate grid patterns.

Downtown Denver has a skewed, diagonal grid
pattern that dates back to the 1850s, while the
surrounding metropolitan area follows a typical
grid pattern, with streets running north-south
and east-west. When these two grid patterns
meet, the result is triangular blocks and fivepoint intersections. Denver public transit consists of bus and rail through the Regional Transport
District (Figure 17).

Denver’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features
While Denver admits to being a city that has “overbuilt [their] streets just for cars,” they recognize this is an “unsustainable” design and are now actively working to retrofit their streets for car-free transportation. One of the ways they are doing this is through a reduced default speed limit from 25 mph to 20 mph, unless otherwise posted, applicable to local streets through residential blocks. To alert drivers to this change, old signs will be removed and 2,000 signs displaying the new speed limit will be installed over the course of the next few years.

Additionally, Denver is taking steps to continue their
Shared and Open Streets Program, a program that
received much positive feedback from the
residents after yielding 5.5 miles of Shared Streets in residential and commercial areas and 10.2 miles of
Open Streets in parks during the COVID-19
pandemic (Figure 18). Shared Streets are designed
to reduce vehicle trips while Open Streets are
closed to vehicle traffic. Denver plans tow types of
shared streets based on land use: community
shared streets in residential neighborhoods and
commercial shared streets in areas with more
businesses.

The future elements of this project will include
permanently closing three stretches of streets
downtown that were pedestrian-only during the
COVID-19 pandemic. An additional five
neighborhood streets are being redesigned to be
pedestrian-friendly by 2030. This transition will
include narrowed streets and greenspace landscaping. On top of these already-identified projects, the City of Denver is accepting applications from groups of residents, businesses, and nonprofit organizations for additional street closures. Applications must include site plans and a mobility study. The City of Denver recognizes the need to pair reduced vehicle traffic with enhanced accessibility to other modes of transportation. These street closures will therefore be complemented by the installation of more than 100 miles of bus rapid transit, 400 miles of bicycle-only lanes, and 1,300 miles worth of pedestrian-friendly improvements.

Figure 17. Denver bus (left) and rail (right) service maps.

Figure 18. Shared and Open Streets.
13 Ecodesign Denver (eDEN) is a program
through the University of Colorado Denver’s
College of Architecture and Planning. eDEN
is a network of slow and open streets lined
with recreational and commercial spaces
(Figure 19). The final goal is to create a
distributed park that can be accessed by
every resident within one mile of where they
live.

Lessons Learned for
Sacramento
Between 2013 and 2022, 2021 is the year that yielded the highest number of traffic-induced serious injuries in Denver. With increases in total deaths and deaths per 100,000 population since 2013, Denver is working to right their roadways. With 7% of these fatalities occurring on local streets, changes to residential roadways have the capacity to result in significant change.
〉 Partnering with university programs could be an effective way to involve the student population in urban changes. This may provide a unique method for getting feedback and additional helping hands on various projects.
〉 Street design may vary depending on land use context, recognizing commercial and residential areas may have different needs.
〉 Inviting applications from residents helps build support and offers and opportunity for greater engagement. 〉 Placing speed limit signs can be a form of traffic calming if streets are already designed as slow streets.

Figure 19. eDEN network.
14 Austin, Texas
Urban Form and City Characteristics
Austin, home to 975,335 residents, spans 321 square miles, giving it a population density of approximately 3,000 people per square mile. This makes it a less-dense city than
Sacramento, and the least-dense city of all the selected peer cities. Unlike most other US cities, Austin has an atypical street grid system, with streets at various odd angles, particularly when comparing multiple sections of the City to one another. Serving the quirky streets of Austin is the CapMetro system, comprised of bus, rapid, rail, and express routes (Figure 20).

Austin’s Approach: Overview and Unique Features
Austin implemented their Healthy Streets Initiative in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This initiative was aimed at allowing vulnerable road users to use low-traffic areas more comfortably. One unique approach Austin took as part of this initiative was their opening up the outside lane of multi-lane arterial streets to make protected travel space for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Shared Streets is another program being implemented in Austin. First introduced in the 2016 Sidewalk Plan, Shared Streets aims to be a solution to the large number of missing sidewalks in the City. With approximately 1,500 miles of missing sidewalks, it would take almost 100 years to install sidewalks along all Austin streets with the current rate of funding available. In their pilot, as part of the ATX Walk Bike Roll plan, Shared Streets identified residential streets without sidewalks in areas with expected high walk and low vehicle rates. Temporary materials were then used to make the streets safer and more accessible for pedestrians. Similar to this endeavor is the Sidewalk Program (Figure 21), funded by bonds, quarter-cent, fee-in-lieu, grants, and other sources, to install sidewalks in Austin. This effort is largely driven by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Another group of Austin projects are the Pedestrian Crossing projects to install and enhance existing crossing infrastructure.

Locations in high-traffic areas near key transit points are prioritized.

Figure 20. CapMetro system map.

Figure 21. Sidewalk Program (left) and Pedestrian Crossing (right) projects. 15 Austin is no stranger to safety improvement
programs, as they continue to develop plans and
see results through a variety of solution-specific
organizations. Just as the City has programs
dedicated to sidewalk and pedestrian crossing
improvements, so do they have a Speed
Management Program. This program uses speed
reduction strategies, in the form of speed limit
changes and traffic calming treatments, to buttress
Austin’s Vision Zero goal. Streets are selected for
participation in this program based on three factors:
crash history, characteristics of streets and
surrounding neighborhoods, and speed data. This
analysis method has been applied to all residential
(“Level 1”) streets in Austin, and an interactive
speed limit changes map is available online. Preferred traffic calming treatments by the City of Austin can be viewed in their traffic calming toolkit (Figure 22), which divides devices into three levels:
〉 Type 1 – horizontal deflection devices.
〉 Type 2 – vertical deflection devices.
〉 Type 3 – speed monitoring and awareness tools.

Moving forward, Austin has a plethora of new projects on their horizon. Recently, the Austin City Council voted to appropriate a $22.9 million grant from USDOT for its Safe Streets for All program which will be used to implement safety improvements across more than 60 locations in the City. While the locations have not yet been chosen, the funding is expected to cover a breadth of improvement:
〉 Major intersection safety projects at 5 to 7 locations. 〉 Up to 10 pedestrian hybrid beacons.
〉 Low-cost, systemic safety treatments such as high-visibility crosswalk markings, street lighting, and traffic signal improvements at dozens of locations throughout the city. 〉 A safety education campaign primarily focused on roundabouts and video analytics for safety analysis and evaluation.

As Austin continues to plan, design, and implement change, they keep a close eye on the state of road safety in their City. Their interactive Vision Zero dashboard uniquely provides updated (last update: September 7, 2023) crash and injury data.

More recently, in Fall 2023, Austin released a call for projects for slow streets throughout the City. Residents can find out if their street is eligible based on a published online map. Like Boston and Minneapolis, Austin will score the applications based on set criteria and implement projects.

Lessons Learned for Sacramento
Looking at data from January through August of 2023, April through August yielded less serious injury crashes than the average number of serious injury crashes in that same period over the last five years. Unfortunately, this is not the case for fatal crashes which have only yielded numbers less than the five-year average for April, July, and August. This is motivating for Austin to implement change-yielding infrastructure. 〉 Austin has an organized method for assigning traffic calming devices to project areas. Their method considers roadway characteristics, speed limit compatibility, vehicle volumes, and additional considerations. This has the potential to make design and implementation a much quicker process following the identification of streets in need of change.
〉 Austin has identified distribution of funding through their USDOT grant, setting goals for the types and number of projects they would like to implement. Specific goal setting like this will help keep the City honest in following through on safety demands and resident needs. 〉 Inviting community members to apply for projects and publishing evaluation criteria and eligible streets makes way for additional engagement and building support.

Figure 22. Austin's traffic calming toolkit device levels. 16 Summary of Findings
The six peer cities reviewed all have common features and uniquely different elements when it comes to their strategies for implementing slow streets in their neighborhoods. The result of this is significant insight into how the City of Sacramento can successfully apply a slow streets framework to the existing routes and networks. Below is a summary of the common elements and differences in approach among the six cities. This summary functions as a list of recommendations for the City of Sacramento.

Common Elements
Planning & Design
Street Selection and Prioritization. Several peer cities have a developed process for selecting candidate roads to become slow/shared/open streets. Selection criteria often consider public requests, crash history, traffic volume, and location. Having a process like this can be an efficient method for allocating funds when there is significant work to be done.

Toolboxes. Three of the six peer cities have a developed toolbox or toolkit that encompasses all the elements and features they consider for traffic calming and safer speeds projects. Having a detailed, organized toolbox can make decision-making easier and quicker, expediting the design process.

Resident Feedback and Requests. The peer cities are consistent about seeking public feedback as they city undergoes change. Many of the programs run by the cities allow residents to submit requests for implementation of various build features. Additionally, some of the cities wrote interim reports for programs where they summarized public feedback on project progress and used feedback to identify need gaps.

Collecting public feedback is integral to ensuring the transportation network is used as anticipated.

Implementation
Quick-Build. Multiple peer cities have focused on using temporary materials to implement quick-build features to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes. This implements change more quickly and provides time for public feedback before permanent infrastructure is implemented.

Speed Reduction and Traffic Calming. All six peer cities have implemented speed limit reductions, either to the residential or the default speed limit. Additionally, all six peer cities have already implemented traffic calming features. Speed bumps are one of the most popular features among the peer cities.

Safer Crossings. Many of the peer cities have taken to improving pedestrian crossing conditions. This includes creating shorter crossing distances, providing protected crossings, and increasing crosswalk visibility.

Policy
Quantify Goals. Having set goals for implementing slow streets infrastructure can help monitor progress and plan for future years.

Monitor Road User Safety. Many of the peer cities provide Vision Zero and/or data-driven dashboards that monitor the safety of the City’s road users. It is critical to monitor crash and injury data as changes are implemented to ensure the desired outcome.

Programs
All six of the peer cities have one or multiple programs geared towards some aspect of achieving multimodal and comfortable transportation networks. Below is a summary of the programs that appeared in this peer city review. A lot of these programs started out as pilot programs to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and provide residents with healthy ways to move around the city. Now, a significant number of these programs are still ongoing due to positive feedback from residents.
〉 Slow streets
〉 Open streets
〉 Shared streets
〉 Speed management
〉 Sidewalk
〉 Traffic calming
〉 Traffic safety requests
17 Unique Differences
Gamification. Boston used a gamification approach to reduce aggressive driving habits through their Boston’s Safest Driver Competition. This competition was popular amongst groups of friends and produced decreases in all five aggressive driving behaviors.

University Support. The University of Colorado Denver’s College of Architecture and Planning is implementing Ecodesign Denver, which aims to create a distributed park that can be accessed by every resident within one mile of where they live.

Annual Programs. Two of the peer cities operate one of their programs on an annual schedule. This means the beginning of each year brings a fresh planning phase, followed by design and implementation. Operating on a strict annual schedule can help ensure annual progress and will help refine the plan-design-implemented process over time.

Roadway Reallocation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Austin reallocated the outside lane of low-traffic multilane arterial streets to be protected travel space for pedestrians and bicyclists. This made it possible to improve vulnerable road user access without significantly impeding vehicle traffic.

Appendix C
International Peer Cities Review
In response to:

City of Sacramento
Date:

December 11, 2023
FINAL - International Best Practice
Review
15 Minute Cities & Safer
Neighborhood Streets
International Best Practice Review – Safer Neighborhood Streets for Sacramento