City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
Streets for People Active Transportation Final Plan
File ID: 2025-01678
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to 1) approve the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan; 2) Incorporate the Neighborhood Connections Plan network of traffic-calmed, residential and minor collector streets into Streets for People Plan; and 3) rescind the Bicycle Master Plan (2018) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2008).
Contact: Jeff Jelsma, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5347, [email protected]; Charisse Padilla, Associate 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-Streets for People Active Transportation Plan
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan (the Plan) is a citywide plan that updates both the 2008 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan and supports the development of a modern, citywide active transportation plan reflective of City goals around mobility, safety, climate, and equity. The Plan includes an assessment of existing walking and bicycling infrastructure; identification of barriers to walking, rolling, bicycling, and access to transit; and provides fundable, actionable project recommendations with the objective of improving safety and mobility and creating a connected active transportation network.
The transportation sector in Sacramento contributes 57% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions and the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan include goals to reduce those emissions by 1) increasing active transportation mode share to 6% by 2030, 12% by 2045 and 2) increasing public transportation mode share to 11% by 2030. The Plan identifies a citywide network of low-stress
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
connections connecting communities to destinations and transit by walking and bicycling.
Having a Council adopted plan ensures the City is eligible for competitive grant funding for next phases such as Preliminary Engineering Design, Environmental Clearance, and Final Design and Construction.
This is an action item to pass a Resolution to approve the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan as the City’s guide for development of infrastructure for people walking, biking, and rolling citywide, incorporate the Neighborhood Connections Plan recommendations in the Streets for People Plan, and to rescind the Bicycle Master Plan (2018) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2008).
Policy Considerations: The Streets for people Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the goals and policies from the Sacramento 2040 General Plan, including:
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-6: Mobility planning and choices informed by data, technology, and innovation.
ERC-3.2: Tree Canopy Expansion. The City should strive to achieve a 25 percent urban tree canopy cover by 2030 and 35 percent by 2045. Prioritize tree planting and tree maintenance in areas with the lowest average canopy cover and explore strategies to reduce barriers to tree planting in disadvantaged communities and improve tree health.
YPRO-1.15: Path Connections - The city shall maintain existing and pursue new connections to local and regional shared-use paths, especially when connecting to public parkland.
The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, including:
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
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
active transportation, including network gaps and other issues affecting pedestrian and bicyclist safety, by 2025.
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 a 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 CEQA 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 transportation sector accounts for 57% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, the largest single sector in the community. The Streets for People 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 August 21, 2025, Active Transportation Commission meeting the Commission passed a Motion to forward the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan to the City Council with recommendation to approve.
Rationale for Recommendation: The action requested is to adopt a Resolution approving the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan. The Streets for People Plan will create the City’s first active transportation plan to guide the development of infrastructure for people walking, biking, rolling, and accessing transit citywide. The Plan will help the city meet its mobility, safety, equity, and climate goals through the implementation of the recommended network.
Financial Considerations: The Streets for People Plan recommends over $1.5 billion in projects for people walking citywide and up to $895 million in projects for people biking citywide. Approval of this recommendation does not obligate funding for the improvements, and no funding for implementation of the plan has been identified at this time.
No General Funds are involved with this recommendation.
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Background: The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan will update and replace both the Bicycle Master Plan (2016) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2008) to create the City’s first active transportation plan. The Plan identifies a low-stress network for people walking, biking, and accessing transit citywide. The Streets for People Plan is two parts; part one includes the Neighborhood Connections portion of the Plan, which was adopted in February 2025 (R2025-0045) which is focused on residential and minor collector streets; part two includes completing the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan focused on arterial and major collector streets. The Neighborhood Connections Plan recommendations have been incorporated into the Streets for People Plan network.
Throughout the development of this plan, the following Transportation Priorities Plan priorities and goals were centered:
· Access - Providing access to destinations
· Equity - Providing equitable investment to address historical inequities · Maintenance - Fixing and maintaining the system
· Safety - Improving transportation safety
· Sustainability - Improving air quality, climate, and health The Plan was created with communities citywide throughout the four years of planning. Engagement included community listening and engagement that took the conversations to communities at their events in their neighborhoods and also included citywide virtual meetings. The planning process included frequent engagement with the City’s Active Transportation Commission.
Development of the Plan included three major phases of public engagement, with the following key topics discussed during each phase:
Phase 1: Listen & Learn - Vision, Goals, and Information Gathering Phase 2: Gaps Analysis, Develop Recommendations, and Build Consensus Phase 3: Review - Share the Streets for People Draft Plan Phase I: Listen & Learn - Vision, Goals, and Information Gathering May - August 2023
Phase I of the Plan took place from May through August 2023 to engage with communities to cocreate the vision and goals of the Plan, and gather information regarding important community destinations, key routes, and gaps in the network. The project team attended or led 53 engagement events, including 21 community workshops, 20 pop-up engagements at existing community events, 6 walking workshops, 5 survey stations at libraries located in the focus areas, and a presentation to the Active Transportation Commission.
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
Phase II: Gaps Analysis, Develop Recommendations, and Build Consensus June - August 2024
Phase II presented the proposed active transportation network to gain feedback on the recommendations and ensure it is reflective of the diverse communities and neighborhoods of Sacramento, in addition to confirming the proposed projects are feasible and implementable. The recommendations are a result of several data analyses combined with feedback the project team received during Phase I community engagement.
The engagement approach focused on ensuring hard to reach communities were involved in the planning process, including non-English speaking and monolingual residents. Most of the engagement activities took place in the three focus areas of North Sacramento, South Sacramento, and Fruitridge Broadway.
Engagement was led by City staff with support from the consultant project team and included several approaches to engaging with residents, including 1) meeting with the Community Planning Team (CPT) made up of community members who were interested in taking a larger role in the engagement process; 2) hosting two (2) virtual, citywide community workshops; 3) hosting three (3) virtual focus group discussions in areas of the city that lacked participation in Phases I & II engagement; 4) hosting five (5) walking workshops to highlight barriers and concerns in the network; 5) attending nine (9) existing community events to announce the draft Plan and how community members can get involved, including three focused on engaging mono-lingual and non-English speaking communities, including Spanish, Chinese, and Hmong; 6) online interactive map posted on the project web page; and 7) presenting the Plan to the Active Transportation Commission.
Phase III: Streets for People Draft Plan
March 5 - April 6, 2025
Phase III community engagement sought to share information about the Plan and inform community members about how to give feedback. The project team shared the Draft Plan with community members and groups that were involved in the first two phases of engagement to ensure feedback was incorporated into the Plan where feasible, as well as hosting citywide workshops and attending existing events citywide.
Community members were encouraged to engage with the Draft Plan to learn more about the recommendations and give feedback. Communities provided feedback utilizing several tools, including an online comment tool, emailing or calling the project team directly, or attending one of the Phase III events. Overall, the Public Draft Plan received 737 comments.
The Streets for People Plan network recommendations include 567 miles of new or improved
File ID: 2025-01678 12/2/2025
sidewalks for people walking, 417 miles of new or improved facilities for people biking, and 612 key intersections for improving safety and connectivity citywide.
The adopted network will be prioritized utilizing the Council-adopted metrics in the Transportation Priorities Plan and implemented as funding opportunities arise.
RESOLUTION NO.
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Streets for People Active Transportation Plan (T15180405)
BACKGROUND
A. The purpose of the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan is to update both the 2008 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2018 Bicycle Master Plan and to support the development of a modern, citywide active transportation plan reflective of City goals around mobility, safety, climate, and equity.
B. Throughout the development of this plan, the following Transportation Priorities Plan priorities and goals were centered:
i. Access – Providing access to destinations
ii. Equity – Providing equitable investment to address historical inequities iii. Maintenance – Fixing and maintaining the system
iv. Safety – Improving transportation safety
v. Sustainability – Improving air quality, climate, and health C. The Streets for People Plan is two parts; part one includes the Neighborhood Connections portion of the Plan, which was adopted in February 2025 (R2025- 0045) which is focused on residential and minor collector streets; part two includes completing the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan focused on arterial and major collector streets. The Neighborhood Connections Plan recommendations have been incorporated into the Streets for People Plan network. The Plan was created with communities citywide throughout four years of community listening and engagement that took the conversations to communities at their events in their neighborhoods, included citywide virtual meetings, and included a Community Planning team.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Streets for People Active Transportation Plan is approved as the City’s guiding concept plan for a citywide active transportation network to encourage people to walk, bike, roll, and access transit to meet the City’s climate and equity goals. Additional efforts will be taken for environmental clearance and final design for each project identified as part of the Plan.
Section 2. The Neighborhood Connections Plan (R2025-0045) network will be incorporated into the Streets for People Plan to include traffic-calmed, residential and minor collector streets, in addition to the traffic-calming toolbox.
Section 3. City Council hereby rescinds the City’s 2016 Bicycle Master Plan and 2008 Pedestrian Master Plan.
Streets for People:
Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan
FINAL PLAN | AUGUST 2025
Acknowledgments
Community Planning
Team (CPT)
Afsoon Aflaki
Albanita Erebia
Alena Maudru
Ana Taukolo
Angela Cook
Billy Gilmore
Brandon Martinez
Cayla McDonnellEncina
Carol Marque
Chelsea Lane
CJ Meakes
Courtnie Thomas
Dominique
Espinosa
Don Feliz
Essence Sellers
Gloria Garcia
Jeff Lidicker
Jen Metes
Jocelyn Gomez
Joel Leong
Jofil Borja
Jonathan
Sampson
Joshua Cain
Luka Davis
Marianne
Gonzalez Sims
Maximilian Rosa
Michael Clark
Michael Gorletti
Patrick Wong
Sheriah Brown
Spencer Eberle
Verna ErbyEkpeduma
City
PROJECT STAFF
Charisse Padilla,
Transportation Planner
Jeff Jelsma,
Transportation Planner
Jennifer Donlon Wyant,
Mobility and Sustainability
Division Manager
PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT TEAM
(PDT)
Alex Goloveshkin,
Associate Civil Engineer
Pelle Clark, Senior Engineer
John Matoba,
Senior Electrical Engineer
William Shunk,
Senior Engineer
Ryan Billeci, Senior Engineer
CITY COUNCIL
Mayor – Kevin McCarty
District 1 – Lisa Kaplan
District 2 – Roger Dickinson
District 3 – Karina Talamantes
District 4 – Phil Pluckebaum
District 5 – Caity Maple
District 6 – Eric Guerra
District 7 – Rick Jennings
District 8 – Mai Vang
Consultant
Team
Alta Planning + Design
Civic Thread
DIYSL
Table of Contents
About This Plan 1
What Is Streets for People? � � � � � � 1
Need for a Focused Approach � � � 2
What's in the Plan? � � � � � � � � � � � 4
Plan Goals � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 6
Recent Achievements � � � � � � � � 7
Walking, Biking, and
Rolling in Sacramento
Today 8
Building on the Past � � � � � � � � � 10
What the Data Shows � � � � � � � � 12
Equity � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 14
Walking and Rolling � � � � � � � � � 16
Biking � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20
Safety � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 26
Comfort � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 28
Access � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 32
Sustainability � � � � � � � � � � � � � 34
Community
Engagement 40
Leading with Equity � � � � � � � � � � 41
Community Planning Team � � � � 42
Engagement Events � � � � � � � � � 43
What We Heard � � � � � � � � � � � � 46
Recommendations 52
Network Recommendations � � � � 56
Intersection Recommendations � 86
Recommended Policies
and Programs � � � � � � � � � � � 94
Maintenance Considerations � � �102
Common Questions � � � � � � � � 104
Implementation 106
Costs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �107
Return on Investment: The Case
for Active Transportation � � � �108
Funding � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �109
Monitoring and Review � � � � � � � 110
Next Steps � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 111
Appendices 112
1 2
3 4
5 A
Click this icon to return to the table of contents
iii
Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – City of Sacramento Focus Areas � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3 Figure 2 – CalEnviroScreen 4.0 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15 Figure 3 – Existing Walking Facilities in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 17 Figure 4 – Frequent Walking Routes in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19 Figure 5 – Existing Biking Network � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20 Figure 6 – Existing Biking Facilities in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21 Figure 7 – Existing Biking Facilities in Central Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22 Figure 8 – Frequent Biking Trips in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 25 Figure 9 – High-Collision Intersections for Active Transportation Users and City of Sacramento’s HIN � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 27 Figure 10 – Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Illustrated � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 28 Figure 11 – PLTS Analysis in the City of Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29 Figure 12 – Bike Level of Traffic Stress Illustrated � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 30 Figure 13 – BLTS Analysis in the City of Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 31 Figure 14 – CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Analysis Showing Pollution Burden in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � 35 Figure 15 – Urban Heat Island Effect � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 37 Figure 16 – Existing Tree Canopy Density � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 39 Figure 17 – Community Engagement Events � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 45 Figure 18 – Incorporation of Community Comments into Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 51 Figure 19 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 67 Figure 20 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Northwest Sacramento � � � � � � � 68 Figure 21 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Northeast Sacramento � � � � � � � 69 Figure 22 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Central West Sacramento � � � � � 70 Figure 23 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Central East Sacramento � � � � � � 71 iv
Figure 24 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Southwest Sacramento � � � � � � � 72 Figure 25 – Recommendations for People Walking and Rolling in Southeast Sacramento � � � � � � � 73 Figure 26 – Recommended Bicycle Facilities for Urban Areas, Suburban Areas, and Rural Main Streets � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 75 Figure 27 – Recommendations for People Biking in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 77 Figure 28 – Recommendations for People Biking in Northwest Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 78 Figure 29 – Recommendations for People Biking in Northeast Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 79 Figure 30 – Recommendations for People Biking in Central West Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 80 Figure 31 – Recommendations for People Biking in Central East Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 81 Figure 32 – Recommendations for People Biking in Southwest Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 82 Figure 33 – Recommendations for People Biking in Southeast Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 83 Figure 34 – Neighborhood Connections Network � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 84 Figure 35 – Intersection Recommendations in Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 87 Figure 36 – Intersection Recommendations in Northwest Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 88 Figure 37 – Intersection Recommendations in Northeast Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 89 Figure 38 – Intersection Recommendations in Central West Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 90 Figure 39 – Intersection Recommendations in Central East Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 91 Figure 40 – Intersection Recommendations in Southwest Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 92 Figure 41 – Intersection Recommendations in Southeast Sacramento � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 93
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Generalized Costs for People Walking and Rolling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �107 Table 2 – Generalized Costs for People Biking � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �107 v
Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Abbreviations
AHSC: Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities
ATIIP: Active Transportation Infrastructure
Improvement Program
ATP: Active Transportation Program
BIPOC: Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
BLTS: Bike level of traffic stress
BUILD: Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development
CAAP: Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
Caltrans: California Department of
Transportation
CHAT: California Heat Assessment Tool
CPT: Community Planning Team
HIN: High injury network
HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program
I: Interstate
KSI: Killed or seriously injured
LTS: Level of traffic stress
PLTS: Pedestrian level of traffic stress
RIA: Regional Infrastructure Accelerator
SR: State route
SS4A: Safe Streets and Roads for All
TPP: Transportation Priorities Plan
vi
Glossary of Terms
Active Transportation: A term for using
human physical activity to get people and
goods from one place to another as opposed
to motorized vehicles like cars and trucks.
Active transportation includes walking or
jogging, biking (including by electric bikes),
and rolling with a scooter, skateboard, or
assisted mobility device like a wheelchair. This
plan uses the terms active transportation and
walking, biking, and rolling interchangeably.
Arterial Streets: Provide mobility and regional
connectivity.
Collectors: Major and minor streets that
connect local streets and arterial streets.
Complete Streets: Complete streets are
streets for everyone. They are designed and
operated to enable safer access for all users,
including people walking, biking, rolling,
driving, and taking transit. Complete streets
make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops,
and bike to work. They allow buses to run on
time and make it safer for people to walk to
and from train stations.
First- and Last-Mile: Transit systems usually
involve some multimodal connection from
one destination to another. This is referred
to as the “first- and last-mile” problem. To
encourage more ridership, transit needs
to provide convenient options that enable
point-to-point connections. Biking or walking
connections may encourage access to transit
because active transportation can be more
convenient than other modes.
1 Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI): This metric
is used to focus on areas with a history of
crashes causing serious injury and death.
Areas with a history of KSI crashes typically
represent the areas with greater safety
challenges rather than areas with a high level
of mostly non-injury or minor injury crashes.
Level of Traffic Stress: The level of traffic stress
(LTS) analysis measures the ability of people
using active transportation to travel between
their origin and destination using routes that
feel safe to them and without the need for
excessive detours. There are four levels of
traffic stress. LTS 1 is suitable for children; LTS 2
represents stress that most adults will tolerate;
and LTS 3 and 4 represent greater levels of
stress.
2 Quick Build: A low-cost and semi-permanent
street improvement which helps to test design
concepts and get safety improvements on
the ground more quickly than a large scale
construction project.
3 1 Maaza C. Mekuria, Peter G. Furth, and Hilary Nixon, Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity,
MTI Report 11-19, May 2012.
2 Mekuria et al., Low-Stress Bicycling and Network
Connectivity.
3 PeopleforBikes, Quick Builds for Better Streets: A New Project Delivery Model for U.S. Cities, 2016, https://
nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2016PeoplefoBikes_
Quick-Builds-for-Better-Streets.pdf.
vii
About This
Plan
1 About This Plan
What Is Streets
for People?
Streets for People: Sacramento’s
Active Transportation Plan equips
the City with a vision for a safer, more
connected, and more comfortable
active transportation network that
serves all ages, all abilities, and all
communities.
This plan offers strategies and recommendations for how we can get there. Throughout the process of creating this plan, we worked in partnership with communities, community groups, City departments, and other interested parties to develop implementable solutions that best meet the needs of each of the focus areas.
In this plan, “we” represents…
city residents, businesses, employees,
agencies, community based organizations,
and the City organization.
“Active Transportation” is…
a term for using human physical activity to
get people and goods from one place to
another as opposed to motorized vehicles
like cars and trucks. Active transportation
includes walking, biking, jogging, scooting,
skateboarding, or using assisted mobility
devices like wheelchairs.
1 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Need for a Focused Approach
The Streets for People Plan identifies
improvements to the active transportation
network across the entire City of Sacramento.
While developing these recommendations
with input from communities throughout
the city, we focused additional engagement
efforts within three areas. These areas have
some of Sacramento’s most disadvantaged
communities and experience some of
the highest numbers of fatal and serious
roadway collisions in the city. Compared
to the rest of the city, communities in
these areas experience higher housing
and pollution burdens, coupled with lower
median household incomes, among other
disadvantages. In an effort to address
the unique needs within these areas of
Sacramento, we conducted additional
research and spent more time engaging with
people in these communities. The three focus
areas are shown in Figure 1:
• North Sacramento
• Fruitridge/Broadway
• South Sacramento
Community members on Del Paso Boulevard
2 Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
Arcade
Creek
American River
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
TS HT56
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
FRUITRIDGE RD
DVLB ETAGHTRON
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
DR NNI RE WOP ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
DR ELLI VECURB
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
DVLB AD INL IO R
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
EVA DOO WRON
CENTER
PKWY
DR SNI KREP NI ROLF
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
YPXE TEERTS HT56
9TH
ST 10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
3 P ST
J ST
RD ST
Q ST
W ST
X ST
7TH
ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 11/15/2024.
FOCUS AREAS
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
NORTH SACRAMENTO
FRUITRIDGE/
BROADWAY
SOUTH SACRAMENTO
0 1 2 MILES
Figure 1 – City of Sacramento Focus Areas
3 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan What's in the Plan?
We’ve designed this plan to provide a
roadmap to improving conditions for people
walking, biking, and rolling. The plan contains
the following elements:
Chapter 1: About This Plan defines the scope
of the Streets for People Plan. This chapter
captures the goals for the future of our
transportation system and identifies recent
achievements by the City in furthering those
goals.
Chapter 2: Walking, Biking, and Rolling in
Sacramento Today provides an overview
of the present-day conditions, including
the state of walking, biking, and rolling;
community health; economic conditions;
and environmental burdens.
Chapter 3: Community Engagement
chronicles our extensive community
engagement efforts and strategies used,
and summarizes what we heard from our
communities during engagement events.
Chapter 4: Recommendations offers the
proposed infrastructure recommendations
and complementary policy and
programmatic recommendations to improve
walking, biking, and rolling in the city.
Chapter 5: Implementation outlines how we
can get started. It identifies planning level
costs for recommended improvements and
strategies on how they could be implemented.
This chapter also considers ongoing
maintenance and monitoring approaches as
the network expands.
4 About This Plan
Bike Lanes on Lemon Hill Avenue
5 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Plan Goals
The plan’s goals align with the criteria and
metrics developed as part of the City's 2040
General Plan (2024), the Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) (2024), and the
Transportation Priorities Plan (TPP) (2022):
Access
Providing Access to
Destinations
Mobility opens doors to education, economic
opportunity, health, and personal growth.
Connections to institutions and places that
provide economic, educational, and health
benefits should be prioritized.
Equity
Providing Equitable
Investment to Address
Historical Inequities
We acknowledge historical racial inequities
and are committed to transparent, deliberate,
and actionable solutions that will remedy
those inequities, including the impact
air quality and climate have on these
neighborhoods.
Maintenance
Fixing and Maintaining
the System
Sacramento’s transportation infrastructure is
in “fair” condition but is predicted to rapidly
deteriorate by the end of the decade. Fixing
potholes, repaving streets, and maintaining
traffic signals supports communities’ health
and the city’s economic health.
Safety
Improving Transportation
Safety
Sacramento continues to rank as one of the
worst cites in California for transportation
safety based on data from the Office of Traffic
Safety. Transportation safety is a primary
driver for future investments with the intent to
address the highest need areas first.
Sustainability
Improving Air Quality,
Climate, and Health
We face an existential climate emergency
that threatens our city, region, state, nation,
humanity, and the natural world. Over 50% of
Sacramento’s greenhouse gases come from
transportation. Air quality, health, and climate
change should be drivers for our mobility
investments.
6 About This Plan
Recent Achievements
The City has already started its transformation with a host of walking, biking, and rolling friendly projects and initiatives, including:
South Sacramento Parkway West
(Completed 2023)
The City completed this shared-use path
connecting South Sacramento communities
including Meadowview to the Sacramento
River shared-use path and Del Rio Trail.
Del Rio Trail (Completed 2024)
The City is constructing a 4.8-mile shareduse path that connects Land Park, South Land Park, Freeport Manor, Z’berg, Pocket, and
Meadowview communities.
Central City Mobility Project
(Completed 2024)
The Central City Mobility Project implemented
traffic calming, lane reductions, buffered and
separated bikeways, new marked crosswalks,
and other safety and mobility improvements.
Dixieanne Neighborhood Clean and Green
Alleys Project (Completed 2025)
This project is cleaning and beautifying some
of the 23 residential alleys in the community of
Old North Sacramento. Improvements provide
comfortable corridors for people walking and
biking to connect to destinations.
Del Rio Trail at Fruitridge Dixieanne Alleys
7 Walking, Biking,
and Rolling in
Sacramento
Today
2 Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Sacramento Today
To better understand the future active
transportation potential in our city,
we needed to take stock of what the
transportation system offers today.
In creating the Streets for People Plan, we considered previously identified needs and issues and evaluated the present state of the transportation system to improve safety and comfort for people walking, biking, or rolling.
We looked at the transportation system from different perspectives including demographics, community health, economic conditions, environmental burdens, and street systems. This helped us better understand what motivates or deters people in how they choose to travel.
Community member accessing Arden/Del Paso Light Rail Station 9 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Building
on the Past
We reviewed 11 citywide and 17 focus areaspecific plans from the past 17 years to make sure the Streets for People Plan builds on and
furthers the transportation goals and actions
identified by prior and ongoing planning
efforts. A complete summary of plans and
policies can be found in Appendix 1 – Plan and
Policy Review.
The City’s focus on improving active
transportation has been years in the
making through community engagement,
seeking competitive funding, and finally
implementation of projects like the central
city separated bikeways, the Del Rio Trail,
and more. The City has also developed
policies to enhance active transportation
networks. These include the Complete Streets
Policy, Pedestrian Crossing Guidelines, and
Guidance for Creative Crosswalks, which were
developed and passed between 2019 and
2021. The recently approved Transportation
Priorities Plan (TPP) and Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan (CAAP) further advance
implementation of active transportation
projects in a way that equitably addresses
transportation safety, sustainability, public
health, and air quality.
2021
PEDESTRIAN
CROSSING GUIDELINES
April 2021
Top: Sacramento Bikeways Master Plan (1977)
Bottom: Sacramento's Pedestrian Crossing
Guidelines (2021)
10 Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Sacramento Today
The Vision Zero Action Plan, adopted in 2018,
identifies strategies for the City to eliminate
traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2027.
The plan identified streets with the highest
number of injuries and fatalities, known as
the high injury network (HIN), and included
actions to address transportation safety. Since
its adoption, the City has made significant
progress toward addressing existing safety
and connectivity issues.
The Streets for People Plan builds off these
plans and policies and works to align
recommendations with other state, regional,
and local plans while supporting communitywide goals by acting as the guide for implementing active transportation facilities. ACTION PLAN ADOPTED AUGUST 14, 2018
Sacramento's Vision Zero Action Plan (2018)
11 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan What the Data Shows
The highlights of our analysis are included below. For more detailed methodology and analysis citywide and in the focus areas, please refer to Appendix 2 – Existing Conditions.
Sacramento is a diverse
community: Sacramento
communities come from diverse
racial and ethnic backgrounds
and include people who identify
as Asian (19%), Black (13%),
Hispanic (29%), and white (31%).
A higher percentage of our
communities live in poverty
compared to the rest of the
county and the state: In
particular, the project focus
areas have the lowest median
household income in the city.
Moreover, most households in the
focus areas experience higher
housing burdens, meaning that
the households are low income
and pay greater than 50% of their
income for housing costs.
Many of our communities rely on
active transportation to travel:
Over one in ten (11.3%) of all
trips in the Greater Sacramento
Region are active transportation
trips.
4 Black communities use
public transit at nearly twice the
rate compared to all other races.
Some of our communities are
more burdened by pollution and
are more vulnerable to climate
impacts than others: Some of
the highly pollution burdened
and vulnerable communities in
the city are in the focus areas. In
particular, large portions of the
North Sacramento focus area are
disproportionately affected.
4 "2020 NextGen NHTS National OD Data," NextGen NHTS OD Data Portal, Federal Highway Administration, 2020, https://nhts.ornl.gov/od/.
12 Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Sacramento Today
Safety analyses reveal trends where people walking and biking are particularly vulnerable: People walking along the street (without a sidewalk), people crossing the street (not using a crosswalk), and people improperly turning their vehicles into people biking account for a significant proportion of fatal and serious injury collisions for people walking and biking.
Our walking and biking facilities
are not created as low-stress
environments: While most
corridors include continuous
sidewalks and major roadways
have conventional or buffered
bike lanes, several of them are
high-stress environments for
people walking and biking.
Improving comfort and reducing
stress can go a long way in
improving access: We can
increase access to destinations
like parks, schools, and transit for
more people walking and biking,
particularly in focus areas, by
creating low-stress networks.
13 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Equity
Equity was a driving force throughout the
development of the Streets for People Plan.
We considered equity in setting our goals,
understanding the local context and the state
of transportation, identifying the types and
strategies for community engagement efforts,
and prioritizing the recommendations in this
plan. One way to achieve a more equitable
transportation system is to identify vulnerable
populations who are more susceptible
to transportation impacts. We used data
from CalEnviroScreen to understand this.
CalEnviroScreen is a data tool used to identify
communities disproportionately burdened by
pollution and that have characteristics that
make them more sensitive to pollution. It uses
environmental, health, and socioeconomic
information to produce scores. A higher
CalEnviroScreen score reflects a higher pollution
burden. See Figure 2 for scores and communities
with higher pollution burdens in Sacramento, as
shown in red and yellow.
Some of the most vulnerable communities in the
city, shown in red and yellow on the map, are
found in the focus areas. In particular, a large
portion of the North Sacramento focus area
south of Main Avenue and the northern half of
the Fruitridge/Broadway focus area experience
the highest levels of inequities in terms of
pollution and population vulnerabilities. In
addition to the overall findings, we reviewed key
individual metrics derived from census data and
identified the following issues:
A complete account of findings related to socioeconomic conditions can be found in Appendix 2 – Existing Conditions (Citywide and Focus Areas).
People with disabilities may require specialized services or infrastructure to get around, like longer time to cross the street. These individuals may be less likely to own a vehicle. Areas with the highest concentrations of people with disabilities include South Sacramento, Fruitridge/Broadway, and Midtown.
People without access to a vehicle are likely to walk, bike, roll, or ride transit by necessity to get to various destinations. These communities may also benefit the most from investments focusing on improving the safety and comfort along city streets. Areas with the highest concentration of communities without access to a vehicle include Central City, Midtown, and Oak Park.
People over 65 may walk slower and require more time to cross the street. They may also be less likely to own a vehicle or travel during traditional commute times (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.), creating different street needs at different times of the day. The areas with the highest concentration of people over 65 include Pocket-Greenhaven, South Sacramento, and East Sacramento.
Disadvantaged populations are also likely to walk, bike, roll, or ride transit and have historically 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. 14 South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
Arcade
Creek
American River
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
65TH ST
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
NORTHGATE BLVD
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
POWER INN RD
ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
BRUCEVILLE RD
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
RIO LINDA BLVD
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
NORWOOD AVE
CENTER PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
FLORIN PERKINS RD
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
65TH STREET EXPY
10TH ST
9TH ST
16TH ST
15TH ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH ST
5TH ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
P ST
J ST
3RD ST
W S
Q ST
T
X ST
7TH ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, CalEnviroScreen and Caltrans. Date saved: 7/11/2025.
CALENVIROSCREEN
OVERALL SCORE
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0
SCORE PERCENTILE
76% to 100% (Highest
Pollution Burden)
51% to 75%
26% to 50%
0% to 25% (Lowest
Pollution Burden)
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH ST
10TH ST
16TH ST
15TH ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH ST
19TH ST
5TH ST
3RD ST
P ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH ST
7TH ST
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
0 1 2 MILES
Figure 2 – CalEnviroScreen 4.0
15 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Walking
and Rolling
Walking and rolling facilities in the city include
sidewalks, shared-use paths (Class I), freeway
overpasses, bridges, and intersection or
midblock crossing facilities. Sidewalks are
present on most streets. However, in northern
and southeastern parts of the city, streets lack
sidewalks. Outside the central city, marked
crosswalks and pedestrian signals are largely
concentrated on major arterial streets (like
Marysville Boulevard, Stockton Boulevard, and
Florin Road) and near elementary and middle
schools. Although expansive, the shared-use
path network is disjointed, presenting difficulty
for people connecting to various destinations.
Figure 3 shows the existing walking and
rolling network. Streets highlighted in red lack
sidewalks while streets shown in dark gray
lack data on the presence of sidewalks. Some
key findings from our analysis are:
Proximity and directness are critical to access.
Less than half (44%) of communities have access to essential needs (grocery stores, health care, and shopping centers) by walking and rolling. People in the central city, Midtown, and East Sacramento areas have significant access to schools and major institutions to meet their essential, civic, and social needs. The further from the core of Sacramento, the less dense and less accessible destinations become to walking and rolling.
Not all people travel at the same pace.
Seniors and those who use a mobility device may walk at slower speeds, and walking or rolling itself may be more of a challenge to these groups.5 Therefore, walking and rolling access for these groups may be more limited.
Places to cross barriers like highways, rivers, and major streets are limited.
This makes it less convenient to access some destinations. The infrequency of these crossings leads to increases in the distance people must walk to get to their destination, thus rendering some destinations less accessible. While Interstate 80 (I-80) has several crossings into and out of the central city from surrounding neighborhoods, there are few low-stress pedestrian crossings across I-5 north or south of Sacramento, no low-stress crossings across I-80 within city limits, and limited crossings over State Routes (SR) 99, 50, and 160 (shown in Figure 3).
Throughout the city, there are almost
80 miles of shared-use paths, the
majority of which are located along
the old Sacramento Northern Railway,
Ueda Parkway, and the Sacramento
River Parkway, among others.
5 Hyun Gu Kang and Jonathan B Dingwell, "Effects of Walking Speed, Strength and Range of Motion on Gait Stability in Healthy Older Adults," Journal of Biomechanics 2008 Sep 13;41(14):2899–2905. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.08.002. 16 Figure 3 – Existing Walking Facilities in Sacramento 17 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan WHERE ARE PEOPLE WALKING?
We used Replica Places data to identify
walking trends in the city.
6 This data
combines a variety of sources including
anonymized cell phone data to create a
simulated model that highlights where
people are going. Figure 4 shows the
frequency of walking trips compared
to concentrations of neighborhood
destinations. As there are a lot of people
walking within the central city, it has
the densest neighborhood destinations
per square mile. Outside the central
city, commercial corridors like Stockton
Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard
experience a high number of walking trips.
6 Replica Places is an activity-based model that uses a combination of mobile, land use, census, and transaction data to generate census-block group level origin and destination estimates that can be used to estimate trip distances and understand common origins-destinations. This data also provides estimates of mode split and trip purpose based on synthetic populations that are created as part of the estimation process. 18 Figure 4 – Frequent Walking Routes in Sacramento
South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
TS HT56
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
DVLB ETAGHTRON
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
DR NNI RE WOP
ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
DR ELLI VECURB
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
DVLB ADNI L OI R
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD TRUXEL RD
EVA DOO WRON
CENTER
PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
DR SNI KREP NI ROLF
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
EVA E WOH
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
COMME RCEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
YPXE TEERTS HT56
Sacramento River
Arcade Creek
American River
9TH
ST 10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
3 P ST
J ST
RD ST
Q ST
W ST
X ST
7TH
ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, Replica (Fall 2023), County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 11/12/2024.
FREQUENT
WALKING
ROUTES
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
Most Frequented Walk
Trips
NEIGHBORHOOD
DESTINATIONS PER
SQUARE MILE
Highest
Lowest
0 1 2 MILES
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH
ST
10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH
ST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
P ST
3RD
ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH
ST
7TH
ST
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
19 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Biking
A complete, connected biking network that
is comfortable for people of all ages and
abilities is critical to make biking a viable
transportation option for travel in Sacramento.
The city has 449 miles of existing facilities
for people biking. They consist of bike lanes,
buffered bike lanes, bike routes, shared-use
paths, and separated bikeways as shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6. For more information on
each facility type, please see the Bike Facility
Toolbox on page 60.
While the city has several existing facilities
for people biking, there are bikeways that
are disconnected, gaps in the network,
and bikeways that do not provide the level
of comfort to be usable for the general
population. The Fruitridge/Broadway, North
Sacramento, and South Sacramento focus
areas have the least coverage of bike facilities
in the city.
Key observations from our assessment
can be found on page 23.
Figure 5 – Existing Biking Network
Shared-Use Path
Bike Routes
91 mi
82 mi
257 mi
7 mi
12 mi
Bike Lanes
Buffered Bike
Lanes
Separated
Bikeways
449 mi
Facilities for
People Biking*
*Rounded to the nearest whole number
EXISTING FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE BIKING
For more information about existing facilities for people biking, please see page 60. 20 SHARED-USE
PATH
SEPARATED
BIKEWAY
BUFFERED
BIKE LANE
BIKE LANE BIKE ROUTE
Figure 6 – Existing Biking Facilities in Sacramento
21 ROADWAY AND
BICYCLING NETWORKS
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Bike Route
Separated Bikeway
County Maintained
Shared-Use Path
EXISTING CROSSINGS
Active Transportation
Crossing
All Modes Crossing
Figure 7 – Existing Biking Facilities in Central Sacramento 22 Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Sacramento Today
Less access by bike
Less than half (47%) of
communities have access to
essential needs by bike.
Barriers limit access
Places to cross barriers like
highways, rivers, and major
streets are limited, which
makes it less convenient to
access some destinations.
Majority of
Sacramentans are
disconnected
The majority of Sacramento
residents live in lower density,
single use development built
after World War II. These
communities lack a gridded
street network, requiring
travel on higher speed and
volume streets. This land
use pattern leaves these
communities disconnected
from daily needs. A notable
inaccessible destination
is the State Office of Civil
Defense, located in the South
Sacramento focus area.
John F. Kennedy High School
has access points only on
Gloria Drive and Florin Road,
which are high-stress streets,
making it inaccessible to
communities even though it
is surrounded by a residential
neighborhood.
The following key issues about people biking in
Sacramento were highlighted from our assessment:
Local bike group members
23 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan WHERE ARE PEOPLE BIKING?
We also used Replica Places data to identify trends for people biking around the city. Figure 8 shows the most used biking trip routes compared to concentrations of neighborhood destinations. As there are a lot of people biking within the central city, it has the densest neighborhood 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 neighborhood destinations become. Residents who live further away from the central city often face more barriers to access a smaller number of nearby destinations. This is partly why the most frequent biking routes are concentrated in the central city and areas with a high concentration of destinations.
People biking on the Sacramento Northern Bikeway Trail
24 Figure 8 – Frequent Biking Trips in Sacramento
South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
TS HT56
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
DVLB ETAGHTRON
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
DR NNI RE WOP
ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
DR ELLI VECURB
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
DVLB ADNI L OI R
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD TRUXEL RD
EVA DOO WRON
CENTER
PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
DR SNI KREP NI ROLF
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
EVA E WOH
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
COMME RCEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
YPXE TEERTS HT56
Sacramento River
Arcade Creek
American River
9TH
ST 10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
3 P ST
J ST
RD ST
Q ST
W ST
X ST
7TH
ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, Replica (Fall 2023), County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 11/12/2024.
FREQUENT
BIKING
ROUTES
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
Most Frequented Bike
Trips
NEIGHBORHOOD
DESTINATIONS PER
SQUARE MILE
Highest
Lowest
0 1 2 MILES
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH
ST
10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH
ST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
P ST
3RD
ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH
ST
7TH
ST
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
25 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Safety
Safety was also an important aspect to the
development of the Streets for People Plan
as people walking, biking, and rolling are
particularly vulnerable and more likely to be
killed or seriously injured (KSI) in a collision
with a vehicle. Based on our analysis, we
found that:
Street segments (the portions of
the street between intersections)
accounted for 78% of KSI collisions
involving a person walking and
58% of KSI collisions involving a
person biking.
27% of KSI collisions involving
people walking occurred on
streets without sidewalks.
People improperly turning their
vehicles into people biking
account for 16% of KSI collisions
involving a person biking.
TOP LOCATIONS FOR
COLLISIONS INVOLVING
PEOPLE WALKING AND BIKING
In addition to the characteristics
of streets with more frequent and
severe collisions, we identified the
top 10 intersections with the highest
number of collisions involving
people walking and biking. This was
determined using available collision
data from 2016 to 2020, as shown
in Figure 9. Our analysis revealed
several trends:
• The Fruitridge Road/Stockton
Boulevard and Mack Road/
Center Parkway intersections were
identified to be top 10 intersections
for people walking and top 10
intersections for people biking.
• North Sacramento and South
Sacramento focus areas, and
Central City, have multiple top 10
intersections.
• All the top collision intersections
were in corridors identified in the
city’s HIN streets.
26 Figure 9 – High-Collision Intersections for Active Transportation Users and City of Sacramento’s HIN South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
Arcade
Creek
American River
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
TS HT56
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
DVLB ETAGHTRON
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
DR NNI RE WOP ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
DR ELLI VECURB
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
DVLB AD INL IO R
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
EVA DOO WRON
CENTER
PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
DR SNI KREP NI ROLF
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
YPXE TEERTS HT56
9TH
ST 10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
3 P ST
J ST
RD ST
Q ST
W ST
X ST
7TH
ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, Caltrans, UC Berkeley TIMS. Date saved: 11/12/2024.
TOP
INTERSECTIONS
WITH COLLISIONS
INVOLVING ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
USERS
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
TOP INTERSECTIONS
Both People Walking
and Biking
People Biking
People Walking
City of Sacramento
High Injury Network
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH
ST
10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH
ST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
P ST
3RD
ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH
ST
7TH
ST
0 1 2 MILES
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
27 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Comfort
We also analyzed how comfortable our
street network is for the average person
walking, biking, or rolling. To do this, we used
pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) and
bike level of traffic stress (BLTS) analyses,
which helped us identify the streets that are
least comfortable for people walking, biking,
and rolling. A full methodology of this analysis
can be found in Appendix 3 – Gap Analysis.
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
Our analysis showed that several major
streets outside the central city represent highstress environments for people walking, even as most of these corridors include continuous
sidewalks on both sides of the street. This is
largely due to a lack of separation between
people walking and people driving along
multilane and high-speed streets. Some
notable high-stress streets include Fruitridge
Road, Freeport Boulevard, Northgate
Boulevard, Meadowview Road, and Norwood
Avenue. The results of this analysis are shown
in Figure 11.
Figure 10 – Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Illustrated PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LOWER COMFORT HIGHER COMFORT
Streets with posted speed limits at
30 mph and 2-3 vehicle lanes or
at 25 mph and 4-5 vehicle lanes.
May include on-street parking,
minimal or no buffer along
sidewalk, and sidewalk may
include some gaps.
Streets with posted speed limits
at or greater than 30 mph and
four or more vehicle lanes, or any
street at or above 35 mph.
May include streets with no
sidewalks, minimal separation
from traffic, sidewalk may be less
than 4 ft wide in some locations,
and may include some gaps.
Streets with posted speed limits at
25 mph or less and 2 vehicle lanes,
with sidewalks separated by buffer
from street. May include on-street
parking, wide (5+ ft.) sidewalks
with a wide buffer (>3 ft.), and
separated facilities including
shared-use paths.
Streets with posted speed limits at
25 mph and 2-3 vehicle lanes or
at 30 mph on residential streets
with 2 or fewer vehicle lanes.
May include on-street parking,
and buffer (<3 ft.) separation
from motorists.
These descriptions are simplified; additional criteria may impact the results. See Appendix 3 - Gap Analysis for a detailed description of how level of traffic stress is calculated. 28 Figure 11 – PLTS Analysis in the City of Sacramento
PEDESTRIAN
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
STRESS (PLTS)
PLTS 1 - Highest Comfort
PLTS 2 - Less Comfortable
PLTS 3 - Moderately
Uncomfortable
PLTS 4 - High Stress
DESTINATIONS+
BOUNDARIES
1111111 Railroad
Park
: • ·: City Boundary
[] Focus Area
CENTRAL CITY
2 MILES 29
Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Streets with posted speed limits
at or greater than 30 mph and
four or more vehicle lanes or
any street at or above 35 mph.
May include streets with
painted bike lanes if the speed
limit is 40 mph and above.
Streets with posted speed limits
at 30 mph and 2-3 vehicle
lanes or at 25 mph and 4-5
vehicle lanes. May include
streets with painted bike lanes
if the speed limit is 35 mph and
2 or more vehicle lanes.
Streets with posted speed
limits at 25 mph and 2-3
vehicle lanes or at 30 mph on
residential streets with 2 or
fewer vehicle lanes. May
include streets with painted
bike lanes if the speed limit is
30 mph and the bike lanes
are less than 6 feet wide.
Streets with posted speed
limits at 25 mph or less and
2-3 vehicle lanes. May include
streets with painted bike lanes
if the speed limit is 30 mph or
less and the bike lanes are
greater than 6 feet wide.
BIKE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LOWER COMFORT HIGHER COMFORT
BIKE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
The results from our BLTS analysis are shown
in Figure 13. Most major streets in Sacramento
represent high-stress (BLTS 3 and 4)
environments for people biking, despite the
presence of conventional or buffered bike
lanes in some locations. These include northsouth connections like Stockton Boulevard and Truxel Road, as well as east-west
connections including San Juan Road, Del
Paso Road, and El Camino Avenue.
Lower comfort levels for people biking on
these streets are associated with high-speed,
multilane conditions with little to no buffer or
vertical separation between people driving
and people biking. Alternatively, residential
streets and shared-use paths in the city are
low-stress environments suitable for a broad
segment of our community members.
Figure 12 – Bike Level of Traffic Stress Illustrated
These descriptions are simplified; additional criteria may impact the results. See Appendix 3 - Gap Analysis for a detailed description of how level of traffic stress is calculated. 30 Figure 13 – BLTS Analysis in the City of Sacramento
31 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Access
We analyzed how the existing street network
impacts an average adult’s ability to reach
key destinations like parks, schools, and
high-ridership transit locations while walking,
biking, and rolling.
7 While the presence and
quality of facilities for walking, biking, and
rolling, as well as distance to destinations, are
key elements to improve access, they do not
tell the whole story. To this end, our analysis
accounted for how traffic stress impacts the
level of access to these key destinations. Areas
that could be accessed in a short trip under
low-stress conditions but are out of reach
under stressful facilities are areas that would
benefit most from specific improvements
in the network. This section describes the
results of the analysis with existing levels of
stress (based on the PLTS and BLTS) on the
street network. For more information on both
analyses, please refer to Appendix 3 – Gap
Analysis.
We used the results from our access
analysis to inform the development of
recommendations as we focused on providing
the easiest and most comfortable access to
local destinations including parks, schools,
and transit.
How does stress affect
how our communities move
around the city?
Streets with high vehicle speeds and
little or no physical separation from
motor vehicles tend to feel more
stressful for people walking, biking,
and rolling. This limits transportation
options for our communities who
become dependent on motor
vehicles, even for relatively short
trips that could be accommodated
by walking, biking, or rolling.
7 We defined high-ridership transit locations as those light rail stations and bus stops used most frequently across Sacramento. See Appendix 3 – Gap Analysis section for more information. 32 Walking, Biking, and Rolling in Sacramento Today
Access to Parks
74% of Sacramento communities live
within a 15-minute walk of a park.
Similarly, 74% of communities live
within a 5-minute bike ride of a park.
8 For this analysis, we considered ridership from 2019 to determine the highest ridership locations (bus or light rail) in the city. We used data from before the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the ridership levels in public transit. We also defined two generalized areas along J Street at 19th Street and Alhambra Boulevard to represent the most popular bus routes through the central city. Similarly, the Florin Towne Center bus stop just outside the city limits was included to account for the high number of trips at this location.
74% 74%
64% 64%
15% 12%
Access to Schools
64% of communities live within a
15-minute walk or 5-minute bike ride of
a school. However, open enrollment in
Sacramento's school districts results in
many families having longer distances to
travel to school.
Access to Transit8
15% of communities live within a
15-minute walk of a light rail station or
high-ridership bus stop. Additionally, only
12% live within a 5-minute bike ride of a
light rail station or high-ridership bus stop.
WHAT WE FOUND
33 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Sustainability
We developed pollution burden, urban
heat island effect, and tree canopy density
analyses to understand the effects of climate
change on active transportation users.
Understanding where the greatest need is
will help the City focus its investments so we
can achieve our climate and sustainability
goals set forth in the City’s Climate Action &
Adaptation Plan (CAAP).
Pollution Burden
In Sacramento, more than half (57%)
of the greenhouse gases come from
transportation-related sources.9 In addition
to contributing to climate change, high
levels of greenhouse gas emissions can lead
to higher daytime temperatures, reduced
nighttime cooling, and higher air-pollution
levels. We conducted an analysis using data
from CalEnviroScreen to identify areas most
impacted by pollution.
The results from the analysis showed us that
areas of the city experiencing the highest
pollution burden include:
• The neighborhoods in the Fruitridge/
Broadway focus area located east of Power
Inn Road and the Union Pacific railroad
tracks. This includes Elder Creek, Depot Park,
Florin Fruitridge Industrial Park, Elmhurst,
and Fairgrounds.
• Neighborhoods near I-80 such as Ben Ali,
Del Paso Park, and East Del Paso Heights in
the North Sacramento focus area.
• Almost the entire Central City west of 19th
Street, southwest of Central City along the
Sacramento River, and north of Central City
below the American River.
Results from the analysis are mapped in
Figure 14.
9 Transportation Prioritization Criteria, Metrics and Points for Transportation Investments and Funding Opportunities, Resolution No. 2022-0079, Adopted by the Sacramento City Council (March 15, 2022), https://www.cityofsacramento. gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Transportation/Transportation-Planning/TransportationPrioritiesPlan/R20220079- Transportation-Prioritization-Criteria-Metrics-and-Points-for-Transportation-Investments-a.pdf. 34 South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
Arcade
Creek
American River
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
TS HT56
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
DVLB ETAGHTRON
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
DR NNI RE WOP ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
DR ELLI VECURB
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
DVLB AD INL IO R
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
EVA DOO WRON
CENTER
PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
DR SNI KREP NI ROLF
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
YPXE TEERTS HT56
9TH
ST 10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
3 P ST
J ST
RD ST
Q ST
W ST
X ST
7TH
ST
Data source: City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 11/12/2024.
CALENVIROSCREEN
POLLUTION
BURDEN
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
Park
City Boundary
Focus Area
CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0
POLLUTION BURDEN
PERCENTILE
76% to 100% (Highest
Scores)
51% to 75%
26% to 50%
0% to 25% (Lowest
Scores)
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH
ST
10TH
ST
16TH
ST
15TH
ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH
ST
19TH
ST
5TH
ST
P ST
3RD
ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH
ST
7TH
ST
0 1 2 MILES
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
Figure 14 – CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Analysis Showing Pollution Burden in Sacramento 35 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Urban Heat Island Effect
Urban heat islands occur when impervious
surfaces such as pavement absorb heat
during the day and then radiate that heat at
night, warming up the environment. This has
various impacts on public health including
excess heat concerns and increase in cooling
energy demand and emissions. Our analysis
showed that:
• On average, Sacramento is about
1.2°C (2.1°F) warmer than the baseline
surrounding rural areas. But the hottest
areas in the northeastern portions of the
city are as much as 2.4°C (4.3°F) warmer.
In general, the urban heat island effect
decreases to the south and west.
• In Fruitridge/Broadway, the urban heat
island effect decreases when moving
from the north to the south. The greatest
temperature differences of about 1.5°C
(2.7°F) occur north of Broadway and
decrease to about 1°C (1.8°F) south of
Fruitridge Road.
• North Sacramento has some of the most
intense urban heat island effect in the
city, marked by the greatest difference in
temperature compared to nearby rural
areas. The maximum temperature difference
within the focus area is about 2.2°C (3.9°F).
• South Sacramento has among the least
intense heat island effect in the city,
particularly south of Meadowview Road and
Mack Road.
Figure 15 shows the census tract-level
California Heat Assessment Tool (CHAT) data
on urban heat island intensity in the city.
The urban heat island effect can have serious effects on our communities' health, especially children and seniors.
36 South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
Arcade
Creek
American River
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
GARDEN HWY
65TH ST
24TH ST
FRANKL NI BLVD
21ST ST
MACK RD
NORTHGATE BLVD
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
POWER INN RD
ELDER CREEK RD
RICHARDS BLVD
BRUCEVILLE RD
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
RIO LINDA BLVD
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
NORWOOD AVE
CENTER PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
FLORIN PERKINS RD
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
65TH STREET EXPY
10TH ST
9TH ST
16TH ST
15TH ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
19TH ST
5TH ST
BROADWAY
FOLSOM BLVD
P ST
J ST
3RD ST
W S
Q ST
T
X ST
7TH ST
Data source: California Heat Assessment Tool (CHAT), City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 11/12/2024.
URBAN HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
Railroad
City Boundary
Focus Area
URBAN HEAT ISLAND
INTENSITY
More Intense
Less Intense
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH ST
10TH ST
16TH ST
15TH ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH ST
19TH ST
5TH ST
3RD ST
P ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH ST
7TH ST
Urban heat island effect is
measured as the difference in
temperature in urbanized and rural
areas. More intense urban heat
islands have larger differences.
Data from the California Heat
Assessment Tool (CHAT).
0 1 2 MILES
CENTRAL CITY
CENTRAL CITY
Figure 15 – Urban Heat Island Effect
37 Streets for People: Sacramento's Active Transportation Plan Tree Canopy Density
People who walk, bike, roll, or take transit tend
to be more vulnerable to high temperatures
because they do not have much protection
from the heat. Therefore, the availability or
lack of shade can significantly affect their
comfort and can be a major factor in their
transportation choices. We used existing tree
canopy density metrics to identify areas of
the city that could benefit from additional
tree canopy coverage along with active
transportation improvements like separated
bike lanes and shared-use paths. Our results,
shown in Figure 16, revealed several trends:10
• Generally, neighborhoods located farther
away from the central city tend to have
lower tree canopy density, especially in
areas north of I-80 and most of the southern
portions of the city.
10 It is important to note that many parks across the city are shown as having low tree canopy density due to their typically large areas of open grass.
• Residential neighborhoods like Land
Park, East Sacramento, Curtis Park,
and Boulevard Park have some of the
highest tree canopy densities in the
city, along with natural areas like the
American River Parkway.
• Within the focus areas, tree canopy
density is generally low with the lowest
coverage on the northern parts of
North Sacramento, eastern portions of
Fruitridge/Broadway, and southwestern
areas of South Sacramento.
Tree coverage keeps our streets cooler and enables community members to walk more comfortably 38 South
Sacramento
Fruitridge / Broadway
North
Sacramento
Ä99
Ä244
Ä275
Ä99
Ä51
Ä160
Ä16
Ä160
Ä84
¥80
¥80
¥5
¥5
£50
Sacramento River
10TH ST
9TH ST
American River
16TH ST
15TH ST
I ST
N ST
L ST
12THST
EL CAMINO AVE
DEL PASO BLVD ARDEN WAY
19TH ST
5TH ST
GARDEN HWY
65TH ST
BROADWAY
J ST
24TH ST
P ST
FRANKL N B I LVD
3RD ST
MACK RD
NORTHGATE BLVD
DEL PASO RD
FLORIN RD
POWER INN RD
ELDER CREEK RD
Q ST
RICHARDS BLVD
BRUCEVILLE RD
14TH AVE
RIVERSIDE BLVD
SAN JUAN RD
W ST
RIO LINDA BLVD
X ST
STOCKTON BLVD
FREEPORT BLVD
TRUXEL RD
NORWOOD AVE
FOLSOM BLVD
CENTER PKWY
FRUITRIDGE RD
21ST
ST
FLORIN PERKINS RD
MAIN AVE
MEADOWVIEW RD
MARYSVILLE BLVD
BELL AVE
HOWE AVE
ROSEVILLE RD
POCKET RD
AUBURN BLVD
C OMME R CEWAY
ARENA BLVD
EXPOSITION BLVD
COSUMNES RIVER BLVD
NATOMAS BLVD
65TH STREET EXPY
7TH ST
Data source: Ecopia, City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, County of Yolo, and Caltrans. Date saved: 10/11/2024.
EXISTING TREE
CANOPY DENSITY
Railroad
City Boundary
Focus Area
TREE CANOPY DENSITY
No Tree Canopy
Very Low Density
(<25% Coverage)
Low Density
(25% - 50% Coverage)
Moderate Density
(50% - 75% Coverage)
High Density
(>75% Coverage)
Ä99
Ä51
¥5
£50
9TH ST
10TH ST
16TH ST
15TH ST
CAPITOL MALL
I ST
N ST
L ST
12TH ST
19TH ST
5TH ST
3RD ST
P ST
BROADWAY
W ST
Q ST
X ST
J ST
21ST ST
29TH ST
7TH ST
DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN
Map emphasizes results within 150 feet
of a public street or shared-use path.
DESTINATIONS +
BOUNDARIES
0 1 2 MILES
Figure 16 – Existing Tree Canopy Density
39