Auburn reviews active transportation and safety plans, seeks public input before draft

City staff and consultants briefed the Auburn City Council on the Active Transportation Plan and Comprehensive Safety Action Plan and asked the council to accept the presentation and continue public outreach.

Jonathan Wright, Auburn’s economic development director, said the city awarded a contract to Farr & Piers about a year ago to update the bicycle master plan and prepare a companion safety plan. Rob Hanonocchi, senior associate with Farr & Piers, told the council the work is funded by a federal Safe Streets for All grant and is intended both to produce a prioritized list of projects and to satisfy grant requirements, including adoption of a measurable safety goal.

Hanonocchi summarized crash data the team analyzed for 2017–2023: roughly 100–150 reported injury crashes per year in the Auburn planning area, with about 20 crashes per year meeting the KSI (fatal or severe injury) definition. He said vehicle-involved crashes account for about nine of 10 injury collisions, while pedestrians and bicyclists make up a larger share of KSI incidents—about one-third—indicating greater vulnerability for people walking and biking. The Highway 49 corridor emerged as a primary location for severe crashes.

The consultant described a recommended network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on Federal Highway Administration guidance. On higher-speed, higher-volume arterials the plan favors class 4 separated bikeways; examples cited on the draft map include Auburn Folsom Road, Indian Hill Road and Maidu Drive. The draft also shows class 2 bike lanes, buffered lanes, class 1 off-street paths where feasible, and class 3 bike routes and bike boulevards on lower-speed streets and near downtown destinations. Sidewalk gaps were identified in older neighborhoods, and the plan includes prioritized sidewalk projects targeted to schools, parks, downtown and transit nodes.

Hanonocchi said the CSAP compiles a toolbox of countermeasures—traffic calming, intersection geometry changes, tighter curb radii and, where appropriate, roundabouts—to reduce speeds and severe outcomes. He presented two example goal frameworks required by the grant: (1) an ultimate target of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a long horizon year, and (2) an intermediate percentage reduction (for example, 25% from a baseline year) with an eventual goal of zero. The consultant noted other California cities have struggled to meet early zero‑fatality targets and advised the council the goal can be revisited over time.

Council members pressed for detail on fatalities versus severe injuries, how the plan would account for constrained historic streets, and interim measures to improve safety where space is limited. Councilman Holmes asked for a break‑out of fatal crash counts; Hanonocchi said the team has those figures and would supply them on follow-up. Councilwoman Davis and others supported traffic‑calming and interim treatments—such as road diets, buffered lanes or bicycle boulevards—when full separated bikeways are not immediately feasible.

Wright and the consultants said the project team coordinated with the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) and neighboring cities and that an interactive map and online feedback tool are live on the project website. The schedule: community comment continues through the end of the month, the team will finalize recommendations this fall and post draft plans in the first quarter of next year, with formal plan adoption by the council targeted for next spring.

The council received the presentation; no formal vote was required this evening, and staff will return with draft documents for adoption.