I was recently in southern California to assist a seminar. The place I stayed was a ten minute walk from the C Line (Green Line) Hawthorne/Lennox station, which runs every 13 minutes. The place I worked was a twelve minute walk from the K Line, which runs ever 13 minutes. The two lines overlap at the Aviation Blvd and LAX/Metro Transit Center, so transfer between the two lines is easy, and was usually a short wait.
The problem with the C Line is that it was built in the median of a busy freeway, Interstate 105 (‘the 105’), the Century Freeway. It is also parallel to the ‘Imperial Highway’ which is a surface arterial and predates both the freeway and light rail. Almost every light rail station is in that median of a freeway that is 11 lanes wide at the Hawthorne/Lenox station. The freeway noise at this station is oppressive, and I was uptight the entire time I was waiting for the train. I downloaded a decibel app from NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) called SLM (Sound Level Meter) to see just how bad it is. During non-commute hours, which was the only time I was there, the levels ranged from 80 db to 92 db. Prolonged levels above 85 db are considered hazardous, and levels above 100 of more than 15 minutes risks permanent hearing damage. I would guess that commute hours under free-flowing or nearly free-flowing conditions would be over 100 db. Of course significant congestion would reduce the noise level by reducing tire noise, unless of course drivers are honking their horns.
NIOSH SLM db measurement at Metro Line C Hawthorne/Lennox station
Line C (Green Line) was the second light rail line constructed in the LA area, after the Line A (Blue) line from downtown to Long Beach, which has now been extended far to the east of downtown with the same Line A name. It was opened in 1995. The alignment was picked because it was constructed at the same time as the freeway, so there were no right-of-way costs. As a plus, it is completely grade-separated. However, it is a miserable place to be. Parts of the A Line near Pasadena are in freeway median. Parts of BART are in freeway median. Each and every light rail station in a median is an oppressive place to be. These median running rail systems are popular with transit agencies because they cost less. They are extremely unpopular with riders.
I hope that light rail will never again be constructed in freeway medians. I hope that someday the Watt/I-80 station will be moved out of the I-80 freeway median. Note that the Roseville Road and Watt/I-80 West stations are also in the same freeway median, but as the median is wider at these points, the freeway noise is less oppressive. The location of all three stations is located on the right-of-way of an additional freeway that was never built.
Wikipedia: “One of the lessons learned from the line, and the Harbor Transitway built at the same time, was that freeway median stations offer a poor rider experience, requiring customers to descend from bridges or climb stairs from dimly lit underpasses to isolated stations in the middle of a noisy and exhaust-ridden freeway. While stations generally have elevators as a necessary accessibility accommodation, these sometimes fail, and have been known for having sanitation issues; escalators are also often out for maintenance or, with the C Line in particular, only available downward.”
Not to be outdone, Sacramento has a similar problem with the Watt/I-80 Blue Line light rail station. I visited this morning, more or less during commute hours, though not during the peak. At the station platform, the range was 65 to 80 db, helped a great deal by the row of vegetation between the platform and the eastbound I-80 lanes. The walkway from the platform to the east stairway and elevator ranged from 75 to 90 db, harmed a great deal by reflection off the overhead Watt Avenue bridge, and with no sound protection from the westbound I-80 lanes. Up top, where the bus stops are, with primary noise from Watt Avenue traffic and secondary noise from the freeway below, ranged from 65 to 80 db. Watt Avenue is six lanes wide, and carries heavy traffic. I-80 is eight lanes wide, with seven additional lanes of ramps and bypasses, and carries heavy traffic.
When SacRT was considering what to do with Watt/I-80 light rail station, which was an unpleasant and unsafe location, the public asked that the station be moved out of the freeway median and to a more pleasant and safe location. SacRT decided to retain the location and make ‘improvements’. The dark, urine stained, unsafe west stairway has been replaced by a wide, high visibility stairway. The dark, urine stained, unsafe east stairway has been replaced by a better visibility stairwell. The east elevator is in the same condition it always was, with a strong urine smell, graffiti on the walls, and damaged glass. Though the west elevator is closed at the moment for maintenance, I imaging it has the same issues. Wider walkways and trees have been added at a few locations. The station will indeed by nicer than it was, but nice enough to induce riders that have a choice to use it? I doubt that.
A rather disappointing board meeting (SacRT Board 2026-09-28). Again, staff is underprepared to answer board member questions, and many board members are asleep at the wheel, not asking any questions, or in some cases, not really paying attention.
I spoke on three issues, and my comments are below, in italic. These were written ahead of time, so my actual testimony may have dropped some points or added others. If you want to hear what I said, or other transit advocates said, or board members said, or staff said, you can listen to/watch the YouTube post of the meeting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gEKiVZ_3Q&list=PLAfWRxJkwPon701gc9cUsUqqBDlmiWJnt&index=4.
Yet again, the staff report and presentation have not been made available to the public along with the rest of the agenda. With one exception since July 2025, these documents have always been late, even showing up in several cases during the board meeting. I can no longer see this as an oversight, or unintentional. I believe this is an effort on the part of staff to hide this information for as long as possible so that the public and advocates cannot review the documents and develop a response. This is unacceptable.
This item was presented by Lisa Hinz (VP of safety, security, and customer satisfaction).
Board asked about delay of 3.1 documents, Tabitha Smith (board secretary) said it was a website uploading error. Henry Li (general manager) promised it would not happen again. It is a fact that the customer service documents are almost always finished well after other board documents, often after the agenda has been posted. So this is not just a document posting issue, it is a failure to complete important documents in a timely manner.
No policy was shared on fare enforcement, strollers, shopping carts or bicycles. Existing policy was restated, slide below.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation on stroller policy
Lisa Hinz gave a vociferous defense of the idea of zero-tolerance, slide below. She said that anything less than zero-tolerance would lead to unequal treatment of passengers, followed by lawsuits against SacRT. It is clear to me that Lisa does not consider riders to be people, then are just names on citations. Her level of empathy for people is zero. Lisa’s attitude is a typical law enforcement one which believes that people are just an inconvenience to the real mission of law enforcement. Guilty until proven innocent. This face that SacRT presents to the public is horrible, and it has resulted in a significant loss of reputation for SacRT, as well, as apparently, a loss of riders.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation on zero tolerance
One of the slides indicated that accommodating more than two wheelchairs was impossible for the Stockton BRT, slide below. I added to my comments that AC Transit’s new buses have three to five wheelchair positions. SacRT has chosen to purchase buses that meet the FTA minimums, and not to provide additional capacity. Another advocate reminded that buses not infrequently have to leave wheelchair users behind when the two spaces are already full.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation
It appears that policy will go to MAC first, and then back to the board. ‘Proposed Policy for Cart and Wagon use on SacRT vehicles (Priscilla Vargas, ADA Compliance Officer)’ was on the August MAC agenda, but was tabled. It was also on the September agenda, but minutes not available yet, and I have not had time to review the YouTube recording, so I don’t know if it was addressed. (Update: There was some discussion at the September MAC. The policy is that wagons will be banned. Shopping carts will have a size limit, and apparently riders will have to make a ‘reasonable modification’ (The correct term is ‘reasonable accommodation’, but Priscilla Vargas apparently does not know the correct term.) request to the accessibility department (?). Other riders without that permission will have to remove contents and fold their carts. Lisa Hinz contradicted this interpretation. Who’s on first? It was admitted that the public has not been provided information on these policies. Ack! Strollers and bicycles were not addressed.)
This presentation is immensely complicated. It was reviewed by a number of transit advocates, including some who work in transit, and most could not make sense of it. There is too much detail and not enough clarity. The presentation violates the basic writing technique of ‘tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them’. It may be that some people are interested in all this detail most people want to know ‘what’s the upshot’. That is nowhere to be found.
Though it is hard to parse the information, it appears that the $1.2 billion estimate does not include the $500 American River bridge. So the project is really $1.7 billion. To assume that the city will, under its current and ongoing budget crises, and difficulty winning grants for major projects, be able to come up with a half million is questionable.
I noted several board member nodding their heads on my comment, that they thought the presentation was needlessly complicated.
Serna commented that there must not be sunk costs for conversion to light rail. He asked about a flyover for CA 99 that could be used for both buses and light rail. Hume also commented on sunk costs, and suggested considering alternative modes including autonomous vehicles. He said surface routes may not be good even if dedicated lanes, though I’m unsure what this has to do with the project. Dickinson said the traditional rail is best and questioned why the route (similar to Route 11) goes back to Natomas rather than staying on I-5. Said if people want local service, give them local service; if they want the airport, give them the airport.
It keeps getting claimed by board members and staff that Green Line to the Airport light rail is the top project for the public, but that is not what the ‘Transit Idea Exchange’ listening sessions indicated. The public was uninterested in these very expensive moon-shot projects, and primarily wanted better bus service.
4. Matters not on the agenda
The public relations debacle that resulted from SacRT’s sudden implementation of a zero-tolerance policy on fare collection, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles, was without any discussion or decision by the board. This indicates to me that ‘customer satisfaction’ must be moved out of the organizational structure of ‘Security, Safety, and Customer Satisfaction’. The law enforcement orientation of this division cannot provide the necessary attitude and attention to the mission-critical function of customer satisfaction.
The placement of the Transit Ambassador program within this division may also be problematic. SacRT has never clearly defined the function of the TAs. If their primary function is law enforcement, leave the program here. If their primary function is customer service, then move them elsewhere in the organization structure. If SacRT does not know what their primary function is, which appears likely, then the program needs to be revisited and revised.
There were several other advocates who spoke on items not on the agenda. Crystal Lee McGee, head of ATU 256 (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 256), introduced Ms. Johnson, who spoke about being harassed by her supervisor as a new mother, and not provided a private lactation area. The SacRT Go supervisor’s name was mentioned but I did not catch it. It is rare for ATU to go to the board with personnel issues, so it is clearly one of critical importance. This may be another instance of SacRT’s anti-family orientation, along with the anti-family stroller policy.
The General Managers Report presentation often includes slides that were not in the posted document. These slides are not made available after the fact.
One such slide on was on modern information signs for light rail. Henry said that implementation of new signs is was intentionally delayed so that it could be integrated with the Light Rail Modernization program. This was the first the public had heard about this. Several of the existing signs are non-functional, and have been for some while. Other signs have display issues, making them hard or impossible to read. Even when the signs work, they rarely have useful information for riders. A common message is that light rail trains are running 15 minutes late, which is nonsensical since the frequency during weekday days is 15 minutes. Riders have no way of knowing whether the arriving train is on time or delayed, they just want the train to come. Part of the reason that SacRT can’t provide accurate information about light rail delays is that they did not implement high quality GPS and real-time GTFS for the new light rail cars, so they don’t know where those trains are without asking the operators for location. I did not capture that slide, unfortunately. (Update: I reviewed the YouTube video [1:44:30], and captured the slide below. The new system will be from Clever Devices/Hitachi. Their website shows internal displays but not these external station displays.)
capture from YouTube of 6.1 General Managers Report on real-time signing
In the September MAC meeting, it was announced that 45 new Siemens S700 cars have been or will shortly be on hand, but the next set of cars, 46 to 65, will not start arriving until February of 2029. New cars will gradually replace legacy cars on the Blue Line as they become available. That may mean that the new light rail information signs might not be installed until many years from now. Yow!
The GM report mentioned the following on the Transit Connect program physical cards: “This next phase also includes important updates for Connect Card pass holders. While Connect Card users should continue using their cards for now, the transition to Transit Connect will begin later in 2026. Much like the ZipPass retirement earlier this summer, Connect Card customers will receive a window of time to use any stored value on their cards before switching to the new system. Riders will have the option of moving to the Transit Connect app or obtaining a new Transit Connect smart card if they prefer a physical alternative.” I will re-state that the physical or Smart Card was not part of SacRT initial planning for Transit Connect and Tap2Ride integration. It was added after members of the transit advocacy community including state workers questioned what would replace the Connect Transit Card. It has still not been defined for the public how the physical cards will relate to the app, nor how services will be provided to unbanked people. Critical details of Transit Connect have not been shared with the public. Nothing SacRT does happens on time, so it is likely that Phase 2 will occur sometime next year, not this fall.
To be honest, I have a hard time following the GM report. It is at the end of the meeting, when everyone is tired. Henry spends a lot of time announcing events, which are already on the website and in the Next Stop News, and talking about light rail disruptions, which if reported at all, should be in a separate agenda item.
Update: Staff said that the 3.1 presentation was not available on the board documents page, due to a website upload issue. It still is not there. It was, at some unknown point, available in the agenda combined file, so I extracted it and linked it in the agenda post. Henry Li said that this will not happen again, and that the document will normally be provided at the time of the agenda release along with all other documents. However, this has not happened in the past, and I have doubts about it in the future. There will be more to be said about this agenda item, along with a report on the meeting.
Three hours before the September 28, 2026 board meeting, agenda item 3.1 ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ staff report still has no content, and no presentation has been made available. This is not accidental. Over the period of time since this agenda item was added to the board agenda (July 2025), only once has the staff report and presentation been made available at the same time as the rest of the board agenda. Several times the item has been added during the board meeting.
I have come to believe that this is intentional on the part of SacRT staff, to hide the staff report and the presentation from the public until the last minute, so that the public and advocates do not have the chance to review the documents and formulate a response. Even though the presentations usually gloss over issues, and present ‘solutions’ that are often fabrications, these are still an embarrassment to SacRT. Of all the issues that come before the board, this is the most critical, or perhaps equal with the budget. SacRT exists to meet the needs of riders and the public. When the public, and advocates, are unhappy with the service, SacRT is failing. And it is failing with disturbing frequency. A problem cannot be solved until it is admitted and identified. SacRT does not seem interested.
This issue is related to the location of customer service within the staffing structure of SacRT, and it must be moved elsewhere, out of security and safety (law enforcement): SacRT: move Customer Satisfaction
The area of the CERP is shown on the map below. This is certainly not the only area in Sacramento County with emission concerns, but it was selected based on preliminary monitoring and community involvement.
map of SouthSac-Floring CERP boundary, SMAQMD
The core of the CERP as it relates to transportation is in the Urban Planning and Mobile Sources Strategies table, below. In particular, ‘Safe and Resilient Streets’ and ‘Increase public ridership on public transportation within the community’, though all the elements relate to transportation in some way.
Urban Planning and Mobile Sources Strategies table, SouthSac-Florin CERP, SMAQMD
Safe and Resilient Streets
There are two sub-strategies within the Safe and Resilient Streets element: UM-4a Quick Builds, UM-4b Standards.
For Quick Builds, the strategy is “Support installation of quick builds to create protected and shaded cycling and walking routes.” and the Actions are:
Fund changes to the built environment.
Identify community desired infrastructure.
Prioritize locations for intervention.
Expand neighborhood street safety programs.
Though Sacramento County, City of Sacramento, and City of Elk Grove are gradually implementing quick builds, the rate is too slow, and the effort is underfunded.
For Standards, the strategy is “Support and/or amend street standards to create protected and shaded cycling and walking routes.” and the Actions are:
Work with local jurisdictions to adopt new design or redesign standards and to implement improvements.
Identify community desired infrastructure.
Locate deficiencies in existing standards.
Prioritize locations for intervention.
Sacramento County, City of Sacramento, and City of Elk Grove do not have modern standards that “Increase and prioritize pedestrian and cyclist safety.”
Increase public ridership on public transportation within the community
For this element, the Strategy is “Increase public ridership on public transportation within the community.” and the Actions are:
Provide transportation demand management services for residents and businesses within the community.
Work with organizations, businesses, and agencies to provide incentives for employees to take sustainable transportation (i.e., carpool, public transportation, electric vehicle).
Work with the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) to continue the funding for a free yearly bus pass to community members, focused on increasing student ridership.
Provide public outreach to community members with information on how to access transportation apps and how to access maps, routes, and schedules.
Note that no increase in bus frequency or bus route coverage is proposed.
Overall, the plan seems well thought out and seems to reflect community concerns and solutions. Mention of trees is scattered throughout, not just in the element UM-3 ‘Increase Tree Canopies’ element, which is a great sign. All of the strategies depend on multiple partnerships, and it remains to be seen whether the partners will follow through, and whether cooperation will continue and increase.
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, September 28, 2026, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked.
As usual, the staff report for item 3.1, ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ contains no information nor presentation. This delay in making information available to the public is intentional, to make it more difficult for the public to review and comment on this item. Three hours before the board meeting, 1:00 PM on Monday, September 28, item 3.1 ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ is unchanged, still no real staff report or presentation.The presentation was available in the combined agenda at the time of the meeting, but was not and still is not available in the agenda item.It has been extracted and linked below.
It is unknown at this time whether a policy response on zero-tolerance, strollers, carts, and bicycles will be presented, but if so, it will not be for board decision. There are many policies not for board decision, but given the immense controversy that resulted from the staff-implemented zero-tolerance policy, this is an appropriate policy for the board to address and decide upon.
SacRT has added a ‘public participation‘ document, which addresses remote participation and comments. Comments in person and via email remain the same, as explained in the agenda.
I may have comments on agenda items between now and the board meeting.
2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of August 24, 2026
2.2 Resolution 2026-09-112: Approving the Settlement Agreement and First Amendment to Contract for ADA Paratransit Scheduling, Dispatch and Eligibility Software as a Service with HBSS Connect Corp.
2.3 Resolution 2026-09-113: Conditionally Approving the Contract for On-Call Alternator Rebuild Services (Niehoff) with Kirk’s Automotive Incorporated
2.4 Resolution 2026-09-114: Approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Real-Time Train Information System (Computer-Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location) and Dynamic Message Signs with Hitachi Rail CD U.S. LTD. Formerly Known as Clever Devices LTD
2.5 Resolution 2026-09-115: Second Amendment to the FY 2026 Operating Budget
2.6 Resolution 2026-09-116: Formally Consenting to and Supporting the Establishment of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Sacramento Regional Transit District as Dual Designated Recipients for Applicable Federal Transit Administration Formula Funding Apportioned to the Sacramento Urbanized Area
2.7 Resolution 2026-09-117: Approving the Five-Year Agreement for Peace Officer Assignment with the County of Sacramento Sheriff Department
The Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is the 19th most dangerous for pedestrians (walkers) in the US. A MSA is a portion of a region that includes major cities, but also rural areas (see map on Wikipedia: Sacramento metropolitan area). It includes part of the SACOG six-county region, but is not identical.
The map below shows Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom MSA tied for 19th worst with Stockton-Lodi. Keep in mind that this is 19th out of 101 places. No, it is not the worst in California. Bakersfield-Delano, Fresno, and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario are worse. This report does not address cities, though other data points indicate that the City of Sacramento is among the top three worst in the state.
The map also shows California as the 8th worst state out of 50 states. There are seven worse, led by New Mexico, a state famous for its drunk driving. Only Hawaii had a significant decrease in the rate of fatalities.
The deadliest places in America, Dangerous by Design 2026, Smart Growth America
Even more important than our poor ranking is that we are getting worse. The chart below shows change from 2015-2019 to 2020-2024, and is just the first page of four, totaling 101 MSAs. The Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom MSA (19th) has gone from 2.45 to 3.21 pedestrian fatalities per 100K people in only five years. California (8th) has gone from 2.38 to 2.82 in only five years. No one who follows the news is unaware of this epidemic of traffic violence, but the change is remarkable. What is the government doing about it? Very little.
On the webinar is was asked if the explosion of vehicle sizes and prevalence of trucks with very poor visibility was the main cause of the increase. The Smart Growth America presenter answered that it was on among many causes. Poor roadway design remains a primary factor.
MSA ranking, Dangerous by Design 2026, Smart Growth America
If you are thinking of places you might want to visit, and walk, you would absolutely want to avoid Bakersfield-Delano, Fresno, and Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario. These are places that have largely accepted a high rate of pedestrian fatalities, and are doing little to change it. Don’t go there! The chart will show you places where you might go, but would want to be very, very careful. And make sure your will and medical insurance are up to date.
An article in the SacBee today updates status on the Fix50 project to date (Sacramento Highway 50 project delayed again. When will Fix50 construction end?, SacBee, 2026-09-16, Madison Smalstig). Caltrans says the project will be ‘substantially completed’ by the end of October. October of what year? I worked for the federal government and government contractors for years early in my career, and know that the term ‘essentially complete’ is governmental-ese for ‘we are so far behind we don’t even really know when we’ll be done’.
$100M over budget, so far, and a year behind schedule, so far. But none of this really matters to Caltrans, which has its hands deep in your taxpayer pocket, and never suffers consequence for mis-managing projects. Caltrans is bad, Caltrans District 3, which includes Sacramento County, is worse. D3 is well known for its cars-first policies and projects.
And what will the project do, when it is someday complete? It will induce additional travel on Hwy 50, and on all roadways leading to and from Hwy 50, by encouraging commuters to travel longer distances and take more frequent trips. Poorer air quality, and anger-inducing congestion, guaranteed. Yet another make-work project for Caltrans engineers and construction companies. Most importantly, money spent to subsidize private motor vehicle drivers instead of meeting the multi-modal needs of citizens. Money tossed in the trash, or in this case, in the highway.
The Fix50 project is adding HOV lanes. It is well known that HOV lanes are ineffective at encouraging carpooling because they are routinely violated by many drivers, meaning the HOV lanes are just as congested, and therefore ineffective, as every other lane. This is a highway capacity expansion project, nothing more. Tolled express lanes induce some traffic, but far less than HOV lanes.
On August 25, I attended the ACLU Defending Democracy Tour in Sacramento. The main topic of the evening was defending election integrity (Election Safeguarding), which as we all know is under attack by the felon Trump’s administration. But a highlight was the Driving While Black and Brown report (summary) about bias in the City of Sacramento Police Department against black drivers.
ACLU Driving While Black and Brown title
The data comes from AB 953 Racial Identity and Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015 database, which law enforcement must report to the California Attorney General’s Office. It is worth reading the report for details, data, and charts, but to summarize:
Blacks are stopped more often than whites, 33% of all stops while only 12% of population. Blacks are stopped more often for non-moving (in other words, not related to traffic safety, or much less related), than for moving violations, particularly in relation to white drivers. Blacks are much more likely than whites to be searched, but citations or arrests resulting from searches are much less likely than for white drivers. For Latino drivers, the disparities are less pronounced, but still present.
In other words, SacPD uses traffic stops of black and brown drivers for pretextual reasons, in an effort to find crime unrelated to driving, but if that is the purpose, it is failing.
I’ll make two speculations: 1) white drivers are much more likely to be in violation of traffic law and other laws than blacks, and 2) the continuance of such an ineffective pattern of traffic stops is intended to oppress blacks rather than increase public safety. The phrase ‘driving while black‘ is well known, and the pattern is also well documented across the US. Charles T. Brown coined the term ‘arrested mobility‘ to describe how law enforcement and other governmental actions suppress the ability of blacks to travel freely and safely.
The report only analyzed stops of motor vehicle drivers. It did not look at stops of walkers (pedestrians) and bicyclists and other users of micro-mobility. I suspect an analysis would reveal the same pattern.
The report makes the following Recommendation: These racial disparities are damning and paint a clear picture that the Sacramento Police Department uses minor traffic violations as a pretext to stop and search Black and Latino drivers. The ACLU of Northern California recommends that Sacramento adopt a policy prohibiting its police department from stopping drivers for non-safety related violations, such as tinted windows and failure to illuminate a license plate. Other California cities that have implemented such reforms have reduced racial disparities in traffic enforcement with no negative impact on public safety.
SacRT has decided to delay the hydrogen bus (fuel cell electric) plan to meet zero emission bus (ZEB) requirements, and will buy natural gas buses instead. This was the subject of a SacBee article: Sacramento RT to buy new natural gas buses, delaying zero-emission transition, 2026-09-09, Madison Smalstig. I had missed this, I think because the decision was scattered across several board meetings, and often on consent calendar rather than regular agenda item.
SacRT will require a waiver from CARB (California Air Resources Board) Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) program. SacRT has an approved Rollout Plan from 2021, and more recent proposals for a hydrogen fueling station at McClellan and a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell buses, including a grant (see below). Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) had a series of posts on SacRT’s hydrogen plans and hydrogen in general (see Tag: zero emission buses). It is clear that the hydrogen plans were not well thought out, were not environmentally sound, and were only partially funded. The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intend to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses, but will have to start over seeking money for that.
FY24 FTA Bus and Low- and No-Emission Grant Awards: “The Sacramento Regional Transportation District will receive funding to buy new hydrogen fuel cell buses to replace older buses, modernize a maintenance facility and initiate a workforce development program. The project will create jobs and improve service, reliability and air quality as SacRT works to convert its fleet to entirely zero emission by 2028. $76,847,678”
The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intends to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses (fuel cell electric), but will have to start over seeking money for that.
SFMTA is going with diesel-hybrid buses: Muni is too broke to use more eco-friendly buses, The San Francisco Standard, 2026-09-14. I assume other transit agencies will be making similar plans. By the way, SFMTA Muni has an incredibly low carbon footprint due to light rail and electric trolleys that run on overhead wires. Sacramento could have some of the same benefit without investing in fossil fuels by considering overhead wires. But it won’t.
The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, September 17, 2026, starting at 5:30 PM, at the city council chambers. People can comment on agenda items in person at the meeting, or by making an comment ahead of time online. Though comments up through the meeting become part of the record, commission members will not see comments unless they are submitted early the day of the meeting.
The method for speaking in person has changed. Go to the city’s Public Participation Hub page, and then select Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (note: this page works poorly on handheld devices), and then click on the ‘View Page’ button. Select ‘Register’ to register for the meeting and to speak on an agenda item. Select ‘Comments’ to make a comment, or view other’s comments. You may also use the meeting kiosk to register in person. There are no longer speaker cards available. Once an item has been announced by the chair, it is not possible to register to speak on that item.
Select ‘Files’ to download the agenda. Within that document are links to individual agenda item documents, and these can be downloaded. All of this is much more awkward that the previous meeting mechanism. Check it out ahead of time so you can figure it out. I have made the documents for the three primary agenda items available below, so you don’t have to go through the awkward interface.
