The SacRT organization charts from March 2026, the most recent available, include the Police Services page, below (pdf). Though the next post will be about where in the organizational structure Transit Ambassador (TA) program is housed, this one is just about TA staffing.
If you look at the long column below, you will see 31 TAs, and 13 vacant TA positions, which is a 30% vacancy rate. This is remarkably high. It is possible this is not the rate today, but the rate today is not available. When there are high vacancy rates in any agency or organization, there are generally two explanations: 1) the positions are intentionally not being filled to save money, or 2) the pay scale is too low to recruit qualified employees. I will speculate that the second is the explanation here. Though there are scattered vacancies throughout the organizational charts, they are usually one per function. Thirteen, and 30%, is very unusual.
SacRT organizational chart, police services including Transit Ambassadors
The only routine reporting to the board and public that SacRT does is the quarterly performance scorecard, which is called out in the Strategic Plan. The most recent one is below. There is an ‘Employee Engagement’ section, but there is nothing on the scorecard that indicates overall staffing levels or filling of vacant positions. Most SacRT staff and transit advocates shake their heads at the high scores SacRT gives itself, but that is an issue for another post
SacRT offers a Transit Ambassador position and program. These are the SacRT staff that riders are most likely to see on light rail. There are also private security personnel, but they are primarily at stations and not on the trains. You might on occasion see Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies on a train, though usually only in response to an incident. For light rail riders, Transit Ambassadors are the face of SacRT.
I am unable to find a job description for Transit Ambassador on the SacRT website, but an external website includes a job description (pdf, note the document is visually OK but internally corrupted), with excepts below.
“The purpose of this position is to provide continuous and consistent customer service to all passengers aboard light rail vehicles, at light rail stations and within light rail parking lots or other SacRT facilities. The Transit Ambassador will help resolve fare issues, address customer inquiries, assist with understanding the system routes, and handle any concerns and complaints all while maintaining a courteous and friendly attitude.”
The ‘example of duties’ list includes:
“Assists passengers with fare system issues and address any questions to help ensure payments are collected. Helps any passengers that are having difficulties using the fare system, and addresses any related complaints or questions.
Assists passengers with transfers; helps guide customers to access alternate bus or train services during regular service as well as in the event of a service disruption.
Answers passenger inquiries and maintains a courteous and friendly demeanor at all times. Maintains an expert knowledge of the bus and light rail system in order to answer all customer inquiries and provides directions when asked. Provides route, schedule and fare information to customers upon request.
Maintains vigilant watch at light rail stations and parking lots and help maintain a safe and clean environment for passengers and their vehicles. Occasionally removes and disposes of litter on trains to help maintain clean environment.
Handles customer compliments, criticisms and complaints equally with a calm and pleasant demeanor. Attempts to address customer’s issues but recognizes when issues need to be elevated to the next level of authority.
Ensures a commitment to safety through consistent and professional behaviors in performance of all job functions.
May be required to issue citations to customers that fail to pay fares and/or nuisance behavior, as well as appear in court to present evidence and testimony related to issued citations. Enters fare citation information into departmental computer system, completes required incident forms and accident reports when necessary.
Other duties as required.”
The SacRT website mentions a 3-month Transit Ambassador Training Academy, but it is not mentioned in the job description, and it is not defined anywhere that I was able to find. And it is not clear that this training is actually occurring. It seems that though most training is on-the-job, which is useful, but leads to inconsistency if it is the main training.
There was a period of time when the staff on board light rail trains were called fare checkers. That was their only function, and they were apparently instructed to not do anything else. Then the were instructed to fulfill many roles, similar to the list above. Recently, they were instructed to become law enforcement officers through the zero-tolerance policy. Note that though Transit Ambassadors are authorized to issue citations for transit rule violations, they are not otherwise trained law enforcement officers. At the 2025-10-27 board meeting, confusion among riders and transit advocates about what the ambassadors were supposed to do led to a presentation that included the slide below. However, the presentation did not resolve why the perception of TA roles was different for riders and for staff.
I believe that the fuzziness of roles is why there are so many complaints about Transit Ambassadors. The public certainly does not know their role, and it appears that the TAs also are not clear about their role.
except page from SacRT Board Agenda item 3.1, 2025-10-27 on Transit Ambassadors
Los Angeles Metro separates the roles of fare checkers and ambassadors. The description of the two positions is below. Of course Metro is a much larger and better funded agency, and it might not be possible to make this separation within SacRT.
Metro Transit Security Officers
Transit Security Officers are trained Metro employees who understand the unique needs of our system and our riders. These officers enforce the code of conduct and fare payment across the transit system, ensuring compliance and maintaining order.
Metro Transit Security Officers focus on:
Patrolling the system regularly.
De-escalating situations and maintain order and lawfulness on the system.
Enforcing the Metro code of conduct and issuing citations.
Communicating incidents directly with Metro Operations Centers, law enforcement partners, and emergency service providers.
Fare checks and enforcement.
Metro Ambassadors
Serving as additional support for riders, Metro Ambassadors assist passengers with various needs and report any issues they observe, contributing to a safer and more pleasant transit experience.
Metro Ambassadors:
Help passengers get where they need to go, providing directions and route information.
Are trained to provide life-saving medical support in emergencies.
Use the Metro-issued phone or tablet device to document issues and call Metro Security or 911 additional support in an emergency — this is why you may see them on a device.
The next post will be on where Transit Ambassadors should fit within the organizational structure of SacRT, and why the agency seems to be short so may TAs.
In SacRT, Customer Satisfaction is grouped under the ‘Vice President, Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction’ position, which is held by Lisa Hinz. The grouping of customer satisfaction with security and law enforcement has led to many, many problems, the latest of which is the zero tolerance policy implemented by this position, without SacRT Board knowledge or approval. People who are trained in law enforcement (Ms. Hinz who is an ex-City of Sacramento Police Officer) do not have the job or personal skills to manage customer satisfaction. Under this arrangement, enforcement comes first, and riders come last.
The 3.1 agenda item ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’, presented at most but not all meetings, have generally been full of misinformation, misunderstanding, and glossing over problems. They have not led to useful changes, and in general the public and transit advocates are not satisfied with these reports. The presentations to go with this agenda item are usually available well after the rest of the agenda items, even during the meeting itself, preventing the public from viewing ahead of time and developing responses. I do not believe this is an accident.
This is unacceptable. The responsibility must be moved elsewhere in the organization chart. I am not sure where the best placement is, but I am sure the current placement is wrong. The chart below shows the position of Customer Satisfaction, at right, within the Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction grouping (pdf).
SacRT organizational chart, security, safety and customer satisfaction
This is the top-level chart for SacRT (pdf). The fact that it is not immediately obvious where to correctly place Customer Satisfaction is indicative of the approach at SacRT that puts administration above riders.
SacRT organizational chart, top level
I will have comments soon on the placement and duties of Transit Ambassadors.
The classic approach to planning transportation projects is to start with preliminary planning, and then present these ideas through public engagement or outreach. I have attended uncountable public meetings at which there are a series of display boards, and experts to answer questions and concerns, agency staff and usually consultants as well. At some meetings, I have been the only participant. Others, a few people show up. At a few, there are many people.
Most of the people attending are transportation advocates, people who have enough knowledge of planning and engineering and terminology to make some sense of the display boards. This is not the general public. I am one of those advocates, and try as I can to get to these public meetings. But I am not the general public. The general public, if it shows up at all, generally has two questions about a project: 1) where is my parking?, and 2) where are the trees? I don’t have much sympathy for the first, but the second is a critical question about every transportation project, and it is the aspect most likely to be neglected in planning and engineering. Every time I hear ‘where are the trees?’, it give me hope for the future.
For most members of the public, the display boards and answers by experts are largely unintelligible. This is not because these are not intelligent people, but because they have no context for understanding exactly what is being proposed, and how it will work and feel when complete. Going from an engineering or planning diagram, or even mock-up photo, to an understanding of the real world is simply not an exercise that most people are good at.
At each meeting I attend, I’m left wondering whether this was a useful exercise, a useful investment of the public’s time, and a useful investment of limited planning and engineering funds. Though occasionally two meetings will be scheduled, one afternoon and one evening, to try to meet the schedule of various members of the public with work and family responsibilities, the fact is that most people can’t make any meetings, or don’t feel comfortable in this setting.
Sometimes surveys are designed and offered to get feedback from those who can’t or won’t attend a meeting. My experience with the surveys is that the diagrams and mock-ups in the survey are just as unintelligible at the display boards. Often the surveys have questions that the planners want to ask, but don’t really provide a chance for the participant to comment on what they think is really important, and most particularly, to offer ideas ‘outside the box’ of what the planners are thinking. I tend to think that surveys are even more worthless than meetings. There is no interactivity in a survey.
I want to strongly recommend that engagement/outreach occur after there is something in the real world to look at, and to experience. These would be demonstrations, pilots, or quick-builds. The agency puts something temporary on the ground, and then asks the public what they think. This could be one block, or one corner, or one parking space, or one conflict area. The public could then observe, and most importantly, use the changed streetscape. And then, provide feedback to the agency and consultants. Sometimes the demonstration would be on the site of the proposed project, but existing projects very similar to the one being proposed, could also be used. Either of these requires that the public be encouraged to look, to experience, to contemplate. Rather than trying to get people to a public meeting, get people to the location, and engage with them there. What do the ‘experts’ observe? What does the public have to say? What usability or safety issues show up that no one had thought about? This means being out in the city, not sitting in a meeting room. It means asking questions and really listening to answers. It means not wasting time and resources on fancy diagrams and mock-ups.
Most engagement would happen on the ground, not in a meeting. Probably a single engagement/outreach meeting could be scheduled to hear from people who experienced it and have thought about it, and those who were unable to get to the demonstration. But there is little to no use in repeated public meetings. That is not the real world. The real world is out there on the street, as people use the transportation system. In this case, as people use the demonstration.
I am certainly aware that not all types of projects are amenable to this approach. Some transportation changes don’t work or are not meaningful on a small scale. Some projects can’t be demonstrated with temporary measures. But I will say that I think most projects can be demonstrated.
Demonstration first, then engagement.
What we have been doing is not effective. Time to invert the approach, better engage the public, and get better projects.
Strong SacTown has created several demonstration projects of the sort that I am recommending, including a Park(ing) Day conversion of parking spaces on 10th Street into a multi-function parklet, and a Clean Air Day 2024 temporary curb extension and street narrowing of an overly wide street in Tahoe Park. These are just two ideas. Both were incredibly effective, and served to gather public feedback on temporary demonstrations.
Park(ing) Day parklet on 10th St, Strong SacTownroadway narrowing and curb extension, Tahoe Park, Strong SacTown
A transit advocate has flagged that her stop on Q Street at 7th Street had all indications that it was a bus stop removed. There is no bus stop sign. What is there is a new concrete pad, presumably to host some bus stop amenities. In February 2025, the most recent date, Google Maps shows a bus shelter there, with bus stop sign. Google Earth shows streetview with shelter on the same date, but the most recent aerial, February 2026, is too fuzzy to tell, and earlier ones are obscured by trees.
Google Maps and Transit.app show this as a valid bus stop, which means that it is in SacRT’s GTFS file. However, I observed a Route 51 bus taking the turn from 7th Street southbound to Q Street eastbound in such a way that they could not have pulled into the bus stop if there were a rider waiting, so perhaps some drivers are unaware that this is a bus stop. Note in the photo below that half of the pad area is also a parking space, which it should not be. A bus needs space to pull in, and pull out, and that parking space prevents a bus from using the pad area. This is a failure by the city to properly manage parking. I hadn’t realized it at the time, but the construction cone probably covers an electrical feed.
SacRT bus stop pad, no sign or amenities, Q St at 7th St
This reminded me of my experience with the bus stop on 9th Street southbound at Q Street, for Route 51 (and some other buses). This is not a stop that I often use, so don’t know the history. On June 12, 2026, there was no bus stop sign, but the Route 51 bus did stop for me. This is not a heavily used bus stop, but I always see one or more people here. A large concrete bus stop pad was installed, close to 20 feet long. Clearly, amenities were intended here, otherwise there would be no point in such an expansive pad. It appears that some construction was going on July 2025, maybe the bus stop pad, but I can’t be certain. I am certain that nothing has happened since June 2026.
SacRT bus stop pad, no amenities, 9th St at Q St
Apparently whatever was intended for these two bus stops was abandoned. By SacRT? By the city? I don’t know. What is clear is that riders on Route 51 are not being served by bus stops with amenities, or even signing.
I almost alway use light rail transit in downtown, or am walking or riding my bike, so I don’t know if there are other such locations. If you know of others, including the stop you use, please let me know and I’ll add it here.
It has been suggested that this could be part of the city’s SVS Commuter Bus Stop Consolidation Project, but neither of these stops are part of that project, which is focused solely on commuter buses. It has been suggested that this could be part of SacRT’s Bus Stop Improvement Plan (2023), but the plan does not identify any stops in the central city, since it focuses on underserved communities with priority routes. These two locations are not on the list of potential SacRT Heat-Resilient Bus Shelters Project. I’m not aware that any construction has taken place for any of these projects. Were these one-off ‘improvements’, or part of a project? Unknown.
The transit advocate said that staff later said the Q Street at 7th Street shelter would be replaced, but timeline is unknown.
Agenda item 4.1 was to adopt the SacRT Strategic Plan 2026-2030. As I had previously commented, the plan seems very general and vague. Board member Roger Dickinson had the same impression, and specifically wondered where a budget and funding projection was for this period of time. The plan document is only 18 pages long, most of it filler, and is labeled on one page an executive summary. Where is the rest of the document? Staff member Shelley Valenton said that the plan is based on a large number of other documents, so the detail is not in the plan, as these other documents change about once per year. Roger asked where these document were. They have not been posted or linked, so the board and public can’t view them. It was promised they would be. The Strategic Plan 2021-2025 is even briefer, 12 pages. The plan webpage lists several scorecards, but does not contain a single background document.
The board presentation includes a page below, Work Plan Tactics, which is the only page that presents useful information, and this is NOT in the plan document.
If the strategic plan is general and vague, with supporting documents not available, it would not provide any information for board or staff on where SacRT is going over five years. What then is the point in having the plan, or presenting it to the board and public?
excerpt from SacRT_2026-08-24 agenda item 04, page 5
Agenda item 6.1, adoption of locally preferred alternative (LPA) for Stockton Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) was presented and adopted. Though there was lot of unrelated filler in the presentation, about the benefits and characteristics of BRT in general, the key points are that the alignment of the existing SacRT Route 51 will be the BRT route (not hybrid Route 51/38), and that the BRT will be curb running and not center running. All other decisions are for future planning, this is just the first step.
I participated in both the stakeholder meetings and the public meeting on STEP. My sense of the consensus is that there wasn’t one, that the participants saw value in both alignments, and in center running and curb running. After quite of bit of research on my part, I still was not sure. So I do appreciate SacRT doing this analysis, and it was probably time to make a decision. However, there was some fuzziness and missing information in the staff report and presentation.
The heart of the argument is in the table below, from the staff report and also in the presentation. The data point highlighted are daily ridership forecast, which favors Route 51, though I don’t believe that the analysis considered that there will be considerably more development – medical, commercial and residential – between Broadway and Alhambra, with the Aggie Square / UC Davis Medical Center developments, than on either the Stockton segment to the south or on Broadway. The second point was the ‘increase in annual O&M cost’ of $2.7M per year. I searched for why the cost for Broadway service was included, but not the savings that would result from running BRT on the former Route 38 into downtown. The two routes would essentially be swapped under the hybrid alignment. There might be some additional cost, but $2.7M per year is not justified in the report.
In the stakeholder and public meetings, representatives of UC Davis Medical Center/Aggie Square spoke enthusiastically about extending BRT north on Stockton to serve that development. They stated that they really wanted a partnership with SacRT, and the city, to make the most of transit service. This fact does not show up anywhere in the staff report or presentation. Staff did several times say, ‘well, its only a quarter mile walk’. Yes, to the middle of campus on Stockton, but not to the north edge, and not to the east edge. I think this was just a spurious justification of a decision made for other reasons.
The third point that struck me as critically important, but was not really mentioned, is the ’employment with 1/4 mile of stations’. The hybrid route would serve 25% more employees than Route 51. That is nothing to be glossed over, particularly since UC Davis Medical Center was enthusiastic about promoting transit use to employees and others.
The decision was made, and it is probably not a bad decision. The devil is in the details, as they say, and the details are yet to come. But I continue to be concerned that SacRT planning either misses important information that should be included, or suppresses information that doesn’t support a foregone conclusion. Is this report and presentation unbiased? I’m not sure.
Agenda item 5 ‘Public Addresses Board on Matters Not on the Agenda’ saw an number of comments, most of them about service and continuing issues with the zero tolerance policy. I did not capture these, so I refer you to the meeting recording.
Note that the STEP project is a joint City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, and SacRT project. If you are looking for my previous posts on Stockton, they might be attributed to the city or SacRT.
The City of Sacramento is working on a secure bike parking pilot program. This was first presented at the February 2025 SacATC meeting (sacatc_2025-02-20_05-bicycle-parking), and an update was providing at the August 2026 SacATC meeting (SacATC_2026-08-20_agenda-04-bicycle-parking-staff). The presentation provided the following graphic for the secure bike parking solution:
BikeLink mini-station or cage
These secure bike parking facilities from eLock Technologies would use the same BikeLink access, by card or app, that is used for the city’s existing bike lockers located at parking garages. Sacramento Valley Station also has two types of secure bike storage, BikeLink lockers provided by Capitol Corridor, and the BikeHub provided by the city, which uses BikeLink for access but has different rental policies. In the region, Capitol Corridor also provides lockers at Davis, Roseville, Rocklin, and Auburn. City of Folsom has BikeLink lockers at its three light rail stations, and City of Roseville has lockers at transit centers. You can view locations on the BikeLink map. Some but not all locations accept ClipperCards for access, but payment is through BikeLink.
Seeing vandalized and stolen bikes (cut locks, wheels missing, or just wheels remaining, missing seats, etc.) at the outside bike racks in many locations where these lockers are available, leaves me scratching my head about why more people don’t use the lockers. At 5 cents per hour for most locations, this is a tiny price to pay for protecting your bike.
Part of the discussion at the SacATC meeting was about whether this secure parking design would accommodate cargo bikes. It appears not. Though the footprint of this design is 84 inches, it seems that the cage or shell only allows the same traditional bike sizes that standard BikeLink lockers allow, with a depth of 67 or 72 inches.
The BikeLink website mentions large and extra large lockers, so I inquired about these and was provided with the following three diagrams. The ‘large’ size has been installed at the Davis Amtrak (Capitol Corridor) station, 12 lockers. I am not aware that this larger size has been installed at any of the other Capitol Corridor stations. As you can see from the diagram, this larger size is designed to accommodate most long-tail bikes and some cargo bike sizes, with a 36 inch width and 85 inch depth. It does not have the wedge design of the standard lockers, so can accommodate bicycles that are wider front and back.
I was told that the mini-station or cage design was a done deal because there was a contract, though the device has not been delivered or even manufactured, so it seems to me that the contract could be modified.
This is a pilot, and as such, it makes sense to explore additional BikeLink options. I recommend that one of the five secure bike parking locations, which have not been identified yet, include at least two BikeLink large size lockers. The city needs to gain experience with these, as do bicyclists.
All of the existing BikeLink lockers in the Sacramento region seem to be underutilized. For the city garage locations, these are not destinations bicyclist think of when planning their trips. Garages are for cars, not for bicyclists. The K Street tunnel locker is accessible from the path, and the city hall parking garage locker was moved to I Street due to the fire, but still, these are not bicyclist destinations. Since Capitol Corridor makes it so easy to take bikes with you on the train, the Capitol Corridor lockers in this region are underutilized, though in the bay area they are much more highly utilized. BART stations have lockers or BikeHubs.
So the key to the pilot program is to identify where bicyclists want to store their bike securely. The best way to determine that is to ask them. City staff could hang out at some existing traditional bike racks, and ask bicyclists how important secure parking is to them, and where they would most want to see it.
For previous posts on BikeLink and secure bicycle parking, see Tag: BikeLink.
As part of the separated bikeways projects in the central city, turn wedges were installed at 30 locations, initially on the P Street and Q Street bikeways, and later on the 19th Street, 21st Street, and I Street bikeways. Though there is a bikeway on J Street, it does not have turn-wedges. My earliest posts on turn wedges, turn wedges of death and Central City Mobility update: turn wedges, I expressed doubt about these features, and added posts about real turn wedges and NACTO protected intersection and Sac semi-protected intersection showing how the designs fell short of best practice designs from NACTO and Alta Design+Planning.
However, after extensive observations of driver behavior around turn wedges, I now believe that these are a positive addition to streets in the central city. These features slow turning drivers, and cause them to face crosswalks more directly. I observe much higher rates of yielding to walkers than at other intersections. Not perfect, by any means, but better. Though these were installed as part of the Central City Mobility Project for bikeways, their greatest benefit is to people walking.
Some turn wedges work better than others, depending on the details of the wedge and the intersecting streets.
Five of the wedges are concrete. Initially, these were being hit by drivers almost constantly. You can see the tire marks on all of the concrete wedges, and even chipping of the concrete. The city added reflective strips to the edges of the wedges, though almost all of the strips have fallen off over time. It would have been good to add delineators or more reflective markings (see the Santa Monica example in real turn wedges). But drivers have adjusted, and I have not seen a driver hit a wedge in quite some time. These concrete wedges are at the intersection of two bikeways, though not all these intersections have concrete.
Two types of vertical delineators were added, initially green K-71 delineators, and later white FG 300 delineators. All of these have been hit by drivers, sometimes repeatedly with significant damage. I don’t see this as necessarily a failure – better a delineator than a walker or bicyclist. There is nothing in the world that can prevent all drivers from hitting objects in or close to the roadway, but good designs reduce the chances of those objects being walkers and bicyclists. This is critically important.
One turn wedge, northeast corner of I Street and 13th Street, is paint only, no delineators. As such, it doesn’t really serve any purpose.
Where buffers, and particularly wide buffers exist, the turn wedges work better because there is a longer approach for the driver before reaching the crosswalk.
Two wedges do not work because the gap between the wedge and the curb is too wide, inducing drivers to cut the corner inside the wedge and negating the benefit of the wedge to walkers and bicyclists. These are at the northeast corner of 9th Street southbound and Q Street eastbound, and the northeast corner of 10th Street northbound and S Street. These locations could be corrected, but they have not been. The 9th Street & Q Street location is particularly problematic because there is a high volume of turning drivers at this location, and speeds are higher due to the design of these two roadways.
There are projects to extend the bikeway on 9th Street south to Broadway, and to extend the P Street and Q Street bikeways to the west. Hopefully these projects will take the lessons of these initial turn wedges to improve the designs. The closer the designs come to the NACTO model, the better. And of course fully protected intersections, all four corners, are the optimal.
Photos of the 30 turn wedges are below. If you are aware of any other locations, please let me know. If you have experiences with any of these, as a walker, bicyclist or driver, please comment.
I-St at 13th-St turn-wedge paint only21st-St at T-St turn-wedge21st-St at O-St turn-wedge21st-St at L-St turn-wedge21st-St at K-St turn-wedge19th-St at V-St turn-wedge19th-St at T-St turn-wedge19th-St at S-St turn-wedge19th-St at N-St turn-wedge19th-St at K-St turn-wedge19th-St at Capitol turn-wedgeQ-St and 21st-St turn-wedgeQ St and 19th-St turn-wedge-concreteQ-St and 10th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 18th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 17th-St turn-wedgeQ-St at 16th-St turn-wedgeP-St and 21st-St turn-wedge-concreteP-St and 19th-St turn-wedge-concreteP-St at 18th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 17th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 16th-St turn-wedgeP-St at 15th-St turn-wedge10th-St at X-St turn-wedge10th-St at T-St turn-wedge10th-St at S-St turn-wedge10th-St at Q-St turn-wedge9th-St and Q-St turn-wedge-concrete9th-St and P-St turn-wedge-concrete9th-St at N-St turn-wedge
Automated Red Light Cameras are NOT Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR).
Recently Flock Safety cameras, and similar cameras by other vendors, including the Motorola cameras used in the City of Sacramento, have been much in the news, and there growing public concern and desire to ban or tightly control their use. You can read up on how they have been mis-used by law enforcement agencies. They are a step toward a univeral surveillance state. ALPRs continuously record license plate numbers, and depending on the setup, also other information including vehicle identification and even facial recognition of the driver. Though law enforcement claims that license plates are correctly identified, and that data is shared only with those who need to know, it has been demonstrated that they are very inaccurate, and that the data is being accessed by almost anyone associated with law enforcement or government agencies. Including stalking by law enforcement officers.
Automated Red Light Cameras (and similar Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras) are completely different. They record only incidents of violation, such as running red lights, and capture only license plate numbers. They are not continuous, do not record any other information, and have retention periods only long enough to resolve the civil citations. You can read a good summary of the privacy safeguards on City of Sacramento’s Automated Red Light Camera Enforcement Program page, or more detail on the SB 770 legislation page.
If you get into or overhear a discussion that confuses ALPRs with red light cameras, I hope that you will jump in with the correct information. Being anti-Flock should not means being anti-red light cameras.
Some of this confusion is understandable. To the public, any camera may seem like the camera of concern. At a typical intersection, there may be upwards of ten cameras, all for different purposes, or overlapping purposes. Probably some are ALPRs. Some are for detection, that allow the signal to detect motor vehicles and bicyclists, some are for traffic detection, allowing an agency to adjust for traffic flows. Sadly, most agencies do not actively manage traffic, even though they have spent huge sums on the signals, controller boxes, and central traffic centers that would allow them to do so.
I know that much of the ‘confusion’ is intentional. There is a large subset of motor vehicle drivers who do not want to be held responsible for their driving behavior and the traffic violence they create. Lumping red light cameras (and speed cameras) in with surveillance cameras furthers their attempt to ban all cameras. Don’t fall for it! Help educate your friends, co-workers, agencies, elected officials, and organizations.
The plans of Californians for Electric Rail for the Greater Sacramento Region were promoted today in a meeting I participated in. I think this is a great organization. They have correctly identified the roadblocks thrown up by special interests, the freight railroads and business as usual government agencies, and solutions to those roadblocks. It is well worth looking at their website and materials. I have long supported serious consideration of electrifying (overhead catenary) Capitol Corridor, at least the Sacramento to Oakland Jack London section.
I am glad to see that light rail extension beyond Cosumnes River College into Elk Grove is not on the map. That would be a total waste of funds for a low ridership route, better served by bus.
However, I have concerns with some of the specifics for the Sacramento region.
I support more frequent service between Sacramento and Davis. There are a lot of Capitol Corridor Riders on this section. However, I question ridership for Sacramento to Roseville. The once-a-day Capitol Corridor to Auburn has few riders on or off at Roseville. The Amtrak buses to Reno have few riders on or off at Roseville. The once-a-day Amtrak California Zephyr has few riders on or off in Roseville. The Placer County Transit Route 10 has few riders on or off at Roseville, though admittedly the Galleria transit stop is not what most transit riders want. There are ways of increasing rider demand on this corridor, but without a plan to do so, I don’t think this should be a ‘Primary Buildout’ project, regardless of whether it is in the State Rail Plan. The Sacramento to Roseville 3rd track project has been delayed by years, due to funding issues and Union Pacific intransigence and delay. I think a focus on Sacramento to Davis would be much more useful.
Light rail to the airport (Green Line to the Airport) has an unproven demand. The hourly SacRT Route 142 bus is frequently empty. The hourly Yolobus 42A/B bus has more passengers, but that is because it serves Davis and Woodland as well as downtown Sacramento. If a regular bus isn’t being used, the idea that light rail will be used is speculative, and not the basis for spending $2 billion plus on rail. The SacRT study of BRT along a similar route is useful, but again, is a step well beyond basic bus service.
The idea of using the Woodland Division of the Sierra Northern railroad on the west side of the Sacramento River, and new tracks from there to the airport is intriguing. I’d never seen that proposal before. Using mostly existing track, and some new, might provide a much lower cost alternative to new light rail construction to the airport. Apparently there is a recreational train on a portion of this route, leading me to wonder what the condition of the tracks is.
Valley Rail is shown with a suggested connection into Sacramento Valley Station (SVS). I have not heard of any such proposal from San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. So far as I can tell, their intent is to remain separate from SVS, with connections via light rail, but not passenger rail. There is also no bus service shown from this line to the airport. Without such a connection, the Valley Rail project probably will remain low ridership. Again, these issues can be addressed, but I’m concerned that they are not in this proposal.
map of Greater Sacramento Regional Rail Concept, from Californians for Electric Rail
Train speed
The Sacramento region page says “Existing railroad infrastructure could support up to 125 mph top speeds” under ‘Advantages of regional rail’. The current maximum speed, set by the state based on both train equipment and track condition, is 79 mph (127 kph). But actual speeds on Capitol Corridor are often about 55 mph, reaching 79 mph only on some sections. It would require significant improvement of track quality and better trainset maintenance to accomplish faster speeds. I have heard that Capitol Corridor’s target speed is 110 mph (177 kph). The new Siemens Charger locomotives can go 125 mph (201 kph), but the still in use P42 locomotives can only go 110 mph. This isn’t to say better speeds won’t be achieved, but it is not a simple process.
Getting Around Sacramento 