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.
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
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments
3.2 Information: Green Line to the Airport – Right-of-Way Retention and Corridor Implementation Strategy, staff report | presentation
PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
NEW BUSINESS
5.1 Resolution 2026-09-118: Approving the Temporary Appointment of Future Retired Annuitant Priscilla Vargas
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.
The Week Without Driving is coming up in less than a month. Two headlines from the website pretty much explain the point of the celebration. “What would change in your life if driving wasn’t an option?” “More than one third of people living in the United States are nondrivers.”
To participate, act and think about these questions:
Take transit, walk, roll or ride.
Ask for a ride.
Who has choices, what are your choices?
If you still have to drive, you haven’t “failed.”
The national event is sponsored by America Walks and Nondrivers Alliance. So far as I know, there are no local events or sponsors, but please let me know if you know of any.
Hit-and-run crashes are epidemic in the Sacramento area, and increasing. The statistics for Sacramento County, 2019-2023, are:
Year
Percent Hit and Run
2023
10.6%
2022
9.8%
2021
8.9%
2020
9.6%
2019
8.1%
And for the City of Sacramento, 2019 through 2023.
Year
Percent Hit and Run
2023
13.8%
2022
11.7%
2021
10.1%
2020
11.1%
2019
9.1%
These statistics are from OTS Crash Rankings Results. Note that the year 2020 was the first year of the pandemic, and was a year of reckless driving on largely empty roads, nationwide. It is also the year that red light running became pandemic, and has continued to increase.
We do not know what percentage of the hit and run fatalities would not have been a fatality if the driver had stopped to render aide and to call EMS. But we have to assume that at least some of them would have been, particularly the incidents where the victim did not die immediately on site, but was transported to the hospital alive, and later died.
State law treats traffic violence as a less serious crime than any other. In fact, unless there is strong evidence that the driver was either far gone DUI, or intentionally ran down a walker or bicyclist, there is little legal consequence. Perhaps a fine, perhaps a temporary suspension of license, but a judge will frequently assign no penalty. Hit and run is considered a misdemeanor under law. CVC says “(c) Any person failing to comply with all the requirements of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.“
DMV apparently has not been assigning the two points for hit and run (Negligent Operator Treatment System), in many cases. As a response to the lack of action by DMV, AB 1685 to require DMV to assign points, among other things, passed the legislature but has not yet been signed by the (windshield) governor.
Involvement in a crash does not indicate fault. But hit and run does indicate a failure to remain on the scene and render aide. What should be the penalty for that? I think it should automatically be classified as a felony, as it is a act of violence, regardless of the circumstances of the crash. However, legislation to crack down on traffic violence in the legislature has been killed, or watered down, or vetoed by the governor. Legislators are as reluctant to hold drivers accountable as law enforcement and judges. It will probably be a long time before hit and run drivers suffer any higher level of imprisonment or fine.
So I’d like to suggest a consequence that does not involve a violation of CVC or driver points. Anyone convicted of hit and run would:
Have their vehicle confiscated. This is not impoundment, under which the driver would get their vehicle back eventually, but confiscation in which the vehicle is sold and money goes into a fund for street safety. Confiscation is important, because the sort of driver who will leave the scene of a crash is the sort of driver who will continue to drive so long as they have a vehicle.
Have their drivers license suspended for 10 years. Longer if there are additional circumstances such as DUI. Yes, this would be an immense burden on people who live in low density places, or live far from where they work, or drive as part of their work. That is exactly the point, to create a consequence that will impel most drivers to remain on the scene as the law requires.
Both of these actions would cause most drivers, except the ones who intentionally cause crashes, to remain at the scene. It does not mean that they caused the crash, that is a separate issue for a separate court case. It does mean that they followed the law. For those who hit and run, I have absolutely no sympathy. These are not only criminals, they are sociopaths.
