SacCity: school traffic safety

2026/09/03 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

In Sacramento City Express, Sacramento approves safety improvements near seven schools, the city announced a program at seven schools to improve safety for students walking and bicycling at seven schools. This program is mostly grant funded, but the city did add a bit of its own money. The SacBee also has an article: Roads near 7 Sacramento schools will get $2.25 million in safety upgrades (SacBee, 2026-09-02, Madison Smalstig).

The seven schools are:

Father Keith B. Kenny Elementary School
Natomas High School
St. Hope Public School PS7
Smythe Academy
The Met Sacramento High School
West Campus High School
William Land Elementary School

These were among the 20 schools examined in the Vision Zero School Safety Study (2021-02). Apparently another 11 of the schools are part of a Phase 2 program (Vision Zero School Safety Project – Phase 2), which is not well documented. There is no date or timeline on this webpage.

Given that the study was completed and adopted by city council in February 2021, the exact nature of the projects at each school site might now be different, but it is worth looking at what was recommended at that time. I looked at The MET Sacramento High School (pages 33-36), since it is on my morning walk. The diagram is below, followed by my comments.

*diagram of improvements for The MET Sacramento, from SacCity VZ School Safety Study 2021*

W Street at 8th St: The study missed what I consider to be one of the most significant safety hazards for the school, which is that there was, at that time, no safe crossing of W Street, one-half block south of the school, which would be the source area for probably half the students at the school. As part of an unrelated project (so far as I know), the crosswalks over W Street were made safer by high visibility crosswalk markings, vertical delineator lane guides, and RRFBs (Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon). I would not recommend installation of RRFBs, since most drivers ignore them, particularly on high speed roadways such as W Street, nevertheless, it is an attempt to make the crossing safer. These improvements may have been done for the heavy walker use during the Sunday farmers market, and Southside Park, but they are a value to the school. Since these crosswalks are only a half block from the school, they should be yellow. If the possible solution to parking is “…consider implementing a parking program at the W/X Parking Lot”, these crosswalks are even more important to student safety.

8th Street & V Street: The intersection of 8th Street and V Street should have school crosswalks (yellow) on both the north side (as shown) and the south side. All crosswalks should be high visibility, not parallel lines. There is no excuse for excluding a crosswalk on this school corner. As mentioned, RRFBs are not safe, so should not be considered for this intersection. What should be installed are curb extensions on the west, northeast, and southeast corners. The one on the southeast would need to be designed with the bus stop in mind, but the extension is more important than the bus stop. Full daylighting must be implemented on V Street westbound and 8th Street northbound (AB 413).

V Street & 9th Street: Curb extensions should be installed in the northwest and southwest corners. All crosswalks should be high visibility, not parallel lines. Curb extensions on both ends of the section of V Street between 8th Street and 9th Street would further communicate that this is a slow area, not a through route. Full daylighting must be implemented on 9th Street southbound and V Street eastbound.

Sidewalks: In addition to the repair noted for 8th Street east side sidewalk, areas officially designated for drop-off/pick-up should have hard surfaces in the sidewalk buffer (planting strip). Where it is possible to widen sidewalks without reducing the sidewalk buffer, sidewalks on all side of the campus should be eight feet rather than six feet.

Bicycle facilities: The city has an unfunded project to extend a parking protected separated bikeway on 9th Street from its current terminus at Q Street to W Street, or Broadway. If consistent with the existing facility, this would be on the east side of 9th Street. A two-stage turn box will need to be installed at V Street, and perhaps Victorian Alley, so that southbound bicyclists can wait for a gap in traffic and make a safe turn onto V Street or the alley. If memory serves, the limited bike racks are located off Victorian Alley, which complicates ingress and egress, but can be addressed.

SacRT: bicycle issues

2026/09/022026/09/02 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The new Siemens S700 light rail cars, in service on SacRT Gold Line and eventually on SacRT Blue Line, have very limited bicycle space. SacRT’s policy is that there can be four bicycles on each rail car, in the corner by the regular (not handicapped) doors. This policy was unchanged from that for the old light rail cars, so SacRT claimed there was no issue, however, the amount of space available is quite different. Most of the older cars had seats removed to provide additional bicycle space, in addition to the bike hooks on the 200 series cars. The practical bicycle space on these old rail cars was essentially 10 per car. The model of S700 that SacRT has purchased is designated by Siemens as ‘US’, meaning ultra-short. The cars are much shorter than the standard S700, with less space for passengers, wheelchairs, and bicycles. That mistake is not something that can be corrected – the cars are in service, and more are on order, and the light rail system will eventually be exclusively S700 ‘US’ cars.

photo of SacRT bicycle sign four bikes per car — *SacRT bicycle sign four bikes per car*

There are conflicts between passengers and bicyclists, and in particular with wheelchair users who have priority access to the ‘priority seating’ area of fold-down-fold-up seats. There have been incidents of bicyclists who were using the ‘priority seating’ area refusing to move. There have been times when so many bicyclists have been on board that it was difficult for other to maneuver around them.

So, what can be done? Two partial solutions:

On-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at stations frequently used by bicyclists. Some bicyclists insist on bringing their bicycle on board, either because they need it at the destination, or because there is no secure bicycle storage at the station. Providing secure lockers would allow some bicyclists to leave their bike at the station, rather than bringing it on board. The standard secure bicycle storage solution is BikeLink lockers. Lockers provided by the City of Folsom at Historic Folsom, Glenn, and Iron Point are shown below. No other light rail stations have on-demand storage.

Way back in 2021, Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) made a formal request to SacRT that they provide on-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at light rail stations (secure bike parking). STAR had been talking to SacRT for several years before this on the same issue. The rental lockers provided at some stations were mostly not in use, and the public had no access to them except through a month-to-month rental. At that time, SacRT said they were ‘studying’ it. Meaning they weren’t actually doing anything. Bicyclist transit advocates have over the intervening years continued to ask SacRT about lockers. The answer is always the same – it is being ‘studied’. Nothing has happened. There is nothing related to the ‘study’ on the SacRT website. There is nothing in the board agenda. There is nothing in the budget.

The SACOG Mobility Zones program, which might site hubs at or near light rail stations has identified the Ben Ali/Swanston, Florin, and Rosemont/Western Rancho Cordova mobility zones. However, the zones so far defined do not guarantee co-location with stations. Note that the SACOG Mobility Zones map does not indicate light rail locations, so it is unlikely that it is a central part of site selection. The mobility hub diagrams show regular (unsecured) bike racks but do not show bike lockers.

SacRT is undertaking an apparently separate SacHub: Mobility Hubs Project for three light rail stations: Marconi/Arcade, Globe, and LaValentina/Alkalai Flat. There is no mention on the sparse page of secure bike storage, or even bike racks, for these hubs.

photo of City of Folsom BikeLink lockers at Iron Point SacRT Gold Line station — *City of Folsom BikeLink lockers at Iron Point SacRT Gold Line station*

Add a bicycle hanging location in place of a seat on the S700 cars. The seat location is between the handicap ramp door and the accordion section. This would change the allowable bicycles from four to six per car. The photo below shows the bicycle hanging area on a Seattle area Sound Transit S700 light rail car. These are full size cars with more space, but the smaller space on the SacRT S700 cars would probably only allow one bicycle hook per location, or two per car. It is true that some bicyclists cannot lift their bicycle to the hook, but the on-floor locations would still be available for those people. I have been on some light rail vehicles that had bicycle storage in the middle section, between the accordion sections, but it was poorly designed and awkward to use.

photo of Sound Transit LINK 1-Line bicycle hanging storage area — *Sound Transit LINK 1-Line bicycle hanging storage area*

In August of 2024, bicyclists at the light rail demonstration of the new S700 cars indicated that bicycle space was insufficient, and there needed to be more space to accommodate bicyclists. SacRT decided not to add this capability to the new cars.

My conclusion is that SacRT does not take the bicycles on light rail issue seriously, and does not intend to solve the problem.

Enough posts on SacRT and transit, for now, after 10 in the last two weeks. On to other transportation topics!

SacRT: Watt/I-80 station upgrade

2026/08/30 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The work on the Watt/I-80 light rail and bus station is almost complete, with final opening due within a month. The west side was open, but is now closed again for final work. The east side is complete and open. The station is a major connecting point between Blue Line light rail and five bus routes (1, 15, 26, 84, 93).

Capital Transit Alliance was offered a tour of the station on Wednesday, August 26, with Principal Engineer Jenny Niello hosting. The project looks great, an immense improvement over the dark, urine-stained, trash filled stairwells of the old station.

The issues not resolved by the project include:

There is no public restroom at the station. It is likely that the elevators will continue to be used as bathrooms.
Wayfinding signs are not present. This includes wayfinding from the light rail terminus to the east side stair, during construction. For permanent wayfinding at the top of the stairs on the east side, there is nothing. One bus stop is north (26, 84), but the bus stop sign is hardly visible from the top of stairs. Two bus stops are to the south. For the first (1, 15), the sign is partly obscured by the bus shelter. For the second (93), the bus stop sign is not visible at all. There should be wayfinding signs at the top of the stairs that not only indicate which stops are to the right (north) and left (south), but a map showing the destinations of the five bus routes. As always, SacRT seems to be making the assumption that only regular riders, who know the stops and destinations, would be using this station. Nothing for new or inexperienced users.
The east side top of stairs and bus stops are very hot in the afternoon summer sun. For the three bus stops at 6:00 PM, there was not shade from the afternoon sun. There must be some additional shade available here. Roof? Canopy?

photo of SacRT Watt/I-80 Route 93 bus stop — *SacRT Watt/I-80 Route 93 bus stop*

SacRT: operations and employee comparison

2026/08/282026/08/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I had intended to do a comparison of management and non-management positions in SacRT compared to peer agencies. The data below is from the National Transit Database (NTD), operating expenses tables and employee tables, for the year 2024. I picked some other transit agencies for comparison. Please note that these numbers do no agree with the numbers presented in agency budgets, nor other online sources, but for comparison purposes, they serve. For the operations positions and the operations expenses, operations and operations maintenance are combined.

For the percentage of positions in operations, and the percentage of expenses in operations, a higher number is good, since operations are why the transit agency exists.

On this criteria, SacRT is average.

Agency	Employees Total	Employees Operations	Operations %	Expense Total	Expense Operations	Expense %
SacRT	1076	834	78%	$214,878,000	$146,014,000	68%
BART	4370	2331	53%	$882,909,000	$514,350,000	58%
AC Transit	2263	1763	78%	$499,813,000	$331,878,000	66%
San Diego MTS	1362	1171	86%	$361,878,988	$272,594,934	75%
TriMet	3242	2455	76%	$656,247,000	$410,887,000	63%

SacRT: Transit Ambassadors, customer service or police?

2026/08/282026/08/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Transit Ambassadors have both a customer service and law enforcement function, as noted in SacRT: Transit Ambassadors. This dual function raises concerns and results in confusion for riders and transit advocates. Should customer service be emphasized, or law enforcement? Recently, the law enforcement role has been emphasized almost to the exclusion of the customer service role, through the zero-tolerance policy, but that may be modified or reversed.

Depending on what should be emphasized, or if the dual roles are split, the question is where Transit Ambassadors should be placed in the organizational hierarchy. At this time, they are placed within Police Services, within the Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction function, as shown in the organizational chart below. If the law enforcement role remains as the primary one, then this may be an appropriate place. However, if customer service becomes the prominent role, then they should NOT be placed in Police Services. They should be moved out of Security, Safety, along with Customer Satisfaction, which move I recommended in SacRT: move Customer Satisfaction.

I believe that the customer service role of Transit Ambassadors should be the primary role. This is not to say TAs would not retain the citation ability for fare evasion and other issues, rather that would be a less important part of their role, and customer service become central.

SacRT: Transit Ambassador staffing

2026/08/27 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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: Transit Ambassadors

2026/08/27 Dan Allison1 Comment

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.

SacRT: move Customer Satisfaction

2026/08/26 Dan Allison1 Comment

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.

I will have comments soon on the placement and duties of Transit Ambassadors.

demonstration before engagement

2026/08/262026/08/26 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

photo of Park(ing) Day parklet on 10th St, Strong SacTown — *Park(ing) Day parklet on 10th St, Strong SacTown*

photo of roadway narrowing and curb extension, Tahoe Park, Strong SacTown — *roadway narrowing and curb extension, Tahoe Park, Strong SacTown*

SacRT: abandoned bus stop improvements?

2026/08/252026/08/26 Dan AllisonLeave a comment

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.

photo of SacRT bus stop pad, no sign or amenities, Q St at 7th St — *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.

photo of SacRT bus stop pad, no amenities, 9th St at Q St — *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.

Getting Around Sacramento

by foot, bicycle, and public transit (car-free!)