I wrote reactions to the policy suggestions that will be presented today at the SacRT board meeting: SacRT board 2026-11-09 4.1 customer service. What I did not write about is how the board should approach this.
These rider-facing policies are too important to leave to staff. Though it has never been verbalized, it seems that staff intent is that staff develop and implement the policies without board approval. The implementation of a zero-tolerance policy for all violations, without board knowledge or approval, supports this concern.
SacRT develops extensive documents, with approval by legal counsel, for a huge number of board decisions. Most of these end up on consent agenda, but some are the subject of public hearings. The current topics on strollers, carts, and bicycles are far more important than most of what is addressed by the board.
No policies on strollers, carts, and bicycles should be implemented without approval by the board.
The policies must include:
Clear language about what the policy is.
Clear language about what the potential penalties for violation are.
Clear information about what will be communicated to riders about the policy. This would include signs posted on light rail and buses, verbal announcements at light rail stations and on buses, and public outreach efforts designed to reach all riders.
Clear information about what Transit Ambassadors and other SacRT staff will communicate to riders about the policy, and appropriate responses to perceived or actual violations.
Documentation of actual safety or customer issues that justify the policy.
Documented review by the SacRT Mobility Advisory Council.
Let me be blunt. I do not trust SacRT staff to develop and implement policy on strollers, carts, and bicycles without board approval. Agenda item 4.1 is ‘for information only’, and nothing indicates that board approval will be sought for these suggestions.
Though these policies have been on the SacRT Mobility Advisory Council meeting agendas for several months, it was deferred all but one of those months, and the discussion on the remaining month was very brief. Again, this is on the board agenda when it has not previously been on the MAC agenda in any meaningful way. The next MAC meeting is November 19.
Correction: I misidentified this agenda item as 3.1. It is 4.1.
The Customer Response and Feedback slides continue to use incorrect terminology, including the words ‘modification’ and ‘medication’. The correct disability term is ‘accommodation’. Please see SacRT Board 2026-11-09 for the full agenda.
Strollers – family hostile
The chart of other transit agency policies on strollers shows three major agencies (SFMTA Muni, LA Metro, and AC Transit) that allow the child to remain in the stroller.
Slide 2 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
The suggested policy for strollers is an improvement over the apparent existing policy that requires the child be removed and the stroller folded before boarding, allowing be child to be removed and the stroller folded after boarding. However, this is still a family-hostile policy.
Why does SacRT feel that it must be more restrictive than major transit agencies? Does it have any actual safety informations to present? Or is this just a continuation of archaic policies that no one gave any thought of to begin with, and are now being defended?
Slide 3 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
Added info on LA Metro code of conduct. Buses: Strollers: may be kept in the wheelchair securement area when available. Riders with wheelchairs will be given priority. Rail: Strollers: Look for the decal on the outside of the car denoting the designated space for passengers with strollers.
Added AC Transit stroller policy (for buses, AC Transit does not have rail), since SacRT staff decided to remove the AC Transit element from the slide: When boarding with a stroller, the passenger has the option of leaving the child in the stroller. At the passenger’s request, the driver will operate the lift to allow the passenger with a stroller to board more easily. Drivers are not to assist with baby strollers. While on-board, the child may remain in the stroller provided that the passenger maintains control of the stroller at all times, keeping at least one hand on the stroller while the bus is moving and the stroller doesn’t pose a safety hazard to any passenger. In no case is the stroller to be allowed to remain in a position that blocks aisles, doors, steps or emergency exits. The stroller’s brakes should be set so that the stroller will be secured and prevented from rolling and becoming a safety hazard.
Carts and Wagons
This policy seems reasonable.
Bicycles
LA Metro, BART, and SFMTA Muni Metro rail cars were designed to accommodate bicycles. SacRT Siemens S700 US (ultra short) rail cars were designed to NOT accommodate bicycles, because San Diego MTS, which SacRT had a joint order, specified rail cars designed to not accommodate bicycles. This is mistake that will last as long at the S700 cars last. SacRT has made no real effort to mitigate this issue.
Slide 7 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
The suggested policy of no bikes at first doorway of first rail car is odd, since the first doorway is not the accessible ramp doorway. The board presentation may explain the rationale.
The ‘2 bikes per other doorways’ suggestion is actually a change from current policy of four bikes per railcar, since there are four sets of doorways on each car, meaning eight bikes. Policies must be clear and understandable by all riders, but this one is not.
The request of transit and bicycle advocates that one seat by each accessible door pair be removed in favor of a bike hook, increasing capacity by two bikes per rail car, has apparently not been considered.
Slide 9 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
Bicycle Lockers
Bike Lockers (slide 11) mentions bike lockers.
Slide 4 of the 2026-09-28 agenda 3.1 presentation mentions ‘bike lockers’ but without any additional information. I have not found any other mention of bike lockers in board agendas. I assume the SacRT count of about 48 lockers at 12 stations is the rental lockers which are very lightly used. It is not clear what ‘This project: 4 lockers at University/65 St Station (Route 30) and 10 at UC Davis (Route 138)’ refers to. I have not found any mention of purchasing and service agreements for bike lockers in board agendas. If there are to be new BikeLink e-lockers at University/65th St and Davis, that is great, but it would be useful to have more information. It isn’t clear why just Route 30 is mentioned, when University/65th St is a transit hub with light rail and multiple buses.
The front bike racks on buses work well. It would be great to have a policy that bikes may be brought on-board if the front bike rack is full, for the last bus of the day only.
Slide 11 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
Technology
Modernizing SacRT: Technology, Fares & Mobility Innovation (slide 12) mentions several enhancement. Real-time GTFS has been requested for years, and almost every major transit agency has had this capability for years. Yay! Transit app, the most commonly used transit planning app, depends on real-time GTFS. CAD/AVL = Computer-Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location. WiFi access on light rail will be great. Acceptance of the Transit Connect app by all regional transit agencies will be great (only SacRT and Yolobus accept at this time). No timeline for any of these enhancement has been provided.
Mobility advocates have expressed concern about the transition from UZURV to Via, but I don’t understand enough to comment.
Slide 12 of Customer Response & Feedback presentation
‘LED Electronic Message Signs’ (slide 13) are great. However, the sample shown is only one of many types of information. These signs can also offer next arrival for light rail trains and buses, which is the information most useful to riders. They can show bus connections at light rail stations, for example LA Metro rail cars. They can, less commonly, show maps with current train and bus locations. It is not clear what the vendor, hardware, and software selected by SacRT will offer. A contract has been awarded, for at least some signs, but SacRT has not offered a timeline. The second image below shows a SFMTA Muni real-time bus stop display. These signs also show maps in alternation.
Slide 13 of Customer Response & Feedback presentationSFMTA Muni real-time display at bus stops, with arrival and capacity information
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 10 is Albatross Way & El Camino Ave. This is an offset intersection, with Albatross Avenue to the north of El Camino Ave being offset to the east relative to Albatross Avenue to the south.
Design
Lanes: Albatross Way north of El Camino Avenue is three lanes (one left turn, one right turn, one opposite). Albatross Way south of El Camino Avenue is three lanes (one left turn, one right turn, one opposite). Albatross Way is designated as a local street in functional classification. El Camino Avenue is five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite). There are faded white dots to guide the left turns from El Camino Avenue to Albatross Way.
Medians: No medians are present.
Crosswalks: Marked yellow crosswalks (for school) are present on the Albatross Way to the south, Albatross Way to the north, and a single crosswalk over El Camino Avenue aligned with the east side of Albatross Way to the south. There is no crosswalk aligned with the east side of Albatross Way to the north.
Bicycle Facilities: El Camino Avenue has Class 2 bike lanes, but they become advisory approaching the intersection, with no green paint or protection. Albatross Way does not have bicycle facilities.
Speed: Albatross Way, as a local street, has a base speed limit of 25 mph, and is not posted. El Camino Avenue has a designated speed limit of 35 mph, but it does not seem to be posted anywhere near this intersection. An Interstate 80 interchange is adjacent to the west, and likely affects speeds on surface streets.
The city no longer has a database or map of speed limits, so it is often necessary to look in Google Maps Street View for speed limit signs. The county (and SACOG) have a database, but it does not include the City of Sacramento roadways.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection, all with motor vehicles, none with bicyclists or pedestrians. These are mapped below (pdf). There is a fatality just west of the intersection buffer, associated with the northbound Interstate 80 onramp.
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are several of these along El Camino Avenue, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersections 9 & 13 are North 12th St & North 16th St & Richards Blvd. Though the two intersections are listed separately in the Top 20 list, I have combined them because the intersections are so close to each other that they are essentially one, with both sharing the same design flaws.
Design
Lanes: 12th Street southbound approaching the intersection is five lanes (four through, one right turn). 12th Street is a transition between the high speed freeway (Hwy 160) to the north. Drivers generally have not slowed by the time they reach the intersection. The right turn lane is a wide, sweeping, uncontrolled lane that encourages high speed turns. 16th Street northbound approaching the intersection is six lanes (four through, one right turn, one left turn). The right turn lane is a wide, sweeping, uncontrolled lane that encourages high speed turns. Drivers are already accelerating to freeway speeds at they approach Richard Blvd.
Richards Blvd to the west is five lanes (two through, one right turn, two opposite). The right turn lane is a wide, sweeping, uncontrolled lane that encourages high speed turns. Richards Blvd to the east dead-ends in a self storage facility.
Medians: No medians are present.
Crosswalks: Marked crosswalks are present on the east side and south sides of the intersection, however, they are low-visibility parallel lines, and the crosswalk for 16th Street is poorly maintained.
Bicycle Facilities: No bicyclist facilities are present at this intersection. Bicyclists sometimes use the narrow sidewalk on the freeway to Two River Bike Path, and then a side path to Richards Blvd. A separated two-way bikeway starts at Sunbeam Avenue and Richards Blvd, returning to 12th Street at the Sunbeam intersection. The intended routing is Richards Blvd to Sunbeam Avenue to 12th Street. No bicycle facilities exist on 16th Avenue. No bicycle facilities exist on Richards Blvd to the west of Sunbeam Avenue.
Speed: Richards Blvd has an apparent speed limit of 35 mph, however, no signs are in evidence. 12th Street Street and 16th Street are not in the city’s old speed limit database, and no signs are in evidence. Both 12th Street and 16th Street north of Richards Blvd become a freeway, and speeds on both roadways reflect that design.
The city no longer has a database or map of speed limits, so it is often necessary to look in Google Maps Street View for speed limit signs. The county (and SACOG) have a database, but it does not include the City of Sacramento roadways.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were two severe injuries at this intersection, one with motor vehicle and one with bicyclist. These are mapped below (pdf).
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are several of these along Richards Blvd, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
12th St & 16th St & Richards Blvd, VZAP update Top 20
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 8 is Florin Rd & 24th St. Note that I have skipped intersection 7, San Juan Rd and Northgate Blvd, because it is unclear why this was included on the Top 20.
Design
Lanes: Florin Road eastbound is five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite), and westbound 6 lanes (two through, one left turn, one right turn, and two opposite). 24th Street southbound is 6 lanes (two through, one left turn, one right turn, two opposite), and northbound is five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite). 24th Street northbound has an area that might be intended to be a bike lane, but is not signed as such, and otherwise constitutes an extremely wide travel lane of about 36 feet.
Medians: All four legs of the intersection have concrete medians. Florin Road eastbound approaching the intersection has a barrier fence on the median to prevent pedestrian crossing.
Crosswalks: All legs of the intersection have recently upgraded marked crosswalks in the Sacramento pattern.
Bicycle Facilities: Florin Road to the east of the intersection has a new buffered bike lane with vertical delineators on the north side (westbound), and a Class 2 bike lane on the south side (eastbound). None of the other roadways have bicycle facilities.
Speed: Florin Road to the east has a posted speed limit of 40 mph. To the west is unknown because it is not signed. 24th Street has a posted speed limit of 35 mph.
The city no longer has a database or map of speed limits, so it is often necessary to look in Google Maps Street View for speed limit signs. The county (and SACOG) have a database, but it does not include the City of Sacramento roadways.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were three severe injuries at this intersection and one fatality, two with motor vehicles and two with with bicyclists, including the fatality. These are mapped below (pdf). One dot contains all four crashes. The fatality is 2/2/2020 (12527).
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, particularly on 24th Street, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 6 is Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave. Note that I have skipped intersection 3, Truxel & Arena, because it is unclear why this was included on the Top 20.
Design
Northgate Blvd is five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite). Bike lanes are present but advisory approaching the intersection, with no green paint or protection.
W El Camino Avenue to the west is five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite). Bike lane eastbound is advisory approaching the intersection, with no green paint or protection. Westbound, the bike lane is absent for some distance. W El Camino Avenue to the east flares at the intersection to five lanes (two through, one left turn, two opposite). Bike lanes are not present.
Crosswalks are present on all four legs, but are not well maintained, and are low-visibility parallel lines.
Northgate Blvd posted speed limit is 40 mph. W El Camino Ave posted speed limit is 35 mph to the west and 30 mph to the east.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection and one fatality, two with motor vehicle, one with bicyclist and two with pedestrian including the fatality are mapped below (pdf). One dot contains two crashes. The fatality is 7/12/2020 (13291) below. Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, particularly on Cosumnes River Blvd, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Northgate Blvd & W El Camino Ave, VZAP update Top 20
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 5 is DelPaso Blvd & Evergreen St & Lampasas Ave Note that I have skipped intersection 3, Truxel & Arena, because it is unclear why this was included on the Top 20.
Design
Del Paso Blvd is 5 lanes (two through, one left turn, and two opposite). Unprotected Class 2 bike lanes are present, but are advisory approaching the intersection with no green paint or protection. Evergreen Street is two lanes. Lampasas Avenue is three lanes (one through, one right turn, one opposing). There are marked crosswalks on all four legs, low visibility parallel lines. There are no concrete medians.
A no parking zone on Lampasas northbound leaves a very wide travel lane of about 22 feet, and a lack of parking on Evergreen northbound leaves a very wide travel lane of about 18 feet. There is a sidewalk gap on the last parcel of Evergreen northbound.
Del Paso Blvd posted speed limit is 35 mph. Evergreen Street posted speed limit is 30 mph, despite being largely residential in nature. Lampasas Avenue posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection, two with bicyclists and two with motor vehicles, mapped below (pdf). One dot contains three crashes. Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, particularly on Cosumnes River Blvd, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Del Paso Blvd & Evergreen St & Lampasas Ave, VZAP update Top 20
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 4 is Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd. Note that I have skipped intersection 3, Truxel & Arena, because it is unclear why this was included on the Top 20.
Design
Cosumnes River Blvd eastbound at this intersection is 8 lanes wide (three through, two left turn, one right turn), while westbound is 7 lanes wide (two through, two left turn, and one very wide right turn). Bruceville Road southbound is 7 lanes wide (two through, two left turn, one right turn, and two opposing), while northbound is 9 lanes wide (two through, two left turn, two right turn, and three opposing). The two right turn from Bruceville northbound are a slip lane with signal control, however, drivers frequently ignore signals on slip lanes. Double left turn lanes are a known safety hazard.
Three legs have concrete medians approaching the intersection, but Cosumnes River Blvd eastbound does not. The posted speed limit on Cosumnes River Blvd to the west is 50 mph (!), and to the east 45 mph (!), and on Bruceville Road is 40 mph. Both roadways are over-engineered for speed, and are essentially highways.
The overall design shows a strong preference for motor vehicle traffic to and from Cosumnes River College, though the campus is served by light rail Blue Line and a number of buses. Sidewalks are missing on Cosumnes River Blvd eastbound, and the north side of Cosumnes River Blvd westbound.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection, two with pedestrians and two with motor vehicles, mapped below (pdf). One dot contains three crashes. Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); the red dots are fatal (none). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, particularly on Cosumnes River Blvd, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
Bruceville Rd & Cosumnes River Blvd, VZAP update Top 20
Note: General information on the Top 20 intersections, with criteria, list, and map, is available in post 1.
I am looking more closely at the Top 20 intersections identified in the City of Sacramento Vision Zero Action Plan Update. Intersection 2 is Fruitridge Road and Stockton Blvd.
Design
Stockton Blvd at this intersection is 7 lanes wide (two through, two left turn, one right turn, and two opposing). Fruitridge westbound is 5 lanes wide (two through, one left turn, two opposing) while eastbound is 6 lanes wide (two through, one left turn, one right turn, two opposing). Double left turn lanes are a known safety hazard. Each leg has medians approaching the intersection.
The posted speed limit on Stockton is 35 mph, and on Fruitridge is 40 mph. Both streets are classic suburban sprawl stroads which were designed for, and driven at, much higher speeds than posted.
Crashes
In the 2015 to 2024 period (which is used in the Vision Zero Action Plan Update), there were four severe injuries at this intersection, two with pedestrians and two with motor vehicles, mapped below (pdf). Please note that the exact crash locations may not be accurate, as police reports often do not correctly locate crashes. Also note that ‘pedestrian violation’ entry may be false, as police often blame crashes on the person walking when actual responsibility is not clear, or the pedestrian is dead and can’t counter the driver story.
The orange dots are severe injuries (one contains three crashes); there are no red dots (fatal). Together, these are know as KSI = killed or severe injury. ‘The other categories of crashes, ‘Other visible injury’ and ‘complaint of pain’ crashes are not shown on my map, since these are not the focus of Vision Zero, however, there are quite a number of these at this intersection, on both Stockton and Fruitridge, which you may view in the Crash Dashboard Interactive Map.
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, November 9, 2026, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked.
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 document.
I may have comments on agenda items between now and the board meeting.
2.3 Resolution 2026-11-126: Approving the Renewal of All SacRT Health and Welfare Benefits for 2027
2.4 Resolution 2026-11-127: Approval to Enter Into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Sutter Valley Medical Foundation for Surplus Property Located in Sacramento, CA and Delegation of Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute One or More Grant Deeds and Lease Agreement
2.5 Resolution 2026-11-128: Approval of Building and Parking Lease Agreement (2810 O Street) with Christopher Wordlow (APN 007-0274-005)
2.6 Resolution 2026-11-129: Approving Contract for Insurance Broker Services to Alliant Insurance Services, Inc.
2.7 Resolution 2026-11-130: Conditionally Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Award a Contract for Provide and Commission Frequency Converters with Backup Battery
2.8 Resolution 2026-11-131: Approving A Good-Faith Funding Letter and Authorizing Submission of Exemption Requests from the Innovative Clean Transit Zero-Emission Bus Purchase Requirements
2.9 Approving Contract Change Orders No. 14 and No. 15 to the Contract for Low Floor Vehicle Platform Conversion Phase 2 Project with PNP Construction, Inc.
a) Resolution 2026-11-132: Approving Contract Change Order No. 14 to the Contract for Construction of the Low Floor Vehicle Platform Conversion Phase 2 Project with PNP Construction, Inc.; and
b) Resolution 2026-11-133: Approving Contract Change Order No. 15 to the Contract for Construction of the Low Floor Vehicle Platform Conversion Phase 2 Project with PNP Construction, Inc.
2.10 Resolution 2026-11-136: Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Award a Contract or Contracts for On-Call Revenue and Non-Revenue Vehicle Towing Services
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS
3.1 Resolution 2026-11-134: Recognizing RiderShip for the Masses as a Transit Advocacy Champion for its Dedication and Advocacy on Behalf of Public Transportation Riders
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments: staff | presentation
PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
