SacRT: Board 2026-10-26 notes

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The recording of the meeting is available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU9mHZUbwKE&list=PLAfWRxJkwPon701gc9cUsUqqBDlmiWJnt&index=3.

Consent Calendar: There was extensive discussion of item 2.6: ‘Resolution 2026-10-123: Rescinding Resolution No. 12-04-0050 and Revising SacRT’s Voting Procedures for Property and Business Improvement District Assessments’. Though the issue was a change in voting, board members discussed relationship with PBIDs (Property Business Improvement District) and the assessments on SacRT properties. The item was continued to another board meeting.

Item 3.1: Linda Hinz presented on ‘customer service response’. Her presentation was all about law enforcement and and a defense of a zero tolerance policy on fare evasion. She touted her law enforcement experience and defended the decisions that had been made to increase law enforcement action and personnel (without board discussion or approval). She said there were 2000 citations a month for fare evasion, but did not mention how many involved law enforcement. She said the target for transit ambassador employees was 51, though her slide said there were currently 60. She said a training program for Transit Ambassadors would be established. Apparently the only training is from existing ambassadors on the job. She said that a single incident of a fare evader not being cited could result in loss of all federal funding. This is her questionable reading of SB 5492 (Hagerty), which has been introduced but not passed. SacRT is piloting the use of drones, which is a further militarization of law enforcement.

SacRT has hired one ‘Social Services Practitioner’ to work with unhoused people in the right-of-way. This compares to 161 personnel dedicated to law enforcement. The priorities of Ms. Hinz are clear.

Ms. Hinz’s over-dramatization of everything in a whiny voice is typical. Listen for yourself to the recording.

My comments were:

  • Policy on zero-tolerance on fare evasion, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles has still not been brought back to the board. It was on the MAC agenda for four meetings, but there was only brief mention during one of the four, and was not addressed in the other three.
  • The ‘customer relations’ approach presented by Ms. Hinz is a law enforcement priority approach, with no consideration of riders.
  • Ms. Hinz mentioned a red line that could not be crossed several times. Apparently this line is not being able to produce proof of fare within five seconds of being asked. This is a very sad policy for an agency which is supposed to be providing transit service to member of the public.

Helen O’Connell spoke about the difficulty that some disable people are having using the ticket vending machines (TVMs) and presenting proof of fare due to difficulties with manual dexterity, and that some of these riders have been ticketed for not being able to produce fare quickly enough.

There was also a presentation on the incident in Folsom when crossing gates were down for an extended period of time. Apparently a lack of prompt communication between SacRT staff and Folsom Police exacerbated the issue. SacRT promised to do better next time.

Item 4: Public Addresses Board on Matters Not on the Agenda

My comments were:

  • Police vehicles parked illegally for a long period of time in the commercial loading and passenger loading zones in front of the SacRT building at 1102 Q Street caused a UPS delivery truck to have to park in the bus stop (all nearby spaces were occupied), thereby causing a SacRT bus to stop in the street instead of at the curb, thereby causing two riders to have to step off the curb to reach the bus. One of the riders seemed to have disability and had a hard time stepping off the curb. This is unacceptable.
  • When one of the light rail lines is delayed, the information displays at overlapping stations are changed to indicate that delay, and the schedule for the line that is not delayed is not displayed until the delay is resolved. As a result, riders don’t have any information about the line not delayed. This is ridiculous.
  • The new Dos Rios station is wonderful, by far the best station on the system.
  • Advocates were excited that GTFS-RT (realtime) would be implemented on the Gold Line with the new S700 rail cars, since SacRT now had GPS information about railcar locations. For unknown reasons, SacRT chose to now implement GTFS-RT for light rail. It is implemented for buses.

Other commenters:

  • Evan Siroky: talked about the lack of GTFS-RT (realtime) information, which apps use to present train location and arrival information; he has professional expertise in GTFS
  • Mattie Parfit: people without phones or printers can’t use free fare; the readers should be turned off for the day and covered up
  • Margie Donovan: no AC on some buses; passenger names have been used on radio, in violation of rider privacy

Item 6.1 General Managers Report

Henry Li tried to address the real time question by saying that the digital messaging signs at stations would eventually be updated to provide real time information. It is not clear when new signs and a display system with this capability will be implemented. See the 2026-09-28 report, scroll down to 7.1 General Managers Report, for more information on the signs. He said this was intentionally delayed under Light Rail Modernization was completed so that there would not be new signs in old trains. At that time, he said a contract had been awarded to Clever Systems in April, but there is not known timeline.

Though the signs (and announcements?) within the new light rail cars and the station could use the same system to display information, it is not necessary to delay one for the other. Henry then launched into a discussion of vandalism at the light rail stations, apparently blaming the lack of real time information on vandalism. When questioned by a board member about how vandalism was related to the signs, Henry could not answer. The Connected Transit Card readers have been routinely vandalized, but this has nothing to do with information signs, or with GTFS-RT.

Henry announced that there would be no Green Line BRT/LRT study, due to Caltrans delay and lack of funding. His slide, not in the provided presentation, is below. Henry implied that the grant amount, $700K, might be repurposed.

SacRT Board 2026-10-26 6.1 GM Report online presentation slide (captured from video)
SacRT Board 2026-10-26 6.1 GM Report online presentation slide (captured from video)

SacCity: Arden-Auburn update

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

For previous posts, see Category: Arden-Auburn.

The draft plan for the Arden Way – Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan has finally been released. If you wish to comment on the draft, you will need to go through the project webpage, and answer questions, before receiving access to the document online. The list of documents down the page has not been updated, but a tile for the draft plan has been added near the top of the page.

The community workshop is this Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at 2200 Harvard Street, Sacramento.

I have briefly reviewed the draft, and have some initial comments.

The document refers to appendices, but they are not part of the viewable or downloadable document. I think that Appendix D may contain design information critical to understanding the project.

  • Appendix A. Existing Conditions Assessment
  • Appendix B. Community Feedback
  • Appendix C. Draft Concept Assessment Memorandum
  • Appendix D. Preferred Corridor Improvement Concepts
  • Appendix E. Opinion of Probable Construction Costs

The draft plans start on page 26 (6.1 Draft Plans).

The design and marking of ‘shared use path’ is not shown. Most of it is 10 feet wide, which needs some sort of marking for differentiation between bicyclist ‘lane’ and walker ‘lane’. The portion which is 12 feet wide may not require differentiation.

SR-160 ramps on the south side of Arden Way at the interchange will have signals added to protect walkers crossing the otherwise high-speed ramps. The ramps on the north side are identified for ‘mid-term improvements’, after uncertain negotiation with Caltrans. This is concerning.

Addition of sidewalk buffers (planting strips/landscaping) in several location is good, providing increased safety and comfort for walkers and bicyclists, but these should be on the entire corridor. The cross-sections for Harvard Way (page 35) and Auburn Blvd (page 36) show a sidewalk buffer of 7 feet. Eight feet is a minimum for healthy trees.

A cross-section of Arden Way (East Arden Way, page 27) shows double left-turn lanes. Double turn lanes are a known hazard that should not be retained or present in any safety project.

The intersections of Arden Way with Point West Way and Heritage Lane are shown as the highest crash rate intersection in the project, and Heritage Lane is the location of a KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) crash within the five year window. Yet no design is shown for these two intersections. It is likely that these are the most important locations on the entire project, and in fact should be the site of an immediate project to make them safer for everyone, and not deferred to this longer-term corridor project. This lack of attention makes me concerned that the planning effort to date has overlooked important safety issues.

map of Arden Way Intersection Crashes

SacRT: 7th & Railyards station

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I visited the new SacRT light rail station at 7th & Railyards yesterday. The station has been open several days. Green Line service started October 12, and the station opened October 15.

The station is very bare bones, especially compared to the new Dos Rios Station. There are two benches, at either far end of the platform. There are shelters, but they are small, don’t fully shelter the benches. I was not there at night, so I don’t know how well lit the station is. There are two trash cans, and both had been vandalized already. There is some planting, not much.

There are two Tap2Ride readers, at both ends of the platform, but they were out of service when I visited. This was supposed to be the second pilot site for Tap2Ride on light rail. There is no ticket vending machine (TVM) at the station.

There is single track, so the 30-minute headway train from the end point at 7th & Richards/Township 9 Station just returns through the same station and platform. Since there is not much to see, I caught the same train southbound that had brought me northbound. The trains are single car S700s.

There are signs that indicate destination, but there are no signs to indicate that the northbound train stops at the north end of the platform, and the southbound train at the south end of the platform. This is a major flaw, since a person waiting at the wrong end would likely not be able to get to the other end in time to catch a train.

This station was paid for and built by the Sacramento Republic FC (soccer) owners, not by SacRT. SacRT said that when the developments in the Railyard come on line, the station will be upgraded with access to the soccer stadium, a wider plaza, and double-tracking at least for the station. It is not clear whether the route along 7th Street will ever be double-tracked.

The gallery below is my photos from the brief visit.

photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound
7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound
photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards platform looking south
7th & Railyards platform looking south
photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards sign to downtown
7th & Railyards sign to downtown
7th & Railyards sign to Township 9
7th & Railyards sign to Township 9
photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards Tap2Ride reader out of service
Tap2Ride out of service
photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards crosswalk over 7th St
crosswalk over 7th St
photo of SacRT 7th & Railyards bench
7th & Railyards bench

SacRT Board 2026-10-26

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, October 26, 2026, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked.

A policy response on zero-tolerance, strollers, carts, and bicycles is not part of this agenda, so far as I can determine.

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.

Agenda (pdf)

  1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  2. CONSENT CALENDAR
    • 2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of September 28, 2026
    • 2.2 Receive and File: Quarterly Treasurer’s Report
    • 2.3 Conditionally Awarding Contracts for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements
      • a) Resolution 2026-10-119: Conditionally Awarding a Contract for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations, and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements to Agile Occupational Medicine PC; and
      • b) Resolution 2026-10-120: Conditionally Awarding a Contract for Pre-Employment and DOT/DMV Certification Medical Examinations, and Evaluation of Job Description Physical Requirements to Dignity Health Medical Foundation, A California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation, dba Mercy Medical Group
    • 2.4 Resolution 2026-10-121: Approving Sole Source Procurements for Supply Purchases and Maintenance and Repair Services for Equipment, Components, and Parts for Light Rail Maintenance and Wayside Contractors and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Contracts
    • 2.5 Resolution 2026-10-122: Approve the First Amendment to Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Transportation Development Act Claim
    • 2.6 Resolution 2026-10-123: Rescinding Resolution No. 12-04-0050 and Revising SacRT’s Voting Procedures for Property and Business Improvement District Assessments
    • 2.7 Resolution 2026-10-124: Authorizing the Execution of the Cycle A and Cycle B Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Project(s) and Certifications and Assurances, and Submittal of Project Nominations and Allocation Requests to Caltrans for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
  3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
  4. PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
  5. GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
    • 5.1 General Manager’s Report: staff report | presentation
      • a. Major Developments and Updates
      • b. SacRT Meeting Calendar
      • c. Next Stop News
      • d. Monthly Social Work Report (September)
  6. REPORTS, IDEAS AND QUESTIONS FROM DIRECTORS, AND COMMUNICATION
    • 6.1 Mobility Advisory Council Meeting Summary – September 17, 2026
  7. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
  8. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
  9. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
  10. CLOSED SESSION
  11. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
  12. CLOSED SESSION REPORT
  13. ADJOURN

SacCity: failure on Arden-Auburn plan & workshop

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I expressed concern in my 2026-10-14 post SacCity: Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28 that the plan to be considered at the workshop was not yet available. As of 2026-10-22, it is still not available, so this workshop is premature.

Plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

I did not see a map of crashes in the available documents, so I created one, below (pdf). Though this section of Arden Way and most of this section of Auburn Blvd are on the High Injury Network, neither is among the 2020 Vision Zero Top 5 Corridors report [I had missed that Arden Way is in the list of five ‘additional priority corridors’ that were added in 2018], nor in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 10 Corridors. None of the intersections along these roadways are in the draft 2026 Vision Zero Action Plan Top 20 Intersections. I suspect that this project continues the city’s focus on big, expensive corridor projects, for which it has only a moderate chance of receiving funding, rather than focused projects on specific problem areas, which are often but not always intersections.

map of fatal & severe injury crashes (KSI) on the Arden Way and Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan corridors
map of fatal & severe injury crashes (KSI) on the Arden Way and Auburn Blvd Mobility Plan corridors

SacCity: Fruitridge SMP workshop November 12

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The City of Sacramento will hold the third and final community workshop on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan (Fruitridge SMP) on Thursday, November 12, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM, at Fruitridge Community Center, 4000 Fruitridge Rd, Sacramento, CA 95822. RSVP is available on the Fruitridge Road Safety and Mobility Plan webpage, but is not required.

As of today (2026-10-22), the draft plan is still not available. If it is not available by 2026-10-29, then the workshop is premature, as plans should be available to the public at least two weeks prior to the workshop that will consider them. Releasing a plan less than two weeks prior reduces the public’s chance to review and comment on the plan, particularly for people who are not able to attend the workshop.

Previous posts on Fruitridge:

SacRT: police arrogance endangers riders

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Today, I observed a UPS truck parked in the bus stop red curb zone on Q Street at 11th Street. When I asked the driver why he had parked illegally in a bus stop, he pointed out that police were parked in both the white passenger loading zone and the yellow commercial loading zone in front of 1102 Q Street, SacRT Headquarters. These police vehicles were not ‘on call’, they were still parked there an hour later. Of course there were also SacRT and Sac County Sheriffs vehicles parked illegally in a no parking zone on 12th Street. Again, these were not ‘on call’, they were simply choosing convenience for themselves over safety for the public.

Because the UPS truck was in the bus stop, the SacRT bus (presumably Route 109, though I did not catch the head sign) had to stop in the travel lane on Q Street, and the two waiting passengers had to step off the curb and cross the parking lane to reach the bus. One passenger had a disability and was challenged by stepping off the curb.

So, illegal and arrogant parking by SacRT police ends up endangering SacRT passengers. No surprise on my part.

photo of SacRT police parked illegally in passenger loading zone, 1102 Q St
SacRT police parked illegally in passenger loading zone, 1102 Q St
photo of SacRT police parked illegally in commercial loading zone, 1102 Q St
SacRT police parked illegally in commercial loading zone, 1102 Q St

SacCity: Franklin Blvd Phase 3

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacATC 2026-10-15 meeting will receive a information and comment update on the Franklin Blvd Complete Street Phase 3 project. The project is at the 60% design stage, meaning that plans have been drawn (see the SacATC 2026-10-15 post), but details can still be improved. I have had some time to review the presentation and design diagrams, so have some comments, based on these and on my previous post on the Phase 1 and 2 project which is complete. The Phase 1 and 2 project ended at Fruitridge Road. There have been various city and county projects on other segments of Franklin.

The extent of this Phase 3 project is Fruitridge Road to the county line just beyond 38th Avenue, shown below. The southern part of the project (to the left) is in the city, and the northern part (to the right) is shared city and county, but the city is taking responsibility for the entire project.

I note four areas of concern.

One: RRFB (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) at 33rd Street. RRFBs have a very low rate of compliance in the City of Sacramento, in part because we have among the worst drivers in the state. The installation here includes two beacons, one on the post, and another on an overhead mast arm. This format may slightly increase compliance, but the city has not demonstrated that it increases compliance enough to be safe for people crossing here. The city knows that existing RRFB locations are not safe, but continues to specify them, against the advice of transportation advocates. Either there should be a pedestrian hybrid signal at this location, or it should not be highlighted as a safe crossing, because it is not. Of course every intersection has a crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked, but the presence of a marked crosswalk with RRFB signal implies a level of safety that does not exist.

Two: Flared intersection at Fruitridge. The flared intersection of Franklin Blvd southbound at Fruitridge, which I criticized in my previous post as being unsafe for all users, is proposed to be duplicated south of the intersection in this Phase 3. The Google map overview is below. North of Fruitridge, the configuration has changed somewhat. South of Fruitridge, it is as shown, with two lanes southbound, two lanes northbound, a dedicated left turn lane, and a dedicated right turn lane which is a free-right with no traffic control whatsoever.

Google map of Franklin - Fruitridge intersection
Google map of Franklin – Fruitridge intersection

The design diagram for Franklin at Fruitridge is below. It shows some improvement, with only one lane northbound, but is otherwise the same. Two lanes southbound, requiring a merge that could be avoided by making it one lane, as it is on the approach from the north, and one of the lanes is 12 feet, unnecessarily wide. The southbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, and does eventually have painted buffer ‘protection’. The dangerous dedicated right turn lane is retained, though it does add a stop sign, which would be widely ignored, and encourages the same driver behavior to look left and ignore anyone in the crosswalk. The lane is 13.5 feet wide, which is ridiculous. The marked northbound bike lane is 5.5 feet, too narrow, between two motor vehicle travel lanes, with no protection whatsoever.

Three: Trees and sidewalk buffers (planting strips). Though sidewalk buffers and trees are being added along about half of the segment, both are missing from the remainder. This is better than it was, but far from the tree canopy/shade that the public has requested. Though I could not find a diagram where the width of the sidewalk buffer was specified, I estimate that they are mostly five feet, but narrower in a few locations. Healthy trees require eight feet or more, so the trees along this section will always be less healthy than they could be. Tree information starts on page 61 of the design diagrams document, with Landscape Planting Legend (LP002), and includes six street sections. A total of 50 trees are indicated, though it is doubtful, given past projects, that all of these will be planted. The diagram below shows the 37th Street section, with more trees than any other.

diagram of Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102
Franklin-37th Street section, Landscape Planting Plan LP102

Four: Wide concrete bikeway medians. There are a number of locations with very wide concrete medians to separate the bikeway from travel lanes. I’m all in favor of concrete medians, which provide real protection rather than the visual protection of vertical delineators. But a narrow concrete median is just as effective in providing protection as a wide median. In many cases, these medians seem overly wide, as though to simply take up excess space. Though the stamped concrete specified for many of them is slightly better aesthetically than plain concrete, it is still an unnecessary expanse of heat generating and expensive infrastructure. If possible, this width should be reallocated to sidewalks and sidewalk buffers.

SacCity: Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan workshop October 28

Dan Allison1 Comment

Update: The draft plan is now available (24.8 MB). Though the document date is 2026-10-23, it was not posted until today (2026-10-26).

The City of Sacramento will hold an in-person community workshop on the Arden Way-Auburn Boulevard Mobility Plan, on Wednesday, October 28, 5:30 PM. An RSVP is requested, but not required, and is on the project webpage at https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/mobility-and-sustainability/transportation-planning/current_transportation_planning_efforts/arden-auburn-mobility-project.

The draft plan is not available at this time. The webpage says it will be available ‘by October 28’. One would hope well before that, otherwise the workshop is sooner than it should be.

The documents currently available are, in reverse chronological order, I think:

I have not taken the time to review these documents.

SacATC 2026-10-15

Dan Allison1 Comment

The Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC) will meet this Thursday, October 15, 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 or before.

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.

Agenda (pdf)

Consent Calendar

  1. Approval of Active Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
  2. Active Transportation Commission Log

Discussion Calendar

  1. North Natomas Community Trail Naming Effort
  2. Franklin Boulevard Complete Street Phase 3 Project (T15255600): staff report | presentation | diagrams
  3. Active Transportation Commission 2026 Annual Report Draft Recommendations: staff report | report | presentation

I do not have any comments to make at this time, but may tomorrow.

I have not had time to analyze Franklin Phase 3. My comments on the earlier and complete phase are at SacCity: Franklin Blvd complete street, and may be of use.

Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation
Franklin Blvd Phase 3, overall proposed improvements, slide from SacATC presentation

I have not had time to look at the SacATC annual report in detail. Meanwhile, the recent email from Slow Down Sacramento/Isaac Gonzalez is of interest. Of course, I recommend that you join the Slow Down Sacramento email list yourself.