Category: Sacramento Transportation Authority SacTA

SacTA Board 2025-09-11

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA or SacTA) Board of Directors is meeting this Thursday, September 11, at 1:30 PM in Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chambers, 00 H St, Ste 1450, Sacramento.

Comments may be made in person, or via email ahead of time to BoardClerk@saccounty.gov. If you want board members to see your comment before the meeting, send it at least 24 hours in advance.

The meeting may be viewed online at Metro Cable 14. It will be the video on the home page, at the time of the meeting. Comments may not be made through the live stream.

For more information about the SacMoves Coalition presentation, see SacMoves to present at Sacramento Transportation Authority. I strongly encourage people interested in transportation and transportation funding attend the meeting, or at least view it online. SacMoves Coalition is being offered the opportunity to present before the stakeholder engagement process has started because it is a coalition of 25 organizations with interests in transportation funding and related issues.

Documents not linked below are available on the SacTA website: https://www.sacta.org/2025-09-11-board-meeting.

Agenda (pdf)

COMMENT ITEMS

  1. Comments From The Public Regarding Matters Not On The Agenda

CONSENT ITEMS

GENERAL

  1. Approve Action Summary: August 14, 2025, Sacramento Transportation Authority Governing Board Meeting
  2. Adopt Resolution Amending STA Personnel Rules And Regulations For The CALPERS 457 Loan Program Provision

MEASURE A

  1. Receive And File A Contract With Lucas Public Affairs For Community Listening Sessions On Transportation
  2. Amendment To Ongoing Annual Programs Memorandum Of Understanding – Reporting Frequency Change ◄
  3. Receive And File Capital Project Status Reports Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2024-25
  4. Receive And File Measure A Ongoing Programs Annual Report – Fiscal Year 2024-25

SACMETRO FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL

  1. SacMetro Freeway Service Patrol Zones 3, And 4 Request For Bids Result And Authorize The Executive Director To Award And Execute Contracts ◄

SEPARATE ITEMS

  1. Receive A Presentation Regarding Coordination Of State Transportation Improvement Program And The Results Of The Four-County State Funding Program
  2. Receive A Presentation From The SacMoves Coalition On Principles To Consider For Future Ballot Measures (note: the SacMoves presentation is available: SacMoves presentation for STA 2025-09-11
  3. Executive Director’s Report
  4. Comments and Reports From Authority Members
    • Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA)
    • New Transportation Funding Subcommittee
    • STA’s Role in the Region Subcommittee

VMT mitigation at SacTA 2025-08-14

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA or STA) meeting tomorrow, August 14, 2025, there will be a presentation on a County Wide VMT Mitigation Program. This is the second of three presentations, leading to an agency decision on whether to do a VMT mitigation program, and if so, what kind.

The state has authorized VMT mitigation programs under SB 743 (2013), and AB 130 (2025) authorizes VMT mitigation fees to be used for affordable housing in low-VMT areas. Design and implementation of the state VMT mitigation through housing program won’t come until next year.

SACOG is also considering a region-wide VMT mitigation program, but is in the early stages of determining the model and making a proposal.

I intend to take a closer look at these, and add to this post, and speak at the board meeting, but am not there yet.

Meanwhile, the four documents are below:

another big day of meetings

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Tomorrow, Thursday, June 12, there will be at least three transportation-related public meetings:

SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) Board of Directors, 10:15 AM to about 12:00 PM, at Conzelmann Community Center, 2201 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95814 (not at SACOG offices on L Street). agenda

Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA): 1:30 PM to about 3:00 PM, at the County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 700 H St, Ste 1450, Sacramento. agenda

Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC): 5:30 PM to about 7:30 PM, at City of Sacramento Council Chambers, 915 I Street, Sacramento. Note, SacATC usually meets on the third Thursday of the month, but the June meeting is on the second Thursday. agenda

AB 1223 for wider SacTA authority

Dan Allison1 Comment

AB 1223: Local Transportation Authority and Improvement Act: Sacramento Transportation Authority (Nguyen/Krell) has been introduced in this legislative session. As of April 2, it is still in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

“The bill would provide that the allowable expenditure categories for revenues from a tax imposed by STA include the construction, modernization, and improvement of infrastructure, as defined, that supports infill or transit-oriented development and would reduce vehicle miles traveled.” It would also allow Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) to develop and operate toll facilities, and to impose taxes on areas of less than the entire county.

SacTA is currently operating under general state legislation, and the Measure A code that established the authority. The authority now wishes to make clear that expenditures which broaden the mission to more transportation and infrastructure projects that support transportation are within the purview of the authority.

It isn’t clear to me how the toll facilities ability would mesh with the Capitol Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA) which is intended to cover the SACOG region.

The less than-full-county voting area is similar to that implemented for SacRT, but does not require that two or more cities be adjacent, as does the SacRT legislation. The idea is the same, that some areas of the county will be opposed to any sales tax measure, no matter what it contains, so creating a measure that targets supporting areas makes sense.

SacTA Board 2024-10-10

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

I realize that posting meetings so close to the meeting makes it impossible to schedule your possible attendance, and sometimes even to submit comments through email. But it is still useful, I think, to keep up on transportation issues and government agencies. Discussion and even decisions on the agenda are often not the final word.

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA – I label it SacTA rather than STA, to distinguish from the California State Transportation Agency which goes by STA or CalSTA) Board of Directors will meet today, Thursday, October 10, at 1:30 PM in the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors chambers, 700 H Street in downtown Sacramento. The agenda can be viewed on the SacTA Board Meetings page, or here. The entire meeting packet is available on SacTA, but it is quite a large document, and you may find looking at individual agenda items to be more efficient. I’ve commented on a linked to three items of greatest interest to me.

Agenda 08: SB 1 Cycle 4 Local Partnership Program (competitive) Project Prioritization

There are two projects to be prioritized for application to the state SB 1 Local Partnership Program, one related to the I Street Bridge Replacement project, and the other for a transit bus yard, hydrogen buses, and hydrogen refueling in north Sacramento, and other transit and transportation projects. Generally only one submitted project is funded, so the prioritization is important.

I don’t have any strong feelings about the two projects, though I will caution that the rush to hydrogen, which is fueled (pun intended) by strong federal, state and local subsidies, is risky. Though hydrogen fuel cells may turn out to be the best solution for some transit routes, the paucity of green hydrogen (that does not rely on fossil fuels or biomass conversion), and the lack of really addressing this issue, is concerning. Much of hydrogen boosterism comes from the fossil fuel industry, trying to maintain its grip on our energy system.

I think everyone would agree that the I Street Bridge replacement is critical, but the city has made sure that it is an expensive trophy bridge rather than a utilitarian bridge.

Agenda 11: Potential Legislative Changes (I’ll let you read the full agenda item title)

The charter for SacTA, established with the passage of the existing Measure A (not the failed Measure As) limits the agency to pass-through of transportation funds to local transportation agencies, with limited influence over the projects implemented. The ‘Measure C’ proposal by SMART (Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit) and Mayor Steinberg, places an emphasis on transit, housing, and safe streets. And no roadway capacity expansion. The measure being considered by SacRT, for the City of Sacramento and Elk Grove portion of its service area, would provide some support for infill transit oriented development and first mile/last mile active transportation, but would be primarily for transit. SacTA does not have the authority to fund anything other than direct transportation projects. This agenda item would allow SacTA to consider legislation to broaden it mandate to include housing or housing-supportive infrastructure related to transportation.

It is not clear whether any measure proposed by SacTA would approach the model proposed by active transportation and transit advocates, but this idea is worth pursuing.

I support this agenda item.

Agenda 12: Consider the Creation of a Temporary New Transportation Funding Subcommittee

This agenda item would form a subcommittee to explore the possibility of, and chances for success, of a 2026 transportation sales tax measure sponsored by SacTA.

We know that a transportation measure heavily weighted towards roadway capacity expansion has failed and will fail, but with a possible shift in priorities to roadway maintenance (fix-it-first), transit and active transportation, there is some chance of success. If Proposition 5 passes this November, it is possible that a ballot measure in 2026 would require only a 55% yes vote, rather than a 67% yes vote, which is difficult to pass in Sacramento County with its strong suburban and semi-rural opposition to all taxes.

Several transportation advocacy organizations are opposed to any additional sales taxes since they are regressive, having a much greater impact on low-income people than other taxes. However, at this time, it does not looks as though any of the potential proposals uses alternative taxes.

I support this agenda item.

pavement condition in Sacramento County

Dan Allison2 Comments

A report on pavement condition in Sacramento County was presented today to the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA): 2023 Regional Pavement Analysis, written by consultant NCE, agenda item 12.

The report has two main sections:

  • What are the existing pavement conditions, countywide, and by each agency (city or county).
  • What are funding scenarios and how would the allow, or not allow, substandard conditions to be improved.

Existing conditions are summarized in the chart below. The countywide PCI (pavement condition index) is 53, out of a possible 100, with a target of at least 70 for ‘good condition’. Only Elk Grove has the target 70 or better, in large part because their roadways are newer than most of the county.

The second section presents five possible funding scenarios, and how pavement condition would vary over time. In each of the scenarios except the first, ‘improve PCI to 70’, pavement condition declines, sometimes slowly and sometimes quickly. SacTA already recognized that there is no likely funding source that would allow scenario one. Scenario four includes new sales tax income, but still does not keep pavement conditions from declining.

Many people question where SB 1 Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 funding (mostly gas tax) is going and why it hasn’t fixed our roads. SB 1’s main intent was to allow Caltrans to maintain freeways and other state-owned roads. It had only minor funding, a fraction of what would be needed, to maintain local roadways.

Why are we in this crisis of pavement condition? Because we have built roadways (and bridges and freeways) that we will never be able to maintain. It would take a tax rate many times higher than it is today to actually maintain all we have. That isn’t happening. We’ve built ourselves into a corner. But that doesn’t mean we can’t address the problem. We can shift funding from road building to road repair. This is called ‘fix my pothole’ or ‘fix-it-first’ or ‘state of good repair’.

I made these comments today about the issue:

  • I’m a active transportation and transit advocate, but what everyone in the county wants is to have good streets.
  • Under no reasonable funding scenario does pavement quality improve
  • There will be less money coming through the state, as demonstrated by the LAO presentation (the previous agenda item, 11)
  • $8.3B roadway ‘asset’ is really a $8.3B ‘liability’, requiring a significant investment to maintain
  • Every new pavement mile is an additional liability
  • Authority funding should shift from creating new pavement to maintaining and rehabilitating existing pavement
  • This shift is even more important for the member agencies, cities and county
  • Each potential infrastructure project should be evaluated on the question “Does this project add enough economic activity to pay for maintenance?” If the answer is not, they should not be built.
  • If the authority is going to voters for increased sales tax in the future, it will be necessary ahead of time to show that the authority and agencies are already working to solve this issue, not just waiting for more money

Two bicycle advocates spoke after me, pointing out that safety for bicyclists is actually a very high priority. I agree, even above economic productivity. But economic productivity must be considered. I roadway projects don’t create enough income to pay for them, and maintenance and rehabilitation of them, we are sliding further down the slope of pavement deterioration.

Board comments were mostly in recognition that we must invest differently than in the past, we must keep our existing roads in better condition, and that includes consideration not doing projects which increase future liability.

tolling authority at SacTA

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

At the Sacramento Transportation Authority (SacTA) board meeting today, SACOG gave a presentation on the tolling authority and governance, as part of agenda 9, Receive Information on the creation of the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority (CARTA) and the Yolo 80 Managed Lane Project and provide direction as appropriate. The two presentations, one by SACOG staff and the other by Executive Director Kevin Bewsey on possible SacTA role, are available: SACOG, SacTA role. SACOG estimated in the current MTP/SCS (not the update being worked on) that about 70% of the expected tolled lanes will be in Sacramento County. See map at bottom.

In my public comment, I spoke on these points, similar to the points I’d also made at the SACOG Transportation Committee meeting:

  • Support creation of regional tolling JPA
  • Support governance options with one Caltrans voting member, but not two
  • Support inclusion of Sacramento Transportation Authority as the Sac county agency
  • Tolling advances user pays concept, which transportation advocates support
  • If the JPA had been in place, Fix50 project would have had toll lanes rather than HOV: HOV lanes don’t work for management because they are routinely violated
  • Support does not indicate that I support adding lanes in Yolo, but if lanes are added, they should be tolled
  • Questions about JPA membership, board members and voting are probably best answered by proportional representation based on tolled lane miles rather than county representation, which is more consistent with citizen representation; this would also entice counties to add or convert tolled lanes so they could be part of the process and benefits
  • Conversion of HOV lanes and general purpose lanes to tolled lanes will be required in the future to maintain our very expensive highway system, so this is a start

Brian Abbanat of YoloTD also spoke.

Several board members spoke, and to summarize and paraphrase their comments:

  • Rich Desmond and Eric Guerra supported a lanes miles voting idea
  • Karina Talamantes expressed concern but seemed satisfied by the answers
  • Bret Daniels expressed the standard ‘I don’t want to pay anything’ and tolling is for rich Tesla people
  • Phil Serna asked about safety of adjacent lanes, SACOG responded that safety can be part of the infrastructure and/or tolling design; I don’t think the idea of separation on the causeway has come up before; also asked about detection and enforcement
  • Eric Guerra said benefit or presentation is raising awareness
  • Patrick Hume actually said that eventually we will need to toll not just lanes but entire facilities

Overall, the concerns of the board were mainly that Sacramento County be treated equitably in terms of tolled projects, design of tolls, and distribution of toll revenue; several people also commented that the focus on excess revenue may be premature since it isn’t clear that there will be excess revenue, and some of it is already dedicated to mitigation measures.

Kevin Bewsey presented on SacTA’s role in the JPA, including how votes would be handled.

Though no motion was made on the issue, nor any vote taken, the consensus of the board seems to be:

  • Support for creation of the JPA
  • Support for creating tolled lanes in Sacramento County
  • Yes to SacTA being the agency for Sacramento County
  • Yes to appointing members of the SacTA board to the JPA board, probably with one county representative and one city representative (under the staff recommended governance structure, SACOG would appoint another from its own board, and from Sacramento County or a city within)
  • Concern about the governance model treatment of Sacramento County, and concern about a voting methodology that is equitable for Sacramento County, but willingness to allow some uncertainty here for the time being (the voting document created by SACOG was not presented, but was discussed since several SacTA board members are also SACOG board members)
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region
map of potential tolled lanes in the SACOG region

Note: I am unsure of the source of this map. It was referred to as being in the 2020 SCS, but I don’t find it there. Apologies for the low resolution, it was extracted from the SACOG presentation today, not from an original source.

For additional posts on managed lanes in general, this regional tolling authority, and the Yolo 80 project, see category ‘managed lanes‘.