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
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*
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.
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.
7th & Railyards Green Line train northbound7th & Railyards platform looking south7th & Railyards sign to downtown7th & Railyards sign to Township 9Tap2Ride out of servicecrosswalk over 7th St7th & Railyards bench
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.
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
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.
SacRT police parked illegally in passenger loading zone, 1102 Q StSacRT police parked illegally in commercial loading zone, 1102 Q St
Whenever the topic of Green Line light rail to the airport comes up, SacRT board members and staff claim that this is the highest priority of the public. This is false. The last board meeting spent a lot of time on the Green Line, the reserved right-of-way, light rail, and BRT ideas. There is a funded BRT study: Green Line to the Airport: A Vision for the Future. Several board members said that they supported the BRT study, but that the ultimate solution was and remains light rail. Despite one of the parts of the 2026-09-28 board presentation being on the BRT study, the three maps in the presentation were all of the ultimate light rail alignment, not of the BRT project.
SacRT ran a public outreach process to gather input from the public on what they wanted from SacRT, as part of the Comprehensive Operational Analysis, to determine both short range and long range priorities. The Transit Idea Exchange: What We Heard & What Comes Next page provide information on the process and the outcome. The page lists five public priorities: Improving bus and light rail service frequency and reliability, Increase service hours on bus and light rail, Making stations and stops more welcoming and accessible, Enhancing safety, lighting, and cleanliness, and Keeping fares affordable for seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans and students. Light rail extensions, whether to the airport or Elk Grove, were not in the top five. The page does not contain details on process and results, but there are scattered documents that are relevant.
A presentation to the board on 2025-10-27 (https://startransit.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/sacrt_2025-10-27_agenda-5-1-funding-presentation.pdf) has a chart from the Transit Ideas Exchange Funding Game (page 5). Green Line light rail to the Airport ranked 10, and light rail to Elk Grove ranked 15. A separate survey by FM3 (starting page 8) conducted to gauge support for a transit sales tax measure, again indicated that the public thought light rail extension less important than maintenance.
I was only able to attend one of the workshops, in Elk Grove (STAR: Transit Ideas Exchange in Elk Grove). Despite being located in Elk Grove, and given the City of Elk Grove’s desire to see light rail extended well into Elk Grove, and SacRT board member and Elk Grove city council member Rod Brewer’s support, the public was not interested. The public wanted better bus service.
So, given these facts, why does the board and staff continue to claim Green Line light rail to the airport is the public’s top priority? Because it is the shiny thing. ‘World class cities’ have light rail to the airport, and Sacramento city and county and region want nothing more than to be considered a world class city. The politicians on the SacRT board (all are elected officials, appointed from the cities and county) also want projects for which they can do ribbon cutting. Better bus service does not involve ribbon cutting.
World class cities also have great transit systems. We do not, far from it. Things like light rail, or subway, to the airport, which indeed many cities do have, are built on a base of high-frequency, affordable, effective bus transit. Without that, light rail to the airport is an isolated and very expensive shiny thing that is not useful because the basics have not been met.
STAR advocated, in How to build successful transit and many other posts, for an incremental approach to building transit service. Yes, light rail is on the list, but it is not the starting point. SacRT is running hourly service to the airport, Route 142 Airport. Ridership is low, in part because the service schedule does not meet the needs of workers at the airport, and in part because hourly service cannot be effective. Yolobus also runs hourly service to the airport, which is more successful because it also serves Davis and Woodland, but it is very slow. SacRT and Yolobus schedules are not coordinated. The next step for the airport is high frequency bus service with a long span of service. Not BRT, not light rail.
To use an expression, service to the airport is ‘sucking all the oxygen out of the room‘, meaning that a focus on the airport is taking up time and energy that could be devoted to improving bus service and starting to address the coming funding crisis that will require SacRT to reduce service.
Three maps below show routes that are relevant to the effort to serve North Natomas and the airport. The first two maps show Route 142 Airport Express bus, with a frequency of 60 minutes. This route uses Interstate 5 for much of the distance. The third map shows Route 11 Natomas/Land Park bus, with a frequency of 30 to 45 minutes (one of the two lowest frequency regular bus routes). This route jogs briefly to Interstate 5 to connect Truxel Road and 7th Street.
Update 2026-10-22: At a Sacramento Transit Alliance meeting at Dos Rios Station last evening, the group was there when the lights came on. Wonderful! This is by far the best-lit station on the entire light rail system.
SacRT Dos Rios Station lights
The Dos Rios light rail station is now open, as of September 28, 2026. This station, between Alkali Flat/La Valentina and Globe stations, was built to serve Mirasol Village and other homes and businesses just south of the American River.
Though you won’t find mention of this on the SacRT website, SacRT and SACOG tried to kill this station, but Mirasol Village residents, the public, and transit advocates rose up to defend it, and it was eventually approved and constructed (SacRT board passes Dos Rios station). Construction took a long while, mostly to move utilities and address contaminated soil which was more extensive at the site than originally estimated.
The station is very nice. A SacRT employee commented that it would be great if all the light rail stations were this nice.
The station has the traditional ticket vending machines (TVMs), but to my surprise also has the new Tap2Ride readers that will eventually be installed at all light rail stations. These are the same readers that have been installed on all the SacRT buses, but here they are housed in a protective box. I noticed three readers, though there may have been a fourth, located at ends of the platforms where the track crossings are located. For two of the three, the screens were illuminated. I used one as an experiment, and it worked, deducting $1 from my account (I am registered in SacRT’s Tap2Ride as a senior). One reader had a blank screen, but it beeped at my phone, so might be working. SacRT’s original intent was to integrate Tap2Ride into the TVMs, but I am glad to see they are separate, since many functions of the TVMs do not work properly. It isn’t clear whether the eventual Transit Connect physical cards will be read by these Tap2Ride readers, or by some modification of the TVMs. No Connect Transit Card readers, the old legacy system, were installed, and the TVMs never were able to read these cards, though they claim to.
SacRT Tap2Ride reader at Dos Rios Station
The station has a fence installed between the two tracks for this side-boarding station. Though these are not required at stations with the higher platforms, 8 inches above top of rail, they may be required when the platforms are eventually raised to 14 inches above top of rail, sometime in the 2030s. There are track crossings at the north and south ends of the platform. All of the side-loading stations on the north section of the Blue Line have these median fences. I think they are a good thing.
There is a crosswalk over North 12th Street towards Mirasol Village from the southbound platform, and access to Sproule Avenue from the northbound platform.
The station has ample sun/rain shelters, and ample seating blocks (not benches), and trash cans. Though I did not visit at night, it appears lighting is good. I did not notice a drinking fountain. Many light rail stations have drinking fountains, but almost all are non-functional. I guess SacRT has decided they are not capable of maintaining drinking fountains.
SacRT Dos Rios station
At the south end of the northbound platform, there are some odd devices that might be intended to be bike/mobility racks. These do not meet the requirements of the APBP (Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals) bike parking standards, which are recognized by the City of Sacramento. Of maybe they are just intended to be for scooters, but then there aren’t any bicycle racks. I don’t know.
SacRT bike racks ? at Dos Rios station
Another infill light rail station in the River District is due to open sometime this fall. SacRT is advancing planning for an infill station on the Gold Line at Horn Road, but this one is in early stages.
I wrote about the SacRT project to upgrade Watt/I-80 light rail station and bus transit: SacRT: Watt/I-80 station upgrade, and more recently about the freeway and traffic noise issue at Watt/I-80. But I went there not just for the noise issue, but to look at some other issues.
The project included changes to the freeway on-ramps/off-ramps to the north and south of the Watt/I-80 station and bus areas. They were reconstructed to make on-ramps closer to right angles, in order to slow traffic which presents an ongoing danger to people walking to and from the buses and light rail, or anywhere, for that matter.
I-80 on-ramp/off-ramps at Watt Avenue, north side, westbound traffic
The former configuration is shown in the Google map capture, below.
Watt Ave & I-80 on-ramp/off-ramp, north side, westbound
The sweeping cloverleaf on-ramp that encourages high-speed traffic and no attention to people walking and bicycling has been changed to a more right-angle turn, shown below.
The first shows a bicycle lane that was not present before, and the second a crosswalk over the on-ramp that is more prominent and somewhat safer than before. However, the bike lane lacks marking for the merge zone. There should be skipped green marking that highlights the conflict area in the merge. The current marking implies that motor vehicles have the right of way over bicyclists, when in fact this is a merge area where neither has precedence. Note that Watt Avenue north of this on-ramp/off-ramp has been reconstructed and now has bike lanes, but this is a different project.
The crosswalk over the on-ramp is better marked and better signed than what was there before. However, the implication again is that motor vehicles have the right of way over pedestrians. Though drivers are moving slower than before, there is no indication that they must yield to walkers. Drivers entering a freeway don’t think of these crosswalks as having the same rules as surface streets, if they even are aware that walkers have the right-of-way in crosswalks (many drivers do not know this, and many more know it but don’t follow it). Better, but still not safe.
I-80 westbound on-ramp from Watt Ave, bike laneWatt Ave & I-80 on-ramp/off-ramp, north side, westbound
The off-ramp has not been improved. There are three lanes. I am sure that Caltrans would not have allowed a change that reduced stacking capacity on the off-ramp.
I-80 on-ramp/off-ramp at Watt Ave, south side, eastbound traffic
The former configuration is shown in the Google map capture, below.
I-80 on-ramp/off-ramp at Watt Ave, south side, eastbound, former
The eastbound I-80 on-ramp/off-ramp from Watt Avenue has also been improved. The sweeping cloverleaf on-ramp has been modified so that the turn is closer to right angle, slowing motor vehicles. The former on-ramp was also a barrier for people with mobility issues, as the sidewalk was extremely steep and awkward. This is a considerable improvement. However, there is no signal or signing control that prevents drivers southbound on Watt from turning across the crosswalk when it is occupied.
I-80 on-ramp & off-ramp at Watt Ave, eastbound traffic
The off-ramp has not been improved. There are three lanes. I am sure that Caltrans would not have allowed a change that reduced stacking capacity on the off-ramp.
I will comment that these freeway interchange improvements should not have been funded by SacRT, but by Caltrans. Caltrans designed and constructed on-ramps that it knew to be unsafe for people walking. It is legally and morally obligated to fix them, on their own dime.
The stair on the west side for accessing southbound buses is closed while bus shelters are being installed for the three southbound bus stops. Construction is underway, so it should not be too long before it is opened again. In the meanwhile, riders who want to board southbound buses must still walk to the bus stop adjacent to the Sacramento Inn & Suites, which has a very constrained waiting area with no shelter, and accumulates trash. At least there are now better crosswalks to access that stop. The elevator on the west side is out of service, for an indefinite period of time while a part is being ordered.
The stair on the east side for accessing northbound buses is open. The elevator on the east side is in service, but has the same issues it has always had: strong smell of urine, graffiti inside and outside the elevator, trash in the elevator, and damaged glass. SacRT made the decision to not add publicly accessible restrooms in the station upgrade, though it was a strong request of the public and transit advocates. As long as there is no restroom, urination in the elevators will continue. The other issues are vandalism, which may or may not be reduced by the better station design and aesthetics.
Though the platform at Watt/I-80 light rail was fairly clean, the track area had large quantities of litter, which has clearly been there for some while. The abandoned San Diego light rail train definitely doesn’t add to the aesthetics of the station, though it may serve some purpose in reducing freeway noise at the platform.
Since SacRT has committed itself to the freeway median for this terminus station, the most important improvement that could be made, after publicly accessible restrooms, is sound walls to block the oppressive freeway noise. The first one should be on the north side of the station, where the walkway between the east stair and elevator and the station platform is oppressively and dangerously noisy. The second would be the south side adjacent to the platform, where the noise is oppressive but not dangerous.
On this trip, I also visited the new Dos Rios light rail station, which I’ll write about soon.
