Category: SacRT

SacRT ambassador escalation, family hostility

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This morning I rode SacRT Gold Line light rail from 16th Street to Sunrise. A SacRT Transit Ambassador (see Safety and Security page for info on the program) escalated a minor issue into a major issue, for no good reason. A woman boarded with a baby in stroller. The stroller was small, and the train car mostly empty, about eight people on board. The woman and stroller were not causing any safety problem for anyone. The woman and the stroller were not blocking an aisle, a doorway, or a handicapped area (see SacRT regulations below).

The ambassador insisted that the woman fold her stroller, and said “its the law”. After some discussion, the ambassador, said, well, you are going to get a warning. Immediately after saying this, the ambassador got on her phone to ask for law enforcement backup. Of course this sent the woman into anger, since she had just been told she would get a warning, and now was being threatened with law enforcement action.

The woman and stroller were not causing any issue whatsoever for any other passenger. It was the ambassador that decided there was a problem, and created a problem. The escalation of this incident was by the ambassador, not the rider.

Law enforcement officers boarded at Sunrise. I stated to an officer that the ambassador had escalated the situation. I do not know the outcome because that was my destination, so I got off.

So what is the regulation that the woman was supposedly violating? The sign posted is below.

So, what is PUC 99170 (6)(d)? There is no such thing. You can look at the PUC code yourself (DIVISION 10. TRANSIT DISTRICTS, PART 11. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL PUBLIC TRANSIT, CHAPTER 3. Miscellaneous). Perhaps the sign was intended to say (a)(6) ‘Violate a notice, prohibition, instruction, or direction on a sign that is intended to provide for the safety and security of transit passengers, or the safe and secure operation of the transit system’. Since the sign does not refer to a valid PUC code, the sign is illegal, and if any citations were given based on this sign, they should be dismissed.

What this PUC code does is allow a transit district to create regulations and supporting signs IF for the ‘safety and security of transit passengers’. Given that SacRT has not made any finding, so far as I am aware, that strollers are a safety hazard for other passengers, why did SacRT suddenly decide that this was necessary? The signs are fairly new, though I’ve been out of town for much of that last two months, so I’m not sure when they were installed. I’m pretty sure they were installed because SacRT has become an enforcement-first agency, not really concerned with riders at all.

The regulation that I found, not findable through SacRT website search, but with external search, on the Laws and Rules page, “Riding in a Vehicle with Stroller/Utility Cart unless, prior to boarding, the children or goods are removed and the Stroller/Utility Cart is folded and/or stored so that it does not block the aisle or the areas reserved for persons in wheelchairs or who use mobility aids.”

I have certainly seen large strollers that don’t fit within any area on the train (by the way, SacRT made the decision to purchase ‘US ultra-short’ versions of the Siemens cars, knowing that they did not have sufficient space for bicycles or other devices).

Where does this law-enforcement-first attitude and action come from? Lisa Hinz is the SacRT Vice President for Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction, which includes the Transit Ambassador program. She is a former police officer with the City of Sacramento Police Department. Her view of everything is authoritarian and rule-bound. Her presentations to the board have hidden information, given wrong impressions, and included outright lies. Why SacRT put a former police officer in charge of ‘customer satisfaction’, I have no idea.

Some background. When I got on the train with my bicycle, the ambassador was standing in the space reserved for bicyclists. She refused to move. So I stood with my bicycle the entire way. The ambassador had earlier talked to a woman with a shopping cart about folding. I did not hear all of that conversation, but the other woman was not threatened with a warning, nor forced to fold her shopping cart, nor removed from the train, nor subject to law enforcement. Apparently shopping carts are not considered the threat that baby strollers are.

I did not observe the ambassador to have a positive interaction with any rider. Apparently the change from ‘fare inspector’ was just a change in terminology, not a change in approach to public service. The lead illustration on the SacRT Safety and Security page is of four officers with full gear and frowning at the camera. What message does that send to riders?

Progressive transit agencies across the US have liberalized stroller policies in order to meet the needs of parents traveling with strollers. See

While other transit agencies move forward, SacRT moves backward. This policy is family-hostile. No good reason. No surprise.

CTA (see above link) has the following text. This is what a real transit agency would do.

Traveling with strollers

Children in open strollers are welcome on CTA, however we encourage parents to be considerate of other customers and adhere to these rules when traveling with a stroller.

Keep strollers clear of aisles and doorways aboard buses and trains.

If a bus or train becomes crowded, please fold your stroller to make room for others. Also, if a bus or train is crowded, a CTA employee may ask you to fold your stroller or wait for another vehicle—please follow their instructions. During certain periods of high ridership, we may require that all strollers be folded before you board.

Seniors and riders with disabilities have priority use of the Priority Seating area aboard buses and trains. If these seats are not in use, open strollers may be parked in this area to help you to keep from blocking the aisle. On buses, you may also request use of the access ramp or lift to help you board and exit.

Please yield Priority Seating areas if a rider with a disability, a senior, or a person using a mobility device wishes to board. 

Children in an open stroller should be seated and secured in the stroller before boarding the bus or train. If traveling with an open stroller in a multi-level facility, please use elevators or ramps where available (strollers are never permitted on escalators). On train station platforms, position your stroller parallel to the platform edge (not facing it), use wheel locks/brakes and stay with the stroller at all times.

Stockton BRT alternative alignment

Dan Allison1 Comment

For additional posts on Stockton Blvd, both the current STEP project and earlier iterations, see category: StocktonBlvd.

Part of the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) is consideration of changing the BRT (bus rapid transit) route north of Broadway to part of SacRT Route 38. In a presentation at the STEP stakeholder meeting on February 19, and in the similar presentation to SacATC on March 12, this alternative was presented by a slide (page 7) and additional discussion. That slide is below, followed by a slightly more detailed Alternative 2 – Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment.

STEP BRT Route Alternatives, from SacATC presentation
STEP BRT Route Alternatives, from SacATC presentation
STEP Alternative 2 Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment
STEP Alternative 2 Route 51/38 Hybrid Alignment

At SacATC, Commissioner David Moore raised the issue that the existing Route 51 along Broadway is also a very high ridership corridor, serving to connect equity neighborhoods to downtown and to Stockton. Replacing Route 51 high-frequency (15 minute) service with a moderate-frequency (30 minute) route, as Route 38 currently is, would be a disservice to these riders and raise major equity issues.

The segment of Broadway from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, and probably into downtown, MUST have high-frequency (15 minute) service.

The two existing routes, 51 with a high-frequency (in SacRT terms, though this would be considered moderate frequency in major cities), and 38 with a moderate-frequency, are shown below (pdf).

map of SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing
SacRT Routes 51 and 38 existing

Though it is not stated anywhere, the STEP alternative 2 map implies that the BRT route would end at Sacramento Valley Station rather than 8th St & F St as Route 51 currently does.

The western part of Route 38, which would become Stockton BRT under the alternative 2 51-38 hybrid, follows Stockton from Broadway north to T Street, then northbound on 30th Street or southbound on 29th Street, then west on L Street or east on J Street, and thence to Sacramento Valley Station.

map of SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT
SacRT Route 38 west segment, potential Stockton BRT

The west portion of the existing Route 51, from Stockton Blvd to 8th/9th Streets, is the segment that must have high-frequency (15 minute) to continue to serve the present high ridership. It is possible that this route would terminate at Sacramento Valley Station as well. It is unknown whether ridership on the existing Route 38 to the east, terminating at 65th Street light rail station, would also justify high-frequency service, and whether it this would be combined with existing Route 51 west. Map below (pdf).

map of SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown
SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown

SacRT Safe Routes to Transit

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The SacRT Safe Routes to Transit (SRTT) Plan held its first workshop on February 24 in Rancho Cordova. I attended the Rancho Cordova workshop, not because I live in that area, but because it was the only one that worked for my schedule. There is a virtual workshop on March 4, 5:30 PM to 7:00 PM (registration), and three in-person workshops on March 5, 10, and 11.

I was the only member of the public at the workshop in Rancho Cordova. That is sad.

The workshop had some display boards, two showing bus and light rail stops in two areas, captured below.

What the workshop, and the program, was soliciting was input on specific stops. What was not solicited was policy ideas, but I provided them anyway.

The most important policy for SacRT to implement is that all bus stops located on arterial roadways (which is most though not all bus routes) must have safe crossings of the roadway located very near the stop. Stops away from safe crossings encourage riders to cross mid-block (which is not illegal, but is not safe), or require them to walk distances to a safe crossing. I suggest that every bus stop be evaluated, and changes made. Either a safe crossing would be provided, or the bus stop removed. There are many locations where no safe crossing exists anywhere close to the stop. Implementation of safe crossings would require cooperation between SacRT and the local government (cities and county). There should be a deadline for identifying a solution, and implementing the solution. I’d suggest two years, and five years.

Though not common in the cities, there are legacy bus stops in the county that do not have sidewalk access, at all. Those stops must either be provided with new sidewalks, or be removed. Again, there should be a deadline. I’d suggest five years.

I asked if SacRT had talked to riders on the bus to gather information for this project. The answer was no. Apparently this was done in the past, but not recently, and not specifically about this issue. Advocacy organizations have surveyed bus riders on the bus, but not on this specific issue.

The two light rail stations about which I have safety concerns are Swanson and Watt/I-80 West. Not because of access, but because they are so seldom used that a rider might well be the only transit user there at the time. That doesn’t feel safe. There is safety in numbers! I question whether these two stations should be kept open.

Bus stop amenities are critical for encouraging people to ride, but are not necessarily safety issues. Every stop should have a place to sit. Most stops should have a shelter and trash can. Some stops should have bike racks and live arrival displays. Many stops do not have enough space for a a wheelchair user to wait safely for ramp deployment. This must be fixed. Placing amenities often requires a bus stop pad wider than the sidewalk (sidewalks throughout the county are often narrower than desired). Sometimes the pad will fit within the public right-of-way, but often it requires either purchase or an easement on private property. The government agency should be responsible for the arrangements, and placing the concrete pad, not SacRT. SacRT would then place amenities.

big day of meetings!

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

Once every few months, there are four transportation-related meetings on a single day, and that day is tomorrow, February 20, 2025. Except for retired folks with nothing better to do (me), no one could attend all four meetings. Three of the meetings are during the work day, which are scheduled then for two purposes: 1) because the members don’t want to do anything in the evening, and 2) to ensure that most of the public cannot participate. Nevertheless, I encourage readers to pick one meeting that seems of most interest, and attend in person or watch online. And comment! Though you may not have expertise on the topic being discussed, you have expertise and lived experience as a member of society.

Of the four meetings, one accepts comments online, the SacRT Mobility Advisory Council (MAC). The others do not. To comment, you must either attend in person, or submit comments online ahead of time. Comments submitted at the last moment will be included in the meeting record, but the board/commission/council/committee members will only see those comments submitted well ahead of time, usually three hours, though it varies with meeting. Meeting agendas, and select agenda items are below. I picked some agenda items of interest to me, but your interests may be different, so I suggest you take a look at the entire agenda and documents. You won’t find any presentations, because, well, that is the games agencies play with agenda presentations. Though, as a pleasant surprise, all the CARTA presentations are already available.

9:30 AM, SACOG Board of Directors, Meetings and Agendas page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at SACOG’s offices, or Written comments: May be submitted via email to the clerk at lespinoza@sacog.org.

12:00 noon, Capitol Area Tolling Authority, Board Meetings page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or Written comments: May be submitted via email to the clerk at rtadevich@sacog.org.

2:30 PM, SacRT Mobility Advisory Council (MAC), MAC page. Comments In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or online via Zoom.

5:30 PM, Sacramento Active Transportation Commission (SacATC), Upcoming Meetings page. Comment In-person: Public comment may be made in person at the meeting location, or via eComment on the Upcoming Meetings page. eComment is open when the agenda is posted, and remains open until the beginning of public comment on an agenda item. Commissioners will not see eComments submitted during the meeting, but these will be part of the public record.

J St bus stops & bikeway

Dan Allison1 Comment

I recently attended a meeting of SacTRU (Sacramento Transit Riders Union) and heard complaints about the bus stops along J Street between 19th Street and 29th Street, in the section where a separated bikeway (cycletrack, protected bike lane) was installed. I have heard these concerns before, so let me talk about them. Two SacRT routes run along this section of J Street, Bus 30 and Bus 38.

The concerns are two:

  1. The bus stops are too widely spaced.
  2. The bus stops are very difficult for disabled people (and bus operators) to use because the bus no longer stops at the curb, but rather in the street.

Actually, there are TOO MANY bus stops in this section of 10-1/2 blocks, from 19th Street to nearly 29th Street where the separated bikeway ends. Five bus stops, two of them only one block apart. In a central city setting like midtown, bus stops should be no closer than three blocks apart (about 1/4 mile), and preferably more, like four to six blocks. Why? Because every stop slows the bus significantly, not only the deceleration to the stop and acceleration from the stop, but dwell time. Buses in some areas like this actually spend more time stopped than moving, and as a result, the speed of the route is often below 10 mph. The following five photos show the five bus stops. It is significant that there are too many stops, because solutions to issue 2 are not inexpensive.

J St near 19th St
J St near 22nd St
J St near 25th St
J St near 27th St
J St near 28th St

The second issue is real. Bus operators can have a hard time deploying ramps to the street, particularly when the street is strongly crowned as parts or J Street are. A disabled passenger needing the bus ramp, which might be a wheelchair user or someone with a disability making stepping up to and down from the bus difficult, have to wait in the bikeway to board, not appreciated by the rider or by bicyclists. After debarking, the person must travel along the bikeway to the nearest driveway or corner curb ramp, again, not appreciated by the rider or bicyclists.

So, what is the solution? Bus boarding islands, which have been implemented in many cities. The first photo below is from Seattle. Riders have an large area to wait for the bus, the bus ramp is easy to deploy, and there is a safe crossing to the sidewalk at the end of the island. A slight disadvantage for the rider is that they must ramp down off the island and then back up to the sidewalk.

Seattle bus boarding island (from NACTO)

The diagram shows an alternative configuration, where the bikeway humps up over the crosswalk, but the route from platform to sidewalk for bus riders is level. This is probably safer for both riders and bicyclists.

diagram of bus boarding island with level crosswalk (from Vision Zero Network)

There are two significant challenges for these bus boarding islands. First is that installing them may require addressing drainage, which can greatly increase the cost of the installation. If three of the five bus stop photos, you can see drainage inlets, so this would be an issue on J Street.

The second is that by placing the bus boarding island where the bus stop now is, buses then stop in the travel lane rather than pulling out into the bus stop. The positive of this is that they don’t then have to negotiate their way back into traffic, which can be challenging and lead to significant delays to the bus schedule. The negative is that private vehicle drivers will complain about the slight delay to their drive from having to wait behind the bus. The convenience and safety for the many people on the bus outweighs the slight inconvenience for private vehicle drivers, but there will be complaints. Timed points on the route, where the bus would stop to wait if it is ahead of schedule, should not be in the travel lane, but that is not true for any of these stops.

To solve the boarding issue on J Street would take a cooperative project with SacRT and the city, and funding from both sides. The number of bus stops should be reduced, probably to three, so that fewer bus boarding islands are needed. This should be carefully planned so that they don’t need to be changed. It is possible to install temporary bus islands, as Oakland and other cities have done in a few places, so if the stop doesn’t turn out to be the best location, it can be moved without great expense.

SacRT’s finest – not

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

This evening, while walking across Q St at 12th, with the light, a driver in a SacRT police vehicle drove directly at me, stopping just short of the crosswalk, and just short of hitting me. His comment was: “I didn’t hit you, did I?” in a smart-alecky tone. He was clearly being belligerent and trying to intimidate me with his vehicle.

Way to gain public support and trust, SacRT. Please do a better job of screening your officers. SacRT knows where its police vehicles are at all times, and who is driving them. I would hope that this person is severely disciplined. He attempted to intimidate me with his vehicle, which is assault.

Serve on SacRT board

Dan Allison1 Comment

From our friends SacTRU and also noticed by Ridership for the Masses.

Mayor Steinberg is appointing a member of the private sector to the SacRT Board. This seat will replace one of the Sacramento City Council seats currently filled by Councilman Rick Jennings and will serve until the end of 2018. The member of the private sector would have full voting rights as a board member representing the city of sacramento.

Position: Seat A – A member of the private sector with an understanding of the importance of regional transit and public transportation.

Deadline to Apply: March 30, 2018 at 5:00pm

The requirements and selection process are vague, but all are encouraged to apply. We hope many qualified members of the community will apply and represent the needs of riders, and that this seat is not simply filled by an interested member of the business community.

Apply at: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Clerk/Legislative-Bodies/Boards-and-Commissions. Scroll down to Sacramento Regional Transit Board; no direct link is available.

It has been suggested that the best candidate is a woman of color. There is only one woman serving on the board currently, Linda Budge. There are two people of color, Rick Jennings and Phil Serna, but it is Rick Jennings seat that is being offered (see board list). STAR believes it is important to have someone who is a regular user of the transit system, since the current members range from low transit use to no transit use. Finding that ideal candidate that increases the diversity of the board and better represents riders will be a challenge. If you know that person or those people, please let them know and ask them to serve.

At the same time, STAR encourages everyone to apply. This can be a transformative moment for SacRT, and a strong interest in the position may encourage the other entities, county and cities, to appoint citizens. The board suffers from having politicians as members who are already very busy with their other boards and commissions, and other interests, and don’t pay enough attention to transit. We need someone whose passion is transit that works for everyone.

SacRT and employment

Dan Allison1 Comment

I earlier produced maps showing how SacRT routes related to population density and income (SacRT with income and population). I also wanted to present a map on employment or jobs – where people are going to on the transit system. It took much longer to track down that data, and I needed help from SACOG’s GIS staff. The employment data is from the Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employment-Household Dynamics (LEHD). The data is normalized over area. The map is below, with the SacRT_employment pdf also available.

Read More »