In SacRT, Customer Satisfaction is grouped under the ‘Vice President, Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction’ position, which is held by Lisa Hinz. The grouping of customer satisfaction with security and law enforcement has led to many, many problems, the latest of which is the zero tolerance policy implemented by this position, without SacRT Board knowledge or approval. People who are trained in law enforcement (Ms. Hinz who is an ex-City of Sacramento Police Officer) do not have the job or personal skills to manage customer satisfaction. Under this arrangement, enforcement comes first, and riders come last.
The 3.1 agenda item ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’, presented at most but not all meetings, have generally been full of misinformation, misunderstanding, and glossing over problems. They have not led to useful changes, and in general the public and transit advocates are not satisfied with these reports. The presentations to go with this agenda item are usually available well after the rest of the agenda items, even during the meeting itself, preventing the public from viewing ahead of time and developing responses. I do not believe this is an accident.
This is unacceptable. The responsibility must be moved elsewhere in the organization chart. I am not sure where the best placement is, but I am sure the current placement is wrong. The chart below shows the position of Customer Satisfaction, at right, within the Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction grouping (pdf).
SacRT organizational chart, security, safety and customer satisfaction
This is the top-level chart for SacRT (pdf). The fact that it is not immediately obvious where to correctly place Customer Satisfaction is indicative of the approach at SacRT that puts administration above riders.
SacRT organizational chart, top level
I will have comments soon on the placement and duties of Transit Ambassadors.
A transit advocate has flagged that her stop on Q Street at 7th Street had all indications that it was a bus stop removed. There is no bus stop sign. What is there is a new concrete pad, presumably to host some bus stop amenities. In February 2025, the most recent date, Google Maps shows a bus shelter there, with bus stop sign. Google Earth shows streetview with shelter on the same date, but the most recent aerial, February 2026, is too fuzzy to tell, and earlier ones are obscured by trees.
Google Maps and Transit.app show this as a valid bus stop, which means that it is in SacRT’s GTFS file. However, I observed a Route 51 bus taking the turn from 7th Street southbound to Q Street eastbound in such a way that they could not have pulled into the bus stop if there were a rider waiting, so perhaps some drivers are unaware that this is a bus stop. Note in the photo below that half of the pad area is also a parking space, which it should not be. A bus needs space to pull in, and pull out, and that parking space prevents a bus from using the pad area. This is a failure by the city to properly manage parking. I hadn’t realized it at the time, but the construction cone probably covers an electrical feed.
SacRT bus stop pad, no sign or amenities, Q St at 7th St
This reminded me of my experience with the bus stop on 9th Street southbound at Q Street, for Route 51 (and some other buses). This is not a stop that I often use, so don’t know the history. On June 12, 2026, there was no bus stop sign, but the Route 51 bus did stop for me. This is not a heavily used bus stop, but I always see one or more people here. A large concrete bus stop pad was installed, close to 20 feet long. Clearly, amenities were intended here, otherwise there would be no point in such an expansive pad. It appears that some construction was going on July 2025, maybe the bus stop pad, but I can’t be certain. I am certain that nothing has happened since June 2026.
SacRT bus stop pad, no amenities, 9th St at Q St
Apparently whatever was intended for these two bus stops was abandoned. By SacRT? By the city? I don’t know. What is clear is that riders on Route 51 are not being served by bus stops with amenities, or even signing.
I almost alway use light rail transit in downtown, or am walking or riding my bike, so I don’t know if there are other such locations. If you know of others, including the stop you use, please let me know and I’ll add it here.
It has been suggested that this could be part of the city’s SVS Commuter Bus Stop Consolidation Project, but neither of these stops are part of that project, which is focused solely on commuter buses. It has been suggested that this could be part of SacRT’s Bus Stop Improvement Plan (2023), but the plan does not identify any stops in the central city, since it focuses on underserved communities with priority routes. These two locations are not on the list of potential SacRT Heat-Resilient Bus Shelters Project. I’m not aware that any construction has taken place for any of these projects. Were these one-off ‘improvements’, or part of a project? Unknown.
The transit advocate said that staff later said the Q Street at 7th Street shelter would be replaced, but timeline is unknown.
Agenda item 4.1 was to adopt the SacRT Strategic Plan 2026-2030. As I had previously commented, the plan seems very general and vague. Board member Roger Dickinson had the same impression, and specifically wondered where a budget and funding projection was for this period of time. The plan document is only 18 pages long, most of it filler, and is labeled on one page an executive summary. Where is the rest of the document? Staff member Shelley Valenton said that the plan is based on a large number of other documents, so the detail is not in the plan, as these other documents change about once per year. Roger asked where these document were. They have not been posted or linked, so the board and public can’t view them. It was promised they would be. The Strategic Plan 2021-2025 is even briefer, 12 pages. The plan webpage lists several scorecards, but does not contain a single background document.
The board presentation includes a page below, Work Plan Tactics, which is the only page that presents useful information, and this is NOT in the plan document.
If the strategic plan is general and vague, with supporting documents not available, it would not provide any information for board or staff on where SacRT is going over five years. What then is the point in having the plan, or presenting it to the board and public?
excerpt from SacRT_2026-08-24 agenda item 04, page 5
Agenda item 6.1, adoption of locally preferred alternative (LPA) for Stockton Safety and Transit Enhancement Project (STEP) was presented and adopted. Though there was lot of unrelated filler in the presentation, about the benefits and characteristics of BRT in general, the key points are that the alignment of the existing SacRT Route 51 will be the BRT route (not hybrid Route 51/38), and that the BRT will be curb running and not center running. All other decisions are for future planning, this is just the first step.
I participated in both the stakeholder meetings and the public meeting on STEP. My sense of the consensus is that there wasn’t one, that the participants saw value in both alignments, and in center running and curb running. After quite of bit of research on my part, I still was not sure. So I do appreciate SacRT doing this analysis, and it was probably time to make a decision. However, there was some fuzziness and missing information in the staff report and presentation.
The heart of the argument is in the table below, from the staff report and also in the presentation. The data point highlighted are daily ridership forecast, which favors Route 51, though I don’t believe that the analysis considered that there will be considerably more development – medical, commercial and residential – between Broadway and Alhambra, with the Aggie Square / UC Davis Medical Center developments, than on either the Stockton segment to the south or on Broadway. The second point was the ‘increase in annual O&M cost’ of $2.7M per year. I searched for why the cost for Broadway service was included, but not the savings that would result from running BRT on the former Route 38 into downtown. The two routes would essentially be swapped under the hybrid alignment. There might be some additional cost, but $2.7M per year is not justified in the report.
In the stakeholder and public meetings, representatives of UC Davis Medical Center/Aggie Square spoke enthusiastically about extending BRT north on Stockton to serve that development. They stated that they really wanted a partnership with SacRT, and the city, to make the most of transit service. This fact does not show up anywhere in the staff report or presentation. Staff did several times say, ‘well, its only a quarter mile walk’. Yes, to the middle of campus on Stockton, but not to the north edge, and not to the east edge. I think this was just a spurious justification of a decision made for other reasons.
The third point that struck me as critically important, but was not really mentioned, is the ’employment with 1/4 mile of stations’. The hybrid route would serve 25% more employees than Route 51. That is nothing to be glossed over, particularly since UC Davis Medical Center was enthusiastic about promoting transit use to employees and others.
The decision was made, and it is probably not a bad decision. The devil is in the details, as they say, and the details are yet to come. But I continue to be concerned that SacRT planning either misses important information that should be included, or suppresses information that doesn’t support a foregone conclusion. Is this report and presentation unbiased? I’m not sure.
Agenda item 5 ‘Public Addresses Board on Matters Not on the Agenda’ saw an number of comments, most of them about service and continuing issues with the zero tolerance policy. I did not capture these, so I refer you to the meeting recording.
Note that the STEP project is a joint City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, and SacRT project. If you are looking for my previous posts on Stockton, they might be attributed to the city or SacRT.
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, August 24, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked. There is no ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ item on the agenda, which means that the ongoing controversy over SacRT’s zero tolerance policy for fare evasion, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles will not be addressed. This issue is not mentioned in the General Managers Report.
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 July 27, 2026
2.2 Resolution 2026-08-100: Amending Title II (Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics) of Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Administrative Code to Revise Appendix A
2.3 Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreements for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at Three Locations
A) Resolution 2026-08-101: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 39 th Street and R Street; and
B) Resolution 2026-08-102: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 59 th Street North of S Street; and
C) Resolution 2026-08-103: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the License Agreement for Underground Conduit and Fiber with MCImetro Access Transmission Services LLC at 65 th Street and Q Street
2.4 Resolution 2026-08-104: Approving a Contract for Facilities Pest Control Services with California Professional Pest Control, a California Corporation doing Business as California Pest Control
2.5 Resolution 2026-08-105: Designating the General Manager/CEO as the Accountable Executive for Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Transit Asset Management Plan
2.6 Resolution 2026-08-106: Authorizing Applications for Grant Funding From the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2026 Federal Funding Programs; Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to submit SACOG 2026 Federal Funding Program Application Priorities; and Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute all Grant Documents and Timely Project Delivery Requirements
2.7 Resolution 2026-08-107: Approving the Transfer of Title of 3701 Dudley Boulevard, McClellan, CA from MP-655 LLC to Sacramento Regional Transit District
2.8 Resolution 2026-08-108: Awarding a Contract for Purchase of Transit Buses to Gillig LLC Under the Basin Transit Contract No. 23-01 and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Amendments to the Contract
2.9 Resolution 2026-08-109: Conditionally Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Approve Contracts for Verizon Connect Fleet Equipment and Subscription Service
INTRODUCTION -OF SPECIAL GUESTS
3.1 Employee and Retiree Recognitions – First and Second Quarters 2026
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4.1 Resolution 2026-08-110: Adopting the Sacramento Regional Transit District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 (staff report | plan | presentation)
PUBLIC ADDRESSES BOARD ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA*
NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Bus Rapid Transit Efforts – Adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative for Stockton Boulevard & Retention Strategy for Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication (staff report | Stockton presentation)
a) Resolution 2026-08-111: Adopting the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Stockton Boulevard Safety and Transit Enhancement Project; and
b) Information: Green Line Irrevocable Offers of Dedication
The SaferSacStreets citizens initiative would have provided about half of the funds to transit, mostly SacRT. SacRT is a seriously underfunded transit agency, surviving on about 1/6 of a cent sales tax, which is far less than any other city transit system. What is does get is about a 1/3 part of the Sacramento County Measure A transportation sales tax, 1/3 of 1/2 equals 1/6. Of course SacRT gets some other funds from state and federal sources, but these are mostly for infrastructure, and it also obtains grants from time to time, which help, but again, are for infrastructure and not operations. Infrastructure is important, as it maintains and replaces buses, and maintains and replaces light rail vehicles, as well as other needs including expansion. If you have seen or ridden the old light rail cars, which are far, far past their expected lifespan, you will know what neglect of maintenance and replacement looks like. Fortunately, SacRT has replaced part of its fleet with new Siemens S700 light rail cars, now used on the Gold Line, and to be used throughout once enough new cars are purchased.
The other significant issue for SacRT is that they have been using money designated for infrastructure to pay for operations, for several years now. The state encouraged this, and federal government allowed it with some funds, but the state funds are running out, and under this administration federal funds are uncertain, so a crisis is coming when there won’t be these extra funds for operations. Without a new revenue source, cutbacks will be necessary. The new sales tax in City of Sacramento would have allowed SacRT to shift funds back to maintenance, and to at least some expansion of service. SacRT is in a planning process, SacRT 2025, which identified what an additional 1/4 cent or 1/2 cent of sales tax would do. The 1/4 cent summary and map is below. Note that this planning is for the entire system, basically Sacramento County. The City of Sacramento would have generated about 1/3 of this amount (in very rough terms, 1/3 of the population and 1/3 of the sales tax income is from the city), and would have been spent on enhancing transit in the city, though of course expenditures in the city would have beneficial impact throughout the system.
SacRT summary and map of 1/4 cent options
So, no new income. What can be done to maintain service, and to mitigate the cutbacks that will be needed? I have more uncertainty and fewer ideas than I did with the three previous posts that focused on the roads portion of the initiative. But here are some:
Third lanes become transit lanes: I recommended that the third lane of roadways be closed to reduce motor vehicle capacity. Instead of closure, these can be converted to full time transit-only lanes. Most arterials with three lanes per direction are also bus routes, so there is overlap in the benefit. Transit-only lanes would require some paint and signing, so probably somewhat more expensive than closure, but on the other hand, no concrete barriers, and vertical delineators only in some locations. Probably just as important is making light rail tracks exclusive to transit use, for example on 12th Street where motor vehicle traffic interferes with light rail trains. But the locations where transit-only lanes for buses and trains are few enough that this is not going to make huge difference for the system. Eventually, there should be transit-only lanes on smaller streets, but that requires planning that will take time, and money.
Rebalance frequency vs coverage: It is time for a quick system revision process, similar to the SacRT Forward process in 2019. There won’t be the money to do a comprehensive cut, so this would be rougher. My preference is to eliminate low ridership routes, or reduce span of service to higher ridership times. I realize this would leave people in lower density areas with poorer service, or without any service, but something must be cut, and I’m less sympathetic to people who have chosen to live in lower density areas where efficient bus service is just not possible. When there was extra money, lower density areas were served by SmartRide, but those funds are long gone, and the current on-demand Flex program only serves seniors, disabled and low-income riders. There won’t be money for in-depth planning and public engagement process, so staff’s best guesses will have to do.
Drop light rail extension ideas: Green Line light rail to the airport, and Blue Line light rail to Elk Grove projects continue to receive support from politicians, SacRT board members, and some SacRT staff. Under current funding and reasonable likelihood of funding, these project will never happen. There are other longer term light rail extension projects that are still on the table but not current focus. I think SacRT should drop planning, and discussion, for all of these extensions. Someday, once society shifts interest and funding away from private motor vehicles and towards transit, these projects might come back, but by that time, current planning would be so out of date as to be largely useless. Let it go!
Evaluate staff: It is characteristic of SacRT that staff decisions often turn out to be wrong. Sometimes they are reversed or modified after public feedback, and sometimes they aren’t. These poor decisions are, I think, the result of significant incompetence with some staff. Not all staff, not even most staff, but staff in key decision making positions. Repeated mistakes are not held to account, but are glossed over. This must end. Under constrained funding, every decision should be the best that can be made with current knowledge and experience. Some current staff is just not capable of that. They should be held to account or let go.
That’s it for my radical proposals, for now. I look forward to hearing from other individuals and organizations about their ideas. One the standards answers is ‘do more with less’, but we were already doing more with less. At least for the time being, less is what it is. I have doubts about future funding, from sales tax or other sources, and I’ll write about that eventually.
I wrote a blog post for Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR), How to build successful transit, in August 2025, a year ago. It is probably one of the most valuable and insightful posts STAR made, as important today as it was then.
I attended the last SacRT Board meeting on July 27. On the agenda was authorization for SacRT staff to negotiate a grant from the state for a study of bus rapid transit (BRT) to the Sacramento airport (agenda item 2.11 on consent calendar “Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute Agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Award for the Green Line Bus Rapid Transit to Sacramento International Airport”. The item was not pulled from consent, but three board members commented and said that they were supportive of the study, but still absolutely committed to light rail to the airport. I suspect the other board members felt the same way, but did not comment. The board and many SacRT staff continue to promote light rail to the airport, though they have finally admitted that there is no likelihood of it happening in the near future due to two major issues: lack of agreement with the city and county for crossing the American River, and funding for a bridge at Truxel Road, and the overall cost of the project. The last time it was estimated, it was $2 billion dollars, a cost that will continue to rise and accelerate over the years. The entire capital budget for SacRT, which includes light rail modernization and bus replacement, and fare technology, as well as a large number of other activities, is only $2 billion per year. That portion of the budget includes mostly funding from federal and state sources and grants; it is mostly not Sacramento County Measure A or other local sources. That means, as a practical matter, that the Green Line would zero out an entire year’s budget for everything else, or if spread out over 10 years, 10% of the budget, every year. And the estimate of cost is very conservative.
The public has said, throughout the Transit Idea Exchange process (A Community Collaboration to Shape the Future of Transit), that they did not want huge investments in infrastructure, but instead wanted better and more frequent bus service. How to build better and more frequent bus service? Well, by incrementally improving transit. Back to the STAR model:
I’ve decided to call this incremental transit. As the STAR post noted, the concept did not originate with STAR, but comes from Strong Towns, The Strong Towns Approach to Public Investment, and the ideas presented by Jarrett Walker in Human Transit (the book and the website).
The SacRT Board and many of the SacRT staff want to jump from step 1, or actually, step 0.5, since the frequency of bus service to the airport is hourly, not 30 minutes, to step 5, bypassing all steps in between. That is a mistake. Not only does the approach put any solution off for years, it risks turning the public off to any service to the airport since nothing so far has been successful (the bus is mostly empty). Light rail might be mostly empty as well.
SacRT photo of Sheriffs Department officersMetro photo of LAPD officer and rider
SacRT staff Lisa Hinz presented a justification for zero tolerance fare enforcement on light rail at the 2026-07-27 board meeting. She used Metro (LA country transit agency) as an example, but mis-used it in a way that contradicts her point. So, fair game, this is real information from Metro. Hinz used the photo on the left in her presentation. The photo on the right is from the Metro Safety Team page, Law Enforcement Partners. A picture is worth a thousand words. Enough said.
If you wish to look at Metro’s approach to safety, including their nine related positions, see Metro Safety Team webpage. The position descriptions are available.
I attended the SacRT board meeting yesterday. My report highlights things I am interested in, or grabbed my attention, and is not intended to be comprehensive. You can view the meeting video online at https://www.youtube.com/live/rtB9B2fXBck?si=p3M2Gf5JWfHK8AJg. An action summary will be available in the agenda of the next board meeting, scheduled for August 24.
One step forward, one step back. SacRT is again offering the public to make comments via Zoom, either in the Zoom app or by phone managed by Zoom. Good. Comments on the consent agenda (agenda items starting with 2) are now limited to two minutes total, rather than two minutes per item. It isn’t clear what will happen if a board member pulls an item from consent, for discussion. That did not happen in this meeting. Will that item be an exception to the two minutes total? And how would a member of the public know ahead of time that an item will be pulled, and submit a comment card?
Rosario Rodriguez was an alternate for Patrick Kennedy, as a County of Sacramento representative. She made a point in comments that she regularly uses light rail to commute. This resulted in applause from the audience, because it is unusual. Kennedy and Maple as sometimes users of transit, but not as often as Rodriguez. Yah!
Though it was not pulled from consent for separate discussion, there were several board questions and comments related to item 2.11 authorizing the Green Line BRT study. Serna was concerned by the lack of information about right-of-way easements along Truxel that will expire at some point. Dickinson, Budge, and Maple were concerned that a focus on BRT would handicap consideration of light rail in the future. As I have said many times, I don’t think light rail to the airport will ever be financially feasible. Every time there is an estimate of the cost, it goes up, is currently $2 billion, and would be billions more by that time it might come to planning and construction. There simply is no justification for such an expensive infrastructure project for such a low ridership and network benefit. I’m not opposed to the BRT planning effort, though I also believe that SacRT (and/or Yolobus) must demonstrate that there is a demand for better service by first implementing 30 minute bus service to the airport, which does not exist because SacRT did not align its schedule with the Yolobus 42A/42B schedule.
For agenda item 3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments, Lisa Hinz gave the usual glossing-over-problems presentation. The two items of most interest to me and many transit advocates are the zero tolerance policy, particularly for fare evasion, and the policy requiring strollers and carts be emptied and folded.
Hinz presented a slide, below, the implication of which is that if there were not a zero tolerance fare evasion policy, light rail would be a completely lawless zone, unsafe for everyone. BS. The previous practice of asking people who did not have proof of payment to exit the train at the next station seemed to me to be working just fine. Zero tolerance was extended not just to people who intended to not pay, but to everyone, no matter issues with the Connect Transit Card readers, or Transit Connect app, or any other method of payment. This zero tolerance policy is a typical law enforcement response to any problem to maximize enforcement no matter what the effect on riders. This is unacceptable. Hinz said that warnings are now being given rather than tickets, but I’ve seen reports that say otherwise. No explanation was given for how this zero tolerance policy came to be, nor what would replace it if it is not continued. Let me state clearly that I am not against fare checking, but what needs to be appropriate and rational is the response to evasion. Hinz used convoluted logic to imply that every fare evader is a criminal who is almost guaranteed to commit crimes on light rail. BS.
I am a moderately frequent user of Metro (LA) subway and light rail. There is a strong presence of both law enforcement and transit ambassadors, particularly on subway, and that system has more series issues than Sacramento. What I have not observed is incidents being escalated by staff, and I have observed particularly ambassadors and to some degree law enforcement being friendly and helpful when there is not an incident. This is not what is happening on SacRT light rail.
excerpt slide from 3.1 Customer Response, Fare Benefit Analysis
Hinz also addressed, vaguely, concerns about the stroller and cart policy. Again, this policy was being handled as zero tolerance, but I don’t know how it is being handled at the moment. Hinz said that a committee had been formed. I asked whether this committee included a representation of the Mobility Advisory Council (MAC), or a parent with kids in strollers, or a user of shopping carts, or a bicyclist, or for that matter, anyone who rides light rail. I strongly suspect not. I’m almost certain that it is an internal committee, composed of SacRT staff who don’t regularly use transit, if at all. Most SacRT employees, particularly administration, do not use transit.
excerpt slide from 3.1 Customer Response, Strollers, Carts, Wagons
The main agenda item was 5.1 Draft Sacramento Regional Transit District Strategic Plan 2026-2030 (staff report | draft plan). This draft plan is just the executive summary, the draft plan itself is not available at this time. I had skimmed the plan before the meeting, and was left wondering what the point of the plan is. It really says almost nothing about what SacRT will do to accomplish the four pillars (Customer Satisfaction, Operational Excellence, Community Value, Employee Engagement). The Tactical Activities slide (below) perhaps comes closest. But there are no performance standards for any of these in the document. Most of the things on the list could mean anything SacRT wants them to mean. What do they mean to riders? I’m not at all sure.
The verbal presentation used the acronym KPIs many times, without defining it. It stands for Key Performance Indicator. Reporting on implementation of the plan apparently will depend on the Quarterly Performance Reports, the most recent of which is below. This is a bean-counter approach. SacRT has been using this type of report for several years now, and every time it comes up in a board meeting, the public criticizes it for missing the point. It also always shows SacRT coming close to goals, though every rider knows that SacRT is far from reaching goals. Just more glossing over problems.
Dickinson asks where equity was in the strategic plan. The initial staff response was ‘everywhere’ but Dickinson did not accept that, and stated that it must be explicit in the document. The word equity occurs only once in the plan, on page 4. It is conspicuously absent from any of the lists. Dickinson also asked where the issue of first mile/last mile access to transit was, and why frequency of service was nowhere to be found. All good questions. Thank you!
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, July 27, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked. (pdf)
Note on item 3.1 Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments. There is no information in this document. This continues SacRT practice of making this document available much later than the rest of the agenda, often just before the board meeting, and sometimes during the board meeting. I believe the intent to be so that the public can’t review this ahead of time and develop a response. The presentation was finally posted, shortly before the meeting: 3.1 Customer presentation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
CONSENT CALENDAR
2.1 Motion: Approval of the Action Summary of June 8, 2026
2.2 Receive and File: Quarterly Treasurer’s Report
2.3 Resolution 2026-07-088: Annual Update to Investment Policy
2.4 Resolution 2026-07-089: First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2027 Capital Budget
2.5 Resolution 2026-07-090: Approving a Sole Source Procurement and the Sixth Amendment to the Contract for Supplemental Paratransit Services with UZURV Holdings, Inc.
2.6 Resolution 2026-07-091: Approving a Contract for Supplemental Paratransit Services with Nomad Transit LLC, A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of Via Transportation, Inc.
2.7 Resolution 2026-07-092: Approving the Second Amendment to Contract for Revenue Vehicle Tire Lease and Services with Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC
2.8 Resolution 2026-07-093: Conditionally Approving an Easement for Electrical Facilities with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Between 59 th and 65 th Street
2.9 Resolution 2026-07-094: Approving a Sole Source Procurement and the Third Amendment to the Legal Support Services Contract with Hanson Bridgett for the Amendment and Restatement of Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Defined Benefit Pension Plan Documents to Incorporate Required PEPRA, Secure Act and Secure 2.0 Act Provisions and Delegating Authority to the General Manager/CEO to Execute Additional Amendments as needed up to an Aggregate Amount of $100,000
2.10 Resolution 2026-07-095: Approve Transfer of Project Funding Amendment, Approve FY27 State of Good Repair Project List and Allocation for Funding Under the Roadway Repair and Accountability Act (SB1) State of Good Repair
2.11 Resolution 2026-07-096: Authorizing the General Manager/CEO to Execute Agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Award for the Green Line Bus Rapid Transit to Sacramento International Airport Study
2.12 Resolution 2026-07-097: Approving Sacramento Regional Transit District’s Response to the 2025-2026 Sacramento County Civil Grand Jury Report Related to SacRT GO Complementary Paratransit Services and Directing the Chair to Submit the Response to the Presiding Judge of the Sacramento County Superior Court
2.13 Resolution 2026-07-098: Approving a Collective Bargaining Agreement for Amalgamated Transit Union Local Division 256, AFL-CIO – Elk Grove, for the Term of July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027
2.14 Resolution 2026-07-099: Approving the Project Agreement Between the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the City of Sacramento for Cloud-Based Transit Signal Priority Project
Yesterday at the SacRT board meeting, there was a lot of discussion about the decision to terminate the Connect Transit Card system. This physical card system was chosen by SACOG years ago, but has been problematic for its entire lifespan. In fact, it did not really work at all for the first year of its implementation. The card readers are unusually prone to vandalism. Nevertheless, many riders use the Connect Transit Card as their preferred payment system. With the projected end of this card by the end of 2026, many riders are asking how transit fares can be paid for people without smart phones and credit cards.
SacRT, as with many transit agencies, is implementing Tap2Ride, where any contactless credit or debit card (the ones with the contactless symbol) can be used to pay fares, using new card readers that have been installed on buses. SacRT is in the early stages of implementing Tap2Ride. There are no tap readers at light rail stations, and it seems likely that there will never be tap readers on the trains (though riders and advocates have questioned this decision). No senior or disabled fares are available through tap, from SacRT, though cards registered with the state CalITP program do provide discounts. No transfers are available through tap. No fare capping is available. These lacking capabilities are due to be implemented in ‘Phase 2’ of Tap2Ride, scheduled for fall 2025, but now optimistically scheduled for fall 2026. Payment by contactless credit card is called ‘open loop’, though this is a technical term that doesn’t make sense to most riders.
There are a lot of other issues related to fare payment. The transition from ZipPass app to Transit Connect app, by June 30, is a good thing (ZipPass was glitchy and customer support lacking). Agencies and transportation management associations (TMAs) have questioned how subsidized or donated transit fares will be handled without a physical card. SacRT has promised a solution, but doesn’t seem to be actively working on one. The SacRT Fares page lists a number of options. Is more options good for riders, or just confusing?
But what provoked this post is the question of how riders without smart phones and credit cards will pay fares. SacRT staff could not answer that question. There was a reference to a Transit Connect ‘card’, but there is no indication that the program has been defined or is being worked on. There was a lot of concern about what to do when my phone dies, or the fare app doesn’t work. Or I don’t have a smart phone. Several riders told stories about just those issues.
The big issue, though, is how unbanked people, who do not have credit cards to add fare to apps, and in many cases also do not have a smart phone, will pay fares. There is an easy solution, but one that SacRT has so far rejected.
The Cash App Debit Card is the first method for unbanked people (this page does not address how funds get added if the user doesn’t have a smart phone and Cash App account). Riders can add value to the card with cash, at vendors which offer this service. No credit card or smart phone required. Cash App lists vendors that can add value from paper money (‘paper money deposit’). It is a remarkably comprehensive list, including many stores often used by unbanked people. Of course, this is not limited to unbanked people. It can be used by anyone who doesn’t have or doesn’t want to use a smart phone, or who has concerns about their phone dying at a critical moment (though Apple iPhones can continue to make transit fare payments (express pay) for at least an hour after their phone is out of battery. It can be used by anyone who doesn’t like apps. It can be used by anyone who doesn’t have or doesn’t want to use credit cards.
There are now many other options for adding paper money to debit cards, but so far as I could determine, few have the ease of adding at so many vendors, or require a bank account for contactless capability, or require an app, and none are oriented to transit use.
All that is required is that the transit agency advertise this capability to their riders, though as many venues as possible. SacRT has chosen not to take this path. It is a mistake.
Getting Around Sacramento 