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.
As noted in a previous post (SacRT ambassador escalation, family hostility), SacRT has a regressive policy on strollers on transit, which is a family-hostile policy. I mentioned some progressive policies, but here are more details on four transit agencies. In most cases these policies were adopted after pressure from parents with young children and transit advocates, and it will likely take the same to change SacRT’s regressive policies.
SacRT often compares itself to TriMet (Portland) because the cities are similar in size. TriMet’s policy is first below.
It is apparently illegal under ADA and FTA guidelines for any transit agency to deny access to adaptive strollers for children with disabilities, or to parents whose disabilities make it impossible or unsafe to hold their child.
You’re welcome to bring a stroller on buses and trains, but there may not always be room on board.
We recommend using a folding “umbrella” style stroller. Large and double-wide strollers are not practical for use on TriMet.
You can board the bus with your child in the stroller, and your baby or toddler may remain in the stroller if there is space in the priority seating area.
The stroller should be positioned so that the child faces the rear of the bus and any applicable wheel locks must be secured. Make sure your stroller is not creating an obstacle for other riders. You must keep your stroller with you and it can’t block the aisle, stairs or doorway.
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.
SEPTA supports families, caregivers and our youngest riders by allowing open strollers onboard buses and trains. Strollers may be in the open position while riding, boarding and exiting SEPTA vehicles. Please follow the instructions of crew members as they attempt to accommodate your need for space while prioritizing everyone’s safety.
The priority seating area must be vacated to allow a person with a disability to board and ride.
Park open strollers in the area identified with Stroller Spot signage, when available. (Note: SEPTA has modified buses on popular routes to actually provide a spot designated for strollers.)
In vehicles without a Stroller Spot, park open strollers in priority seating areas and use flip-up seats.
Yield priority seating spaces to persons with mobility limitations.
Secure the child within the stroller.
Engage stroller brakes.
Hold the stroller while on board.
Keep the aisle and doorways clear.
Strollers on the Bus
In a crowded bus (full seated load), operators may ask that a stroller be moved or folded.
You may request the driver to kneel the bus or use the access ramp at stops that permit curb access. Not all bus stops permit curb access.
To avoid tipping your child out of the stroller, board the bus forward and leave the bus backward.
Make sure your stroller is 26” or less. Double strollers cannot be accommodated.
In priority seating areas, use flip-up seats by pulling the yellow handle of the seat toward you.
Strollers on the Train
When possible, board at doors with ADA signage.
Boarding trains from a low platform require strollers to be folded.
Metro’s youngest customers and those traveling with them now have one less barrier to a stress-free ride on Metrobus. Metro today announced that effective immediately, open strollers are welcome on Metrobus, replacing a policy that required strollers to be folded before boarding.
“Metro is committed to making transit accessible and convenient for everyone, and that includes those traveling with young children,” Clarke said. “This family-friendly initiative relieves a hardship many parents told us they face when riding Metrobus, and we hope it encourages more families to choose Metro.”
Those traveling on Metrobus with strollers should utilize the priority seating area with the stroller brakes locked while the bus is in motion. Strollers must not block aisles or doorways, and should be held on to at all times.
People with disabilities and seniors will continue to have first priority in the priority seating area. Metrobus operators will maintain discretion to ask that a stroller be moved or folded if they determine it is compromising the safety of other passengers.
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.
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 presentationSTEP 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).
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.
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).
SacRT Route 51, west segment, from Stockton Blvd to downtown
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.
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.
06 Commission Log: The SacATC log is a list of topics that the commission has requested from staff a discussion or presentation. The log is a running list, so may contain items of high priority, low priority, or superseded by events. Each item has a commissioner name attached as the requestor. I believe this item will ask for sponsors of items where the commissioner is no longer on the commission, and prioritize items.
Getting Around Sacramento 