I was recently in southern California to assist a seminar. The place I stayed was a ten minute walk from the C Line (Green Line) Hawthorne/Lennox station, which runs every 13 minutes. The place I worked was a twelve minute walk from the K Line, which runs ever 13 minutes. The two lines overlap at the Aviation Blvd and LAX/Metro Transit Center, so transfer between the two lines is easy, and was usually a short wait.
The problem with the C Line is that it was built in the median of a busy freeway, Interstate 105 (‘the 105’), the Century Freeway. It is also parallel to the ‘Imperial Highway’ which is a surface arterial and predates both the freeway and light rail. Almost every light rail station is in that median of a freeway that is 11 lanes wide at the Hawthorne/Lenox station. The freeway noise at this station is oppressive, and I was uptight the entire time I was waiting for the train. I downloaded a decibel app from NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) called SLM (Sound Level Meter) to see just how bad it is. During non-commute hours, which was the only time I was there, the levels ranged from 80 db to 92 db. Prolonged levels above 85 db are considered hazardous, and levels above 100 of more than 15 minutes risks permanent hearing damage. I would guess that commute hours under free-flowing or nearly free-flowing conditions would be over 100 db. Of course significant congestion would reduce the noise level by reducing tire noise, unless of course drivers are honking their horns.
NIOSH SLM db measurement at Metro Line C Hawthorne/Lennox station
Line C (Green Line) was the second light rail line constructed in the LA area, after the Line A (Blue) line from downtown to Long Beach, which has now been extended far to the east of downtown with the same Line A name. It was opened in 1995. The alignment was picked because it was constructed at the same time as the freeway, so there were no right-of-way costs. As a plus, it is completely grade-separated. However, it is a miserable place to be. Parts of the A Line near Pasadena are in freeway median. Parts of BART are in freeway median. Each and every light rail station in a median is an oppressive place to be. These median running rail systems are popular with transit agencies because they cost less. They are extremely unpopular with riders.
I hope that light rail will never again be constructed in freeway medians. I hope that someday the Watt/I-80 station will be moved out of the I-80 freeway median. Note that the Roseville Road and Watt/I-80 West stations are also in the same freeway median, but as the median is wider at these points, the freeway noise is less oppressive. The location of all three stations is located on the right-of-way of an additional freeway that was never built.
Wikipedia: “One of the lessons learned from the line, and the Harbor Transitway built at the same time, was that freeway median stations offer a poor rider experience, requiring customers to descend from bridges or climb stairs from dimly lit underpasses to isolated stations in the middle of a noisy and exhaust-ridden freeway. While stations generally have elevators as a necessary accessibility accommodation, these sometimes fail, and have been known for having sanitation issues; escalators are also often out for maintenance or, with the C Line in particular, only available downward.”
Not to be outdone, Sacramento has a similar problem with the Watt/I-80 Blue Line light rail station. I visited this morning, more or less during commute hours, though not during the peak. At the station platform, the range was 65 to 80 db, helped a great deal by the row of vegetation between the platform and the eastbound I-80 lanes. The walkway from the platform to the east stairway and elevator ranged from 75 to 90 db, harmed a great deal by reflection off the overhead Watt Avenue bridge, and with no sound protection from the westbound I-80 lanes. Up top, where the bus stops are, with primary noise from Watt Avenue traffic and secondary noise from the freeway below, ranged from 65 to 80 db. Watt Avenue is six lanes wide, and carries heavy traffic. I-80 is eight lanes wide, with seven additional lanes of ramps and bypasses, and carries heavy traffic.
When SacRT was considering what to do with Watt/I-80 light rail station, which was an unpleasant and unsafe location, the public asked that the station be moved out of the freeway median and to a more pleasant and safe location. SacRT decided to retain the location and make ‘improvements’. The dark, urine stained, unsafe west stairway has been replaced by a wide, high visibility stairway. The dark, urine stained, unsafe east stairway has been replaced by a better visibility stairwell. The east elevator is in the same condition it always was, with a strong urine smell, graffiti on the walls, and damaged glass. Though the west elevator is closed at the moment for maintenance, I imaging it has the same issues. Wider walkways and trees have been added at a few locations. The station will indeed by nicer than it was, but nice enough to induce riders that have a choice to use it? I doubt that.
A rather disappointing board meeting (SacRT Board 2026-09-28). Again, staff is underprepared to answer board member questions, and many board members are asleep at the wheel, not asking any questions, or in some cases, not really paying attention.
I spoke on three issues, and my comments are below, in italic. These were written ahead of time, so my actual testimony may have dropped some points or added others. If you want to hear what I said, or other transit advocates said, or board members said, or staff said, you can listen to/watch the YouTube post of the meeting at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gEKiVZ_3Q&list=PLAfWRxJkwPon701gc9cUsUqqBDlmiWJnt&index=4.
Yet again, the staff report and presentation have not been made available to the public along with the rest of the agenda. With one exception since July 2025, these documents have always been late, even showing up in several cases during the board meeting. I can no longer see this as an oversight, or unintentional. I believe this is an effort on the part of staff to hide this information for as long as possible so that the public and advocates cannot review the documents and develop a response. This is unacceptable.
This item was presented by Lisa Hinz (VP of safety, security, and customer satisfaction).
Board asked about delay of 3.1 documents, Tabitha Smith (board secretary) said it was a website uploading error. Henry Li (general manager) promised it would not happen again. It is a fact that the customer service documents are almost always finished well after other board documents, often after the agenda has been posted. So this is not just a document posting issue, it is a failure to complete important documents in a timely manner.
No policy was shared on fare enforcement, strollers, shopping carts or bicycles. Existing policy was restated, slide below.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation on stroller policy
Lisa Hinz gave a vociferous defense of the idea of zero-tolerance, slide below. She said that anything less than zero-tolerance would lead to unequal treatment of passengers, followed by lawsuits against SacRT. It is clear to me that Lisa does not consider riders to be people, then are just names on citations. Her level of empathy for people is zero. Lisa’s attitude is a typical law enforcement one which believes that people are just an inconvenience to the real mission of law enforcement. Guilty until proven innocent. This face that SacRT presents to the public is horrible, and it has resulted in a significant loss of reputation for SacRT, as well, as apparently, a loss of riders.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation on zero tolerance
One of the slides indicated that accommodating more than two wheelchairs was impossible for the Stockton BRT, slide below. I added to my comments that AC Transit’s new buses have three to five wheelchair positions. SacRT has chosen to purchase buses that meet the FTA minimums, and not to provide additional capacity. Another advocate reminded that buses not infrequently have to leave wheelchair users behind when the two spaces are already full.
slide from ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ presentation
It appears that policy will go to MAC first, and then back to the board. ‘Proposed Policy for Cart and Wagon use on SacRT vehicles (Priscilla Vargas, ADA Compliance Officer)’ was on the August MAC agenda, but was tabled. It was also on the September agenda, but minutes not available yet, and I have not had time to review the YouTube recording, so I don’t know if it was addressed. (Update: There was some discussion at the September MAC. The policy is that wagons will be banned. Shopping carts will have a size limit, and apparently riders will have to make a ‘reasonable modification’ (The correct term is ‘reasonable accommodation’, but Priscilla Vargas apparently does not know the correct term.) request to the accessibility department (?). Other riders without that permission will have to remove contents and fold their carts. Lisa Hinz contradicted this interpretation. Who’s on first? It was admitted that the public has not been provided information on these policies. Ack! Strollers and bicycles were not addressed.)
This presentation is immensely complicated. It was reviewed by a number of transit advocates, including some who work in transit, and most could not make sense of it. There is too much detail and not enough clarity. The presentation violates the basic writing technique of ‘tell them what you are going to tell them, then tell them, then tell them what you told them’. It may be that some people are interested in all this detail most people want to know ‘what’s the upshot’. That is nowhere to be found.
Though it is hard to parse the information, it appears that the $1.2 billion estimate does not include the $500 American River bridge. So the project is really $1.7 billion. To assume that the city will, under its current and ongoing budget crises, and difficulty winning grants for major projects, be able to come up with a half million is questionable.
I noted several board member nodding their heads on my comment, that they thought the presentation was needlessly complicated.
Serna commented that there must not be sunk costs for conversion to light rail. He asked about a flyover for CA 99 that could be used for both buses and light rail. Hume also commented on sunk costs, and suggested considering alternative modes including autonomous vehicles. He said surface routes may not be good even if dedicated lanes, though I’m unsure what this has to do with the project. Dickinson said the traditional rail is best and questioned why the route (similar to Route 11) goes back to Natomas rather than staying on I-5. Said if people want local service, give them local service; if they want the airport, give them the airport.
It keeps getting claimed by board members and staff that Green Line to the Airport light rail is the top project for the public, but that is not what the ‘Transit Idea Exchange’ listening sessions indicated. The public was uninterested in these very expensive moon-shot projects, and primarily wanted better bus service.
4. Matters not on the agenda
The public relations debacle that resulted from SacRT’s sudden implementation of a zero-tolerance policy on fare collection, strollers, shopping carts, and bicycles, was without any discussion or decision by the board. This indicates to me that ‘customer satisfaction’ must be moved out of the organizational structure of ‘Security, Safety, and Customer Satisfaction’. The law enforcement orientation of this division cannot provide the necessary attitude and attention to the mission-critical function of customer satisfaction.
The placement of the Transit Ambassador program within this division may also be problematic. SacRT has never clearly defined the function of the TAs. If their primary function is law enforcement, leave the program here. If their primary function is customer service, then move them elsewhere in the organization structure. If SacRT does not know what their primary function is, which appears likely, then the program needs to be revisited and revised.
There were several other advocates who spoke on items not on the agenda. Crystal Lee McGee, head of ATU 256 (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 256), introduced Ms. Johnson, who spoke about being harassed by her supervisor as a new mother, and not provided a private lactation area. The SacRT Go supervisor’s name was mentioned but I did not catch it. It is rare for ATU to go to the board with personnel issues, so it is clearly one of critical importance. This may be another instance of SacRT’s anti-family orientation, along with the anti-family stroller policy.
The General Managers Report presentation often includes slides that were not in the posted document. These slides are not made available after the fact.
One such slide on was on modern information signs for light rail. Henry said that implementation of new signs is was intentionally delayed so that it could be integrated with the Light Rail Modernization program. This was the first the public had heard about this. Several of the existing signs are non-functional, and have been for some while. Other signs have display issues, making them hard or impossible to read. Even when the signs work, they rarely have useful information for riders. A common message is that light rail trains are running 15 minutes late, which is nonsensical since the frequency during weekday days is 15 minutes. Riders have no way of knowing whether the arriving train is on time or delayed, they just want the train to come. Part of the reason that SacRT can’t provide accurate information about light rail delays is that they did not implement high quality GPS and real-time GTFS for the new light rail cars, so they don’t know where those trains are without asking the operators for location. I did not capture that slide, unfortunately. (Update: I reviewed the YouTube video [1:44:30], and captured the slide below. The new system will be from Clever Devices/Hitachi. Their website shows internal displays but not these external station displays.)
capture from YouTube of 6.1 General Managers Report on real-time signing
In the September MAC meeting, it was announced that 45 new Siemens S700 cars have been or will shortly be on hand, but the next set of cars, 46 to 65, will not start arriving until February of 2029. New cars will gradually replace legacy cars on the Blue Line as they become available. That may mean that the new light rail information signs might not be installed until many years from now. Yow!
The GM report mentioned the following on the Transit Connect program physical cards: “This next phase also includes important updates for Connect Card pass holders. While Connect Card users should continue using their cards for now, the transition to Transit Connect will begin later in 2026. Much like the ZipPass retirement earlier this summer, Connect Card customers will receive a window of time to use any stored value on their cards before switching to the new system. Riders will have the option of moving to the Transit Connect app or obtaining a new Transit Connect smart card if they prefer a physical alternative.” I will re-state that the physical or Smart Card was not part of SacRT initial planning for Transit Connect and Tap2Ride integration. It was added after members of the transit advocacy community including state workers questioned what would replace the Connect Transit Card. It has still not been defined for the public how the physical cards will relate to the app, nor how services will be provided to unbanked people. Critical details of Transit Connect have not been shared with the public. Nothing SacRT does happens on time, so it is likely that Phase 2 will occur sometime next year, not this fall.
To be honest, I have a hard time following the GM report. It is at the end of the meeting, when everyone is tired. Henry spends a lot of time announcing events, which are already on the website and in the Next Stop News, and talking about light rail disruptions, which if reported at all, should be in a separate agenda item.
Update: Staff said that the 3.1 presentation was not available on the board documents page, due to a website upload issue. It still is not there. It was, at some unknown point, available in the agenda combined file, so I extracted it and linked it in the agenda post. Henry Li said that this will not happen again, and that the document will normally be provided at the time of the agenda release along with all other documents. However, this has not happened in the past, and I have doubts about it in the future. There will be more to be said about this agenda item, along with a report on the meeting.
Three hours before the September 28, 2026 board meeting, agenda item 3.1 ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ staff report still has no content, and no presentation has been made available. This is not accidental. Over the period of time since this agenda item was added to the board agenda (July 2025), only once has the staff report and presentation been made available at the same time as the rest of the board agenda. Several times the item has been added during the board meeting.
I have come to believe that this is intentional on the part of SacRT staff, to hide the staff report and the presentation from the public until the last minute, so that the public and advocates do not have the chance to review the documents and formulate a response. Even though the presentations usually gloss over issues, and present ‘solutions’ that are often fabrications, these are still an embarrassment to SacRT. Of all the issues that come before the board, this is the most critical, or perhaps equal with the budget. SacRT exists to meet the needs of riders and the public. When the public, and advocates, are unhappy with the service, SacRT is failing. And it is failing with disturbing frequency. A problem cannot be solved until it is admitted and identified. SacRT does not seem interested.
This issue is related to the location of customer service within the staffing structure of SacRT, and it must be moved elsewhere, out of security and safety (law enforcement): SacRT: move Customer Satisfaction
The SacRT Board will meet on Monday, September 28, 2026, starting at 4:00 PM. The simplified agenda is below, with selected documents of interest to me, linked.
As usual, the staff report for item 3.1, ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ contains no information nor presentation. This delay in making information available to the public is intentional, to make it more difficult for the public to review and comment on this item. Three hours before the board meeting, 1:00 PM on Monday, September 28, item 3.1 ‘Customer Service Response to Feedback and Comments’ is unchanged, still no real staff report or presentation.The presentation was available in the combined agenda at the time of the meeting, but was not and still is not available in the agenda item.It has been extracted and linked below.
It is unknown at this time whether a policy response on zero-tolerance, strollers, carts, and bicycles will be presented, but if so, it will not be for board decision. There are many policies not for board decision, but given the immense controversy that resulted from the staff-implemented zero-tolerance policy, this is an appropriate policy for the board to address and decide upon.
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 August 24, 2026
2.2 Resolution 2026-09-112: Approving the Settlement Agreement and First Amendment to Contract for ADA Paratransit Scheduling, Dispatch and Eligibility Software as a Service with HBSS Connect Corp.
2.3 Resolution 2026-09-113: Conditionally Approving the Contract for On-Call Alternator Rebuild Services (Niehoff) with Kirk’s Automotive Incorporated
2.4 Resolution 2026-09-114: Approving the First Amendment to the Contract for Real-Time Train Information System (Computer-Aided Dispatch/Automatic Vehicle Location) and Dynamic Message Signs with Hitachi Rail CD U.S. LTD. Formerly Known as Clever Devices LTD
2.5 Resolution 2026-09-115: Second Amendment to the FY 2026 Operating Budget
2.6 Resolution 2026-09-116: Formally Consenting to and Supporting the Establishment of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Sacramento Regional Transit District as Dual Designated Recipients for Applicable Federal Transit Administration Formula Funding Apportioned to the Sacramento Urbanized Area
2.7 Resolution 2026-09-117: Approving the Five-Year Agreement for Peace Officer Assignment with the County of Sacramento Sheriff Department
SacRT has decided to delay the hydrogen bus (fuel cell electric) plan to meet zero emission bus (ZEB) requirements, and will buy natural gas buses instead. This was the subject of a SacBee article: Sacramento RT to buy new natural gas buses, delaying zero-emission transition, 2026-09-09, Madison Smalstig. I had missed this, I think because the decision was scattered across several board meetings, and often on consent calendar rather than regular agenda item.
SacRT will require a waiver from CARB (California Air Resources Board) Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) program. SacRT has an approved Rollout Plan from 2021, and more recent proposals for a hydrogen fueling station at McClellan and a fleet of hydrogen fuel cell buses, including a grant (see below). Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) had a series of posts on SacRT’s hydrogen plans and hydrogen in general (see Tag: zero emission buses). It is clear that the hydrogen plans were not well thought out, were not environmentally sound, and were only partially funded. The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intend to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses, but will have to start over seeking money for that.
FY24 FTA Bus and Low- and No-Emission Grant Awards: “The Sacramento Regional Transportation District will receive funding to buy new hydrogen fuel cell buses to replace older buses, modernize a maintenance facility and initiate a workforce development program. The project will create jobs and improve service, reliability and air quality as SacRT works to convert its fleet to entirely zero emission by 2028. $76,847,678”
The grant to fund hydrogen fueling at McClellan and hydrogen buses was converted to other buses and a refurbishing at McClellan. SacRT apparently still intends to pursue the idea of hydrogen buses (fuel cell electric), but will have to start over seeking money for that.
SFMTA is going with diesel-hybrid buses: Muni is too broke to use more eco-friendly buses, The San Francisco Standard, 2026-09-14. I assume other transit agencies will be making similar plans. By the way, SFMTA Muni has an incredibly low carbon footprint due to light rail and electric trolleys that run on overhead wires. Sacramento could have some of the same benefit without investing in fossil fuels by considering overhead wires. But it won’t.
The new Siemens S700 light rail cars, in service on SacRT Gold Line and eventually on SacRT Blue Line, have very limited bicycle space. SacRT’s policy is that there can be four bicycles on each rail car, in the corner by the regular (not handicapped) doors. This policy was unchanged from that for the old light rail cars, so SacRT claimed there was no issue, however, the amount of space available is quite different. Most of the older cars had seats removed to provide additional bicycle space, in addition to the bike hooks on the 200 series cars. The practical bicycle space on these old rail cars was essentially 10 per car. The model of S700 that SacRT has purchased is designated by Siemens as ‘US’, meaning ultra-short. The cars are much shorter than the standard S700, with less space for passengers, wheelchairs, and bicycles. That mistake is not something that can be corrected – the cars are in service, and more are on order, and the light rail system will eventually be exclusively S700 ‘US’ cars.
SacRT bicycle sign four bikes per car
There are conflicts between passengers and bicyclists, and in particular with wheelchair users who have priority access to the ‘priority seating’ area of fold-down-fold-up seats. There have been incidents of bicyclists who were using the ‘priority seating’ area refusing to move. There have been times when so many bicyclists have been on board that it was difficult for other to maneuver around them.
So, what can be done? Two partial solutions:
On-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at stations frequently used by bicyclists. Some bicyclists insist on bringing their bicycle on board, either because they need it at the destination, or because there is no secure bicycle storage at the station. Providing secure lockers would allow some bicyclists to leave their bike at the station, rather than bringing it on board. The standard secure bicycle storage solution is BikeLink lockers. Lockers provided by the City of Folsom at Historic Folsom, Glenn, and Iron Point are shown below. No other light rail stations have on-demand storage.
Way back in 2021, Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) made a formal request to SacRT that they provide on-demand secure bicycle storage lockers at light rail stations (secure bike parking). STAR had been talking to SacRT for several years before this on the same issue. The rental lockers provided at some stations were mostly not in use, and the public had no access to them except through a month-to-month rental. At that time, SacRT said they were ‘studying’ it. Meaning they weren’t actually doing anything. Bicyclist transit advocates have over the intervening years continued to ask SacRT about lockers. The answer is always the same – it is being ‘studied’. Nothing has happened. There is nothing related to the ‘study’ on the SacRT website. There is nothing in the board agenda. There is nothing in the budget.
The SACOG Mobility Zones program, which might site hubs at or near light rail stations has identified the Ben Ali/Swanston, Florin, and Rosemont/Western Rancho Cordova mobility zones. However, the zones so far defined do not guarantee co-location with stations. Note that the SACOG Mobility Zones map does not indicate light rail locations, so it is unlikely that it is a central part of site selection. The mobility hub diagrams show regular (unsecured) bike racks but do not show bike lockers.
SacRT is undertaking an apparently separate SacHub: Mobility Hubs Project for three light rail stations: Marconi/Arcade, Globe, and LaValentina/Alkalai Flat. There is no mention on the sparse page of secure bike storage, or even bike racks, for these hubs.
City of Folsom BikeLink lockers at Iron Point SacRT Gold Line station
Add a bicycle hanging location in place of a seat on the S700 cars. The seat location is between the handicap ramp door and the accordion section. This would change the allowable bicycles from four to six per car. The photo below shows the bicycle hanging area on a Seattle area Sound Transit S700 light rail car. These are full size cars with more space, but the smaller space on the SacRT S700 cars would probably only allow one bicycle hook per location, or two per car. It is true that some bicyclists cannot lift their bicycle to the hook, but the on-floor locations would still be available for those people. I have been on some light rail vehicles that had bicycle storage in the middle section, between the accordion sections, but it was poorly designed and awkward to use.
Sound Transit LINK 1-Line bicycle hanging storage area
In August of 2024, bicyclists at the light rail demonstration of the new S700 cars indicated that bicycle space was insufficient, and there needed to be more space to accommodate bicyclists. SacRT decided not to add this capability to the new cars.
My conclusion is that SacRT does not take the bicycles on light rail issue seriously, and does not intend to solve the problem.
Enough posts on SacRT and transit, for now, after 10 in the last two weeks. On to other transportation topics!
The work on the Watt/I-80 light rail and bus station is almost complete, with final opening due within a month. The west side was open, but is now closed again for final work. The east side is complete and open. The station is a major connecting point between Blue Line light rail and five bus routes (1, 15, 26, 84, 93).
Capital Transit Alliance was offered a tour of the station on Wednesday, August 26, with Principal Engineer Jenny Niello hosting. The project looks great, an immense improvement over the dark, urine-stained, trash filled stairwells of the old station.
The issues not resolved by the project include:
There is no public restroom at the station. It is likely that the elevators will continue to be used as bathrooms.
Wayfinding signs are not present. This includes wayfinding from the light rail terminus to the east side stair, during construction. For permanent wayfinding at the top of the stairs on the east side, there is nothing. One bus stop is north (26, 84), but the bus stop sign is hardly visible from the top of stairs. Two bus stops are to the south. For the first (1, 15), the sign is partly obscured by the bus shelter. For the second (93), the bus stop sign is not visible at all. There should be wayfinding signs at the top of the stairs that not only indicate which stops are to the right (north) and left (south), but a map showing the destinations of the five bus routes. As always, SacRT seems to be making the assumption that only regular riders, who know the stops and destinations, would be using this station. Nothing for new or inexperienced users.
The east side top of stairs and bus stops are very hot in the afternoon summer sun. For the three bus stops at 6:00 PM, there was not shade from the afternoon sun. There must be some additional shade available here. Roof? Canopy?
I had intended to do a comparison of management and non-management positions in SacRT compared to peer agencies. The data below is from the National Transit Database (NTD), operating expenses tables and employee tables, for the year 2024. I picked some other transit agencies for comparison. Please note that these numbers do no agree with the numbers presented in agency budgets, nor other online sources, but for comparison purposes, they serve. For the operations positions and the operations expenses, operations and operations maintenance are combined.
For the percentage of positions in operations, and the percentage of expenses in operations, a higher number is good, since operations are why the transit agency exists.
Transit Ambassadors have both a customer service and law enforcement function, as noted in SacRT: Transit Ambassadors. This dual function raises concerns and results in confusion for riders and transit advocates. Should customer service be emphasized, or law enforcement? Recently, the law enforcement role has been emphasized almost to the exclusion of the customer service role, through the zero-tolerance policy, but that may be modified or reversed.
Depending on what should be emphasized, or if the dual roles are split, the question is where Transit Ambassadors should be placed in the organizational hierarchy. At this time, they are placed within Police Services, within the Security, Safety and Customer Satisfaction function, as shown in the organizational chart below. If the law enforcement role remains as the primary one, then this may be an appropriate place. However, if customer service becomes the prominent role, then they should NOT be placed in Police Services. They should be moved out of Security, Safety, along with Customer Satisfaction, which move I recommended in SacRT: move Customer Satisfaction.
I believe that the customer service role of Transit Ambassadors should be the primary role. This is not to say TAs would not retain the citation ability for fare evasion and other issues, rather that would be a less important part of their role, and customer service become central.
The SacRT organization charts from March 2026, the most recent available, include the Police Services page, below (pdf). Though the next post will be about where in the organizational structure Transit Ambassador (TA) program is housed, this one is just about TA staffing.
If you look at the long column below, you will see 31 TAs, and 13 vacant TA positions, which is a 30% vacancy rate. This is remarkably high. It is possible this is not the rate today, but the rate today is not available. When there are high vacancy rates in any agency or organization, there are generally two explanations: 1) the positions are intentionally not being filled to save money, or 2) the pay scale is too low to recruit qualified employees. I will speculate that the second is the explanation here. Though there are scattered vacancies throughout the organizational charts, they are usually one per function. Thirteen, and 30%, is very unusual.
SacRT organizational chart, police services including Transit Ambassadors
The only routine reporting to the board and public that SacRT does is the quarterly performance scorecard, which is called out in the Strategic Plan. The most recent one is below. There is an ‘Employee Engagement’ section, but there is nothing on the scorecard that indicates overall staffing levels or filling of vacant positions. Most SacRT staff and transit advocates shake their heads at the high scores SacRT gives itself, but that is an issue for another post
