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
SacRT offers a Transit Ambassador position and program. These are the SacRT staff that riders are most likely to see on light rail. There are also private security personnel, but they are primarily at stations and not on the trains. You might on occasion see Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputies on a train, though usually only in response to an incident. For light rail riders, Transit Ambassadors are the face of SacRT.
I am unable to find a job description for Transit Ambassador on the SacRT website, but an external website includes a job description (pdf, note the document is visually OK but internally corrupted), with excepts below.
“The purpose of this position is to provide continuous and consistent customer service to all passengers aboard light rail vehicles, at light rail stations and within light rail parking lots or other SacRT facilities. The Transit Ambassador will help resolve fare issues, address customer inquiries, assist with understanding the system routes, and handle any concerns and complaints all while maintaining a courteous and friendly attitude.”
The ‘example of duties’ list includes:
“Assists passengers with fare system issues and address any questions to help ensure payments are collected. Helps any passengers that are having difficulties using the fare system, and addresses any related complaints or questions.
Assists passengers with transfers; helps guide customers to access alternate bus or train services during regular service as well as in the event of a service disruption.
Answers passenger inquiries and maintains a courteous and friendly demeanor at all times. Maintains an expert knowledge of the bus and light rail system in order to answer all customer inquiries and provides directions when asked. Provides route, schedule and fare information to customers upon request.
Maintains vigilant watch at light rail stations and parking lots and help maintain a safe and clean environment for passengers and their vehicles. Occasionally removes and disposes of litter on trains to help maintain clean environment.
Handles customer compliments, criticisms and complaints equally with a calm and pleasant demeanor. Attempts to address customer’s issues but recognizes when issues need to be elevated to the next level of authority.
Ensures a commitment to safety through consistent and professional behaviors in performance of all job functions.
May be required to issue citations to customers that fail to pay fares and/or nuisance behavior, as well as appear in court to present evidence and testimony related to issued citations. Enters fare citation information into departmental computer system, completes required incident forms and accident reports when necessary.
Other duties as required.”
The SacRT website mentions a 3-month Transit Ambassador Training Academy, but it is not mentioned in the job description, and it is not defined anywhere that I was able to find. And it is not clear that this training is actually occurring. It seems that though most training is on-the-job, which is useful, but leads to inconsistency if it is the main training.
There was a period of time when the staff on board light rail trains were called fare checkers. That was their only function, and they were apparently instructed to not do anything else. Then the were instructed to fulfill many roles, similar to the list above. Recently, they were instructed to become law enforcement officers through the zero-tolerance policy. Note that though Transit Ambassadors are authorized to issue citations for transit rule violations, they are not otherwise trained law enforcement officers. At the 2025-10-27 board meeting, confusion among riders and transit advocates about what the ambassadors were supposed to do led to a presentation that included the slide below. However, the presentation did not resolve why the perception of TA roles was different for riders and for staff.
I believe that the fuzziness of roles is why there are so many complaints about Transit Ambassadors. The public certainly does not know their role, and it appears that the TAs also are not clear about their role.
except page from SacRT Board Agenda item 3.1, 2025-10-27 on Transit Ambassadors
Los Angeles Metro separates the roles of fare checkers and ambassadors. The description of the two positions is below. Of course Metro is a much larger and better funded agency, and it might not be possible to make this separation within SacRT.
Metro Transit Security Officers
Transit Security Officers are trained Metro employees who understand the unique needs of our system and our riders. These officers enforce the code of conduct and fare payment across the transit system, ensuring compliance and maintaining order.
Metro Transit Security Officers focus on:
Patrolling the system regularly.
De-escalating situations and maintain order and lawfulness on the system.
Enforcing the Metro code of conduct and issuing citations.
Communicating incidents directly with Metro Operations Centers, law enforcement partners, and emergency service providers.
Fare checks and enforcement.
Metro Ambassadors
Serving as additional support for riders, Metro Ambassadors assist passengers with various needs and report any issues they observe, contributing to a safer and more pleasant transit experience.
Metro Ambassadors:
Help passengers get where they need to go, providing directions and route information.
Are trained to provide life-saving medical support in emergencies.
Use the Metro-issued phone or tablet device to document issues and call Metro Security or 911 additional support in an emergency — this is why you may see them on a device.
The next post will be on where Transit Ambassadors should fit within the organizational structure of SacRT, and why the agency seems to be short so may TAs.
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.
