Tag: BRT

SacRT Board 2026-08-24 report

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

The agenda and key documents were posted in SacRT Board 2026-08-24. This is a brief report on the meeting. For more detail, please watch the meeting recording on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktR8Jmlzuac.

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, Work Plan Tactics
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.

transit-first streets

Dan AllisonLeave a comment

San Francisco is a transit-first city, though it falls short of that goal. Other major cities are so clearly transit-first that they don’t even remark on it. The Sacramento region will never be a transit-first place. Density is too low, almost everywhere, except the Sacramento central city. Opposition to transit, both ideological and anti-tax, is common in the region. But we could designate transit-first roads.

SacRT’s High Capacity Bus Service Study (2021) outlines several possible BRT (bus rapid transit) routes in the county, shown on the map below. It missed critical corridors, however. It missed BRT to the airport, because at that time SacRT was still selling the idea that light rail to the airport would occur in the not too distant future. It missed Greenback Road connecting Sunrise Transit Center and Historic Folsom light rail (yes, this travels through low density areas, but would provide a connection between high use areas that do not currently have any connection whatsoever). It also missed Cosumnes River College light rail to Elk Grove, as the planning effort for BRT or light rail came to prominence after 2021. It also includes some routes of doubtful utility because they extend beyond high riderships areas into areas of low density development, Sunrise south in particular.

These corridors are not designated by the cities, or Sacramento County, or Sacramento Transportation Authority. But a designation of these as transit-first roads would have several benefits for planning and funding.

  • A recognition that planning and projects should first consider the transit function of that road, before any consideration of motor vehicle throughput.
  • A recognition that there are many possible levels of transit support, not limited to or even requiring BRT. These might include signal priority, better bus stop spacing, better bus stops, bus stops in traffic rather than requiring pull-outs that cause delay and safety issues, signal queue jumps, bus only lanes full time or at congested times.
  • A recognition that existing arterials do not well meet the transportation needs of people because they were designed for and prioritize private motor vehicles, and are the primary location of traffic violence.
  • A recognition that the value of a particular transit-first road varies over time with other changes to the roadway, surrounding land use, and connections to other transit service. What has happened to date is that a focus on a particular corridor is usually a political decision (ribbon cutting) and not based on current use patterns and planning for a complete transit network. Planning then completely neglects consideration of other corridors.

If we designate a corridor as a transit-first road, then it allows incremental progress towards the eventual goal of BRT, or even light rail. We don’t need to wait until political will or funding to go for the huge project, rather, we can improve transit utility with every change to the road, and with much smaller amounts of funding.

Stockton BRT alternative alignment

Dan Allison1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento region transit projects in 2015

Dan Allison1 Comment

Jonah Freemark on The Transit Politic has detailed transit projects in Openings and Construction Starts Planned for 2015. For Sacramento, it will be the end of work on extension of the SacRT light rail Blue Line to Consumnes River College, and the start of planning for the Sacramento/West Sacramento streetcar. It is good that these projects are happening, but in comparison to many other urban areas, Sacramento is falling further behind. We spend most of our money on expanding the freeways, building new freeways such as the Southeast Connector, and upgrading arterial roadways. Almost all of this work furthers suburban commuting and sprawl, and very little if any of it leads to true economic vitality.

Projects I’d like to see joining the list for next year are:

  • Green line extension to Natomas. Not necessarily the airport, and I’m not sure that pencils out as a beneficial project.
  • Blue line extension to Elk Grove. Though I don’t like the suburban wasteland that is Elk Grove, it is nevertheless true that there are a huge number of commuters from there to downtown Sacramento, who could be pried out of their cars if we spent money on light rail instead of highway and roadway expansion. Just the interchanges on Interstate 5, largely purposed to serve the commuter crowd, cost more than the entire light rail system.
  • Blue line extension to American River College, and eventually to Roseville. The college is a huge trip generator, and this part of the county is very underserved by transit. Though the Capitol Corridor third track will take some of some of the demand, light rail with its more frequent service would be a great complement.
  • Bus rapid transit (BRT). I’m not sure where the best location would to pilot bus rapid transit in the Sacramento region, but the fact that we are not even really experimenting with it (other than the tiny Watt Ave over US 50 bridge) does not bode well. Bus rapid transit could be an even more important solution for the region, particularly because much of the region lacks the density to make light rail successful.

Here’s to seeing more Sacramento projects on the 2016 list.