Some questions and answers from our membership email list are now included below the framework.

Several years ago STAR became uncomfortable with SacRT’s (both the board and staff) willingness to select some light rail extensions over others, without real study and without public engagement. A Blue Line extension to American River College was prominent in early planned documents, but then dropped without notice, and supporting documents removed from the SacRT website. In 2017 we posted on this issue and send a letter to SacRT expressing our concern about prioritization of the Green Line over others. And we promised that we would develop a framework for making decisions on light rail. Finally, we have a draft of that framework, below. Please comment on the framework here. STAR members will also be asked to comment through email and anyone can join our email list: https://sacramentotransitadvocates.groups.io/g/main. Comments are welcome through May 13, and then we will revise and post.

---

• Light rail expansion should consider both extension of existing routes and infill along high ridership and demand routes. All potential routes should be evaluated on the same criteria. 
• No decision should be made on mode (light rail, BRT, bus enhancement) until after route is determined based on clear criteria:
  • Existing ridership: Focus on existing high ridership routes. Route 51 Stockton/Broadway and Route 81 Florin are clear leaders, each almost double the next six routes. Better service for existing riders is as important as service for new riders.
  • New ridership: potential for replacement of motor vehicle trips with transit trips on high ADT corridors
  • Population density within 1/2 mile of stations. Low density areas should not be served unless there is clear policy and action towards significant densification. 
  • Access to major job centers, hospitals, higher education, and retail facilities within 1/2 mile of stations
  • Connections to other light rail or high frequency buses
  • Income and environmental justice characteristics around stations. Past history of disinvestment or discrimination must be addressed. 
  • Roadway right-of-way sufficient for light rail or BRT
• Light rail will NOT serve areas of agricultural, wildlife, or undeveloped land. STAR believes greenfield development is climate negative and fiscally irresponsible, so serving new or proposed greenfield development is wrong. 

---

Q&A

Q: Who and how are supposed to use the light rail decision framework?

A: It is meant to be a tool that STAR and citizens could use to hold SacRT accountable for its decisions on light rail. And maybe buses.

Q: Is there to be a checklist which staff complete for a project? Where are the decision points when these features are to be reckoned and decided upon? Is there to be a rating system? Are points to be given for each aspect?

A: Good questions, but that is beyond the scope of the framework, and perhaps beyond the capacity of the transit advocacy community. The time to bring this to the board is the next time there is some major light rail or other transit expenditure on the agenda. But once it is finalized, it can be used at any board meeting, and in any discussion with staff.

Q: What about a decision framework for other transportation measures, e.g. SE connector?

A: SacMoves has done this to some degree already, and we hope will develop additional and up-to-date documents. SACOG is apparently doing an air quality assessment of the connector, not available yet.

Q: How would light rail to Natomas fare under this framework for decision making? Light rail to the airport?

A: Light rail to the airport (‘Green Line to the Airport’) is the whole project, but it is so expensive ($1B as of many years ago, probably at least $1.5B now ), that it has been broken up into phases. There have been many different phasing plans, the simplest being a phase one to Natomas Marketplace, just north of I-80, but some only go over the river and to El Camino or San Juan roads.

There is both support and opposition to light rail in North Natomas (the part north of I-80). I have not heard of any opposition south of I-80, except of course the concerns of Save the American River Association about the location and design of the river crossing. Truxel Rd and Natomas Blvd are probably the only viable alignments. In fact part of the reason for the ridiculous width of parts of Truxel north of San Juan is the early planning thought that it would host some sort of transit.

To summarize the earlier posts on Green Line extension, there is strong justification for extension to San Juan Rd, some justification for extension to Del Paso Rd, and little justification for extension to the airport. But, the whole point of the series of posts is that SacRT should be considering all light rail extension and infill based on the same criteria. With that analysis, we are not sure how the entire Green Line to the Airport, or the phases, would rate.

• SacRT
• SacRT light rail