Dan Allison would like to share some ideas about a high frequency transit network for Sacramento. Nothing here is STAR policy, rather, ideas for discussion. 

STAR’s tagline is ‘increase ridership and expand accountability’. Much of our work is oriented towards pushing SacRT to share their planning and decision-making process with the public, and to truly engage the public in those processes. As with all government agencies, SacRT struggles to be transparent. The ‘increase ridership’ part seems simple, but over time, we have come to realize it is an oversimplification. Our goal is not simply to increase the number of transit riders, but to better serve existing riders, and to contribute in a significant way to solving the transportation and climate challenges of the region. 

SacRT has made small steps toward planning a high frequency transit system, with the High Capacity Bus Service Study and related Stockton Corridor Plan, and other planning documents. The plans are weak, though, and significant improvement looks to be years away. The only high frequency services in the region are light rail (Blue Line, and Gold Line from downtown to Sunrise), bus routes 51 Stockton and 1 Greenback, parts of 81 Florin and 30 J St and 67/68. In the SacRT case, high frequency means 15-minute service during the core of the service day. People in big cities experience frequencies of 10 or even 5 minutes, but for now, this is the best SacRT can achieve. 

SacRT is greatly underfunded. It receives 1/6 of a cent in sales tax revenue from Measure A. It also receives some state funding, and has done as well as any obtaining grants. However, effective transit systems with similar populations have the equivalent of at least 1/2 cent in sales tax revenue. STAR strongly supports increasing dedicated funding to reach the equivalent of at least 1/2 cent. But roadway expansion captures the majority of transportation funding in the county and region, not only reducing funds for transit, but constructing projects which encourage (subsidize) people to use cars rather than transit. 

Though light rail is more expensive to construct that bus rapid transit, it has somewhat lower operations costs, because more passengers are serve by a single operator. Staffing is the major operating expense of any transit, so more passengers per operator is more efficient. The other major benefit of light rail is that it is fixed, unlikely to disappear, so riders can depend on it. However, bus rapid transit along arterial corridors is almost as unlikely to disappear, and can have most of the benefit of light rail for significantly lower construction cost and moderately higher operations cost. The routes recommended below for high frequency service would not necessarily be bus rapid transit, which has dedicated transit-only lanes or traffic separation, and infrastructure designed to speed travel and appeal to all riders. But each route could move towards that over time. The first step is high frequency, other steps will follow. 

I believe that SacRT should shift resources (in the absence of additional funding) from other routes into a high frequency network. My vision includes these existing or modified routes:

• Greenback (1), from Watt/I-80 light rail to Sunrise/Greenback (existing)
• J St (30), from Sacramento Valley Station to CSU Sacramento (15-minute frequency throughout, not depending on 38 to achieve frequency)
• Stockton (51), Sacramento Valley Station to Florin Rd (slight modification of route, largely exists)
• 67/68, Florin Rd to Arden Fair Mall (single 15 minute route on most efficient alignment, probably a combination of 67 and 68)
• Florin (81), (15-minute frequency along entire route)
• Watt, Watt/Manlove light rail to Elkhorn Blvd (similar to existing route 84)
• Sunrise, Sunrise light rail to Greenback Ln (partially existing route 21)
• Blue Line, Cosumnes River College to Watt/I-80 (existing)
• Gold Line, Sacramento Valley Station to Historic Folsom (new 15-minute Sunrise to Folsom)

Changing existing 30-minute routes to 15-minute routes, and realignments of some routes, would probably result in decreased ridership for a period of time. It would increase operation costs for these routes. In a fixed-budget scenario, other bus routes (and the Green Line) would have reduced service or elimination. For people whose primary transit goal is coverage, this would be harmful. So why do it?

With a reliable, fixed, high frequency network, people could and would start to make different decisions about where they live and work, and shop and recreate and educate. Many people seeing a high availability and high reliability transit service will shift car trips to transit trips. Densified and mixed use developments can take advantage of the service, knowing it will serve the needs of residents and customers. Transportation investments can be shifted from roadway capacity expansion to creating and improving these routes. As the benefits become obvious, ridership on these routes will increase, and generate political and citizen support for more high frequency, and more funding for transit. 

The map below indicates the high frequency ideas presented above (pdf).

• SacRT
• STAR