Our recent post, SacRT mistakes, was engendered by concerns about SacRT mis-management. On the June 9, 2025 board agenda, item 5.1 Resolution 2025-06-062: Approval of the FY 2025 Annual Performance Evaluation for the General Manager, CEO, Henry Li, included an extensive document provided by Mr. Li about SacRT accomplishments, intended to justify a raise for Mr. Li. Some of the items are indeed success stories for SacRT and its services to riders and the public. Others are not. A number of items are presented as successful and complete, but are not.

Some examples:

Rolled out our new fleet of modern low-floor light rail trains as part of the $700 million Light Rail Modernization Project. This is incomplete, to say the least. Since the start last September, there have been continuing and unresolved problems with SacRT’s version of the Siemens S700 light rail cars. The deployable ramps, and the handicapped buttons that deploy them, have engendered an immense number of complaints from both disabled and regular riders. There are both accessibility issues and safety issues. After nine months, flaws in the announcement and digital displays have been uncorrected.

Introduced 15-minute light rail service to Folsom area stations (Hazel, Iron Point, Glenn/Robert G. Holderness and Historic Folsom). In fact, 15-minute service has not been achieved. Only three out of four light rail trains reaches Folsom. Staff was able to achieve this level only after a long period of adjusting schedules and practices. It is unlikely that regular 15-minutes service to Folsom will ever be achieved, until more of the route from Sunrise to Folsom has been double-tracked, which was the original project promised by SacRT. This is not a current or planned SacRT project. By the way, this project would not even exist but for a lawsuit brought by ECOS against Caltrans. It was not a SacRT initiative.

Finalized a Hydrogen Bus Feasibility study and celebrated a $77 million federal grant for hydrogen fuel cell buses, bus maintenance facility modernization and workforce development, a step towards a cleaner, greener future. SacRT has alway intended that the natural gas pipeline to McClellan would be used to generate grey hydrogen. Green hydrogen was never part of the plan, or the grant application. Grey hydrogen is NOT a ‘cleaner, greener future’ and in fact is less environmentally sound that battery electric buses. Though there may be some routes that are better served by hydrogen buses, SacRT’s decision to put all their eggs in the hydrogen basket for the entire northern service area is a mistake. See our posts SacRT electric or hydrogen?, hydrogen? and hydrogen is too expensive for more information.

There are a number of other items in Mr. Li’s list that are either failures or actions in progress that are not yet successful.

It is important to remember that SacRT staff works for the General Manager/CEO. The General Manger/CEO works for the SacRT Board of Directors. The SacRT Board of Directors is answerable to the public. All staff are responsible to the General Manager/CEO, none directly to the board. Every level is accountable to the level above it. SacRT has been remarkably unwilling to admit mistakes. Putting a positive spin on everything may be good marketing, but it is poor management.

• SacRT Governance