Draft Blue Line/Bus Rapid Transit Implementation Plan

No public transportation in the world pays for itself though. That’s not the point of it.

Glad you asked! Though your response does read a bit like AI (the em dash kind of gives it away) but I digress.

1. Science direct has a lot of peer reviewed journals if you look. This one study was in mid size cities in Europe, but there was a quasi-experimental study in The Journal of Transportation that showed congestion rates increased slower once light rail was introduced into Baltimore. Also, another study from Goldstein showed households living near public transit drove 30% less.

1b. To address your initial concern about traffic at the Franklin consumes crossing, that’s more reason to have GOOD infrastructure in place. Such as the options shown in the plan. Also the area has seen a huge increase in population which adds to it. FURTHERMORE, I’ve driven that way as well and it was not hundreds of cars stuck. Was dozens, but let’s not be hyperbolic.

2. Things do need to be nearby I agree, but that’s actually why this location for the plan works well, it’s a much denser suburban area. Also, calling Sac RT largely useless makes me question where you’re pulling your data from. it moved over 7.4 million people last year and averages over 20,000 riders daily.

2b. Light rail tends to attract transit focused developers (more people nearby and more people having access to those places).

3. “ Currently, there isn't a single light rail station in the Sacramento area that stops at a major grocery store. ” okay let’s stop lying right there. The Co Op is right by the 29th stations. I drove by that way often. And in any case, most people aren’t getting a weeks worth of groceries via public transit. They are able to make smaller trips more frequently since it’s more accessible. Not mention some stations are a 10 minute walk from grocery stores. For us, it would be stores like Whole Foods, Winco, and Sprouts.

ALSO, someone having light rail access can free up their partner to use the car for grocery shopping.

FURTHERMORE, you conveniently ignored the points I made about how people can get to work via light rail and how much people spend on transportation costs. A $30,000 car can get you a lot of light rail or bus rides.

4. Don’t you dare start with that elitist rhetoric. I would have to pay for this just like you. Also, Around 10% of the U.S. has a moonlight disability, and over 30% can’t drive either due to age, disability, etc. Moreover, how much would this cost us as taxpayers? Funding seems mixed between local, state, and federal.

“ While proponents are often the loudest” did you just regurgitate my point without any back up? You can tell by many comments here our a few users are really against it, but they don’t seem to care for the community as a whole. Multiple comments talking about how they’ll move out if the light rail goes in, proving they don’t really care about the long-term impacts.

While Sac RT has A LOT of issues itself, I think we shouldn’t stagnate to keep the status quo.

You also still haven’t provided any evidence of the litigation risk you spoke of in your first comment. By that logic no new infrastructure should be built ever in California.

ALSO, you say this is a waste of resources and money but haven’t argued for what it should be spent on in lieu. If you actually respond I expect a rebuttal of all my points like I offered you.

1. On Data and Sources
Which specific study are you citing, and was it conducted in the United States or a foreign country with entirely different urban densities? Furthermore, ScienceDirect is a hosting platform, not a specific peer-reviewed journal. Without a high-impact, localized source, citing broad statistics feels like using unreliable data for propaganda purposes.

2. On Accessibility and Choice
I disagree with the idea that rail automatically creates usable infrastructure. If people cannot get to their final destination efficiently via light rail, they will simply continue to use their cars. In a spread-out city like ours, "nearby" is a relative term that often still requires a vehicle. In fact, Sacramento light rail has been in service since 1987, and to this day, it remains largely useless for the daily needs of most residents.

3. On Economic Reality and Groceries
Your point about transit helping with household expenses like groceries is not correct. Currently, there isn't a single light rail station in the Sacramento area that stops at a major grocery store. No one believes the reasoning that families can or will carry a week’s worth of groceries on public transit. It is a nonsense argument that ignores how people actually live. Frankly, people in Sacramento would laugh at the idea of doing their grocery shopping via light rail—it is as unrealistic as saying "pigs can fly" in Sacramento.

4. On Subsidies
To say this benefits everyone is a stretch; you seem to have a different definition of "accessibility" than the residents who actually have to pay for this. We should not be subsidizing a service that benefits very few at the expense of the many, especially when it doesn't solve the core transportation needs of our families. While proponents are often the loudest, it is vital the city addresses these practical angles and thinks of the actual long-term impact on taxpayers.

Light Rail has shown in different studies to not increase crime rates though, and in some cases actually DECREASES it.

Having a light rail station nearby actually increases property value though, from what I found.

You literally didn’t address ANY of the positives Annonymous stated. As a citizen I would love to have my tax dollars finally build up public transit after decades of only having bus transit.

Public transit isn’t meant to recoup the cost to build. Transit is needed to reduce traffic congestion, lower emissions, increase mobility for people who can't drive, support economic development, and connect workers to jobs.

I mean part of the reason people need so many cars is there aren’t many good alternatives to travel, especially the longer you go.

The irony is that transit access actually pretty consistently has a positive impact on crime rates.

"Who wants to look at a train station from their bedroom window."

Because that's so much more disruptive than the cars that are already visible from their bedroom window at all hours of the day in literally all places this light rail extension will go. (This is sarcasm, if it wasn't obvious.)

Home owners benefit from additional mobility options, increased property values, reduced NEED to depend on cars and dodging an impending increase in congestion that the LEA project area will otherwise cause.

Road accidents actually give credence to having MORE public transit options like the light rail. Less cars on the road generally leads to safer roads, so the light rail is better for safety.

As a long time resident, I’m so tired of people saying not to more robust transit because they’re afraid of…what exactly?

I actually kind of like this idea. Suspended rail has been used in other cities around the road. Likely not feasible due to costs but still would be nice.

The streets already aren't very quiet to be honest due to the amount of cars. A light rail can and has shown to improve that.

Studies have ACTUALLY shown that light rail and public transit access INCREASE property values, not lower.
Light rail has shown to be a public health benefit overall, as there are less cars, less pollution, better access, no real effect on crime, etc.

I grew up in the city before it was a city. I always felt we needed better and more robust public transit, to benefit everyone. I may not need my car to go along the corridor anymore efficiently, which I'd love.
Noise pollution is a valid concern though.

"The city is already accessible with cars and buses. When self driving taxis become available in the near future this very expensive RT will be obsolete. "

I disagree for a few reasons. Cars aren't really accessible, full stop. Even with self-driving taxis (whenever that actually happens), that's 1 person in 1 car generally. Having less cars reduces traffic and accidents, making it safer for all.

People can't use transit that is not there. Younger people use it mostly in most cities globally.

Also most people don't work from home still. Especially if you have a job that you can't do that.

Running RT along freeways kind of defeats the purpose of gaining access to denser areas.

There is a lot of outcry about noise and..."aesthetics" I guess but what about the benefits? Light rail, if done well, has shown to have Less pollution, reduced congestion, is safer (less vehicles on the road), is cheaper for individuals (more urban areas spend less per capita on transportation since less car maintenance and less need for cars), increases access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and entertainment. Public transit is a long term project, so we can't look just at short-term implications.

Conversely, increase public transit also attracts new residents.

But anyway while the concern of injuries is a valid public health issue, light rail has generally shown to decrease accidents because there are less individuals on their own vehicles (cars, bikes, etc.)

" fact is the house median average car is here are 2 and 1/2. Nobody's looking to not drive."

I mean people need cars to get around, that's part of the problem. Many of us don't want to drive, I wish there was more readily available public transit.

"Additionally, it’s going to bring ghetto people to elk grove which is the opposite reason why people move to elk grove. People move to elk grove to get out of the ghetto and this will just make it even easier for the ghetto to get in and around the city and cause trouble."

Bigotry aside, our city is a place for everyone. Also, there was a study analyzing the Green Line in LA which goes through high crime areas and terminates in affluent suburbs which found "no evidence that this transit line has opened up new and outlying territories for exploitation by potential criminals."

The idea that better public transit will bring crime is just a dog whistle.

As an Elk Grove resident who has lived here as a child and now as an adult with young kids in the family, I understand the concerns but also respectfully disagree and offer some rebuttals, as someone who wants the Light Rail over BRT or no public transit. Also, as individuals we can't really make formal oppositions.

1. There have been studies published in Science Direct that actually show the opposite: " Furthermore, cities with a new rail system have on average 7% less congestion, 1% less travel time and 3% less pollution than cities with no rail systems." Part of the reason is there is less cars on the road since people can take Light Rail.

2. Stations do need to be where people go. Part of the problem with American Public transit is just how spread out things are, thus necessitating a car (I still need a car just to go pick up an order from a nearby restaurant). Light rail (more than BRT) has shown to also help create nearby infrastructure.

3. Most legal issues are before construction from my understanding. I would like to see reliable data on how much actual legal challenges there are afterwards. Having more public transit in itself helps with accessibility.

4. As another user pointed out below, the actual costs aren't even that high. Mostly because the City does not invest in public transit like it should currently.

Also, this statement: "We are essentially subsidizing a service that benefits very few" is generally not true. When transit and infrastructure are made more accessible and available to all, it benefits everyone.

Furthermore: " With the rising cost of living, we need to prioritize how we feed our families. "
Public transit actually helps with that! More transit means people can make it to their work, they can get groceries or at least have shorter trips, they don't have to maintain or even have a car in some cases if public transit is better. Transportation is the second-largest household expense after housing for most American families. Households in car-dependent neighborhoods spend up to 25% of their income on transportation, compared to just 9% in more walkable neighborhoods with good transit options.

While the ones who don't want improved public transit are often the loudest, I do think it's vital the city address many angles and think of the long-term impact.

Still team Light Rail myself.

Formal Opposition to Light Rail Expansion in Elk Grove
To the Planning Committee and City Officials:

As a local resident, I am writing to formally express my strong opposition to the proposed light rail expansion into Elk Grove. While this project is marketed as a solution to reduce traffic, my direct experience with our existing regional infrastructure proves it will have the opposite effect.

1. Proven Traffic Congestion (The Franklin/Cosumnes Example)
My primary concern is the massive increase in surface-level congestion caused by rail crossings. We see a clear warning at the intersection of Franklin Blvd and Cosumnes River Blvd. Before the light rail was extended there, traffic flowed smoothly. Now, during peak rush hours, hundreds of vehicles in all four directions are forced to idle for long periods just for one train to pass.

Artificial Bottlenecks: A single train stalls hundreds of commuters, creating a "stop-and-go" ripple effect that lasts long after the gates open.

Off-Peak Inefficiency: Even at noon, when trains are often empty, hundreds of cars are forced to stop. This leads to unnecessary idling and increased carbon emissions from thousands of stopped vehicles.

2. Geographic Reality: Low Density and the "Last Mile"
The United States, and Elk Grove specifically, is not built like dense international cities. Our population is spread out; residents often have to walk miles just to reach a station. Furthermore, these stations are rarely located near where people actually need to go—such as hospitals, schools, or major shopping centers—because land acquisition in those areas is too costly. We are building "stations to nowhere" that lack even basic sidewalk connectivity or safety.

3. Litigation Risks in a Progressive State
Because California is a progressive state, our strict regulatory environment often attracts "hungry" lawyers looking for any reason to file lawsuits for profit. Once the light rail is completed, we can expect constant litigation regarding accessibility, environmental impacts, or safety. Instead of serving the people, the system will serve the interests of a few while creating a massive legal and financial drain on the city.

4. Inequitable Maintenance Costs
This project will create a permanent financial burden for 99.9% of Elk Grove citizens just to maintain a system that serves a tiny fraction of the population. We are essentially subsidizing a service that benefits very few, while the vast majority of residents are left to deal with the resulting gridlock and tax burden.

Conclusion
We should not turn our main thoroughfares into gridlocked transit corridors for an outdated "one-size-fits-all" model. I urge the city to reject this expansion and focus on transit solutions that actually fit the suburban reality of Elk Grove.
Respectfully,



Elk Grove, 95758

Anonymous this is a 1billion dollar project. Elk grove citizens will not be happy their taxes will increase to fund a project the majority of us will not use. That amount is extremely ridiculous and does not have the ridership needed to justify the cost. Period.

Elk Grove's stated preferred option, Alternative 2, ends at Classical Way, almost a mile's walk from the Casino. in NONE of the proposed versions of the plan does the blue line serve the Casino. (Alternatives 1 and 3 are the only versions with new service to the casino, in both cases with a bus in mixed traffic.)

In Alternatives 2 and 4, which would see light rail extended past the high & middle schools, it'd only take about 30-50 students and/or faculty heading to any of those schools who previously arrived by car combined to get a neutral impact or improvement to the amount of car traffic heading to the schools around drop-off and pickup times. The schools have a combined faculty and student count of well over 3500. Are you seriously trying to imply that not even that few students and faculty will use the light rail? And that is without accounting for other traffic in the area that'd be reduced due to the light rail's presence. I don't know if the positive impact for traffic on these roads will be big or small, but they will certainly not be negative. You are picking the wrong battle if you'd like to see traffic reduced in the area, which would certainly be a good thing.

You're also wrong on travel time. From downtown (Capitol Mall) to CRC is currently 35 minutes on the blue line. If the extension to Elk Grove LEA maintains similar speed, which it should be able to with the preferred option, Alternative 2, travel time to Downtown Sacramento the last stop at classical way would be about 48-51 minutes.

Good public transit is NOT just a convenience for those who can't afford a car. To downtown sacramento its speed is competitive with the car during peak hours and even in households with a car the presence of good public transit can give a sizable boost to mobility by allowing different family members to more freely move at different times of the day. The data backs this up too: I took a look at ridership in comparable areas that received light rail extensions around the US and upper middle class areas exactly like the ones around the Light Rail in Elk Grove tend to get decent ridership. Elk Grove's estimates for ridership are likely accurate, in which case, whether you believe the investment is worth it or not, the investment will not be excessively expensive for the amount of people it'll transport every year.

And not just that: The LEA plan area will be developed as dense mixed use development irrespective of whether the light rail comes. That kind of development, tends to attract people who are more likely to use public transit if it is available. Without light rail, the people in that area will get a car instead and guess which roads those cars will clog up further. You are not just wrong about the usefulness of the extension, you are actively arguing against your own stated interests surrounding traffic and convenience of car travel.

I am going to ignore the classist stuff about unsavoury people with lower incomes, with the sole exception of hit and run accidents: If you are genuinely interested in investing energy to improve the situation, you should know that the top predictor for such accidents is excessive relative speed compared to how a road is utilised. In simpler terms: Bad road design that encourages speeding or outright allows driving faster than should be allowed on a particular kind of road. If this is important to you, I'd implore you to spend the energy you're currently using to fight the light rail extension to fight for safer road design instead.

Anonymous do you live in EG? The most popular option requested ends at Sky River. The BLUE LINE is slated to end at Sky River Casino. Where do you think EG has the hundreds of millions to fund this to completion? The RT will run past COHS, Pinkerton and Zehnder Ranch’s main road on Big Horn Blvd every 15 minutes. The majority of citizens in the area will NOT BE USING THE RT. It will not reduce the traffic caused by parents and students dropping off their children to the 3 mentioned schools Mon-FRI during pick ups and drop offs. It will increase traffic times bc the RT will arrive every 15 minutes and continue to extend the wait time for parents and students driving and students biking and walking to school. COHS already does not count late arrivals to first period bc they know the traffic is bad and does not allow the students to arrive on time to school. This will further be an issue once the Whitelock onramp to 99 is complete as more drivers will use Whitelock to enter go to work. From EG to Dwntwn by RT is still over an hour travel time due to the repeated stops along the way. EG does not have the sufficient amount of riders for RT use to justify how much will be spent on the extension project. EG is predominantly upper middle class who have their own transportation and won’t use the RT. It is a convenience for those who can not afford transportation. Welfare recipients get free RT Vouchers to travel. I don’t mean to sound snobbish but yes you will move a few “normal” citizens but you will also allow “unsavory” individuals free movement along the blue line as well. The RT will change zoning laws and require 7% of homes to be low income so that those with low income who frequently use free public transportation will also have the opportunity to live near public transportation stations. There has already been an increase in hit and run fatalities in the area. 6 children on bikes have been hit. 1 child lost his life on Whitelock. There will be more if this RT continues down Big Horn.

Extending the light rail both reduces traffic over the roads past the school from reduced car use by residents in the area and because some children and staff at the schools will use public transit. There is no reason to believe the light rail will increase the risk of children getting hit, if anything, quite the contrary.

The whole rant about getting people to Sky River Casino, I must say, is kind of funny, given the preferred option for light rail extension doesn't even go near the Casino.

I do not know what it costs to build the extension, my comment was about operational costs and was meant to remove potential worry about excessive yearly spending on operating costs associated with a light rail extension.

I can shed some light on those operating costs. Based on SacRT's financial reports from a few years back (inflation adjusted), Elk Grove spends somewhere in the range of 10 to 15 million dollars yearly on operating costs for public transit in the city. - This comes out to about 3% of the city budget, or about 70$ per person living in Elk Grove.

Elk groves reports (slightly over) doubling of those costs if the light rail extension to LEA is built, so that'd likely mean the yearly operating budgets end up in the 140$-180$ per capita per year range.

For a city that's seriously looking at improving public transportation, it is shockingly little. Typical transit operating budgets for smaller cities in California that are generally considered to have good public transport tend to be in the 450$-750$ per capita range. (Bigger cities may spend significantly more in some cases. For SF for example, that comes out to about 950$)

What is the COST to build this RT Extension into Elk Grove? Anonymous you post like you are AI or used CHAT GPT. Comments should be from actual citizens of Elk Grove not paid businesses like Sky River who benefit the most from the extension.

Unfortunately, the idea of building BRT and upgrading it to light rail later has been tried in quite a few places across the US and the result is pretty much universally the same: While the BRT finds some success, later conversion to LRT basically never happens. - In fact, they often end up preventing light rail construction long term.

The reason for this is simple: While the more metro-like BRT in other countries may fly past cars, what is being considered here (and what most cities in the US with this approach have gotten) is basically just a regular bus line with some dedicated lanes. They'll attract more rider-ship than a typical bus line if branded properly, fast, frequent and extra care is taken to ensure comfort, but they don't attract nearly the kind of ridership light rail or the kind of BRT you reference does.

That in turn tends to become a political problem when considering conversion to light rail, because you'll get a section of the populace arguing there's already good transit, while the lower ridership the BRT generated, even if it beats expectations, often ends up causing people to (falsely) believe the demand for the upgrade won't be there, or that the increased use isn't sufficient to justify the costs of the conversion.

And that last part, is a valid concern because constructing a BRT doesn't actually make future conversion of an alignment to light rail significantly cheaper as many might expect: While it reserves a right of way, most of the infrastructure would still need to be entirely rebuilt, meaning that, at the point you'd consider such a conversion from BRT to light rail, the relative cost compared to benefit is considerably reduced compared to just constructing the light rail straight away.

And IF, despite all that, the conversion happens anyway, the city ended up spending the money for BOTH the light rail and BRT, while only getting one high quality corridor out of the plan in the end. If this light rail extension is worth it, it'll be considerably cheaper to construct it immediately.

This is a $100 million + project you are talking about here. Who wants to look at a train station from their bedroom window. The RT pathway is through neighborhoods and will disrupt homes every 15 min. You want to highlight business support but what about the HOMEOWNERS and young pedestrians who ebike and walk every single day along this path? The RT will disrupt the protected wild life reserve near Dist 56. No one cares about the disruption this is going to cause due to the construction and noise this thing is going to cause the home owners in this area? Run the RT along the freeway away from already congested traffic and pedestrians.