Sacramento Transportation

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

RT increased headways and raised fares because their budgets got slashed, not because they thought it was a great idea.

The Hwy 50 HOV lane project will probably have a price tag of around $80 million, this compromise will mean that less than 10% of that amount will be spent on public transit and alternative transit modes--and it will also decrease headways to 15 minutes, and add express trains, which will make the Folsom commute even easier.

We won't get public transit unless we pay for it, it's just that simple. All the planning in the world won't help if there is not public policy to back it up, and political will to follow that public policy--and dollars to turn that political will into projects.

Excellent.....

[econgrad]

New RT bridge opens over Watt Avenue
wyost@sacbee.com
Published Monday, Feb. 02, 2009

Drivers who've suffered for years through one of the most congested intersections in Sacramento County will get some relief from above starting today.

At 4:21 a.m., the first train was scheduled to cross a new light-rail bridge spanning Watt Avenue at Folsom Boulevard.

It elevates light-rail tracks – and the rail cars – over the intersection, removing crossing delays for commuters.

County officials and residents say the opening couldn't arrive any too soon.

"People thought this took forever, but they were reluctant to complain because this will be so great," said Eddie Hard, who lives in the nearby Rosemont neighborhood.

The $23 million project – which includes renovation of the Watt/Manlove light-rail station – was initially supposed to be finished last April, but delays and contract disputes stretched that timeline.

County project manager Ron Vicari acknowledged that construction at the intersection and the Watt/Manlove station has caused disruption to commuters and residents – but said it will be worth the wait.

"It's really important to get this (the bridge) completed. Now, the public gets to realize the benefits," Vicari said.

Chief among the benefits are improved traffic flow, increased efficiency of light-rail trains and a safer intersection, Vicari said.

"Eighty thousand cars a day go through there. You can sit through a series of light changes," he said.

You don't have to tell that to Terry Dugan. The Rosemont resident used to commute daily through the Watt Avenue/Folsom Boulevard intersection before he retired.

Dugan said that during rush hour – with delays from traffic signals and crossing arms – it could take 10 minutes to travel less than two miles from Jackson Road to Highway 50.

Hard said his wife was once stuck sitting in her car for 25 minutes when a crossing arm malfunctioned.

From a safety standpoint, county transportation and Regional Transit officials said it's always safer to separate modes of transportation such as cars and trains

Elevating the light-rail trains also avoids problems such as cars crashing into crossing arms or stalling in the middle of the tracks.

Watt Avenue is a primary artery, a designated truck route for business and industry in the Florin-Perkins area. It has one of only three American River crossings in unincorporated Sacramento County.

The 529-foot-long light-rail bridge, officials said, is the first in a series of projects to improve safety and congestion in the corridor.

Over the weekend, light-rail trains were moved onto the new bridge and off temporary tracks in place during bridge construction.

On Sunday, the trains took trial runs over the bridge, with officials testing the crossing signals as well as the smoothness of the ride.

Remaining work on the bridge project – including road and landscape improvements and light-rail station modifications – is scheduled to be completed this summer.

"Everybody south of the freeway is affected by this," Dugan said. "I'm looking forward to not being stopped for trains."

[the1_thedave]

^ Finally. That was a pain when I used to be down in that area and always travelled up and down that artery. For those that do now, I can imagine will notice a LOT less back up.

[econgrad]

I wish next the city would build a tunnel so the trains can go under midtown instead of creating traffic jams.

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, having and LRT subway like SF has with MUNI would do wonder for the central city and make a better route layout, IMO.

[wburg]

Eh. I can think of better things we could use the billion or two dollars it would cost to underground the UP mainline (and that's just in the central city, not counting the line through Land Park and parts south) to do...a couple minor backups a couple of times a day are pretty chump change compared to the kinds of cool stuff we could do with that kind of cash.

Subways just seem like an extravagance: once again, what else could be done with the hundreds of millions undergrounding the trains downtown would cost? A line to the airport? To Roseville? Down Sunrise, making a complete loop? Local streetcar lines, including extensions into Midtown, Southport, the Railyards, East Sacramento?

Maybe I just don't drive often enough, but even when I was driving to work downtown five days a week, I never had much problem with trains (freight or passenger) getting in my way.

[econgrad]

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 10:33am PST | Modified: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 11:06am
Regional Transit considers charging for parking
Sacramento Business Journal - by Melanie Turner Staff writer

In another effort to make up for a dramatic decrease in state funding, Sacramento Regional Transit will consider charging a $1-a-day user fee to park in light-rail station lots that could start in two months.

The move would generate an estimated $1 million a year for the cash-strapped district, said Mike Wiley, general manager and chief executive officer for the district.

It’s just one of several options the district is considering to either control costs or increase revenue. So far this year, the district has lost $24.2 million in state funding, Wiley said.

With additional cuts expected in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the loss to the district will total about $28 million, or close to 20 percent of the district’s $149 million operating budget, he said.

On Monday, the Regional Transit board asked staff to examine potential concerns related to the proposed parking lot fee, such as how the district might address concerns that may erupt if light-rail riders started parking in neighborhoods near light-rail stations. RT staff is expected to report to the board in late March, and a public hearing is set to follow in 60 to 90 days.

[chan011]

im writing a report for a Real Estate Investment class on a property located on K Street and I'm trying to find foot traffic data for K Street. Does anyone know where I might be able to find any useful data? Since there is no automobile transportation on K Street it makes finding any type of traffic information hard to find.

thanks

[sugit]

My guess is the Downtown Sacramento Partnership might have that info

http://www.downtownsac.org/

[sugit]

Here you go....take a look at page 3. There is also a phone # on there for more information.

http://www.downtownsac.org/digital_a...port-Q2-08.pdf

[Cynikal]

You can also give the Economic Development Dept at the City a call. I have a contact at my desk for K Street but I'm out of the office today.

[chan011]

Originally Posted by sugit

Here you go....take a look at page 3. There is also a phone # on there for more information.

http://www.downtownsac.org/digital_a...port-Q2-08.pdf

thank you very much.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by chan011

im writing a report for a Real Estate Investment class on a property located on K Street and I'm trying to find foot traffic data for K Street. Does anyone know where I might be able to find any useful data? thanks

Originally Posted by Majin

I couldn't resist.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I couldn't resist.

So true I pratically live on K street but the majority of my time is spent in Midtown.

[innov8]

The proposed Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility (SITF) is
planned to be developed in three phases and would include the a
realignment of existing rail tracks (Phase 1 estimated cost $56,169,000),
improvements to the existing Sacramento Valley Station, which includes the
current Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (Phase 2 estimated cost $21.9 million),
and eventual transformation of the Station into a multimodal transportation
center (future Phase 3 estimated cost $261.9 million).



Phase 1 would be constructed and fully operational in 2010. Phase 2 would
start construction in the first quarter of 2011, after the completion of
Phase 1, and would be completed in approximately 3 years. The timing of
Phase 3 is uncertain and depends on the build alternative selected and
availability of funding.



There are two alternatives in building the new terminal building to
accommodate projected providers and passengers for the new facility.
Alternative 1 is to not move the depot or alternative 2 is to move the depot
300 feet to the north next to the realigned tracks. Moving the Depot would
ensure that it would become the anchor for the new Depot District and
would generally shorten the connections between passenger modes.

The project has just completed a National Environmental Policy Act
Environmental Assessment evaluation and is open to public comment till
May 15, 2009. A public informational meeting will be held on April 22, 2009.

[SactownTom]

Before, I was against moving the depot, but looking at the proposals, I think option 2 is the better of the two.

There is a more cohesive layout between the intermodal facility and the old railroad buildings. The flow of pedestrian traffic will be better between downtown and the rail yards. I think 5th street will be particularly problematic with the curved bridge over the train tracks and the unappealing Greyhound depot on the Eastern edge of the plan. I can see that stopping pedestrian traffic in its tracks. Plan 2 extends 4th street into the Depot district, has a couple of public plazas along the way, and the tunnel to the rail yard buildings will make the passage more appealing.

One thing I would add to the plan is why not make the tunnel between the depot, Old Sac, and the Railyard Buildings truly inviting, ala Grand Central Station in New York? A grand subsurface plaza with shops, restaurants and public areas? I can see that area becoming a really exciting place.

[wburg]

The problem with grand subsurface plazas is that it requires a lot of subsurface excavation, which is expensive New York used subsurface plazas because the trains themselves are underground. The "don't move the depot" plan includes elevated walkways and subsurface tunnels, and the elevated area includes space for shops and restaurants above ground. The elevated concourse would also allow for people-movers or shuttle vehicles to get folks who would have trouble with the walk from the station to the trains. The end result would be something like the Los Angeles union station's current configuration, but with better views of the trains, the station, and the historic buildings across the tracks.

The "don't move the depot" plan is a lot less expensive, means we can start restoration and rehab on the depot now (instead of waiting until after the move) and means we will end up with a larger station with more capacity. Moving the depot would threaten its National Register status, not to mention the physical integrity of the building. It also means that the station itself wouldn't have to be taken out of service for the move: my fear is that it would be "temporarily" replaced with an Amshack, some hitch in the relocation would occur, and that would be our train station for the next 20 years.

I went in the reverse direction: originally I supported the depot move, now I don't think it's such a good idea.

[SactownTom]

I think my biggest fear about Plan A is 5th Street. The combination of the bridge over the tracks and the uninviting Greyhound station is going to stop pedestrians from walking from downtown to the Rail Yards. If there were as way to make the flow of foot traffic better I'd be for keeping the Depot in its current location.

[wburg]

Not sure if I understand, SactownTom: 5th Street forms a bridge over the tracks in both projects, and there is a Greyhound station in both plans. In either case, foot traffic from Downtown to the Railyards would be over 5th Street or 7th Street, or via the tunnels under the tracks at either end of the depot.

[SactownTom]

In the "move the depot" plan, the bus depot is to the north of the depot building. In the "don't move the depot" plan, the bus bays face 5th Street. You will essentially have 3 long blocks with dead space. It will stop ped traffic in its tracks.

I'm all for not moving the depot for the reasons you've mentioned, the cost being at the top of the list, but if the rail yards are going to be integrated into the city fabric, the plans need to be better thought out.


Why not get rid of the parking lot at the corner of 5th and I? If they are going to have a pedestrian bridge, it should really be dynamic and not just a way to get from the depot building to the train tracks. How about and elevated skyway that connects the old depot building to the terminal extension and to the old rail yard barns?