Sacramento Transportation

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by ozone

Er.. I think you don't understand the problem Web. Maybe for someone who's been taking the train for years the system makes sense but the problem is that on the K or O street ped. malls if you are not familiar with a particular station you don't always know where to catch the train let alone notice the yellow markers on the ground.

There's no clear signage saying "wait here for train" or "go down there". For example, last week several people from out-of-town were waiting in front of the Cathedral for the Folsom train. Since the ticket machines and ramps are almost directly across from the Cathedral they assumed that if they crossed over to the other side then they'd be able to board the train going east. That's a logical assumption since that's how it works at most of the suburban stations. But nope not on K Street. To catch the train you have to go down to the Crest -so once they realized that the train wasn't stopping they ran to catch it..but didn't of course. I was in front of Golden One on O Street the other day. Now I normally don't get off there but I did that day and then assumed that I would catch the train going back at the same place (but on the other side) -nope..again it's down on the next block. I was kind of on autopilot that day so I wasn't thinking how stupid the system is and act accordingly.. and of course I missed my train.

I've lived in and visited many cities and by far Sacramento is the worst when it comes to creating a readable, user-friendly rail system -especially downtown which is why I strongly support the consoildation of the stations on K street.

I'm right there with you, Ozone, in complete agreement!

I suspect RT has known for a long time they should do something about this, but they are too stupid to figure out what to do. (I'm just as stupid right now because I'm not sure what to do about it either, except to provide big clear signs indicating where to catch the right train!). I've seen out-of-towners running and missing trains over and over again because of this.

On another note, when are they going to convert to low-floor boardings? Those train operators must have a disproportionate amount of workmens comps claims based on bending up and down to drop that floor so wheelchairs and ADA folks can board and de-board. Geez.

[Dieler]

Originally Posted by ozone

I got the idea of an "Capitol Metro" when I read that Chicago's Metra shared the tracks with freight trains on some of their lines.

I beleive the freight railroad that owns the tracks also owns and operates Metra.

[northbay]

^ ozone, the idea of a "capital metro" is a good one. the tracks would have to be doubled (and electrified depending on the vehicle). it would be sick is sac had commuter rail, light rail AND streetcar. am i dreaming?
i could be wrong here, but i thought sac is (was?) good at jump starting light rail lines on the cheap (single track etc.) and then upgrading them as traffic on the system increases. is this still the case? since the extension to the amtrak station is complete, what is the next extension?

[creamcityleo79]

The South Line Extension Phase II is the next extension from the current Meadowview Station to CRC. Construction may start next year and be completed by 2010.

[ozone]

BrianSac the train operator mentioned those ramps as being a problem in delaying the trains and said they are trying to convert to low-floor boarding but of course they need money to do that. He complained that what he hates is all the overweight people who really aren't disabled but make him get out and open the doors for them because they can't be bothered to climb the steps. (BTW he was overweight himself)

I think you're right Dieler about Metra but since Amtrak operates on UP tracks now I don't see why thsi couldn't work..but again I don't know enough about it.

I was a little harsh calling it a "stupid" system. Yes as much as I complain about RT they have managed to create a light-rail system that is pretty good considering their financial constraints.

northbay420 There are two extensions in-the-works one that would extend the current south line to consumes river college and the other that would run from downtown to the airport. The problem, as always, is funding.
The problem with extending a light-rail to Roseville/Rocklin is that there seem little will in Placer County to make it happen. Right now light-rail only runs within Sacramento County.

[wburg]

Chicago's Metra system is just an updated extension of its historic network of old steam railroads and electric interurbans. Part of why they have Metra is because there are just so many different railroad lines that lead to Chicago: it was and is the main railroad connection point for the center of the country. Pretty much every major railroad system in the nation had one end in Chicago. In addition, from the mid 1880s to early 1900s a growing network of electric interurbans spread out from downtown Chicago into the little farm towns surrounding the city, turning them into suburbs of Chicago.

While the automobile put the electric interurbans out of business, the right of way often remained in place, as did the old stations. A lot of Metra stations, especially those in the suburbs, are actually old interurban stations (at least the ones that didn't get knocked down.) Many of them were simply updated and refurbished, and now play the same historic role (sound familiar?)

Adding tracks to the current mainline, even just from Davis to Rocklin, would be extremely difficult. You can't just shoehorn more tracks into the same width of right-of-way. This causes difficulties several ways. In cities, it would mean taking over another 20-30 feet of land, most of which is already occupied. In less built-up areas, it means adding a crossover or a diamond wherever a switch leaves the mainline. Diamonds are avoided whenever possible, crossovers add a lot of maintenance and expense. In hilly areas, cuts and fills would have to be expanded, requiring extensive engineering work. The biggest problem, though, would be West Sacramento to Davis: for each additional track, you have to build another trestle. The end result would be no less expensive than running a separate "light rail trestle" from Sacramento to Davis--in fact, because it would have to be built to handle the greater weight and speed of passenger trains, it would end up costing even more.

Getting UP to donate ANYTHING, let alone potentially billions of dollars worth of land, engineering work, right-of-way, tracklaying crews and track, maintenance costs...it boggles the mind, to say the least.

That doesn't even include the added complexity of adding an entirely different trainset and set of schedules to the mix.

Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't ways to do it. Adding additional trainsets to the Capitol Corridor fleet, and running with higher frequency, doesn't seem like a bad idea, as well as running them later. Having several classes of service, like an express train and a local, would allow more station stops, although you'd need to build (or reopen) new stations: West Sacramento, Dixon and Vacaville would be good choices.

There is also an option that can be used on non-electrified lines: there is a system called DLR, Diesel Light Rail, which are basically an LRV with a diesel-electric powerplant at one end. It's essentially an updated version of what used to be called a "gas motor car" or "doodlebug," which steam railroads used to carry passengers on local lines that didn't justify a full passenger trainset, from about 1910 until the 1960s. However, DLR lines are generally used on their own, on rails that were inherited from freight lines in places where electrification isn't practical (Folsom-Placerville would be an idea) and putting them in the mix with freight trains and diesel passenger trains would just be asking for trouble.

[wburg]

oh yeah: I wouldn't hold my breath for low-floor LRVs here. All of Sacramento's stations are set up for high-floor boarding ramps, the original Siemens U2 cars are 25 years old but probably have at least another quarter-century of life, and the new CAF cars have probably a half-century lifespan.

And even low-floor cars have stairs, you have to have them to clear the trucks--it's just low-floor boarding.

[innov8]

Placer County details five alternative routes for parkway project
Sacramento Business Journal By Melanie Turner

Monday, July 2, 2007

A full environmental study of the Placer Parkway project has been released for public review and comment.

The $660 million, 15-mile Placer Parkway would take traffic off Interstate 80 and provide a link between Highway 65 and Highways 70 and 99 in south Sutter County. Planning for the parkway began more than a decade ago.

The draft environmental report outlines five alternative routes to reduce pressure on existing roads and improve regional access for businesses.

The public can provide input by writing to the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency or by attending public hearings set for 7 p.m. Aug. 6 at the Veterans Memorial Community Center in Yuba City, or 7 p.m. Aug. 8 at the Roseville City Hall Council Chambers.

Public comments must be received by Aug. 20. The document is available online at www.pctpa.org and at local planning departments and libraries. For locations, call 530-823-4030.

A preferred route will be recommended in a final environmental-impact report, expected to be released by next summer.

"The Placer Parkway is a critical part of our region's long-term transportation infrastructure, and we are dedicated to making it happen in the most efficient way possible," Celia McAdam, executive director of the South Placer Regional Transportation Authority, said in a news release. "Through public awareness and active participation, this and other important congestion relief projects, can be implemented."




Shot at 2007-07-02


This is the Lincoln Bypass that will link up to the Placer Parkway. The cost
for this would be $294 million.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Any news whether Aeromexico will began service to Mexico City on Sunday?

There's been no hint that that service is going to start anytime soon. Aeromexico has a history of securing authority for routes that it never actually uses.

[ozone]

wburg I was waiting for your knowledgeble input.

Adding an "local" train to the existing Capitol Corridor and running it with higher frequency and adding more station stops seems like a fairly easy thing to do -at least it seem so when compared to building a whole new light-rail line. Although I was thinking it should go the other way (UC Davis to Roseville/Rockin) since there's more more traffic congestion/people/need along the I-80 corridor NE of Sac. and besides to me Vacaville is out of the Sacramento Region. If you extend it out to Vacaville then it stops being a "local" train and would defeat it's purpose.

Aren't there smaller (single level) coaches that could be used?

I see your point about low-floor LRV. This is going to sound silly but could they have a raised platform -at least for one or two cars? I remember being on a bus in Europe (I can't remember where I was but I think it was in Spain) which we boarded from a raised platform and as the bus pulled up a metal (plank?) came out so we could walk straight onto the bus.

[travis bickle]

In San Diego, we have the "Coaster' which uses the standard rail track operated by Santa Fe. 11 trains in each direction a day from Oceanside to downtown San Diego. Eight stations total covering about 35 miles. In addition, Amtrak also runs 10 trains a day available to commuters (but at a higher price than the Coaster) that stops in four stations, Oceanside, Solana Beach, Old Town and Downtown.

There is additional service on Friday nights and frequent weekend service.

Any day of the week, you can count on about 20 trains a day in each direction, all on mainline track.

I live near the Solana Beach station and have used both of these countless times. The only problem is that they are so popular that parking at the SB lot is often very difficult. There are plans currently under review for a TOD at Solana Beach that includes greater parking in a multi-story garage. Of course, the neighborhood is protesting...

[wburg]

travis bickle: The Capitol Corridor has sixteen trains a day from Colfax to San Jose. They could feasibly add a couple more (as well as overnight trains) but adding locals greatly mixes things up on what is already a very busy route: most of the freight that ends up at Bay Area ports gets hauled out via the same Cal-P route that the Capitols take, plus the Coast Starlight and the California Zephyr.

The problem with locals (trains that do a lot of station stops) is that they're slow: every stop means more slowing down and speeding up and loading passengers, which means schedules get thrown off. If the Capitols were particularly cheek-to-jowl overloaded through those particular stations, they might consider a local but there's still the problem of how to fit it in the schedule, and how to make it pay. Like building buildings, transportation infrastructure also needs to "pencil."

Although there's one other factor at work: Santa Fe (aka BNSF, the Burlington Northern/AT&SF merger) is more amenable to operating passenger/commuter service than Union Pacific (BNSF also operates Chicago's Metra, for example.) If Amtrak had its own track, like the Northeast Corridor, or we had a railroad that considered passengers something other than an annoying obstacle, a local might be more feasible.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

travis bickle: The Capitol Corridor has sixteen trains a day from Colfax to San Jose. They could feasibly add a couple more (as well as overnight trains) but adding locals greatly mixes things up on what is already a very busy route: most of the freight that ends up at Bay Area ports gets hauled out via the same Cal-P route that the Capitols take, plus the Coast Starlight and the California Zephyr.

The problem with locals (trains that do a lot of station stops) is that they're slow: every stop means more slowing down and speeding up and loading passengers, which means schedules get thrown off. If the Capitols were particularly cheek-to-jowl overloaded through those particular stations, they might consider a local but there's still the problem of how to fit it in the schedule, and how to make it pay. Like building buildings, transportation infrastructure also needs to "pencil."

Although there's one other factor at work: Santa Fe (aka BNSF, the Burlington Northern/AT&SF merger) is more amenable to operating passenger/commuter service than Union Pacific (BNSF also operates Chicago's Metra, for example.) If Amtrak had its own track, like the Northeast Corridor, or we had a railroad that considered passengers something other than an annoying obstacle, a local might be more feasible.

Yeah, I've heard that UP is exceedingly difficult to forge these kinds of agreements with. My point is that even on busy routes, local trains are feasible with cooperation among all the parties. The Santa Fe line to San Diego is the only real line to the entire region and is also packed with freight trains. Yet somehow, they make it work and much of it is on a single-track.

[wburg]

"Exceedingly difficult" is almost an understatement. They don't want passenger service, they don't want Amtrak, and they don't want to keep the track maintained to passenger-rail standards.

For all practical purposes, the Capitol Corridor is a local: adding a few CC trainsets would probably serve the purpose of a short-run local without adding as much complexity to the schedule.

[BrianSac]

Care of Sacramento Bee, July 4, 2007:
* * *

Escape route: Frontier Airlines may expand its service between Sacramento and Los Cabos, Mexico.

The airline has three weekly flights between the two cities, on aircraft that hold 132 passengers.

Daily flights -- on 76-seat regional jets, operated for Frontier by Republic Airlines -- would start Oct. 24 if applications with U.S. and Mexican authorities are approved, says Frontier spokesman Joe Hodas.

The new flights would mean 136 more seats each week and greater flexibility for travelers.

Mexicana Airlines, which started serving the Sacramento-Cabo route with four weekly flights in 2004, also has had success in that market, says airport spokeswoman Cheryl Marcell.

What is it that attracts so many Sacramentans to the Baja resort area?

For one thing, it has a California feel, Marcell says. Another reason is proximity. "You can get there in a couple of hours and make a weekend of it," she says.

* * *

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Care of Sacramento Bee, July 4, 2007:
* * *


* * *

WTF...my record store may be moving? That sucks

[wburg]

Here's something many of you might be interested in...Caltrans is moving forward on adding HOV lanes to Highway 50, and there is a longer-range plan to add lanes to I-5 and I-80 as well. A local group connected to ECOS is filing a lawsuit to try and stop the freeway expansion. Details are below:

> VERY TIME SENSITIVE - PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY AND MAKE YOUR DONATION NOW!
>
> *********
>
> On June 25th Caltrans approved a project to add lanes to Highway 50
> for what APPEARS to be a noble cause: carpool lanes. What's not to
> like?
>
> The PROBLEM: These lanes will only be carpool lanes a few hours of
> the day. The vast majority of the time, they will be UNRESTRICTED,
> BUSINESS-AS-USUAL HIGHWAY LANES which means 25% MORE CAPACITY for
> CARS AND TRUCKS and the GRIDLOCK and POLLUTION THEY CREATE.
>
> Despite that, Caltrans has the AUDACITY to claim that the project
> "will not have a significant effect on the environment." YES, YOU
> READ THAT RIGHT. They claim that adding new lanes will not increase
> car trips, gas consumption or air pollution.
>
> More lanes means more cars and more AGGRAVATION. Who hasn't felt
> ROAD RAGE being stuck in traffic, burning ever-more-costly gas,
> breathing fumes and getting nowhere? There is an epidemic of OBESITY
> in this country, partly because most of us are stuck in our cars and
> can't easily walk or take transit to our destinations. Serious car
> accidents, skyrocketing insurance premiums, lifelong health
> problems. IT DOESN'T HAVE BE THIS WAY. We CAN become a society less
> dependent on cars, with healthier, more enjoyable and less costly
> options for getting around quickly and conveniently.
>
> We believe that carpool lanes have a place in our future
> transportation plans. But WE THINK OUR GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE HONEST
> ABOUT THEIR REAL IMPACTS, and allow for public debate about their
> total costs and benefits relative to alternatives like light rail,
> commuter rail, expanded bus service, and neighborhood shuttles.
>
> The time to shift our public investment to support more sustainable
> transportation is NOW. RIGHT NOW. LET'S NOT ALLOW THIS BEHEMOTH
> BUREAUCRACY TO PRETEND THAT EXPANDING ROADS WILL NOT EFFECT OUR
> QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
>
> Neighbors Advocating Sustainable Transportation (NAST) is a
> Sacramento coalition of neighborhood, community and environmental
> associations. We have no staff. We have no budget. But we have a
> vision of a better future for Sacramento.
>
> WE HAVE ONLY UNTIL JULY 25, 2007 to file a lawsuit to STOP THIS
> PROJECT, so we need to raise money to hire a lawyer RIGHT NOW.
> Friends of ECOS is hosting a litigation fund for NAST.
>
> Please spread the word about this critical need. MAKE YOUR CHECK OUT
> TO "FRIENDS OF ECOS", include a note directing it to the NAST
> Litigation Fund, and send your donation NOW to:
>
> FRIENDS OF ECOS
> 909 12th Street, Suite 100
> Sacramento CA 95814
>
> **************
>
> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIMELY SUPPORT!!!
>
> For more information about NAST, please visit http://
> nastsacramento.blogspot.com/

I think it was a quote from Kenneth Jackson's "Crabgrass Frontier": "Adding freeway lanes to reduce traffic congestion is like buying a bigger belt to lose weight."

[wburg]

A worthwhile idea--regenerative braking is actually an old idea, older streetcars with simpler motor arrangements did it pretty much by default (when you stop applying power to an electric motor, it becomes a generator.)

http://www.sacbee.com/103/story/286385.html

Light rail on green track
Energy system up for test could save money and cut pollution.
By Merek Siu - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, July 23, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D2

Print | E-Mail | Comments (6)| Digg it | del.icio.us




Ask any superhero: It's not easy to stop a speeding train.

But when it does grind to a halt, energy resulting from normal braking is lost as heat, dispersed into the air around the city.

Regional Transit and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District plan to put this energy to use. They are planning to test soon a regenerative braking system for light rail's Folsom line.

Similar to the system in popular gas-electric hybrid vehicles, braking energy from the electric-powered trains will be captured and sent back into power lines to boost the acceleration of trains as they leave the station. The technology was developed by Sacramento-based Siemens Transportation Systems.

While modest savings of $25,000 a year are expected, this move toward green technology is in line with a vision for the region held by some politicians and businesses.

That vision was highlighted at a clean-energy forum in Sacramento last week.

"Our region can use clean energy technology to become what Silicon Valley became during the dot-com explosion but with a more sustainable outcome," said Matthew Mahood, president and CEO of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.

At the forum, Mahood announced the goal of creating 20,000 jobs directly or indirectly associated with clean-energy technologies by 2015. With more than 60 such companies in the region, the chamber of commerce has set its sights on turning the state capital into the world capital for clean energy technology.

Efforts to date have been noticed. The current issue of Fast Company magazine highlighted Sacramento as a "city on the verge" of becoming a green leader.

With clean energy gaining momentum, Bill Boyce, supervisor of the electric transportation group at SMUD foresees a big increase in the number of vehicles on U.S. roads running on biofuels or powered by a combination of gasoline, ethanol and electricity.

Hybrid cars like Toyota's Prius use regenerative braking technology. But where the Prius channels energy to batteries, the system to be tested at RT uses special capacitors.

Banks of these devices, each about the size of three "D" batteries stacked on top of each other, store energy. However, they release energy much more quickly than batteries. This surge of energy can be tapped in the 30 seconds it takes a train to get up to its cruising speed of 55 mph. Forty percent of the energy from braking can be recovered and sent back to accelerating trains.

Oliver Hauck, CEO of Siemens Transportation Systems, said the energy storage system allows trains to share power, let current infrastructure support more trains with fewer substations and shave expensive peak power demands. RT expects a 7 percent reduction in energy use and an 8 percent drop in peak demand. This translates into 175 tons of prevented carbon dioxide emissions, Hauck said.

Reliable service, however, is the most important benefit of the technology, according to Mike Wiley, deputy general manager at Regional Transit.

Last summer, long stretches of days with temperatures above 100 degrees led to soaring electricity demands. Huge spikes in power caused RT substations to go off-line, stranding trains without power about a half-dozen times.

Regional Transit hopes this system will help prevent such service disruptions.

Other than increased reliability, riders probably won't notice much after the energy system is installed. The energy storage device will be housed in an inconspicuous 10-foot cubicle close to existing stations.

Besides hooking the system up to overhead wires, no further retrofitting of trains, tracks or stations is expected. Maintenance costs should be low since there are no moving parts.

Similar systems running in Cologne, Germany and Madrid, Spain, gave the California Energy Commission and SMUD confidence to move forward with a $400,000 grant that should make Sacramento the nation's first mass transit system to implement the Siemens' energy storage technology.

"Sacramento, for us, is a perfect test site," said Hauck. "We found a good set of partners, in SMUD, Regional Transit and local political support. Everything came together just perfectly."

[TowerDistrict]

What I wonder is if anyone is actually in favor of Caltrans plan to add these HOV lanes? I just don't see anyone even utilizing them, unless they're getting a $350 ticket.

Groups sue Caltrans over Highway 50 plans
Sacramento Business Journal - 11:05 AM PDT Thursday, July 26, 2007
by Melanie Turner, Staff writer

A local environmental organization and a group of neighborhoods on Wednesday jointly filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation challenging the adequacy of Caltrans' environmental study of its plan to add carpool lanes on Highway 50.

Caltrans proposes adding eastbound and westbound high-occupany-vehicle lanes in the median of a heavily congested 13-mile stretch of Highway 50 between Sunrise Boulevard and downtown Sacramento. Caltrans has said carpool lanes encourage people to ride together and take mass transit, which removes vehicles from the road.

But the environmental group and neighborhood associations have argued that while it might sound like an eco-friendly idea, it would generate more traffic on the freeway and in downtown neighborhoods.

The Environmental Council of Governments and Neighbors Advocating Sustainable Transportation jointly filed the complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court. The organizations contend that adding the lanes would encourage sprawl and exacerbate the region's traffic and air quality woes.

The complaint cites deficiencies in Caltrans' environmental impact analysis for the proposed highway expansion, including "the failure of Caltrans to estimate the impacts of increased traffic volumes and total vehicle miles traveled that would result from adding a lane to Highway 50," a press release issued by the organizations states.

The organizations also want an in-depth comparison of the benefits of adding the lanes to 50 versus light-rail and other transportation alternatives.

"Caltrans needs to be upfront about the impacts of freeway expansion on our environment -- worse air quality, increased sprawl, increased traffic, and a reduction in quality of life for people in greater Sacramento," Karen Jacques, a NAST representative, said in a prepared statement.

A representative from Caltrans declined to comment, saying the department's attorney is still reviewing the complaint.

[squintstopher]

I tend to agree with the environmental groups on this. Do carpool lanes change the way people drive? I really don't think so. And seriously... they're adding another lane and hoping that traffic will decrease or something? Sounds like flawed logic to me. The money, and perhaps the right-of-way, ought to go towards mass transit. Double track the light rail to folsom or add a dedicated bus rapid transit lane!