Sacramento Transportation

[wburg]

Not while UP is still using them--you have to have overhead power to run light rail, and the double-stacked cars on the old WP mainline are higher than the power lines. Unless you meant alongside the tracks, like they do south of R Street, using one side of the right-of-way. Why do you ask?

[ozone]

Yes I was meaning ruining along side the UP tracks. I was just wondering if they ever thought of running light-rail or a tram through Midtown utilizing the right-of-way?

[wburg]

Not that I know of, other than south of R Street where it already does. Some of the early plans for a historic streetcar line (from the 1970s) suggested a loop from Old Sacramento to around 21st, and the original Light Rail alignment was originally supposed to run east from the Convention Center to 18th Street, heading north alongside Blue Diamond and over the bridge over the American River that is now a bike/ped bridge (it used to be an electric railroad bridge) but I think there were still active freight spurs in the central city in the 1970s and early 80s when that was planned (now there's just the Bee spur at R Street.) I imagine that if the proposed streetcar alignment to West Sacramento gets built, the end-of-line point at 19th and K could feasibly turn south alongside the UP right-of-way (assuming they're willing to give it up) and meet up with the Blue Line at 19th and R. Or reconstruct the "wye" route between the WP mainline at Q near 19th to Whitney Avenue (the alley between Q and R) to connect with Blue Line or Gold Line going west at 16th Street. Then just reverse direction and you can cross the UP tracks, and build a spur line down Alhambra or 24th to Oak Park!

Speaking strictly theoretically here, of course. Hm.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

..the original Light Rail alignment was originally supposed to run east from the Convention Center to 18th Street, heading north alongside Blue Diamond and over the bridge over the American River..

That's too bad. I would have preferred that alignment to 12th Street.

I always thought that it would have been better to have run the Meadowview line up through Midtown to North Sacramento. That would have connected the two districts and helped the economy of both. That would probably require a new multilevel transfer station at 19th/R. But they could still run the Watt/I-80 and the Meadowview trains into downtown during peak commute hours.

I imagine that if the proposed streetcar alignment to West Sacramento gets built, the end-of-line point at 19th and K could feasibly turn south alongside the UP right-of-way (assuming they're willing to give it up) and meet up with the Blue Line at 19th and R. Or reconstruct the "wye" route between the WP mainline at Q near 19th to Whitney Avenue (the alley between Q and R) to connect with Blue Line or Gold Line going west at 16th Street. Then just reverse direction and you can cross the UP tracks, and build a spur line down Alhambra or 24th to Oak Park!

I like that idea! Honestly how optimistic that we'll see a streetcar in Sacramento in the next 10 years?

Also I was wondering why they do not run those old PG&E streetcars along the LRT tacks down K Street and through the downtown area?

I've always had a problem with light-rail running down K Street. The scale, noise and people waiting around for a train hurts some businesses. K Street just is not a wide enough arterial. If they could somehow stop the light rail from entering K Street after the evening rush (say the Watt Ave/I-80 line ends at 12th and K) and then run the old streets cars and/or a low-floor tram up and down K Street instead it would be much nicer.

[wburg]

Actually things are looking quite good in that respect. We have a plan, we have some electeds very interested in the project, and we have a willing partner across the river. Now it's just a simple matter of funding. Once the initial alignment is up and running, it's just a matter of figuring out where the expansion lines should run.

There aren't enough surviving PG&E cars to make up a streetcar fleet, and they are a multitude of different styles. That makes running a legacy fleet more complex. Rehabbing an old streetcar is actually cheaper than buying a new streetcar, but lacks advantages like air conditioning, low-floor entry, digital controls, and standardized parts that are still being manufactured. The current plan calls for using modern cars, but theoretically (assuming there was funding and interest) a couple of legacy cars could be rehabbed and used on special occasions.

K Street is 80 feet wide, the same width as every other street in the central city grid (except Capitol) so the width of the arterial isn't any different, but there is some talk about shifting light rail to H Street if a streetcar system is introduced.

Typically, people waiting for a train doesn't hurt businesses--in fact, train stations and waiting stops are typically good places for small vendors (newsstands, snack carts) and walk-by business, to take advantage of people who get bored or hungry waiting for a train, or people getting off the train who need to buy something.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

K Street is 80 feet wide, the same width as every other street in the central city grid (except Capitol) so the width of the arterial isn't any different, but there is some talk about shifting light rail to H Street if a streetcar system is introduced.

Yeah maybe you are right about the street width. It just seems more narrow to me. But why H Street? That's too far from K Street. Of course it might more convenient for county employees. Isn't LRT primarily a county project?

IMO it would be way better to extend the blue (south bound) line down 12th and turn onto L then back onto 7th. And the blue (northbound) line on 8th turn onto J Street and then back onto 12th.

Typically, people waiting for a train doesn't hurt businesses--in fact, train stations and waiting stops are typically good places for small vendors (newsstands, snack carts) and walk-by business, to take advantage of people who get bored or hungry waiting for a train, or people getting off the train who need to buy something.

I have to disagree with you here. In the ideal/fantasy scenario you may be right. But in reality, in downtown Sacramento that's not the case. The problem started to get worst when the Meadowview line opened. It allowed poorer and more ethnic people from South Sacramento to get downtown much faster and easier than the buses did. These poorer residents tend to be even less 'refined' and sophisticated than the professionals who work downtown and residents who might want to live there. Because they have less money they do not contribute much to the economy of our downtown. Nonetheless, their presence can make people feel uncomfortable. You and I may think that it is wrong and that racism plays a big part in it but it's the way it is. And because it has to do with the social psychology of crowds we'd be foolish to ignore this reality because it's distasteful.

[Bubb90]

Any thoughts on the two proposed expressways in the sacramento area...southeast connector in south sacramento and the south placer expressway?

[NME22]

Originally Posted by Bubb90

Any thoughts on the two proposed expressways in the sacramento area...southeast connector in south sacramento and the south placer expressway?

Link?

[wburg]

Southeast Connector:

http://www.connectorjpa.net/

That's why the new Cordova Hills subdivision is being planned. New freeways means new suburbs.

[Bubb90]

Thank you for the link wburg..and the link for the placer expressway is old and outdated...I personally think the sacramento area lacks freeways

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

on skyscraper forum anything related to suburbs is considered evil

[ozone]

Originally Posted by v.o.r.t.e.x

on skyscraper forum anything related to suburbs is considered evil

Not true. Although it should be in the right thread. It would help if something a little more interesting than another boring anywhere USA suburban development were proposed. Sorry but The Fountains and Galleria are just big *yawns* for anyone who been to anywhere.

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

Originally Posted by ozone

Not true. Although it should be in the right thread. It would help if something a little more interesting than another boring anywhere USA suburban development were proposed. Sorry but The Fountains and Galleria are just big *yawns* for anyone who been to anywhere.

Honestly, I like Palladio in Folsom, possibly the best spot in suburban sac area.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Bubb90

I personally think the sacramento area lacks freeways

This is a joke, right? Doesn't Sacramento and much of the Central Valley have some of the worst air quality in the US? Also, more freeways means more sprawl which means more traffic which means more freeways....

[Bubb90]

I personally don't mind sprawl and plus I don't see it stopping anytime soon, and we really do lack freeways. For example look at the original freeway system proposed back in the idk 60s it had highway 65 coming all the way down into south sacramento plus more extensions and freeways.

[wburg]

Plenty of people do mind sprawl--and the best way to limit horizontal sprawl is by limiting freeway expansion. Sprawl sucks the life out of cities and poisons the landscape.

[ltsmotorsport]

What wburg and 202 cyclist said. Continuing to gobble up land for the newest fad in development instead of reinvesting in existing neighborhoods is short-sighted and based upon what can be a lot of times be easy to finance, not what's best for the community or region.

[NME22]

I don't like sprawl. Unfortunately, Sac doesn't have any natural boundaries preventing much of the sprawl. It's losing battle to prevent it when there is all that open land and developers with pockets full of cash. I think it's smarter to get in front of it and get the freeway in, or you still get the sprawl, but with a whole lot more traffic congestion.

My opinion is a good way to counteract it is to try to make the urban areas more appealing. Fighting to stop some of these large projects is less productive than creating an attractive alternative to balance it out.

[wburg]

You still get the traffic congestion when you expand freeways, but you also get more sprawl to go with it. Expanding freeways to ease traffic congestion is like telling everyone you're going on a diet but just buying bigger clothes so they look like you've lost weight. You just expand to fit the new space.

Sacramento doesn't have natural boundaries, but neither did Portland. They put a state-enforced, regional boundary in place, which drove development energy into infill and towards the urban core, and backed it up with a full-strength transit plan and more intensive development through the region. In Sacramento we have the Blueprint, which has no enforcement authority whatsoever, and developers threaten to sue if people even claim that their sprawl projects go against the Blueprint.

[NME22]

Originally Posted by wburg

You still get the traffic congestion when you expand freeways, but you also get more sprawl to go with it. Expanding freeways to ease traffic congestion is like telling everyone you're going on a diet but just buying bigger clothes so they look like you've lost weight. You just expand to fit the new space.

Not building a freeway to stop sprawl, is like denying teenagers birth control to stop them from having sex. Houses will get built. Developers will develop with or without freeways.