HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1021  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 10:14 PM
NickB1967 NickB1967 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 75
Decking I-5?

Whatever became of the proposals to deck I-5? To deck cover it from Capitol Mall to R Street would be swell.

The area on top could be landscaped for a park, have grid streets like N and R connected, have kiosks or other small buildings, etc.

I know that would be at least $500 million and counting, but that is still less costly than other proposals?

Last edited by NickB1967; Apr 10, 2014 at 11:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1022  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 11:01 PM
itsnine1six itsnine1six is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10
100 mil?

what would it be built out of, bamboo?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1023  
Old Posted Apr 10, 2014, 11:43 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 163
It was determined to be too expensive. As part of the alternative they are putting the access to Old Sacramento via 2nd street and building another bridge at N. I'm all for more access but an N street bridge really does seem like nowhere to nowhere.

But we should really just take the whole dang freeway out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1024  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 3:02 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Presumably a bridge across N Street could be more useful assuming development in the Docks area, not to mention on Lot X, assuming it doesn't become overflow arena parking. And yes, the main issue is that $500 million plus that decking I-5 would cost. Easier just to get rid of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1025  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 3:16 PM
NickB1967 NickB1967 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 75
Sorry, not going to happen

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo View Post
It was determined to be too expensive. As part of the alternative they are putting the access to Old Sacramento via 2nd street and building another bridge at N. I'm all for more access but an N street bridge really does seem like nowhere to nowhere.

But we should really just take the whole dang freeway out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And yes, the main issue is that $500 million plus that decking I-5 would cost. Easier just to get rid of it.
For a major north-south interstate? Not. Going. To. Happen.

A route for thru traffic must exist, unless you want to create even worse environmental problems, let alone logistical ones. That much more stop-and-go traffic which will mean *much* more exhaust than we get from vehicles moving at freeway speed. Gridlocked automobiles create twice the NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile as those operating at freeway speed.

Think about that. Taking out I-5 and having thru traffic stop-and-go would be the environmental equivalent of doubling the automobiles on the roads during rush hours for nitrogen oxide and sextupling them for carbon monoxide.

"Successful" freeway removals cited earlier were not demolitions of thru routes, they were removals of stubs/spurs and glorified offramps, like San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, which was only an offramp for Broadway from the Bay Bridge.

I suppose it would have been interesting had Interstate 5 been routed around Sacramento and closer to the bay area...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkin...57622139053795

...but Sacramento didn't want to miss out on the Interstate, and no other city did either.


Nope, Sacramento will ultimately have to do what Boston did, cost and all. And decking I-5 from Capitol Ave to R Street is still chump change compared to tunnelling from north of Capitol to Richards Blvd.

Last edited by NickB1967; Apr 11, 2014 at 4:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1026  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 5:07 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post

A route for thru traffic must exist,
How many times do we have to go over it?

There is a through route right now. It's called Hwy 50.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.5...e24074!1m0!3e0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1027  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 5:14 PM
NickB1967 NickB1967 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo View Post
How many times do we have to go over it?

There is a through route right now. It's called Hwy 50.

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/38.5...e24074!1m0!3e0
An east-west thru route combined with a north-south thru route? A guaranteed sextupling of emissions.

How many times do we have to go over it, indeed.

Last edited by NickB1967; Apr 13, 2014 at 4:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1028  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 5:55 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
An east-west thru route combined with a north-south thru route? A guaranteed sextupling of emissions.

How many times do we have to go over it, indeed.
Yes seriously, that isn't plasuable, will never happen.

Unless we get a Sacramento native governor, decking I5 won't happen. Maybe if KJ runs for mayor in another 5-7 years.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1029  
Old Posted Apr 11, 2014, 6:27 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
For a major north-south interstate? Not. Going. To. Happen.

A route for thru traffic must exist, unless you want to create even worse environmental problems, let alone logistical ones. That much more stop-and-go traffic which will mean *much* more exhaust than we get from vehicles moving at freeway speed. Gridlocked automobiles create twice the NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile as those operating at freeway speed.

Think about that. Taking out I-5 and having thru traffic stop-and-go would be the environmental equivalent of doubling the automobiles on the roads during rush hours for nitrogen oxide and sextupling them for carbon monoxide.

"Successful" freeway removals cited earlier were not demolitions of thru routes, they were removals of stubs/spurs and glorified offramps, like San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway, which was only an offramp for Broadway from the Bay Bridge.

I suppose it would have been interesting had Interstate 5 been routed around Sacramento and closer to the bay area...

https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkin...57622139053795

...but Sacramento didn't want to miss out on the Interstate, and no other city did either.


Nope, Sacramento will ultimately have to do what Boston did, cost and all. And decking I-5 from Capitol Ave to R Street is still chump change compared to tunnelling from north of Capitol to Richards Blvd.
I'm not saying a western I-5 bypass around West Sacramento is going to happen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of shortsighted people around here so I don't have much hope. Rather that I think it's the best solution for our situation. CalTrans even studied and proposed it, and you know what a bunch of crazy dreamers they are.

As far a downtown tunnel. After the Boston Tunnel mess I think people are going to think twice. Also I believe being so close to the river it might pose some problems.

But that is beside the point. A tunnel doesn't really solve much at all and it will not add developable land to the core. It's one of those stupid costly ideas that came from the Fargo administration. You know the same one who didn't want high-rises built along the riverfront.

You presume to know want would happen if I-5 were to be re-routed and the current downtown section turned into a surface street. But you do not know.
The traffic and environmental nightmare you envision is what we have today!

You go on and on about the environmental impacts and traffic congestion this would cause so let's look at those.

A western bypass could be built with 'best practices' to make the freeway as environmentally friendly as possible- catch and remediation system for freeway runoff, viaduct/causeway sections that lift the roadbed above wetlands and farmland, fencing that keeps birds from flying into traffic, very limited access so that commercial development would be discouraged, if not by-law banned, etc.

BTW the traffic and environmental nightmare you envision is what we have today!

If a section of the downtown freeway were to be replaced by a wide surface boulevard then the traffic that is now funneled into a few ramps would be redistributed over the larger area as it's tied into the grid's arterials. Sophisticated traffic signaling would ease congestion during rush-hour. My question to you is do you prefer stop and go traffic on a freeway during rush hour over stop and go traffic on a surface street?

We are only talking about a few, but very important blocks. And besides people are always much better at adapting than the tear-their-hair-out, beat their chest doomsayers give them credit for.

But the real environmental advantage here would be all the land freed up for infill development and how it would increase downtown Sacramento's value 100%. That means more people living downtown. That means less people commuting. More people using public transit. Less pollution and congestion.

Your other points re. examples of freeway removable elsewhere where already make by me earlier.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1030  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2014, 1:07 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
When people talk bad about Sacramento's waterfront, they tend to hyperfocus on Old Sacramento but that's just a four block stretch of over a mile of riverfront, the small portion of the old West End and industrial area that didn't get demolished. The main culprit is I-5. Covering the boat section adds a couple of blocks at a cost equal to or greater than the new arena project. Getting rid of it (by which I mean rerouting it west of West Sac and adding boulevards) gets rid of the real obstacle to riverfront development. The question is, if we can't move it, how do you deal with it? Or do we just accept that the waterfront is no man's land? How have other cities dealt with highways along their waterfront, other than covering or demolishing them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1031  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2014, 7:52 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
when people talk bad about sacramento's waterfront, they tend to hyperfocus on old sacramento but that's just a four block stretch of over a mile of riverfront, the small portion of the old west end and industrial area that didn't get demolished. The main culprit is i-5. Covering the boat section adds a couple of blocks at a cost equal to or greater than the new arena project. Getting rid of it (by which i mean rerouting it west of west sac and adding boulevards) gets rid of the real obstacle to riverfront development. The question is, if we can't move it, how do you deal with it? Or do we just accept that the waterfront is no man's land? How have other cities dealt with highways along their waterfront, other than covering or demolishing them?
nyc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1032  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2014, 11:45 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 294
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but how is decking up I-5 a couple of blocks supposed to cost 400 million?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1033  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2014, 11:53 PM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd View Post
Maybe I'm out of the loop, but how is decking up I-5 a couple of blocks supposed to cost 400 million?
thats def a lowball figure......closer to 750
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1034  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 3:38 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
nyc
Care to provide just a smidge more detail?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1035  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 6:04 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Care to provide just a smidge more detail?
west side highway and east side highway manhatten
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1036  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 3:43 PM
SoCal Alan SoCal Alan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 222
It's probably been mentioned before, but you could always direct traffic to the I-80 bypass, and then remove the I5 section in front of Old Sac.

Directing traffic in this fashion requires expansion of the connectors to smooth the flow of the volume of traffic, but it could be done. I would guess that most of the heavy traffic on I5 through downtown is local anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1037  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2014, 7:26 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCal Alan View Post
It's probably been mentioned before, but you could always direct traffic to the I-80 bypass, and then remove the I5 section in front of Old Sac.

Directing traffic in this fashion requires expansion of the connectors to smooth the flow of the volume of traffic, but it could be done. I would guess that most of the heavy traffic on I5 through downtown is local anyways.
It has been mentioned before. And you are right. Most the traffic is local. And that's a stickler for some. Those who only care about traffic flows (especially their own) will never understand why you'd force traffic around downtown on I-80. Unfortunately, until there's any serious discussion about it most people will be unable to comprehend it. But I think it's totally a viable option. It's also probably far more palatable for most people than a whole new freeway built through un-developed lands.

Yes it would require quite a bit of re-construction/expansion with additional lanes (which might be a problem since houses are backed up to the freeway on both sides), new bridge sections, ramps, fly-overs, etc. It would be a hassle for awhile but also be a jobs creator.

It's about time Sacramento gets some major $$$ infrastructure projects. I mean look at all the projects SF and LA area have had in the last 20 years.

Last edited by ozone; Apr 13, 2014 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1038  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 3:14 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Web View Post
west side highway and east side highway manhatten
What makes "west side highway and east side highway manhatten" better than Interstate 5?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1039  
Old Posted Apr 14, 2014, 6:50 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,256
202 Cyclist -

Yes the Zebra Club still exists. But I'm not sure good and dive bar belong I'm the same sentence. There's a lot better choices now. LowBrau/Block is a favorite "in" spot today. Funny thing is this Mercantile -the "old gay man" dive bar is now pretty mixed and hoping on weekends too. Btw the MVP/Skybox is now closed and a new restaurant called Guadalajara is opening where Headhunters is. Basically Headhunters has become a Latin club.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1040  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2014, 10:38 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,959


This particular ride is to promote understanding and appreciation of downtown Sacramento's concrete civic buildings from the 1950s-1980s. Concrete is not necessarily a "cold" material; it is a versatile one! It can be shaped into organic, curvilinear forms and makes a great backdrop for landscaping, art, and vibrant human activity. Several of these buildings also included energy savings and experimental ideas/techniques that contributed to the green building movement.

https://www.facebook.com/SacMod

Details in event link below.
http://www.eventbrite.com/e/concrete...ts-11337531863
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:09 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.