HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1141  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2015, 3:32 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
80 between Fairfield and Sacramento is a stop-and-go mess every holiday weekend for the past 20-30 years.

To get 150 MPH speeds, you'd need an entirely new rail alignment between Oakland and Sacramento--Union Pacific owns the track, and they're in the freight business. Amtrak Northeast Corridor can only manage 150 MPH tracks because they own the right of way and freight trains don't run on it. That's a large chunk of change, for track that would be just short of high-speed-rail alignment. The inexpensive part runs through swamps and floodplain, the expensive part through Contra Costa County and Alameda County runs through mountains and some of the most expensive real estate in the state (and if you think Sacramento's neighborhoods can make noise when a project comes through, you never saw the East Bay in action.) And then there's that whole "build another bridge" issue. Considering that Amtrak's east coast plan for Acella service from Boston-Washington is estimated to cost about $124 billion, a trip four times as long, figure around $30-40 billion for a comparably structured Sacramento-East Bay alignment.

There are plans underway to expand Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin service, adding a third track to Roseville and increasing the total number of trains. Capitol Corridor isn't fast, but it's not that slow--and with Wi-Fi on the train, a business commuter can get a lot of work done to and from their destination. And it's already less expensive than driving to San Francisco solo, including gas, tolls, and parking. Adding more trains helps some of that throughput. Maybe not the level of improvement you're hoping for, but an incremental step that will facilitate more commuter traffic.

In the long run, it might be simpler to facilitate stronger data communication links between Sacramento and the Bay Area--making it easier to telecommute from Sacramento to San Francisco and save some of that transit time entirely.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1142  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 4:14 PM
stepper77's Avatar
stepper77 stepper77 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: East Bay
Posts: 2,254
Not one to normally advocate for wider freeways, but, the reality is that traffic between Sacramento and Fairfield are due in large part because demand has overgrown the freeway capacity. In Fairfield things can open up because the freeway lanes expand. There's also always a massive backup at the junction of 50/80 in West Sac before the causeway heading toward the Bay, and frequent backup in Davis heading to Sac as the freeway lanes shrink towards the causeway on the otherside. Most of this traffic I'd argue is Bay Area people travelling through Sacramento to other destinations for the weekend/holiday.

Having said that, I also would support expanding/speeding up Amtrak service between Sacramento/Bay Area. I recently moved to Sacramento from Oakland, where I still work, to buy a house. I take Amtrak from Davis to Richmond and hop on Bart to my office by the 19th Street Bart station. I leave my house in South Natomas at 6:00 am and get to work at 8:20. On the occasions I've driven, I've left the same time and arrived around 7:40 with traffic. I leave work at 5:10 and get home about 7:30-7:40. The train portion of my trip between Davis/Richmond is 70 minutes. Not terribly slow, but, definitely could speed that up. Occasionally, we get stopped by boats passing under the bridge over the straight, by, otherwise, it isn't a bad commute. The wifi and plugs for your laptop (or the comfortable seats to nap) help pass the time. And the trains are pretty full. But, having faster travel times/more frequent service would make my commute more flexible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1143  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 5:59 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepper77 View Post
Not one to normally advocate for wider freeways, but, the reality is that traffic between Sacramento and Fairfield are due in large part because demand has overgrown the freeway capacity. In Fairfield things can open up because the freeway lanes expand. There's also always a massive backup at the junction of 50/80 in West Sac before the causeway heading toward the Bay, and frequent backup in Davis heading to Sac as the freeway lanes shrink towards the causeway on the otherside. Most of this traffic I'd argue is Bay Area people travelling through Sacramento to other destinations for the weekend/holiday.

Having said that, I also would support expanding/speeding up Amtrak service between Sacramento/Bay Area. I recently moved to Sacramento from Oakland, where I still work, to buy a house. I take Amtrak from Davis to Richmond and hop on Bart to my office by the 19th Street Bart station. I leave my house in South Natomas at 6:00 am and get to work at 8:20. On the occasions I've driven, I've left the same time and arrived around 7:40 with traffic. I leave work at 5:10 and get home about 7:30-7:40. The train portion of my trip between Davis/Richmond is 70 minutes. Not terribly slow, but, definitely could speed that up. Occasionally, we get stopped by boats passing under the bridge over the straight, by, otherwise, it isn't a bad commute. The wifi and plugs for your laptop (or the comfortable seats to nap) help pass the time. And the trains are pretty full. But, having faster travel times/more frequent service would make my commute more flexible.
My experience is that W. Sacramento to Fairfield can be stop and go any time of the day and week, but generally worse during commute times. Seems to get worse year after year. Glad to have someone post with experience of commuting it everyday.

There are plans to expand the yolo bypass bridge 1 or 2 lanes in each direction but nothing past Davis that I am aware of.

Cap corridor will always be limited as long as it doesn't have its own right away. I think this project is one that is worthy to spend billions on because it would solve a big issue. I really think if the cap corridor had 45 minute Sac to SF service (or even 1 hour), it would be a very popular route and would probably convince people to give up their cars. Because as you mentioned right now, the train is often slower than driving, and should be the other way around.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1144  
Old Posted Jul 10, 2015, 7:55 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
The problem is, why would we want to spend a big pile of billions just to encourage long-distance commuting from Sacramento to San Francisco, especially by automobile (and who would spend it? The state? The city? The feds? Bay Area governments?)? It would put us in the same position of low-density, low-rise San Jose, which shrinks from being the 10th biggest city in the country to the 14th every weekday, as a couple hundred thousand people race north up the Peninsula to work and back, a situation that is causing problems for San Jose's finances. If we've got a lot of money to spend on transportation projects, spending it on more robust local transit (24 hour, high frequency light rail, bus and streetcar) and higher-frequency regional rail (more Capitol Corridor trains per day, starting from Auburn instead of Sacramento to serve Sacramento commuters in Placer County) seems like a better return on investment. And what good does it do Sacramento to make it easier for Bay Area travelers to drive through Sacramento on their way to the mountains more quickly?

The more I think about it, the more a gigabit Internet connection between Sacramento and the Bay Area is a really good idea--it's a way to "commute" without the drive or train ride, and thus more "green," but allows those who want to live in Sacramento and maintain employment at Bay Area firms. As the number of local tech employees continues to grow, the opportunities for local firms to incubate and evolve also grows. Heck, Austin is considered a tech hub but tech is only 4% of their workforce, here it's about 2%, so a small demographic shift is all it really needs--and considering the relative unimportance of "place" in the tech world, digital proximity/access seems more important than physical proximity/access. Sacramento has been a regional crossroads and connector for nearly 175 years; time to step up our role as a digital highway, following the tradition of river, rail and roads?

Of course, the irony is that there was an electric railroad that ran from Sacramento to Oakland in less than two hours, 100 years ago...
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1145  
Old Posted Dec 6, 2015, 1:36 AM
Deno Deno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Does anybody know who the consumers River Road extension will be open to hwy 5.
I went by there a few weeks ago and looked completed not sure why they are not opening it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1146  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2015, 9:25 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
I think mid December was the new opening date for Cosumnes River Road, not sure on the exact date. Lot of Elk Grovians are eagerly awaiting it though.

Reading the Bee's latest article on the green line, I noticed this nugget that I haven't seen discussed here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SacBee
Councilwoman Ashby is among those who say they prefer to see the rail line run along I-5. “Truxel is an incredibly impacted artery,” she said. “Adding a train ... feels invasive.”
Ugggh. Glad I wasn't planning on voting for her anyways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1147  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2015, 9:36 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Running the Green line up I-5 is a joke. It's mostly residential unlike Truxel where the destinations are.

Last edited by Pistola916; Dec 9, 2015 at 9:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1148  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2015, 9:46 PM
LandofFrost's Avatar
LandofFrost LandofFrost is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korey View Post
I think mid December was the new opening date for Cosumnes River Road, not sure on the exact date. Lot of Elk Grovians are eagerly awaiting it though.

Reading the Bee's latest article on the green line, I noticed this nugget that I haven't seen discussed here:



Ugggh. Glad I wasn't planning on voting for her anyways.

I can't believe she wants to build it along I-5... that would make it 100x harder for people in the neighborhood to use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1149  
Old Posted Dec 9, 2015, 11:18 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandofFrost View Post
I can't believe she wants to build it along I-5... that would make it 100x harder for people in the neighborhood to use.
Shes a joke. Another Fargo (so i'm sure she has wburg's vote wrapped up). Luckily she has no chance of winning.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1150  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2015, 2:50 AM
Deno Deno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Who is going to win ?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1151  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2015, 6:59 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
Steinberg almost definitely.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1152  
Old Posted Dec 10, 2015, 10:04 PM
Deno Deno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Oh yea that pro business guy who helped bring so much business back to California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1153  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2016, 5:13 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
How about that transportation tax?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/tra...e74594847.html

70% roads 30% transit I don't like. Especially when the road improvements are things like the Southeast connector which is largely to enable suburban development in Cordova Hills, etc. Torn on this one, because I do of course want to see ped, bike, rail improvements but feel like the proportion is off. I recognize that our roads are in pretty bad shape and congested though, like much of urban California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1154  
Old Posted May 2, 2016, 5:22 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korey View Post
How about that transportation tax?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/tra...e74594847.html

70% roads 30% transit I don't like. Especially when the road improvements are things like the Southeast connector which is largely to enable suburban development in Cordova Hills, etc. Torn on this one, because I do of course want to see ped, bike, rail improvements but feel like the proportion is off. I recognize that our roads are in pretty bad shape and congested though, like much of urban California.
Won't these tax dollars be allocated to the individual municipalities (county and cities) who can use them for transportation as they wish (within the 70/30 guideline)?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1155  
Old Posted May 2, 2016, 7:37 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
No, the funding is specifically to Sacramento Transit Authority, which includes Regional Transit. I think road funding would get delegated to county or cities on a project basis, but RT is the main entity operating public transit in the county (although I suppose Elk Grove's separate system would also get an allocation) On the bright side, adding 30% of that sales tax to the existing 16% that RT gets from Measure A, we end up with almost 1/2 cent of sales tax specifically for transit, which is roughly equivalent to what cities like San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego spend on transit. The 70% for roads is sad, it would be a lot nicer to have a more even balance, but it's a good start, and the emphasis for the roads portion of the funding is "Fix it First"--repair and upgrade existing road infrastructure before expanding. In the case of RT, the philosophy is similar--repair, upgrade, maintain, THEN expand. And apparently the additional funding for operation of streetcar comes from that 70%, so it really is a more balanced approach.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1156  
Old Posted May 3, 2016, 2:34 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
No, the funding is specifically to Sacramento Transit Authority, which includes Regional Transit. I think road funding would get delegated to county or cities on a project basis, but RT is the main entity operating public transit in the county (although I suppose Elk Grove's separate system would also get an allocation) On the bright side, adding 30% of that sales tax to the existing 16% that RT gets from Measure A, we end up with almost 1/2 cent of sales tax specifically for transit, which is roughly equivalent to what cities like San Jose, San Francisco and San Diego spend on transit. The 70% for roads is sad, it would be a lot nicer to have a more even balance, but it's a good start, and the emphasis for the roads portion of the funding is "Fix it First"--repair and upgrade existing road infrastructure before expanding. In the case of RT, the philosophy is similar--repair, upgrade, maintain, THEN expand. And apparently the additional funding for operation of streetcar comes from that 70%, so it really is a more balanced approach.
Interesting point about the streetcar...I didn't know that. That makes me really happy!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1157  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2016, 3:40 PM
Surefiresacto's Avatar
Surefiresacto Surefiresacto is offline
thenorth.bandcamp.com
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Orangevale
Posts: 153
Light Rail Express

Does anyone know if there are any plans to create an express light rail train that bypasses most stops, particularly along the 50 corridor?
__________________
Listen to Brian Strand on Spotify
Listen on other streaming services
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1158  
Old Posted Oct 23, 2016, 9:23 PM
OneRinconHill OneRinconHill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 164
Has anyone heard anything about the Placer Parkway Project recently? Looks like they're building an interchange for its end on 65...it was originally supposed to be CA 102, a freeway all the way to 70/99.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1159  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2016, 7:33 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
Welp, it looks like Measure B will fall just short of the 2/3rds threshold
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1160  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2016, 8:10 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I would say the idea of the streetcar is now DEAD. No local funding and certainly no matching federal funds (for the non-mooching blue state projects anyway), for at least the next two years but likely four and beyond.
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 11:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.