HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2015, 8:37 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
Capitol rail Corridor to get 3rd track

Here's an article I saw in progressive railroading on the capitol corridor getting a 3rd track which will help Amtrak and maybe future commuter rail out to Roseville, Auburn and perhaps Rocklin and Lincoln.

Rail News: Passenger Rail
Capitol Corridor certifies environmental impact report for Sacramento-Roseville passenger-rail project


The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority's (CCJPA) board earlier this week certified a final environmental impact report for a project to build a 17.8-mile third main track between Sacramento and Roseville, Calif.

Union Pacific Railroad will add the new track, which will allow the Class I to maintain its freight operations and the CCJPA to increase Capitol Corridor passenger-rail service. The project is slated to lower the region's greenhouse gas emissions and drive sustainable economic development, CCJPA officials said in a press release.

The next step is for the CCJPA to finalize the environmental assessment for approval by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The project is aimed at providing more connections and improved mobility within the Sacramento region, along with creating critical links to the San Francisco Bay Area.

Additionally, the enhanced service will offer more flexibility in schedule, which is expected to provide convenience for existing riders and attract new ones, CCJPA officials said.

"Capitol Corridor rail service has enjoyed tremendous popularity with our residents even though it only has one round trip per day," said Celia McAdam of the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency. "This project gives us the opportunity to build on that momentum and make passenger rail travel really blossom."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2015, 6:01 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
That's great, but it will still be slower than driving I'd assume. What needs to be done is implement the 115 MPH plan all the way to Oakland. Then I would never take a car again to the bay area. Also I think we need to convert light rail to a rapid transit system (with a subway stop at 7th & K), and take the current light rail infrastructure downtown, expand it into a nice big loop. Thoughts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2015, 11:12 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
I agree we need 115 mph service

^ I wholeheartedly agree we need that 115 mph plan and have service out to Lincoln/Thunder Valley as well (add in concrete sleepers/ties for a smooth ride). They could run that speed almost to Colfax, also the UP line down to Stockton could be over-hauled (double tracked all the way to Stockton from Florin) with service to Galt and Lodi. There needs to be a light rail line built to the Sac airport where I work..

Scott
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2015, 5:30 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Considering that there won't be any stops in between Roseville and Sacramento, the Capitol Corridor will likely make speeds as fast as 60-65 MPH given its own track, which will probably beat cars running between those two points quite handily. 115 MPH implies not having any grade crossings over the UP (which means a lot of bridges) and Capitol Corridor right of way, and complete grade control (fences on both sides) to prevent people crossing the tracks and getting squashed.

115 MPH might be possible between West Sacramento and the Suisun bridge through the Delta, assuming Amtrak can build a third track there and also electrify the line (running electric locos instead of diesel-electrics) but there's no traveling at 115 along the waterfront from Martinez to Richmond, plus all those grade crossings and unprotected track from Richmond to Oakland. I suppose I don't consider the Capitol Corridor to be all that slow--I take it a lot, and it seems like once I've had a breakfast burrito and a cup of coffee I only have time to read a few pages before arriving. It may take a few minutes more than driving in traffic, but I haven't had to do that white-knuckle stop & go madness routine for years now, and it greatly improves my opinion of the Bay Area in general.

Expanding Capitol Corridor farther east into the foothills is a worthwhile idea--turn it into a real commuter line, which takes pressure off I-80. A lot of Bay Area transplants used to taking Caltrain are ending up in Placer County, and the commuter buses already have waiting lists. I don't think Placer County would ever want light rail anywhere near them, but Capitol Corridor has a sufficiently high barrier to entry and they're already used to trains coming through.

Subways are ludicrously expensive--two miles of subway in San Francisco will cost well over a billion dollars, and they aren't in a floodplain. We could afford a mile or two of subway downtown or a double-tracked light rail line to the airport, including bridges and trestles over the parts that still flood. Better to increase headways, run later trains, run trains to Folsom later than 7 PM, improve bus connections, reintroduce transfers, and of course build a streetcar line, all for a fraction of the price of a subway system that we definitely won't need for generations--if ever.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2015, 4:29 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
This is what I would rather have than HSR. Could be divided into two phases.

Phase 1: Sacramento to the Carquinez strait. Grade separation and electrification allowing 150MPH. Or take the cheaper option of implementing PTC. When PTC is
installed, the Federal Railroad Administration allows trains to reach 110 mph even without “sealing” at-grade crossings. Cost unknown.

Phase 2: Obviously way more expensive to construct a new bridge if needed. Construct a new straightened alignment to Oakland (13 miles from Martinez) by using the bridges and tunnels where needed. Would be well into the billions of dollars. Could be aligned to the new transbay tube and continue on to downtown SF.

Think it would be possible to go downtown Sac to SF in 35 min with nonstop service.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2015, 6:02 AM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
^ Interesting and I know that in Illinois the Chicago to St Louis corridor is 110 with PTC and with a good portion of it is single track with 4-6 mile long passing sidings with Union Pacific as the host railroad just like on the Capitol Corridor-with most of the line double tracked with a few portions triple track. The Feds and the Illinois DOT kicked in around 2.6 billion on that almost 400 mile corridor (at one time most of it was double tracked). We're in better shape here in Cal with the existing track infrastructure.

Scott
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2015, 6:37 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Illinois, like the Central Valley, is very flat--we could get up to 110 MPH on the flat parts of the Valley and Delta, but that massive tunnel under Contra Costa and Alameda County seems like a deal breaker. I suppose you could reopen and expand the old Sacramento Northern tunnels through the Oakland hills, but even those had a 4%+ grade and wouldn't sustain those high speeds, would keep the cost to a few billion though. A faster Delta/Valley segment would drop the trip time to an hour and change, enough to encourage a mode switch, but would that money be better spent expanding commuter service to Placer County, Marysville/Yuba City or Stockton, and additional Capitol Corridor trains rather than a high-dollar megaproject?
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Nov 28, 2015, 7:44 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
[QUOTE A faster Delta/Valley segment would drop the trip time to an hour and change, enough to encourage a mode switch, but would that money be better spent expanding commuter service to Placer County, Marysville/Yuba City or Stockton, and additional Capitol Corridor trains rather than a high-dollar megaproject? ][/QUOTE]

I kinda agree and that UP line down to Stockton could serve South Sac near Florin, Elk Grove, Galt/Twin Cities and Lodi. The line going towards the Bay Area could sustain 110 or 90 (90 with Automatic Block Signal) till it gets to those east bay hills with PTC if Union Pacific would support.

Scott
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2015, 12:11 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
The Amtrak San Joaquin operates from Sacramento to Bakersfield via Stockton, but most of the trains originate from the Bay Area with bus bridges from Sacramento that meet the trains in Stockton that also stop in Elk Grove and Lodi. The one train that originates in Sacramento stops in Lodi but not Elk Grove--EG is currently advocating to Amtrak to get an Amtrak depot at a new transit center next to the tracks, as there are plans in the works to expand the San Joaquins with more trains originating in Sacramento.

A nice summary of Amtrak California's joint vision for the future:

http://www.capitolcorridor.org/downl...nPlanFinal.pdf

Some very interesting ideas, like reutilizing the abandoned Sacramento Northern Railway electric railroad alignment (an electric railroad that ran from Chico to Sacramento to Oakland, 100 years ago.)
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Nov 29, 2015, 10:59 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 1,055
^ Thanks so much for that link wburg, the transportation scene is so much more interesting here from metro Denver where my wife and I moved from-even with the huge Fastracks mass transit system being built there seems to be nothing else going on there. Heck the typical Colorado highway and road project consist of start-put on hold, restart then put on hold again to get complete sometime in the far future (passing TABOR in the early 90s caused this to happen).

Scott
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 10:59 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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