Sacramento - New Arena Plan

[goldcntry]

wburg: Yes, I have been on the toy-train monorail... again, this is a dreamscape! My monorail would require ADA clearences, air conditioning, modern, state of the art, Vegas-style monorail and stations.

[Fusey]

Vegas-style? You mean overpriced and inconvenient?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by goldcntry

wburg: Yes, I have been on the toy-train monorail... again, this is a dreamscape! My monorail would require ADA clearences, air conditioning, modern, state of the art, Vegas-style monorail and stations.

So it sounds a lot like a streetcar, in other words. Don't short yourself the extra rail!

[goldcntry]

LOL! How about an elevated streetcar? Monorail is perhaps the wrong term I should use... a super-sleek-modern-futuristic that fits in with the quasi-futuristic Arden Fair/Market Square/Alta-Arden Gorepoint construction... tieing the whole CalExpo/Arden Entertainment District together like a string....

[ozone]

wburg and many other people are obviously enamored with everything old including outdated technology like streetcars. I like streetcars in historic areas but think they look silly and out-of-place in a modern contexts.

So the idea of a mono-rail is not so crazy. It's costs would be comparable to light-rail and streetcars because much of it could be manufactured locally, off-site and then delivered and assembled on-site creating a much shorter construction time. This and the fact that a mono-rail is elevated and the support for the tracks have a small footprint means a lot less disruption to traffic and businesses. The elevated tracks mean no conflicts with moving traffic and railroad tracks. It would mean elevators and stairs (but so would a subway). The main complaints of elevated rails are noise (this is not really an issue with modern monorails) and visual aesthetics -which is a matter of taste and getting used to. Besides elevated walkways and stations can be designed to fit nicely into the urban fabric of the city.

Now imagine a monorail line running from the Depot at the Railyards -over I St. via 3rd Street (where there's enough room for the curve needed for monorails), then running to a station directly connected to the Downtown Plaza and Chinatown, then to a station at the Civic Center that's also connected to K Street, then the Convention Ctr, and so forth eastward down the middle of J Street. Then the line could curve onto 29th and 30th using the freeway right-away, over the American River to Cal Expo, Arden Fair and then looping around to connect to North Sac light-rail station and back downtown.

That route would connect Railyards, Downtown, Central Midtown, Sutter Landing and McKinley parks with Cal Expo.

BTW we don't need no stink'n two track system. Monorails are just adept at transporting large numbers as are two track surface systems. The only reason people think monorails are 'toys' is because Walt Disney used them in his parks, Seattle's was at a World Fair and it doesn't help that the latest version in this country is in Las Vegas. Despite their use in this country monorails have been used for general public transportation all over the world.

[wburg]

*ahem ahem*
You are aware that by "streetcar" I'm talking about vehicles like this, right?

That's a streetcar. The cities that are building (or have built) modern streetcar systems would definitely take issue with the idea that streetcars are "outdated technology." Take a look at Portland, Los Angeles or Tampa: they're building streetcars, not monorails.

I mean, you did realize I was talking about modern streetcars, not vintage or repro cars, right?

Costs for a monorail would be higher than streetcars because a pillar/bridge structure would be required--instead of a couple of bridges over tracks, you're essentially creating a giant bridge, plus elevated platforms. An elevated monorail is also less useful than a streetcar line: a streetcar, especially a low-floor unit, can stop almost anywhere a bus can, while an elevated line can only stop at stations. Streetcars require a shallow trench, rather than deep trenching (for an LRV) or large heavy-duty support pillars (for a monorail), and cost a fraction of what LRVs cost. The whole point of a streetcar is that it is useful for getting around the neighborhood: monorails and LRVs don't do that job nearly as well.

Nobody builds monorail equipment locally, but Siemens is just down the street at Florin.

The current light rail system already connects downtown with areas adjacent to where you're talking about: building an entire other system would be totally redundant and compete with existing systems. A local streetcar would complement the LRV system in addition to being useful as a separate transport system for the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by ozone

wburg and many other people are obviously enamored with everything old including outdated technology like streetcars. I like streetcars in historic areas but think they look silly and out-of-place in a modern contexts.

So the idea of a mono-rail is not so crazy. It's costs would be comparable to light-rail and streetcars because much of it could be manufactured locally, off-site and then delivered and assembled on-site creating a much shorter construction time. This and the fact that a mono-rail is elevated and the support for the tracks have a small footprint means a lot less disruption to traffic and businesses. The elevated tracks mean no conflicts with moving traffic and railroad tracks. It would mean elevators and stairs (but so would a subway). The main complaints of elevated rails are noise (this is not really an issue with modern monorails) and visual aesthetics -which is a matter of taste and getting used to. Besides elevated walkways and stations can be designed to fit nicely into the urban fabric of the city.

Now imagine a monorail line running from the Depot at the Railyards -over I St. via 3rd Street (where there's enough room for the curve needed for monorails), then running to a station directly connected to the Downtown Plaza and Chinatown, then to a station at the Civic Center that's also connected to K Street, then the Convention Ctr, and so forth eastward down the middle of J Street. Then the line could curve onto 29th and 30th using the freeway right-away, over the American River to Cal Expo, Arden Fair and then looping around to connect to North Sac light-rail station and back downtown.

That route would connect Railyards, Downtown, Central Midtown, Sutter Landing and Mckinley parks with Cal Expo.

[otnemarcaS]

Was thinking the same thing reading Ozone's comments about streetcars being outdated technology. I have been to Portland about 5 times and the streetcars there is as modern, nice, clean and efficient as you can get. I think Ozone may have been visualizing the several old restored streetcars seen on the streets of San Francisco.

[ozone]

All of your arguments in favor of surface streetcars are unconvincing to me but of course they'll convince the knuckeheads. Why do I get the feeling that if Portland Oregon had built a monorail you'd be all for it here?

Well I was using the term streetcar on my terms not yours so yes I did mean restored streetcars. But er... what exactly is the big difference between these streetcars and your basic light rail? What's the difference a slightly shallower trench? Oh what a big improvement.

"Costs for a monorail would be higher than streetcars because a pillar/bridge structure would be required--instead of a couple of bridges over tracks"

Oh right. We all saw how cost effective digging up streets to lay down tracks for the light-rail from K Street to the depot were. Besides any cost saved in the intial construction would be off set by loss of business, trafffic congestion, delays in travel time, etc.

..."you're essentially creating a giant bridge"

duh that's what makes a monorail superior to a surface system.

"the utility of the streetcar which can stop almost anywhere a bus can...while an elevated line can only stop at stations."

So what? A streetcar still has to run on an stationary embeded track. And making a bunch of unscheduled stops which slows traffic and travel times doesn't sound very appealing to me.

Having said all of that I wouldn't oppose a streetcar as you describe it (if only because most people are soo conventional that they refuse to consider anything else).

"The current light rail system already connects downtown with areas adjacent to where you're talking about: building an entire other system would be totally redundant and compete with existing systems."

Are you high? In what way does the current light rail connect downtown with Central Midtown and the J-K-L-Capitol corridor? What city do you live in because it's seems you really do not know Sacramento.

A streetcar or monorail the route I describe is a valid one.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by ozone

All of your arguments in favor of surface streetcars are unconvincing to me but of course they'll convince the knuckeheads. Why do I get the feeling that if Portland Oregon had built a monorail you'd be all for it here?

Well I was using the term streetcar on my terms not yours so yes I did mean restored streetcars. But er... what exactly is the big difference between these streetcars and your basic light rail? What's the difference a slightly shallower trench? Oh what a big improvement.

Normally I'm the one saying "If Portland jumped off a bridge, would you too?" and am generally unconvinced that they're all that great--but in this case they're right on. Portland understands the difference between streetcars and LRVs: they have both MAX trains (LRVs) that go to the suburbs and two streetcar systems (one modern, one reproduction) in their central city.

What's the difference between streetcars and LRVs, you ask?

Size: Streetcars are normally 30-50 feet long, not much bigger than a bus, and generally run as a single vehicle. LRVs are normally 60-80 feet long and can be MU'd to form trains, in the case of Sacramento, up to 320 feet long.

Speed: Streetcars operate at surface-street speeds of 30-40 MPH. LRVs can operate at 60-70 MPH.

Cost and time of construction: Streetcars are built on a trench about 1 foot deep, and a city block of streetcar tracks takes about 2 weeks. LRV tracks require extensive trenching 3-4 feet, rerouting of subterranean utilities, and other subroadbed work. A block of LRV tracks can take several months, assuming you don't run across any buried human remains or artifacts that result in a work-stop for an archaeological site review. Generally, laying streetcar roadbed costs about a third as much.

Station type: Streetcars can operate anywhere on a street, potentially even including "flag stops," and stations can be no more complex than a bus bench with a shelter. LRVs generally operate at physically larger and more complex stations that cost more, in order to provide room for entire commuter trains and ADA ramps. With modern low-floor streetcars, ADA ramps are unnecessary.

Overhead costs: Because LRVs are lighter and use less power, they are cheaper to run and maintain. Crew costs are about the same (one operator per train) but maintenance crew costs are reduced, both shop maintenance and maintenance of way. Transformers for streetcars are also smaller than LRV transformers.

The bottom line: LRVs and monorails are intended for moving people from the suburbs to the central city. Streetcars are far better for moving people around a neighborhood. They are smaller and thus interfere less with traffic, they are cheaper and faster to construct, and because they are based around moving through a neighborhood rather than from isolated station to isolated station, they help people get around a wider area, rather than between distant points.

The streetcar is a "pedestrian accelerator," not a commuter vehicle.

In what way does the current light rail connect downtown with Central Midtown and the J-K-L-Capitol corridor? What city do you live in because it's seems you really do not know Sacramento.

It doesn't match your dream route, but light rail starts at the entrance to the Railyards area (the train station) and runs to a station within short walking distance to Chinatown and Downtown Plaza (Chinatown is on 5th, the station is on 7th, not exactly a monstrous hike.) It then heads south through the Capitol Mall, and into midtown via O and R Streets. Light rail goes fairly close to, if not exactly to, to all the places you mentioned (R Street may not be "central midtown" enough for you, but it's pretty convenient for anyone living south of L Street) while your space-age monorail would essentially hit the same places and be direct competition for light rail.

[deeann]

This inspired a bit of whimsy and with apologies in advance to everyone on this thread...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg6iftug2Zk

Originally Posted by goldcntry

[ozone]

OK thanks wburg for explaining the difference between the LRV and "streetcars" and I'll take what you say and digest it. I'm not against streetcars per se it's just that I think a "space-age" (typical bias -damn you Walt Disney) monorail would be a better solution here given the problems with crossing the freight tracks. And of course, I realize people are so limited in their thinking that it seems wacky and ohh soo space agey that will never happen in Sacramento.

Anyway saying ..."It doesn't match your dream route" just boggles my mind. What is so outlandish about that route? You are sounding like one of those old time Sacramentans who still hold a 20-40 year old image of this town.

I'm sure you are familiar with the accepted max. distance that most people will walk from rail station to their destination. And clearly R Street is too far from J Street (the spine of Midtown) to be acceptable or considered convenient. I mean come on do you really think LRT route serves Midtown? I believe you need to rehink it. LR is not for those living in Midtown. It's for the suburban commuter. Just how many people going to J-K-L-Capitol corridor use the existing LR today? Very very few. IF on the other hand a streetcar, monorail, whatever were to run down "my dream route" -as you call it, a number of people would use it to access Midtown.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

Normally I'm the one saying "If Portland jumped off a bridge, would you too?" and am generally unconvinced that they're all that great--but in this case they're right on. Portland understands the difference between streetcars and LRVs: they have both MAX trains (LRVs) that go to the suburbs and two streetcar systems (one modern, one reproduction) in their central city.

What's the difference between streetcars and LRVs, you ask?

Size: Streetcars are normally 30-50 feet long, not much bigger than a bus, and generally run as a single vehicle. LRVs are normally 60-80 feet long and can be MU'd to form trains, in the case of Sacramento, up to 320 feet long.

Speed: Streetcars operate at surface-street speeds of 30-40 MPH. LRVs can operate at 60-70 MPH.

Cost and time of construction: Streetcars are built on a trench about 1 foot deep, and a city block of streetcar tracks takes about 2 weeks. LRV tracks require extensive trenching 3-4 feet, rerouting of subterranean utilities, and other subroadbed work. A block of LRV tracks can take several months, assuming you don't run across any buried human remains or artifacts that result in a work-stop for an archaeological site review. Generally, laying streetcar roadbed costs about a third as much.

Station type: Streetcars can operate anywhere on a street, potentially even including "flag stops," and stations can be no more complex than a bus bench with a shelter. LRVs generally operate at physically larger and more complex stations that cost more, in order to provide room for entire commuter trains and ADA ramps. With modern low-floor streetcars, ADA ramps are unnecessary.

Overhead costs: Because LRVs are lighter and use less power, they are cheaper to run and maintain. Crew costs are about the same (one operator per train) but maintenance crew costs are reduced, both shop maintenance and maintenance of way. Transformers for streetcars are also smaller than LRV transformers.

The bottom line: LRVs and monorails are intended for moving people from the suburbs to the central city. Streetcars are far better for moving people around a neighborhood. They are smaller and thus interfere less with traffic, they are cheaper and faster to construct, and because they are based around moving through a neighborhood rather than from isolated station to isolated station, they help people get around a wider area, rather than between distant points.

The streetcar is a "pedestrian accelerator," not a commuter vehicle.



It doesn't match your dream route, but light rail starts at the entrance to the Railyards area (the train station) and runs to a station within short walking distance to Chinatown and Downtown Plaza (Chinatown is on 5th, the station is on 7th, not exactly a monstrous hike.) It then heads south through the Capitol Mall, and into midtown via O and R Streets. Light rail goes fairly close to, if not exactly to, to all the places you mentioned (R Street may not be "central midtown" enough for you, but it's pretty convenient for anyone living south of L Street) while your space-age monorail would essentially hit the same places and be direct competition for light rail.

Wburg,
Modern streetcars are way cooler looking than buses, but how
is a modern streetcar different from a bus, especially a modern articulated electrically powered bus like the ones in SF?

I’ve never ridden on Portland’s Streetcars but I have ridden on SF’s muni streetcars. The F Line which goes from the Castro to the Wharf via Market street and the Embarcadero is a nightmare. It is always impacted by traffic thus making it very slow. We were attending Fleet Week on Sunday and decided to take the F line from the wharf to Market/Powell (Union Sq). There were 7 streetcars stuck in traffic with nowhere to go. We couldn’t wait any longer and decided to get off the streetcar and walk to Union sq. from the Wharf . There were masses of people all trying to get on the streetcars while those that made it on were packed like sardines with no where to go because the streetcars were stuck in traffic.

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Wburg,

I’ve never ridden on Portland’s Streetcars but I have ridden on SF’s muni streetcars. The F Line which goes from the Castro to the Wharf via Market street and the Embarcadero is a nightmare. It is always impacted by traffic thus making it very slow. We were attending Fleet Week on Sunday and decided to take the F line from the wharf to Market/Powell (Union Sq). There were 7 streetcars stuck in traffic with nowhere to go. We couldn’t wait any longer and decided to get off the streetcar and walk to Union sq. from the Wharf . There were masses of people all trying to get on the streetcars while those that made it on were packed like sardines with no where to go because the streetcars were stuck in traffic.

This has more to do with the Fleet Week event than taking the F line, although SF's Market street is always a bus, car and streetcar's nightmare anyway. In SF, ANY big event will always be a transportation nightmare, especially if it's on or near Market from Embarcadero to Castro. I've lived there for 2 years and worked there for 4 years. Been there, seen it. Whether it's halloween weekend or fourth of July or gay pride day or new year's or fleet week or bay to breakers or whatever, you will get stuck. I remember taking over an hour trying to get from Embercadero to Castro during halloween. We had to get off after Van Ness and walked the rest of the way.

[Pistola916]

^
If you're going from Embarcadero to Castro, why not take the Muni metro, its much faster than the F line. The F line is slow. It's better to get off at Church and then walk the 5 or so blocks.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Wburg,
Modern streetcars are way cooler looking than buses, but how
is a modern streetcar different from a bus, especially a modern articulated electrically powered bus like the ones in SF?

Three ways. #1 is comfort of ride: streetcars are a lot smoother, with a less jolting ride and less bounce. #2 is permanence: rails in the street give confidence to developers that the line will be in place for the foreseeable future, and to potential neighborhood residents that their non-car transit needs will be met. #3 is that they are way cooler looking than buses. I know you just said that, but it bears repeating--people's vehicular choices are often made based on what looks cool.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by ozone

OK thanks wburg for explaining the difference between the LRV and "streetcars" and I'll take what you say and digest it. I'm not against streetcars per se it's just that I think a "space-age" (typical bias -damn you Walt Disney) monorail would be a better solution here given the problems with crossing the freight tracks. And of course, I realize people are so limited in their thinking that it seems wacky and ohh soo space agey that will never happen in Sacramento.

Maybe it's just me, but modern streetcars don't seem any less space-age looking to me than monorails. They're just more practical, less expensive, and fit well in both modern and historic neighborhoods. A monorail looks okay running through Tomorrowland, but through a neighborhood of bungalows and Queen Annes it would look ridiculous.

Anyway saying ..."It doesn't match your dream route" just boggles my mind. What is so outlandish about that route? You are sounding like one of those old time Sacramentans who still hold a 20-40 year old image of this town.

The problem isn't that it is outlandish, just that it is redundant. You're proposing an entirely separate transit infrastructure instead of a couple miles of streetcar line.

I'm sure you are familiar with the accepted max. distance that most people will walk from rail station to their destination. And clearly R Street is too far from J Street (the spine of Midtown) to be acceptable or considered convenient. I mean come on do you really think LRT route serves Midtown? I believe you need to rehink it. LR is not for those living in Midtown. It's for the suburban commuter. Just how many people going to J-K-L-Capitol corridor use the existing LR today? Very very few. IF on the other hand a streetcar, monorail, whatever were to run down "my dream route" -as you call it, a number of people would use it to access Midtown.

The LRT route serves the southern half of Midtown, as well as the peripheral neighborhoods north of downtown. This includes the neighborhoods of Alkali Flat/Mansion Flat, Newton Booth, Poverty Ridge, Richmond Grove, and Winn Park. Now, there are portions of the central city that aren't in easy walking distance of light rail or the first phase of the streetcar system plan: Southside Park, Marshall School, Boulevard Park. I agree that they would benefit from a streetcar extension line--but not their own LRV connector, or a damn monorail.

J Street is the commercial spine of midtown, but if your purpose is to carry people from homes to downtown it doesn't seem like the best way: not that many people live on J Street.

Incidentally, I live in midtown and I take light rail downtown to work several times a week, assuming I don't have time to walk. Yes, light rail primarily serves suburban commuters, but it also serves people in closer-in neighborhoods--just not all of them. Should that be fixed? Of course--with an extension to the streetcar starter line. I've mentioned this a few times before.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

^
If you're going from Embarcadero to Castro, why not take the Muni metro, its much faster than the F line. The F line is slow. It's better to get off at Church and then walk the 5 or so blocks.

We were at the wharf (stockton/beach) not the embarcadero. On a normal traffic day if there is such a thing, you can take the F line to the embarcadero/market transfer to one of the muni metro lines to get uptown. Another option is the Stockton bus to union sq, then transfer to the muni metro. Either way on this day every streetcar and bus was at a standstill.

Instead we walked up stockton(no hills) through washington sq, chinatown and up the stairs to bush st.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

This has more to do with the Fleet Week event than taking the F line, although SF's Market street is always a bus, car and streetcar's nightmare anyway. In SF, ANY big event will always be a transportation nightmare, especially if it's on or near Market from Embarcadero to Castro. I've lived there for 2 years and worked there for 4 years. Been there, seen it. Whether it's halloween weekend or fourth of July or gay pride day or new year's or fleet week or bay to breakers or whatever, you will get stuck. I remember taking over an hour trying to get from Embercadero to Castro during halloween. We had to get off after Van Ness and walked the rest of the way.

Yeah, I know it was the Fleet Week issue as well the Columbus/Italian Day Parade. I’ve never seen SF so crowded with so many people covering such a wide swath. It seemed the entire City was overwhelmed with tourists.

I've been practically crushed to death during the Chinese New Years Parade on Grant and I've been in the Gay Pride Parade many times, not to mention the Castro Street Fair and Folsom Street Fair, but never have I seen the entire city so completely overwhelmed as Sunday.

We walked from my old neighborhood on Hyde & Broadway down to the wharf ,watched the Blue Angels and made our way up Stockton through north beach. North Beach was completely packed with people, every restaurant pulled tables out on the sidewalks with cases of wine, pasta, and music. Washington sq was completely packed with people too. As we made our way up Stockton through Chinatown and up the stairs to Bush st. the crowds were still overwhelming in the union sq area. It was complete pandemonium. We had a friend visiting from Italy with us, so this was all quite a treat for him to witness such a spectacular city on foot. The Stockton Street buses were useless too. We walked all the way back to Hyde/Broadway dropping in and out of the various hole in the wall bars along the way.

[wburg]

It should probably be noted that streets jammed up with masses of walking people coming from all over to attend festivals and public events is very much the sort of problem that Sacramento would like to have...

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Yeah, I know it was the Fleet Week issue as well the Columbus/Italian Day Parade. I’ve never seen SF so crowded with so many people covering such a wide swath. It seemed the entire City was overwhelmed with tourists.

I've been practically crushed to death during the Chinese New Years Parade on Grant and I've been in the Gay Pride Parade many times, not to mention the Castro Street Fair and Folsom Street Fair, but never have I seen the entire city so completely overwhelmed as Sunday.

We walked from my old neighborhood on Hyde & Broadway down to the wharf ,watched the Blue Angels and made our way up Stockton through north beach. North Beach was completely packed with people, every restaurant pulled tables out on the sidewalks with cases of wine, pasta, and music. Washington sq was completely packed with people too. As we made our way up Stockton through Chinatown and up the stairs to Bush st. the crowds were still overwhelming in the union sq area. It was complete pandemonium. We had a friend visiting from Italy with us, so this was all quite a treat for him to witness such a spectacular city on foot. The Stockton Street buses were useless too. We walked all the way back to Hyde/Broadway dropping in and out of the various hole in the wall bars along the way.

Yeah I know it was ridiculous on Sunday. I'm a writer for the SF State newspaper and I had to cover several events. I went from the Mission to cover a cultural event then to Castro then to the Folsom St. Fair and down to the Wharf. It was so crowded, I never bumped shoulders like I did on Sunday.