San Francisco-Sacramento Mega Region/CSA?

[Dariusb]

I was reading something online recently and it mentioned that if growth continues between the two areas a mega region of over 12 million would develop. What are your thoughts on the possibility of this occurring?

[tablemtn]

CSAs in many cases are only loosely correlated to actual urban areas, so anything is possible with CSA limits. In terms of actually being continuously developed and becoming a single metro area in that regard, well, not anytime soon.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

CSAs in many cases are only loosely correlated to actual urban areas, so anything is possible with CSA limits. In terms of actually being continuously developed and becoming a single metro area in that regard, well, not anytime soon.

This^ the Phoenix area CSA includes small backwater towns of a few hundred people even though they are seperated by miles of open desert and multiple mountain ranges.

[Minato Ku]

As you said it is small towns of few hundred people, those place don't have a dynamic economy.
So, many people living there need to commute in Phoenix to have job.
Note that there is not CSA for Phoenix, there is only a MSA.

It is pretty different of Sacramento which is a real significant city.
I don't see how Sacramento could be part of Bay Area CSA in the near future, it is too big and too far.

[DenseCityPlease]

Nope.

Even after the full build out of CAHSR, Sacramento and San Francisco will be connected to points south but not to each other. The best we can hope for is an upgrade to quasi-high-speed rail along the existing Capitol Corridor from 79mph to 110mph. This is currently the third most highly traveled Amtrak route in the nation, so it has great potential. But realistically, even then the metros are simply a little too far apart to be meaningfully connected.

Part of the "problem" here is also that, for historical reasons, 90% of Sacramento's sprawl is to the east and northeast (in other words in the exact opposite direction of San Francisco). Had the city sprawled the other way and merged with Davis there would be a much more significant overlap between the two metros.

As things stand though, the only way I envision this happening is if at some point in the distant future we build 200mph+ rail service between the two cities. This would entail, among other challenges including the complete lack of funding, a second transbay tube from Oakland to San Francisco. I'm wouldn't hold your breath.

[Minato Ku]

Even with this high speed rail, I don't think this would provide enough seats to make Sacramento part of Bay Area CSA.
Hundred thousands of people would have to commute between Sacramento and Bay Area.

[Korey]

There might not be enough daily commuters between the two metro areas but the freeways have a near constant flow of medium to heavy traffic, even outside of normal peak hours. Many people travelling for vacations, cultural events, Tahoe, family and friends, etc. The ridership of Capitol Corridor is impressive considering how (relatively) recently the service started, and will only increase as 110mph service starts and Sacramento's urban core strengthens.

Geographical constraints help contain sprawl to certain segments. I look at the region as a triangle with SF/Oakland, Sacramento, and Stockton as the points. The delta sits in the middle, pushing development out to the legs. The Altamont acts as a barrier between the outer East Bay and Tracy/Stockton, productive farmland surrounds Lodi and Fairfield/Vacaville, and the Yolo Causeway does a good job of separating Davis from West Sac. Population is likely going to continue to fill up in and around the established communities along these lines but those gaps will remain for quite some time.

One metro? Probably not in the 21st century. But for those of us who live here it is already a mega-region, undeniably. Hopefully these cities and metros can develop cohesive regional planning...it will only benefit everyone involved.

[Minato Ku]

The term CSA is precise and has a clear methodology (even if contested) but the term mega region can mean a lot of things.
Everything can be a mega region in some ways.

Sacramento is located not far of the Bay Area, there are obviously a lot of link between both territories.
We could easily say that today Bay Area and Sacramento are part of a "Mega Region".

[fflint]

The only way the two would ever combine would be via infill southward from Sacramento and north/eastward from the Stockton area, which itself is now officially part of the Bay Area's CSA. The areas in between Stockton and Sacramento are already growing fast, but I doubt we'll see a single CSA in our lifetimes.

[Shawn]

My brother and his wife lived in Vacaville for two years before buying a house in Davis. I've visted a few times now, coming to the Bay from Tokyo.

Driving from SFO to Vacaville clearly showed me that Sacramento will not likely ever sprawl into the Bay Area's northeastern burbs. Geography plays a big part in this, so does distance. It's a good two hour drive depending on traffic. Just to get to Vacaville, not all the way to Sacramento.

[simms3_redux]

^^^No offense, but how slowly do you drive? Without traffic or weather conditions I'm at 6,000 ft at Lake Tahoe in 3-3.5 hours, leaving from Russian Hill in SF with no easy/direct route to a highway!

The distance from SF to Sacramento is 87 miles. At 50 mph average that is 1 hr and 45 min. Google thinks it can be done in under an hour and a half. Vacaville is only 2 towns up from Vallejo where I went to 6 Flags a couple weekends ago, Vallejo being in a county that borders Sacramento's county, but part of the Bay Area CSA (and really a strong metro suburb...kinda surprised Solano County is part of the CSA and not the MSA). Vacaville is still in Solano County.

Granted, it has taken me up to 3 hours to legitimately leave the city/Oakland/Berkeley and feel "on my way" if it's raining out and there are accidents, during rush hour.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Shawn

My brother and his wife lived in Vacaville for two years before buying a house in Davis. I've visted a few times now, coming to the Bay from Tokyo.

Driving from SFO to Vacaville clearly showed me that Sacramento will not likely ever sprawl into the Bay Area's northeastern burbs. Geography plays a big part in this, so does distance. It's a good two hour drive depending on traffic. Just to get to Vacaville, not all the way to Sacramento.

Right, if all you know is the Interstate 80 corridor, it seems impossible the two CSAs could ever come close to merging--waterways, mountains, protected agricultural land and a couple huge greenbelts separate them. The freeway is congested and prone to stop-and-go jams at all hours of the day and night, and the parallel Capitol Corridor railway has limited capacity.

But what many people don't notice is farther south: Sacramento's CSA continues to expand ever southward, between the 5 and 99 freeways, while the Bay Area continues to expand ever eastward into that same corridor. Indeed, the Stockton MSA has already been added to the Bay Area CSA, due to sufficient commuter interplay between its southern suburbs and the Bay. Sacramento and the Bay Area won't ever merge into one CSA due to the dynamics along the 80 corridor, and may never merge period, but it's not entirely unreasonable to see significant commuter exchange between Stockton's northernmost suburbs and Sacramento's southernmost ones. The line, should it be crossed, is roughly between Galt and Lodi.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by simms3_redux

^^^No offense, but how slowly do you drive? Without traffic or weather conditions I'm at 6,000 ft at Lake Tahoe in 3-3.5 hours, leaving from Russian Hill in SF with no easy/direct route to a highway!

My brother is a cautious driver, not your typical Masshole. He probably didn't top 70 mph the whole way, so take that into consideration. And we were always coming directly from SFO in the late afternoon: worse traffic than anything I've seen on the East Coast.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by fflint

Right, if all you know is the Interstate 80 corridor, it seems impossible the two CSAs could ever come close to merging--waterways, mountains, protected agricultural land and a couple huge greenbelts separate them. The freeway is congested and prone to stop-and-go jams at all hours of the day and night, and the parallel Capitol Corridor railway has limited capacity.

But what many people don't notice is farther south: Sacramento's CSA continues to expand ever southward, between the 5 and 99 freeways, while the Bay Area continues to expand ever eastward into that same corridor. Indeed, the Stockton MSA has already been added to the Bay Area CSA, due to sufficient commuter interplay between its southern suburbs and the Bay. Sacramento and the Bay Area won't ever merge into one CSA due to the dynamics along the 80 corridor, and may never merge period, but it's not entirely unreasonable to see significant commuter exchange between Stockton's northernmost suburbs and Sacramento's southernmost ones. The line, should it be crossed, is roughly between Galt and Lodi.

I can see the region becoming connected in the way you describe, kind of like connecting a triangle (at Lodi). I was frankly expecting to see a bit more of a Boston-Providence connection between San Fran and Sacramento the first time I did that drive, but there's no equivalent to Rt 1's connecting sprawl that I could see. No Norwood-Walpole Automiles or North Attleboro-Attleboro commercial density (and that's not necessarily a bad thing - Rt 1 is gross!).

[Dariusb]

Originally Posted by fflint

Right, if all you know is the Interstate 80 corridor, it seems impossible the two CSAs could ever come close to merging--waterways, mountains, protected agricultural land and a couple huge greenbelts separate them. The freeway is congested and prone to stop-and-go jams at all hours of the day and night, and the parallel Capitol Corridor railway has limited capacity.

But what many people don't notice is farther south: Sacramento's CSA continues to expand ever southward, between the 5 and 99 freeways, while the Bay Area continues to expand ever eastward into that same corridor. Indeed, the Stockton MSA has already been added to the Bay Area CSA, due to sufficient commuter interplay between its southern suburbs and the Bay. Sacramento and the Bay Area won't ever merge into one CSA due to the dynamics along the 80 corridor, and may never merge period, but it's not entirely unreasonable to see significant commuter exchange between Stockton's northernmost suburbs and Sacramento's southernmost ones. The line, should it be crossed, is roughly between Galt and Lodi.

Since I'm not from California or familiar with the topography, I had no idea of all the limitations/barriers along the I-80 corridor. By looking at a highway map it looks like there's nothing stopping growth.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Since I'm not from California or familiar with the topography, I had no idea of all the limitations/barriers along the I-80 corridor. By looking at a highway map it looks like there's nothing stopping growth.

That's why you take a satellite view in Google Earth. Between Sacramento and Davis are the Yolo Wetlands, which is protected nature preserve. Then, further down I-80, between Fairfield and Vallejo, you've got rough hills and terrain not really conducive to widespread development. That's not even mentioning some of the best farmland in California surrounding Dixon, Woodland, and Vacaville.

Best possible paths for continuous development and the formation of one giant CSA would be spreading east from Oakland/Berkeley along I-205 and CA-4 to Tracy/Stockton, and then Stockton to Sacramento filled in between I-5 and CA-99.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

That's why you take a satellite view in Google Earth. Between Sacramento and Davis are the Yolo Wetlands, which is protected nature preserve. Then, further down I-80, between Fairfield and Vallejo, you've got rough hills and terrain not really conducive to widespread development. That's not even mentioning some of the best farmland in California surrounding Dixon, Woodland, and Vacaville.

Best possible paths for continuous development and the formation of one giant CSA would be spreading east from Oakland/Berkeley along I-205 and CA-4 to Tracy/Stockton, and then Stockton to Sacramento filled in between I-5 and CA-99.

There's also the Vacaville-Dixon Greenbelt:

"Vacaville and Dixon, about 10 miles apart, created a joint-powers authority featuring two members from each city council and an ex-officio member of the Solano County Board of Supervisors.

The JPA, formed to preserve viable agricultural and open-space land, is responsible for maintaining greenbelt lands and recommending amendments to general plans, annexations and spheres of influence."

Down south, where we've already noted the sprawl may really connect up eventually, there was talk as recently as a decade ago of instituting a similar greenbelt between Elk Grove and Galt (also 10 miles apart), but it appears to have gone nowhere.

Additionally, Yolo County requires all its cities to draw up strict growth boundaries (similar to Oregon's), which prevent Davis from sprawling in any direction.

[Shawn]

^--- My brother also made it a point to tell me those hills between the Delta mouth and Vacaville are really prone to wildfires, like down in SD. Not sure how big a barrier to development that would be, but still.

[Korey]

Once (if) a stronger job market emerges in Sacramento or Elk Grove then expect unchecked sprawl between Elk Grove and Stockton. That's where the gap will be filled first. As others have noted geographical barriers, greenbelts, etc exist along the 80 corridor much more than the 5/99 corridor.

[tablemtn]

Speaking of sprawl, Stockton and Modesto (to the southeast) have gradually been creeping closer together over the years along 99. As has Modesto with Turlock (also to its southeast, along the same route).

The Central Valley is hot and dusty and very unfashionable, but quite a few people live in the string of cities from Manteca to Merced (a distance of about 55 miles by road). And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than the Bay Area.