Sacramento Transportation

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by OneRinconHill

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.

Measure M fell short of 2/3rds so nothing will be happening. What is wrong with people? I hate tax but come on. 64% yes and 67% needed.

[CastleScott]

Measure M fell short of 2/3rds so nothing will be happening. What is wrong with people? I hate tax but come on. 64% yes and 67% needed.

I think the NIMBY's in Natomas near or off Truxel Road killed it, I live in north Natomas and I would see a lot of signs along and near Truxel saying No Lt Rail on Truxel and No on M. Some of my friends said that they should have ran the light rail alignment on the east side of I-5 and there they could run the trains faster to the airport instead of a slow route along Truxel which would have had to remove several residential properties and remove lots of large shade trees.

Btw I voted for M and I think this may have killed the local match for a lot of good projects around here (here that Trump wants to do huge infrastructure-which may now go else where)..

[wburg]

It's disappointing, but yeah, the streetcar plan is probably dead in its current form--I don't see the current administration being friendly to funding public transit lines, and another attempt to fund expanded RT services is a minimum of four years off. Get ready to see West Sacramento's waterfront more closely resemble North Natomas, as plans that called for transit-oriented densities and walkable areas have to re-plan for increased parking and automobile access. Just an occasional exception here and there, of course, until it's everywhere.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

I think the NIMBY's in Natomas near or off Truxel Road killed it, I live in north Natomas and I would see a lot of signs along and near Truxel saying No Lt Rail on Truxel and No on M. Some of my friends said that they should have ran the light rail alignment on the east side of I-5 and there they could run the trains faster to the airport instead of a slow route along Truxel which would have had to remove several residential properties and remove lots of large shade trees.

Btw I voted for M and I think this may have killed the local match for a lot of good projects around here (here that Trump wants to do huge infrastructure-which may now go else where)..

So frustrating. The point is so that it would go through places where people live! I would love if a light rail line was within 4 or 5 blocks of where I lived, especially those people who have no other alternative but the mess that is crossing the American River over I-5 or Hwy 160 at rush hour. How ridiculous.

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

So frustrating. The point is so that it would go through places where people live! I would love if a light rail line was within 4 or 5 blocks of where I lived, especially those people who have no other alternative but the mess that is crossing the American River over I-5 or Hwy 160 at rush hour. How ridiculous.

Many people wanted this, but getting 2/3rds of people to agree on anything is very difficult.

[kamehameha]

Try traveling from West Sac to San Francisco every single day.

[CastleScott]

Get ready to see West Sacramento's waterfront more closely resemble North Natomas, as plans that called for transit-oriented densities and walkable areas have to re-plan for increased parking and automobile access. Just an occasional exception here and there, of course, until it's everywhere.

Man I sure hope not!! That would be a huge wasted grand opportunity, I wonder if a public-private partnership would help for the streetcar such as some large local companies kicking in some cash towards a local match (heck it would run to or near Raley's Field perhaps Raley's could kick in some $$$-just a thought).

I moved here from metro Denver almost 2 yrs ago and I thought since Sacramento is California's capitol that it would be rather progressive-man I was kinda wrong on that thought and some folks around here seem as if their stuck in old-school bad habits almost like they just moved here from the farm, ranch or small town. Anyway metro Denver Fastracks project has actually been a large public-private partnership with several large construction/engineering companies involved as well a huge firm that makes passenger rail equipment-this was called a P3 partnership.

It sure seems that LA, SF and San Diego can build grand high-ridership systems and Sac only goes a tiny fraction of that-something is wrong with that picture.

On the bright side at least with the new Golden One Center downtown and other new entertainment venues going in there plus some new housing, new hotels things are starting to look up. Hell I remember Denver was there back in the late 80s early 90s just before we got Major League Baseball-Coors Field, the Pepsi Center and the Broncos built a new stadium nearby and the first light rail line went in. Sacramento will get there but there's got to be a on-going push to get there-just my 2 cents on the subject.

[UnclearColt]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

I moved here from metro Denver almost 2 yrs ago and I thought since Sacramento is California's capitol that it would be rather progressive-man I was kinda wrong on that thought and some folks around here seem as if their stuck in old-school bad habits almost like they just moved here from the farm, ranch or small town.

I'd say Sacramento is kind of an unfortunate mix of Bay Area progressivism with good ole' fashioned Central Valley conservatism. The conservative element becomes disturbingly apparent if you read through local news comments sections.

[CastleScott]

^ Ahh thanks for the insight buddy and its too bad that that Central Valley conservatism seems to rear its ugly head. Heck I really think Sacramento has potential-I kinda think that we could have a La Austin TX right here if we had the backing of the local powers at be.

I've got a college degree in both community planning and business (my career is more on the business side) and those areas along the river in West Sac have huge potential if that streetcar or light rail would get over there. Ever been to London? Well you could develop a nice dense mix of uses there which could include anywhere from brownstone rowhomes to mid and high rise condos in buildings up to 25 floors and still keep a nice open corridor along the river. The parking at Raley's Field should be in muti-story garages with retail uses on the ground floor instead of surface lots.

Anyway just my 2 cents on this..

[Lipani]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

It sure seems that LA, SF and San Diego can build grand high-ridership systems and Sac only goes a tiny fraction of that-something is wrong with that picture.

I wouldn't call San Diego's grand. One of our big advantages is that we have a line which connects to the border and a neighboring metro area of 1.7 million people (20,000 of whom are pedestrians and generally take the trolley). Even the midcoast extension is years behind schedule. After that is completed we'll be lucky to see a new rail line for quite some time.

[stepper77]

I can't see how anything passes two thirds to be honest. 64% saying yes is a huge consensus. And still it means nothing.

I live just off Truxel and West El Camino and me and a lot of neighbors were actually excited about the potential of the light rail down Truxel to the airport. I just wonder if it makes more sense to run light rail up Truxel to San Juan, then across to El Centro and up to the airport. There is more land undeveloped which can maybe be built denser around transit. I just don't see how all that suburban sprawl north of 80 on Truxel can be retrofitted for light rail transit in a cost effective way.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by stepper77

I can't see how anything passes two thirds to be honest. 64% saying yes is a huge consensus. And still it means nothing.

I live just off Truxel and West El Camino and me and a lot of neighbors were actually excited about the potential of the light rail down Truxel to the airport. I just wonder if it makes more sense to run light rail up Truxel to San Juan, then across to El Centro and up to the airport. There is more land undeveloped which can maybe be built denser around transit. I just don't see how all that suburban sprawl north of 80 on Truxel can be retrofitted for light rail transit in a cost effective way.

Think you are confusing measure B with measure M (placer county)

Sac's measure b failed at 66.02%... needed another 0.58%

[CastleScott]

I wouldn't call San Diego's grand. One of our big advantages is that we have a line which connects to the border and a neighboring metro area of 1.7 million people (20,000 of whom are pedestrians and generally take the trolley).

I kind of agree with you on this, but I do like those red cars though-the last time I rode the border line was back in Oct 1996-a buddy of mine who lived in Solana Beach took it down to the border then a short bus ride to downtown TJ to bet on some college football games. I remember it was jammed packed both going and coming back as it was a Friday evening..

Sac's measure b failed at 66.02%... needed another 0.58%

That 66.02% would be considered a landslide victory in my old home state of Colorado..

[CastleScott]

Since the high-speed rail spur is proposed to run up to Sacramento from Stockton on the south , how about they up-grade the Union Pacific Capitol Corridor to higher speed with 90mph in spots and 110mph on long straightaways. The UP and CalTrans could slap down some concrete ties on both mains in several spots and straighten curves in some spots and bank curves in other locations. Also signal upgrades and special quad gates at most at-grade crossings would need to be done which could be done in perhaps 3 phases. This would speed up the Capitol Corridor trains and even speed up UP freights-this would be quite similar in scope to the higher speed Chicago-St Louis Corridor that's almost finished-any thoughts??

[CastleScott]

^ Gotta admit an expensive tall bridge over Suisun Bay would be awesome to have to avoid ship traffic at Martinez..

[ozone]

Re. the Measure I think there wasn't enough explanation about where the money would go. And the vagueness was probably intentional. Throw in a bunch of potential transportation fixes throughout the county and people will buy it. Obviously the strategy didn't work. You are asking people to pay for something they don't see any real value in (for them). People are generally self-absorbed and cannot see the bigger picture. I was not surprised by the vote. As nice as it would have been to take a slow trolley from the middle of Midtown to the West Sacramento city hall I'm not crying about this. It was never a real transportation solution for the people who live in the Central City or for the majority of those who work there. If they ever get serious about creating a real inner city transport system I'd be on board.

As far as Sacramento being a mix of progressivism and conservatism. You can find that mix in Los Angeles County as well. I don't think it's that unusual.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ Gotta admit an expensive tall bridge over Suisun Bay would be awesome to have to avoid ship traffic at Martinez..

Actually, the worst part of the Capital Corridor is the snails pace between Martinez and Richmond, and short of buying lots of new right of way in what is already expensive real estate, I don't see that changing.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Majin

Actually a bigger problem is the 2/3's majority that required it to pass in the first place. Thats too high of a hurdle in any city that is purposing any kind of tax increase. I really hope the city and KJ had a backup plan because I really never expected this to reach the 2/3's majority but was just hoping I was wrong.

And yet, in the past, transportation initiatives have passed the 2/3 hurdle, often easily, something that has been in place in CA law for decades, simply because it is all too easy to talk 50.0001% into taking from 49.9999%

I think the problems with the measure were:

1. Sales tax fatigue. I think the proposed stadium sales tax for Sacramento County a few years back, which was actually half for the stadium and half for whatever local government might have a whim, left a residual bad feeling for additional sales taxes among many voters of Sacramento County.

2. Light Rail to Airport. Do people want a slower trolley that goes up Truxel Road / Natomas Boulevard, or something that zips travelers from SMF to downtown, which should go along Interstate 5? I think the people who really needed to be sold on the Natomas Trolley, namely, Natomas residents, were just not sold on it.

3. Priority to Road Improvements. If the proponents had put widening Business 80 for bus and carpool lanes front and center--and promised funding for that *first*, I think the suburbanite voters would have gladly voted YES.

[CastleScott]

1. Sales tax fatigue. I think the proposed stadium sales tax for Sacramento County a few years back, which was actually half for the stadium and half for whatever local government might have a whim, left a resideual bad feeling for additional sales taxes among many voters of Sacramento County.

2. Light Rail to Airport. Do people want a slower trolley that goes up Truxel Road / Natomas Boulevard, or something that zips travelers from SMF to downtown, which should go along Interstate 5? I think the people who really needed to be sold on the Natomas Trolley, namely, Natomas residents, were just not sold on it.

3. Priority to Road Improvements. If the proponents had put widening Business 80 for bus and carpool lanes front and center--and promised funding for that *first*, I think the suburbanite voters would have gladly voted YES.

Yup you nailed it on all 3 of these.
1. I really noticed that local sales taxes especially in Sac County were quite high since I moved here about 2 yrs ago (they were getting high in my old home state of Colorado but when I got here-wow!)

2. Yes I really believe I-5 would have been a much better and faster route although I think transit planners were sold on Truxel Rd because of possible higher ridership however the person coming from the airport wants to get downtown in a timely manner which would have been a frustrating painfully long ride on Truxel (another thing is just getting the line along Truxel would have required the removal of lots of homes and businesses not to mention lots large beautiful trees that the nearby residents could not stomach-I remember seeing lots of lawn signs saying No Light Rail on Truxel no on B). I live in north Natomas near I-5 and Arena and work at the airport and as much as I would like to take a train to work it would be much faster to drive as I would have to also go out of my way to take a slow train..

3. Yes Business 80 should have been in the forefront on this and this was a huge missed opportunity on their part (that narrow Union Pacific railroad bridge should have been done long ago to ease that bottleneck).

[CastleScott]

Oh just a quick question on the topic of transportation, has anyone on here been on a tour of the Siemens plant? Just wondering-I'd love to go sometime as does my family.