Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that Regional Transit has plans to eventually extend light rail to SMF.
Why, when they built the original lines, did RT not begin at the airport? Economic, logistical, political reasons? In my experience elsewhere, cities typically focus on the airport as a key component to integrate transit and easily get tourists from the airport to downtown, the hotels, and whatever convention centers/sights that take their money. Taxis are 10x the cost and the bus is, well, a bus. I'm interested in knowing what went down, because it seems like a pretty glaring omission for a substantial investment.
Light rail in the 1980s was generally envisioned as a way for commuters to get to work, not a way to get to the airport. Most of the alignment used either existing railroad right-of-way or space parallel to highways to reduce costs, and there weren't any railroad lines to the airport. Finally, a line to the airport would have required enormous expenses to run LRVs along a levee over the former rice fields that are now North Natomas. None of the neighborhoods north of Business 80 west of Northgate or west of I-5. The levees were not considered sufficient for protecting residential property, so the entire run would have been on an elevated structure, like the old trestles that carried Sacramento Northern trains through Yolo County 100 years ago. The line would have required enormous expense, essentially running on an enormous bridge the entire way, while not serving any additional customers--nobody lived in North Natomas, and nobody lives in the considerable gap of farmland between North Natomas and the airport today.
Considering how far Sacramento's airport is from downtown, it's not too surprising that we didn't build a light rail extension to the airport and still haven't. San Diego's light rail system was built about a few years before Sacramento's, and it doesn't have a branch that goes directly to the airport--even though their system goes right past the airport! You detrain at a nearby station to catch a shuttle to the airport. San Jose's light rail system was completed in the same year as ours, and they don't have a line to the airport either--you get off the train and catch a connector shuttle to the airport. BART didn't build a connector to San Francisco Airport until 2003, 41 years after the system opened, and is still finishing the line to Oakland airport 10 years later--and in both cases, they don't have the physical distances between major service areas and airports that Sacramento does.
So maybe the better question is, why do we have our ersatz Yolobus line to the airport, which picks up at a few semi-random spots around downtown Sacramento, instead of a dedicated shuttle bus line that picks up at a Light Rail station (such as Sacramento Valley Station, our intermodal depot with rail/bus connections) and brings people directly to the airport?
Perfectly good bus that does the same thing for a lot less money so it wasn't a priority. Since the '80s, the demographic that considers itself too good for a bus has gotten interested in public transportation whereas before they really weren't. Some of that demographic learned to ride on a bus, some of it now wants trains, the majority still has no interest in transit of any kind.
Yolo bus drops off within a block of light rail. I understand that that is a long distance to walk, but it's something the too good for a bus but wants to ride a choo choo crowd will have to grapple with eventually as the choo choo will almost never drop them off curbside either and they will be force to walk some distance.
not till you you get mayor jorden to be under your thumb and get him..and others to believe this will help the kings basket ball company owners make more money will this happen.
Light rail in the 1980s was generally envisioned as a way for commuters to get to work, not a way to get to the airport. Most of the alignment used either existing railroad right-of-way or space parallel to highways to reduce costs, and there weren't any railroad lines to the airport. Finally, a line to the airport would have required enormous expenses to run LRVs along a levee over the former rice fields that are now North Natomas. None of the neighborhoods north of Business 80 west of Northgate or west of I-5. The levees were not considered sufficient for protecting residential property, so the entire run would have been on an elevated structure, like the old trestles that carried Sacramento Northern trains through Yolo County 100 years ago. The line would have required enormous expense, essentially running on an enormous bridge the entire way, while not serving any additional customers--nobody lived in North Natomas, and nobody lives in the considerable gap of farmland between North Natomas and the airport today.
Considering how far Sacramento's airport is from downtown, it's not too surprising that we didn't build a light rail extension to the airport and still haven't. San Diego's light rail system was built about a few years before Sacramento's, and it doesn't have a branch that goes directly to the airport--even though their system goes right past the airport! You detrain at a nearby station to catch a shuttle to the airport. San Jose's light rail system was completed in the same year as ours, and they don't have a line to the airport either--you get off the train and catch a connector shuttle to the airport. BART didn't build a connector to San Francisco Airport until 2003, 41 years after the system opened, and is still finishing the line to Oakland airport 10 years later--and in both cases, they don't have the physical distances between major service areas and airports that Sacramento does.
So maybe the better question is, why do we have our ersatz Yolobus line to the airport, which picks up at a few semi-random spots around downtown Sacramento, instead of a dedicated shuttle bus line that picks up at a Light Rail station (such as Sacramento Valley Station, our intermodal depot with rail/bus connections) and brings people directly to the airport?
In general it seems like airports aren't really good transit destinations. See Jarret Walker here.
A big reason that RT isn't that useful as it could be is that it can't afford to run bus lines frequently enough where you know you can rely on the service without having to memorize bus schedules. If RT is spending lots of its operating fares serving low usage routes that people aren't generally using that is taking away money from RT to increase the frequency of service on the routes that people are using. If RT is going to extend light rail anywhere it should be building it in the area where it has the bus lines running the closest to capacity, namely from downtown, via Broadway and down Stockton Blvd. If we are going to criticize RT for any decision lets criticize them for not increasing capacity in the one corridor in this area that probably could use the extra capacity that light rail provides. (Stockton Blvd) But Airport project is a bad project despite being politically popular.
A big reason that RT isn't that useful as it could be is that it can't afford to run bus lines frequently enough where you know you can rely on the service without having to memorize bus schedules. If RT is spending lots of its operating fares serving low usage routes that people aren't generally using that is taking away money from RT to increase the frequency of service on the routes that people are using. If RT is going to extend light rail anywhere it should be building it in the area where it has the bus lines running the closest to capacity, namely from downtown, via Broadway and down Stockton Blvd. If we are going to criticize RT for any decision lets criticize them for not increasing capacity in the one corridor in this area that probably could use the extra capacity that light rail provides. (Stockton Blvd) But Airport project is a bad project despite being politically popular.
I think I recall seeing a long-term transit plan, that included various scenarios for funding, that included a street car in the area you're talking about in the high-funding scenario, and 15-minute or less headway busses in the moderate-fund scenario. But this is just off memory.
I agree that the airport for light rail isn't the best use of funding. For their faults, RT does seem highly data-driven, and really do focus limited funding on expanding popular routes. However, I was reading a Q&A session with the general manager of RT and have to say I do disagree with him on the issue of public transit access to the airport at all. He said that the existence of the Yolobus routes and the fact that their ridership numbers were low was ample reason not to provide RT access to the airport. That's a tortured assumption. At 1-hour headway, there's NO way a traveler would rely on bus to get to/from airport. On the way there, it's too risky to miss the bus, and one the way home, it's impossible to time the connection. As well, Yolo doesn't try to meet existing connection to get home, so it stops at random spots on L St instead of the Sac Valley Station. Even if ridership numbers aren't fantastic, there's some value in your organization simply providing a way to get to town without using an overpriced taxi. There's a reason that LRV to the airport is a popular idea and that's because it's convenient and impressive to visitors: it *feels* very metropolitan. If you've used it in Portland, it makes you feel like you're in a city that has its crap together. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing that the only access currently is provided by the neighboring county. I think if funding is a real issue, the airport, county, tourism board, etc, should fund it specifically as a PR tool.
I think I recall seeing a long-term transit plan, that included various scenarios for funding, that included a street car in the area you're talking about in the high-funding scenario, and 15-minute or less headway busses in the moderate-fund scenario. But this is just off memory.
I agree that the airport for light rail isn't the best use of funding. For their faults, RT does seem highly data-driven, and really do focus limited funding on expanding popular routes. However, I was reading a Q&A session with the general manager of RT and have to say I do disagree with him on the issue of public transit access to the airport at all. He said that the existence of the Yolobus routes and the fact that their ridership numbers were low was ample reason not to provide RT access to the airport. That's a tortured assumption. At 1-hour headway, there's NO way a traveler would rely on bus to get to/from airport. On the way there, it's too risky to miss the bus, and one the way home, it's impossible to time the connection. As well, Yolo doesn't try to meet existing connection to get home, so it stops at random spots on L St instead of the Sac Valley Station. Even if ridership numbers aren't fantastic, there's some value in your organization simply providing a way to get to town without using an overpriced taxi.[/quote]
If you increased the frequency of any line, I am sure that there would be some sort of marginal increase is usage of the line. But the majority of the people in the region going to the airport don't live on this bus line nor will they live on this future light rail line, that means to use the service they will need to make a transfer. Let's say you are flying to Los Angeles. The flight takes roughly an hour, and you are supposed to be there 90 minutes to go through passenger screening. But to take transit to get there, you can easily add another hour just getting there via RT because most of RT service requires pretty substantial waiting times while waiting for a transfer. Realistically I just think the potential number of people who will actually use this service is small. How many people are going to want to screw around in Sacramento 2 1/2 hours before they make a one hour flight. For longer flights like to Chicago, when you have spent all day in airports making connections, how many people want to screw around for another hour plus to get home via regional transit, vs just take a taxi or have someone else pick them up at the airport? Remember the airport isn't the Greyhound station, the people who fly are probably significantly wealthier than the average resident of Sacramento.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryuns
There's a reason that LRV to the airport is a popular idea and that's because it's convenient and impressive to visitors: it *feels* very metropolitan. If you've used it in Portland, it makes you feel like you're in a city that has its crap together. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing that the only access currently is provided by the neighboring county. I think if funding is a real issue, the airport, county, tourism board, etc, should fund it specifically as a PR tool.
I actually think this is the primary reason that the project will be pushed through. But there have been a lot of bad projects that this region has pushed through because they want Sacramento to be perceived as metropolitian or a big league city or what ever you want to call it, including subsidizing the arena for the Kings as well as building the arena downtown.
But I see this as an issue of good governance. I see a reason for RT running some poorly utilized lines as public service obligations - I understand that RT probably needs to run a bus once an hour to Kaiser, not because that line will ever be super highly utilized, but because poor or disabled people sometimes have to go to the doctor and that line addresses that need for those people who really need the service. The people who need RT to Kaiser really depend on it even though that bus line is complete money trap. But I don't see the same compelling reason to run service out to the airport. The people flying everywhere aren't generally the poor and disabled as much as the wealthy yuppies and a huge loss making service for RT to benefit this group of people seems wrong. Its the wrong type of reverse socialism, a project that takes from the poor to subsidize the rich.
But I am also frustrated at the number of projects this region pursues because some people are concerned the region doesn't feel like a big city. Really what is so wrong with the place as it is right now?
There's a reason that LRV to the airport is a popular idea and that's because it's convenient and impressive to visitors: it *feels* very metropolitan. If you've used it in Portland, it makes you feel like you're in a city that has its crap together. Frankly, it's a bit embarrassing that the only access currently is provided by the neighboring county. I think if funding is a real issue, the airport, county, tourism board, etc, should fund it specifically as a PR tool.
And I think this forces us to ask a hard question: What is the real purpose of a transit system for a city like Sacramento? I can think of three possible answers:
1. To serve commuters and alleviate peak hour congestion.
2. To be a showpiece for Sacramento's "big city" ambitions.
3. To be useful to the carless among us.
(1) This one would have the most support, and is probably the most realistic. It also makes a lot of sense if you have a cluster of people in residential area X all commuting to/from workplace Y at more or less the same time of day. Certain group events like Concerts and Ball Games, or even young people going to and from school, depending upon the size and shape of the district, also might work with this purpose.
(2) brings us back to the Un-City problem. Sacramento has big city ambitions, but does not have the population and territorial clout to make them happen. If only Un-City had been annexed by Sacramento from the get go, Sacramento would be about a million people rather than about 450,000 or so.
Moreover, some showpiece attempts, like Sacramento's K street as a pedestrian / Light rail / street car mall, have been abysmal failures. In a few circumstances, showpiece transit systems work (like San Francisco's cable cars, BART to SFO, or its historic / nostalgia streetcars), but in general they have not.
(3) For some high-use corridors, like Line 51 along Stockton Boulevard, Line 80/84 along Watt Avenue or Line 30 along J Street, continuous and frequent bus service can work, but for some other bus routes, I see no reason why having a "Dial A Ride" service would not be better. This is already the case for the handicapped, who find Paratransit advantageous as it is. Perhaps services like Lyft or Uber will expand further, or the semi-handicapped or truly destitute can get subsidy to use them.
Last edited by NickB1967; 10-24-2014 at 11:37 AM..
Ironically, moving the Kings stadium to downtown has made the "Green Line" (Natomas-Airport light rail) *less* desirable, although the arena move certainly does improve the desirability of the rest of the rail system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
