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.
Ok Mario Andretti I’m calling you out on this one.
Sacramentans don't give a hoot whether you or anyone else considers Sac to be part of the BahhhhhAreeaaah.
All that matters to us is that if I want to enjoy the latest thing in SF or go to my SF friends Halloween Party I can be there in an hour.
I never used to really pay attention to how long it takes until one time we clocked it at 1hr 15 minutes (Sac-SF), and then we found we were getting there even faster. The last time, bridge to bridge, Sac's Tower Bridge to the SF side of the Bay Bridge it took us only 57 minutes, and there was the usual slow downs, traffic was moderate, i think it was a Saturday morning leaving Sac aroun 11ish.....which is late, I always tell people to leave before 9am on a weekend.
I always clock the drive time now just because sometimes I don't even believe it myself but its true, really, and this is traveling about 65-80mph. Yes, really it took us only 1hr 20 to South SF, too. The longest it ever took us was 2hours.
The reason why some folks say we are part of the Bay Area is because we can easily do Bay Area things as much as folks who live as far out as Santa Rosa or South San Jose.
My husband works for a Silicon Valley company and we live in Sacramento, I work in Sac. We have relatives and friends throughout the Bay and do things in the City(SF) on a whim, often (lately not so much because there is just so much to do in Sacramento).
I feel we have the best of both the Bay and Sac, and I like that Sac isn't just another Bay Area city as Sacramento has its own identity; it always has, and proudly.
Here is the thing too that I've known for a long time, the "Bay Area" is so disconnected in so many ways. How often does someone in Antioch spend time at SF's Ocean Beach or hangs out in Palo Alto. How often does a San Franciscan spend time shopping in Walnut Creek or driving to Fairfield to shop at the discount stores. How often does someone from Pleasanton spend a day shopping/dining SF's Union Street and walking around the Palace of Fine Arts? Probably not any more or even less than I do as a Sacramentan. In this sense, Sacramento really is just another city further out from the Bay, especially when you can easily be in reach of any Bay city within 1 to 2 hours.
Hey Taco, what's with all the disbelief. So you don't even live in NorCal.
Because what you say is not possible with the information you provided. Distance = Rate x Time. You say you made it from the Tower bridge into San Francisco in 57 minutes in traffic with slowdowns. To go 84 miles in 57 minutes you would need to go over 88mph the whole time. Seeing you’re not starting at 88 mph or maintaining that speed puts it much higher. You said you drive between 65-80 mph. How you can make it to South San Francisco in heavy traffic in 1:20 is beyond me. You would need to do over 72mph the whole time. Very doable with zero to light traffic, impossible in the heavy traffic you said you had.
I’ve made these trips countless times and know what it takes to make it into the city in under 1 hour, or south of it in a little over. It requires zero traffic and/or passing people on the shoulder. Trust me I know, my uncle would do it. Once you said there was traffic I knew it couldn’t be true. Numbers don’t lie, hence my disbelief.
I was taught as a young child how to calculate our driving time. On our countless trips to Los Angeles and Sacramento from San Diego I would do this as a game to occupy myself between road signs, still do to this day. It’s amazing what happens to your average speed with occasional slowdowns. Try it on your next trip, you’ll be surprised with the results. In my case I always do 80mph, but my trips ends up being closer to 65mph even in the lightest of traffic. It’s easy to figure it out in my head when I know any two of distance, time, or speed. I had fun with this in college when people would say how fast they made it to Florida for spring break. I guess they forgot 9th grade algebra when they giving their time or speed.
I don’t doubt you often make good time going as often as you say. I’m sure you know the right times to leave, as do I with trips throughout the state. I just know what traffic/accidents can do to our freeways, and found your times and/or conditions exaggerated, that’s all.
Saying Sacramento is a part of the Bay Area is like saying San Diego is a part of Los Angeles or saying that Milwaukee is a part of Chicago or Philadelphia is a part of Greater NYC. Just because they’re in close proximity doesn’t mean they’re a part of the same metro area. They’re close enough to each other to partake and take advantage of what each has to offer, but they’re far enough away to have their own identity.
Saying Sacramento is a part of the Bay Area is like saying San Diego is a part of Los Angeles or saying that Milwaukee is a part of Chicago or Philadelphia is a part of Greater NYC. Just because they’re in close proximity doesn’t mean they’re a part of the same metro area. They’re close enough to each other to partake and take advantage of what each has to offer, but they’re far enough away to have their own identity.
Yes, and nobody is saying Sacramento is part of the Bay Area, and we are glad its NOT. But, like I said before as a Sacramentan I easily do many Bay Area things if I want to and almost as easy as some of the cities on the edge of the Bay Metro that are officially part of the BahhAreeaaah, and I don't have to drive if I don't want to as there is a commuter train that connects Sacramento directly with the Bay; its called the Capitol Corridor and its better, cleaner, quieter train than BART or the Caltrain.
Here's the difference between Philly/NYC and SAC/Bay Area......New Jersey.... and 15-20 million more people, so it's a lot easier to travel between SAC/Bay Area than Philly/NYC.
Here's the difference between SD/LA and SAC/Bay Area....Orange County... and 5-10 million more people, so it's a lot easier to travel between SAC/Bay Area than SD/LA.
City Hall to City Hall:
San Diego/Los Angeles: 120 miles
Philadelphia/NYC: 94 miles
Sacramento/SF: 87 miles
Because what you say is not possible with the information you provided. Distance = Rate x Time. You say you made it from the Tower bridge into San Francisco in 57 minutes in traffic with slowdowns. To go 84 miles in 57 minutes you would need to go over 88mph the whole time. Seeing you’re not starting at 88 mph or maintaining that speed puts it much higher. You said you drive between 65-80 mph. How you can make it to South San Francisco in heavy traffic in 1:20 is beyond me. You would need to do over 72mph the whole time. Very doable with zero to light traffic, impossible in the heavy traffic you said you had.
I’ve made these trips countless times and know what it takes to make it into the city in under 1 hour, or south of it in a little over. It requires zero traffic and/or passing people on the shoulder. Trust me I know, my uncle would do it. Once you said there was traffic I knew it couldn’t be true. Numbers don’t lie, hence my disbelief.
I was taught as a young child how to calculate our driving time. On our countless trips to Los Angeles and Sacramento from San Diego I would do this as a game to occupy myself between road signs, still do to this day. It’s amazing what happens to your average speed with occasional slowdowns. Try it on your next trip, you’ll be surprised with the results. In my case I always do 80mph, but my trips ends up being closer to 65mph even in the lightest of traffic. It’s easy to figure it out in my head when I know any two of distance, time, or speed. I had fun with this in college when people would say how fast they made it to Florida for spring break. I guess they forgot 9th grade algebra when they giving their time or speed.
I don’t doubt you often make good time going as often as you say. I’m sure you know the right times to leave, as do I with trips throughout the state. I just know what traffic/accidents can do to our freeways, and found your times and/or conditions exaggerated, that’s all.
I don't know what to tell you, its true, maybe my husband was driving faster than I thought. You got something wrong...I didn't say there was heavy traffic. It was moderate to light; but it wasn't like driving at 3am in the morning either, there was more traffic than that, and the usual slow downs(not coming to a dead stop) was Yolo Causeway, Fairfield, Berkeley to Bay Bridge. In case I said it wrong, the 57 minutes mark was at the Bridge Toll, so no we were technically....3 for 4 miles from the SF Border mark on the Bay Bridge(I'm sure you know where that is). All in all, over the last several trips I'd say my average was 1hr to 1hr 20mins, max going to SF from Sacramento.
I don't know what to tell you, its true, maybe my husband was driving faster than I thought. You got something wrong...I didn't say there was heavy traffic. It was moderate to light; but it wasn't like driving at 3am in the morning either, there was more traffic than that, and the usual slow downs(not coming to a dead stop) was Yolo Causeway, Fairfield, Berkeley to Bay Bridge. In case I said it wrong, the 57 minutes mark was at the Bridge Toll, so no we were technically....3 for 4 miles from the SF Border mark on the Bay Bridge(I'm sure you know where that is). All in all, over the last several trips I'd say my average was 1hr to 1hr 20mins, max going to SF from Sacramento.
No I went off what you said. Moderate for your 57 minute trip, and heavy for your 1:20 trip
The last time, bridge to bridge, Sac's Tower Bridge to the SF side of the Bay Bridge it took us only 57 minutes, and there was the usual slow downs, traffic was moderate
On Friday, late afternoon with heavy traffic it took us 1hr and 20 minutes to get to South San Francisco
I will give you the benefit of the doubt with the speed your husband drove being faster and the distance changing. I still find it highly improbable even with the conditions changing.
Let me add: SoCal folks don't get it that Sacramento is a lot more connected to San Francisco than San Diego is to LA.....simply my shear distance, the amount of people and traffic.
Downtown Sacramento is 33 miles CLOSER to downtown San Francisco than Downtown San Diego is to downtown Los Angeles.
33 EXTRA MILES in SoCal traffic is way worse than SAC/BAY traffic.
Downtown Sacramento is even closer to Downtown San Jose - (the far southern part of the Bay Area) than downtown San Deigo is to downtown LA.
Let me add: SoCal folks don't get it that Sacramento is a lot more connected to San Francisco than San Diego is to LA.....simply my shear distance, the amount of people and traffic.
Downtown Sacramento is 33 miles CLOSER to downtown San Francisco than Downtown San Diego is to downtown Los Angeles.
33 EXTRA MILES in SoCal traffic is way worse than SAC/BAY traffic.
Downtown Sacramento is even closer to Downtown San Jose - (the far southern part of the Bay Area) than downtown San Deigo is to downtown LA.
This is completly irrelevant if you’re trying to respond to me without acknowledging basic math when I called out your travel times.
Sacramento maybe closer by 33 miles to downtown San Francisco than LA & SD are to each other, but the downtowns of Sacramento and San Francisco are still over 90 miles away. Plus no one, and I mean no one, is trying to make San Diego part of LA, or that we go there on a whim to take things in like you do with San Francisco. How far is Sacramento to San Jose? 120+ miles? You’re not making your case any stronger. Your connection to the Bay Area is more similar to the Inland Empire’s to Los Angeles, only Sacramento is still further away. Heck San Bernardino is only 60 miles to Downtown LA, and Temecula on the furthest outreach, a place more associated with San Diego is 90 miles away, the same as you are with San Francisco.
LA traffic is worse than the Bay Area, but San Diego’s isn’t. Anyone that has experienced both will tell you this, as will a simple google search.
This shouldn’t be shocking coming from the person who posts Sacramento was 65 degrees at 8:30 am or 11:30pm while ignoring the fact it was 90-100 mid day all summer long. There’s daily updates on the Sacramento board for this, with heat index figures instead of temperatures to beat it down more.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I love Sacramento. It played a big part in my life growing up all the way to my college years. But you, just like The Topper with San Jose, do it a disservice sometimes with your posts.
I’m done here, I’ll do my part giving this thread back to the fine folks in Cleveland and Sacramento. Cleveland is great. I’d live there over any other Great Lake city, and most in this country. This includes where I went to school and have family with Detroit, or even Chicago. You wanna know why? You can surf in Cleveland, and the people are very unpretentious, and it’s a fun city too.
Plus no one, and I mean no one, is trying to make San Diego part of LA, or that we go there on a whim to take things in like you do with San Francisco.
Your connection to the Bay Area is more similar to the Inland Empire’s to Los Angeles
Lol once again, you're misreading the room. Nobody is saying Sacramento is part of the Bay Area, but you're being willfully ignorant if you're upside down or denying that there is strong connection between Sac and The Bay. That's all he's saying. Your trips 30 years ago are inconsequential as to whether there's a connection between Sac and The Bay today...
Personally, I'm not as big a fan of The Bay. A trip here and there is nice but I find it to be one of the more overrated urban regions in the entire country. Less than ideal quality of life and race relations is enough to keep me away. Personally I wish Chim toned down the Bay talk too, as it takes away from Sacramento's own strengths. Sac does fine on it's own, but yes, being close to The Bay is an amenity, though none of the many East Coasters who have told me they enjoy Sacramento, said so because it is close to The Bay. I have not heard that one single time...it is a completely Californian attitude to infer that Sac being close to The Bay is its biggest selling point lmao...
Like you, I've also been to Cleveland, so as it relates to this thread, Sacramento certainly stands on it's own with Cleveland (and any other comparably-sized city). They feel about the same size (Sac probably feels a little larger). Cleveland feels older and more established. I really like Cleveland as well; I would choose Cleveland over many places (for instance, if it was versus a Bay city here, or anywhere in Texas probably), but I prefer Sac to The Land...
Chim does need to find his zen a bit more in Sacramento threads sometimes (still love you dude). Your point is right Murkside, the bay should be viewed as an amenity similar to Tahoe. Sacramentans know its there, doesn't really need to be a heavy emphasis of just how close it is or held up as a 'fill-in' for Sacramento. I do wish we would invest in some infrastructure in this country and could get Capitol Corridor upgraded to its long term plans, would mean a 45 min train ride from Sac to Oakland. Good area to have next door but certainly distinct (hell Bay Areans talk about it like another galaxy).
The Bay Area thing contributes to this perception that Sacramento itself doesn't have very many amenities. The focus is on that larger kickass NorCal region with Tahoe, Redwoods, etc. It's a good city in its own right and can be judged on its merits vs the region at large.
Sorry to continue the drive time bitchfest but a sub 1:20 Saturday morning trip to the Bay Bridge is an extreme outlier. I've manged to break the hour mark by a couple minutes from Sac-Oak but that was a weekday night with open stretches where I was able break free and go 90mph+, which just isn't possible at certain times of the day. Leaving downtown Sac on a weekend morning I would plan on 1:40 before getting past Treasure Island.
Regarding the crime stats up-thread, I'm guessing Cleveland is one of those cities where violent crime is pretty heavily concentrated in certain areas, so the effect isn't felt citywide and in large parts of the city safety isn't a huge concern. Stats can tell a much different story than being there.
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.
