HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #341  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2007, 10:47 PM
DALINSAC's Avatar
DALINSAC DALINSAC is offline
Ugliest Lamps on Earth!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 90
Intermodal Rail Station

How do you guys think the new rail station should look like?

I took these photos in Leipzig Germany. I like the preserved historic look of the exterior and the modern look of the interior. The entire bottom level is a huge shopping mall complete with restaurants, grocery stores, cafes, bars
Sorry, these are the only photos I have. It's much cooler than these show.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #342  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2007, 12:57 AM
DALINSAC's Avatar
DALINSAC DALINSAC is offline
Ugliest Lamps on Earth!
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 90
Transit funds marked for region
State's decision gives boost to capital's hopes for money to develop railyard.
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com

Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, December 1, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

Sacramento's plan for a massive urban village and transit hub in the downtown railyard got a boost this week when state officials agreed to pour hundreds of millions of dollars in new transportation bond funds into Northern California.

City leaders say they believe the decision by the California Transportation Commission gives them an inside track for $20 million to move the downtown Union Pacific rail line and provide better access to the railyard for development.

"This is a real shot in the arm," Mayor Heather Fargo said Friday. "With the (political) machinations, we were feeling a little concerned."

The hoped-for $20 million would come from up to $840 million the state commission intends to make available for projects in the Central Valley and Bay Area that would speed up movement of goods and reduce pollution.

Local transportation officials say moving the tracks would relieve freight- and passenger-train bottlenecks downtown.

In making their call, state commissioners rebuffed Southern California leaders who argued they should get 85 percent of the estimated $2 billion to $3 billion currently available because of the high percentage of shipments in and out of southern ports.

Most of the money will come from Proposition 1B transportation infrastructure funds approved in 2006 by state voters. The state Legislature has ultimate authority to make the allocations. Several Southern California legislators said they may try to block the funds.

In addition to the track money, Sacramento-area officials expect to apply for $10 million to help dredge the Port of Sacramento and $37 million for larger tunnels over Donner Summit to allow double-stacked freight trains through.

State commission officials said Friday they have made no commitment to any particular project yet.

However, commissioner Jim Earp said Sacramento's chances are good, thanks to a cooperative effort among Sacramento, Central Valley and Bay Area leaders on project requests.

"Our advice was to get your act together ... (and) put together a concise list," Earp said. Northern California's ability to do that jointly "bodes well for projects on the list."

The $20 million would be a boost for Sacramento after years of struggles to develop the largely vacant 240-acre railyard.

But it remains a drop in the bucket compared to the expected long-term costs of turning the site into an extension of downtown with offices, housing, stores, schools, entertainment venues and restaurants.

On Tuesday, the City Council is scheduled to discuss a $745 million plan to build the streets, utilities, bridges and other infrastructure necessary to develop the railyard.

That financing is expected to trickle in over years from increased property taxes, development fees and still-unallocated federal and state funds.

Officials plan to compete for funds from another voter-approved state bond measure, Proposition 1C, which includes money for in-fill housing projects near transit.

To open the railyard for development, however, officials say they first must move the tracks a few hundred feet north, allowing Fifth and Sixth streets to extend into the yard.

Moving the tracks will cost at least $46 million, city transportation official Fran Halbakken said. The city still must negotiate a final cost with the railroad and the railyard development company.

Officials plan to supplement the $20 million in state bond money with local Measure A transportation sales tax money.

The city also needs some $300 million to build a new multipurpose transit center after the tracks are moved.

Officials say the current depot is too small and antiquated to serve the expected million-plus people annually on local, regional and high-speed trains, buses and light rail.

The city is contemplating jacking up the current depot, sliding it north to be a part of the transit center.

Some historic preservationists and train-rider advocates oppose the track move and potential depot move, saying they benefit developers more than transit riders.

City officials say they will launch an environmental analysis of the move in a few months, and hope to have new tracks in place by 2011.

"But, in the transportation funding world, it's not over till it's over," Halbakken said.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #343  
Old Posted Dec 3, 2007, 5:47 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Well thats good news for the Railyards

As for what the depot should look like?? Most modernized big city train stations, like airport terminals around the world look like a mall. I'm cool with a completely modern station and I think moving the old depot is a major waste of money, time and effort. I don't expect it to happen anyway.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #344  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2007, 12:21 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Surface streets bear brunt of suburban commuters' daily toil

Planners have given up on creating connector between I-80, Highway 50
By Kelly Dunleavy of The Sacramento Business Journal

Friday, December 7, 2007

Of all the difficult commutes in the Sacramento area, the toughest might be for those who travel between the Folsom-El Dorado Hills area along Highway 50 and the Roseville-Rocklin area along Interstate 80.

Much to the dismay of employers on the eastern edge of the metropolitan area, commuters have few options, and many of these consist of travel on small, two-lane roads. And there's almost no hope of ever getting a highway connector built to lessen the load on the surface streets.

Freight traffic adds to the mix. For example, air freight to and from Mather Airport in Rancho Cordova often tends to cut between the freeways on these same surface streets rather than staying on the freeway and looping through Sacramento.

Regional planners offer varying degrees of hope.

The Placer County Transportation Agency and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments are working to expand and widen the heavily traveled north-south arterial, Folsom-Auburn Road (named Auburn-Folsom Road once it crosses into Placer County), as well as the Hazel Avenue bridge over the American River and to build a new route to replace Folsom Dam Road, closed due to security concerns.

"Other than widening existing roads and beefing them up, there's not really a solution," said Celia McAdam of the Placer County Transportation Agency.

Much of that road widening is happening on Sierra College Boulevard in Placer County and is planned for Hazel Avenue in Sacramento County, where lanes will be expanded from four to six all the way from the American River north to Rocklin.

The primary solutions that SACOG's plan offers to alleviate congestion between I-80 and Highway 50 include widening the key roads and improving the transit options between the areas.

A highway connector between I-80 and 50 might not be an option, but "we're trying to create that functional effect," said

SACOG's executive director, Michael McKeever. SACOG represents six counties and 22 cities, with 31 elected officials sitting on the board. It receives part of its funding from federal and state dollars and part from local city taxes, such as development impact fees, which developers pay to offset transportation costs.

Working within the framework of the existing street system is "a more effective solution," said Matt Carpenter,

SACOG's transportation planning manager, "a way to accommodate growth while accepting financial limitations and community resistance."

Teri Sheets, the alternative transportation analyst for the city of Roseville, is also studying service transportation options between Roseville and the 50 corridor.

A plan is in the works that would run a commuter bus from Roseville to the large Franchise Tax Board headquarters in the Rosemont area of Sacramento County. Not all the details have been worked out, but the city is working closely with businesses to ensure that the bus meets their needs, particularly the different shift schedules.

"But it'll take the better part of a year," Sheets said. More meetings with Sacramento Regional Transit are planned.

Employers demand solutions
Of all the various regional transportation agencies, the 50 Corridor Transportation Management Association has some of the most ambitious and interesting plans.

Although they get complaints about the connection between 50 and I-80 from commuters, more often the complaints are coming from employers, who want to ensure their workers are able to get to the job.

"Our most significant stakeholders are employers and property owners along the corridor," said executive director Rebecca Garrison.

While Garrison recognizes the work being done to improve car commutes, the construction on these roads will only make the commute worse for the next few years. As a result, her agency is looking at other transit options.

Large businesses on the TMA Board, including Intel, HealthNet, Kaiser and the Franchise Tax Board, are pushing for immediate solutions.

"They are used to identifying problems and solving them," Garrison said. And they want to know why their investments so far aren't having large returns for their employees. Many of the employers are frustrated transit isn't really an option.

"As they say, 'Close only counts in horseshoes,' " Garrison said. "Being able to ride the train and get within two miles of your work site is close, but how do you get to the front door?"

What the TMA decided, ultimately, was to focus on an increase in bus and shuttle services connecting to light rail and on exploring creative funding solutions.

"This is so important to our 50 corridor business community that some employers may be willing to be funding partners if they can be convinced that the service will be safe, comfortable, convenient and logical," Garrison said.

"This is so important to our 50 corridor business community that some employers may be willing to be funding partners if they can be convinced that the service will be safe, comfortable, convenient and logical," Garrison said.

"Everyone is eager to work together to find solutions."

Lost connection
For those still hoping for a highway connector, forget about it.

"The lack of a north/south connection between Highway 50 and I-80 is a major issue for commuters," Garrison said. "It's hard to prioritize it, since there's no shortage of 'major commute issues' in this region, but it certainly makes the top 10 list."

The history of this connector is long and complicated, stretching back into the 1980s.

Around 1988, the state Department of Transportation was examining a proposal to put a beltway between 50 and I-80. The beltway would have begun at the Highway 65 and I-80 junction and made its way over to Folsom. But it met with an outpouring of public resistance.

"A lot of metro areas have beltways," said Shelly Chernicki at Caltrans, "but this metro area didn't want one."

"It died a painful death," agreed McAdam of the Placer County Transportation Agency.

Now the extensive development of that area prevents any similar proposal from getting off the ground.

"If that were to be considered again today, it wouldn't be feasible," Chernicki said.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...s3.html?page=1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #345  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2007, 7:25 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
It's amazing to me that this area has such a strong history of opposition to solutions for problems that exist, but no such opposition is found when the development causing the problems is proposed.

Why can't the county build the needed infrastructure first, then allow developers to come in.

Worst. Planning. EVAR!!!
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #346  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2007, 7:49 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
itsmotorsport: It's called "money." Government doesn't have an infinite money fountain, and allocating resources depends largely on which of their constituents shout the loudest. The amount of money required for freeways is also beyond the fiscal ability of counties: our federal highway system was a massive national undertaking, enacted during an unprecedented period of financial growth and American industrial power.

It's also very, very difficult to predict where growth will occur in future decades. You also run into the "why build it when nobody lives there?" argument, which is difficult to counter unless specific developments are already planned.

Highways also cause their own problems: witness what happened to North Sacramento/Del Paso Boulevard when Highway 40 (Del Paso Boulevard) was replaced with Highway 160. A thriving business street went rapidly downhill as all the traffic took the new highway instead. Imagine, if you will, Sunrise Mall and environs looking like Del Paso Boulevard--that's one possible scenario if an 80/50 connector got built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #347  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 9:37 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I was scanning the Capitol Improvements list for the region and Roseville is
on the docket to get Light Rail in 2025.

Antelope Light Rail Extension
In Sacramento County: extend light rail line from I-80/Watt Avenue to Antelope Road.
$290,000,000 by 2023

Roseville LRT Extension
Sacramento Regional Transit District: build a light rail extension from Antelope Road to the City of Roseville.
$130,000,000 by 2025


http://www.sactaqc.org/Resources/Mea.../CIP_Modal.htm
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #348  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 11:04 PM
aufbau's Avatar
aufbau aufbau is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bushwick
Posts: 240
^^Great find Innov8. It brings up a question I've been meaning to ask: is the South Line Phase II to Cosumnes River College currently under construction? It says it will come online in 2009 and the wikipedia entry on Sac. light rail confirms that construction has already started. But not hearing anything about that extension in the local media or on this forum, I took that information with a grain of salt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #349  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 11:16 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
OOOoooooh traffic is gonna be lovely in Roseville in 2025. People will be
chartering helicopters to get to the grocery store and back.

When I see that the DNA line is going to take another 18 years, I can
believe it. It's just not crucial yet (imo). But when I see the traffic on I-80
and the congestion on the streets trying to pull onto the freeway around
Roseville, it makes me wonder how they can possibly put off a project
that's needed NOW for another 18 years.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #350  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 11:21 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
OOOoooooh traffic is gonna be lovely in Roseville in 2025. People will be
chartering helicopters to get to the grocery store and back.

When I see that the DNA line is going to take another 18 years, I can
believe it. It's just not crucial yet (imo). But when I see the traffic on I-80
and the congestion on the streets trying to pull onto the freeway around
Roseville, it makes me wonder how they can possibly put off a project
that's needed NOW for another 18 years.
Because, I'm guessing, if you ask most people in Roseville, they want nothing to do with light rail. They'd probably say something about it bringing a "bad element" up there.

Last edited by creamcityleo79; Dec 19, 2007 at 11:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #351  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2007, 10:03 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Region transit plan is blasted
Environmentalists contend it's overly focused on vehicles.
By Tony Bizjak - tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PST Friday, December 28, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B4


The Sacramento region's cities and counties are poised this spring to ratify what proponents say is a groundbreaking new $42 billion transportation spending plan with more money than ever for transit, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Environmentalists, however, complain the plan doesn't go far enough.

"We are asking for nothing short of a true paradigm shift" away from cars, officials with the Environmental Council of Sacramento wrote in an analysis last week.

The list of projects to be funded over the next 25 years is called the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and is published by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the region's transportation planning agency.

It is made up of local governments in Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer, Yolo, Yuba and Sutter counties.

SACOG officials counter that they have gone as far as they felt they could to create a spending plan that encourages more transit use but doesn't leave car drivers stuck in traffic jams.

"I value them pushing us on those things," SACOG Executive Director Mike McKeever said of the environmentalists' critique.

But, he said, his agency put as much money as it felt it legally can into transit. He countered that environmentalists have not met his challenge of showing exactly what additional revenue sources can be used for more buses and light rail.

"At some point," McKeever said, "it gets to be a credibility issue."

Certainly, environmentalists have come a long way from eight years ago when they sued local cities and counties, arguing officials were spending too much money on roads and not enough on alternatives.

Cities and counties prevailed, but environmentalist leader Andy Sawyer says, "it's probably the most effective lawsuit we ever lost."

The suit, he and other environmentalists said, helped prompt cities and counties to rethink sprawl, and agree to a set of principles – called the regional Blueprint – to build more compact, transit-friendly communities.

SACOG's 25-year plan includes money to extend light rail to the Sacramento International Airport and introduce "bus rapid transit" – buses that can travel in an exclusive lane – on some key streets around the region.

It also funds several major new roads, including a possible toll road, Placer Parkway, to connect the Roseville and Rocklin areas to the highways 70 and 99 in Sutter County toward the airport.

Another major beltway-style road is envisioned in southeast Sacramento County, most likely a widened Grant Line Road, from Elk Grove to El Dorado Hills.

The plan also supports two controversial new bridges into downtown Sacramento to relieve what is expected to be serious congestion on downtown freeways.

One bridge would connect with South Natomas over the American River. The other would connect to West Sacramento over the Sacramento River, possibly at Broadway.

Environmentalists suggest SACOG should refuse to extend transportation funding to cities and counties that do not adhere to the region's Blueprint agreement to focus on more transit- and pedestrian-oriented growth.

SACOG's McKeever acknowledged his agency board, made up of elected officials from those cities and counties, could consider that. But he argued that's unnecessary because the agency's 25-year transportation spending plan is based on building roads and transit that fit the proposed new growth patterns.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/595327.html
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #352  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2007, 11:06 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post

The plan also supports two controversial new bridges into downtown Sacramento to relieve what is expected to be serious congestion on downtown freeways.

One bridge would connect with South Natomas over the American River. The other would connect to West Sacramento over the Sacramento River, possibly at Broadway.

I've been beating this drum for 20 years..

Build the damn bridges already (otherwise, there will be little chance of it happening once the area of the railyards, the Triangle and Raley's Landing are built out).. Sacramenot County missed opportunity after opportunity to build more crossings over the American River, because the Board of Supervisors didn't have the guts to stand up to the NIMBY neighborhood associations near the American River. The same thing can't be allowed to happen again.

Btw I agreee with the crdibiltiy issue of the so called "environmentalists". Everyone agrees that Sacramento needs to adhere to the Blueprint for Growth. Everybody wants to see Light Rail expanded, (though preferably where people live or want to go); but part of a healthy economy and and healthy environment demands that the area be capable of moving automobile traffic around the region with as few delays as possible. Cars sitting in traffic dump tons more particulate pollution into the air than cars driving less congested roads. That's a no brainer, except for people who have such narrow tunnel vision that they think that they are going to change people's driving habits by allowing the roads to continue to back up. It wont change anybodys driving habit and will only hurt the local environment in the long run.

There must be a healthy balance of local and regional rail as well as funding to complete the beltway (albeit a limited one) around the region and other highway and road projects.

The hub and spoke system that Sacramento has routes all traffic from the outlying areas into the city center before moving it out again. Bad design made worse due to the fact that Sacramento refuses to correct the problem with a beltway.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #353  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 9:03 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Downtown/Natomas/Airport Draft Program Environmental Impact Report-Open House
Regional Transit will host two public open houses (same info presented) to provide a project update and review the Draft Program EIR. This will be an opportunity to learn more about the project and meet the project team. For more information, please visit www.dnart.org or call the information line at (916) 930-1192.

Saturday, February 9, 2008
10:00 a.m. to noon
Inderkum High School Theatre (awaiting confirmation)
2500 New Market Drive, Sacramento

Monday, February 11, 2008
5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Continental Plaza Auditorium
601 N 7th Street, Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #354  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2008, 12:36 AM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Does anyone know if this Light Rail extension will require a ballot initiative to raise funds for it? I thought I remember reading somewhere that this was a transportation project that required extra funds.
If it does require extra funds what do you think the chances are it would pass...not very good I bet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #355  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2008, 3:49 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
http://www.dnart.org/project_overvie...ct_funding.asp

Quote:
Project Funding Process

A variety of local, state and federal funds will be required to build and operate any new transit improvements identified in the DNA Corridor. For construction funds, local sources could include developer fees and right-of-way dedication sales tax revenues, while at the state level funding could be provided through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). At the federal level, RT could obtain funds through the Federal Transit Administration and its New Starts Program, which is designed to provide capital grants for new fixed guideway projects. The New Starts Program could potentially provide 50% of the funds needed to build a fixed guideway system in the corridor, with the remaining funds provided by local and state sources.
RT expects to implement the first segment of the DNA project without federal funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #356  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2008, 10:25 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 15,593
I'm gonna start using the 62 bus to get to and from school. I'm gonna test out the system soon and I'll give you guys a report. I have already tested light rail, and its not worth it to drive to florin or meadowview and take light rail, but the bus should be worth it because the 62,6,7, and a couple other lines make a stop in front of my apartment.
__________________
#RuralUrbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #357  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2008, 10:26 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
TowerDistrict, this ones for you


Freeport Boulevard and 21st Street two-way conversions scheduled
Sacramento Business Journal

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

The Sacramento Transportation Department has set a tentative schedule to convert Freeport Boulevard and 21st Street to two-way streets.

The streets were both open to two-way traffic until 1974.

Freeport Boulevard from Vallejo Way to Broadway will be converted first, likely on Feb. 7. Parking on the street will be restricted beginning Feb. 4.

The city will test the railroad crossing gates on 21st Street on Feb. 11 and 12. Based on the results of those tests, 21st Street between 4th Avenue and W Street will be converted starting Feb. 13th. Parking on 21st will be temporarily restricted beginning Feb. 10th. The 21st Street conversion will be done in 5 stages:

Feb. 13 -- Vallejo Way to the railroad tracks;
Feb. 18 -- railroad tracks to 2nd Avenue;
Feb. 21 -- 2nd Avenue to Larkin;
Feb. 26 -- Larkin to Broadway;
Feb. 29 -- Broadway to W Street.

The conversions will include the bike lanes on both streets, as well as crosswalk safety improvements, new railroad crossing gates, an island at Freeport Boulevard and 21st Street and a new traffic signal at 21st Street and 4th Avenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #358  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2008, 10:41 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600


it's been a looooooooooong time coming. then delayed from November
to December, to January, then February. i've learned from watching
this progress, that if a project crosses railroad tracks... add on 5 years
minimum.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #359  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2008, 10:42 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
I actually prefer freeport/21st as a one way street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #360  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2008, 10:48 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
that's because you don't live there.

the change shouldn't be confused with some sort of method to restrict car
traffic... it's simply a way to reduce speeds. if you drive at the speed limit,
you won't be affected at all.

two lane, one-way roads produce a slow lane and a fast lane. people pass
others that aren't going fast enough... or worse yet, drive in the middle of
both lanes at 60 mph.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:42 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.