New Hike To Trains At SAC

[Ryan]

I don't think that it's the actual length of the walk that's at issue, it's the fact that the walk is longer than it needs to be.

I would hope that we can all agree on the fact that a shorter walk is more convenient than a longer walk, and if we want to encourage people to use public transit, we should want it to be as convenient as possible.

To butcher a quote, "you build transit for the society you have, not the society that you might want or wish to have".

 

[user 1215]

I have to know . does it stop the Bloody Kindergarden walk!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAHAH!

That's actually a good question. Wonder if the passengers wait at the Southern portion of the station and are called to walk when the train arrives, of if you can loiter near the platform while waiting for the train.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

The couple of times I have boarded the eastbound Zephyr at SAC, I walked out to the platform at my leisure about 20 minutes before the train was due and station agents or volunteers pointed me to the right boarding post. And coming and going from the platforms to look at other trains or stretch my legs was never a problem as well.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

I don't think that it's the actual length of the walk that's at issue, it's the fact that the walk is longer than it needs to be.

I would hope that we can all agree on the fact that a shorter walk is more convenient than a longer walk, and if we want to encourage people to use public transit, we should want it to be as convenient as possible.

To butcher a quote, "you build transit for the society you have, not the society that you might want or wish to have".

I had been ruminating a response to the "I'm hale and hearty, so what's the problem?" crowd, but I think Ryan has distilled the essence of what I would say.

It is impressive though, that so many AU members are so proud of being fit and ready to run.

 

[tp49]

Well, it was 107 out on the first couple of days of operation. Probably led to a number of complaints as well.

 

[Bierboy]

...It is impressive though, that so many AU members are so proud of being fit and ready to run.

I am, in no way, shape or form, ready to run. However, I find that walking 500 feet is no problem for me (and should not be for any average person).

 

[printman2000]

I don't think that it's the actual length of the walk that's at issue, it's the fact that the walk is longer than it needs to be.

I would hope that we can all agree on the fact that a shorter walk is more convenient than a longer walk, and if we want to encourage people to use public transit, we should want it to be as convenient as possible.

To butcher a quote, "you build transit for the society you have, not the society that you might want or wish to have".

I had a similar post to yours on page two. People still kept talking about how bad a shape we are in if "you can't walk 500 feet". I gave up.

 

[jis]

Just to provide some perspective.... the distance we are talking of is close to 2 street blocks in Manhattan NY, or a little more than half an average avenue block. A typical transfer from a subway at Penn Station to an NJT train on tracks 1 through 6 probably is significantly longer than the distance being argued over (though for those familiar with the layout, there are possible shorter routes, specially if you strategically boarded the subway train at its correct end for such). I suspect there is no way to get to a train at Grand Central Terminal from 42nd St without walking a distance of the same order. So I think people will get used to it pretty soon and there will not be any severe casualties either in body, soul or ridership as a result of this slightly added inconvenience, if that.

 

[Bierboy]

Shorter more convenient than longer is a given. There's no debate about that.

Others brought up the issue of WHY it's more inconvenient...because 500 feet is "harder" to walk than, say 250 feet. You breathe more, and, if you're out of shape, ANY extra distance will be taxing.

The debate about whether "it's longer than it needs to be" will never be settled...as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

 

[Trogdor]

Another perspective: it's also about equivalent to the walk from the Portland sleeper to the dining car on the Empire Builder.

 

[Alice]

Nobody has answered tp49's comment about 107 degrees. The weather here in the central valley is typically over 100 for a week or so every year, and over 90 the rest of the summer. As far as I know, insides of stations and trains are just a bit cooler than that. In addition, the new walkway is not completely covered, canopies to be finished this fall are not expected to completely protect walkers from the elements, so this is walked in summer sun or winter rain.

I do not think the issue is the length of the walk, I think it is the planning that went into the temporary facilities, and of course Amtrak's specialty, communicating the changes to passengers. After the first week, they decided to hire more staff, kind of implying they didn't hire enough before. People haven't been told about the carts and one article made it sound like there weren't enough drivers for the carts they had.

You get the idea, things will settle down but Amtrak could have done better. This is not going to be a nice stop during lousy weather. Frequent riders will be prepared or maybe transfer at another station, and new riders will be disappointed. Nothing new there, AU is full of stories just like that.

 

[guest_riverviewer]

Planning? Sounds like this was "planned" by a committee made of people who've never been to Sacramento, much less west of Bethesda.

 

[George Harris]

"The platform relocation is part of a $50 million project to make room for development in the railyard. City officials envision a transit-oriented community growing over the next decade or two at the 240-acre site in the northwest corner of downtown."

I brought the picture forward so it would no longer be necessary to scroll way back in the thread to find it.

I will pass on my opinion about Urban Planners as a profession and Urban Planning as an honorable occupation.

My main gripe with this thing is that they decided that a few buildings that a few years ago were eyesores that should be demolished are now untouchable historical structures and by doing so shut off the possibility of making the move to the point that it would truly straighten out the railroad. Therefore, the move failed to achieve what should have been achieved if any move at all were made, which would be to make the railroad essentailly straight through the station and approaches so as to achieve the maximum practical speed into and out of the station plus the maximum practical speed for the freight trains going through the area.

However, if that were done it would required rebuilding the rather decrepit drawbridge just off the west end of this area. Even if stuck with that bridge, a further rotation could have eliminated the reverse curve at the east end of this area.

What has been done is to spend megabucks to achieve a half-baked improvement.

You gotta love such stuff as:

The tracks were realigned by UP to eliminate a dangerous curve at the east end of the station. When light rail was extended to Amtrak, that too was always meant to be temporary with the light rail tracks to move closer to the main tracks to coincide with the move of the station. As the arena was also supposed to go where the current station/track alignment is (a deal which fell apart in the spring long after work commenced on the moving of the track). The tunnel was meant to be temporary as either a new station was to be built and the existing station either repurposed or actually moved toward the new track alignment, which again was done to eliminate a safety issue.

Interesting how all these things are suddenly safety issues after having been there over 100 years. It is not safety, folks. It is greed to use the land. If it were safety, then the curves remaining at the east end would have been dealt with. As it is, the curve to the left is slightly imporved and the curve to the right beyond it not changed at all.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I just came thru SAC on the Zephyr and thought the new Platforms worked well for boarding and deboarding! The New Tunnel wasnt that bad, the walks in LAX, CHI and EMY are actually as Long or Longer and no-one is clamoring to "improve" them! As to the waste of money, that is an age old problem when it comes to Government contracts, and I also agree with the posters that take issue with so called "Urban Planners"! They are almost as bad as "Modern" Architects! <_<

 

[Trogdor]

Planning? Sounds like this was "planned" by a committee made of people who've never been to Sacramento, much less west of Bethesda.

If that's supposed to be a cheap shot at Amtrak management in DC, they really had nothing to do with this project which was ultimately a local Sacramento initiative. Nice try, though.

 

[johnny.menhennet]

1345659619[/url]' post='388863']Another perspective: it's also about equivalent to the walk from the Portland sleeper to the dining car on the Empire Builder.

Best comparison yet.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Another perspective: it's also about equivalent to the walk from the Portland sleeper to the dining car on the Empire Builder.

Best comparison yet.

Maybe they should put a series of vending machines on the platforms? Maybe today's "hike" to a distant outpost on the fringe of civilization would become tomorrow's casual stroll to the salty oil crisps, sugary goo bars, and liquid candy drinks. Everybody wins! :lol:

 

[jis]

Another perspective: it's also about equivalent to the walk from the Portland sleeper to the dining car on the Empire Builder.

Best comparison yet.

Maybe they should put a series of vending machines on the platforms? Maybe today's "hike" to a distant outpost on the fringe of civilization would become tomorrow's casual stroll to the salty oil crisps, sugary goo bars, and liquid candy drinks. Everybody wins! :lol:

:lol: If this were Atlantic City or Reno, there'd be Slot Machines

More seriously, depending on what sort of development they have in mind for the surrounding, land it could become a pleasant walk or a living hell. We'' have to wait and see I suppose.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

More seriously, depending on what sort of development they have in mind for the surrounding, land it could become a pleasant walk or a living hell. We'' have to wait and see I suppose.

Sounds like it is going to be a long wait. From what I've read HERE it sounded like it was going to take up to 20 years for the redevelopment to be completed, and this estimate was made during the height of the real estate boom. THIS presentation by the Urban Land Institute in 2011 and which considers the current economic climate states: "...The current plan won't be built anytime soon."

 

[Trogdor]

They should line the walk with ads for lawyers:

Longer walk causing you pain & suffering?
Do you have any health problems at all? If so, they are directly attributable to the longer walk.

Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe today.

1-800-SUE-THEM

 

[The Davy Crockett]

They should line the walk with ads for lawyers:

Longer walk causing you pain & suffering?
Do you have any health problems at all? If so, they are directly attributable to the longer walk.

Call the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem and Howe today.

1-800-SUE-THEM

AGAIN, it is not the walk per se, that is the issue. The walk is a red herring. The issue is p*** poor planning. One more time rail pax take a back seat to other 'more important' considerations. Folks, get over the inferiority complex. I'm glad that folks are having a good time with the walk thing. Just remember, it is a by-product of other interests trumping pax rail.

 

[Trogdor]

AGAIN, it is not the walk per se, that is the issue. The walk is a red herring. The issue is p*** poor planning. One more time rail pax take a back seat to other 'more important' considerations. Folks, get over the inferiority complex. I'm glad that folks are having a good time with the walk thing. Just remember, it is a by-product of other interests trumping pax rail.

The real issue is, all personal interests aside, should passenger rail be in the front seat? You put "more important" in quotes, implying you don't think the specifics of this case are legitimate or more important. But, if we take the case of a city with an interest in developing some land that is right downtown but currently unused/underutilized, should the interests of "passenger rail" per se trump those of a city trying to develop its area and economy?

I'm not from Sacramento, so I can't say whether any particular project in Sacramento is a good idea or not. Clearly what they had originally planned isn't going to happen, at least not for a very long time. When I was last in Sacramento, in January, a lot of people (including many with Caltrans who work downtown and use the Capitol Corridor) were critical of the project and the planned basketball arena that, I believe, has been scrapped.

But, on the other hand, if a city decides that their land would be put to better use by shifting a railroad 500 feet in order to reclaim several blocks of developable area, then that sounds like an issue for the city and its residents (who elect the officials that ultimately make these decisions).

The point I'm making here is that passenger rail (and all transportation, for that matter) is a means to an end, not an end in itself. There are occasions where things can legitimately claim a higher priority than passenger rail, and improved local land use is one of them.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Who said Pax rail should take a front seat?

The Kings are likely moving from SAC. (To NPN? :unsure: )

Building infastructure tailored to a project that will likely neb=ver be built is questionable planning and management IMHO. I'm guessing here, but it sounds like the funding was in place, so they went and spent it, even though the new reality does not support the assumptions that were made when the project was conceived, planned and the initial steps were taken. Welcome to Limboland, where the footprint has been set. For who knows what?

 

[zephyr17]

Just a little point of historical note.

The new alignment is pretty much the original alignment. The S curves were put in when SP the built the station in 1926(?) so passengers wouldn't have to do a long walk from the then-new station.

 

[Nathanael]

You get the idea, things will settle down but Amtrak could have done better.

Amtrak?!

I think it should be made clear that this project was proposed, planned, designed, and constructed by a combination of Union Pacific and the City of Sacramento. Amtrak's only control over the project was to tell them the minimum standards necessary for Amtrak to stop in Sacramento, and to give them suggestions. Amtrak doesn't own the station, the tracks, or any of the land.

It was a bad project. Amtrak didn't particularly want it, but Amtrak is stuck dealing with it. It can be hard to communicate changes which your people didn't cause and are having trouble dealing with themselves.