32 replies to this topic

[folsomBlondie]

Six-mile tunnel among traffic ideas
Underground roadway would ease congestion on, near Watt Avenue.

Sacramento County planners have come up with a dramatic idea to bury one of their biggest traffic headaches and link Highway 50 to Interstate 80 - a tunnel dipping under the American River and burrowing through the heart of the county.

Transportation officials say studies show that a 5.8-mile underground expressway is feasible, crossing below the river near the Mayhew drain near Rancho Cordova and making a beeline under Eastern Avenue, linking freeway to freeway.

Such a tunnel - potentially the longest of its type in the nation - would give Sacramento County a new river crossing and divert vehicles from clogged Watt Avenue. By going underground, the project would avoid disruptions a bridge and elevated freeway would cause, officials said.

Tom Zlotkowski, county transportation chief, cautions that the tunnel idea is really just that - an idea. Nevertheless, he said he believes the public and the county Board of Supervisors should discuss it.

"Do we want to make a bold step and address this congestion issue once and for all, or do we want to continue just nibbling at the edges?" Zlotkowski said.

Initial reaction suggests it is an idea whose time may not come for decades.

Read on:

http://www.sacbee.co...-10295187c.html

[Chad Vander Veen]

Great idea that will never be heard about again...

[folsomBlondie]

Interesting concept. I rode through more tunnels when I lived in Boston.

[BodenMaddox]

Love the idea and still want some sort of 50/80 connection out this way. But neither will ever happen. *sigh*

[jagayman]

As much as they're proposed paying for this idea, they could buy out houses along some existing road and widen it to 8 lanes or more.

If I picked a road to widen, I'd select Sunrise. In fact, turn it into a freeway with over/underpasses and a frontage road. Of course a lot of businesses border Sunrise so they would have to relocate. They'd have better luck relocating residents along Hazel.

-jason.

[Chad Vander Veen]

My idea for an adult dodge ball league will mature into the next national pastime before this thing gets underway.

[matt]

This is at least the third time this has been brought up in the last few years.

http://sacramento.bi.../21/story4.html

[john]

I do think it's a decent idea but I agree the cost would be less to just buy people's houses out on Hazel or something. Or develop something along Folsom-Auburn or something like that. Folsom-Auburn still has room enough where the cost would be significantly less.

Plus I can't help but think of the potential terror impacts of this - could you imagine if some clown detonated a truck full of C4 under the American River?

[Jim Rome]

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ May 21 2004, 08:54 AM)

Great idea that will never be heard about again...

Exactly. This county is cheap when it comes to expanding the roads and a project of this magnitude will never happen.

Heck, look how hard it is just to add a lane to a freeway around here.

[Chad Vander Veen]

Cities and counties cannot build new freeways in Calfornia under Federal EPA mandates. New transportation infrastructure has to be designed to improve air quality and standard freeways don't do that, which is why you see all these crazy ideas about tunnels and HOT lanes and the reason it is usually carpool lanes that get added.

[folsomBlondie]

Who knows it may happen....

The realily is Sacramento area is growing BIG. Move drastic change to the transportation infrastructure may be needed, more than just adding a lane here and a lane there, to accomodate so many cars.

[Jim Rome]

QUOTE (c_vanderveen @ May 21 2004, 02:39 PM)

Cities and counties cannot build new freeways in Calfornia under Federal EPA mandates. New transportation infrastructure has to be designed to improve air quality and standard freeways don't do that, which is why you see all these crazy ideas about tunnels and HOT lanes and the reason it is usually carpool lanes that get added.

I don't see how having cars stuck in traffic blowing exhaust is an answer either though.

I think the Fed EPA dorks are being heavy handed here.

[folsomBlondie]

And the carpool lanes don't work.

[tony]

Seems to me there's a common thread (or two) between this one and the south of 50 one. In both cases people seem to have self-fulfilling, defeatist attitudes toward the issue: "development south of 50 is going to happen anyway, so let's have Folsom do it right now! (even though 2 years ago when the city adopted it's sphere of influence, our leaers insisted they had no plans to annex the area)" and "traffic will always be bad and the county will never do what it takes to make it better."

Well, if Folsom (or anyone else) develops south of 50, you can bet the traffic problems will be much worse than they are now (even with two more lanes on 50). Why? Because development as Folsom has done it and is likely to continue doing it is classic sprawl (some of the best looking sprawl in the country, but sprawl neverthelsess). What does that mean? I'll start with a question? How many of you can reasonably walk to any destination from your house? To a park? School? Restaurant? Convenience store? Video rental store? I'll bet less than 10%, unless you live in the Historic District. And how many of those who can, do?

Gee, maybe that's why there's so much traffic everywhere. Sure, the dam road closure is a disaster, and a couple more bridges across the American River would help, but the fact is that places like Folsom create their own traffic problems by, quite literally, driving people to drive. Here in suburbia, we insist on having our cake (traffic-free residential cul-de-sacs) and eating it, too (free flowing arterialsand big box retail). The way this works is that all traffic gets routed to just a few arterials. To meet the traffic demands on these arterials, they need to have lots of lanes (typically 6 through lanes, dedicated right turn lanes and double left turn lanes -- 12 lanes at intersections). Now say you live in Natoma Station and your teenager goes to Folsom High (possibly less than 1/2 mile away, depending on your location in Natoma Station). How does she get there? Can't walk, because there are walls around the entire neigborhood and the only ways out are Black Diamond and Turn Pike, making the crow's 1/2 mile flight about a 2 or 3 mile walk. Besides, if she did, she'd have to cross both Prairie City and Iron Point Roads, both 11 or 12 lane streets at the intersection. So, mom or dad drives Suzie to school -2 or 3 miles using at least one and maybe three major arterials. Not to pick on Natoma Station, but try to get to Safeway --oh, more traffic on Prairie City and Iron Point. Get the picture? Instead of Suzie walking 1 mile round trip to school (about 20 minutes total), mom and dad drive 4 to 6 miles (10 to 15 minutes of mom or dad's much more valuable time, on top of Suzie's 10 or 15 minutes). Result: sprawling suburb leads to unnecessary car trip, more congestion, pollution, wasted time for mom or dad and lack of exercise for Suzie. The fact is, people living in newer, srawling suburbs drive far more miles per capita than people in older urban and even older suburban neighborhoods. Thus the never ending cry for more roads, which gets interepreted as "more lanes", when what is really needed is more roads that actually go somewhere and a recognition that the goal of transportation planning is not to move cars as efficiently as possible, but to get people and goods where they need and want to go as efficiently as possible.

The bottom line is that you can't solve transportation problems independent of land use policy, and so far, in spite of the best efforts of SACOG, these two have yet to be adequately tied together (too thin a thread, I guess) in the Sacramento region. Consequently, traffic gets worse, development pressures seem irresistable, and the self-fulfilling prophecies continue to fulfill themselves. Perhaps it's time to break the cycle.

[john]

I'll start with a question? How many of you can reasonably walk to any destination from your house? To a park?
Yep, Caitlin Park's got an entrance on my street.

School?
Folsom High and Gallardo Elementary

Restaurant? Baja Fresh, some sushi place, Togos, etc

Convenience store? Video rental store?
Safeway's close enough.

And I work at Intel too which is walking distance.

There are many communities just like this... Folsom's planning may not be perfect everywhere but it works great in Prairie Oaks as far as proximity to places.