158 replies to this topic

[tony]

 

After seeimg Tony's estimate of $60 million, I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps some alternative fuel busses running from Palladio to the Historic District might be considerably cheaper and less have less impact on infrastructure.  

To make that number a little less scary, we might compare it to the cost of, say, widening E. Bidwell by one lane in each direction for four miles. That would be at least $10M-$15M.  And that doesn't include any vehicles.Bottom line is that public works projects are expensive.

 

There has been lots of debate in recent years about streetcars versus buses, light rail versus bus rapid transit, etc. It is true, but lines have far lower start-up costs, are flexible and can be adjusted to serve demands. The argument for fixed rail is that because of it's permanence and some level of cache that buses do not have (and there is some evidence that the lowly bus is making a comeback, as evidenced by Google buses and a whole slew of new private intercity bus companies, such as Megabus) excepted). People who ride transit by choice are far more likely to ride a train than a bus, whereas transit-dependent folks will take whatever is offered. Compare the ridership on light rail in and out of Folsom with Folsom Stage lines (LRT runs on half-hour headways, Folsom Stage Lines is on half hour or hour, depending on the line and time of day).  The other stated benefit, touted heavily by places like Portland, is that the very fixed and permanent nature of rail transit gives it a much bigger economic impact on surrounding neighborhoods - i.e., it has the ability to spur development (no pun intended). One more thing about buses is that they are cheaper because we already spent the money to build the roads they drive on. But because of that, they are at the mercy of congestion, and they add to the damage to the roads (large buses are particularly tough on asphalt pavement because of their frequent stops), which is never included in the "cost" of operating a bus line, just as we fail to include it in our cost of driving our cars.

[mrdavex]

 

That's a great idea! I'm all for improvements to light rail, which has a number of issues that could be solved to make it more profitable/useful. The biggest issue, of course, is that it is a proof-of-payment system (i.e. the honor system of buying tickets). That wouldn't be so bad if RT police could walk the trains from one end to the other but they can't so it's doubly hard to enforce.

 I would also like to see these improvements to our existing mass transit infrastructure:

 

Increase service to every 15 minutes on Weekdays during rush hour times

Evening service past 7 PM every days, especially days when there is an event at the new Downtown Arena

Express service from Folsom to Sac with only limited stops in-between

A shuttle bus from Sac Valley Station to Sac International Airport, much like the LA Flyaway Bus (http://www.lawa.org/...ay/Default.aspx)

Folsom Stage Line Service on weekends

[ducky]

Too bad there's not some way to use the existing tracks and then before the line gets to neighborhoods to elevate it to like a string rail kind of concept where it could travel over businesses instead of behind people's homes.  It would eliminate some of the crossings, but then you'd have to have elevated platforms.

[cw68]

 I would also like to see these improvements to our existing mass transit infrastructure:
 
Increase service to every 15 minutes on Weekdays during rush hour times
Evening service past 7 PM every days, especially days when there is an event at the new Downtown Arena
Express service from Folsom to Sac with only limited stops in-between
A shuttle bus from Sac Valley Station to Sac International Airport, much like the LA Flyaway Bus (http://www.lawa.org/...ay/Default.aspx)
Folsom Stage Line Service on weekends

Since Folsom chose not to double-track the extension I don't believe the trains can run more frequently. The train has to go all the way to Old Folsom and out before another can run.

I definitely think the train should run past 7pm because you have to leave downtown an hour earlier in order to use it for commuting. That keeps a lot of Folsom riders from being able to use light rail for commuting.

[mrdavex]

Yes, this is the reason.  I would prioritize the double tracking over a new trolley system, but sill want one.

Since Folsom chose not to double-track the extension I don't believe the trains can run more frequently. The train has to go all the way to Old Folsom and out before another can run.
 

[mrdavex]

Ok, it looks like the city supports double tracking but it is dependent on finding a funding source (http://www.folsom.ca...26/DO_76126.pdf)

 

It also looks like the city would be responsible for shouldering any operating costs for expanding evening service or annex into the RT area. IMHO, the expanded light rail service will be essential to alleviate the traffic burdens caused by the S50 development, and we should prioritize this by assessing impacts fees on all the new S50 developments.  Otherwise, we face a more congested Hwy 50 and CalTrans will be begging us for mroe money to fix it.  Chad, you definitely have my vote, and if elected, I hope you bring this to reality.  

 

From http://iportal.sacrt...px?SessionID=68 :

 

Folsom, CA:  I see that more of the pieces to the puzzle are coming together in Sacramento for a brand new Entertainment Sports Complex at the JMA Ventures Downtown Plaza. In following this story, I have been hearing that this new building would open in late Summer or early Fall of 2016. By the time we get to that point in our lives, will Regional Transit be holding staff meetings with staff at the City of Folsom towsrds the goal of a sensible financial package that will allow us the same light rail service hours that, say Rancho Cordova, has the benefits of enjoying today? Cutting us off of service from Sacramento Valley Station at 6:23pm daily will not allow us to enjoy the Entertainment Sports Complex like our neighboring Ranco Cordova will. The last train from Sacramento Valley Station to Rancho Cordova now leaves at 10:53pm. That would make more sense after an event, even if you began your trip earlier that day in Folsom. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Reply:  Thank you for your interest in extending later evening light rail service to Folsom. This is the service addition most often requested. It is, as your question/comments expressed, up to the City of Folsom to pay for additional service under the existing contract. There are two options for providing this service in Folsom. One is for the City of Folsom to request the addition of late night service to the service contract and accept the additional cost for RT to provide that service. Another is for the City of Folsom to annex into the RT service area. If the City decided to annex into the RT service area, revenues that accrue to the City for transit services such as TDA and STA would come to RTand the City service would align with the RT Board adopted service schedule which includes late night service. Both options are out of RT's hands but we would welcome the opportunity to work through either option with the City of Folsom.

 

 Also from http://iportal.sacrt...px?SessionID=67

 

Folsom, CA:  Approximately when will riders see an improvement to the waiting time between trains traveling to the City of Folsom, how much will it cost to make these improvements, and what will be the time improvement (minutes)? 

Reply:  It's hard to predict exactly when the waiting time between trains traveling to Folsom will improve. The specific improvement that will make this possible is to double-track the line between Sunrise and Hazel stations and between Glenn and Iron Point Station. Since this is now estimated to cost $50 million, with no funding source yet identified, it could take awhile. Once the project is complete, however, it is expected to reduce the waiting time from thirty minutes to fifteen. Also under our current contract with the City of Folsom, the City would be responsible for the increased operating cost.

[supermom]

What would keep one from 'going all the way out' and another just doing short back and forth trips?

[Dave Burrell]

 

To me this is a ridiculous perk that really should be done away with. Put that together with no term limits and its no wonder these incumbents fight tooth and nail to stay in office.

 

This my friend is why I will be voting for you.

[Stop South of 50]

Serious question.  Looking at the route of the street car, it looks to be easily covered by a bus route, why would we be more advantageous to spend a lot more $$$ on initial startup and operating costs when a bus could do the same exact thing?  I feel there are a lot more pressing needs in the city than to make this a prominent issue.  Completing city parks that are currently "proposed park sites", more police/fire to meet the growing needs of our city, etc.

Sorry Chad.  After not answering my question.  You lost my vote.

[Dave Burrell]

Not positive, but I think you hit on the key issues with a streetcar in Folsom. I'm pretty sure the cost of the crossings and the fear of complaints about traffic, along with lack of density to support ridership are the major hurdles (developing S of 50 won't help that cause any). A typical traffic signal costs about $250,000. I'm not sure about rail crossings, but they are probably in that ballpark. The route shown would require at least 11 controlled crossings, so that's about $3M before you do any rail improvements, buy rolling stock or do engineering and environmental work. A quick internet search shows streetcar costs range from about $15M/track mile to $40 M/track mile. Chad's route is about 4 miles, so, assuming we would be at the low end of the range, that's at least $60M. Now one way to improve the financial picture is to use self-propelled cars like the Regio Sprinter that then Mayor Holderness brought out for a demonstration back in the 1990s (the NCTD Sprinter Rail in San Diego County uses these). Incidentally, whether you think it was a good idea or not, that was a brilliant political move that convinced RT to bring Light Rail to Folsom at least 20 years before they were planning on it.  Anyway, because of the relatively low density development along the route (not many people living within 1/2 mile radius of stations), I suspect ridership projections would be low.  Now, if coupled with the revitalization of the E. Bidwell corridor to include higher density development in the vicinity of the stations, then it might start to pencil out.  But then, as soon as anyone suggests allowing higher density development in town, every gets up in arms and says no. But you can't have good transit and good cool urban places without higher density, at least in the vicinity of the transit stations. 

 

Tony,

 

I visited Amsterdam for work a couple of times last year and took their city trains all over the area. They didn't have any pricey signal based rail crossing/stops.  Instead, they had operators on board that managed the train stops in traffic at signals and stations - and they had a backup failsafe system called a trip-cock.

 

Here's the definition:

The train stop system comprises two basic components. One is the trip arm mechanism, mounted on the ground adjacent to the rail, which essentially consists of a spring-loaded arm connected to an electric motor (or pneumatic cylinder in electro-pneumatic systems). The other is the train-mounted trip cock, which is connected either directly or electrically to the train's braking system.

The trip arm is raised automatically whenever a train should be brought to a halt. When the signalling system determines it is safe for the train to proceed, the motor drives the trip arm down to the lowered position. The spring ensures that the trip arm is raised in all other situations, which is an essential fail-safe provision in case of driver blackouts. If a train attempts to pass the signal with the trip arm in the raised position, the trip arm makes mechanical contact with the trip cock on the train, causing the train's brakes to be automatically applied, thereby bringing the train to a halt.

 

Why couldn't we do something like that here instead of having to spend millions on building new traffic signals and train crossings, which will never happen?

 

I'm curious, is there any detailed information on why it costs $15-40 million dollars per mile to finance and operate a train? Why are costs so high? Is it the land and technology (train and rails) or more construction costs, operations and liability costs?

 

My thoughts.... if we had a small city train such as Chad is proposing, I would ride it all the time and so would my family (especially if going out to dinner and having a few beers/drinks). None of us would get on a bus to travel anywhere. A bus ride is not nearly as fun as a small town train ride :-)      (tourist dollars, ka-ching!

[Dave Burrell]

Sorry Chad.  After not answering my question.  You lost my vote.

 

He's been traveling back east the past week for his job.  Email him for a faster response ChadforFolsom@gmail.com

[cw68]

 

He's been traveling back east the past week for his job.  Email him for a faster response ChadforFolsom@gmail.com

 

IMHO, it's a bonus that his daily job at FutureStructure focuses on helping build better communities. During this trip, he spent time with local government reps from the port authority, transit, housing the mayors office and more. He's on the ground every day working towards helping communities become better. That's what I want for Folsom.

[Dave Burrell]

 

IMHO, it's a bonus that his daily job at FutureStructure focuses on helping build better communities. During this trip, he spent time with local government reps from the port authority, transit, housing the mayors office and more. He's on the ground every day working towards helping communities become better. That's what I want for Folsom.

 

Ditto!

[Deb aka Resume Lady]

 

Ditto!

 

Double ditto!

[tony]

 

Tony,

 

I visited Amsterdam for work a couple of times last year and took their city trains all over the area. They didn't have any pricey signal based rail crossing/stops.  Instead, they had operators on board that managed the train stops in traffic at signals and stations - and they had a backup failsafe system called a trip-cock.

 

Here's the definition:

The train stop system comprises two basic components. One is the trip arm mechanism, mounted on the ground adjacent to the rail, which essentially consists of a spring-loaded arm connected to an electric motor (or pneumatic cylinder in electro-pneumatic systems). The other is the train-mounted trip cock, which is connected either directly or electrically to the train's braking system.

The trip arm is raised automatically whenever a train should be brought to a halt. When the signalling system determines it is safe for the train to proceed, the motor drives the trip arm down to the lowered position. The spring ensures that the trip arm is raised in all other situations, which is an essential fail-safe provision in case of driver blackouts. If a train attempts to pass the signal with the trip arm in the raised position, the trip arm makes mechanical contact with the trip cock on the train, causing the train's brakes to be automatically applied, thereby bringing the train to a halt.

 

Why couldn't we do something like that here instead of having to spend millions on building new traffic signals and train crossings, which will never happen?

 

I'm curious, is there any detailed information on why it costs $15-40 million dollars per mile to finance and operate a train? Why are costs so high? Is it the land and technology (train and rails) or more construction costs, operations and liability costs?

 

My thoughts.... if we had a small city train such as Chad is proposing, I would ride it all the time and so would my family (especially if going out to dinner and having a few beers/drinks). None of us would get on a bus to travel anywhere. A bus ride is not nearly as fun as a small town train ride :-)      (tourist dollars, ka-ching!

Dave:

 

A bit out of my area of expertise here, but my understanding is that the route Chad proposed would not be able to operate as a true streetcar, which I assume is what your experienced in Amsterdam. The problem is not the train but the volume and speed of traffic on the crossing streets. Because the train would not be operating within the street, it would not be able to operate without train-specific traffic controls. Think of how Sac LRT operates. In downtown Sac it operates within the streets as a streetcar with no additional crossing controls beyond signal priority. But as soon as it leaves the downtown streets, it runs in a protected corridor with traffic controlled at every crossing. You just can't take a train across a high-speed (45 mph +) four- or six-lane arterial without actively controlling the traffic.

 

For the record, I too, would love to see a train operating in Folsom on a regular basis. But I'm just not convinced it could pencil out.  And I do think getting later service on the Gold line to Folsom, and 15-minute headways should probably be a higher priority.  But that's a really interesting problem because Folsom has always jealously guarded control of its transit funding (as have Elk Grove, Roseville and Yolo County), so I don't see Folsom joining RT any time soon. If we did, we would get later service and probably get 15-minute headways sooner, but might lose the local bus routes, or end up with even more limited ones.  Also, I think  there is some local resistance to later trains due to perceived crime problems associated with late night service, which makes the council unlikely to want to spend the extra money for that service.  But it really does limit the usefulness of light rail in Folsom to basically supporting commuting by state workers.