4.1 transportation program - sacramento/media/corporate/files/... · 2014-02-17 · 4.1...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 48
4 Evaluation of Alternatives The alternatives have undergone an evaluation on numerous topics related to transportation function, implementation, cost, and financing/revenue. For each topic, the performance of each alternative is summarized in a matrix against the relevant project evaluation criteria.
At the direction of the staff and City Council, the SITF team developed the alternatives based on the “Regional Transportation Hub” model presented in Technical Report #6. The Regional Transportation Hub model defines the SITF as a facility that incorporates as many transit services as possible, and caters to both intercity and commuter passengers, and includes a major parking component. This vision seeks to maximize transit service, connectivity and patronage. The goals of this vision are represented in the evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were previously presented in Technical Report #6.
4.1 Transportation Program
Introduction The desired transportation program for the SITF was presented in Technical Report #6. Within this document, the transit program was divided into modules for different transportation modes and operators. The program for each module requested by the transit operators was presented, as well as options for scaled-down scenarios. Modules include:
• Freight Rail
• Heavy Passenger Rail and Platforms
• Intercity bus
• Local Transit Bus
• Light Rail Transit/DNA Project
• Private vehicle and Taxi Pick-up and Drop-Off
• Parking
• Terminal Building
Evaluation The evaluation of the transportation program consists of comparing the program modules described in Technical Report #6 to the program achieved for each of the alternatives. The operator-requested program is used as the basis for the evaluation. Where the operator requested program cannot be accommodated, the reduced program options are used as alternatives.
Table 4.1.1 compares the operator requested and reduced program options against each alternative.
Summary All of the alternatives can achieve at least the Reduced Program Option for the following modules:
• Intercity bus Bays
• Local transit bus Bays
• Light Rail/DNA Project
• Transit Parking
• Facility Building
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 49
None of the alternatives can meet the optimal heavy passenger rail program of two 1,400 foot long platforms, given the design criteria and the physical constraints of the site. However, discussions with passenger rail operators indicate that provision of platforms approximately 1,200 feet long would likely be acceptable if specific issues can be resolved in the detailed design. For example, it would be necessary to provide track segments that extend beyond the platforms by sufficient length to accommodate longer passenger trains (such as the Amtrak Long Distance trains) without impacting signals on adjacent tracks. It is therefore assumed that Sunset Limited, Sacramento Northern and Valley Flyer can provide the adequate heavy passenger rail platforms.
Specific strengths and weaknesses on the individual alternatives are described below.
Alternative A: Sunset Limited
Sunset Limited accommodates the program for all modules, and could provide additional space beyond that requested by operators for the Facility building and the passenger pick-up/drop-off area.
Alternative B: Sacramento Northern
Sacramento Northern accommodates the program for all modules with the exception of the passenger pick-up/drop-off area. However, the design could be refined to provide additional space, and the space required for this activity could be reviewed.
Alternative C: Overland Limited
Overland Limited cannot provide adequate platform lengths while also providing sufficient capacity for passenger trains entering and exiting the station.
Overland Limited also does not meet the program for the passenger pick-up/drop-off area. However, the design could be refined to provide additional space, and the space required for this activity could be reviewed.
The available land north of the tracks and on parcels east of the site would provide Overland Limited with the capability to exceed the requested program for parking spaces, although the location north of the tracks would be less than ideal.
Alternative D: Valley Flyer
Valley Flyer accommodates the program for all modules with the exception of the passenger pick-up/drop-off area. However, the design could be refined to provide additional space, and the space required for this activity could be reviewed.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Se
ptem
ber 2
9. 2
004
Page
50
Tab
le 4
.1.1
Eva
luat
ion:
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Pro
gram
Prog
ram
Pr
ogra
m M
odul
e
Ope
rato
r Req
uest
ed P
rogr
am
Red
uced
Pro
gram
Opt
ion
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Frei
ght T
rack
U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s U
p to
3 T
hrou
gh T
rack
s
Pas
seng
er T
rack
s an
d P
latfo
rms
2 x
1,40
0 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rms1
2 x
1,40
0 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rms1
1 x
1,17
5 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rm
1 x
1,28
0 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rm
1 x
1,17
5 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rm
1 x
1,28
0 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rm
2 x
800
ft C
ente
r Pla
tform
s
2 x
1,20
0 ft
Cen
ter P
latfo
rms
Inte
rcity
bus
12
Am
trak
Thru
way
Bus
Bay
s 14
Gre
yhou
nd B
us B
ays
26 T
otal
Inte
rcity
bus
bay
s
8 A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
us B
ays
10 G
reyh
ound
Bus
bay
s 4
Sha
red
Bays
24
Tot
al In
terc
ity b
us B
ays
8 A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
us B
ays
10 G
reyh
ound
Bus
bay
s 4
Sha
red
Bay
s 24
Tot
al In
terc
ity b
us B
ays
12 A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
us B
ays
12 G
reyh
ound
Bus
Bay
s 24
Tot
al In
terc
ity b
us B
ays
12 A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
us B
ays
14 G
reyh
ound
Bus
Bay
s 26
Tot
al In
terc
ity b
us b
ays
12 A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
us B
ays
14 G
reyh
ound
Bus
Bay
s 26
Tot
al In
terc
ity b
us b
ays
Loca
l Tra
nsit
Bus
14 T
otal
Loc
al T
rans
it B
us B
ays
12 T
otal
Loc
al T
rans
it B
us B
ays
12 T
otal
Loc
al T
rans
it B
us B
ays
14
Tot
al L
ocal
Tra
nsit
Bus
Bay
s 12
Tot
al L
ocal
Tra
nsit
Bus
Bay
s 12
Tot
al L
ocal
Tra
nsit
Bus
Bay
s
Ligh
t Rai
l/DN
A P
roje
ct
2 LR
T Tr
acks
with
Pla
tform
2
LRT
Layo
ver T
rack
s 2
LRT
Trac
ks w
ith P
latfo
rm
2 LR
T La
yove
r Tra
cks
2 LR
T Tr
acks
with
Pla
tform
2
LRT
Layo
ver T
rack
s 2
LRT
Trac
ks w
ith P
latfo
rm
2 LR
T La
yove
r Tra
cks
2 LR
T Tr
acks
with
Pla
tform
2
LRT
Layo
ver T
rack
s 2
LRT
Trac
ks
2 LR
T Si
de P
latfo
rms
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
18 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spac
es
18 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spa
ces
22 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spac
es
13 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spa
ces
13 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spa
ces
11 T
otal
Pic
k-U
p an
d D
rop-
Off
Spac
es
Tran
sit P
arki
ng
1,02
7 P
arki
ng S
pace
s 60
0 P
arki
ng S
pace
s U
p to
880
Par
king
Spa
ces
Up
to 1
,000
Par
king
Spa
ces
Up
to 1
,000
Par
king
Spa
ces
Up
to 1
,080
Par
king
Spa
ces
Faci
lity
Bui
ldin
g 54
,570
sq
ft 54
,570
sq
ft 64
,240
sq
ft 56
,370
sq
ft 60
,170
sq
ft 60
,170
sq
ft
Not
es:
1. A
ssum
es o
ff si
te la
yove
r is
not p
rovi
ded.
Tab
le 4
.1.2
Eva
luat
ion
Cri
teri
a M
atri
x
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
1. M
eets
cur
rent
and
pro
ject
ed d
eman
d fo
r tra
nsit,
par
atra
nsit,
an
d fre
ight
ope
ratio
n.
2. M
eets
cur
rent
and
pro
ject
ed d
eman
d fo
r tra
nsit
vehi
cle
load
ing,
layo
ver,
stor
age
and
serv
icin
g.
3. M
eets
pro
ject
ed s
pace
nee
ds fo
r pas
seng
ers.
4. P
rovi
des
adeq
uate
cur
b le
ngth
to a
ccom
mod
ate
pick
-up
and
drop
-off
activ
ity b
y pr
ivat
e ve
hicl
es a
nd ta
xis.
5. P
rovi
de a
dequ
ate
park
ing
to s
uppo
rt th
e tra
nsit
func
tions
of
the
Faci
lity.
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 51
4.2 Transit Operations
The evaluation of Transit Operations is divided into separate sections for rail operations, including freight rail, passenger rail, museum rail operations, light rail, and buses.
4.2.1 Heavy Rail Operation Introduction The operation of heavy rail services is paramount for a viable intermodal facility in Sacramento. The final design must permit efficient freight and passenger movements, provide adequate capacity to accommodate future growth, while also ensuring safe and cost-effective operation. The rail alignment also dictates the ultimate site configuration and facility design.
This section includes background information on the numerous issues and requirements for rail at the SITF site.
Existing Track Arrangement
The existing track arrangement at the Facility has numerous deficiencies for both passenger and freight operation. These deficiencies include:
• Mainline freight tracks share platform tracks, creating safety and capacity issues
• Includes only 3 platform tracks, does not meet program
• Inadequate platform length (950’) for long distance passenger trains
• At-grade pedestrian crossing of active tracks
• Limits freight speeds to 15-20 mph, creating a bottleneck for passenger and freight train operation
• Museum access requires a temporary crossing of Union Pacific Railroad (UP) mainline tracks
Freight Rail Issues
One of the biggest challenges in designing an Intermodal Facility at Sacramento’s Southern Pacific Depot site is that it is located directly on the tracks of a major transcontinental freight route of UP Railroad. Most Bay Area freight trains to and from the north and east, including a significant and growing volume of port-related traffic, pass through downtown Sacramento. Unlike the situation found in some other cities, there is no reasonable freight bypass around downtown Sacramento for these freight trains. Local switching movement adds to this freight train volume. Consequently, in preparing concepts for the railroad portion of the Facility program, the needs of UP Railroad to serve its present and future freight market must be met.
It is the UP Railroad’s stated intent to realign the tracks along the northern SITF project boundary. The SITF project team has respected this intent by developing two alternatives that are consistent with this alignment. However, other alignments have also been considered in the interest of exploring all available options.
The position of UP Railroad is that long-term planning for freight traffic volumes indicates a requirement for three freight-only tracks through the Facility area. UP Railroad further requires that this trackage be designed for 30 mph freight operations. Until recently, UP Railroad’s requirement has been that these three tracks would have to be co-located in a freight-only sub-corridor, that is, three freight tracks situated side-by-side, without any intervening passenger tracks, or other use. Very recent discussions with the railroad, however, have indicated a willingness to consider a ‘splitting’ of the freight track alignment. With
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 52
a ‘split’ arrangement, one through freight track could be located south of the passenger station tracks and two freight tracks would be located north of the station tracks. This is an important change that provides a significant degree of flexibility in design, which in turn, may make possible the attainment of passenger and freight operating objectives.
The ultimate rail realignment design will need to include allowances for potential infrastructure improvement projects, including grade separated crossings at 5th, 6th and 7th Streets, station concourse/underpass pedestrian connections, I-5 ramp modifications and High Speed Rail. Generally, this will require the provision of adequate spacing between tracks to accommodate columns for elevated structures. In order to ensure sufficient right-of-way is available, the SITF alternatives include an additional 20 feet in width over UP’s recommendation for the corridor. In addition, the phasing of the rail realignment relative to these other infrastructure improvements must also be carefully considered.
Passenger Rail Issues
The program for passenger service indicates a nominal requirement for four station tracks serving two island platforms, each platform being in the range of 1,400 feet in length. This length is based on the maximum length of an Amtrak intercity train. This is an event that occurs four times daily, however only one such train would be in the station at any one time. Additional platform space is required for operation of Capitol and San Joaquin Corridor trains. There are also prospects for commuter rail operations in the depot within a reasonable time horizon. The intercity and commuter operations require enough platform space for arriving trains to unload, be serviced, and then load passengers for outbound trips. In addition, some train consists may be temporarily stored in these tracks during off-peak hours during the day and overnight at the terminal if a remote maintenance and storage facility is not established. It is not entirely clear at this time whether the future growth in operations would be best served by a greater number of short platforms, or a lesser number of long platforms. However, with more tracks, more overall area would likely be required for the track fan and Terminal throat; it also might result in a longer average walking distance for passengers between the terminal head house and the platforms. Growth and service forecasts for the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin services indicate future service will consist of more frequent and longer trains serving Sacramento. Future flexibility is best maintained by building platforms as long as possible. Long platforms can hold more than one train, but short platforms cannot hold a single long train.
East and west of the Facility, passenger trains share Union Pacific tracks with freight trains under Amtrak joint-use arrangements. For the future Facility, the specific design of the alignments of the tracks connecting the station tracks at the platforms with UP Railroad mainline tracks to the east and west is an important issue. A major concern for passenger operations using the Sacramento River Bridge is the ability to operate “parallel moves,” or, in other words, the ability to have trains arrive and depart simultaneously from and to the west. Trackwork designs previously proposed have not provided this capability. These concepts have indicated instead that as the double-track bridge fans out through the west Facility throat to multiple passenger and freight tracks, the station tracks would be connected only to mainline Track 2, the southernmost on the bridge. As a result, track design concepts have provided an arrangement with limited operational flexibility and reduced capacity. However, with UP Railroad now willing to consider splitting its freight tracks so that the station tracks are in between them, a Facility design that provides for passenger train access to both bridge tracks appears possible, with the result that operational flexibility can be enhanced and capacity constraints eased.
Another issue associated with platform requirements is that of overnight layover and servicing of trainsets. The assumed growth in passenger train service is based, in part, on current studies which
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 53
foresee the superimposition on the Capitol Corridor “intercity” service of a “Regional Rail” service oriented to Downtown Sacramento and suburbs. While these studies are incomplete, the assumptions implicit in them have important implications for the Sacramento Intermodal Facility. Present service planning for a combined Capitol Corridor and regional rail service assume that most regional trains will run through between Auburn or Roseville, and Dixon and Davis, with potential through-routing of these trains with local commuter schedules serving the Solano County – Oakland segment of the corridor. Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (CCJPA) desires a new layover and servicing facility east of Downtown Sacramento. One possibility would be to create a new station and servicing facility at “Swanston”, near Arden Way adjacent to the Sacramento Regional Transit “Swanston” light rail station. This location would also afford a large park and ride capability. A layover and servicing facility for Capitol Corridor, San Joaquin and regional trains would also be established at this location. The viability of this facility has yet to be determined, and will require coordination with UP operations, track configurations, and the possible construction of a new American River crossing
If a Swanston or alternate layover and servicing facility is not established, then trainsets will need to be serviced and stored overnight at the SITF. The requested program (4 station tracks, each 1,400 feet long) would be sufficient to accommodate layover requirements based on recent service forecasts, but growth beyond this level of service might also be constrained by the lack of layover and servicing facilities. The negative impacts of any reductions in the rail program would be exacerbated without a Swanston or alternate facility, potentially limiting the rail operator’s ability to meet growing demands for service.
California State Railroad Museum Issues
Provision must be made for adequate access to the California State Railroad Museum. The Museum’s requirements are more complex than generally realized. In the future, the Museum will consist of two major parts – the existing Railroad History Museum building to the south in Old Sacramento, with its associated California Southern Railroad, and the Railroad Technology Museum to the north, which will be located in several historic buildings of the former Southern Pacific shops.
The main museum building to the south was formerly afforded a direct connection to the Southern Pacific shops via a north-south track that crossed UP Railroad mainline with 90 degree diamonds, located immediately east of the Sacramento River bridge. The diamonds have been removed by UP Railroad because of maintenance and operational issues. When access is required, now about once a week, but expected to be more frequent, a temporary version of the diamond is put in place. This is done in order to provide both for movement of museum equipment and also in order to move freight cars which are handled by the Sacramento Southern to and from a remaining shipper. The temporary diamond is installed by UP track crews at the railroad’s expense, per legal requirements imposed at the time predecessor Southern Pacific abandoned the riverfront Walnut Grove branch, which was taken over by the museum, along with the responsibility for provision of freight service. The freight service is anticipated to be a long-term requirement. Special train movements by the museum would also make periodic use of the southern connection.
The historic shop buildings north of the SITF site which will become the Railroad Technology Museum currently have access to the existing California State Rail Museum via temporary trackage which is a remnant of the yard area associated with the former SP shop activities. A temporary track on the north buildings connects back to UP Railroad mainline east of the new 7th Street underpass, but it is located on land which is slated for development. A new permanent connection will be required to UP Railroad mainline.
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 54
The Museum has indicated that its historic collection includes equipment with varying minimum radius requirements. The desired minimum curvature is 15 degrees. Designs prepared to date have anticipated that this curvature would be experienced on the southern connection from the Sacramento Southern riverfront line behind the History Museum turntable, onto what has been assumed to be a station track, or station track lead connecting the terminal to UP Railroad mainline to the west. It is unclear whether, with a freight main located to the south of the terminal trackage, that the south connection would be made into a passenger line rather than a UP mainline. The reality of the space, geometry, and potentially competing requirements of other design objectives suggest that the main connection to the Sacramento Southern Railroad may require somewhat tighter than desired curvature, perhaps on the order of 17 degrees which would still be workable for most Museum purposes. If this occurs, then an agreement should be reached with the Union Pacific to retain the right to occasional use of the temporary diamond system for special movement of museum equipment. The Museum might find this right desirable in any event, for use under extraordinary conditions.
With any realignment of UP Railroad tracks, the determination of the optimal museum connection that meets all the Museum’s stated needs will require additional design work and coordination between key stakeholders.
Status of Design Effort
At this stage, only a highly preliminary and conceptual layout has been possible, one which does not fully take into account the specifics of track geometry, turnout (track switch) locations, or the exact locations of the piers supporting the I-5 freeway structure. In railroad terms, the terminal district is a small site into which diverse and complex operational requirements are being compressed, and a great deal of complex trackwork. Satisfactory resolution of conflicting requirements, and definitive evaluation of alternative treatments, depends upon completion of an adequate level of design. Platform lengths, shapes and locations, as well as overall ROW envelopes presented in this document are indicative and require refinement. The intention is to permit a comparative analysis of the concept alternatives, not a detailed design.
Description of Alternatives
Four highly preliminary initial track layout concepts have been developed to accompany the four conceptual SITF alternatives. All four alternative track concepts have been reconsidered in terms of a split freight line approach, as discussed above, in order to provide passenger operations with a parallel move capability to the west.
Alternative A: Sunset Limited
This alternative is based on a modification that uses the previous UP concept, in which freight tracks are realigned along the northern edge of the SITF site. With the split freight arrangement, one freight track would be located south of the platforms and a second freight track (with provision for a third) would be located along the north of the platforms. Four platform tracks and two island passenger platforms would be provided, with platforms on the order to 1,100 to 1,200 feet long. The platforms would be located approximately 575’ north of the terminal (as measured from the center of the terminal complex to the midpoint between the two passenger platforms). A new intermodal facility extension would be built on the north side of the Historic Depot. Pedestrian access to the platforms would be grade separated, using an elevated pedestrian concourse.
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 55
Alternative B: Sacramento Northern
The trackwork for this alternative would be the same as for Alternative A. However, with this alternative, the Historic Depot would be north moved to a location closer to the new platforms. The platforms would be located approximately 250’ north of the terminal (as measured from the center of the terminal complex to the midpoint between the two passenger platforms). Pedestrian access to the platforms would be grade separated, using a below ground connection.
Alternative C: Overland Limited
The trackwork for this alternative is based on a suggestion brought forward as a compromise alignment proposed by Save Our Rail Depot (SORD). In the original proposed SORD compromise, the three UP freight lines were located, as originally proposed by the railroad, along the northern edge of the property. The freight tracks, passenger tracks and associated platforms would be moved some distance northward from their present location to a compromise location, farther from the Historic Depot than the original tracks, but south of the original UP proposal. The platforms would be located approximately 425’ north of the terminal (as measured from the center of the Historic Depot to the midpoint between the two passenger platforms).
Using the split freight track arrangement to meet passenger rail operating requirements would result in platforms about 800 feet long. Moving the tracks farther north may permit longer platforms, but would increase the distance from the Depot which is inconsistent with the intent of the initial SORD compromise. Pedestrian access to the platforms would be grade separated, using an elevated pedestrian concourse connecting to the north side of the Depot building.
Alternative D: Valley Flyer
The intention of the alignment presented with this alternative was to maximize developable land area south of the railroad ROW while limiting walking distances from the Historic Depot to the platforms. Initial evaluation seemed to suggest that the resulting curvature for the southern “split” freight track would not be acceptable for 30mph operation with this approach. However, a subsequent more detailed evaluation suggests that this first assessment was too conservative, and that a workable solution can probably be found. The result would be two island platforms of acceptable length. The platforms would be located approximately 400’ north of the terminal (as measured from the center of the Historic Depot to the midpoint between the two passenger platforms). Pedestrian access to the platforms would be grade separated, using an elevated pedestrian concourse connecting between the west ends of the platforms and the north side of the Depot building. Because the concourse would connect to the end of the station platforms, most passengers using the Historic Depot would be required to walk additional distances along the platform to reach their rail cars.
Evaluation The evaluation of the different rail arrangements considers the following major issues:
• Platform length
• Provision for parallel passenger rail moves to and from the west
• Access to all station tracks from either UP mainline track
• Distance from the Historic Depot
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 56
• Provision for 3 freight-only tracks
• Provision for 30 mph freight operation
• Provision of a permanent connection to the existing California State Rail Museum, south of the mainline tracks
• Eliminates need for temporary crossing for the California State Rail Museum
• Provides for curve of 15 degrees or less on freight connection to the California State Rail Museum
• Provision of access to the existing Railroad Technology Museum, north of the mainline of the tracks
Table 4.2.1 presents the results of the evaluation.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Se
ptem
ber 2
9, 2
004
Page
57
Tab
le 4
.2.1
Eva
luat
ion:
Hea
vy R
ail O
pera
tion
Issu
e A
ltern
ativ
e A
: Su
nset
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
B:
Sacr
amen
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Pla
tform
Len
gth
• 1,
100
to 1
,200
foot
pla
tform
s su
bsta
ntia
lly m
eet
the
requ
ired
prog
ram
•
1,10
0 to
1,2
00 fo
ot p
latfo
rms
subs
tant
ially
mee
t th
e re
quire
d pr
ogra
m
• 80
0 fo
ot p
latfo
rms
not a
dequ
ate
• 1,
100
to 1
,200
foot
pla
tform
s su
bsta
ntia
lly m
eet
the
requ
ired
prog
ram
Pro
visi
on fo
r par
alle
l pa
ssen
ger r
ail m
oves
to a
nd
from
the
wes
t
• Ye
s •
Yes
•
Yes
•
Yes
Acc
ess
to a
ll st
atio
n tra
cks
from
eith
er U
P m
ainl
ine
track
• Li
kely
for 2
or 3
out
of 4
sta
tion
track
s •
Like
ly fo
r 2 o
r 3 o
ut o
f 4 s
tatio
n tra
cks
• Li
kely
for 2
or 3
out
of 4
sta
tion
track
s •
Like
ly fo
r 2 o
r 3 o
ut o
f 4 s
tatio
n tra
cks
Dis
tanc
e fro
m th
e Te
rmin
al
Bui
ldin
g to
pla
tform
s
• Pl
atfo
rms
appr
oxim
atel
y 57
5 fe
et fr
om te
rmin
al
(mea
sure
d fro
m th
e ce
nter
of t
he te
rmin
al
com
plex
)
• P
latfo
rms
appr
oxim
atel
y 25
0 fe
et fr
om te
rmin
al
(mea
sure
d fro
m th
e ce
nter
of t
he te
rmin
al
com
plex
)
• P
latfo
rms
appr
oxim
atel
y 42
5 fe
et fr
om te
rmin
al
(mea
sure
d fro
m th
e ce
nter
of t
he H
isto
ric
Dep
ot)
• P
latfo
rms
appr
oxim
atel
y 40
0 fe
et fr
om te
rmin
al
(mea
sure
d fro
m th
e ce
nter
of t
he H
isto
ric
Dep
ot)
Pro
visi
on fo
r 3 fr
eigh
t-onl
y tra
cks
• Ye
s •
Yes
•
Yes
•
Yes
Pro
visi
on fo
r 30
mph
frei
ght
oper
atio
n
• Ye
s •
Yes
•
Like
ly
• Li
kely
Pro
visi
on o
f a p
erm
anen
t co
nnec
tion
to th
e ex
istin
g C
alifo
rnia
Sta
te R
ail M
useu
m,
sout
h of
the
mai
nlin
e tra
cks
• Ye
s •
Yes
•
Yes
•
Yes
Elim
inat
es n
eed
for t
empo
rary
cr
ossi
ng fo
r the
Cal
iforn
ia
Sta
te R
ail M
useu
m
• N
o •
No
• N
o •
No
Pro
vide
s fo
r cur
ve o
f 15
degr
ees
or le
ss o
n fre
ight
co
nnec
tion
to th
e C
alifo
rnia
S
tate
Rai
l Mus
eum
• N
o, li
kely
to b
e 17
deg
rees
or m
ore
• N
o, li
kely
to b
e 17
deg
rees
or m
ore
• N
o, li
kely
to b
e 18
deg
rees
or m
ore
• N
o, li
kely
to b
e 18
deg
rees
or m
ore
Pro
visi
on o
f acc
ess
to th
e ex
istin
g R
ailro
ad T
echn
olog
y M
useu
m, n
orth
of t
he m
ainl
ine
of th
e tra
cks
• Li
kely
•
Like
ly
• Li
kely
•
Like
ly
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 58
Summary Based on the preliminary evaluation, it appears that the rail arrangements shown with Sunset Limited, Sacramento Northern and Valley Flyer are workable. They will likely accommodate the split freight rail arrangement that allows parallel passenger moves to the west, reasonable platform lengths, adequate freight operation and improved Museum access. Sunset Limited and Sacramento Northern would both move the platforms farther to the north than Valley Flyer. However, Valley Flyer would provide direct passenger access from the Depot to the west ends of the platforms. Overland Limited has inadequate platform lengths. In all cases, designs would need to be completed in greater detail and refined based on coordination with the key stakeholders before final conclusions could be made.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Se
ptem
ber 2
9, 2
004
Page
59
Tab
le 4
.2.2
Eva
luat
ion
Cri
teri
a M
atri
x: H
eavy
Rai
l Ope
rati
on
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
1. M
eets
cur
rent
and
pro
ject
ed d
eman
d fo
r tra
nsit,
par
atra
nsit,
an
d fre
ight
ope
ratio
ns.
2. M
eets
cur
rent
and
pro
ject
ed d
eman
d fo
r tra
nsit
vehi
cle
load
ing,
layo
ver,
stor
age
and
serv
icin
g
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 60
4.2.2 Light Rail Operation Introduction Regional Transit is currently planning two LRT extension projects that will serve the SITF: The Amtrak/Folsom Extension and the Downtown Natomas Airport (DNA) project.
Amtrak/Folsom Extension
This project will extend LRT service to the SITF, in addition to the extending the existing line east to the City of Folsom. The Amtrak segment of the project consists of a 0.7 mile extension. As currently planned, this extension will use 7th Street (southbound), 8th Street (northbound) and operate two-way on H Street. On H Street between 7th and 5th Streets, the extension will transition from double track to single track into the SITF A single platform will be located north of the Depot building adjacent to the heavy rail platforms. The track will extend to the west past the platforms to provide storage/layover for LRT vehicles. Regional Transit seeks to initiate construction in 2004, although there are issues to be resolved before construction can begin. Right-of-way on the SITF site has not yet been secured at the time of issuance of this report. The design also is being refined to address operation issues and discussions with the Federal Building are ongoing to address security and operational concerns (see below).
DNA Extension
Regional Transit is also currently completing the Transit Alternatives Analysis for a potential extension of LRT from Downtown Sacramento to the Sacramento International Airport. This project is known as the Downtown Natomas Airport (DNA) project. Light Rail using Truxel Road was selected by the Regional Transit board as the locally preferred alternative in December, 2003. Construction on the DNA extension is not likely to begin before year 2010.
In the SITF area, the LRT would include double track, platforms and LRT vehicle storage/layover facilities. A specific alignment has not been identified by RT, but it has indicated that LRT should cross the heavy rail tracks on 6th Street or 7th Street. As described in greater detail below, RT has indicated that LRT must function as a through service (as opposed to stub end operation) at the SITF to meet operational requirements. The process to identify the preferred alignment through the SITF area must also address concerns raised by the Federal Building.
Federal Building Issues
Representatives from the Federal Building located at 5th and I Streets have identified several concerns regarding the implementation of LRT on H Street. These issues pertain to both the Amtrak extension and DNA projects and are related primarily to security and circulation. One specific issue relates to occasional closure of H Street. At this time, the Federal Building representatives have indicated that the potential LRT alignments presented in this report cause them concern. Ongoing coordination between the Federal Building representatives, the City of Sacramento and the SITF team is seeking to produce an arrangement that is acceptable for all parties. This coordination will continue after a proposed project is selected until a solution is reached.
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 61
Through-Station Alignment Alternatives
Regional Transit reports that a ‘Through-Station’ alignment is necessary to meet their operational requirements for the DNA Extension. With a Through-Station arrangement, the station is located on a continuous track segment allowing trains to enter the station, stop and continue out of the station in the same direction. This is in contrast to a ‘Stub-End’ arrangement in which the tracks terminate at one end of the platform and trains must reverse direction to exit the station.
Through-Station LRT alignments that are compatible with the SITF alternatives have been developed in coordination with RT and have been shown in the SITF Alternative Facility Plans presented in Section 3. The alignments illustrated with each alternative are generally similar. With each alternative, LRT is shown using H Street between 5th Street and 7th Street. The two tracks are located on the north side of the street, with the westbound track operating in a contra-flow lane and the eastbound track operating in a shared traffic lane where possible. The alignment then turns north into the SITF area where station would be located. All of the alternatives show LRT storage tracks immediately northeast of the SITF. In all cases a 7th Street rail crossing is provided. The track alignment and geometry achieved with a 7th Street crossing is preferable to a 6th Street crossing because additional space is provided to accommodate changes in vertical elevation and storage tracks. A possible bypass track on 7th Street has also been shown on all of the alternatives, which could be utilized by LRT trains to travel continue routes through the area in the event that LRT service must be temporarily interrupted on H Street adjacent to the Federal Building. Use of the bypass would result in LRT not serving the SITF directly; passengers would have to walk approximately 2-3 blocks to make connections.
In the Sunset Limited alternative, the LRT platforms are located on the northeast side of the H Street extension adjacent to the Millennia Development. The connection to 7th Street would be via a bus and LRT-only route passing under 6th Street and the Millennia Development to F Street. The Sacramento Northern alternative has a similar arrangement, although with a slightly different platform position. The platforms would be located immediately adjacent to the east side of the Terminal Building. In the Overland Limited alternative, the LRT platforms are located parallel to the heavy rail tracks, requiring a nearly 180 degree turn from H Street. The connection with 7th Street would be via a LRT-only alignment that runs parallel to the heavy rail tracks, ramping down to the 7th Street underpass. In the Valley Flyer alternative, the LRT platforms would be located on the east side of an extension of 5th Street. The alignment would turn east on F Street to connect to 7th Street, crossing over a 6th Street underpass.
Stub-End Alignment Alternative
As described previously, the Federal Building has raised objections to a permanent, double-track LRT alignment on H Street between 5th and 6th Streets. Alternative Through-Station alignments that do not use this street segment have been studied. However, to date it has not been possible to identify an alignment that meets RT’s operational requirements, provides a station integrated with the SITF and is compatible with planned roadway network and land use development plans.
As an alternative to a Through-Station alignment, a Stub-End alignment option was considered. Figures 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 illustrate a Stub-End LRT alignment with the Sunset Limited and Sacramento Northern SITF alternatives. With this alignment, LRT would utilized 7th Street to cross the heavy rail tracks. An LRT spur would extend east of 7th Street on the G Street alignment. Between 7th Street and 6th Streets, the tracks would ramp down in order to pass under 6th Street and the Millennia Development. The spur would terminate at LRT platforms located below the Millennia Development, approximately 15 to 20 feet below existing grade. Trains traveling in the direction of Truxel Road would enter the spur segment traveling westbound on G Street, stop at the station platforms, reverse direction, exit the station traveling
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 62
eastbound on G Street, change tracks as necessary and turn north on 7th Street. Trains traveling in the direction of downtown would turn east from southbound 7th Street to westbound G Street, stop at the station platforms, reverse direction, exit the station traveling eastbound on G Street, change tracks as necessary and turn south on 7th Street.
A Stub-End alignment raises several operational challenges. Regional Transit has summarized the problems as follows:
1. Disabled Access. Changing the direction of a train mid-route would result presents a major problem for disabled access. Currently, access to trains for disabled passengers is only available at the front of the car. Wheelchair ramps have been constructed at stations system-wide in this position. If the train changes direction at the SITF, a passenger in a wheelchair would be required to exit the train and change ends in order to be able to exit at their ultimate destination. This condition would be in violation with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. Train Frequency and Capacity. A stub-end station operation with trains routed through as described above would double the frequency of trains operating on the stub-end segment. Providing a 15 minute frequency in each direction would require the operation of 16 trains an hour on the stub-end, or double the number operating through a normal station. This segment would thus become a system wide constraint to capacity and train frequency.
3. Additional Station Dwell Time. Normal station stop time (dwell) is 20 seconds in length on the RT system. With a Stub-End operation and a single operator, the dwell time would increase to approximately 5 minutes. The dwell time could be reduced to approximately 3 minutes with a second employee assigned full time to assist with train reversal. However, the annual cost of the additional station employee is approximately $237,000.
4. Passenger Delay. The increase in dwell time would create a major delay for passengers and increase overall route time with an associated increase in operating costs. An increase of station dwell time of 3 to 5 minutes would increase the travel time for the passenger traveling through the station on average 10% to 17%.
The quality of the passenger experience at the SITF would also be compromised with the Stub-End alignment. The east-west orientation would require passengers to walk an additional distance to reach the end of the platform (as far as 360 feet from the end of the train). The LRT station would also need to be below grade, located under the Millennia development. The station would thus be less visible and accessible to passengers, requiring vertical circulation. The LRT station would use a large portion of the Millennia basement and divide it into two separate areas. Further, it would not be possible to provide LRT storage tracks at the SITF, as identified in the program. Additional cost would also be associated with the underground alignment.
Alignment options will continue to be developed and evaluated for the preferred SITF alternative. Subsequent studies will be required to perform more detailed analysis to address LRT alignment with respect to numerous issues including LRT operation, intermodal connectivity and passenger experience, relationship with adjacent properties including the Millennia development, roadway circulation and traffic impacts, phasing and constructability, as well as with respect to the concerns of proximity to the Federal Building.
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternative A “Sunset Limited” LRT Stub Option
Figure 4.2.1
8 October 2004
BU
S
BUSONLLY
RE
AB
LDG
.
FE
DE
RA
LB
UIL
DIN
GN
EW
RA
MP
S
HE
AV
YR
AIL
R.O
.W.
PA
SS
EN
GE
R/TT
AAX
ID
RO
P-O
FF
P
FS
TR
EE
T
GS
TR
EE
T
HS
TR
EE
T
5TTHSTREET
6THSTREET
7THSTREET
3RDSTREET
IS
TR
EE
T
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
RA
I LR
OAA
DDDT
EC
HHHN
OL O
GY
MUUU
SSSE
UM
CO
NC
OU
RS
EA
BO
VE
LRTBYPASSSTTRACKSS
TATE5
CH
INNNA
TTTOOO
WN
L DDDS
AC
RA
ME
NT
O
4THSTREET
3R
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
TR
AN
SIT
PA
RK
ING
SU
RRF
AC
ET
RA
NNS
ITP
AR
KIIN
G
PU
BLI
CS
PA
CE
PU
BLI
CS
PA
CE
PEDCROSSING
2NDSTR
SLOPESUPOVERTRACCK
SLOPESUPOVERTRACKS
R
NNNNNG
S K
This
Sect
ion
isBe
low
Dev
elop
men
tat
Gra
de
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternative B “Sacramento Northern” LRT Stub Option
Figure 4.2.2
8 October 2004
RA
ILR
OAAA
DT
ECCC
HN
OL O
GY
MMMUUU
SE
UMM
BU
SSO
NLY
BU
SO
NNLY
RE
AB
L DG
.
PA
SS
EN
GE
R/TT
AX
ID
RO
P-O
FF
OF
FIC
EW
/B
ELO
WG
RA
DE
TR
AN
SIT
PA
RK
ING
RT
BU
SE
S
FS
TRR
EE
T
HHS
TR
EE
T
IS
TR
EE
T
4THSTREET
5THSTREET
6THSTREET
7THSTREET
8THSTREET
RRAAA
MP
SU
PT
OPPP
LAT
FO
RM
S
AC
CE
SS
BE
L OW
E RSTATE5
OOOLDDD
SA
CR
AM
EN
TO
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
MIL
L EN
NIA
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
MIL
LEN
NIA
DE
VE
L OP
ME
NT
PU
BLI
CS
PA
CE
EX
IST
IINGGG
HIS
TOOO
RIC
DE
PO
TTTL OO
CCCA
TIO
N
HE
AV
YR
AIL
R.O
.W.
FE
DE
RA
LB
UIL
DIN
G
2ND
3RDSTREEEEEETTT
PU
BLI
CS
PA
CE
PEDCCCCROSSINNNG
CH
INNNA
TTTOO
WN
NNE
WR
AM
PS
SIN
GGS
TR
EE
T
SLOPESUPOVERR
SLOPESUPOVERTRACKS
This
Sect
ion
isBe
low
Dev
elop
men
tat
Gra
de
TRRACKKS T
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 65
Evaluation An evaluation of light rail operations has been completed for the Through-Station alignment options shown on the SITF Alternative Facility Plans. This evaluation considers the following issues:
• Alignment
• Platform Location
• Federal Building
Table 4.2.3 presents the results of the evaluation.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Se
ptem
ber 2
9, 2
004
Page
66
Tab
le 4
.2.3
Eva
luat
ion:
Lig
ht R
ail O
pera
tion
Issu
e A
ltern
ativ
e A
: Su
nset
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
B:
Sacr
amen
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Alig
nmen
t •
Req
uire
s lig
ht ra
il to
trav
el a
ppro
xim
atel
y 2.
5 ci
ty b
lock
s to
the
wes
t and
bac
k fro
m th
e 7th
St
reet
alig
nmen
t to
serv
e th
e S
ITF
dire
ctly
•
Cro
sses
thro
ugh
the
5th a
nd H
Stre
et
inte
rsec
tion,
whi
ch m
ay c
ontri
bute
to tr
affic
ca
paci
ty is
sues
at t
his
loca
tion
• St
orag
e tra
cks
shar
e sp
ace
with
bus
circ
ulat
ion,
po
tent
ial f
or c
onfli
cts
• R
equi
res
shar
p tu
rns
at e
nds
of p
latfo
rms,
may
re
quire
com
prom
ises
in R
T de
sign
sta
ndar
ds
• R
equi
res
light
rail
to tr
avel
app
roxi
mat
ely
2.5
city
blo
cks
to th
e w
est a
nd b
ack
from
the
7th
Stre
et a
lignm
ent t
o se
rve
the
SIT
F di
rect
ly
• C
ross
es th
roug
h th
e 5th
and
H S
treet
in
ters
ectio
n, w
hich
may
con
tribu
te to
traf
fic
capa
city
issu
es a
t thi
s lo
catio
n •
Req
uire
s sh
arp
turn
s at
end
s of
pla
tform
s, m
ay
requ
ire c
ompr
omis
es in
RT
desi
gn s
tand
ards
• R
equi
res
light
rail
to tr
avel
app
roxi
mat
ely
3 ci
ty
bloc
ks to
the
wes
t and
bac
k fro
m th
e 7th
Stre
et
alig
nmen
t to
serv
e th
e SI
TF d
irect
ly
• C
ross
es th
roug
h th
e 5th
and
H S
treet
in
ters
ectio
n, w
hich
may
con
tribu
te to
traf
fic
capa
city
issu
es a
t thi
s lo
catio
n •
Sto
rage
trac
ks s
hare
spa
ce w
ith b
us c
ircul
atio
n,
pote
ntia
l for
con
flict
s •
Req
uire
s a
shar
p, n
early
180
turn
to c
onne
ct to
th
e pl
atfo
rm, w
hich
cre
ates
noi
se a
nd tr
ack
mai
nten
ance
con
cern
s an
d tu
rnin
g lig
ht ra
il ve
hicl
es w
ill co
nflic
t with
bus
circ
ulat
ion
• R
equi
res
light
rail
to tr
avel
app
roxi
mat
ely
2 ci
ty
bloc
ks to
the
wes
t and
bac
k fro
m th
e 7th
Stre
et
alig
nmen
t to
serv
e th
e S
ITF
dire
ctly
•
Sto
rage
trac
ks s
hare
spa
ce w
ith b
us c
ircul
atio
n,
pote
ntia
l for
con
flict
s •
A p
ortio
n of
the
stor
age
track
s w
ill b
e lo
cate
d on
a
curv
e •
Req
uire
s sh
arp
turn
s at
end
s of
pla
tform
s, m
ay
requ
ire c
ompr
omis
es in
RT
desi
gn s
tand
ards
Pla
tform
Loc
atio
n •
Loca
ted
imm
edia
tely
adj
acen
t to
the
SITF
Te
rmin
al B
uild
ing
and
bus
boar
ding
are
as,
alth
ough
a ro
adw
ay c
ross
ing
is re
quire
d.
• Lo
cate
d im
med
iate
ly a
djac
ent t
o th
e S
ITF
Term
inal
Bui
ldin
g an
d bu
s bo
ardi
ng a
reas
, no
road
way
cro
ssin
gs re
quire
d
• Lo
cate
d ad
jace
nt to
the
heav
y ra
il pl
atfo
rms,
but
re
lativ
ely
far f
rom
the
Term
inal
Bui
ldin
g.
• Lo
cate
d ad
jace
nt to
loca
l bus
boa
rdin
g ar
ea,
acro
ss 5
th S
treet
from
the
SIT
F si
te a
lthou
gh a
ro
adw
ay c
ross
ing
is re
quire
d •
Loca
ted
rela
tivel
y fa
r fro
m T
erm
inal
Bui
ldin
g,
with
vis
ual c
onne
ctio
ns b
lock
s by
join
t de
velo
pmen
t
Fede
ral B
uild
ing
• Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g re
pres
enta
tives
hav
e ra
ised
se
curit
y an
d op
erat
iona
l con
cern
s re
gard
ing
the
alig
nmen
t on
H S
treet
•
Clo
sure
of H
Stre
et m
ay d
isru
pt L
RT
serv
ice.
A
bypa
ss tr
ack
on 7
th S
treet
is o
ne p
oten
tial o
ptio
n to
mai
ntai
n op
erat
ion.
• Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g re
pres
enta
tives
hav
e ra
ised
se
curit
y an
d op
erat
iona
l con
cern
s re
gard
ing
the
alig
nmen
t on
H S
treet
•
Clo
sure
of H
Stre
et m
ay d
isru
pt L
RT
serv
ice.
A
bypa
ss tr
ack
on 7
th S
treet
is o
ne p
oten
tial o
ptio
n to
mai
ntai
n op
erat
ion.
• Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g re
pres
enta
tives
hav
e ra
ised
se
curit
y an
d op
erat
iona
l con
cern
s re
gard
ing
the
alig
nmen
t on
H S
treet
•
Clo
sure
of H
Stre
et m
ay d
isru
pt L
RT
serv
ice.
A
bypa
ss tr
ack
on 7
th S
treet
is o
ne p
oten
tial o
ptio
n to
mai
ntai
n op
erat
ion.
• Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g re
pres
enta
tives
hav
e ra
ised
se
curit
y an
d op
erat
iona
l con
cern
s re
gard
ing
the
alig
nmen
t on
H S
treet
•
Clo
sure
of H
Stre
et m
ay d
isru
pt L
RT
serv
ice.
A
bypa
ss tr
ack
on 7
th S
treet
is o
ne p
oten
tial o
ptio
n to
mai
ntai
n op
erat
ion.
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 67
Summary The four SITF alternatives meet the operational requirements of RT by providing for through double track LRT alignments, a station serving the SITF and storage tracks. All four of the alternatives also utilize 7th Street to cross the heavy rail tracks. In all cases, the resulting alignment is somewhat indirect, requiring LRT to travel to and from the west to provide a station at the SITF. The trade-off for direct service to the SITF is longer travel distances and time for the LRT, as well as additional intersection crossing and turning movements which may negatively impact traffic flow at some locations.
Sacramento Northern provides the most favorable LRT alignment, as the platforms are immediately adjacent to the building (with no roadway crossings required) and because much of the ROW in the SITF area is exclusive for LRT. Sunset Limited has a similar alignment and platform location. With this alternative, however, the LRT platform is located across an active roadway from the other SITF facilities and buses share the connection to 7th Street. Overland Limited has the least favorable LRT alignment due to long, sharp curve required within the SITF site and the distance between the platform and the Terminal Building. The alignment with Valley Flyer benefits from not having to pass through the intersection of 5th Street and H Street, but has an unfavorable platform location with respect to intermodal connectivity.
All four alternatives use H Street adjacent to the Federal Building, raising security and circulation concerns. Ongoing coordination between the Federal Building representatives, the City of Sacramento and the SITF team, and refinement of the proposed project will be required to produce an arrangement that is acceptable for all parties.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Se
ptem
ber2
9, 2
004
Page
68
Tab
le 4
.2.4
Eva
luat
ion
Cri
teri
a M
atri
x: L
ight
Rai
l Ope
rati
on
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
15. M
eets
the
dist
inct
ope
ratio
n re
quire
men
ts o
f the
ope
rato
rs
16. P
rovi
des
effic
ient
circ
ulat
ion
(min
imiz
es d
ista
nce
and
time)
fo
r tra
nsit
vehi
cles
with
in th
e Fa
cilit
y an
d on
the
adja
cent
ro
adw
ay n
etw
ork
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 69
4.2.3 Bus Operation Introduction Bus activity at the SITF will consist of local transit bus services and intercity bus services. Local transit buses include Regional Transit (RT) and potentially other transit operators. Intercity bus services consist of Amtrak Thruway and Greyhound Lines.
The locations of the bus loading bays in each alternative have been illustrated previously in Section 3 of this report. Figure 4.2.3 illustrates the likely bus circulation routes for the four alternatives. The routes identified for RT buses are based on assumptions for future bus service patterns in the SITF area provided by RT and its consultant (memo from DKS Associates to Arup dated August 26, 2003). Regional Transit intends to discontinue the current practice of using 2nd Street for buses exiting the SITF. Buses would instead, enter and exit the SITF from the east. All alternatives include secondary access routes for use in the event of emergencies or other events related to activities at the Federal Building.
All four alternatives assume modifications to the I Street ramps to Interstate 5 (see Section 4.5). These modifications would permit access for intercity buses into the Facility from Interstate 5 via northbound 3rd Street. Direct freeway access does not appear to be feasible for intercity buses exiting the facility. There is a desire to minimize travel distances by intercity buses on city streets in downtown, which is reflected in the alternative designs and the following evaluation.
Evaluation The evaluation of bus operations considers the following issues:
• Local Transit Bus Circulation
• Intercity bus Circulation
• Loading Areas
• Facility Operation
The evaluation of the alternatives with respect to bus operations is presented in Table 4.2.5.
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternatives A-D Circulation: Bus Access
Figure 4.2.3
8 October 2004
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
dA
ltern
ativ
e B:
Sac
ram
ento
Nor
ther
n
0’
100’
200’
300’
400’
LEG
EN
D
N
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Sept
embe
r 29,
200
4Pa
ge 7
1
Tabl
e 4.
2.5
Eva
luat
ion:
Bus
Ope
ratio
n
Issu
e A
ltern
ativ
e A
: Su
nset
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
B:
Sacr
amen
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Inte
rcity
bus
Circ
ulat
ion
• P
rovi
des
mos
t con
veni
ent a
cces
s to
the
Inte
rcity
bu
s bo
ardi
ng b
ays
from
the
3rd S
treet
slip
ram
p •
Min
imiz
es d
ista
nces
trav
eled
and
inte
rsec
tion
conf
licts
for i
nter
city
bus
es in
boun
d to
the
SIT
F •
Incl
udes
an
optio
n fo
r out
boun
d In
terc
ity b
uses
to
trave
l pas
t the
fron
t of t
he H
isto
ric D
epot
to
conn
ect t
o I S
treet
, avo
idin
g 5th
Stre
et a
djac
ent t
o th
e Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g
• P
rovi
des
rela
tivel
y co
nven
ient
acc
ess
to th
e In
terc
ity b
us b
oard
ing
bays
from
the
3rd S
treet
R
amp,
but
doe
s re
quire
Inte
rcity
bus
es th
at a
re
inbo
und
to th
e S
ITF
to tu
rn le
ft on
to th
e H
Stre
et
Ext
ensi
on
• M
ost c
onve
nien
t circ
ulat
ion
for b
uses
out
boun
d fro
m S
ITF
via
the
new
4th
Stre
et li
nk, b
uses
wou
ld
not c
ircul
ate
on s
treet
s ad
jace
nt to
the
Fede
ral
Bui
ldin
g •
Req
uire
s in
terc
ity b
uses
out
boun
d fro
m S
ITF
to
mix
with
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s an
d st
reet
traf
fic o
n th
e H
Stre
et E
xten
sion
and
4th
Stre
et
• P
rovi
des
rela
tivel
y co
nven
ient
acc
ess
to th
e G
reyh
ound
boa
rdin
g ba
ys fr
om th
e 3rd
Stre
et
Ram
p •
Req
uire
s A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay b
uses
inbo
und
to th
e S
ITF
to m
ix w
ith lo
cal t
rans
it bu
ses
and
LRT
• R
equi
res
inte
rcity
bus
es o
utbo
und
from
SIT
F to
m
ix w
ith lo
cal b
uses
and
stre
et tr
affic
on
H S
treet
, 5th
Stre
et a
nd I
Stre
et a
nd to
circ
ulat
e ad
jace
nt to
th
e Fe
dera
l Bui
ldin
g
• P
rovi
des
rela
tivel
y co
nven
ient
acc
ess
to th
e G
reyh
ound
boa
rdin
g ba
ys fr
om th
e 3rd
Stre
et
Ram
p, b
ut w
ould
requ
ire s
harp
turn
s •
Req
uire
s A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay b
uses
inbo
und
to th
e S
ITF
to c
ircul
ate
arou
nd th
e lo
cal t
rans
it bu
s is
land
•
Req
uire
s in
terc
ity b
uses
out
boun
d fro
m S
ITF
to
mix
with
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s an
d st
reet
traf
fic o
n H
S
treet
, 5th
Stre
et a
nd I
Stre
et a
nd to
circ
ulat
e ad
jace
nt to
the
Fede
ral B
uild
ing
Loca
l Bus
Circ
ulat
ion
• P
rovi
des
conv
enie
nt c
lock
wis
e lo
op o
pera
tion
arou
nd th
e bo
ardi
ng is
land
•
Allo
ws
for a
tran
sit o
nly
(LR
T, b
us) a
cces
s ro
ute
to th
e in
ters
ectio
n of
7th
Stre
et a
nd F
Stre
et, b
ut
wou
ld c
reat
e co
nflic
ts b
etw
een
LRT
vehi
cles
and
bu
ses
•
Pro
vide
s nu
mer
ous
optio
ns fo
r loc
al tr
ansi
t bus
ac
cess
, inc
ludi
ng th
e F
Stre
et, H
Stre
et, t
he 3
rd
Stre
et s
lip ra
mp
and
2nd S
treet
• P
rovi
des
rela
tivel
y sh
ort t
rave
l dis
tanc
es fo
r Loc
al
Bus
es, a
s th
ey a
re c
once
ntra
ted
in fr
ont o
f the
Fa
cilit
y an
d on
H S
treet
•
Acc
ess
optio
ns li
mite
d fo
r bus
es s
topp
ing
on H
St
• M
ixes
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s w
ith H
Stre
et tr
affic
in
front
of t
he F
acilit
y an
d cr
eate
s th
e po
tent
ial f
or
queu
es o
f veh
icle
s ex
iting
the
Faci
lity
to b
lock
bu
s ci
rcul
atio
n w
ith th
e ar
rang
emen
t as
show
n •
Pro
vide
s nu
mer
ous
optio
ns fo
r loc
al tr
ansi
t bus
ac
cess
, inc
ludi
ng 4
th S
treet
, H S
treet
, the
3rd
S
treet
slip
ram
p an
d 2nd
Stre
et
• M
ay n
ot a
llow
for a
tran
sit o
nly
(LR
T an
d Lo
cal
Bus
) acc
ess
rout
e to
the
inte
rsec
tion
of 7
th S
treet
an
d F
Stre
et, d
ue to
the
com
plex
ity o
f the
ge
omet
ry a
nd c
ircul
atio
n in
fron
t of t
he s
tatio
n
• M
inim
izes
con
flict
s be
twee
n Lo
cal B
us a
nd
priv
ate
vehi
cles
with
in th
e Fa
cilit
y •
Pro
vide
s se
vera
l opt
ions
for l
ocal
tran
sit b
us
acce
ss, i
nclu
ding
5th
Stre
et, G
Stre
et, H
Stre
et,
the
3rd S
treet
slip
ram
p an
d 2nd
Stre
et
• Lo
cal b
us a
nd A
mtra
k bu
s co
nflic
t with
LR
T m
ovem
ent a
t LR
T st
atio
n (b
uses
mus
t cro
ss L
RT
track
s), c
reat
ing
a m
ajor
flaw
in th
is a
ltern
ativ
e
• P
rovi
des
conv
enie
nt c
lock
wis
e lo
op o
pera
tion
arou
nd th
e bo
ardi
ng is
land
. M
ixes
bus
es a
nd
traffi
c ex
iting
the
pick
-up/
drop
-off
area
on
H
Stre
et
• P
rovi
des
seve
ral o
ptio
ns fo
r loc
al tr
ansi
t bus
ac
cess
, inc
ludi
ng 5
th S
treet
, H S
treet
, the
3rd
S
treet
slip
ram
p an
d 2nd
Stre
et
• A
llow
s fo
r a lo
cal t
rans
it bu
s ac
cess
from
a
trans
it-on
ly (L
RT
and
Loca
l Bus
) acc
ess
rout
e to
th
e in
ters
ectio
n of
7th
Stre
et a
nd F
Stre
et, b
ut
wou
ld c
reat
e co
nflic
ts b
etw
een
LRT
vehi
cles
and
bu
ses
• R
equi
res
shar
p tu
rns
for i
nbou
nd G
reyh
ound
bu
ses
and
outb
ound
Am
trak
Thru
way
bus
es
Load
ing
Are
as
• E
nsur
es m
axim
um fu
ture
flex
ibilit
y fo
r Int
erci
ty
bus
oper
atio
n, s
uch
as re
allo
catin
g or
sha
ring
bays
or l
ocat
ing
Am
trak
Thru
way
and
Gre
yhou
nd
load
ing
adja
cent
to e
ach
othe
r •
Pro
vide
s ba
ys fo
r loc
al b
uses
on
a si
ngle
isla
nd,
ensu
ring
oper
atio
nal f
lexi
bilit
y an
d st
raig
htfo
rwar
d w
ayfin
ding
• R
esul
ts in
a tw
o-si
ded
Inte
rcity
bus
boa
rdin
g ar
ea
that
pro
vide
s di
stin
ct a
reas
for t
he A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay a
nd G
reyh
ound
•
Pla
ces
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s in
a h
ighl
y vi
sibl
e lo
catio
n in
fron
t of t
he fa
cilit
y, b
ut m
ay b
lock
so
me
view
s of
the
Dep
ot fa
çade
•
Div
ides
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s be
twee
n m
ultip
le
isla
nds/
curb
s, c
ompl
icat
ing
pass
enge
r way
findi
ng
• C
reat
es d
istin
ct b
oard
ing
area
s fo
r Am
trak
Thru
way
and
Gre
yhou
nd, l
imiti
ng fl
exib
ility
but
allo
win
g fo
r ind
epen
dent
ope
ratio
n •
Div
ides
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s be
twee
n m
ultip
le
isla
nds/
curb
s, c
ompl
icat
ing
pass
enge
r way
findi
ng
• C
reat
es d
istin
ct b
oard
ing
area
s fo
r Am
trak
Thru
way
and
Gre
yhou
nd, l
imiti
ng fl
exib
ility
but
allo
win
g fo
r ind
epen
dent
ope
ratio
n •
Pro
vide
s ba
ys fo
r loc
al tr
ansi
t bus
es o
n a
sing
le
isla
nd, e
nsur
ing
oper
atio
nal f
lexi
bilit
y an
d st
raig
htfo
rwar
d w
ayfin
ding
Faci
lity
Ope
ratio
n •
Bus
wai
ting
area
s se
para
ted
from
mai
n Te
rmin
al
Bui
ldin
g m
ay c
reat
e in
conv
enie
nt c
onne
ctio
ns
betw
een
Gre
yhou
nd b
uses
, Am
trak
Thru
way
, an
d th
e ce
ntra
l Ter
min
al B
uild
ing
func
tions
•
May
cre
ate
circ
uito
us ro
utes
thro
ugh
the
Term
inal
Bui
ldin
g fo
r som
e pa
ssen
gers
•
Acc
omm
odat
es c
onve
nien
t tra
nsfe
rs fo
r pa
ssen
gers
con
nect
ing
dire
ctly
bet
wee
n he
avy
rail
and
Am
trak
Thru
way
Bus
es
• C
reat
es lo
gica
l pas
seng
er fl
ow p
atte
rns
for
pass
enge
rs th
roug
h th
e Te
rmin
al B
uild
ing
•
Pro
vide
s th
e op
portu
nity
to c
reat
e a
dist
inct
fa
cilit
y fo
r Gre
yhou
nd w
ith it
s ow
n st
reet
fron
tage
•
Pro
vide
s be
tter c
onne
ctio
ns b
etw
een
the
adja
cent
are
a an
d lo
cal t
rans
it bu
ses,
but
pla
ces
the
boar
ding
are
a fa
rther
from
the
heav
y ra
il tra
cks
• A
ccom
mod
ates
con
veni
ent t
rans
fers
for
pass
enge
rs c
onne
ctin
g di
rect
ly b
etw
een
heav
y ra
il an
d A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
uses
• O
ptim
izes
Gre
yhou
nd F
acilit
y op
erat
ion
•
Req
uire
s re
lativ
ely
inco
nven
ient
con
nect
ions
be
twee
n A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay b
uses
and
the
cent
ral
Faci
lity
func
tions
•
Pla
ces
loca
l tra
nsit
buse
s re
lativ
ely
clos
e to
the
Hea
vy R
ail t
rack
s, fa
cilit
atin
g co
mm
uter
tran
sfer
s,
but c
reat
es in
conv
enie
nt c
onne
ctio
ns to
the
Term
inal
Bui
ldin
g •
Acc
omm
odat
es c
onve
nien
t tra
nsfe
rs fo
r pa
ssen
gers
con
nect
ing
dire
ctly
bet
wee
n he
avy
rail
and
Am
trak
Thru
way
Bus
es
• O
ptim
izes
Gre
yhou
nd F
acilit
y op
erat
ion
• R
equi
res
rela
tivel
y in
conv
enie
nt c
onne
ctio
ns
betw
een
Am
trak
Thru
way
bus
es a
nd th
e ce
ntra
l Fa
cilit
y fu
nctio
ns
• P
lace
s lo
cal t
rans
it bu
ses
rela
tivel
y cl
ose
to th
e H
eavy
Rai
l tra
cks,
faci
litat
ing
com
mut
er tr
ansf
ers,
bu
t cre
ates
inco
nven
ient
con
nect
ions
to th
e Te
rmin
al B
uild
ing
• A
ccom
mod
ates
con
veni
ent t
rans
fers
for
pass
enge
rs c
onne
ctin
g di
rect
ly b
etw
een
heav
y ra
il an
d A
mtra
k Th
ruw
ay B
uses
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 72
Summary All four alternatives result in significant improvements in bus operation on the SITF site. They generally provide adequate capacity for bus boarding, isolate buses from street traffic within the boarding areas and create additional access opportunities to the site. Key differences between the alternatives are presented below:
Alternative A: Sunset Limited
Sunset Limited appears to be the most desirable in terms of bus circulation. It provides numerous direct or nearly direct routes into and out of the Facility, minimizes conflicts with street traffic and provides efficient internal circulation. Sunset Limited also provides maximum flexibility in the utilization of the bus loading facilities. However, the Facility arrangement as currently shown required additional design study to optimize functionality and usability, due to the separation of the Greyhound bus boarding areas from the main Terminal Building.
Alternative B: Sacramento Northern
Sacramento Northern provides the best Facility building arrangement and function. In terms of circulation, the H Street extension provides a convenient connection to and from the front of the Facility. However, the placement of local transit buses in front of the Facility would create additional conflicts with street traffic and pedestrians.
Alternative C: Overland Limited
Overland Limited creates a complicated arrangement immediately north of the Historic Depot where Local Bus, LRT (on a horizontal curve), Amtrak Thruway buses and potentially street traffic on the H Street Extension would all compete. It also provides fewer access opportunities than Sunset Limited and Sacramento Northern. Separating Amtrak and Greyhound loading areas allows them to operate independently but limits future flexibility.
Alternative D: Valley Flyer
Valley Flyer mixes bus circulation with private vehicle traffic exiting the pick-up/drop-off area on H Street. It also provides fewer access opportunities than Sunset Limited and Sacramento Northern. Separating Amtrak and Greyhound loading areas allows them to operate independently but limits future flexibility.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Sept
embe
r 29,
200
4Pa
ge 7
3
Tab
le 4
.2.6
Eva
luat
ion
Cri
teri
a M
atri
x: B
us O
pera
tion
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
17. M
eets
the
dist
inct
ope
ratio
n re
quire
men
ts o
f the
ope
rato
rs
18. P
rovi
des
effic
ient
circ
ulat
ion
(min
imiz
es d
ista
nce
and
time)
fo
r tra
nsit
vehi
cles
with
in th
e Fa
cilit
y an
d on
the
adja
cent
ro
adw
ay n
etw
ork
19. E
stab
lishe
s fle
xibl
e sp
ace
for c
ircul
atio
n, p
arki
ng a
nd s
uppo
rt se
rvic
es th
at c
an b
e sh
ared
whe
re a
ppro
pria
te a
nd a
dapt
ed o
ver
time
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004Page 74
4.3 Pedestrian Access
Introduction This section examines pedestrian access to the Facility from the surrounding communities. Pedestrian circulation within the Facility, including transfers between modes, is described in Section 4.6 Intermodal Connectivity.
Site improvements would be included in all alternatives that would seek to improve sidewalks, provide pedestrian amenities and reduce conflicts with vehicles. All four alternatives also assume modifications to the I Street ramps to Interstate 5 (see Section 4.5). These modifications would provide a new signalized pedestrian crossing of I Street on the 4th Street axis. Provision of a safe pedestrian crossing of I Street is considered to be a highly desirable improvement that would benefit all of the SITF Alternatives. Such a crossing would restore the historic connection to the center axis of the depot building, as well as provide significantly improved pedestrian connections between the SITF and major destinations including Chinatown, Old Sacramento, and Downtown Plaza.
Similarly, providing a crosswalk on the west leg of the intersection of 5th Street with I Street would also provide improved pedestrian connectivity to the south and benefit all of the SITF alternatives. Placement of the crosswalk at this location would require changes in traffic control, such as operating the northbound dual left turn lanes on a permitted phase (requiring vehicles to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk), or implementation of a new signal phasing plan to avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Additional study would be required to determine the optimum arrangement and any impacts on traffic operation.
The most significant differences between the alternatives for pedestrian access are related to the location of the Terminal Building entrances, the number and quality of access routes and connections to local attractions. In addition, the location of the Terminal Building itself will impact pedestrian access by increasing or decreasing walking distances.
Figure 4.3.1 illustrates principal pedestrian access routes for the four alternatives. These figures also identify the major pedestrian entrances to the Facility. Figure 4.3.2 shows the pedestrian catchment areas for each alternative. The catchment area illustrates locations that are within 5, 10 and 15 minute walking times of the Facility for an average person (assuming straight line distances and a walk speed of 3 miles per hour). Typically, locations within an average 10 minute walk are considered to be easily accessible by foot.
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternatives A-D Circulation: Pedestrian Access
Figure 4.3.18 October 2004
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
dA
ltern
ativ
e B:
Sac
ram
ento
Nor
ther
n
LEG
EN
D
0’
100’
200’
300’
400’
PED
ESTR
IAN
AC
CES
S
TER
MIN
AL
ENTR
AN
CE
N0’
100’
200’
300’
400’
5minutes
10minutes
15minutes
5minutes
10minutes
15minutes
5minutes
10minutes
15minutes
Alte
rnat
ive
B: S
acra
men
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
N
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternative A-D Pedestrian Cachment Areas
Figure 4.3.2
8 October 2004
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004Page 77
Evaluation The evaluation of pedestrian access considers the following issues:
• Facility entrances
• Conflicts with vehicles
• Connections to adjacent attractions
• Catchment area
The evaluation of the alternatives with respect to Pedestrian Access is presented in Table 4.3.1.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Sept
embe
r 29,
200
4Pa
ge 7
8
Tab
le 4
.3.1
Eva
luat
ion:
Ped
estr
ian
Acc
ess
Issu
e A
ltern
ativ
e A
: Su
nset
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
B:
Sacr
amen
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Faci
lity
Ent
ranc
es
• R
esul
ts in
ped
estri
an e
ntra
nces
to th
e SI
TF o
n al
l si
des
•
Cre
ates
the
oppo
rtuni
ty fo
r a n
ew p
edes
trian
en
tranc
e di
rect
ly to
the
SITF
ele
vate
d co
ncou
rse
from
the
wes
t end
of G
Stre
et in
the
Mille
nnia
de
velo
pmen
t
• S
treng
then
s th
e fro
nt o
f the
His
toric
Dep
ot a
s th
e
prim
ary
pede
stria
n en
tranc
e to
the
SIT
F
• C
reat
es th
e op
portu
nity
for a
new
ped
estri
an
entra
nce
from
the
wes
t end
of G
Stre
et in
the
Mille
nnia
dev
elop
men
t
• P
edes
trian
ent
ranc
es s
imila
r to
exis
ting,
with
ac
cess
to th
e Fa
cilit
y bu
ildin
g on
the
sout
h si
de
of th
e H
isto
ric D
epot
and
acc
ess
to R
T bu
ses
via
5th S
treet
and
H S
treet
• P
edes
trian
ent
ranc
es s
imila
r to
exis
ting,
with
ac
cess
to th
e Fa
cilit
y bu
ildin
g on
the
sout
h si
de o
f th
e H
isto
ric D
epot
and
acc
ess
to R
T bu
ses
via
5th
Stre
et a
nd H
Stre
et
Con
flict
s w
ith V
ehic
les
• P
edes
trian
s en
terin
g al
l sid
es m
ust c
ross
the
pass
enge
r pic
k-up
/dro
p-of
f roa
dway
•
Pla
ces
a m
ajor
sta
tion
entra
nce
on H
Stre
et,
whi
ch h
as lo
wer
traf
fic v
olum
e an
d is
mor
e pe
dest
rian
frien
dly
than
I S
treet
• R
equi
res
an a
dditi
onal
cro
ssin
g of
H S
treet
•
From
the
corn
er o
f 5th S
treet
and
H S
treet
, pe
dest
rians
can
acc
ess
the
SIT
F w
ithou
t cro
ssin
g ro
adw
ays
•
Pla
ces
a m
ajor
sta
tion
entra
nce
on H
Stre
et,
whi
ch h
as lo
wer
traf
fic v
olum
e an
d is
mor
e pe
dest
rian
frien
dly
than
I S
treet
•
Ped
estri
ans
ente
ring
from
4th S
treet
mus
t cro
ss H
S
treet
, mul
tiple
bus
lane
s, a
nd th
e pa
ssen
ger
pick
-up/
drop
-off
road
way
• P
edes
trian
s en
terin
g fro
m th
e so
uth
mus
t cro
ss
the
pass
enge
r pic
k-up
/dro
p-of
f and
reci
rcul
atio
n ro
adw
ays
• P
edes
trian
s en
terin
g fro
m H
Stre
et m
ust c
ross
tra
nsit
rout
es
• P
edes
trian
s en
terin
g al
l sid
es m
ust c
ross
the
pass
enge
r pic
k-up
/dro
p-of
f roa
dway
•
Ped
estri
ans
ente
ring
from
H S
treet
mus
t cro
ss
trans
it ro
utes
Con
nect
ions
to A
djac
ent
Attr
actio
ns
• P
rovi
des
a ne
w p
edes
trian
con
nect
ion
to th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
trai
l •
Impr
oves
acc
ess
to O
ld S
acra
men
to a
nd th
e S
tate
Rai
lroad
Mus
eum
with
the
new
I S
treet
C
ross
ing
and
conn
ectio
ns to
the
wes
t of t
he S
ITF
• O
verh
ead
conc
ours
e to
the
rail
plat
form
s pr
esen
ts a
n op
portu
nity
to p
rovi
de d
irect
acc
ess
to th
e R
ailro
ad T
echn
olog
y M
useu
m
• P
rovi
des
a ne
w p
edes
trian
con
nect
ion
to th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
trai
l •
Impr
oves
acc
ess
to O
ld S
acra
men
to a
nd th
e S
tate
Rai
lroad
Mus
eum
with
the
new
I S
treet
C
ross
ing
and
exte
nded
H S
treet
•
Bel
ow g
rade
con
nect
ion
to th
e ra
il pl
atfo
rms
pres
ents
an
oppo
rtuni
ty to
pro
vide
dire
ct a
cces
s to
the
Rai
lroad
Tec
hnol
ogy
Mus
eum
• P
rovi
des
a ne
w p
edes
trian
con
nect
ion
alon
g th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
trai
l •
Impr
oves
acc
ess
to O
ld S
acra
men
to a
nd th
e S
tate
Rai
lroad
Mus
eum
with
the
new
I S
treet
C
ross
ing
and
exte
nded
H S
treet
•
Ove
rhea
d co
ncou
rse
to th
e ra
il pl
atfo
rms
pres
ents
an
oppo
rtuni
ty to
pro
vide
dire
ct a
cces
s to
the
Rai
lroad
Tec
hnol
ogy
Mus
eum
• P
rovi
des
a ne
w p
edes
trian
con
nect
ion
to th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
trai
l •
Impr
oves
acc
ess
to O
ld S
acra
men
to a
nd th
e S
tate
Rai
lroad
Mus
eum
with
the
new
I S
treet
C
ross
ing
and
exte
nded
H S
treet
•
Ove
rhea
d co
ncou
rse
to th
e ra
il pl
atfo
rms
pres
ents
an
oppo
rtuni
ty to
pro
vide
dire
ct a
cces
s to
the
Rai
lroad
Tec
hnol
ogy
Mus
eum
Cat
chm
ent A
rea
• C
entra
l pas
seng
er p
roce
ssin
g fu
nctio
ns in
the
new
faci
lity
exte
nsio
n ar
e m
oved
app
roxi
mat
ely
275
feet
to th
e no
rth
• In
crea
ses
wal
king
dis
tanc
es fr
om lo
catio
ns to
the
sout
h, b
ut re
duce
s w
alki
ng d
ista
nces
to fu
ture
de
velo
pmen
t in
Rai
lyar
ds a
rea
• H
isto
ric D
epot
mov
ed a
ppro
xim
atel
y 40
0 fe
et to
th
e no
rth
• In
crea
ses
wal
king
dis
tanc
es fr
om lo
catio
ns to
the
sout
h, b
ut re
duce
s w
alki
ng d
ista
nces
to fu
ture
de
velo
pmen
t in
Rai
lyar
ds a
rea
• P
rimar
y st
atio
n en
tranc
e lo
catio
n re
mai
ns a
s ex
istin
g •
Prim
ary
stat
ion
entra
nce
loca
tion
rem
ains
as
exis
ting
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004
Page 79
Summary All four alternatives create additional pedestrian connections and improve pedestrian access to the SITF. Each would create new pedestrian entrances and access routes to the facility. In all cases, new terminal facilities would be constructed north of the Historic Depot, likely including additional waiting areas, ticket vending machines and other amenities in addition to circulation to the heavy rail platforms. Similar to the existing arrangement, pedestrians could bypass the Historic Depot and walk directly from the surrounding area to RT buses or LRT, although roadway crossings would typically be required. Frequent heavy rails users could also utilize new access points to enter the facility without traveling through the Historic Depot. Key differences between the alternatives are presented below.
Alternative A: Sunset Limited
Sunset Limited creates the greatest number of new pedestrian access points into the Facility, including a new entrance behind the REA building at the west end of H Street and grade separated access into the Millennia development. The Historic Depot also remains as a principal gateway into the Facility in its present location. It also creates a new entrance to the east and concentrates pedestrian activity on H Street, which is a more attractive pedestrian environment than I Street. The primary passenger processing functions of the Facility moves approximately 275 to the north, increasing walking distances from the south.
Alternative B: Sacramento Northern
Sacramento Northern moves the primary pedestrian entrance to H Street, with lower traffic volumes and a more attractive pedestrian environment than I Street. The Historic Depot building is strengthened as the principal entrance to the Facility. This alternative provides the best pedestrian linkages to the adjacent Millennia Development. It does, however, move the primary passenger processing functions of the Facility approximately 400 feet to the north and requires pedestrians walking from the south to cross H Street.
Alternative C: Overland Limited
Overland Limited retains the Historic Depot as the primary entrance to the Facility with pedestrian access from H Street and on the 4th Street axis. Access from H Street is less attractive than in the previous two alternatives, as pedestrians must either travel south to the front of the Historic Depot or enter the facility at the rear of the building. This option also creates a new opportunity for pedestrian access to and from the north.
Alternative D: Valley Flyer
Valley Flyer provides similar pedestrian access to Overland Limited.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Sept
embe
r 29,
200
4Pa
ge 8
0
Tab
le 4
.3.2
Eva
luat
ion
Cri
teri
a M
atri
x: P
edes
tria
n A
cces
s
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
20. P
rovi
des
safe
, acc
essi
ble,
and
con
veni
ent p
edes
trian
acc
ess
betw
een
the
faci
lity
and
surr
ound
ing
area
s.
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004Page 81
4.4 Bicycle Access
Introduction This section examines bicycle access to the Facility. There is potential to increase the usage of bicycles as a means of access to the SITF. Both the Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin rail services provide onboard bicycle racks. Bicycles can also be accommodated on RT Buses and LRT vehicles. The weather and topography of Sacramento are highly conducive to bicycle use. In addition, Sacramento has proposed numerous new bikeways in the vicinity of the SITF. Bicycle use by passengers will continue to be actively encouraged, in part by improving bicycle access and providing additional amenities for riders.
Site improvements would be included in all alternatives that seek to enhance bicycle circulation. Improvements may include signposting preferred bicycle routes and physical provisions such as wide outside travel lanes, designated bicycle lanes and off-street bicycle paths. Specific improvements will be identified as part of future design work. All options are also assumed to provide significantly improved bicycle parking facilities and other amenities for rides. Potential improvements include lockers for bicycles or belongings, covered parking areas, attended parking areas and a staffed bicycle station that could incorporate secure bicycle parking and maintenance facilities.
The Sacramento Bikeway Master Plan indicates existing and proposed bikeways in the immediate vicinity of the SITF.
Existing Bikeway:
• Sacramento River Trail
Proposed Bikeways:
• 2nd Street
• 5th Street (if extended north of H Street and across the railroad tracks)
• 6th Street (north of H Street)
• 7th Street (north of H Street)
• H Street
Proposed connections between the SITF and the existing and proposed bikeways for each of the alternatives are illustrated in Figure 4.4.1. Bicycle access would not be limited exclusively to these routes, but they do represent the principal connections to the regional network.
arch
itec
ture
inte
rio
rsp
lan
nin
gg
rap
hic
des
ign
SACRAMENTO INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
Alternatives A-D Circulation: Bicycle Access
Figure 4.4.1
8 October 2004
Clie
nt
City
of
Sacr
amen
to
Co
nsu
ltan
t Te
am
SMW
M /
Aru
p
Aca
nthu
s
CH
S C
onsu
lting
Gro
up
CH
2MH
ill
Han
scom
b Fa
ithfu
l & G
ould
The
Hoy
t C
ompa
ny
Jone
s La
ng L
asal
le
LTK
Eng
inee
ring
Serv
ices
Nel
son/
Nyg
aard
Sim
pson
Gum
pert
z &
Heg
er, I
nc.
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
dA
ltern
ativ
e B:
Sac
ram
ento
Nor
ther
n
0’
100’
200’
300’
400’
LE
GE
ND
CO
NN
ECTI
ON
TO
R
EGIO
NA
L B
IKEW
AY
PRO
POSE
D R
EGIO
NA
LB
IKEW
AY
N
City of Sacramento Sacramento Intermodal Transportation Facility TR #9
SITF Alternatives
SMWM/Arup and Associated Consultants
September 29, 2004Page 83
Evaluation
The evaluation of bicycle access considers the following issues:
• Conflicts with vehicles
• Connections to the Regional Network
• Bicycle parking
The evaluation of the alternatives with respect to bicycle access is presented in Table 4.4.1.
Summary The differences between the alternatives are relatively minor. All could be well connected to existing and proposed bikeways, and all are assumed to provide improved bicycle parking facilities. Sacramento Northern has the advantage of relocating all station access points away from I Street to H Street, which will reduce the need for bicycles to use the heavily trafficked I Street. Similar to Overland Limited and Valley Flyer, it also accommodates a direct linkage between proposed bikeways on the extension of H Street.
City
of S
acra
men
to
Sacr
amen
to In
term
odal
Tra
nspo
rtatio
n Fa
cilit
y
TR #
9SI
TF A
ltern
ativ
es S
MW
M/A
rup
and
Ass
ocia
ted
Con
sulta
nts
Sept
embe
r 29,
200
4Pa
ge 8
4
Tab
le 4
.4.1
Eva
luat
ion:
Bic
ycle
Acc
ess
Issu
e A
ltern
ativ
e A
: Su
nset
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
B:
Sacr
amen
to N
orth
ern
Alte
rnat
ive
C:
Ove
rland
Lim
ited
Alte
rnat
ive
D:
Valle
y Fl
yer
Con
flict
s w
ith V
ehic
les
• C
reat
es o
ptio
ns to
ent
er th
e fa
cilit
y on
H S
treet
re
duce
s th
e lik
elih
ood
that
bic
yclis
ts w
ould
use
I S
treet
, whi
ch h
as h
ighe
r tra
ffic
volu
mes
• P
laci
ng e
ntra
nces
to th
e fa
cilit
y on
H S
treet
m
inim
izes
the
likel
ihoo
d th
at b
icyc
lists
wou
ld u
se
I Stre
et, w
hich
has
hig
her t
raffi
c vo
lum
es
• A
lthou
gh th
e pr
imar
y ac
cess
to th
e fa
cilit
y on
I S
treet
, sec
onda
ry a
cces
s op
tions
wou
ld b
e cr
eate
d on
H S
treet
nor
th o
f the
Dep
ot
• A
lthou
gh th
e pr
imar
y ac
cess
to th
e fa
cilit
y on
I S
treet
, sec
onda
ry a
cces
s op
tions
wou
ld b
e cr
eate
d on
H S
treet
nor
th o
f the
Dep
ot
Con
nect
ions
to L
ocal
an
d R
egio
nal N
etw
ork
• A
ccom
mod
ates
a c
onne
ctio
n be
twee
n th
e pr
opos
ed b
ikew
ays
on th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
Tr
ail,
2nd S
treet
, H S
treet
, 6th
Stre
et a
nd 7
th S
treet
• A
ccom
mod
ates
a c
ontin
uous
dire
ct c
onne
ctio
n be
twee
n th
e pr
opos
ed b
ikew
ays
on th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
Tra
il, 2
nd S
treet
, H S
treet
, 6th
Stre
et a
nd 7
th S
treet
via
the
exte
nded
H S
treet
• A
ccom
mod
ates
a c
ontin
uous
dire
ct c
onne
ctio
n be
twee
n th
e pr
opos
ed b
ikew
ays
on th
e S
acra
men
to R
iver
Tra
il, 2
nd S
treet
, H S
treet
, 6th
Stre
et a
nd 7
th S
treet
via
the
exte
nded
H S
treet
• A
ccom
mod
ates
a c
ontin
uous
dire
ct c
onne
ctio
n be
twee
n pr
opos
ed b
ikew
ays
on th
e S
acra
men
to
Riv
er T
rail,
2nd
Stre
et, H
Stre
et, 6
th S
treet
and
7th
Stre
et v
ia th
e ex
tend
ed H
Stre
et
Bic
ycle
Par
king
•
Ass
umed
to in
clud
e im
prov
ed b
icyc
le p
arki
ng a
nd
amen
ities
•
Ass
umed
to in
clud
e im
prov
ed b
icyc
le p
arki
ng a
nd
amen
ities
•
Ass
umed
to in
clud
e im
prov
ed b
icyc
le p
arki
ng a
nd
amen
ities
•
Ass
umed
to in
clud
e im
prov
ed b
icyc
le p
arki
ng a
nd
amen
ities
. T
able
4.4
.2 E
valu
atio
n C
rite
ria
Mat
rix:
Bic
ycle
Acc
ess
Eval
uatio
n C
riter
ia
Alte
rnat
ive
A:
Suns
et L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e B
: Sa
cram
ento
Nor
ther
n A
ltern
ativ
e C
: O
verla
nd L
imite
d A
ltern
ativ
e D
: Va
lley
Flye
r
21. P
rovi
des
safe
and
con
veni
ent b
icyc
le c
onne
ctio
ns b
etw
een
the
faci
lity
and
surr
ound
ing
area
s.
22. P
rovi
des
adeq
uate
bic
ycle
par
king
faci
litie
s.
Lege
nd:
= do
es n
ot m
eet c
riter
ia,
= m
eets
crit
eria
, =
exc
eeds
crit
eria