Comments on: The Challenges and Opportunities of the Connector http://connectorjpa.net/2009/04/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-the-connector/ Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:42:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Concrete Bob http://connectorjpa.net/2009/04/the-challenges-and-opportunities-of-the-connector/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Concrete Bob Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:47:11 +0000 http://connectorjpa.net/?p=609#comment-7 Hello Tom, I’ve been following the development of the Capital Southeast Connector since it was made public in a November, 2001 Sacramento Bee article. As a self-decribed road enthusiast/historian, I was pretty excited. At last, an inter-regional connector that could partially cover the losses of the previously abandonded rights of way and studies for SR 65, SR 143 and SR 148. I sure hope the connector is as efficient and beneficial as you envision. While I support the idea of the connector being a regional jewel, I hope the planners do not lose sight of the fact regional mobility must be secured. The plans I have seen involve a large number of surface-grade crossings along the 33-35 mile path(s) of the connector. I would hope once the final pathway is determined, enough ROW is preserved to provide for future grade-separated interchanges at key points along the connector. I know there are a few pre-determined points where grade-separations are planned, regardless of the final alternative chosen. I would hope there is enough forward thinking to ensure the route acts as a high-speed inter-regional corridor, rather than another “arterial in the grid.” Last Saturday, I drove on the section of Kammerer Road just west of SR 99 for the first time. It is eight lanes wide and had ornate, black painted lightposts in its median. There are also numerous curb cuts on the right side of the road allowing for future ingress and egress along the road’s path. I would hope that is not the design for the entire path of the connector (I doubt it). I would hope most of the connector has limited access. Additionally, I hope the Capital Southeast Connector provides a connection to an eventually-upgraded Hazel Avenue (via a traffic interchange at White Rock Road), so inter-regional travelers will have the option of heading east to US 50/Placerville or north to Roseville/Reno towards I-80. I’m not talking about reviving the old SR 65 freeway, but an efficient connector with limited access and tight diamond/SPUIs at key points above the American River. In the rare event the Hazel Connector becomes a reality and could tie into SR 65 and the future Placer Parkway, Sacramento could have a 3/4 beltway. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? Hello Tom,

I’ve been following the development of the Capital Southeast Connector since it was made public in a November, 2001 Sacramento Bee article. As a self-decribed road enthusiast/historian, I was pretty excited. At last, an inter-regional connector that could partially cover the losses of the previously abandonded rights of way and studies for SR 65, SR 143 and SR 148.

I sure hope the connector is as efficient and beneficial as you envision. While I support the idea of the connector being a regional jewel, I hope the planners do not lose sight of the fact regional mobility must be secured. The plans I have seen involve a large number of surface-grade crossings along the 33-35 mile path(s) of the connector. I would hope once the final pathway is determined, enough ROW is preserved to provide for future grade-separated interchanges at key points along the connector. I know there are a few pre-determined points where grade-separations are planned, regardless of the final alternative chosen. I would hope there is enough forward thinking to ensure the route acts as a high-speed inter-regional corridor, rather than another “arterial in the grid.”

Last Saturday, I drove on the section of Kammerer Road just west of SR 99 for the first time. It is eight lanes wide and had ornate, black painted lightposts in its median. There are also numerous curb cuts on the right side of the road allowing for future ingress and egress along the road’s path. I would hope that is not the design for the entire path of the connector (I doubt it). I would hope most of the connector has limited access.

Additionally, I hope the Capital Southeast Connector provides a connection to an eventually-upgraded Hazel Avenue (via a traffic interchange at White Rock Road), so inter-regional travelers will have the option of heading east to US 50/Placerville or north to Roseville/Reno towards I-80. I’m not talking about reviving the old SR 65 freeway, but an efficient connector with limited access and tight diamond/SPUIs at key points above the American River. In the rare event the Hazel Connector becomes a reality and could tie into SR 65 and the future Placer Parkway, Sacramento could have a 3/4 beltway. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

]]>