Capitol Southeast Connector JPA » SACOG

Developing Alternative Connector Alignments

tomthedirector — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:16:57 +0000

Everyone knows that getting any project, much less a major infrastructure project, from the initial stages through to approval is an extensive and complicated task. As the Connector moves forward, I’d like to highlight a few aspects of the process.

We will soon be moving into the scoping process, in preparation for the development of an Environmental Impact Report and an Environmental Impact Statement. Part of the scoping process is determining the alternative alignments that should be studied. An alternative can be defined as any combination of project elements (number of lanes, transit options, etc.) along with an alignment we would propose to be studied and approved.

Any alternative needs to be a sustainable project-not in the sense of being “green” or environmentally friendly, but in having all of the necessary components that would be needed to define the project and what potential environmental impacts would be. That includes determining the physical footprint of the alternative, which would be used to determine the types of environmental resources that may, directly or indirectly, be in conflict with it. And that helps frame the discussion of the details that would be required in order for that alternative to be built.

Alternatives were initially developed when SACOG started planning the Connector in 2005-2006. There are currently four alignment/route alternatives, and more will likely be developed in the community involvement process. The goal now is to define one or a small number of overall alternatives. There is a wide range of people involved to develop and provide feedback on alternatives: stakeholders, the community, resource agencies, Caltrans, local boards, member jurisdictions, staff, fellow support service agencies like emergency districts, transportation elements like RT and Paratransit, as well as interest groups like bicycle advocacy groups.

This alternative development part of the process will continue most likely until the end of the year, when the JPA Board selects the alternatives to be studied in the environmental documents. I encourage you to get involved in the scoping meetings that will be held later this summer and fall. Check our web site over the next few months for details about those meetings.

Measure A, MTP 2035 and the Connector

tomthedirector — Wed, 06 May 2009 15:44:49 +0000

Last time I offered a brief history of the Connector project; now I’d like to get into some of the specifics about how the Connector fits in with regional transportation plans. Is it part of Measure A? Does it fit with SACOG’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2035?

The short answer to both of those questions is: yes.

Measure A is a Sacramento County voter-approved sales tax to fund transportation projects within the County. The Connector was a mandated project included on the 2004 ballot, one of a few projects listed with the goals of relieving traffic congestion and improving safety.

The people voted with their checkbooks and a strong majority supported the construction of a roadway like the Connector. The majority of the funding for Connector activities comes from Measure A funds, and I view it as our responsibility to leverage that funding to both further develop the project and help secure future financing.

The MTP 2035 notes that a connector facility, as an extension of SACOG’s work in the early stages of the project, will continue to be developed. The MTP does not list any of the complete alternative alignments that are being studied, but multiple segments of any of the four alternative routes are noted as possible alignments within the Sacramento County portion of the roadway.

Much of the momentum created by the Blueprint and MTP 2035 focused on reducing vehicle trips and creating better transit linkages. While the Connector is consistent with Blueprint principles and is included as part of the MTP 2035, it may not fulfill all of the requirements noted in those plans. However, there will always be a need for efficient transportation facilities, and the Connector will certainly be that.

I think it’s important to note that SACOG is a supporter of the Connector. SACOG is the organization that started it all and is still engaged on the development of the project. We’re working together with SACOG and with property owners, businesses, elected leaders and local community organizations to be sure the Connector fulfills the ultimate vision the Sacramento region has for the project.

A Brief History of the Connector

tomthedirector — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 22:24:04 +0000

As we’re talking more about what the Connector means to the region and the benefits it offers, it occurs to me I haven’t really touched upon the project’s history. As with any major infrastructure or construction project, the Connector has undergone a multi-year process to arrive at its current status. I think it makes sense to share some highlights of that process and history.

The Capital SouthEast Connector was originally known as (and is still legally known as) the Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova-El Dorado Hills Connector. A roadway to bypass downtown Sacramento and provide greater mobility in the region has been discussed for more than 30 years, but the idea gained greater momentum over the past few years.

The Connector was a key project included in the 2004 Measure A Transportation Sales Tax Extension in Sacramento County. The measure passed with 75 percent of voters in support—an overwhelming vote of support to improve transportation options in the region. The Connector is also an element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) shaped the Connector in the initial stages and helped the jurisdictions involved develop a concept plan for the project. SACOG also helped form the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) that is now leading the project forward.

The SACOG process involved a good deal of community engagement and involved many groups in the initial planning stages, including California Alliance for Jobs, Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS), Paratransit, Sacramento County Department of Airports (for Mather), South County Citizens for Responsible Growth and various community councils.

Efforts to engage and involve the community continue today. There are many upcoming opportunities to learn more about the Connector and provide input. We are hosting community meetings in El Dorado Hills and Sheldon this month, and scoping meetings are planned for the late spring/early summer. Dates and locations for all upcoming meetings will be posted on our web site, at www.connectorjpa.net.

You’ll be hearing from us a lot this year—through the blog, web site, meetings, mailings and one-on-one interaction. I encourage you to participate in the process.