Sacramento Transportation

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

No - let's have a realistic system put before voters for approval, not the steaming pile of rubbish we have now. If the system is one that makes sense, then HSR supports should have no problem with this. What was approved in 2008 is simply not what's being proposed now.

Yeah I agree. I'm ok with HSR but not what was presented and fraudulently sold to voters. The existing demand on rail lines in California is between LA and SD; Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. They should establish the spurs first and if demand is there and the system is built cost effectively then and only then should it be expanded between north and south. (IMO)

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Yeah I agree. I'm ok with HSR but not what was presented and fraudulently sold to voters. The existing demand on rail lines in California is between LA and SD; Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area. They should establish the spurs first and if demand is there and the system is built cost effectively then and only then should it be expanded between north and south. (IMO)

I agree 100%. And it would be more cost effective. We seriously need service between Sac and SF.. Although Cap Corridor has got better, it is still super slow. Sac to Emeryville takes 1 hr 40 min -- far longer than it takes to drive. I actually would use it if it was similar or less than time.

Let's build a system that offers Sacramento to Downtown SF service in 30 minutes (express non-stop) and maybe 45 minutes with limited stops, and 60 minutes local service for all stops.

[travis bickle]

I forgot... for some, lying = "estimating."

Glad everyone isn't so pliable.

From the Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/28/610...reasingly.html

From the OC Register:
http://www.ocregister.com/taxdollars...ail-speed.html

Is there anyone still gullible enough to support the fraud that is CaHSR?

[SacTownAndy]

Kings push to bring street cars back to Sacramento

Leticia Ordaz
KCRA.com
Published 7:45 AM PST Feb 03, 2014



SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCRA) —With the new arena likely coming to Sacramento in 2016, traffic is expected to be a mess on game nights.

The Sacramento Kings believe streetcars slicing through the streets of downtown are the answer to the problem. Kings owners plan to spend half a million dollars to revive the streetcars, which went away in 1947.

Caltrans is also on board. Officials said they like the idea of transporting people with streetcars because it would lighten traffic, pollution and noise on game nights.

The streetcar would run a 3-mile line through downtown and would go past the arena on K Street. It would make a number of stops at places like the Sacramento Convention Center, downtown hotels, the railyard and Old Sacramento. It would even cross the Tower Bridge into West Sacramento and take people to and from Raley Field.

The streetcar line is expected to cost about $150 million, and if all goes as planned, would be up and running by 2017 -- a year after the planned arena is set to open...

Read more: http://www.kcra.com/news/kings-push-...#ixzz2sHLXwko0

[ltsmotorsport]

Well, this is really more of a creative way to use impact fees than the Kings pushing the streetcar. Either way though, glad to see some positive news on this front. Hopefully the Federal grant proposal will be a strong one next year.

[Deno]

Doesn't light rail go between the convention center the railyards and the future arena. I could see a street car between west Sacramento and the arena.

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

Originally Posted by Deno

Doesn't light rail go between the convention center the railyards and the future arena. I could see a street car between west Sacramento and the arena.

I think it should go from University to West Sac, midtown should have some kind of public transportation in its northern part.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by v.o.r.t.e.x

I think it should go from University to West Sac, midtown should have some kind of public transportation in its northern part.

I like the concept but that is WAY too long of a loop for a streetcar. The point is to quickly go back and forth over relatively short distances. The connection to the University is what Light Rail is for.

[wburg]

An extension to CSUS is one of the potential extensions for this proposed starter system, and a developed streetcar network should have multiple routes and lines. Our old system had 11 lines at its peak, just counting the PG&E lines not other companies' streetcars that went from Elverta and North sac to West Sac and 21st Avenue. And that was when Sacramento had a fifth of its current population!

The other problem is getting over the UP tracks which can't be done with a simple grade crossing. But you have to start somewhere, this is a starter line designed for expansion in all directions.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

An extension to CSUS is one of the potential extensions for this proposed starter system, and a developed streetcar network should have multiple routes and lines. Our old system had 11 lines at its peak, just counting the PG&E lines not other companies' streetcars that went from Elverta and North sac to West Sac and 21st Avenue. And that was when Sacramento had a fifth of its current population!

The other problem is getting over the UP tracks which can't be done with a simple grade crossing. But you have to start somewhere, this is a starter line designed for expansion in all directions.

Living back in the grid again I find myself leaving my car in the garage and using RT when its a little too far to walk. It would be nice to have a streetcar system with frequent stops and later service. I think linking it with CSUS would be a fantastic idea. I wouldn't mind seeing some student housing built in the rail yard.

[wburg]

The only reason to build "student housing" in the Railyard is if there is a college in the railyard that needs student housing! A four-year college with a downtown/Railyards campus would be a real amenity. Students spend a lot on entertainment but are technically "low-income" and are less risk-averse about urban neighborhoods. Colleges need professors, which means a range of highly educated mid/high income folks also want to live close by. High demand for entertainment and shopping options nearby, driven by a student/faculty residential population in the neighborhood. Not to mention the prestige of an additional university.

There are already a lot of students living in the central city, but I can't see much point in student housing that is miles away from the closest college campus! Unless you were talking about student housing for one of the dozen or so little satellite graduate school campuses downtown. I call them the "hidden university", all these little pockets of education but not located in a single campus that people can point to and realize it's a college.

[202_Cyclist]

wburg:

There are already a lot of students living in the central city, but I can't see much point in student housing that is miles away from the closest college campus! Unless you were talking about student housing for one of the dozen or so little satellite graduate school campuses downtown. I call them the "hidden university", all these little pockets of education but not located in a single campus that people can point to and realize it's a college.

How have the Drexel and USC satellite campuses changed the nature of downtown Sacramento?

I agree with you, I think CSUS needs to focus on creating more of a college environment with on-campus housing next to the university, not build housing miles away from the campus.

[wburg]

Drexel and USC, plus USF, UC Davis Extension, and a cluster of campuses within a mile or two of the "grid" like McGeorge in Oak Park or UCDMC's med school are all there, but their effect is hard to see because they aren't visibly a "university." But once one gets into the community, there are a lot of graduates of these programs, and they form close connections. I went to a USC event at the Citizen a year or two ago, and the president of the University noted that the main USC campus in Los Angeles represented something like a $1 billion per year portion of Los Angeles' economy.

It should be noted that Sacramento's situation (our regional educational institutions are far from downtown) is not a unique situation. In the Bay Area, the best-known schools are Stanford and UC Berkeley, both well outside San Francisco. USC and UCLA are both in the Los Angeles city limits, but a long way from downtown. In the 19th and early 20th century, educators felt the best place for a college was in the "groves of academe" well outside of city centers, so they put their campuses in remote, country locations.

There are also small private schools in the community, but they tend to be in suburban locations. I gave a talk last week at the Art Institute of California up off Gateway Oaks (talking about local art history) and while they are theoretically close to downtown, because they're a commuter campus in an office park, they don't have as much college "feel" and are detached from much of city life But what if you moved that art school into the Railyards, in one of the Shops buildings or new construction alongside 6th/7th? Or off of Richards Boulevard near the Green Line? What kind of medium-sized school would enhance the city? A school of design and architecture? Industrial/vocational technology? Engineering? I'm thinking more along the lines of University of the Pacific in Stockton, which is well-known and well-respected university, but only has about 7000 students. Another recent example is Los Angeles FIDM (Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising) which opened up in a part of downtown Los Angeles that looked more sketchy and abandoned (aside from during rush hour) than any part of downtown Sacramento, with 7500 students.

I think CSUS is working on an expansion of on-campus housing, kind of a "student village" campus on the southern end of their parking lot near Folsom Boulevard, which also has the advantage of proximity to the Light Rail line, plus there is also a student-oriented apartment complex planned a bit south of Folsom and 65th.

Bringing the subject back to transit, students tend to use public transit, especially if (like UCD, CSUS and community colleges) their tuition includes a bus pass that lets them ride for free. Once people learn to use transit they tend to be more comfortable using it later in life. They also tend to ride bikes, and downtown Sacramento is a cyclist's paradise!

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

The only reason to build "student housing" in the Railyard is if there is a college in the railyard that needs student housing! A four-year college with a downtown/Railyards campus would be a real amenity. I can't see much point in student housing that is miles away from the closest college campus!

Paraphrasing above.


A college campus would be a very nice amenity in the rail yard, but you make a good point about stand alone student housing. I thought I recalled CADA once considered student housing downtown for CSUS? But again the point about distance is a good one and maybe why it never came to fruition.

[wburg]

Haven't heard about that CADA plan. A lot of students do live downtown, and have for a long time--traditionally due to its cheap rent, proximity to nightlife and relative ease of getting around without a car, and location kind of in between the two regional schools. There are still a couple of fraternity/sorority houses in Midtown and Oak Park, but Midtown rents aren't as cheap as they used to be.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

wburg:


How have the Drexel and USC satellite campuses changed the nature of downtown Sacramento?

I agree with you, I think CSUS needs to focus on creating more of a college environment with on-campus housing next to the university, not build housing miles away from the campus.

IIRC - In 2008 a huge, major, national developer/builder offered to build a university village on 36 acres of under-utilized university property. This village would have included over 1500 student beds, between 200-400 market and workforce housing units, over 200,000 SF of office/lab/technology space, and more than 80,000 SF of retail/commercial/entertainment, a plaza adjacent to the stadium with a giant TV and clubs/pubs/retail (think LA Live), a 4000-6000seat amphitheater.

There were even discussions of how to connect the village and light rail via a street car system that also would have served the campus.

This project, designed to make Sac State a destination campus in accordance with an MOU signed by the University and the City, would have cost between $500,000,000 and $750,000,000, ALL privately financed. The developer based the deal on a 99-year lease which would have provided a guaranteed revenue stream back to the university in addition to creating the long-sought university village adjacent to campus.

The project had been favorably received by the financial markets and the developer was contributing a nine-figure equity portion to the deal itself.

Under the worst case scenario, Phase One would have opened in the Fall of 2013.

After two years of discussions with the university and city and plans developed by one of the country's leading Architectural/Planning firms and lead by one of the country's most visionary placemakers, Sac State turned the developer down and the project was rejected in 2010 saying it wasn't the right time for a project of such scope.

The sites remain empty...

PS - the revenue stream back to the university was with no strings attached and could have been leveraged to build an on-campus arena of between 8000 and 13,000 seats...This proposed arena was included in several of the site plans for the project (parking lot east of the stadium and north of the Alumni Center)...

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

IIRC - In 2008 a huge, major, national developer/builder offered to build a university village on 36 acres of under-utilized university property. This village would have included over 1500 student beds, between 200-400 market and workforce housing units, over 200,000 SF of office/lab/technology space, and more than 80,000 SF of retail/commercial/entertainment, a plaza adjacent to the stadium with a giant TV and clubs/pubs/retail (think LA Live), a 4000-6000seat amphitheater.

There were even discussions of how to connect the village and light rail via a street car system that also would have served the campus.

This project, designed to make Sac State a destination campus in accordance with an MOU signed by the University and the City, would have cost between $500,000,000 and $750,000,000, ALL privately financed. The developer based the deal on a 99-year lease which would have provided a guaranteed revenue stream back to the university in addition to creating the long-sought university village adjacent to campus.

The project had been favorably received by the financial markets and the developer was contributing a nine-figure equity portion to the deal itself.

Under the worst case scenario, Phase One would have opened in the Fall of 2013.

After two years of discussions with the university and city and plans developed by one of the country's leading Architectural/Planning firms and lead by one of the country's most visionary placemakers, Sac State turned the developer down and the project was rejected in 2010 saying it wasn't the right time for a project of such scope.

The sites remain empty...

PS - the revenue stream back to the university was with no strings attached and could have been leveraged to build an on-campus arena of between 8000 and 13,000 seats...This proposed arena was included in several of the site plans for the project (parking lot east of the stadium and north of the Alumni Center)...

That's interesting... More than I recall.

[Web]

And Sac St still plays in one of the smallest venues in all of Div 1 basketball.......

hmmm 24,000 student in a metro of 2+ million and they cant fill a 500 seat gym?

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by Web

And Sac St still plays in one of the smallest venues in all of Div 1 basketball.......

hmmm 24,000 student in a metro of 2+ million and they cant fill a 500 seat gym?

Sac State's enrollment is almost 29,000 students and their arena situation has truly been a disgrace since I moved to Sac. They've been trying to build a new arena since the 80s to replace the 1200 seat Hornet Gym. In that span other CSU schools such as San Jose st, Long Beach st, Fresno st and San Diego st have built brand new arenas. It's terrible to go to UOP Spanos Center (6000 seats) and UC Davis Pavilion (8000 seats) and see those nice, modest arenas while Sac st still plays in that pitiful gym for a city/metro of this size.

If I stand correctly, weren't the Sac Kings going to build the original 10,000 seat Arco 1 on Sac State's campus and gift it to the university after Arco 2 was built? Kings moved on when the plan was caught up in too much red tape and they needed to build a place fast for the impending move of the Kings from Kansas City. Hence Natomas.

Another Sac st loss was light rail through campus. The university said it would bring crime and unwanted onto campus so they did not want it routed through Sac st. Great foresight. Now they'd give their right arms for light rail to pass through campus without the huge cost that will now be associated with such attempt.

[BillSimmons]

So you're saying incompetence and lack of foresight has been pervasive not only with the city but with the primary university of the city for a very long time? Well I, for one, am shocked.