Sacramento Transportation

[ozone]

Shocking news that Sacramento's rail light is over budget! "Disputes over construction schedules" Really? These people couldn't run a bath. They need to get their heads out of their as**s.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by ozone

Shocking news that Sacramento's rail light is over budget! "Disputes over construction schedules" Really? These people couldn't run a bath. They need to get their heads out of their as**s.

I just got back from spending a couple weeks in Vancouver, and it really is embarrassing how much more advanced their public transportation system is compared to ours. Skytrain is much faster, more advanced, busier and more extensive than light rail and it looks like Light Rail is not going to catch up anytime soon.

[wburg]

But how big are their suburbs??

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

But how big are their suburbs??

What is you reason for asking William?

Vancouver has 600K (city) in a region with 2.3m
Sacramento has 470K (city) in a region with 2.5m

Vancouver Skytrain has 3 lines with 47 stations on 42 mi., with a daily ridership of 400K.

Sacramento has 2 lines, 45 stations and 37 mi., with a daily ridership of only 50K

Considering that the two metro areas have similar population that alone is not the reason that Vancouver's system has a much higher ridership. So we must look at other factors. Most of the suburbs of around Vancouver are no more urban than the suburbs around Sacramento BUT the density of their city [especially it's core] is much greater:

Vancouver has a population density of 13.590 sq. mi. while Sacramento only has a density of 4.70 sq. mi..

It also helps that Vancouver made a conscious effort, as far back as the 1950's, not to over-accommodate the freeway [within the city]. Sacramento made the opposite decision.

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by ozone

What is you reason for asking William?

Vancouver has 600K (city) in a region with 2.3m
Sacramento has 470K (city) in a region with 2.5m

Vancouver Skytrain has 3 lines with 47 stations on 42 mi., with a daily ridership of 400K.

Sacramento has 2 lines, 45 stations and 37 mi., with a daily ridership of only 50K

Considering that the two metro areas have similar population that alone is not the reason that Vancouver's system has a much higher ridership. So we must look at other factors. Most of the suburbs of around Vancouver are no more urban than the suburbs around Sacramento BUT the density of their city [especially it's core] is much greater:

Vancouver has a population density of 13.590 sq. mi. while Sacramento only has a density of 4.70 sq. mi..

It also helps that Vancouver made a conscious effort, as far back as the 1950's, not to over-accommodate the freeway [within the city]. Sacramento made the opposite decision.

That's a very interesting comparison. I've never been to Vancouver but plan on going next month. With a skyline like that I would have thought the population density would be even higher. The last city I lived in (Union City, N.J.) has a population density of over 50,000 per sq. mi. I don't think there were many buildings taller than 6 floors. Needless to say, the public transportation there was superb and highly patronized.

I think you're 101% correct that population density is a critical factor for running an efficient public transportation system. RT seems to be doing their best with what they have to work with at the present moment. They are adding to the track because they have sought and won federal transportation grants. Hopefully the municipal government and local developers will push for maximum population density near lightrail stations.

What can the local government do to allow for denser development? How about getting rid of the requirements for setbacks, allowing greater heights in neighborhoods outside of downtown, or changing the building code to allow a scissor stair to count as two required exit stairs, as Vancouver has done.

[wburg]

Population density doesn't drive the transportation system--the transportation system drives the density (or lack of it.) Highways encourage horizontal sprawl, fixed transit encourages transit-oriented densities. That's why I ask about their suburbs--Vancouver is limited by its geography, and Canadian policies that favored public transit vs. highways. US transportation philosophy was different--Sacramento, like so many other cities, grew outward instead of upward, to the detriment of their downtowns.

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by wburg

Population density doesn't drive the transportation system--the transportation system drives the density (or lack of it.) Highways encourage horizontal sprawl, fixed transit encourages transit-oriented densities. That's why I ask about their suburbs--Vancouver is limited by its geography, and Canadian policies that favored public transit vs. highways. US transportation philosophy was different--Sacramento, like so many other cities, grew outward instead of upward, to the detriment of their downtowns.

Light rail is in place now, so where's the density? It has to do with more than just transportation. While Sacramento was building freeways and writing zoning laws that protected sub-urban density in the central city, Vancouver was finding ways to grow an urban downtown. Vancouver's urban planning strategy seemed outrageous in the 70's, but it payed off! Here is a good book about it if anyone's interested.

Developers in Sacramento can't build vertical urban housing if the laws are written in the favor of single-family homes with front, side, and back yards... That's all in the past though. Sacramento is getting its act together now, and I think things will improve.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by rampant_jwalker

Light rail is in place now, so where's the density? It has to do with more than just transportation. While Sacramento was building freeways and writing zoning laws that protected sub-urban density in the central city, Vancouver was finding ways to grow an urban downtown. Vancouver's urban planning strategy seemed outrageous in the 70's, but it payed off! Here is a good book about it if anyone's interested.

It has a great deal to do with transportation. Promoting infill requires more than just putting in light rail--the other part is don't build great big freeway networks! Highways disperse density, while rail-borne transit centralizes it. Put in highways and no rail, things get very very very dispersed. Put in rail and no highways, and everything has to concentrate along the rail lines. Put in both, and you get a dispersed residential pattern and an underutilized light-rail line that mostly gets used as a park-and-ride for commuters. Think of it like a bathtub that is constantly being filled with water, but the plug isn't in the drain so water keeps draining out. Development pressure never gets high enough to promote much density.

Although consider how bad things would be if we didn't have light rail--there are plenty of examples of residential infill over the past 20-25 years, and the presence of light rail helped fill a lot of vacant lots in the central city that were old neighborhoods bulldozed for commuters in the era before light rail arrived.

Developers in Sacramento can't build vertical urban housing if the laws are written in the favor of single-family homes with front, side, and back yards... That's all in the past though. Sacramento is getting its act together now, and I think things will improve.

There's plenty of room for vertical urban housing in the areas of the urban core where it is most needed--take a look at the zoning maps in the current general plan. The rest of the central city is zoned for varying levels of "traditional neighborhood" development--the central city's varied mixture of single-family and multi-unit housing, with mixed-use business corridors--currently the apple of the entire region's eye, and a neighborhood other cities are watching to emulate. There is plenty of room for tall downtown, closest to the waterfront in the Docks and the River District and the Railyards--especially since the Green Line opens next month, which will help--build the transit first!--and a streetcar between Sacramento and West Sacramento would help accelerate things too. But there won't be enough development pressure for the kind of high-rises you're hoping for on the city's western edge until someone puts the plug in the bathtub and stops the outward force of sprawl.

[rampant_jwalker]

wBurg, I'm already familiar with our city's zoning maps because I find it interesting and also because of my work. I guess I just have a fairly extreme vision, compared to you, of how the city could grow. I thought it was a tragedy when that proposed 4 story apartment building on the corner of Alhambra and T street got shot down because it's "proportions weren't harmonious with the neighborhood's residential scale", even though it was only a few blocks from light rail. I even thought the architectural design was ugly as hell, but it was still a sad thing that happened to that project. In my view it shouldn't matter if the neighborhood is historic or low-rise. How can the city grow to its full potential if infill is forced to "match" the scale of the existing neighborhood? If there's a blighted lot in a place like Newton Booth or the Alhambra triangle, I don't care what the NIMBYs think, they should build as tall as possible there because it's in the central city and that's where the public transportation is. To underutilize that land seems like a waste, IMO. And why do you think tall development should be limited only to the western edge of downtown? Why not promote it in the entire grid and beyond?

[wburg]

If you're already familiar with the zoning maps than don't say things that aren't true, like the idea that the central city is only zoned for single-family homes. The project at Alhambra and T was modified to three stories and actually entitled for construction, it didn't materialize because of the collapse of the housing market and credit markets, not because the city denied the project. And that "blighted lot" is about to reopen as a Korean taco place and the building was fixed up nicely, just more proof that "blighted" doesn't really mean anything except "I think something else should be there!"

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by wburg

If you're already familiar with the zoning maps than don't say things that aren't true, like the idea that the central city is only zoned for single-family homes. The project at Alhambra and T was modified to three stories and actually entitled for construction, it didn't materialize because of the collapse of the housing market and credit markets, not because the city denied the project. And that "blighted lot" is about to reopen as a Korean taco place and the building was fixed up nicely, just more proof that "blighted" doesn't really mean anything except "I think something else should be there!"

I'm glad the old building got fixed up and is being put to good use. Unfortunately it does nothing to help improve density in the neighborhood near the 29th street light rail station. If you think it's acceptable for the city to even suggest that a proposed 4 story building in that area be reduced to 3 floors, then we clearly have a difference in opinion. The developers originally wanted it to be 10 floors, but that was wayyy to far above the zoning limits, so they started out with the 4 story design. I'm not sure where I said that the central city is zoned for single-family homes, but I'm sure that's not what I meant. The central city IS zoned in a way that "protects" the residential nature of many of its neighborhoods. Why else would there be required setbacks and a maximum height limit of 35 feet for much of the midtown grid??

[BuildCTPlace]

is it true the new rail to the bus depot opens on June 15, 2012?

[kamehameha]

You mean the new rail to Township 9, Richards Blvd?

[wburg]

The Green Line opened on the 15th...and this happened today:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/19/457...ion-grant.html

Sacramento scores $15 million grant to fix downtown train station
Share
By Tony Bizjak
tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2012 - 9:56 am
Last Modified: Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2012 - 12:00 pm

After several years of trying, Sacramento today secured a critical $15 million federal grant to help it rehabilitate its historic but dilapidated downtown Sacramento Valley Station, Sacramento Congresswoman Doris Matsui announced.

The work, likely to start next summer, will allow the city to make rail service at the 5th and I streets depot more efficient, and create space in the building to lease for offices, retail and restaurants.

Currently, less than one-third of the city-owned depot is usable. City officials said the railroad companies that previously owned the building let much of it fall into disrepair.

Matsui said she is thrilled to have won the grant, essentially after an 11th-hour lobbying effort. The city had been turned down previously for money under the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) in earlier rounds of funding.

Matsui and city officials recently hosted a visit by federal transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to the downtown railyard site, showing him the city's plans to fix the depot, supplement it with expanded facilities, and redevelopment the railyard around it.

"This grant allows the city to preserve one of our most iconic and historic buildings, results in significant benefits for passengers, and puts us one step closer towards securing Sacramento as a modern transit center for the region," Matsui said this morning.

The depot is the seventh busiest Amtrak station in the country, with 1.5 million annual users, including passengers on the popular Capitol Corridor inter-city trains. Sacramento Regional Transit officials say they hope someday to connect the depot to Sacramento International Airport via light rail. The first short leg of that light rail line opened last week, connecting the depot and downtown to Richards Boulevard a mile north.

City officials said the grant allows them to continue moving forward in the slow, years-long process of turning the surrounding railyard into a vibrant downtown community, and preparing Sacramento for more rail travel in the coming decades.

The city currently is conducting a seismic retrofit project on the depot.

City downtown railyard official Fran Halbakken said the federal funds will be matched with $15 million in state and local money to do a variety of essential work at the building, including adding air conditioning and modern heating, as well as fixing stairs and elevators, renovating bathrooms, and creating new spaces for leasable use. The city plans include a restaurant in what is now a large, unused space adjacent to the train depot's main waiting room.

"We are ecstatic," Halbakken said. "Without help from the federal and state government, the local funding isn't enough to deliver this project."

Mayor Kevin Johnson will discuss the grant at an 11 a.m. press briefing today.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/19/457...#storylink=cpy

[Web]

Originally Posted by wburg

The Green Line opened on the 15th...and this happened today:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/19/457...ion-grant.html

without grants private industry would let more than just this station deteriorate. certain things private enterprise cannot do.

[Surefiresacto]

I went to the American Furniture Gallery near Fulton & Bus 80 this weekend and found some interesting beautification work had been done. West of Fulton, along Auburn Blvd (Hwy 40) they have put some new fencing and decorated it with what appear to be Pony Express & Hwy 40 ornamental metal placards. It looked good compared to the typical freeway concrete walls.

There is also a new overhead entry/gateway sign that says "Fulton" as you cross Auburn Blvd on Fulton. It kind of reminds me of the R Street sign.

[Mr. Ozo]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/24/475...officials.html

Some interesting ideas although it does seem a bit cart before the horse. I'm not sure how I feel about closing off the I Street bridge to cars.

[kamehameha]

West Sacramento is building a new bridge on Pioneer Bluff. This area is the part of the barge canal closest to the Sacramento River. The most scenic spot in West Sacramento and the highest point along the South River Road. Southport residents will have a new access to I-50 and will relieve Jefferson Blvd of congestion. The city has been planning to build this since 2005 but due to the recession, the project was postponed indefenitely. The funding that was intended for the Port of West Sacramento channel dredging will now be used to construct this bridge. They are hoping to have a groundbreaking by July of next year.

[kamehameha]

One of three bridges being studied/proposed/planned for the Sacramento area. West Sacramento is moving ahead of schedule.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/...ridge-instead/

[ltsmotorsport]

The channel dredging just keeps getting shoved back over and over. When will this long-overdue project finally go forward?