HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 12:46 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip View Post

Could a lunchtime trolley work in Sacramento? Is there a need for it?



RT has been operating them in DT Sacramento for a few years now. I believe RT has 4 or 6 of them...
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 1:51 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Thanks, innov8 and u_e. I remember a replica trolley on J Street Downtown when I visited several years ago (maybe 2002 or 2003?) but haven't noticed any in the year since I came back. I can't find anything about them on SacRT's website either. If they were/are here I guess they're not a big hit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 3:51 AM
greenmidtown greenmidtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip View Post
Thanks, innov8 and u_e. I remember a replica trolley on J Street Downtown when I visited several years ago (maybe 2002 or 2003?) but haven't noticed any in the year since I came back. I can't find anything about them on SacRT's website either. If they were/are here I guess they're not a big hit.
Sac and Fresno are nothing alike ok? Like night and day or Belgian chocolate and feces. What works in Kansas won't work in Chicago. Comparisons to Portland, Austin, or Denver are appropriate for Sac.
Fresno is inappropriate and quite frankly getting old coming from you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 4:17 AM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
The Airport That Ate Natomas
funny shit!!

but let's all be glad it ain't the other way around.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 4:36 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
<deleted>

Last edited by Phillip; Apr 19, 2007 at 6:16 PM. Reason: over the topness
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 6:17 PM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
greenmidtown,

I regret my previous response to you. I've deleted it and I apologize.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 7:13 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 15,053
Do you guys know where I can get some stats for ridership for SAC RT? The website or census or something? I'm writing a paper to propose a subway in sac.
__________________
#RuralUrbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 7:50 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Do you guys know where I can get some stats for ridership for SAC RT? The website or census or something? I'm writing a paper to propose a subway in sac.
I'm not aware of a specific page with ridership statistics, but if there is one, it will be either on SACOG's website or Sac RT's website.

SACOG is a behemoth of regional statistics, and a bit hard to navigate - but I'll bet they have something on it.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 9:00 PM
Sacdelicious's Avatar
Sacdelicious Sacdelicious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harlem, NYC
Posts: 132
RT's website lists average weekday passenger Trips 43,600 as of RT fiscal year of 2005, a number I assume has only gone up (this does not include the Amtrak or Folsom expansion).

Wikipedia lists 54,400 AWR (9th busiest light rail system in US) as of third quarter of 2006, but I don't know the source of these numbers.

As for a subway, I don't think it's feasible in Sac, with the flood risk, high water table, and lack of density to support such a project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2007, 11:04 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
I think a subway would be a fiscally ridiculous concept as well, with light rail already intact and certainly no need for such dense means of transportation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 1:18 AM
friedpez's Avatar
friedpez friedpez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA Area
Posts: 308
^ I agree. However, I think it'd be neat if they could at least elevate or depress/put underground the light rail tracks on K Street. Maybe begin a rise/descent around 12th & K at the eastern end, and on 7th & 8th between L and Capitol Mall on the western end. But there would be water table or visual impact issues to deal with, too...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 3:46 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Do you guys know where I can get some stats for ridership for SAC RT? The website or census or something? I'm writing a paper to propose a subway in sac.

While your at it can you suggest that Sacramento stop calling the light rail system "Light Rail"

I can just picture it now; Sacramento builds a subway system and names it 'Subway'.....


__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 3:48 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacdelicious View Post
RT's website lists average weekday passenger Trips 43,600 as of RT fiscal year of 2005, a number I assume has only gone up (this does not include the Amtrak or Folsom expansion).

Wikipedia lists 54,400 AWR (9th busiest light rail system in US) as of third quarter of 2006, but I don't know the source of these numbers.

The passenger count was 58,000 riders a day (after the the line into Folsom opened)....
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 3:58 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Do you guys know where I can get some stats for ridership for SAC RT?

From Light Rail Now

25 October 2005

Sacramento:
Light rail ridership hits record high of 58,000 per weekday

Even before Sacramento's Regional Transit (RT) agency opened its new light rail transit (LRT) extension to Folsom, the system was hitting new ridership records. "For the first time in history," reported the Sacramento Union (13 October 2005), "RT buses and light rail trains carried more than three million passengers in a single month." As the paper noted, RT's September 2005 ridership level increased six percent over that of September 2004 numbers – mainly lifted by soaring LRT ridership. "Bus ridership was fairly flat," the Union related, "but light rail ridership jumped from 47,000 average daily riders in September 2004 to 58,000 average riders last month. That was another record milestone never before reached by the RT light rail system."

According to the article, RT officials surmise that high motor fuel prices influenced the system's spike in ridership, which, for LRT, represented a 23 percent increase. Moreover, officials had been anticipating a slight drop in ridership after RT raised its base fare from $1.50 to $1.75 in September and reduced service on a few bus routes. "The combination of these two factors would normally cause ridership to decline, at least for a few months," notes the Union, and RT had predicted September’s bus ridership at 62,100 passengers per day. "But the actual average was 70,300, 13 percent higher than the estimate."

RT has forecast further ridership increases from its startup of LRT service to Folsom on 15 October ..
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 4:25 AM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Do those #'s include only paid riders? Or do they include a certain assumed % of unpaid riders? If they don't, the #'s would be higher...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 5:40 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 15,053
It's just for a problem solving essay for english class. Problem=traffic, solution=subways. Lets hope my teacher doesen't think of the high water table junk.....lol
__________________
#RuralUrbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 7:28 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
It's just for a problem solving essay for english class. Problem=traffic, solution=subways. Lets hope my teacher doesen't think of the high water table junk.....lol
That's a lame argument! Think about DC, NYC, and Boston! I think the ocean would make for a higher water table than rivers...even 2 of them!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 5:33 PM
Sacdelicious's Avatar
Sacdelicious Sacdelicious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harlem, NYC
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuhickman79 View Post
That's a lame argument! Think about DC, NYC, and Boston! I think the ocean would make for a higher water table than rivers...even 2 of them!
NYC: 33ft (In the lowest places)
Boston:141ft
DC: 140ft (And not on the ocean)

Sacramento: 25ft

The water table is indeed a concern. For instance, in Boston with the Big Dig project, there are now thousands of leaks in the tunnels due to the water table and depth of the tunnels, resulting in millions of cost overruns to fix these problems.

Plus, those other cities don't ever fall below the water level (like Sacramento does in winter), when the rivers' height is above the elevation of the surrounding land (thus our need for levees). (NYC has some seawalls, but that is to protect against winter storm surges). Imagine the damage to these tunnels and infastructure if Sacramento flooded.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Apr 20, 2007, 7:02 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacdelicious View Post
NYC: 33ft (In the lowest places)
Boston:141ft
DC: 140ft (And not on the ocean)

Sacramento: 25ft

The water table is indeed a concern. For instance, in Boston with the Big Dig project, there are now thousands of leaks in the tunnels due to the water table and depth of the tunnels, resulting in millions of cost overruns to fix these problems.

Plus, those other cities don't ever fall below the water level (like Sacramento does in winter), when the rivers' height is above the elevation of the surrounding land (thus our need for levees). (NYC has some seawalls, but that is to protect against winter storm surges). Imagine the damage to these tunnels and infastructure if Sacramento flooded.
I stand corrected...interesting stuff!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Apr 23, 2007, 5:01 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Sacramento Business Journal - April 20, 07 by Melanie Turner
City's attempts to add parking ignite backlash

Operator threatens to close his lots in response to Sacramento's proposed ordinance

As more restaurants and shops open in central Sacramento, finding public parking in areas of the city core has become an increasing challenge -- and the problem could get worse.

One of the central district's largest parking lot operators has threatened to eliminate some of his spaces May 1 as city leaders consider an ordinance to regulate the limited supply of public stalls.

While some business owners say parking is a minor problem, other say gripes about parking represent "growing pains" of a fast-growing city.

Quote:
"The average suburbanite is not used to using valet and having to walk," said Shawn Eldredge, who owns Capitol Painting & Services on O Street in midtown. "We're still suburbanites at heart. We're not ready to swallow that pill yet."
Restaurateur Randy Paragary hopes customers learn to deal with parking.

"As Sacramento grows ... and people like us are willing to take a chance and make an investment in the downtown, we're hoping that people want the urban experience and that overcomes the hassle" of parking, Paragary said.

As the city gets closer to adopting a surface lot policy, part of a comprehensive parking strategy adopted by the City Council last fall, some business owners say they're worried it will result in fewer spaces.

"I wanted to stay in midtown so bad, but it's almost impossible to find parking," said Debi Hammond, president of Merlot Marketing Inc. She is planning to move to Natomas because her business has outgrown its 4,000-square-foot space at 2220 K St. Merlot has 10 spaces for 15 employees.

"It's a huge inconvenience to not have the right accommodations for your team," she said, adding that an intern just got four parking tickets in the past 30 days.

A 'mini monopoly'
The city proposal, which would require parking lot operators to make basic improvements to continue operating, such as provide minimal lighting to their lots, is set to be considered by the City Council next month. The city ordinance would allow 50 illegal lots to come into compliance with improvements.

If approved, the city hopes the ordinance would encourage development of new buildings on high-profile parcels that now hold parking lots.

Priority Parking has the largest market share of surface lot parking in the central city and would be hardest hit by the ordinance, said Howard Chan, the city's parking services manager.

In many cases, the ordinance's proposed striping requirements for wider aisles and parking spaces would result in a loss of entire rows of parking, Priority Parking president Aaron Zeff said.

"The policy, as crafted, creates a net loss of parking in midtown," he said. "That is frankly a line in the sand that most businesses cannot accept."

But Chan said each lot will be looked at on a "case-by-case basis," and the city will work with parking lot operators.

Priority Parking has taken over a half-dozen lots in recent months, bringing its central city lots to 25, including 15 in midtown. Zeff said the city ordinance and the improvements would exceed his revenue from the lots.

His decision to stop public parking on five lots -- two on J Street, two on K and one on L -- will eliminate 30 parking spaces during the day, and 139 in the evenings and on weekends.

Despite Zeff's decision to eliminate some parking, there are enough stalls to meet demand for the next five years, Chan said. But there are pockets where demand exceeds supply. For example, at J and 28th streets, parking occupancy is more than 90 percent, while the average occupancy citywide is 71 percent.

The cheapest way to create more parking, especially in high-traffic areas, is to convert unused lots into temporary parking lots, developer Mark Friedman said.

"But the people who run the lots make so much money with so little risk that the cost of land goes up significantly and inhibits development," he said.

Friedman said Zeff has created a "mini monopoly," grabbing up lots in busy areas and driving up prices. Concerns over rising prices prompted Lucca's, Mikuni and Friedman's Loftworks to buy a 60-space parking lot for valet across I Street from Memorial Auditorium to control the availability and price of parking for customers.
Zeff denies having a monopoly but agreed prices are rising. He said they've doubled in the past five years and are up 20 percent in the past year. The daily rate is $8 in many lots. "I believe pricing will double in midtown in the next three years because we're not utilizing spaces effectively," he said.

Serving up spaces
Limited parking and more restaurants have led to a surge in valet services in the central city. It's been popular, but some valet operators reportedly have blocked off on-street metered spaces for valet parking.

That practice has prompted the city to consider its first valet parking ordinance. City officials are at least three months from drafting such an ordinance.

Besides the challenge of finding places to put valet services, another issue is changing the mindset of people in Sacramento, some business owners say.

"A lot of people don't want to pay $5 for valet," said Paragary, who owns Spataro restaurant on L Street. The business does not have on-site parking and is served by valet service.

John Turner of Rancho Cordova, who commutes to downtown for his job with the state, said he wouldn't go out of his way to shop in the central city.

"The thought of having to drive around and look for a meter and have enough quarters is a big deterrent for me," he said.

Paragary, president of the Midtown Business Association, said people in bigger cities are more accustomed to searching for public lots or using valet service. In customer surveys at his restaurants, it's common for parking to be listed as an issue, he said.

"We all know we're not going to pull up in front of that little dress shop you want to go to in San Francisco," Paragary said. "I think we are perhaps a little spoiled. ... Most of us live in neighborhoods where parking lots are prevalent."

"The fact that we have parking issues in Sacramento is really a good thing," Chan added. "It just means people want to be here."

I like how the owner of Capitol Painting & Services on O Street speaks for all Sacramentans when he says that "We're still suburbanites at heart. We're not ready to swallow that pill yet." No we all are not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:58 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.