HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1101  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 1:56 AM
UnclearColt UnclearColt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Agreed...BUT, that's the reality! Those places probably aren't going anywhere. Will the city try to take them by eminent domain? NO! That's silly!
No, but the city can pressure them to move nonetheless. West Sac is doing it with a lot of the industry along the river south of Business 80.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1102  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 3:38 AM
Folks3000 Folks3000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnclearColt View Post
No, but the city can pressure them to move nonetheless. West Sac is doing it with a lot of the industry along the river south of Business 80.
That entire area around Township 9, included the industries in question is slated for a long term rezoning. After the railyards and township 9 fill up (I understand that could be a long time) the rest of those areas are on the chopping block. Just need a good boom cycle to push some things through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1103  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2015, 4:20 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandofFrost View Post
The real questions is "Why are there industrial buildings that close to the American River? Shouldn't that be super prime real estate, high end condos, parks, and civic buildings?" People complain about I5 cutting off downtown from the waterfront.. and here we have downtown Sacramento with an unobstructed waterfront.
Because the whole area was swamp until the early 20th century, and back then the plan was to move our industrial areas into the recently reclaimed swamp area along the American River and out of the downtown waterfront along the Sacramento River. It wasn't super prime real estate because it wasn't anywhere near the heart of the established city. And remember that this area is still pretty susceptible to flooding.

The Truxel bridge was redesigned a couple of times, the first plan was for a Light Rail only bridge but the city rejected it because they wanted it to be an automobile bridge instead of just for light rail. The most recent iteration is multi-modal, with light rail, cars and bike/pedestrian. Still no money to pay for it yet, but the plan is pretty much in place--and it's not a very big deal to run a road up to the point on the south side of the river.

Why is there such a rush to displace existing industrial buildings and businesses? It seems like people keep talking about wanting to bring jobs downtown, why so eager to remove workplaces that are already functioning? It's not like any of them have belching smokestacks, and people are already growing more comfortable with "mixed use" neighborhoods like Midtown that combine residential, commercial and even light industrial uses within a short distance.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1104  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2015, 1:17 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Quick update on the new bridges.

Quote:
Sacramento river bridges

By Tony Bizjak
03/05/2015 7:04 PM


Sacramento and West Sacramento will hit new milestones this spring in their efforts to build two bridges over the Sacramento River, launching technical studies of two likely bridge sites north and south of downtown.

The city of Sacramento is taking the lead on planning for a bridge at the north end of downtown to replace the aged and undersized I Street Bridge. The new bridge will connect C Street on the west bank with the new, but not yet open, Railyards Boulevard in Sacramento’s downtown railyard. The city is beginning an environmental and technical analysis of the bridge, a necessary step toward receiving a federal promise to fund much of the estimated $100 million cost. It has set a tentative opening date of 2020 for the new span, although it is likely the bridge could be in use before that.

The I Street Bridge will not be torn down. It is owned by Union Pacific, which will continue to use it for trains. But the city will be able to knock down the two tall vehicle ramps that lead to its upper deck, one from I Street, the other from Jibboom Street. Removal of the ramps will open up a big chunk of waterfront space for development.

Meanwhile, the city of West Sacramento is taking the lead on plans for a bridge to the south that would connect the two cities between 15th Street in the Pioneer Bluffs area and the west end of Broadway in Sacramento.

The West Sacramento City Council this week approved a contract of up to $439,000 for a feasibility and technical study for what’s being called the Broadway Bridge. That study will look at, among other things, what kind of traffic the bridge would handle, the effects on nearby neighborhoods, and how to make the bridge compatible with a potential streetcar line.

Then there’s the question of how much such a bridge would cost.

“We know we have a workable project here, but it’s time to get down to the nitty gritty,” said West Sacramento Mayor Chris Cabaldon.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/tra...#storylink=cpy
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1105  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2015, 3:44 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Although they will only be accessible via staircases on either side, I'm still hoping that UP can somehow be convinced to allow access to the top level of the I Street bridge for a "High Line Park" type view of the waterfront. Not holding my breath, sadly....
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1106  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2015, 4:07 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 14,908
maybe some of the space could be used for streetcar? Maybe light rail option?
__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1107  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2015, 6:33 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
No, adding rail to the second level would require ramps, and also agreement with UP to use them for a second rail line, which is even less likely. But the new bridge could feasibly carry a streetcar line, should the starter line run north and need another crossing--personally I'd consider the southern Broadway-15th bridge a better candidate for a streetcar bridge, allowing the West Sacramento side to run south to Southport and connect to downtown via Broadway and 3rd.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1108  
Old Posted May 3, 2015, 2:49 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
So I have a question about the proposed streetcar. I'm generally in support of it, but a friend who is normally on-board with anything to do improving downtown started to question the viability of it. So I went online and started reading a ton of articles that all basically said that the streetcar revival was a bad fad that did nothing to improve transportation or the economic wellbeing of the area they serve. Of course, many of the cities cited were not great candidates for street cars in the first place. And since they are all relatively new it's probably too early say they are complete failures. However, they all cited a couple of reasons why they don't work. The big one was that they move too slowly because they do not run along a dedicated lane/track and so they move with the traffic. This also means people are waiting around for a streetcar when it's so much quicker to jump in an ubur/taxi. The other complaint was that the routes are not expansive enough to make them very convenient or they don't go where people need to go.

I was wondering if anyone can so how Sacramento's proposed streetcar will not suffer front the same issues I mentioned above.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1109  
Old Posted May 3, 2015, 5:37 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Streetcars get criticized for not doing things they aren't intended to do. They aren't high-speed rail, they are not intended to move people very long distances at high speeds. Streetcars are limited to the speed of traffic, but so is all the other traffic in the street. During rush hour traffic's crunchy, but as a Midtown resident I'm sure you know that once rush hour is over, the gridlock is over too.

An uber or taxi is more expensive than a streetcar and don't work on a regular schedule. Streetcars are high frequency vehicles, they run every 12-15 minutes and their route is predictable, so it's easy to see where they run and catch them when you're going that way. Car services are useful to a separate demographic. And with modern technology you can easily use an app to locate a streetcar and even pay for the ride, adding the same convenience factor that one gets with Lyft/Uber type apps.

In terms of the routes not being "expansive" enough, streetcars aren't intended as long-distance transit to carry people to distant suburbs; that's what light rail is for. Streetcars move people within a neighborhood or within adjacent neighborhoods--they're for trips where it's too long to walk conveniently but too short to bother getting into a car and driving (or a tax)--maybe 1/2 mile to 3 miles. So they're useful for central city residents, or people working or visiting, who can more conveniently hop on the streetcar for short trips instead of driving. Imagine someone who works at 1 Capitol Mall who has been meaning to try Lucca or Waterboy for lunch for years, but it's too far to walk and driving during the lunch hour is extra annoying. For a buck or so they can hop on the next streetcar, check out those places, and on the ride note all the other restaurants that have opened up on the way that they can try another time.

Plus, remember this is a starter system, not a system that can never be expanded, and it's much cheaper to expand than light rail due to lighter weight and smaller size. So it can be expanded to meet more neighborhoods, but the current route is the most important to move people around where they want to go and where they want to be in the next few years. It can be expanded out to Broadway via 3rd or 16th, north into the Railyards, and, given enough bureaucratic red tape, maybe someday over the UP tracks into East Sacramento (although I still think the Bee bridge could be used to get a streetcar expansion to Oak Park.)

Streetcars aren't massively profitable moneymakers in and of themselves (neither is any other form of transit, including the private automobile.) But they tend to make the neighborhoods where they are located more successful and walkable because they're a great tool for getting around and promoting transit-oriented development. And unlike cars they don't need huge parking lots or high-capacity one-way streets.

Streetcars built Midtown, Downtown, Oak Park and our other traditional neighborhoods a century ago, and can help reconnect those neighborhoods via expansion of lines.

Another thing to note--the folks putting out this anti-streetcar stuff are the same folks behind the anti-arena campaign.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1110  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 4:50 PM
LandofFrost's Avatar
LandofFrost LandofFrost is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 195
"Another thing to note--the folks putting out this anti-streetcar stuff are the same folks behind the anti-arena campaign. "


OMG, if that is true.. What the F*ck is their problem? I feel like these people are trying their hardest to ruin Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1111  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 5:19 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandofFrost View Post
I feel like these people are trying their hardest to ruin Sacramento.
They are.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1112  
Old Posted May 4, 2015, 7:34 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
No, they're just really really really not happy with pretty much any use of public funds, and they think the streetcar plan is just another part of the arena plan, so they lump them together. Personally I think the streetcar plan is the best chance to save downtown from some of the worst effects of the arena plan, in addition to being a darn good plan in and of itself. Sacramento picks up about 20% of the cost and gets a serious investment in development-oriented transit that could spell the difference between West Sacramento's waterfront becoming West Natomas and becoming a true transit-oriented neighborhood, with comparable benefits on this side of the bridge in the Railyards.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1113  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 3:26 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
No, they're just really really really not happy with pretty much any use of public funds, and they think the streetcar plan is just another part of the arena plan, so they lump them together. Personally I think the streetcar plan is the best chance to save downtown from some of the worst effects of the arena plan, in addition to being a darn good plan in and of itself. Sacramento picks up about 20% of the cost and gets a serious investment in development-oriented transit that could spell the difference between West Sacramento's waterfront becoming West Natomas and becoming a true transit-oriented neighborhood, with comparable benefits on this side of the bridge in the Railyards.
I agree with this. While some of those who are most vocal about their opposition are invested in central Sacramento most are not even residents of Sacramento. They are out-of-town rental property owners/investors who are quite content to take our money but do not want to contribute anything back into our community.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1114  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 3:32 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
I'd still like to know how much of the route, if any, will be along a dedicated lane and/or if it's possible for it to be?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1115  
Old Posted May 5, 2015, 3:53 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I'd still like to know how much of the route, if any, will be along a dedicated lane and/or if it's possible for it to be?
Exactly one block, K between 7th and 8th.

Remember we opened K Street to cars?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1116  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 4:19 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo View Post
Exactly one block, K between 7th and 8th.

Remember we opened K Street to cars?
I was actually thinking about stretches where there could be a lane dedicated to the street car. Without knowing the details, I imagine 3rd Street and parts of W. Capitol Ave in WeSac could be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1117  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 7:19 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Except for the 700 block of K, and the planned underpass beneath the I Street on-ramp, the entire length of the streetcar uses existing public streets. Street lanes could be converted to streetcar/transit only along much of the route, if the city were willing to give up that lane's use for vehicles other than streetcars/buses. This has been done in other cities. The question is, do streetcars have to travel faster than cars in traffic? And other than rush hour, is there really enough traffic on those downtown streets to seriously impede streetcar movement?
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1118  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 7:32 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Except for the 700 block of K, and the planned underpass beneath the I Street on-ramp, the entire length of the streetcar uses existing public streets. Street lanes could be converted to streetcar/transit only along much of the route, if the city were willing to give up that lane's use for vehicles other than streetcars/buses. This has been done in other cities. The question is, do streetcars have to travel faster than cars in traffic? And other than rush hour, is there really enough traffic on those downtown streets to seriously impede streetcar movement?
I see no reason why streetcars should have their own dedicated lane. SF's Market Street is jam packed throughout the day but the streetcars seem to work fine there. Except for the hours of 4-6, J street can more than handle the inconvenience.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1119  
Old Posted May 7, 2015, 8:31 PM
midtownsacto midtownsacto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 5
Isn't there also a dedicated lane already reserved in West Sacramento on Tower Bride Gateway between 3rd and 5th? I think when that street got reconfigured, a dedicated lame was added in anticipation of a future streetcar. There's even a sign at the bus stop at 5th that says "Right Lane (picture of streetcar) Only".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1120  
Old Posted Jun 3, 2015, 4:28 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Measure B failed... sometimes this city sucks
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:26 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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