HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 2:33 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
Sacramento Transportation

If you have passed the 700 Blk of K Street Mall lately you might have noticed all the signs plastered on the boarded up buildings by some group calling themselves SOS (Save Our Station). I went to some of the public meetings on RT's relocation and I support the station relocation for a number of reasons and totally disagree with this group's arguments. I smell a RAT behind all this. I think those buildings in which the signs are located are still in the hands of good ol' Moe Mohanna and I know that he has property on the same block of the proposed light-rail station. He is a sleeze. Anyway, I don't know how the City voted, if they did, but I hope the relocation is on track. The problem (though no one can really say so publically) with the current station is that ever since the opening of the Meadowview Line the 7th/St. Rose station has become a hangout for an intimidating group of loud ghetto and pseudo-ghetto kids. Not exactly the clientele you want to appeal to if you want to gentrify K Street and renovate the block. By relocating the station to a tighter space there will be less room to "hangout" and make trouble. It's not very PC but there it is.

Taken from their site: www.myspace.com/sos_7K

Quote:
BEAUTIFICATION! NOT RELOCATION!

The Sacramento City Council is preparing to ote to relocate the 700 block light rail station one block east. The station move is hidden i an otherwise desirable "Beautification" program.

DON’T BE FOOLED! Station relocation and streetscape beautification are two different issues!

Moving the 700 block station will inconvenience riders, block traffic on 9th Street, add unnecessary crowding to the 800 block, and make transfers more difficult.

Even Regional Transit (a fine organization, but one governed by politicians) admits that they “don’t have an operational reason to modify the location of these stations.”

SO WHY DOES THE CITY WANT TO MOVE OUR STATION?

The plan to move the 700 block station emerged sometime in the last year in a top-down planning effort led by city government insiders -- NOT by RT or transit rider interests!

K Street development is already deep in controversy, including lawsuits, city sponsored demolition, developer subsidies and threatened confiscation of private property. There is no need for the City to make the problem worse by insisting on a station move that transit riders and many downtown business owners oppose. DO WHAT IS BEST FOR K STREET!!

Major changes to the Downtown transit system should only be considered as part of comprehensive plan to MAKE TRANSIT WORK BETTER!!

The 700 block is the logical place for passengers to get on and off of light rail. The city should view the 700 block and adjacent Lima Park as the Light Rail Hub of Downtown Sacramento.

If the city really had the best in mind for transit users, the 700 block station would be left in place, and nearby stations would be moved closer to accommodate better transfers and accessibility to the Westfield Plaza Mall!

WHAT CAN WE DO?

We can all agree that K Street is in need of beautification. This Tuesday, YOU can help encourage the City Council to go ahead with the beautofication elements of the Streetscape Improvement Plan and leave the light reail stations in place.
__________________
Wait, what?

Last edited by ozone; Mar 15, 2007 at 3:26 AM. Reason: Type-o
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 4:33 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,866
Good eye ozone. Looks like the vote has been bumped up to April 3rd.
Your thoughts of Mo behind this sounds like a possibility. I bet John Saca also
is not happy about the station possibility relocating in front of his and Mo's proposal.

Well, after looking at that guys myspace site, it appears he only has two friends


25. (Redevelopment Agency/City Council) K Street Streetscape Improvements (KD 71)
Location: (District 1)
Recommendation: 1) Adopt a Redevelopment Agency Resolution: a) approving a K Street Streetscape design concept plan for the K Street Mall, between 7th and 12th streets and St. Rose of Lima Park in the Merged Downtown Redevelopment Area; b) approving the relocation of two Regional Transit (RT) mini-high platforms from the 700 and 1000 blocks to the 800 and 1100 blocks of K Street respectively; and c) authorizing the Executive Director, or her designee, to allocate $4 million of Merged Downtown Redevelopment tax increment funds and execute an Individual Project Agreement (IPA) for implementation of phase one improvements; and 2) adopt a City Resolution: a) approving a design concept plan for the K Street Streetscape project, between 7th and 12th streets and St. Rose of Lima Park in the Merged Downtown Redevelopment Area; b) authorizing the bidding of the project for construction; and c) authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an IPA with the Redevelopment Agency for the project; and d) amending the revenue and expenditure budget for KD71 in the amount of $4,000,000.
Contact: Melissa Anguiano, Economic Development Project Manager, 808-5864; Leslie Fritzsche, Downtown Development Manager, 808-5450, Economic Development Department.
Action: Continued to April 3, 2007
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 4:43 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
Thanks for the update innov8. Yeah and one of his friends is my neighbor who I get along with and I know he feels the way we do on a lot of urban issues. I think we just disagree on this issue.. I say think because I haven't actually talked to him about it yet.
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 4:50 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,866
When you get a chance to find out where your neighbors coming from
on this, I would like to hear what he has to say... especially if there's dirt.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 6:05 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
I am all in favor of converting many if not all of the one-way streets East of 16th Street back to two-way streets. Of course, our suburban-dominated Sacramento city council and staff can't really understand our frustration with the current traffic mess since 99% of them live in the suburbs and drive into the Central City right into the city-owned parking garage. Does any one know if the City has done anything on this issue?

Central city traffic plan doesn't yield to business
Many in midtown would prefer to see more two-way streets
Sacramento Business Journal - December 15, 2006by Melanie TurnerStaff

Central city business leaders mostly approve of yet another set of plans to change the flow of traffic in some neighborhoods, but some say the plans don't go far enough.

Early next year Sacramento officials could approve the conversion of four streets from one-way to two-way traffic, and two thoroughfares from three lanes to two lanes.

The city hopes the recommended changes will strike a balance, making neighborhoods and business districts more pedestrian-friendly while maintaining the central city's overall transportation system, said Hector Barron, a supervising engineer with the city of Sacramento.

While the streets recommended for two-way conversions are mostly residential, dozens of businesses front 19th and 21st streets from H and I streets to Broadway and W Street. The city recommends keeping those streets one-way but reducing them from three lanes to two, with bike lanes.

The conversion project started several years ago, mostly in response to residents' concerns about high speeds and traffic volumes on one-way streets. Residents viewed similar conversions on G, H, S and T streets as successful, Barron said.

The business community, however, expressed mixed reactions to the city's latest recommendations. Their concerns were mostly over what wasn't in the plans.

The city, for example, does not recommend the two-way conversion of any multiple-block stretch in the central city, except for mostly residential N Street.

The central city is bounded by the American and Sacramento rivers on the north and west, Broadway on the south, and Alhambra Boulevard on the east.

Staff recommends converting to two-way traffic one block of 3rd Street from I to J; one block of J from 30th to Alhambra Boulevard; two blocks of 9th and 10th from E to G streets; and a dozen blocks of N Street from 16th to 28th streets.

The recommendation excludes three streets that also were looked at for possible two-way conversions in a full-blown environmental study: L and Q streets from 16th to 29th, and P from 16th to Alhambra. The city concluded that converting those streets would have a negative impact on traffic circulation and cause transit delays because bus routes run on all three streets. The City is once again looking at the wrong issues here.

Staff also recommends reducing 19th and 21st streets from three lanes to two, 19th from H Street to Broadway and 21st Street from I to W. The lane reduction makes conditions safer for cyclists and pedestrians and does not impact traffic as much as a two-way conversion of these streets would, Barron said. "We heard from bicyclists that those could be a key north-south bike route," he said.

Not enough in midtown?
Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the improvement of Sacramento's central business district, is satisfied with the final recommendation, said deputy director Danielle de l'Etoile. Why the f'k should I care what the DSP thinks about anything? They have to be one of the most pathetically impotent Downtown Partnerships in the country

De l'Etoile said there's a belief in the business community that two-way streets are generally good for business because they tend to slow traffic.

"It allows them to go a little bit slower, view the shops they're driving by rather than flying by," she said.

Because the recommendation does not include any two-way conversions that involve streets with mostly businesses, Shawn Eldredge, president of the Midtown Business Association Board of Directors, said the city's chosen alternative does not go far enough. Truest statement in the whole article

"It's nowhere near what we spent years studying," he said, adding that he'd like to see more two-way conversions on business-rich streets like J Street.

Early on, the city looked at every one-way street in the central city to identify potential conversions.

J Street, a main business drag that handles large volumes of traffic on three eastbound lanes, was not among the streets identified for study in an environmental review because the city concluded that converting J Street would cause too many problems, Barron said.

While Eldredge said the recommendation falls short of the goal to slow traffic in business zones, he also said the association supports the city's efforts to make the city safer and more pedestrian-friendly by converting streets such as 19th and 21st from three lanes to two.


In the past couple of years, the city reduced L, N, P and Q streets from 15th to 29th to two lanes with bike lanes, improving east-west bicycle activity. Previously, the streets had one-way traffic with three lanes.

Eldredge said the three- to two-lane conversions encourage people to walk, ride bikes and take mass transit, all of which help businesses to thrive. He called those changes a "baby step" in the right direction. Why are we so damn timid in Sacramento?

Aaron Zeff, president of Priority Parking, which recently purchased Harv's Car Wash at 19th and L streets, said L Street seems to be a natural one-way street since it feeds into Business 80 and Interstate 5.

Zeff would prefer two-way traffic on 19th Street to encourage more businesses on that stretch, but he said keeping it a one-way street and reducing it to two lanes would be a good move. Of course, he'd say that. He's only looking out for his little interest. He doesn't give a sh't about the residents of the Central City.

Brian Ballinger, owner of Cervantes Tapas and Italian Bistro on 21st between K and L, said doing business on a one-way street is not easy. "One-way streets are really hard because people go past you really fast," he said.

Amy Sheets, office manager for John Ellis Automotive Repair on 19th, said she doesn't think the three- to two-lane conversion will make a difference for her business.

"What would really make a difference is if they converted it back to two-way," she said.

Sandi Wasserman, owner of Vizcaya on 21st Street, said she doesn't know if changes would impact her business. But she said in 22 years working downtown, she's been frustrated by the number of street conversions -- some back to what they were originally -- and she questions whether the city has a clear picture of the future. Well she's got that right

A final recommendation is expected to go before the City Council as early as February. ????
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:33 AM
greenmidtown greenmidtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I am all in favor of converting many if not all of the one-way streets East of 16th Street back to two-way streets. Of course, our suburban-dominated Sacramento city council and staff can't really understand our frustration with the current traffic mess since 99% of them live in the suburbs and drive into the Central City right into the city-owned parking garage. Does any one know if the City has done anything on this issue?

Central city traffic plan doesn't yield to business
Many in midtown would prefer to see more two-way streets
Sacramento Business Journal - December 15, 2006by Melanie TurnerStaff

Central city business leaders mostly approve of yet another set of plans to change the flow of traffic in some neighborhoods, but some say the plans don't go far enough.

Early next year Sacramento officials could approve the conversion of four streets from one-way to two-way traffic, and two thoroughfares from three lanes to two lanes.

The city hopes the recommended changes will strike a balance, making neighborhoods and business districts more pedestrian-friendly while maintaining the central city's overall transportation system, said Hector Barron, a supervising engineer with the city of Sacramento.

While the streets recommended for two-way conversions are mostly residential, dozens of businesses front 19th and 21st streets from H and I streets to Broadway and W Street. The city recommends keeping those streets one-way but reducing them from three lanes to two, with bike lanes.

The conversion project started several years ago, mostly in response to residents' concerns about high speeds and traffic volumes on one-way streets. Residents viewed similar conversions on G, H, S and T streets as successful, Barron said.

The business community, however, expressed mixed reactions to the city's latest recommendations. Their concerns were mostly over what wasn't in the plans.

The city, for example, does not recommend the two-way conversion of any multiple-block stretch in the central city, except for mostly residential N Street.

The central city is bounded by the American and Sacramento rivers on the north and west, Broadway on the south, and Alhambra Boulevard on the east.

Staff recommends converting to two-way traffic one block of 3rd Street from I to J; one block of J from 30th to Alhambra Boulevard; two blocks of 9th and 10th from E to G streets; and a dozen blocks of N Street from 16th to 28th streets.

The recommendation excludes three streets that also were looked at for possible two-way conversions in a full-blown environmental study: L and Q streets from 16th to 29th, and P from 16th to Alhambra. The city concluded that converting those streets would have a negative impact on traffic circulation and cause transit delays because bus routes run on all three streets. The City is once again looking at the wrong issues here.

Staff also recommends reducing 19th and 21st streets from three lanes to two, 19th from H Street to Broadway and 21st Street from I to W. The lane reduction makes conditions safer for cyclists and pedestrians and does not impact traffic as much as a two-way conversion of these streets would, Barron said. "We heard from bicyclists that those could be a key north-south bike route," he said.

Not enough in midtown?
Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the improvement of Sacramento's central business district, is satisfied with the final recommendation, said deputy director Danielle de l'Etoile. Why the f'k should I care what the DSP thinks about anything? They have to be one of the most pathetically impotent Downtown Partnerships in the country

De l'Etoile said there's a belief in the business community that two-way streets are generally good for business because they tend to slow traffic.

"It allows them to go a little bit slower, view the shops they're driving by rather than flying by," she said.

Because the recommendation does not include any two-way conversions that involve streets with mostly businesses, Shawn Eldredge, president of the Midtown Business Association Board of Directors, said the city's chosen alternative does not go far enough. Truest statement in the whole article

"It's nowhere near what we spent years studying," he said, adding that he'd like to see more two-way conversions on business-rich streets like J Street.

Early on, the city looked at every one-way street in the central city to identify potential conversions.

J Street, a main business drag that handles large volumes of traffic on three eastbound lanes, was not among the streets identified for study in an environmental review because the city concluded that converting J Street would cause too many problems, Barron said.

While Eldredge said the recommendation falls short of the goal to slow traffic in business zones, he also said the association supports the city's efforts to make the city safer and more pedestrian-friendly by converting streets such as 19th and 21st from three lanes to two.


In the past couple of years, the city reduced L, N, P and Q streets from 15th to 29th to two lanes with bike lanes, improving east-west bicycle activity. Previously, the streets had one-way traffic with three lanes.

Eldredge said the three- to two-lane conversions encourage people to walk, ride bikes and take mass transit, all of which help businesses to thrive. He called those changes a "baby step" in the right direction. Why are we so damn timid in Sacramento?

Aaron Zeff, president of Priority Parking, which recently purchased Harv's Car Wash at 19th and L streets, said L Street seems to be a natural one-way street since it feeds into Business 80 and Interstate 5.

Zeff would prefer two-way traffic on 19th Street to encourage more businesses on that stretch, but he said keeping it a one-way street and reducing it to two lanes would be a good move. Of course, he'd say that. He's only looking out for his little interest. He doesn't give a sh't about the residents of the Central City.

Brian Ballinger, owner of Cervantes Tapas and Italian Bistro on 21st between K and L, said doing business on a one-way street is not easy. "One-way streets are really hard because people go past you really fast," he said.

Amy Sheets, office manager for John Ellis Automotive Repair on 19th, said she doesn't think the three- to two-lane conversion will make a difference for her business.

"What would really make a difference is if they converted it back to two-way," she said.

Sandi Wasserman, owner of Vizcaya on 21st Street, said she doesn't know if changes would impact her business. But she said in 22 years working downtown, she's been frustrated by the number of street conversions -- some back to what they were originally -- and she questions whether the city has a clear picture of the future. Well she's got that right

A final recommendation is expected to go before the City Council as early as February. ????

Thanks for bringing this up!! If anyone knows anything about his do tell, I commute by bike from Midtown to Downtown for work and I've been anxiously waiting for the conversions on 21st and 19th which are desperately needed. It's absolute bullsh*t that these streets have 3 lanes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 6:21 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
What's the problem with one-ways?
The problem with one-ways is that creates ‘speeding corridors’ that hurt most business which front them and destroys pedestrian quality. The argument that they make pedestrians safer is a dubious one. Sure pedestrians are safer with one-ways but that’s because pedestrians cower on the street corners fearing risk of life and limb if they dare try to cross at an un-signaled crosswalk. During the same period that one-ways were being created pedestrian activity decreased and auto dependency increased so ofcourse with less people walking there's going to be fewer accidents. One-ways also force traffic onto side streets and makes drivers go out of their way just to go around the block which increases traffic activity.

Why can’t certain streets, east of 16th Street, like J, I, 21st and 19th be converted to 2/1 streets? (Two lanes going in one direction and one lane going in the opposite direction)

I know that the cyclists (like myself and greenmidtown) want and deserve more bike lanes but I don’t know if J Street is appropriate for them considering the volume of traffic and the possibility of the introduction of a streetcar. I do know that L,N, P and Q streets east of 16th Street need to be converted back into two-ways. 21st and 19th could remain one ways but must be reduced to two auto lanes with bike lanes.

Why not a exclusive Metro Bus System?
The fact that RT buses use one-ways means very little to me. I don’t like those big, noisy buses on our neighborhood streets in the first place! I think there needs to be a smaller more attractive Metro Bus system with that works exclusively within the grid or at the very least in Midtown. I’d like to see quieter more eco-friendly buses that have a cool retro look-maybe something like the old London double-deckers and certianly NOT those corny fake cable car buses! These would be fun to ride and would be used by all classes of people. They'd be used exclusively in Midtown, North End, Southside and Downtown to give the Central City a distinctive, special character and give people a sense that they have arrived in the “city”.

The all-city buses and commuter buses should be confined to downtown or the periphery of Midtown. There needs to be bus (transfer) stations on the grid’s eastern and southern periphery that would force riders to change from suburban buses to Metro buses that are more appropriate for our mixed-use streets. It would also ensure the economic viability of the Metro bus system since it would force suburban riders to use the Metro bus to get to the peripheral stations.

Why is city hall so unresponsive?
The reason I don’t think our present city council structure works well for the people of the Central City is that most if not all of the council members live outside of the Grid. You can’t possibly know the solutions unless you first know the problem. Just hearing a few antidotes by a few curmudgeons and testimony by “traffic experts” who also don’t live with the problems on a daily basis doesn’t qualify them to make the decision. We need to change the district boundaries so that the all of the Central City is within a single council district and is represented by a council member who actually lives inside the grid.
__________________
Wait, what?

Last edited by ozone; Mar 15, 2007 at 6:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 6:40 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,866
Why is it that in most cities like San Francisco, one way streets work fine but
in many of your opinions I have read here, it doe's not work here? There are
plenty of side streets for bikes to use or to maneuver around the central city
at a slower pace. I personally have no problem with one way... I think it's
effective at getting rush hour traffic in and out with out many major back-ups.

This conversion of three lanes to two lanes on N Street has really caused some
backups from 15th street back to 13th or so. There might be others, but this is
one I use to use often, so now use side streets with many others.
So much for traffic calming.

Last edited by innov8; Mar 15, 2007 at 7:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:16 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Why is it that in most cities like San Francisco, one way streets work fine but in many of your opinions I have read here, it doe's not work here?
Who says that they do work well in most cities? And for whom do they work? The commuters? Many residents in other cities have the same problems with one-ways as I do here in Sacramento and that’s why there is a movement around the country to convert them back to two-ways. If you live and walk these streets everyday as I do you’d probably have a different take on the issue. The city is a whole different place when you’re exclusively (or nearly so) on foot or on a bike than behind the wheel.

I agree with you that they are effective at getting rush hour traffic in and out downtown without many back-ups. But is that the sole purpose of these streets? Mixed-use urban grid streets are different than in suburbia where you have separate arterial streets to handle through-way traffic. The grid kind of makes it hard to have pockets of dense urban that are pedestrian-friendly (e.g. NYC's Greenwich Village) so we must to impose measures to force drivers to behave and respect non-drivers and the community they are passing through. Our streets are not just for the convenient use of commuters. They belong to everyone. The problem with the traffic calming measures so far is that it is not part of a comprehensive and effective alternative transportation system and did not include the conversion of one-ways into two-ways in the first place.

Yes I do want to change the way people in Sacramento use our streets. I'm not talking about making the Central City car-less just less-car. Of course, not everyone is going to happy with it. But I think what many people are saying is that they no longer accept the notion that the needs and desires of suburban drivers should always take priority over the needs and desires of the neighborhoods which they are whizing through.

If you don’t like the idea converting one-ways to two-ways what is your solution to the problem? If you don’t see a problem come with me for a day and I’ll show you it.
__________________
Wait, what?

Last edited by ozone; Mar 15, 2007 at 7:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:33 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
I agree with Innov8. We need some one-way streets. I rely on 19th and 21st all the time. In fact, I'll drive several blocks north or south just to get on 19th or 21st if I'm coming from I or J to my house on S. I think it's better for the environment to have cars cruising by at 30 miles per hour for 10 blocks rather than coming to a freakin stop sign at every single interesection. Plus the traffic mess it would cause during rush hour would waste that much more gas and pollute that much more atmosphere because cars are stacked bumper to bumper, needing 15 minutes to get on the freeway.

I think right now we have the perfect mix of one-way streets and two-way streets.

One-thing I will admit though- those fake trolley cars are lame. I think for a very reasonable sum, we could get an efficient bus service in midtown. Maybe, it starts just as a Thur-Sat night thing. Paint them pink or lime or whatever to make them stand out from "regular" RT buses. It's not cool to take a "regular" RT bus from Zocalo's to Ink, but if it's on a whaky midtown bus, people would be more inclined. Make it cheap and safe (put an ass-kicker on every bus if you have to) and make it so there's never more than a five minute wait at one of the many, strategically placed bus stops, and what have you got? A pub crawl on wheels. Once people are familiar with it and begin to trust it as a reliable, efficient means of getting around midtown, expand hours of operation throughout the day/week. It could even be a public/private partnership of some sort.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:41 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Ozone, you're not the only one on this thread that lives in the grid. Many of us do. I walk miles every week in the grid. So do most of the people I know that live midtown, including many on this forum. I have to be honest with you, I have NEVER heard one person that lives in the grid other than you complain about one-way streets. I just don't see the problem and people I know just aren't talking about it, so it must not be a problem in their eyes either.

The city spends too much f#$%ing money playing around with the streets. First it's parallel parking, then it's Diagonal. First it's a four-way stop, then it's a traffic circle. First it's two-way, then it's one-way, then maybe it's two-way again? Add to all this the countless traffic studies, environmental impact reports, lawsuits, etc. It's just nonsense. The streets are fine. Let's work on something else!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:55 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
Judging by all the outlines of bodies i see in SF, I don't think they're a model for pedestrian and bike safety. Their critical mass bicyclists demonstrations are frightening and sometimes violent.

i do think if sacramento wants to maintain a pedestrian friendly environment, while expanding its residential and worker population, the city must clamp down on auto traffic now. But the city also has to provide some service in return. something that meets commuters and residents half-way.

i live on freeport blvd. which is part of a two-way conversion effort that has dragged on for years before i even lived here. i didn't think that the auto traffic would bother me much when i moved here having before lived on H Street downtown where it is one-way, but it is a nightmare. People are terribly irresponsible when they are rushing to work in the morning, and bolting the city when they punch out. I can't even describe it to you - you'd just have to witness it first hand. I'm one who accepts certain facts when living on a traffic artery, but i've scraped many dead pets off the street, seen countless hit and runs, seen regular speeds from 40-70 mph day and night, cars through neighbor's fences, cars have hit a couple houses and also hit trees (another reason to love those trees).

The real problem is that people are assholes in their cars. they don't even behave like their normal selves once inside. it's unfortunate that people are so irresponsible, but they are. if you give a driver two lanes, they use both. if you give them 35 mph, they drive 45. if this city wants to make itself "the most livable city" then they must mitigate the car traffic problems with public transportation, traffic calming streetscaping, and more evenly dispersed routes that move both ways.

Thankfully, the city at least now has control of 160's former routes and can actually decide what's best for them. it seems like some business owners kinda take any bone the city throws and are content - if the midtownies really want a two-way conversion to happen they need to rally up the resident support need to make enough noise. In my opinion 19th and 21st streets should be converted, especially with all the residential growth on those two streets in the past couple years. I think it's better for drivers to use 19th AND 21st, instead of one or the other. But that's my opinion based on experience from Freeport & 21st in Land Park, and H and G Streets downtown.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 7:59 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
If you live and walk these streets everyday as I do you’d probably have a different take on the issue.
I do... going on 9 years now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 8:13 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 brandon12 View Post
The city spends too much f#$%ing money playing around with the streets. First it's parallel parking, then it's Diagonal. First it's a four-way stop, then it's a traffic circle. First it's two-way, then it's one-way, then maybe it's two-way again? Add to all this the countless traffic studies, environmental impact reports, lawsuits, etc. It's just nonsense. The streets are fine. Let's work on something else!
The feds and state were the one's who first changed it, or fucked it up depending on your perspective. My perspective is that the two-ways should not have happened in the first place and i'd like to see them changed back. but it's your neighborhood, and it is up to you.

obviously my neighborhood wanted the change.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 8:23 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon12 View Post
Ozone, you're not the only one on this thread that lives in the grid. Many of us do. I walk miles every week in the grid. So do most of the people I know that live midtown, including many on this forum. I have to be honest with you, I have NEVER heard one person that lives in the grid other than you complain about one-way streets. I just don't see the problem and people I know just aren't talking about it, so it must not be a problem in their eyes either.

The city spends too much f#$%ing money playing around with the streets. First it's parallel parking, then it's Diagonal. First it's a four-way stop, then it's a traffic circle. First it's two-way, then it's one-way, then maybe it's two-way again? Add to all this the countless traffic studies, environmental impact reports, lawsuits, etc. It's just nonsense. The streets are fine. Let's work on something else!
That's too funny. Yeah I'm the only one complaining. Gee it must all be in my head that's why the City has been working on a public-driven central city traffic plan. I have so much power.

I'm sorry brandon but I don't feel it's nonsense at all. It's seems to me that the one's who don't appreciate the need for the conversions are ones that mostly drive and/or do not live on one-way streets.

I have friends who don't see a problem with the one-ways either. But then again they almost always drive everywhere and they aren't very aware of what's going on around them when they do walk around.

I suggest the book "How cities Work" by Alex Marshall. He makes a strong point that the way people get around the city has a lot more to do with what get's built and the quality of life than any zoning, height regulation, etc.

Should we be working on something else? Why can't we work on more than one thing? I'd rather we have an wholstic approach rather than piecemeal one. Obviously, despite your and your friends views there are many others in the Grid who respectfully share a different opinion.
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 8:26 PM
downtownserg89's Avatar
downtownserg89 downtownserg89 is offline
sactown's hitting puberty
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: downtown, Sacramento.
Posts: 371
there are hella one way streets in midtown/downtown. i say convert a few into 2 ways, like the least important ones that people dont rely on to get from point A to point B. and keep the good ones!
__________________
facebook.com/buffslut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 8:49 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
whatever. I wasn't sure, but it sounded like you were trying to suggest that I'm not as "in the know" about urban and/or environmental things. Maybe that's the case, who knows. But I think if you got to know me, you'd see that we probably agree on more than you think.

I just can't stand the though of nothing but 4-way stop signs east of 16th. It just doesn't seem practical to me. But if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:00 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
I didn't mean to suggest that you weren't "in the know" but rather that from the observation of my friends that reason they just don't get what I/we are saying is because they don't experience what I and others do. Since I've been on both sides as a walker/cyclist and a driver I can tell the difference on how I see and experience my environment.

Look I would love it if someone came up with a plan that works for all involved and would make everyone 100% happy and didn't cost anything...but I haven't heard of a viable alternative plan yet.
__________________
Wait, what?

Last edited by ozone; Mar 15, 2007 at 9:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:00 PM
downtownserg89's Avatar
downtownserg89 downtownserg89 is offline
sactown's hitting puberty
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: downtown, Sacramento.
Posts: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I smell a RAT behind all this.
i think anyone who walks on the 700 block would smell rats. they're everywhere!! it's disgusting. someone needs to get rid of them pronto.
__________________
facebook.com/buffslut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2007, 9:16 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtownserg89 View Post
i think anyone who walks on the 700 block would smell rats. they're everywhere!! it's disgusting. someone needs to get rid of them pronto.
I think they're trying to.
__________________
Wait, what?
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 1:09 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.