Downtown/Midtown priorities list

[Majin]

Lets start a dicussion going about what should be the (realistic) priorities focus of the downtown and midtown areas over the new few years. It seems as if the city is a bit unfocused in its goals as of late, as it has been all talk and no action. The only time in the past fear years I have seen the city focused was when the arena was trying to be put downtown. I think it would be a good idea if us fourmers collectively put together some priorities the city should focus on and maybe one of us can present the list we come up with in an upcomming city council meeting or something. I don't like to sit back and watch all this momentum we've built up go down in flames, I think we need to start taking a more active role in the city since our council memebers and mayor IMHO are doing a lackluster job of it.

Anyway, here is my list:

1. Massive streetscape and lighting improvement across downtown and midtown - Ever since moving downtown 2 years ago this has been my major gripe. Too many areas of the city are too un-inviting with broken sidewalks and poor/non-existant lighting.

2. K street appearance overhaul - I know this plan is already in the works but IMHO this needs to happen ASAP since this provides the greatest ROI in anything the city can put money into right now. Making this area more attractive would evetually dispell the "scary" image K street has right now and would bring a lot more people into the area. This would save already existing but stuggling bussiness on K street AND make it more attractive for more potential developers.

3. ED Greyhound on L street - I know this seems a little drastic for being #3 on the priority list but I honestly think Greyhound alone is responsible for holding back potential development for at least a 3 block radius. The amount of liquor stores and SROs in close proximity to Greyhound is a pretty clear indication. The whole area from 9th street to 5th street looks bad because of this.

4. Riverfront improvements and development - This is probably the biggest resouce we have that is going to complete waste. More riverfront development should have happened a long time ago, so this needs to be corrected ASAP.

Ok, go ahead and add your own to this list... but remember to keep it somewhat reasonable.

[sugit]

Good topic, Majin...Off the top of my head...

1) Housing - More people living in downtown would solve many things in itself.

2) Give Mo Mohanna a one way ticket out of town. (AKA K Street between 7th and 8th) - Like Majin said, most peoples perception of DT stems from K Street, esp that area, including the Greyhound...wrong or right. It's going to take having to pay that guy off.

3) Any project that builds synergy from something else already in the area. - Esp mixed use housing - We have too many holes in our city. (No, I'm not talking about holes like at 301CM, even though that sucks too) There too few places in DT/MT were you can walk for many blocks at a time and have multiple dinning, entertainment, and shopping options to chose from without hitting deadspots. Areas like 18th and Cap/L, J Street from 16th on east, ect. This is where projects like East End Gateway are big to me. They build off of exsisting business. Need to contect the dots. So continue to do what we seeing done in that area.

4) Riverfront Development - Ditto what Majin said

5) Street scape and lighting improvement. Majin is right, there are too many areas that are very pedestrian unfriendly and lighting really sucks.

Thing that can wait to me are:
Downtown Plaza: I would rather not see the city dump any money into it until the general economy in downtown improves by the city using that money to attract people to come downtown, get more housing built and remove blight.

[econgrad]

1. People, people, people and more people living downtown! Housing, housing, housing and more housing! Upper-class housing is the biggest need in midtown and downtown. We need to make downtown a desirable place for the wealthy to live, almost none live in DT and MT... (I am talking about the very wealthy). This would improve the economy in the area, and the improvements like street and lighting and everything else will follow....

2. Get rid of the one-way streets.

3. IMHO - Destroy ALL midtown calming project barriers! TOTALLY AND UTTERLY STUPID! (this is really just on my Wish List, but probably won't happen for many years, but eventually the more crowded downtown and midtown get, I believe it will have to happen)

4. More Coffee shops and Cafes that stay open late! Maybe even a 24 hour cafe or coffee shop. Why not? Ink has a large crowd after 2am, as well as Bistro 33, we need more non-alcohol related late night places for poetry, acoustic music, anything for all ages as well as people who want an alternative to bars and clubs....

5. Making the DT and MT area even more bike friendly, and pedestrian friendly. I think we could use more signs and visible paths for peds and bikes, especially signs that tell drivers that people have the right of way when crossing the crosswalks. I see people almost risking their lives crossing streets like J street and none of the cars (day or night) stop for them. Maybe we need some law enforcement to do something...

My 2 and 1/2 cents....

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by econgrad

1. People, people, people and more people living downtown! Housing, housing, housing and more housing! Upper-class housing is the biggest need in midtown and downtown. We need to make downtown a desirable place for the wealthy to live, almost none live in DT and MT... (I am talking about the very wealthy). This would improve the economy in the area, and the improvements like street and lighting and everything else will follow....

2. Get rid of the one-way streets.

3. IMHO - Destroy ALL midtown calming project barriers! TOTALLY AND UTTERLY STUPID! (this is really just on my Wish List, but probably won't happen for many years, but eventually the more crowded downtown and midtown get, I believe it will have to happen)

4. More Coffee shops and Cafes that stay open late! Maybe even a 24 hour cafe or coffee shop. Why not? Ink has a large crowd after 2am, as well as Bistro 33, we need more non-alcohol related late night places for poetry, acoustic music, anything for all ages as well as people who want an alternative to bars and clubs....

5. Making the DT and MT area even more bike friendly, and pedestrian friendly. I think we could use more signs and visible paths for peds and bikes, especially signs that tell drivers that people have the right of way when crossing the crosswalks. I see people almost risking their lives crossing streets like J street and none of the cars (day or night) stop for them. Maybe we need some law enforcement to do something...

My 2 and 1/2 cents....

1.) Umm, the "very" wealthy want privacy...yet youre asking for more and more people to move into DT/MT...pick which one you want, you wont have both in sacramento...

2.) get rid of one ways? i guess you want more traffic congestion on J street

3.) get rid of "calming barriers"? sounds like you want downtown living, EVERYWHERE...stupid

4.) upper-class housing is the biggest need in DT? yet you want non alcoholic places with poetry and acoustic music...you do know it would not be the "upper class" who would be frequenting those establishments, right?...I've been in places like those in San Francisco...I've yet to see any "upper class" individual go up to the mic and start spewing shakespere-style poetry...seen alot of trader joe hippy types however

5.) the only view i agree with you is about making it more pedestrian friendly....

[innov8]

My Top Three Downtown/Midtown Priorities List

1) K Street. Get rid of the cancer that is Mo and the City also needs to
follow through on the "beautification" project. At this point (after paying off
Mo) all the City can do is wait and get the ball rolling for when the next
development wave hits K Street.

2) Riverfront Development… a huge undeveloped area that if done right, will
create a huge through-fair and destination for everybody to enjoy.

3) Housing for the rich and middleclass. More people with more disposable
incomes help everyone. Retail usually doe’s not get built unless people are
living in the area first. All these high-end retail stores that are being built in
Roseville and around are being built because people with money already live
near by. To deny that the central city needs more people with lots money is nuts.

kryptos, once again you fail to bring anything to the table except to slam
other peoples ideas. What are your mind blowing ideas that the city can't move forward without?

[ozone]

If we want to encourage people to live downtown and midtown we have to improve the quality of life and amenities. Improving how people get around downtown and midtown will do more than anything else IMO. Plus its one of those things the city can and should deal with.

Here’s my list:

1. Reconnect the riverfront with the rest of the city by replacing a section of I-5 (say between Richards and T Street) with a tree-lined European-style surface boulevard (ala The Embarcadero). That would require building an I-5 freeway bypass along the western edge of West Sacramento (as proposed by Caltrans). This bypass would take all that thru-traffic out of the way of downtown commuters, provide better access for West Sacramento and the Port, and free up a lot of valuable land downtown for development, not to mention greatly improve Old Sacramento. Right now local commuter traffic is mixed with long-haul traffic creating congestion and unsafe driving conditions. A bypass would separate the two –thereby reducing congestion.

For those who insist that it would create a traffic nightmare – they should take a look at what’s happened in other cities. The doomsayers have all been proven wrong.

The rest of the existing freeway (north and south of the boulevard) would remain intact as a commuter highway with the boulevard dispersing that traffic over the grid as opposed to today where all the traffic is funneled into a few on/off ramps. With a boulevard connected to the street grid the driver will have more options as to which streets to use to get onto the boulevard and freeways. So while the boulevard will certainly see peak congestion, there will be less back-up on existing city streets.

Running I-5 through downtown was a mistake (almost everyone agrees on that). How long are we going to wait to rectify this error? A little deck or cut-and-cover procedures will not really solve the traffic problem and is much too costly anyway.

2. Create a reliable transportation system so people do not need to use their cars around downtown and midtown. Along with a streetcar line there needs to be a grid-specific "metro bus" system that has short circuits (only within the grid) so passengers will only have to wait a max of 10 min for a bus and walk only a block to catch a return bus. These metro buses should have signal priority and wherever possible their own dedicated lanes. Passengers need to prepay or have a RT ‘metro card’ to make boarding easy and quick. The buses themselves needs to be smaller the standard bus in order to merge into traffic easier and be compatible with midtown neighborhoods. They should have a design/color that is unique so that people understand they are ‘in the city’ when they see these buses. People of all classes need to feel comfortable riding them. All the bus stops need to be attractive shelters (maybe even with aircon and heating). The metro buses need connect OS/Downtown with Midtown (to Sutter Fort/Alhambra) and cross-town to the Tower District and should also use the existing O and K transit malls.

Along with the metro buses we need to create a few commuter bus “interchanges” next to the light-rail stations (on the periphery of the grid). These interchanges would be terminals where suburban and regional buses will be forced to unload their passengers so they will have to transfer to a metro bus or light-rail. (This has been done in other cities quite successfully –although not in the US to my knowledge). Passengers could use single card so they just get off one bus and board another. The advantage of this would be to keep all those big, noisy buses off city streets, keep them from disrupting city traffic and causing congestion, and economically support the metro bus and light-rail systems.

3. Make streetscape improvements to the R Street corridor in order to encourage investment rather than waiting and relying on developers to pay for the improvements. It’s part of marketing the corridor to future investors –curb appeal.

4. Build a series of pedestrian overpasses over the railroad tracks between 19th and 20th streets. Overpasses aren’t great but it beats waiting in the rain or hot sun for the train to pass. Plus a lot of people take unnecessary risks to ‘beat the train’. Auto underpasses would be nice –but are very costly and require too much land.

5. Build a streetcar line that services Sacramento as well as WeSac. The streetcar should use existing rails wherever possible to cut costs. A line should run down the K Street Mall to the Depot/Railyards, then into Old Sacramento, along the riverfront, over the unused RR bridge (across I-5) and down the R Street corridor. Somewhere it needs to cross West Midtown to reconnect but I’m not sure where that should be.

6. Walking is the cheapest, most eco-friendly form of transportation. I was struck the other day when the weather was cool and sunny how many people were out walking –K Street was actually crowded. In a climate like ours, with most people used to central AC/heat, people just can’t (or won’t) tolerant extremes in temps. If we want more people out walking we need to protect then from the hot sun and rain. We need a lot more covered sidewalks. They could be in the form of urban pergolas covered in vines that still allow air and light in -but there’s a ton of relatively inexpensive and attractive ways to cover sidewalks (including retractable panels). We could also require arcades built into new projects or at least require the sidewalks in front be covered. The added expense will more than be made up with increased foot traffic.

As for…
For those calling for destroying ALL midtown calming project barriers I think you should understand that the people of those neighborhoods petitioned the city for them so it's not up to outsiders to remove them. Actually these barriers have done their job well. You just might not remember what it was like before. It seems a lot of people STILL do not see the relationship between traffic calming and making an area more bike and pedestrian friendly.

And..
Not a lot of "upper class" folks are going to live in downtown Sacramento. It's just a fact that if you have the money to live anywhere.. you probably won’t want to end up in downtown Sacramento. Despite the few wealthy folks here, Sacramento is a solidly middle-class town (I'm including lower and upper middle class) and that's not going to change anything soon. Even so, the Middle Classes has enough of range of incomes and lifestyles to make DT/MT a very vibrant and healthy place to live. We all can agree that the central city needs more housing and we have the space –let’s get building!

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by kryptos

1.) Umm, the "very" wealthy want privacy...yet youre asking for more and more people to move into DT/MT...pick which one you want, you wont have both in sacramento...

2.) get rid of one ways? i guess you want more traffic congestion on J street

3.) get rid of "calming barriers"? sounds like you want downtown living, EVERYWHERE...stupid

4.) upper-class housing is the biggest need in DT? yet you want non alcoholic places with poetry and acoustic music...you do know it would not be the "upper class" who would be frequenting those establishments, right?...I've been in places like those in San Francisco...I've yet to see any "upper class" individual go up to the mic and start spewing shakespere-style poetry...seen alot of trader joe hippy types however

5.) the only view i agree with you is about making it more pedestrian friendly....

If you look at the most vibrant inner-cities, it is vibrant because of wealth. How can you generalize all wanting privacy? Educate yourself and look up how many millionaires, billionaires, and celebrities, live in inner-cities like Manhattan, SF, Portland, Austin, Nashville, London, Chicago, San Diego..I can go on and on...it may surprise you.
2 - Having a 2 way street does not lead to more congestion, not having enough roadways does.
3 - Your sentence does not make sense..explain yourself stupid!

LOL! This is a waste of time to respond to you. Your arguing with my quick postings just for the sake of arguing . There is room for everyone DT, and it is simple economics: The more wealth in an area, the better the overall standards of living will be. We all want a vibrant DT. To do that we need to allow developers to cater to the wealthy in turn creating a community all would care more about. Oh, wait! This is what the city and developers are all ready doing with the new pricey condos and wine bars and higher priced apartments...glad some people in charge know what they are doing.

Ozone: I understand that the calming project has lessoned the traffic for the home-owners in the areas, but as DT becomes more crowded, they will have to go because there will be too much congestion. I also believe it is fundamentally wrong to use tax payer money to improve the property values for these landlords that own most of the housing in those areas, but thats another discussion.
None of us have any facts or studies or anything showing that wealthy people do not want to live in DT or MT Sacramento, where are you guys getting all of this? I have no stats, studies or facts either to prove or disprove either way, all I know is when I am out and about at some of the new "high end" places, I have met maybe 6 or 7 (not a lot I know) people who we can consider to be very wealthy, stating they would like to live in DT but there is nothing they would want to buy or rent and that they really wished Aura and the Towers would have been built already, or more developments like that to cater to them. So I figured if I am encountering people with that view, there may be more.

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by innov8

kryptos, once again you fail to bring anything to the table except to slam
other peoples ideas. What are your mind blowing ideas that the city can't move forward without?

Im sorry, innov8, but i am realist....im not slamming others ideas, its merely meant for them to take a realistic look at what is really going on...

we can all say what we do if we were planning the city and all the trimmings, but were not, and were not in any authority or power to remake the city as we wish...everything that we want costs money, and there is no bottomless bank account for this....

Majin said "realistic"...and i was sticking to that

that said, i was merely reacting to what econgrad had proposed...


now you want my ideas? theyre not mind blowing...theyre simple

1.) put the gang task force on k-street/down plaza to get rid of the bangers that frequent the area

2.) close down all liquor stores or cigarette stores in the downtown area, and ban all "retail" sales of alcohol in downtown, and institute a city-wide ban on any sales of malt liquor

3.) outlaw panhandling in the downtown area

4.) seize and sell the vehicles of anyone streetracing or doing sideshow stunts in the downtown / old town area

5.) create a state law creating a "capitol district", which encompasses downtown, enhancing crimes commited in the district such as prostitution or drug dealing to automatic felonies with automatic prison sentences

Ideas for a better downtown cannot simply be cosmetic...
but here are a few cosmetic ideas:

1.) make it city law that any building over 15 stories have some type of attractive lighting effect (not just blinking red lights), giving the city a more vibrant, welcoming feel at night

2.) build new art sculptures, clocks and fountains in various places throughout DT

3.) build technology, science & world history museums run and owned by the state, as well as a state aquarium and botanical garden

4.) replace all street lamps in DT and OT with more decorative ones that allow flowers and flags to be hung from them

5.) Deck I-5 and build an area "embarcadero stlye" as ozone had suggested

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by kryptos

1.) put the gang task force on k-street/down plaza to get rid of the bangers that frequent the area
THIS IS A GREAT IDEA! But the area may be looked at as too small to concentrate enforcement...

2.) close down all liquor stores or cigarette stores in the downtown area, and ban all "retail" sales of alcohol in downtown, and institute a city-wide ban on any sales of malt liquor
NEVER WILL HAPPEN, NOT REALISTIC and the city will lose money on taxes...

3.) outlaw panhandling in the downtown area
GOOD IDEA, BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE, and too costly to enforce as well...more serious crimes that need attention.

4.) seize and sell the vehicles of anyone streetracing or doing sideshow stunts in the downtown / old town area
THIS CAN BE APPLIED TO ALL AREAS, actually I think it already is...


5.) create a state law creating a "capitol district", which encompasses downtown, enhancing crimes commited in the district such as prostitution or drug dealing to automatic felonies with automatic prison sentences
Good Intentions, but un-enforceable and might be unconstitutional, law enforcement would probably not want to enforce areas differently for the same crimes

Ideas for a better downtown cannot simply be cosmetic...
but here are a few cosmetic ideas:
True

1.) make it city law that any building over 15 stories have some type of attractive lighting effect (not just blinking red lights), giving the city a more vibrant, welcoming feel at night
I Like it...

2.) build new art sculptures, clocks and fountains in various places throughout DT
I agree!

3.) build technology, science & world history museums run and owned by the state, as well as a state aquarium and botanical garden
Cool! May I ask why the State running it over the city?

4.) replace all street lamps in DT and OT with more decorative ones that allow flowers and flags to be hung from them
Meh...

5.) Deck I-5 and build an area "embarcadero stlye" as ozone had suggested

Totally cool!

Most of your opinions would improve the city true, I am just trying to think of some of the reasons that opposers would come up with...

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by econgrad

Totally cool!

Most of your opinions would improve the city true, I am just trying to think of some of the reasons that opposers would come up with...

in regards to gang enforcement, the gang task force always concentrates on problem areas, be they big or small...such as the crackdown on the gangs on G-Parkway in South Sacramento..so putting a member of the probation dept, the parole dept and a couple gang officers patrolling the k-street area i believe would make an impact...

in regards to the booze ban, i agree it probably wouldnt happen, but getting rid of liquor only stores would get rid of the winos that congregate nearby...besides, liquor stores and cigarette stores are staples of ghetto strip malls...

an anti-panhandling law would be hard to enforce, but not impossible...a small mixed agency law enforcement task force for dealing with panhandlers/homeless in the DT area and imposing a midnight curfew on all city and state park property in the DT area i think would be worth a shot, as well as directing the less fortunate towards job/shelter programs

about the street racing/sideshow activities, the law is only an "impounding" of the suspect vehicle for 30 days...i think if youre dumb enough to do this crap in downtown (if anyone was at mardi gras a few years ago in old town would know what im talking about), then you should lose your car and your license...

in regards to a crime zone, it already exists near schools...if you do illegal activities near any school, you get a much harsher sentence..same thing basically, and totally constitutional...it takes a new state law however

about why id prefer the state running certain projects over the city, mainly it has to do with promotion...it will be more known if its a "state" facility...
another idea was taking the all the collected parks along the american river from discovery park to folsom lake and turn it into one large state park...again, statewide promotion

additionally, id suggest closing down the main jail in downtown, bulldozing it, and building additional bedspace at the south county jail facility in Elk Grove...the end result, more land to build on, and no more fresh out of jail crooks roaming the DT area

quite a bit of what i submit has to do with quality of life issues...in my mind, you can repaint every house in oak park and clear the trash, but that doesnt mean the drug dealers wont shoot up the streets...cosmetic overhalls are pretty, but its not dealing with the underlying problems...the place got ugly on purpose, not by accident...so remove the element, and then spruce it up...

[econgrad]

Good points.

[wburg]

Here's my list...you certainly won't be surprised by the first one.

1) Strong historic preservation ordinances which provide a "carrot" in the form of tax incentives, via the Mills Act, for property owners who utilize existing historic structures, utilizing Secretary of Interior standards for restoration, and a "stick" in the form of fines for property owners who do not maintain historic structures to minimum maintenance standards (call it "Mohanna's Law.") Measures like this are used by cities like Los Angeles to maintain its threatened historic neighborhoods, and have revitalized many such neighborhoods (like the area around USC) and the same lessons can be applied here.

2. We need a downtown city police substation. While there are other law-enforcement bodies downtown, like the sheriff's office and CHP around the capitol, the city is the city police's purview, and lacking a downtown office makes downtown policing more difficult.
Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong areas but I don't remember the last time I saw a prostitute downtown, or someone who was obviously a drug dealer. I'm sure it exists, but if it does it's just very low-key. Not that we don't have problems: I'd love to see more of the drunk idiots drunk-driving back from Harlow's and other downtown nightspots get popped for DUI, for example, which might deter them from either driving drunk or coming downtown at all, either of which I can live with.

3. More housing of ALL income levels: some for the rich, some for the poor, and some in between, but it should add up to quite a bit. Ideally, the housing should be marketed to people who work downtown, in order to minimize commuter traffic. This means building housing for the execs in the tall buildings, the stateworkers in the medium-sized buildings, and the low-wage workers at the Quizno's. Build this housing on existing vacant lots and parking lots: sizes should vary to single-lot structures a couple stories tall to city-block sized as spaces permit. Quite a bit should be tall, especially in new development areas like the Docks and the Railyards, while development in existing neighborhoods should more appropriately reflect the neighborhoods.

4. Streetcar! A good streetcar system is better than a bunch of shuttle buses. People just like streetcars better, and while initial investment is higher, streetcars are cheaper to operate in the long run than shuttle buses. Use of existing rail lines doesn't actually save any money and causes more problems than it solves: UP doesn't like to share their track with anyone, the track in Old Sacramento is used by the Railroad Museum and isn't available, and the track along the R Street railroad bridge is already gone and would have to be relaid anyhow. Using modern low-profile methods, laying streetcar track costs about a third as much as light-rail track and only has to dig about a foot down: no rerouting utilities and stumbling across prehistoric sites like LRV projects.

5. State-run museums are nice, but State Parks is already spread pretty thin, and despite the general assumptions to the contrary the state doesn't have gobs of money it can hose onto things like museums whenever it wants to. There are plans for things like the Railroad Technology Museum in the Railyards, which will make us the home of *the* best railroad museum in the country (we already have one of the best) as well as a good social/labor history museum and potentially a great site for vocational education and training. I'm all for museums (want to work at one someday) but I also like the idea of being able to interact directly with history within the city, by making use of existing historic structures--not necessarily by turning them into museums, but through adaptive reuse. I'd also like to see parts of the city's history other than the 1836-1869 period (the era of Sutter's Fort, the Gold Rush and the Transcontinental Railroad) given some promotion too. Interpretive signage throughout town, and businesses capitalizing on local history in places other than Old Sacramento, would be good low-cost (or even potentially profit-enhancing) ways to do this.

6. Housing-first homeless programs to reduce or eliminate chronic homelessness in the central city. I just got back from Chicago, and while on the train back I got a copy of Denver's newspaper. They started a "housing first" homeless program, and the cost savings to city services (like jails, emergency rooms, treatment center and detox visits) was so dramatic that they are building 200 more housing units with the savings that would have gone to these emergency services. And the people in these programs are now HOUSED, not sleeping on the streets.

7. More late-night businesses! This should include all sorts of businesses: restaurants and cafes, live music and dance venues, retail shops. And yes, things like open mics and poetry jams attract middle-class and working-class creative people, artists, musicians, poets, and assorted hipsters--BUT THESE PEOPLE ATTRACT RICH PEOPLE! Rich people like being around these hipsters, and will appear wherever hipsters congregate, trying to absorb some of the hipster vibe and pretending that they are edgy artists living in a garret instead of dull stockbrokers living in an overpriced faux-loft.

[ozone]

wburg I like a lot of your ideas. However, your blanket dismissal of using the riverfront tracks just because they are used by the CSRRM seems tad closed-minded. I'm sure if the city wanted to use these tracks then something could be negotiated. I would love to see the old Central passenger station in Old Sacramento (home of the failed public market) become a real working passenger station again and not just used for a weekend novelty train. I also never suggested that the UP tracks be used. I said the light rail tracks -which the old streetcars have already ran on.

Honestly I do not see how using the existing tracks would cost more and cause more problems. You never explained yourself. But you are talking about a modern tram and I'm talking about historic streetcars so maybe that's the problem. I'm not at all happy with the WeSac proposal and judging from some of the other blogs/forums it seems like runing the tracks down the capitol mall is not a popular idea with many others either. Also I'm really into 'connecting-the-dots' -linking together Old Sacramento, the Railyards/Depot, K Street (capital and convention), and the emerging R Street Corridor.

[wburg]

The Central Pacific Passenger Station isn't used for the weekend novelty train, it is a museum/interpretive display area, and it is used to store Museum equipment as well as operating rolling stock and motive power. Sacramento Southern trains load and offload at the freight station slightly to the south of the passenger station. Currently, CSRM plans to open up the freight station buildings (removing what is sometimes known as the "Joe Serna Memorial Garage Door Museum") to make the trains more visible and draw more passengers to SSRR.

Neither the CP freight station or the adjacent passenger station are actual historic structures, both are reproductions from the 1970s.

Why electrifying Sacramento Southern right-of-way is not such a good idea: for starters, current operations include passenger tourist trains and freight operations (Sac Southern delivers regular interchange of wood from Union Pacific's territory via the Shops to Setzer Forest Products, about 4-6 cars a week.) The road is not a "private tourist train" but a working railroad, operating under FRA jurisdiction and rules. Trying to splice an electric streetcar line with 10-15 minute headways would play havoc with existing schedules.

Other reasons why it isn't a good idea: SSRR trackage is ballasted roadbed maintained to freight railroad standards (low speeds, heavy-weight equipment) and streetcars wouldn't take well to that environment, so you'd have to re-lay the track anyhow--but instead of the lightweight low-profile trackage you'd also need to make it capable of handling heavy freight equipment, which costs a lot more--you can make track smooth and light, or rough and heavy, cheaply, but making it both smooth and heavy is expensive. In addition, a lot of the places where you mention a potential route (across the I-5 bridge and down R Street don't currently have track, so there would be no savings from putting track there vs. putting it anywhere else. One other thing to consider is that the I-5 R Street bridge is only wide enough for a single track, and streetcar lines generally should be double-tracked. This means you'd have to either build a new, wider bridge (expensive) or set up a signal/traffic scheme to allow for a traffic bottleneck (less expensive but more complex.)

Running electrics over SSRR saves *NO* money. You'd have to replace the tracks anyhow, plus you still have to construct overhead poles and wire and substations--plus you get several layers of hassle and complexity, all of which would be avoided by making use of public right-of-way along Front Street. Running over the R Street bridge and down R makes sense from a "places the line should go" perspective, but it doesn't save any money.

So, where should the tracks go? The current concept for the streetcar line was based on public surveys indicating where people would want to go on a streetcar in downtown and in west sacramento. It is also intended as a first phase of a multi-phased system, like the one in Portland, which started as a short proof-of-concept line and expanded over time. Certainly, the line should go farther than the initial 5-mile run--it just won't start out that way. And part of why a line down M Street/Capitol Avenue makes sense is so the trains *can* use existing LRV tracks through the K Street Mall--there's your cost savings!

Where do I think it should go? Once the initial run gets done (and I think its placement is just fine, as a starter segment) it should head south from Front and M, connect to Front Street (probably by looping north around the parking structure and then under the I-5 bridge, or by a bridging structure that turns right past Embassy Suites) and follow Front to Broadway, then turn west and go over a Broadway bridge into West Sacramento. In addition to providing just the sort of services you're looking for, there is also an added bonus for the history nuts: ELECTRIC TRAINS RAN DOWN FRONT STREET UNTIL 1951. Sacramento Northern's industrial belt line turned south from Front and M. Their passenger interurbans headed down M Street to 8th, but freight trains headed south on Front, turned east on X Street, north up Alhambra and then west on C Street to meet up with the passenger mainline next to Blue Diamond at 18th and C.

Incidentally, it doesn't really matter, for purposes of these problems, whether the line uses modern, historic or replica streetcars. They are common factors no matter which type of car is used, because they all operate under the same basic principles and conditions. I'm hoping for the replicas (they're cheap, ADA compliant, air conditioned, and closely resemble our old cars) and maybe a couple of restored historic cars (but those aren't easy to come by) but I could live with modern equipment too.

[ozone]

OK OK I have to take your word for it since you are the expert on this subject. Bummer. Oh well put that damn thing wherever the people in the know think it should go -just like their brilliant idea to put the light rail down K Street. I love love love love it.

[wburg]

ozone: Your heart is in the right place about the idea of expanding the streetcar system, and it is obvious that you see its utility. Unfortunately quite often things that seem like they would be logical and simple (like running streetcars where there are already rails) aren't quite so simple once the details come out.

Where the streetcar plans to run has a lot to do with who plans to support it. Why is half of the starter system in West Sacramento? Because West Sacramento, and Yolo County, are very motivated to support this system. Why is the other half downtown? Because that seems to be where lots of trip-generating destinations are right now. One of the basic ideas of streetcar system design is putting one end where people go now, and the other end where you'd like them to go later once it gets built.

About light rail on K Street: Putting streetcars on K Street was a great idea when R.S. Carey first did it in the 1870s, and it was a great idea through the first half of the 20th century. Putting streetcars on K Street is still a good idea, but unfortunately Light Rail Vehicles aren't streetcars: they are more like interurban trains. And, during the interurban era, interurbans ran tangent to K Street on 8th Street.

The current plan proposes to put streetcars--smaller, less obtrusive and more pedestrian oriented--back on K Street. Getting the LRVs off is a far more complex process, but it's one that could feasibly be done if, for example, the "D-N-A" line turned left up Richards and connected with the existing Blue Line at 12th Street/Hwy 160, and the territory from Alkali Flat to St. Rose of Lima Park made into streetcar territory.

[ozone]

wburg believe me I will defer to your knowledge on this one. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject. I guess I just wished Sacramento was as agressively pursuing the streetcar as WeSac was.

How likely is the DNA-Richards-12th Street to happen in your opinion? Doesn't it hve to come into the Depot first? How about just runing down H or J to 12th? I agree that the light rail on K St Mall is a bit overwhelming to the street.

Also I read somewhere that Sacramento is one of the few places that LRV are allowed to block intersections. Is that true and why?

[wburg]

Sacramento is an active partner in the streetcar line, but it really, really helps to have West Sacramento as the other partner. West Sacramento is really "the other midtown" in terms of proximity and accessibility, and having a car line to West Sac will be a positive benefit for Sacramento as well as for West Sac. It's called synergy--the result is more than the sum of its parts.

Re DNA-12th-Richards: It's just a pet theory of mine, I have no idea if RT is even considering it. Light Rail already comes to the Depot, the end of the Gold Line is right in front of the passenger shelters next to the tracks. But yes, the main line would have to progress north up Seventh Street through the railyards and then north to Richards. I'm not even sure such a scheme would be practical, and in a way I'm pretty used to LRVs on K Street after twenty years so I'm not really hell-bent on their removal.

I don't know about LRVs, but Chicago's "Metra" commuter system (using bi-level coaches and pusher diesel-electrics) blocks intersections except where the track is elevated above grade--and since most of the Metra trains run during peak hours, they're blocking traffic when traffic is heaviest. RT's LRVs only block intersections in a handful of places, and then only during peak hours when they are running four-car trains. Metra's peak-hour trains are 10-11 cars plus a diesel pusher: about 900 feet! Four Siemens or CAF LRVs are 320 feet, about the length of a Sacramento city block.

[Cynikal]

Originally Posted by wburg

Here's my list...you certainly won't be surprised by the first one.



2. We need a downtown city police substation. While there are other law-enforcement bodies downtown, like the sheriff's office and CHP around the capitol, the city is the city police's purview, and lacking a downtown office makes downtown policing more difficult.
Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong areas but I don't remember the last time I saw a prostitute downtown, or someone who was obviously a drug dealer. I'm sure it exists, but if it does it's just very low-key. Not that we don't have problems: I'd love to see more of the drunk idiots drunk-driving back from Harlow's and other downtown nightspots get popped for DUI, for example, which might deter them from either driving drunk or coming downtown at all, either of which I can live with.

This is coming. PD and Development Services are relocating to 300 Richards Blvd early next year. Not quite downtown but close enough for your point.

Originally Posted by wburg

3. More housing of ALL income levels: some for the rich, some for the poor, and some in between, but it should add up to quite a bit. Ideally, the housing should be marketed to people who work downtown, in order to minimize commuter traffic. This means building housing for the execs in the tall buildings, the stateworkers in the medium-sized buildings, and the low-wage workers at the Quizno's. Build this housing on existing vacant lots and parking lots: sizes should vary to single-lot structures a couple stories tall to city-block sized as spaces permit. Quite a bit should be tall, especially in new development areas like the Docks and the Railyards, while development in existing neighborhoods should more appropriately reflect the neighborhoods.

Amen brother (see sig)

Originally Posted by wburg

6. Housing-first homeless programs to reduce or eliminate chronic homelessness in the central city. I just got back from Chicago, and while on the train back I got a copy of Denver's newspaper. They started a "housing first" homeless program, and the cost savings to city services (like jails, emergency rooms, treatment center and detox visits) was so dramatic that they are building 200 more housing units with the savings that would have gone to these emergency services. And the people in these programs are now HOUSED, not sleeping on the streets.

Another good idea and a possible model for a program here.

Originally Posted by wburg

7. More late-night businesses! This should include all sorts of businesses: restaurants and cafes, live music and dance venues, retail shops. And yes, things like open mics and poetry jams attract middle-class and working-class creative people, artists, musicians, poets, and assorted hipsters--BUT THESE PEOPLE ATTRACT RICH PEOPLE! Rich people like being around these hipsters, and will appear wherever hipsters congregate, trying to absorb some of the hipster vibe and pretending that they are edgy artists living in a garret instead of dull stockbrokers living in an overpriced faux-loft.

I've been screaming this for the last 10 years after I moved back from Seattle. It drove me nuts that the city shut down at 9. Nice to see some changes in this area.

[ozone]

It's all well and good to say we need things like housing and late-night eats....I mean who doesn't want that? But instead of trying to find out "why" we don't have that we just bemoan the fact and hope and pray for change. Most Sacramentans I've talked don't have any home-grown solutions. If they do come up with an idea you can be sure they stole it from another city (usually Portland, Seattle or Vancouver) and they think in doing so they're being so worldly and knowledgeable. Hey if it works there it's gotta work here..right? Well..not always. There's a lot a lazy people who don't bother to understand why something works and instead just want to replicate the form without bothering to understand it's function.

Some of my ideas are looney to be sure. Sometimes I just throw out ideas so people will find the flaws in them. That's one way to come up with ideas that will work. I'm not interested in showing others how knowledgeable I am. I've met too many people who are so sure of themselves only to be proven quite wrong. I'm much more interested in finding solutions. One way for me is to start a proactive community group. We just finished a survey of Old Sacramento. The survey was able to tell us what people really feel about Old Sacramento, who shops and eats where and why, who does what, etc.. It was an extensive survey over an extended period with carefully worded questions to help us determine what changes would really help.

Does it really matter what our priorities are? Not if it's just an intellectual exercise. We need people to take action.