Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SacRising

I agree that the streetcar should be built in Midtown and Downtown, but my point is that W. Sac cannot be overlooked, especially since they are the primary driver behind the streetcar effot. How arrogant to say to W.Sac, 'gee, thanks for championing this streetcar campaign, we'll talk after the Midtown line is complete.'

Sacramento's effort to put streetcars back on city streets actually began 15+ years or so ago. So saying that West Sacramento is championing the idea of streetcars, is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think anyone is overlooking West Sacramento. But currently it would be impractical to build a line on the west side of the river, because the Triangle is still 20-25 years from build out, I'm guessing. (at least)...

Whereas Midtown and Downtown already have a combined population of approximately 35,000.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by innov8

I’d have to agree with ozone, urban E, and TD on this streetcar matter. Sure,
W.Sac wants the streetcars, but right now the city doe’s not have enough
population or business for that matter along the riverfront or the triangle
area to support the streetcars with paying customers.

Beyond the Irontriangle development, CalSTRS and the town homes at the
intersection of where the I Street bridge enters W. Sac, … there’s not much
happening in the area, just a lot of proposals.

Mid-town and downtown Sacramento has a population, enterainment, and an
employment force that can sustain a streetcar system… W. Sac doe’s not.
I think W. Sac should have plan in place for streetcars, but I don’t think at
this time the money should be spent to extend the system over the river.
Now, if the City of W. Sac can subsidize the system on their side of the river
while they are waiting for the development and population to catch up, then
they should be part of the first phase of the plan.

Well said, innov8! I agree with you.

[foxmtbr]

Originally Posted by innov8

HA! Well remember that in Rancho Cordova six floors is considered a high-rise

Oh, you ruined my moment of fun...

[joninsac]

Originally Posted by SacRising

But do any of the Sactown locals remember the smokin' hot weather girl at KCRA, Angela Buchman?

I sure do remember her. I was heartbroken when she moved to Indiana.

[SacRising]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Sacramento's effort to put streetcars back on city streets actually began 15+ years or so ago. So saying that West Sacramento is championing the idea of streetcars, is a bit of a stretch.

I don't think anyone is overlooking West Sacramento. But currently it would be impractical to build a line on the west side of the river, because the Triangle is still 20-25 years from build out, I'm guessing. (at least)...

Whereas Midtown and Downtown already have a combined population of approximately 35,000.

man, what is it about track alignments that gets us going? this is starting to sound like the HSR debate. build the thing in midtown/downtown, w.sac, east sac, i don't really care, just build the damn thing. it might be as likely as the HSR, though.

[Nawlijispower]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Bob Shallit: High-rise condos with 'waterfront' view
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

Venice by the freeway? Not exactly. But land use consultant Brian Cooley is working on a project along Highway 50 that could sprout nearly 1,000 high-rise condos and retail shops -- all situated near an existing canal.

The proposal is the second for the property, former site of the Mine Shaft Family Fun Center, which sits parallel to the busy freeway between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue.

Auto repo magnate Patrick Willis acquired the land in 2002 and initially planned to partially restore the amusement park and use the rest for auto sales and a call center.


Talks with county and Regional Transit officials led to a change in plans for the banana-shaped parcel that backs up to the Folsom South Canal, which carries water from the American River.

Why high-rises? Given the narrow footprint of the property, "the only way to put high-density (housing) there was to go up," Cooley says.

He reports that the multi-tower project has been well-received by RT, which is considering putting a light rail station nearby. County staffers also like the idea.

"We try to encourage intense development around light-rail stations. I think our office would be supportive of this type of project," says Jeff Gamel, a Sacramento County senior planner.

Its first big test comes in a month or two, when the developer goes before the Board of Supervisors seeking designation as a "special plan area" that would exempt it from some local zoning requirements.

If that goes well, the developers will seek more detailed designs from Nadel Architects and begin what could be a decadelong building process.

Cooley sees the housing appealing to people who want access to the bike trail, Lake Natoma and eventual light rail. It also dovetails with plans being developed by Aerojet for a massive housing and retail complex -- called Westborough -- to the southeast.

What about the current housing slump?

Not a worry, Cooley says. "We won't be having housing (coming on line) until 2011 or 2012," he says. "By then, who knows what the market will look like?"

* * *

I think that article said something about the buildings being 12 floors.

[NewToCA]

Regarding the light rail/streetcar discussion...why not go with something that doesn't require tracks, at least in the short run? Couldn't a system with smaller buses give more coverage (more streets) and better flexibility? Couldn't this be set up at much lower cost, and still provide the option for light rail/steetcars when more economically viable?

[brandon12]

^you're right, like a fake cable car on wheels. It would be way cheaper and get the job done until the money was there to put in a proper trolley-car system.

[goldcntry]

Originally Posted by brandon12

^you're right, like a fake cable car on wheels. It would be way cheaper and get the job done until the money was there to put in a proper trolley-car system.

Actually, we already have a few fake cable cars that do run around downtown. I know that they connect downtown to old sac as well as between the Zig and downtown. They also add drop-offs to the River Cats (in season). I'm not sure on how far into midtown they get.

[NewToCA]

I've seen this set up with "cute" small buses throughout downtown Cleveland, OH and Atlantic City, NJ.

It seemed pretty effective in shuttling around folks without the infrastructure required for trains. I'm not proposing this long term, but rather than have nothing why not do this for 10 years or so, have downtown and hopefully West Sac develop a bit, then go to the long term solution of a more comprehensive light rail (keeping this option open as development occurs).

I just think it is important to have some near term objectives, while the big stuff hopefully comes on line later. My caution is that the near term solutions should not become substitutes for more optimal long term set ups.

[Tenebrist]

Originally Posted by doriankage

We should be thinking of the river as a street in the central city that needs to be crossed. Both cities need to develop the infastructure now instead of waiting and planning for it.

I agree. The us (Sac) before them (West Sac) mentality may be a valid one, but I think we should start thinking of both cities as a whole.

[Tenebrist]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

with the irony of reading about it in MIDTOWN magazine firmly in mind

More irony: The publisher of MIDTOWN Monthly is located in DOWNTOWN.

[Tenebrist]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Sacramento's effort to put streetcars back on city streets actually began 15+ years or so ago. So saying that West Sacramento is championing the idea of streetcars, is a bit of a stretch.

15+ years?! It's a good thing, then, that West Sac came along a few years ago and championed the idea of streetcars.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by brandon12

^you're right, like a fake cable car on wheels. It would be way cheaper and get the job done until the money was there to put in a proper trolley-car system.

The "cute" fake cable cars? ! I'm sorry but they are NOT "pretty effective in shuttling around folks" because very rarely do you see people riding them. You know why? Because people are embarrassed to be seen on those on hokey “cable car" buses.

I've started a separtate Sacramento Transportation Thread where I think these discussions could take place and haveposted some ideas that I think might work.

[downtownserg89]

oh i would ride a cute fake cable car in a heartbeat. put 'em in lavender heights. you'll get some customers.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by downtownserg89

oh i would ride a cute fake cable car in a heartbeat. put 'em in lavender heights. you'll get some customers.

It does travel to Lavender Heights. Do you ride it?

BTW where is the “heights” in Lavender Heights? What a dumb name.

[downtownserg89]

Originally Posted by ozone

It does travel to Lavender Heights. Do you ride it?

BTW where is the “heights” in Lavender Heights? What a dumb name.

wait, really?

and uh, i'm not sure what the heights are for, but i know that lavender is like the official gay color, or so i heard. blue is the typical boy color, and pink is for girls. but the gays are a little bit of both genders, so they mix pink and blue and you get lavender! haha..

[Pistola916]

What about a BRT system, buses that run on lines, in Downtown/Midtown? Seattle and SF have some very good ones.

[downtownserg89]

which reminds me, sacramento needs bigger busses. for a few routes, anyway. take for example, bus 51. that bus is always crowded. and i mean cowded from front to back. sometimes it is soo full the bus driver tells people to wait for the next bus, which is another 30 mins away. it's ridiculous! we need some longer buses that hold more people.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by downtownserg89

which reminds me, sacramento needs bigger busses. for a few routes, anyway. take for example, bus 51. that bus is always crowded. and i mean cowded from front to back. sometimes it is soo full the bus driver tells people to wait for the next bus, which is another 30 mins away. it's ridiculous! we need some longer buses that hold more people.

I think bigger buses and BRT lines would work best on exclusive lanes that run down major arterial streets which are not mixed-use –which are mostly outside of the grid, and have transfer stations on the periphery. I know that this has been very successful elsewhere –out of the US.

I’d like to see a sizable fleet of smaller buses exclusive to the Central City which ran more often by making quicker turnarounds on shorter loops.

I know that there is a plan for a BRT tram for CSUS/65th Street Village and talk of a BRT down Stockton Blvd.