HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1241  
Old Posted Aug 13, 2021, 7:44 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
That’s great news but I would be curious to know how many commuters would actually use commuter rail into San Jose? Those dollars could be better used converting the the Capital Corridor to electric.

Hopefully California will be able to secure some Federal funding to do just that; although I won’t hold my breath since transportation “infrastructure” only makes up slightly less than $200 billion of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill awaiting action in the House.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1242  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2021, 7:47 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Sacramento Valley Station

For those of us that have seen one rail yard master plan after another come and go for the past three decades, this is nothing more than ‘pie in the sky’.

So think of this as you might when buying a Lotto ticket. There’s likely no chance in hell but it’s fun to dream.

See link below


https://perkinswill.com/project/sacr...ion-area-plan/
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1243  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 5:28 PM
Son of Travis Son of Travis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
For those of us that have seen one rail yard master plan after another come and go for the past three decades, this is nothing more than ‘pie in the sky’.

So think of this as you might when buying a Lotto ticket. There’s likely no chance in hell but it’s fun to dream.

See link below


https://perkinswill.com/project/sacr...ion-area-plan/
There are typically two types of "planning" going on at any Planning Department.

"Long-term" planning, which is usually conducted by senior management and often consists of the "master plans" and pretty pictures you cite above; and short-term planning which are the people at the counter who are plan-checking your submittals and have a significant impact on the actual built environment.

Planning schools teach a lot about the former, almost nothing about the latter...
__________________
In the land of lies, telling the truth is a crime...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1244  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2021, 9:00 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
In this case, it's a third variety: highly-paid planning consultants whose skill at creating pretty renderings is considerably greater than their ability to transform their pretty renderings into built reality. I was at one of the planning sessions for this master plan (around 2018 or so), where the consultants stated that their focus for the Railyards ancillary development was going to be principally office, because there were going to be thousands and thousands of new units of housing going up in the very near future in the Railyards, the Docks, and DoCo, and they didn't want to add more housing to the mix that might result in a too-lopsided jobs:housing balance in the neighborhood (which is currently something like 15:1.) The scoffs of disbelief from developers in the audience (including the Railyards team) were quite audible. They did end up adding a token amount of housing to the proposed mix of uses. I figure if we're lucky we'll get an expanded bus depot and the Green Line light rail wrap-around, and maybe an elevated walkway over the tracks in the next 20 years. If we're very lucky the Railyards will fill up with midrise Texas donuts and we'll need a city owned lot for a public high school on the depot property.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1245  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 1:23 PM
Son of Travis Son of Travis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
In this case, it's a third variety: highly-paid planning consultants whose skill at creating pretty renderings is considerably greater than their ability to transform their pretty renderings into built reality. I was at one of the planning sessions for this master plan (around 2018 or so), where the consultants stated that their focus for the Railyards ancillary development was going to be principally office, because there were going to be thousands and thousands of new units of housing going up in the very near future in the Railyards, the Docks, and DoCo, and they didn't want to add more housing to the mix that might result in a too-lopsided jobs:housing balance in the neighborhood (which is currently something like 15:1.) The scoffs of disbelief from developers in the audience (including the Railyards team) were quite audible. They did end up adding a token amount of housing to the proposed mix of uses. I figure if we're lucky we'll get an expanded bus depot and the Green Line light rail wrap-around, and maybe an elevated walkway over the tracks in the next 20 years. If we're very lucky the Railyards will fill up with midrise Texas donuts and we'll need a city owned lot for a public high school on the depot property.
Quote:
In this case, it's a third variety: highly-paid planning consultants whose skill at creating pretty renderings is considerably greater than their ability to transform their pretty renderings into built reality.
It’s not the highly-paid planning consultant’s job to “transform their pretty renderings into built reality.” That’s the developer’s job. But your point is taken in that we shouldn’t be blinded by the pretty renderings and should challenge any developer’s claims of viability (be they private or agency staff as they are both agents of change).

Early questions re funding should be every bit as important as questions re design, spacing, massing, and density.

While it’s unlikely funding has been secured early in the process, it is completely legit to ask a developer why his or her plan will find a receptive audience in the financial markets. Why are they looking at this mix? Why that count? What makes them confident that what they are proposing can actually be built?

What we’ve all seen happen too many times is a grandiose plan gets approved and then the developer comes back with something far less than originally presented after seeking funding. That’s as true with public agencies as it is with private developers, and thus ‘Urban’s justifiable skepticism.

It’s just as true the other way as sometimes a developer comes back and says "we have to greatly increase density (or some other issue) to get this project to pencil. I’m going to need another 150 units." Or… "turns out that high-speed rail is never coming to Sacramento, but thanks for the tax increase. I’m sure we’ll find a way to spend it…"

Quote:
I was at one of the planning sessions for this master plan (around 2018 or so), where the consultants stated that their focus for the Railyards ancillary development was going to be principally office, because there were going to be thousands and thousands of new units of housing going up in the very near future in the Railyards, the Docks, and DoCo, and they didn't want to add more housing to the mix that might result in a too-lopsided jobs:housing balance in the neighborhood (which is currently something like 15:1.)
This is why so many master plans fail. The consultants’ “focus” should be a light touch, not a top-down command that rigidly dictates land use. Who makes them the arbiter of what mix is “lopsided?” Jane Jacobs had it right. Put in some general guidelines and let the market organically decide how best to use the land. And please don’t forget… the "market" is YOU deciding what is best for YOU.

There is no one better equipped to determine what lifestyle you want to live than YOU.

Quote:
The scoffs of disbelief from developers in the audience (including the Railyards team) were quite audible. They did end up adding a token amount of housing to the proposed mix of uses. I figure if we're lucky we'll get an expanded bus depot and the Green Line light rail wrap-around, and maybe an elevated walkway over the tracks in the next 20 years. If we're very lucky the Railyards will fill up with midrise Texas donuts and we'll need a city owned lot for a public high school on the depot property.
Can’t speak to any scoffing of course as I wasn’t there, but I admit to occasionally being guilty of “scoffing” when I see a master plan developed by people with no real skin in game. Should the master plan fail, the planning consultant still gets paid in full and the planning staff doesn’t miss a paycheck.

Should a project fail, the developer loses his shirt (and typically all other clothing).

The developer succeeds only when he or she produces a desirable product (a lifestyle) that people are willing and able to pay for.

So, we’re back to this plan and ‘Urban’s comments. Does this plan satisfy a market demand (are people willing and able to pay for it)? Could this money be better spent elsewhere (where people are willing and able to pay for it? Is this all just pretty bulls#it pictures meant to keep an agency’s funding in place (plan fails but we won’t miss a paycheck)?

Demand answers to those questions now. Don’t be blinded by the pretty pictures…
__________________
In the land of lies, telling the truth is a crime...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1246  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 2:27 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Oh, there was scoffing; I joined in the scoffing. I mean, it was relatively respectful and dignified scoffing, but it was enough to make the consultant uncomfortable, which was its purpose, and it was followed by feedback and critique.

None of this stuff is an actual proposed project, just a plan for what they'd like to see happen in terms of station improvements and ancillary development, so they can at least say there is a plan for what the city would like to see happen at and around the train station, rather than having no plan. Renderings are a cheap visual reference, not much in this plan is actually being proposed for construction on any particular timetable; but now that they have a plan, the city can pursue funding for city-focused elements of it, like the park areas around the depot and the expanded bus facility.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1247  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2021, 4:42 PM
Son of Travis Son of Travis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Oh, there was scoffing; I joined in the scoffing. I mean, it was relatively respectful and dignified scoffing, but it was enough to make the consultant uncomfortable, which was its purpose, and it was followed by feedback and critique.

None of this stuff is an actual proposed project, just a plan for what they'd like to see happen in terms of station improvements and ancillary development, so they can at least say there is a plan for what the city would like to see happen at and around the train station, rather than having no plan. Renderings are a cheap visual reference, not much in this plan is actually being proposed for construction on any particular timetable; but now that they have a plan, the city can pursue funding for city-focused elements of it, like the park areas around the depot and the expanded bus facility.
Ha! I agree Bill: "scoffing" is one of my favorite pastimes. I do a lot of it here...

And based on your comments, This "plan" seems to fit category three best.
__________________
In the land of lies, telling the truth is a crime...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1248  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2021, 5:42 PM
CAAndrew CAAndrew is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
That’s great news but I would be curious to know how many commuters would actually use commuter rail into San Jose? Those dollars could be better used converting the the Capital Corridor to electric.

Which? Link 21 or Valley Rail?

Link 21 is basically a subsidy to SF--it can continue to offload its housing need onto the east bay and beyond--with big but secondary benefits to regional rail connections. As a transit geek I like it and hate it; it would be amazing as a rider, but will suck up billions of transit dollars that could provide a better ROI if used on other projects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1249  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2024, 2:02 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
A railway expansion could make Bay Area-Sacramento commute easier by 2026. Here’s the plan

By Marcus D. Smith
Sacramento Bee
Feb. 13, 2024


Image courtesy of the Sacramento Bee.

"It may soon be a lot easier to commute from the Bay Area to Elk Grove and into Sacramento, especially if you like trains.

The Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), a commuter rail service, plans to include Elk Grove as one of its stops from downtown San Jose through Sacramento. The expansion is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.

According to a news release, the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, which manages ACE, closed escrow on land for a station in Elk Grove late last month..."

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/tr...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1250  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2024, 8:11 PM
regboi30 regboi30 is offline
Rws Random Life
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10
Hey folks here's an update on a proposed new bridge over the American River.

SACRAMENTO — A new bridge battle is underway in Sacramento.

It could be a new way to get into Downtown without using Interstate 5.

The proposed Truxel Road bridge would connect south Natomas to downtown. It is currently in a feasibility study at Sacramento City Hall.

The new addition would change Estefania Garcia's south Natomas neighborhood.

"I would begin with asking, 'How would this impact traffic congestion?' " Garcia said. "So, if a bridge were right there and I could do it walking or biking, I wouldn't even think of that barrier of like, 'Oh, I need a car.' "





The proposed path would continue Truxel Road south over the American River and into downtown Sacramento.

Devin Strecker is the executive director of the River District's business association. A new bridge connecting consumers to downtown would incentivize developers to build up the area in and around the railyards.

"We are trying to take back our riverfront," Strecker said. "But as long as we're building this bridge and spending all this money, we do also need a vehicle connection."

Cars on the proposed bridge are a controversial question.

Isaac Gonzalez is a Sacramento Active Transportation Commissioner and founder of Slow Down Sacramento. He is pushing for less reliance on vehicle traffic. The proposed bridge currently would serve vehicles, along with bicycles and pedestrians.

"I currently could not support any bridge concept for Truxel that had vehicular traffic over it," Gonzalez said. "We need an opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely without pollution around them."

A divide has been created between transportation advocates.

"We're just trying to plan for that future," Strecker said.

"I think it would only increase traffic congestion," Garcia said.
__________________
"https://rwrandomlife.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1251  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2024, 6:22 AM
UnclearColt UnclearColt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Hopefully, the planning for a Truxel bridge will take into account possible Green Line expansion in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1252  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2024, 9:29 PM
NickB1967 NickB1967 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by regboi30 View Post
Cars on the proposed bridge are a controversial question.

Isaac Gonzalez is a Sacramento Active Transportation Commissioner and founder of Slow Down Sacramento. He is pushing for less reliance on vehicle traffic. The proposed bridge currently would serve vehicles, along with bicycles and pedestrians.

"I currently could not support any bridge concept for Truxel that had vehicular traffic over it," Gonzalez said. "We need an opportunity for pedestrians and cyclists to travel safely without pollution around them."

A divide has been created between transportation advocates.

"We're just trying to plan for that future," Strecker said.

"I think it would only increase traffic congestion," Garcia said.
Oh FFS, those two Unicycle dimwits quoted need to get real. The more connections across the river, the better, and vehicles are a must too, yes, buses are vehicles. As are commercial vehicles, needed for commerce. Not building a six lane vehicle bridge to accommodate those needs just because private cars might use it is "Cutting off Sacramento's nose to spite its face...."

Once again:
Q: What are freeways really for?
A: thru traffic.

Something is dreadfully wrong with a city when to get to the immediately adjacent neighborhood, you have to get on a freeway.

I would not only have the Truxel Vehicle bridge, I would look into a revived vehicle bridge for Natomas on the other side of I-5, once called the Jibboom Street Bridge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jibboom_Street_Bridge

Anything to give Natomas - Downtown traffic better alternatives than I-5, which, again, should be focused upon thru traffic.

Last edited by NickB1967; Feb 29, 2024 at 9:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 2:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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