Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't have the time yesterday to leave much of a response, and didn't want to leave a big ol' post that would lead people to accuse me of bloviating. But since you asked, it's swell that they are providing some funds for the streetcar project. It was already planned for this alignment, a route sketched out in 2011 (after an earlier alignment in 2007 ran into some problems) and was approved last year by City Council, when the selling point for Mayor Johnson was that it stopped alongside the Amtrak depot, the site of last year's failed arena plan in the Railyards. The streetcar plan is entirely separate from the arena plan, but an attraction like an arena will draw more streetcar riders,especially because that makes it easier to park in West Sacramento or Midtown lots and ride to games. Also, because streetcars can demonstrate a lot more ability to draw investment than arenas (Portland's streetcar drew more than $1 billion in investment) it might actually save the arena from its own flaws by laying the groundwork for residential growth.
There are several sources of funding for the project popping up--West Sacramento voted a sales tax increase specifically to fund a streetcar network years ago, and have been waiting for us to figure out how we're going to pay for our end. SACOG just provided a $7 million grant to start on the engineering, and we have a strong case made for next year's round of federal transit funds. The other part is an assessment on private development alongside the streetcar alignment, of which that $500,000 would basically work as an advance payment. Other payments would be made for further ancillary development, and could also act as mitigation for traffic impacts of subsequent development. Property assessments are one means of paying for a streetcar network, based on projected increase in property value along the alignment, and the value of reduced parking need. Other cities use other methods, like parking meter revenue, but I don't think we'll have any extra in Sacramento for the next 37 years or so...
I can also see why Mark Friedman, new owner of the mall property and part owner of the Kings, would like the idea of kickstarting the streetcar plan, as he is building the waterfront neighborhood across the river in West Sacramento and a streetcar line is critical to making that an urban, transit-oriented neighborhood instead of "West Natomas." Traditional streetcar lines were built with one end in a new-growth area and the other end at a destination, with as many workplaces as possible in between. The line as envisioned runs from West Sacramento (new growth) to Old Sacramento (destination) to Capitol Mall (workplace) the Railyards (new growth and transit connection) to the arena (destination) along Kay Street (workplace) and around the Convention Center (destination) ending at 19th Street in Midtown (established transit-oriented neighborhood and destination.) You can read more about it here: DOWNTOWN/RIVERFRONT STREETCAR PROJECT
The commitment, assuming it actually happens, marks another "pro-arena" point on my personal balance sheet, along with "distorts economy towards downtown instead of the suburbs" and "irritates conservative columnists." Not sure whether that outweighs the other side of the balance sheet, including "flawed funding model via parking," "borrowing money from Goldman Sachs" and "irritates Majin" yet, but it pushes me farther in the direction of voting "yes" on an arena proposal, should we end up getting the option to vote.
Total cost for streetcar was quoted as $150 million, so what are you talking about?
Cost of the arena increased by $150 million.
Given, I'll concede it's the most useful part of the arena budget. Normally developers are required to pay for traffic mitigation measures at least in part. And the S.L.U.T. isn't "doing fine." It's facing a 50% service cut unless more money is found, most likely with another tax hike. King County Metro has a total shortfall of 17%, but the cuts are going based upon ridership. So useless and expensive routes like the S.L.U.T. is facing a 50% service cut so that more productive routes can be spared. It's also probably politically motivated. They figure they can extract some more money out of area employers (by which I mean Amazon, Amazon, and Amazon) to pay for a larger share of the cost than they currently do. Sacramento doesn't really have any large private-sector employers downtown to appeal to.
Portland's street car did not draw $1 bil in investment lol! That streetcar system was part of an entire redevelopment plan by the city of Portland for the Southwaterfront area. The plan included the airtram, Oregon Health and Wellness center, and yes, clearing of chemical wasteland to make way for commercial developers who invested (billions?) in residential highrises. The streetcar system was a part of that plan, not THE plan, and I am willing to bet the developers of the Southwaterfront condo buildings had an active role in the Streetcar's inclusion in the plan. It's only purpose as of today is to take residents of those buildings to downtown Portland, and thus far it hasn't spurred any additional private investment. If you were to allocate private investment created by the Southwaterfront project by accounting standards or even in real life terms, the streetcar system would only receive a fractional amount.
In contrast, I think the streetcar proposal, trolley or whatever they are calling it for Sac is awesome. Coupled with the arena, it would provide a ton of incentive for small businesses to set up shop and large corporate investors to purchase and renovate property in downtown. So many people want to find reasons not to do anything to better this city, instead of finding reasons that things can be done. Personally, I could care less about sales tax increases that I will never feel if something can be done to make our downtown look like a real downtown of a city with 450,000+ residents. Right now the cleanliness, blight, lack of commercial activity or small business doesn't cut it, period. It's about time people had a reason to go into downtown.
The streetcar was part of an overall plan--but it would not have taken remotely the same form without the streetcar. If you plan a "transit-oriented" neighborhood without a fixed transit system, you end up with Natomas, because the automobile becomes the only means of transportation in the neighborhood and building to match a transit-oriented design becomes impossible. Cars take up a lot of room for roads and parking spaces, and those spaces cost a lot to build. Meanwhile, if you build a transportation system but don't make it part of a plan for transit-oriented housing, you end up with Light Rail, which functions well as a commuter system to get people to and from work but not so much as a means for residents to get around their own neighborhood, because the neighborhoods near the line are still car-centric residential or single-use offices (which go dark at 5 PM and thus look "blighted" to those visiting at night, no matter how much business is conducted in those impermeable office walls.)
What Portland did, and what other cities have done, was to match a transit-oriented strategy to a transit network and built both at once. The developers building those residential high-rises would have been severely hamstrung if they had to include parking structures in those towers--in addition to expense ($25-50K per space) they also kill off street life by requiring garages instead of storefronts, raising residential activity above garage levels, and reduce residential density even in places zoned for high-rise and high-density.
Taking residents of a transit-oriented neighborhood to the nearby business district and commercial district is the most important function of a streetcar network, and it's the key of the system. But without that key, when faced with distances too far to walk but too short to conveniently drive (and where parking is limited and expensive, in any downtown) they are less likely to drive to their nearby business district and instead drive elsewhere. That's what happened in downtown Portland before they reoriented their transit plan--and what still happens in downtown Sacramento. In both cases, as in many other cities, the residential population of their downtowns was devastated by redevelopment, suburban growth and disinvestment in city centers during the mid-20th century. Bringing back transit had an enormously positive effect on downtown Portland--Sacramento's far milder experiment had a somewhat positive result (we gained a few thousand in 1970-1990) but not nearly as much because city government and the real estate community were totally uninterested in promoting downtown residential life. The most important reason for people to go downtown is because it's home--and people are the most important "civic amenity" of all.
Sacramento isn't talking about a sales tax increase, sacite, West Sacramento did that years ago. The article implied that the method to fund the streetcar on this side of the river would be a parcel tax increase (based on properties near the line and thus affecting those whose economic activity would go up the most due to the line's proximity) not a sales tax increase (which would require a public vote.)
The streetcar was part of an overall plan--but it would not have taken remotely the same form without the streetcar. If you plan a "transit-oriented" neighborhood without a fixed transit system, you end up with Natomas, because the automobile becomes the only means of transportation in the neighborhood and building to match a transit-oriented design becomes impossible. Cars take up a lot of room for roads and parking spaces, and those spaces cost a lot to build. Meanwhile, if you build a transportation system but don't make it part of a plan for transit-oriented housing, you end up with Light Rail, which functions well as a commuter system to get people to and from work but not so much as a means for residents to get around their own neighborhood, because the neighborhoods near the line are still car-centric residential or single-use offices (which go dark at 5 PM and thus look "blighted" to those visiting at night, no matter how much business is conducted in those impermeable office walls.)
What Portland did, and what other cities have done, was to match a transit-oriented strategy to a transit network and built both at once. The developers building those residential high-rises would have been severely hamstrung if they had to include parking structures in those towers--in addition to expense ($25-50K per space) they also kill off street life by requiring garages instead of storefronts, raising residential activity above garage levels, and reduce residential density even in places zoned for high-rise and high-density.
Taking residents of a transit-oriented neighborhood to the nearby business district and commercial district is the most important function of a streetcar network, and it's the key of the system. But without that key, when faced with distances too far to walk but too short to conveniently drive (and where parking is limited and expensive, in any downtown) they are less likely to drive to their nearby business district and instead drive elsewhere. That's what happened in downtown Portland before they reoriented their transit plan--and what still happens in downtown Sacramento. In both cases, as in many other cities, the residential population of their downtowns was devastated by redevelopment, suburban growth and disinvestment in city centers during the mid-20th century. Bringing back transit had an enormously positive effect on downtown Portland--Sacramento's far milder experiment had a somewhat positive result (we gained a few thousand in 1970-1990) but not nearly as much because city government and the real estate community were totally uninterested in promoting downtown residential life. The most important reason for people to go downtown is because it's home--and people are the most important "civic amenity" of all.
Sacramento isn't talking about a sales tax increase, sacite, West Sacramento did that years ago. The article implied that the method to fund the streetcar on this side of the river would be a parcel tax increase (based on properties near the line and thus affecting those whose economic activity would go up the most due to the line's proximity) not a sales tax increase (which would require a public vote.)
Portland's Southwaterfront is a lot different than Natomas. If you've been there, it's practically downtown. As bike friendly as that city is, it's doubtful that the inclusion of the steetcar system had much of an impact on anyone's decision to purchase there. The idea behind the entire project was that an entire neighborhood would spring up with small businesses, comnercial vendors and accessible transportation to entice people from other areas of the city to visit, but so far that hasn't happened. Unlike Sac's arena and ready made downtown circuit, people have no reason to go to Southwaterfront other than to stare at highrise condo buildings.
The parcel tax makes sense, since property values will rise. I hope people are not whining that they are going to pay more tax as the assets they own
Appreciate significantly from this arena. God, I am trying to buy ASAP just to get a piece of that appreciation (not to mention, to have a place of my own).
In my opinion the arena is a godsend for many reasons. But I guess I can see why some people want to keep Sac "small". Problem is, like it or not it's no longer a small town.
I'm not in the contingent that wants to keep Sacramento "small," as we haven't been "small" for a very long time. And I'd assume that there is one other reason for people to go to "South Waterfront" other than to stare at condo buildings--they live there! Streetcar lines are not amusement park rides, they exist to carry people between homes and workplaces. Not every stop on a streetcar line is a tourist destination. And Portland's bike-friendliness has grown alongside its transit-friendliness: building cities for pedestrians and streetcars also makes them very bikeable places, while building cities for cars makes them unfriendly for the other three modes of transit. That's part of why the parts of town hated most by motorists (downtown, midtown, the old "streetcar" neighborhoods) are the areas of high walkability and great bikeability.
Well, at least he has switched from accusing me of running STOP to merely supporting it, which is progress of a sort. "A pox on both parties" is perhaps too subtle for some folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
