Sacramento

   INTERMODAL STATION AREA PLAN

 

February 28, 2001 Community Workshop

 

On February 28, 2001, over 80 people attended the second of two community workshops for the Sacramento Intermodal Area planning. The objectives for the workshop included the following:

  • Review the results of the January 24 community workshop
  • Present and discuss transportation, economic development and urban design planning analysis
  • Review and discuss preliminary alternative concepts

The agenda included a welcome and introduction by Mayor Fargo, a review of the process by City staff, and presentations of planning analysis and alternatives by consultants. Between each presentation, the workshop attendees asked questions and commented on analysis. After the analysis was presented, the community reviewed and discussed the preliminary alternatives.

 

Planning Purpose and Approach
Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives
Planning Principles
Working Group Members
Intermodal Station Area Plan Home Page

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Analysis Questions and Comments

The following summary includes the questions and comments made by workshop participants. It does not include the discussion or response to questions by staff or consultants.

Economic Development

  • How does the plan reflect the availability of Federal funding? What is available?
  • The process has not provided an opportunity for the community to set the goals for the project.
  • I don't agree with the mid-rise office development market recommendation. We need a plan that is more urban, higher density and transit oriented.
  • What will be the impact on Richards Boulevard?
  • Move mid-rise development to Q/R Street and put high rise on the transit site
  • Five-year information from brokers is unreliable.
  • Developers and brokers DO track five-year trends and have found a consistent trend in downtown with new buildings being built every 3-4 years.

Transit

  • Do not mix CORRIDOR ridership numbers with STATION numbers.
  • What is the number of transfers between Greyhound buses?
  • It seems the pedestrian numbers should be higher. There are many people that walk and bike to the train.
  • The location of the station will impact the number of people who will walk from Downtown.
  • What happens when we add other modes, such as high-speed rail, beyond 2010?
  • Many Sacramento County residents use the Davis Station. How can Sacramento County support its own residents?
  • The trains need to be accessible for all. This includes people with walkers, wheelchairs, and baby strollers.
  • Check the level of use on holidays.
  • Where should there be turnouts for LRT? And, where is high-speed rail?
  • Where are incoming patrons going? Walking is the primary mode to Downtown office buildings. What would be the loss of walking patrons by moving the station north?
  • Is AM ridership higher than PM?
  • Do not assume the Downtown is walkable. Analyze the location for the station.
  • Indicate generic transit modes instead of specific transportation companies, such as Greyhound.

Preliminary Alternatives

The consultants presented three preliminary alternatives. Attendees identified ways each plan could be improved. The summary of their suggestions follows.

Preliminary Alternative 1

Program Summary

Commercial Office
Transit Sites
246,000 SF @ 4.0 FAR = 0.984 MSF
7th Street Sites
78,000 SF @ 6.0 FAR = 0.468 MSF
 
Total Office 1.452 MSF
Parking @ 1/600 2,450 spaces
 
Residential
9.8 acres @ 80du/a = 784 du's
Parking @ 1/du 784 spaces
 
Visitor Commercial
38,000 SF @ FAR 3.0 = 114,000 SF
Parking @2/1000 = 290 spaces
 
  • Add a larger open space like in Alternatives 2 and 3.
  • Look at parking over the top of the tracks.
  • Improve the connections to Downtown and Alkali Flat.
  • Secure funding for preserving and restoring the historic buildings.
  • Go under the "I" Street ramp for southern access to the area.
  • Separate freight from passengers.
  • Open up the visual connection between the Depot and Central Shops.
  • Depot additions should not impact its historic character.
  • Enclose pedestrian connections between transit modes.
  • Move the tracks north to make room for buses.
  • Make improvements to the "I" Street Bridge or build a new bridge.
  • Make commercial development high-rise.
  • Make sure there are rail connections between the State RR Museum and RR Technology Center.

Preliminary Alternative 2

Program Summary

Commercial Office
Transit Sites
32,000 SF @ 6.0 FAR = 0.192 MSF
7th Street Sites
256,000 SF @ 6.0 FAR = 1.56 MSF
 
Total Office 1.732 MSF
Parking @ 1/600 2,890 spaces
 
Residential
7.0 acres @ 80du/a = 560 du's
Parking @ 1/du 560 spaces
 
Visitor Commercial
85,000 SF @ FAR 3.0 = 255,000 SF
Parking @2/1000 = 510 spaces

  • Explore locations for high-speed rail (south) and freight (north).
  • Add more open space between the Depot and passenger platforms.
  • Provide skates for commuters.
  • Make 5th Street a two-way street.
  • Move bus traffic off residential streets.
  • Create an underpass at 3rd Street for southbound site egress.
  • Bring the excursion train from Old Sacramento on the existing tracks.
  • Circulation from west and north is tight.
  • Move "I" Street ramp (on all three alternatives).
  • Remove Jiboom Street ramp.
  • Make sure winds can clear bus exhaust from streets.
  • Make sure there is funding for "safe and clean" programs.
  • Add fans to blow fog away to clear sightlines for conductors.
  • Add uses in Depot other than transit like Alternatives 2 and 3.
  • Have egress via 3rd Street rather than 2nd Street.
  • Make connections between modes clear (for all alternatives).
  • Strengthen connections between tracks and Depot.
  • The hotel should be a draw for visitors.
  • There should be a St. Louis-style conversion of the Depot.
  • Marketability of residential uses adjacent to the Federal Courthouse may be an issue due to security concerns.

Preliminary Alternative 3

Program Summary

Commercial Office
Transit Sites
130,000 SF @ 4.0 FAR = 0.780 MSF
7th Street Sites
92,000 SF @ 6.0 FAR = 0.368 MSF
 
Total Office 1.148 MSF
Parking @ 1/600 1,910 spaces
 
Residential
8.3 acres @ 80du/a = 664 du's
Parking @ 1/du 664 spaces
 
Visitor Commercial
122,000 SF @ FAR 3.0 = 366,000 SF
Parking @2/1000 = 732 spaces

  • The station area needs to have comprehensive information and signage system.
  • People arriving in the station area should be able to find there way around in an intuitive way.
  • The access to the station area should be for everyone, including the disabled.
  • Amtrak and CCSPA trains should have short distances for transfers.
  • Add people movers to the plan.
  • Can we run the tracks in a trench? What are the effects of this?
  • Limit the bus and pedestrian conflict. Move the buses to the east.
  • The City should not lock out future transit users (for all alternatives).
  • For alternatives 2 and 3, the plan should not move forward until the airport LRT connection is funded, nor should the project compete with Federal funding.
  • The proposed office facing Alkali Flat on 7th Street is in conflict with the existing residential uses there.

Return to Intermodal Station Area Plan Home Page