Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
City Council votes not to move historic passenger depot
by Samantha Corbin, published on June 3, 2009 at 6:41 PM
Storyline: Local Politics
The Sacramento City Council voted Tuesday night to accept the recommendation of Sacramento’s Preservation Commission, rescinding a 2007 resolution to move the 1926 historic passenger depot and approving the “Don’t Move the Depot” alternative as part of the city’s Intermodal Transportation Facility Project.
Last night’s decision marks the latest transformation of the Intermodal Transportation Facility Project, which has changed a number of times since 1999. The facility is intended to serve as a multi-use transportation hub, including access to car, city bus, intercity bus, light rail, commuter train or long-distance train.
The project has been the subject of heated debate among local politicians and historians on how to best use the space without damaging the historical integrity of the depot’s structure and usage. At one point, the parcel containing both the depot and the railyard was even considered as a potential site for a new arena for the Sacramento Kings as part of a comprehensive entertainment complex.
In 2007, the City Council voted to relocate the depot by rolling it back approximately 300 feet north, to meet the proposed relocation of the tracks and to act as the hub of the new Intermodal Transportation Facility. In that proposal, housing units and retail space would be created in the depot’s current location.
As Sacramento city staff further researched the issue, concerns were raised regarding the “Move the Depot” decision. As a result, Sacramento’s Preservation Commission was asked to make a suggestion to the City Council regarding two proposals: “Move the Depot” and “Don’t Move the Depot.”
The Preservation Commission overwhelmingly favored the “Don’t Move the Depot” option, citing it as the better option in almost all of the categories under consideration, which included: transportation function, cost, connectivity, historic considerations and deliverability. The “Move the Depot” option was the clear winner in only one area of connectivity – the walking distance between the historic depot and the rails.
Preservationists and historians have taken both sides of the debate, some arguing that the only way to preserve the integrity of the building is to keep it in its current location, while others, such as Kay Knepprath of the “Save Our Rail Depot” Coalition are concerned that the depot will lose its historic integrity if it is located apart from the tracks and not used as an official passenger station.
William Burg, a local historian, spoke to the City Council in favor of the “Don’t Move the Depot” proposal, reiterating that “a building that is moved is not eligible to be listed on the historic register.”
Sacramento city staff urged the City Council to postpone discussion or decisions regarding the logistics of the relocation of the tracks, pointing out that if the project doesn’t begin by the end of this year, funding for the project is at risk.
Ultimately, the possibility of losing federal funding appeared to be the driving force behind the council’s decision. Councilmember Bonnie Pannell (District 8) echoed a common sentiment that, during these trying economic times she “didn’t want to risk losing any federal money that might come to our city.” The city would no longer be eligible for reimbursements of up to 80 percent of the total project cost through federal programs if the historic passenger depot is to be moved from its original location unnecessarily.
The Sacramento City Council will make a decision regarding track logistics at an upcoming meeting.
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The "don't move" option merely gives us a bigger station--in terms of total size and capacity, roughly the size of Los Angeles' union station. Considering that the Sacramento depot is one of the busiest in the country (nearly 1.2 million passengers last year, seventh busiest in the United States) and second only to Los Angeles in passengers per year within California, we certainly have a need for a Los Angeles sized railroad passenger depot.
If SORD had not advocated so hard for so long, we might be facing the abandonment of the old depot, and a sorry little "Amshack" next to the new track alignment. Instead, it will become the grand entrance to a larger depot with a long concourse similar to those found in airports. Walking distance to the tracks is longer than the current depot, but are comparable to those in the Los Angeles passenger station. One difference is that the Los Angeles passenger concourse is mostly underground: Sacramento will feature both underground and elevated passenger concourses, allowing dramatic views of the railroad line, the Railyards development, and downtown Sacramento. It will also include space for a bus terminal and Light Rail station beneath the passenger concourse.
Oh yeah, regarding the arena: That was going to go in the very northern edge of the Railyards plan, closest to Richards along I-5, not in the location of the historic depot. It was never planned to occupy the entire space of the Railyards--about 10 acres of the 240 acre Railyards parcel was the planned footprint of the new arena suggested in the Measure P & Q proposals.
When my daughter was in sixth grade I took her to see the city's presentation of the plans for the Intermodal project at the civic center. She's now 21 years old and there has been little tangible progress for the city's intermodal transportation hub. It looks like the tracks might actually begin to be moved this fall!