Bike share for Rancho Cordova & Folsom?

From the 50 Corridor TMA Communter Connections newsletter:

Bike Share recommendation advances to City Councils

This month, both the Rancho Cordova and Folsom City Councils will hear the 50 Corridor Bike Share Task Force recommendations in for launching a new bikeshare program using LimeBike as the program provider.

The Rancho Cordova City Council is expected to vote on the recommendation at its February 20 meeting which starts at 6 p.m.  The Folsom City Council will consider the recommendation on February 27 during its meeting which starts at 6:30 p.m.

A representative of LimeBike will make a presentation to the Folsom City Council.

Should both councils approve the recommendation, bike share should be available on the 50 Corridor by early April.

LimeBike e-bike

LimeBike features a dockless system – allowing users to park bikes at whatever destination is convenient.  The cost is expected to be $1 for 30 minutes, although a variety of pricing options will be available, including monthly subscription rates.  Electric assist bikes will also be available for $1 to unlock the bike and $1 per every 10 minutes.

The main goal of employing bike share along the 50 Corridor is to address first mile/last mile connections for Regional Transit’s Gold Light Rail Line.  However, bikes can be used for any kind of trip. And because the bikes are not linked to a particular rack (or dock), they can operate anywhere along the corridor where a need exists. 

Continue reading “Bike share for Rancho Cordova & Folsom?”

No more urbs in the county?

In Sacramento County, there are suburban areas in both the county and in the various cities. Northern Sacramento (the area north of the American River) is largely city. Eastern Sacramento is largely county, with the exception of Citrus Heights, Folsom, and Rancho Cordova. Southern Sacramento is largely Sacramento City, except for a finger of county suburbs that intrudes into the city, and of course Elk Grove. I suspect most people who don’t own property even know whether they live in county or city because the development pattern is very similar, and the deterioration of infrastructure in the county is only slightly ahead of the cities.

Sacramento County is not able to keep up with what it already has. Potholes are everywhere. Neighborhoods are deteriorating, businesses are boarded up, or are replaced with low-quality businesses such as tattoo parlors and liquor stores. Sacramento County wants to be a place with low taxes, but low taxes equal deterioration. So what the county does to try to make up for a lack of sufficient tax income is to push greenfield developments that will bring in a shot of property tax, and perhaps sales tax, but in the long run will just be more of the same, a drain on the government and economy. Greenfield development never pays for itself in the long run, it is just a transfer of wealth from the future (future taxpayers) to the present (mostly developers, but to some degree government and current taxpayers).

So, a modest proposal (modest in the Swiftian sense). All urban and suburban areas must be in a city. If a new greenfield development occurs, it must either be joined to an existing city, or become its own city (though I think we’ve seen the last of the mega-projects that would support a new city). All existing suburbs in the county will be moved into the nearest city, or form a new city. At the same time, all undeveloped or very sparsely populated areas should be moved outside the cities and back to the county. The map below (also pdf SacCo_pop-density-cities) shows population density with an overlay of the cities. Citrus Heights is the only city that does not contain any significant undeveloped land. Rancho Cordova, Folsom, Elk Grove and the City of Sacramento all contain undeveloped land which should revert to the county. The break points shown are not magical or legally defined. Clearly red (very low density) areas should not be in a city, but orange (low density) is not as clear. Yellow, light green, and dark green are clearly urban or suburban and belong in cities.


It is likely to take some time to figure out boundaries, particularly since the Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) would have to negotiate boundaries and approve changes. I am not sure what to do with the exurbs, though in some ways it doesn’t matter since they will die out of their own accord.

Once the re-balancing happens, then it should become nearly impossible to move lands between the cities and counties. Greenfield development does not serve anyone except greenfield developers and politicians currently in office, and it impoverishes the future. We already have an overabundance of these types of sprawl subdivisions, enough probably to meet any possible demand and lasting for the foreseeable future. All development would shift to infill. The county would therefore be largely rural, and the county could focus on the far lower level of infrastructure needed to support rural uses. Taxes in the county would drop to a fraction of what they are currently, though of course taxes in the cities would probably increase to nearly counterbalance that reduction.

Some things would be better, some things remain the same. There would likely be less greenfield development, since the county is the largest driver of greenfield development. But there would still be some. North Natomas, south Rancho Cordova, and south Folsom are classic examples of greenfield development. Cities would, I believe, spend their money in a more efficient manner, and would not have to sacrifice tax money to the inefficient county government. By the way, no more deals where the county gets to keep property tax income without having to provide any services. Though it is admirable that the new cities, and their citizens, felt strongly enough about getting out from under the burden and mismanagement of the county that they were willing to give up property tax for a period of time, this should never be allowed again.

The big challenge for existing and new cities would of course be taking on these non-productive medium density areas. The cities will have nearly as hard a time funding infrastructure maintenance and repair as did the county, but at least they will be able to make decisions about where to invest in a more rational manner than the county.

Rancho Cordova achieves bronze Bicycle Friendly

RanchoCordova_wayfinding2The City of Rancho Cordova was awarded bronze level status in the League of American Bicyclist’s Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) program. Rancho is the first of the communities within the new Bicycle Friendly 50 effort, though Folsom had earlier achieved silver status.

The Bicycle Friendly 50 group, including 50 Corridor TMA and the city hosted two Traffic Skills 101 courses and a League Cycling Instructor (LCI) Seminar in 2014, training two city employees and a number of community members. An education program is one of the requirements for achieving BFC status.

Above is a wayfinding sign in Rancho Cordova, which seems to have installed more than other communities in the Sacramento region.

whose responsibility are sidewalks?

broken sidewalk, Sutterville Road at 24th Street
broken sidewalk, Sutterville Road at 24th Street

Note: As I wrote this post, I realized that some background info was needed, hence two related posts: sidewalk buffers and surprisingly good sidewalks.

This week an article in the Sacramento Business Journal, “Rancho Cordova wants to make sidewalks problem of property owners,” talked about the city’s efforts to shift responsibility for sidewalks to the property owners, both residential and commercial. The city spokesperson, Davis Gassaway, attempts to gloss over the impact by saying that it should only cost $1000-1500 to repair a sidewalk, and that Sacramento, Roseville, and West Sacramento already have such ordinances. I think the costs quoted are on the low side. At about $4 per square foot (significantly more for curbs), $1000 would buy 50 linear feet of five foot wide sidewalk in a residential area, and 25 linear feet of ten foot wide sidewalk in a commercial/mixed use area. And just because another city is doing it doesn’t make it a good idea. So, what’s wrong with the idea?

Continue reading “whose responsibility are sidewalks?”