Back-Seat Driver: Traffic is big hitch in arena plan

[Arena Skeptic]

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/408309.html

Back-Seat Driver
A weekly look at transportation issues
Traffic is big hitch in arena plan
By Tony Bizjak
Bee Staff Writer

Here is one man's assessment of what a proposed Sacramento Kings arena at Cal Expo would be like in traffic terms:

"Horrible."

And that comes from a guy who's intrigued by the idea.

City Councilman Steve Cohn says the State Fair area already is a tough place for traffic. It's blocked on the south by the American River, shouldered on the west by the bottlenecked Capital City Freeway, and fronted by car-clogged Arden Fair.

Its main street, Arden Way, is one of the most congested streets in town.

The Cal Expo board, happy to have a wealthy suitor, agreed Friday to negotiate with National Basketball Association officials for a deal that could bring an arena and more development to the underused Expo site.

Those officials have yet to explore an important question. How will they handle traffic -- in particular, the phenomena known as "the pulse?" That's when 18,000 fans try to funnel into the parking at once, then spill out again en masse a few hours later.

They'll arrive for evening games in an area already crowded with people headed to the mall and a multitude of restaurants and theaters.

An arena would make the Arden-Point West-Cal Expo area even more of a regional entertainment hotspot.

But will cars back up onto the freeway at the outdated Arden and Cal Expo exits? Will they add to the mess at intersections to the east like Howe Avenue and Arden Way?

Cal Expo general manager Norb Bartosik cautions against hasty predictions of bad traffic. State Fair-goers generally make it in and out fine, he said.

If his agency and the NBA do strike an arena deal, solving traffic issues will be a group project, he said. "Everybody is going to have to come to the table -- the city, the county, the state, Regional Transit, Caltrans."

Bartosik and other area business officials, in fact, already have been studying a potential traffic reducer -- a streetcar that would run on tracks on or off the street.

It could bring people into the area from a nearby light-rail station, looping them to the Cal Expo gates and the Arden Fair front entrance.

"It's not a silly idea," said Mike McKeever, head of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the region's transportation agency.

His agency believes streetcars, in the right place, could ease congestion and spur urban-style development -- exactly what Cal Expo and the NBA are talking about.

Arden Fair general manager Matthew Klutznrick said he likes the streetcar idea. He laments that area workers and hotel guests often drive a few hundred yards rather than walk across intimidating, pedestrian-unfriendly Arden Way.

With a streetcar stopping at the mall, offices, apartments, hotels and fairgrounds, "people can park once and trolley around," he said.

But the streetcar must find a way over the freeway and Union Pacific rail tracks to the existing Swanston light-rail station a half-mile away.

RT official Mike Wiley said it's doable. "It's just a matter of money."

That station site also is a potential future stop for the regional Capitol Corridor train line, which could bring fans by rail from as far away as Auburn and the Bay Area.

Streetcar consultant David Taylor points out there remains an unanswered question. Will fans and concert-goers be willing to take a train, then transfer to a streetcar?

Cohn says he thinks a certain number will. "The traffic would be horrible. I think they'll try their car, and the next time, they'll try light rail."

I'd like to make a comparison between BART, which goes to Oakland Arena, and what they're proposing here. With BART, if you live in SF, Concord, Berkeley, Fremont or Livermore, you'll get on ONE train and be back at your home station, usually within 45 minutes. With a street car serving Cal Expo Arena, you'll wait 20-30 minutes for your train (because these streetcars will be very small, they won't hold 1,000 people like that BART train will, so you'll have to wait for the third one, the fourth one...), then just 1/2 mile later, board a slightly larger light rail train, for which you might also have to wait 20-30 minutes...

I think Cohn has it absolutely backwards; once people take light-rail-to-street-car to get to a game, next time, they'll be driving. If it takes 30 minutes to get out of the Cal Expo Arena lot, then another 30 minutes to get home to Granite Bay, those folks will drive 100% of the time.

I think any sort of rail enhancement almost has to be light rail; a new crosstown spur that would link the Arden station with, say, Watt Avenue. That would be expensive, but just think of the traffic problems on Watt now; how great it'd be to get on light rail at a (hypothetical) Arden-Watt station, and head to downtown, or Watt/50.

I'm just thinking of myself here, living in Greenhaven, driving across Florin to park the car at that station, taking the train to the Arden light rail station (35 minutes), waiting for the street car (15 minutes, most likely), and then reversing the operation after a 10 o'clock game... I'd be home at 11:30, at best. I think I'd do that once; it takes me 20 minutes to drive there now.

As an aside, another article noted that the Maloofs were not at the meeting on Friday. Did they not fire their PR guy from last year? If not, why not? We had this big article a month ago, saying the Maloofs were going to make themselves more visible, and then they don't even show up for this meeting? It makes me wonder, just how interested in Cal Expo are they? We don't know.

 

[kennadog]

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/408309.html
As an aside, another article noted that the Maloofs were not at the meeting on Friday. Did they not fire their PR guy from last year? If not, why not? We had this big article a month ago, saying the Maloofs were going to make themselves more visible, and then they don't even show up for this meeting? It makes me wonder, just how interested in Cal Expo are they? We don't know.

Being more visible in the community was about being more visible as the owners of the team, running the team and being out in the community, not messing with the arena negotiations.

It was explained in another article that the Maloofs completely turned over the arena planning and negotiations to Stern and whomever Stern chose (Moag). The Maloofs apparently have not even met Moag and are getting their updates through Stern. Actually, Breton wrote an article supportive of the Cal Expo site for the arena this weekend. He thought the Maloofs were doing exactly the right thing by staying out of the negotiations. So do I.

Any arena deal needs to be about the arena, not about the Maloofs. Villifying the Maloofs is just a red herring. Stern and Moag know what the Maloofs need and I'm sure the Maloofs will be behind whatever deal Moag can craft, if he can negotiate anything.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Being more visible in the community was about being more visible as the owners of the team, running the team and being out in the community, not messing with the arena negotiations.

It was explained in another article that the Maloofs completely turned over the arena planning and negotiations to Stern and whomever Stern chose (Moag). The Maloofs apparently have not even met Moag and are getting their updates through Stern. Actually, Breton wrote an article supportive of the Cal Expo site for the arena this weekend. He thought the Maloofs were doing exactly the right thing by staying out of the negotiations. So do I.

Any arena deal needs to be about the arena, not about the Maloofs. Villifying the Maloofs is just a red herring. Stern and Moag know what the Maloofs need and I'm sure the Maloofs will be behind whatever deal Moag can craft, if he can negotiate anything.

They will be the main occupant of the building.

Oh well, have it your way. It's going to lead to tears; that's my thinking.

 

[VF21]

As an aside, another article noted that the Maloofs were not at the meeting on Friday. Did they not fire their PR guy from last year? If not, why not? We had this big article a month ago, saying the Maloofs were going to make themselves more visible, and then they don't even show up for this meeting? It makes me wonder, just how interested in Cal Expo are they? We don't know.

Yes, we do know. And so would you, had you actually read the other articles that clarified that point.

The Maloofs are NOT the problem here. And it's fortunate that most people - with the apparent exception of you and maybe R.E. Graswich - understand that.

 

[Warhawk]

They will be the main occupant of the building.

Oh well, have it your way. It's going to lead to tears; that's my thinking.

And??? The original main occupant of the building I work in now is long gone and our company moved in a few years ago. Occupants/owners can change, but the need for the facility does not.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Yes, we do know. And so would you, had you actually read the other articles that clarified that point.

The Maloofs are NOT the problem here. And it's fortunate that most people - with the apparent exception of you and maybe R.E. Graswich - understand that.

Well, the Maloofs were clearly the biggest problem back in '06. Much bigger problem than I was, or RE was. I think the biggest problem last year was that the proposed JPA favored an idea the voters opposed.

An 80-20 vote tends to leave one with that impression.

Anyway, it's a no-brainer. If it takes 35 minutes to drive to Cal Expo, vs 90 minutes to use transit, I think 90% of those who currently drive to Arco will continue to drive to Cal Expo. I'm so convinced of that, I'd say this point is almost inarguable. I won't take a poll here, but I think if the two alternatives were (1) Drive (35 minutes) or (2) take mass transit (90 minutes), 90% would take option (1).

By the way, I'm a transit fan. Works out great for me. I use it every workday.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

And??? The original main occupant of the building I work in now is long gone and our company moved in a few years ago. Occupants/owners can change, but the need for the facility does not.

The need for a 20,000 seat arena depends alost entirely on the presence of a professional sports team. Concerts are trending away from arena shows and towards smaller venues.

 

[kupman]

So I will bring this again. The commute traffic in that bottleneck consists of 18,000 cars between the hours of 4-7 pm. Assuming a normal distribution during that rush hour period, the vast majority commuters will be going through the bottle neck between 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm.

Arena traffic will consist of approximately 8,000 cars that will primarily begin arriving after 6:45 for a 7:30 start time. The two barely overlap. In fact, it would not surprise me if that that the bottleneck continues to handle more traffic between the hours of 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm than it does between 6:30 pm - 7:30 PM on game nights.

Next, rather than doing expensive light rail or street car additions, RT could simply start by offering shuttle bus services on game nights. That is, AS could park at his local Raley's or shopping mall parking lot in Greenhaven and take a shuttle bus to the front door of the arena with about 60 other fans per bus. Buses could leave/arrive 5-10 minutes so the wait would be short. Similar services could be offered in Roseville, Folsom, Natomas etc.

It is all completely doable with a little imagination.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

So I will bring this again. The commute traffic in that bottleneck consists of 18,000 cars between the hours of 4-7 pm. Assuming a normal distribution during that rush hour period, the vast majority commuters will be going through the bottle neck between 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm.

Arena traffic will consist of approximately 8,000 cars that will primarily begin arriving after 6:45 for a 7:30 start time. The two barely overlap. In fact, it would not surprise me if that that the bottleneck continues to handle more traffic between the hours of 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm than it does between 6:30 pm - 7:30 PM on game nights.

Next, rather than doing expensive light rail or street car additions, RT could simply start by offering shuttle bus services on game nights. That is, AS could park at his local Raley's or shopping mall parking lot in Greenhaven and take a shuttle bus to the front door of the arena with about 60 other fans per bus. Buses could leave/arrive 5-10 minutes so the wait would be short. Similar services could be offered in Roseville, Folsom, Natomas etc.

It is all completely doable with a little imagination.

I think this street car that Cohn is talking about is a complete pipe-dream, and you are 100% correct. It seems to me that if some entity (the Feds? The State?) insists that Cal Expo must mitigate increased air pollution and traffic in the area by installing mass transit, that could be a real blow to these plans.

I dooubt any of you, though, are thinking enough about Christmas season, which runs from about Nov 1 to two weeks after Christmas, and happens to coincide with basketball season. Arden Fair is extremely popular at Christmas, for that entire 10 week period, and that happens to coincide nicely with the first third of the basketball season. So popular that people have already noted that Arden shoppers park at Cal Expo and shuttle to the mall.

I ride my bike a lot on the parkway, and I can see that Bus 80 right there is almost always jammed. From Nov 1-Jan 15, you simply remove the word "almost" right from that sentence, from 6:30 a.m. to about 10:30 p.m.

 

[VF21]

Well, the Maloofs were clearly the biggest problem back in '06. Much bigger problem than I was, or RE was. I think the biggest problem last year was that the proposed JPA favored an idea the voters opposed.

An 80-20 vote tends to leave one with that impression.

What the heck are you trying to prove? The Maloofs may have been flying elephants back in 2006. It doesn't matter NOW, because it was the same Maloofs who turned to the NBA to try and get a deal done, agreeing to step back in the process.

Anyway, it's a no-brainer. If it takes 35 minutes to drive to Cal Expo, vs 90 minutes to use transit, I think 90% of those who currently drive to Arco will continue to drive to Cal Expo. I'm so convinced of that, I'd say this point is almost inarguable. I won't take a poll here, but I think if the two alternatives were (1) Drive (35 minutes) or (2) take mass transit (90 minutes), 90% would take option (1).

You can pull figures out of the air all you like but they don't mean a thing, especially when you're arbitrarily assigning time values that may or may not be true once the entire proposal is laid out.

Sorry, dude, but your user name still says it all. It's my humble opinion that you'd find a way to try and downplay ANY arena deal that's proposed. Are you sure you're not Graswich?

 

[jcassio]

So I will bring this again. The commute traffic in that bottleneck consists of 18,000 cars between the hours of 4-7 pm. Assuming a normal distribution during that rush hour period, the vast majority commuters will be going through the bottle neck between 4:30 pm and 6:30 pm.

Arena traffic will consist of approximately 8,000 cars that will primarily begin arriving after 6:45 for a 7:30 start time. The two barely overlap. In fact, it would not surprise me if that that the bottleneck continues to handle more traffic between the hours of 5:30 pm - 6:30 pm than it does between 6:30 pm - 7:30 PM on game nights.

Next, rather than doing expensive light rail or street car additions, RT could simply start by offering shuttle bus services on game nights. That is, AS could park at his local Raley's or shopping mall parking lot in Greenhaven and take a shuttle bus to the front door of the arena with about 60 other fans per bus. Buses could leave/arrive 5-10 minutes so the wait would be short. Similar services could be offered in Roseville, Folsom, Natomas etc.

It is all completely doable with a little imagination.

Yes. Thank you. It is completely doable!
The 6,000 cars with purple bumper stickers going to/from the arena - during a 30-40 minute period - would definitely tax the streets and highways in the Cal Expo area. But so what! The worse traffic gets, the more we are willing to consider alternatives. Light Rail takes me 45 minutes to get to downtown Sac. When driving my car takes longer than 45 minutes, I'll use Light Rail more often. Pretty basic.

 

[kupman]

Yes. Thank you. It is completely doable!
The 6,000 cars with purple bumper stickers going to/from the arena - during a 30-40 minute period - would definitely tax the streets and highways in the Cal Expo area. But so what! The worse traffic gets, the more we are willing to consider alternatives. Light Rail takes me 45 minutes to get to downtown Sac. When driving my car takes longer than 45 minutes, I'll use Light Rail more often. Pretty basic.

It is so true. People are very capable of adapting, but they will only do so if their hand is forced...i.e. street/freeway traffic becomes such a pain in the back side that people begin to seek out alternatives.

The state or feds may scream about environmental impact, but it seems ironic. We would be changing from the current Natomas location, where maybe 95% of fans have to drive, to a more centrally located arena where maybe only 80% of the fans drive......or even less if traffic is a really big pain. Making the arena centrally located makes more environmental sense.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

What the heck are you trying to prove? The Maloofs may have been flying elephants back in 2006. It doesn't matter NOW, because it was the same Maloofs who turned to the NBA to try and get a deal done, agreeing to step back in the process.



You can pull figures out of the air all you like but they don't mean a thing, especially when you're arbitrarily assigning time values that may or may not be true once the entire proposal is laid out.

Sorry, dude, but your user name still says it all. It's my humble opinion that you'd find a way to try and downplay ANY arena deal that's proposed. Are you sure you're not Graswich?

RE lives about 3/4 mile from my house. Maybe that's the problem; is he infectious?

For those of you who are interested, I pulled this document from Sac RT's website regarding a proposed "West Point" streetcar alignment:

http://www.sacrt.com/documents/cassresources/Taylor David Arden Cal Expo.pdf

I don't see any cost estimates in the document.

The thing about that estimate of 18,000 cars that we know is that this number is an average. At certain times of the year, we are clearly above that average. It's obvious that November 1-Jan 15 is one of those times (as is Aug 15-Sept 3, or thereabouts, for the State Fair). Unfortunately, it is clear that the first third of the NBA season coincides with the Arden Fair Christmas Season.

Pulling that 90 minutes vs 30 minutes comparison was NOT some Blue Sky estimate. I know how long it takes me to get from my house to the Florin station, and from the Florin station to the Arden station, and I can surmise 20 minutes on the streetcar. It would be 90 minutes. And the 30 minute driving estimate is NOT an estimate, it's years of experience.

Sorry, but that was not a guess; it's a very close estimate and comparison.

All RT would need is a single bus to get from Greenhaven to Cal Expo. That's about how many people would use it.

 

[Warhawk]

It is so true. People are very capable of adapting, but they will only do so if their hand is forced...i.e. street/freeway traffic becomes such a pain in the back side that people begin to seek out alternatives.

The state or feds may scream about environmental impact, but it seems ironic. We would be changing from the current Natomas location, where maybe 95% of fans have to drive, to a more centrally located arena where maybe only 80% of the fans drive......or even less if traffic is a really big pain. Making the arena centrally located makes more environmental sense.

Except for the fact that when light rail extends out to the airport there will finally be service near the arena in Natomas, meaning a lot more folks would be able to use mass transit to get there.

 

[kupman]

All RT would need is a single bus to get from Greenhaven to Cal Expo. That's about how many people would use it.

...and that bus will be filled with people that are happy and stress-free arriving and departing from the game.

I am not saying that anyone would have to use the service. I am just saying that I have used such a service in another city. For 5 bucks I was able to drive 5 minutes to the local grocery store, park and hop on the bus. I strapped on the ipod and relaxed. In about 40 minutes I was dropped off at the front door of the stadium with about 50 other happy fans.

It beats the he** out of driving in gridlock.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

...and that bus will be filled with people that are happy and stress-free arriving and departing from the game.

I am not saying that anyone would have to use the service. I am just saying that I have used such a service in another city. For 5 bucks I was able to drive 5 minutes to the local grocery store, park and hop on the bus. I strapped on the ipod and relaxed. In about 40 minutes I was dropped off at the front door of the stadium with about 50 other happy fans.

It beats the he** out of driving in gridlock.

... And the "other" 19,950?

(I mean that as a joke.)

Let's say RT had FIFTY shuttle-style busses from the various neighborhoods, all converging on Cal Expo Arena for gametime. That'd be 2,500 people, or about 600 cars (plus or minus).

Then my joke question becomes a serious one: "What about the other 17,500 (approximately 4,500 cars)?"

I think that's being very generous, by the way; it would work out to NOT be 50 busses with an average of 50 people. Honestly, I think that's a gross overestimate. Just trying to give you best-case numbers.

In the long run, looking at the overall picture, I think the most cost-effective idea is mine: Light rail from the existing Arden station, through West Point, meet up with Arden Way, hook south on Watt, end at the Watt/50 station. If it cost triple what the streetcars cost, it'd be worth it.

I honestly think Steve Cohn's Trolley Folly is about the worst idea so far.

I was curious about how much Portland paid for their streetcars. For 87 standers and 29 sitters, it was $1.9 million each. They'd need at least 4 of these to make a dent in postgame traffic, or else people would wait 30 minutes to catch one. The loop they propose is about 6 miles long.

Make it a straight-through light-rail line, and people from Folsom could use it. As it is outlined, folks on the 50 corridor would use their cars in almost every case to get to Cal Expo Arena. Taking existing light rail through downtown, getting off at Arden, then catching a trolley, ASSURES that those people will drive (it makes driving a lock for them). But if they could get to the Watt station and take a light rail train, they'd use that.

I think Cohn's trolley idea is half-baked, at best.

 

[kennadog]

They will be the main occupant of the building.

Oh well, have it your way. It's going to lead to tears; that's my thinking.

What does the first statement have to do with anything? First of all, it was merely a vote to enter into negotiations that may or may not lead to a proposal. The Maloofs have turned the entire process over to Stern and the negotiator he selected. Stern and Moag know what will and won't work for the Kings and aren't going to make a deal that won't work. Moag is the Maloofs representative in everything. He has their authority through Stern.

As far as I'm concerned, the Maloofs did this so they wouldn't be involved and have every discussion be about them and not an arena. Good for them. The smartest decision they've made so far regarding an arena.

As to "having it my way," I don't even know how to respond to that. I just stated what has been in the articles about the situation so far. How is that "having it my way?" You seem to want to keep the issue primarily about the Maloofs.

 

[VF21]

Actually, I honestly think Arena Skeptic just enjoys playing devil's advocate. At this point, we're so far removed from anything actually resembling a proposal that it's pretty silly to argue details. You don't plan your landscaping for your new home before you've decided on things like location, size, etc.

 

[Nikefutbolero]

Traffic is the least of my worries. I just want an arena. Like all other BIG cities we just have to deal with it. If we ever want to become a major city we need to start acting and thinking like one.

 

[kupman]

... And the "other" 19,950?

(I mean that as a joke.)

What do I care? I am a happy fan. The others can figure it out for themselves. ( I am only half joking here).

Let's say RT had FIFTY shuttle-style busses from the various neighborhoods, all converging on Cal Expo Arena for gametime. That'd be 2,500 people, or about 600 cars (plus or minus).

Then my joke question becomes a serious one: "What about the other 17,500 (approximately 4,500 cars)?"

If you can get the car count below 6,000, I think things will all be okay. I am guessing that of the 18,000 that pass through the area, 9,000 or so pass through between 5:30 - 6:30 pm. Just get to the area after 6:45 and things will be okay....and I mean just okay. Not gawd awful, but not great either.....or you could take the bus...or the pedicab....or just stay home.

 

[VF21]

OR you could get there early, have a leisurely meal and walk over to the arena.

 

[kupman]

OR you could get there early, have a leisurely meal and walk over to the arena.

.....now your talking about having a good time. Please stop the crazy talk.

 

[VF21]

Oh, silly me.

 

[BudWright]

Although Nov.-Dec. is the first 3rd of the season, we only have 16 home games those two months this year. That's probably average. People throw out numbers that can be worrisome until you see through their thinking---and we know how Arena Skeptic is thinking. Annie.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

Although Nov.-Dec. is the first 3rd of the season, we only have 16 home games those two months this year. That's probably average. People throw out numbers that can be worrisome until you see through their thinking---and we know how Arena Skeptic is thinking. Annie.

Har. That's more than 1/3 of their home games.

41/16 = What?

At any rate, the newly-passed legislation that enables this new approach at Cal Expo (and I think it's an excellent idea, by the way) requires that each of the bonds they sell to be paid in full by the party for whom the bond was sold; there will be no money from the State to repay those bonds.

When the negotiations get going, I personally think that'll be the biggest sticking point. Let's just say the arena costs $400 million (I'm keeping this estimate reasonable, don't you think?). After a 30 year period, the payback will be roughly $800 million, plus or minus, depending on the interest rate at the time. So someone will have to pay $800 million over 30 years, an average of close to $26 million.

Personally, I think that's where the Maloofs start to balk; it's where they start to look for cheaper alternatives. This is because of this most-excellent restriction the Legislature placed on the bonds; that the party that holds each of these bonds (technically, the State is leasing these buildings to tennants, and is requiring positive cash flow, and they don't care where the tennant gets the funds) to pay it back.

It won't be over air quality, or water quality, or traffic, or transit... It'll be over the state requirement that the tennant is on the hook for 100% of the cost of the bonds. It's all right there in the bill, and black and white.

I think this is where you'll see this fail to come to fruition. And it's always the same issue: There are not enough large corporations in this area to pick up the slack. Our largest private company, VSP, is non-profit, and they're not really large enough anyway.

Again, I must raise the same question: What is wrong with the current location? Tell me why they cannot build on top of the baseball park Lukenbill started and abandoned. That would lower the cost of the project AND keep the traffic about the same.

 

[kupman]

Again, I must raise the same question: What is wrong with the current location? Tell me why they cannot build on top of the baseball park Lukenbill started and abandoned. That would lower the cost of the project AND keep the traffic about the same.

I don't think that we really know the detailed financial plans yet, but I am guessing once a plan is devised and made public it will become apparent why Cal Expo is the better choice. I will be patient until that time.

Arco sits quiet for much of the summer and Cal Expo sits quiet for much of the winter and spring. It makes sense to me from the onset why you would build an arena at the site that that encourages around the calendar activity rather than having valuable land sit mostly dormant for about half of the year.

 

[kennadog]

At any rate, the newly-passed legislation that enables this new approach at Cal Expo (and I think it's an excellent idea, by the way) requires that each of the bonds they sell to be paid in full by the party for whom the bond was sold; there will be no money from the State to repay those bonds.

That's what I've said from the beginning. These are not general obligation bonds. The responsibility of paying the private investors back will be on the JPA. Could the JPA default? Of course. Generally, the recourse for repayment will then be through the lien on the property and improvements. If the JPA loans any of the money to anyone else, that party will owe the money to the JPA, who owes it back to the investors. The reason bond financing is attractive is it carries a lower interest rate than conventional commercial loans.

When the negotiations get going, I personally think that'll be the biggest sticking point. Let's just say the arena costs $400 million (I'm keeping this estimate reasonable, don't you think?). After a 30 year period, the payback will be roughly $800 million, plus or minus, depending on the interest rate at the time. So someone will have to pay $800 million over 30 years, an average of close to $26 million.

Personally, I think that's where the Maloofs start to balk; it's where they start to look for cheaper alternatives. This is because of this most-excellent restriction the Legislature placed on the bonds; that the party that holds each of these bonds (technically, the State is leasing these buildings to tennants, and is requiring positive cash flow, and they don't care where the tennant gets the funds) to pay it back.

Again, I must raise the same question: What is wrong with the current location? Tell me why they cannot build on top of the baseball park Lukenbill started and abandoned. That would lower the cost of the project AND keep the traffic about the same.

I also thought the current site would be cheapest, but when I read one of the Bee articles (I can't remember which), the reasoning for Cal Expo being selected was financially clear.

The Natomas city/Maloof land is only 180-185 acres. Cal Expo is 360 acres of developable land. The idea behind the JPA is not just to rehab Cal Expo and build an arena. The idea is also to have developers come in and build offices, homes, stores, etc. on the site.

Pay back of the bond will not rely soley on Cal Expo, arena and parking revenue. The money made on other development on the site, through land leases, will also provide revenue. More revenue potential equals the ability to raise more money through bond sales.

As the article stated, there just wasn't enough land in Natomas to support enough development to make it as financially feasible as the Cal Expo site. The fact that Cal Expo is trying to form a JPA (if the governor signs) adds the ability to get cheaper financing money.

 

[Arena Skeptic]

We don't know if they're trying to form a JPA. That would be one approach, but we don't know if it's the approach they'll take.

If they do take that approach, it's likely that they'll have to have a vote on it (not for legal reasons, but for ethical reasons). Because these would probably be revenue-anticipation bonds and the courts have ruled you don't have to vote on these, technically, they could do this without a vote. But from an ethical point of view, I doubt they would proceed to organize a JPA and approve a $400 million bond sale without a vote.

When it was Raley Field, I think that was around $30-$40 million for those bonds (Sac County, Yolo County and West Sac make up that JPA), with Raley's and others picking up the difference. But when you're talking about $800 million to repay the bonds, politicians get really antsy about that.

Again, no vote would be required to sell such bonds, but... Well, let's just say the JPA consisted of the County and City; they'd have to be willing to put up the full faith and credit of City and County general revenue funds to back the loan repayment. That's where Council and Board members get antsy. When you hear them ask, "What if the occupants can only afford $15 million that year?", you must realize where the other $11 million comes from.

That's where elected officials get nervous. And, seriously, I think that's the ultimate hangup.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

Quite frankly, there is only one feasible solution to this, and it's already a necessary addition to the area anyways, so it may get legs. There is an absolute dearth of HOV/Carpool lane accessibility in Sacramento. Adding two dual-lane HOV/Carpool ramps (separate from the main-thoroughfare, like on 680 and in other parts of the Bay Area near the Bay Bridge) starting at 80 East and West is a feasible, logical solution to this problem. I would worry about ski season, but how many Friday night home games are there anyways?

You free up the other freeways, and make it so regular, single-occupancy commuters are left reasonably unaffected by the swell. Expensive? Hell yes. But Sacramento isn't getting any smaller, and it's a long time coming anyways. This would be a logical and heavily-endorsed solution to a pre-existing problem, in my (hopeful) opinion.

 

[VF21]

I don't even think there's room for those kinds of carpool ramps, is there?