Writing about
urbanism, and presumably about most subjects with practical community
application, can require a careful husbanding of time and resources. There are so many worthy ideas to be pursued
that a writer can spread himself too thin trying to champion all of them. It’s a battle I fight with myself every week.
Some idea
people respond by choosing to serve only as a source of ideas. If no one picks up on a proffered idea, the
possibility dies, but the writer can rationalize that it wasn’t his fault. Personally, I find that approach bloodless. Offering ideas is an essential step, but never
committing more of one’s self seems to show a lack of community commitment.
Others
respond by jumping into every possible campaign. Never saying no is a fine way to make
friends, but it also dilutes effectiveness such that no good cause gets sufficient
attention.
I try to
find a happy medium. Sometimes I’ll
write about an idea and then let it go, hoping it does well in the future, but
with no further commitment from me.
Other times I’ll
jump in and devote my time and effort to further promote a concept which I’ve offered. But I only take this course if it’s an idea
that really moves me and if others will work with me in the effort. It’s more fun to tilt at windmills if they’re
worthy targets and if one has compatriots in the tilting.
However, I
haven’t always been good about checking for support before charging off toward
the windmills. I’ve been too willing to
hear what I want to hear in fuzzy comments of support, only to find myself alone
in the lane approaching the windmill.
This isn’t
going to be one of those times. In this
post and the next, I’ll lay out an opportunity and ask for support. If it isn’t forthcoming, that’s fine. I can save myself for another battle. But if support is offered, then we can begin
having fun.
The subject
is a possibility has recently arisen in Petaluma. I initially mentioned it casually, almost
dismissively, because the barriers before it seemed too large to overcome. But then several folks through different
channels told me that they found the idea intriguing. And the more I pondered the idea, the more it
seemed to provide a great solution to multiple challenges. Today, the barriers seemed as high or even
higher than when I’d first assessed them, but the advantages and support seemed
greater. So, today I’ll begin a check to
see if the support is real.
The issue is
the second SMART station in Petaluma. I’ve
recently written at length on the situation.
I’ll give a summary and update below, but if you want my full bore
approach, which wandered into a rumination about the best function of urban
growth boundaries, you can read the four blog posts here, here, here, and here.
Summarizing
and slightly updating the situation, SMART formulated their rail plan based on
a second Petaluma station at the intersection of N. McDowell Boulevard and
Corona Road. (For those not in the North
Bay, SMART is the Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District. They’re implementing a voter-approved plan to
return commuter rail service to the Sonoma Marin corridor, with revenue service
expected to begin in late 2016.)
The first
SMART station in Petaluma is downtown, near the historic train station, and has
never been in question. But the location
of the second station has become a problem.
Presumably because
of budget concerns from the recession, SMART held back from acquiring the initially
intended site at the northeast corner of McDowell and Corona. (The triangular parcel in the photo.) The site subsequently went through a
foreclosure and a sale, and is now back at the market, but at a price in which SMART
seems uninterested.
Behind the
first site is the Brody parcel, which would work for a train station but, being
set back from McDowell, wouldn’t be as convenient for bus or private car access
as the first parcel. Plus, the Brody
parcel would seem better reserved for later transit-oriented development (TOD).
Across
Corona is the current U.S. Post Office site.
Many of the mail processing tasks have recently been moved away from the
site, but the process to release a portion of the site for a train station is
unknown and likely complex.
Behind the
Post Office is the largest Corona alternative, the Scott parcel (bisected by
Peterson Lane in the photo). But the parcel
is outside of the urban growth boundary, requiring a significant land-use action
to make it available for the parking and/or TOD that should complement a train
station. Also, the Scott parcel may have
wetland issues that would require mitigation.
Lastly, the Scott parcel would the same access concerns as the Brody
parcel.
Perhaps influenced
by the challenges at the four parcels surrounding the originally intended
station location, SMART identified a possible trade of other land rights for a
fifth station location, about a mile to the northwest on Old Redwood Highway,
about a quarter-mile north of McDowell.
The station would be closer to office parks, but further from the housing
that it was intended to serve. Also it
is tightly bounded by the urban growth boundary and a Community Separator,
limiting the TOD potential around the site.
And the bus and car access concerns would be worse than for any of the sites
near Corona.
And there we
are, with five possible sites, all imperfect in one way or another.
Except that
there’s a sixth site that, while it also has significant imperfections, offers rather
remarkable benefits.
A short
distance north of Corona on McDowell is a vacant industrial parcel. It lies between a FedEx distribution center
and a warehouse with multiple tenants. As
can be seen in the photo, it also backs on the rail tracks. Lagunitas Brewery, which is on the far side
of the warehouse, owns development rights to the parcel, recently secured approvals
to build a parking lot to serve their on-site brewpub, and has begun clearing
and grubbing the site.
But the site
could also serve as a train station.
Indeed, it could solve a number of issues in the vicinity of Lagunitas
and the other brewpubs that are popping up near McDowell.
A full
explanation of the benefits and challenges of converting the site into a train
station can be best addressed through a pro and con assessment. That
assessment, plus a check to see if any folks are interesting in making the
argument, is what I’ll write about in my next post. Please join me for the discussion.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Looking at that urban fabric, it's hard to believe that a train station would be a good investment...
ReplyDeleteSeth, thanks for the comment. However, there is a system-wide commitment to have suburban-type stations where people can park to catch the train. As long as we're going to build those kinds of stations, and I agree that we should as a transitional strategy, we should locate them where the seeds of urbanism might take root.
Delete