New bus terminal to be vagrant-free?

I wasn’t quite sure how moving the Greyhound bus station was going to suddenly make the Greyhound bus station from an unsavory place into some sort of haven for the weary traveler. I do see that the location will be next to a police outpost, and I guess with the budget woes hitting law enforcement the best way to get police presence is to be next door to one.

But it seems like a bus station is a bus station is a bus station. Won’t a new coat of paint (okay, it’s WAY more than just that) just keep it from being a grimy bus station filled with unsavory types for a few years? It’s not like suddenly only yacht captains and stewardesses are going to be coming through there. Maybe I’m misunderestimating how much actual crime affected the overall grunge factor of the former bus terminal.

What do you say? Is the new bus station going to be travel oasis or more of the same?

Author: CoolDMZ

"X-ray vision to see in between / Where's my kimono and my time machine?"

11 thoughts on “New bus terminal to be vagrant-free?”

  1. One article I saw on the move noted that the current site is next to a liquor store and SRO housing. I said that folks would just hang out at the station even if they weren’t travelling. So the new site will avoid that.


  2. Not sure how this makes any sense. Move the bus terminal out of downtown, near local bus and light-rail and other modes of public transportation and move it out to what is essentially in the boonies and not all that accessible. Not very “world-class-city”like in my opinion. Regular people do take greyhound too ya know.


  3. And a lot of “regular people” are very poor, and are often elderly, too. This urban underclass aren’t a variable to be moved away from; they’re people who need services, too, just like everyone else, and Greyhound was a service that many of these folks – who often don’t have cars – used.

    All we’ve done is moved the service away from those who need it most, just to satisfy a bunch of real estate developers.

    Nice job, city council. Yet again, those with the money get what they want, and those who don’t get screwed.


  4. Sacramento has done far more for the poor than any city in the metro area. This is true no matter how you measure this ($ per captia, % of budget). And our city suffers for this generosity with less budget dollars for services for the rest of us, higher crime rates, and less infrastructure to compete with the burbs for new business ventures.

    And for all of this, we still have whiners complaining that the large, shiny new bus depot isnt located in precisely the right spot. Try asking Folsom or Roseville for a big new bus depot, let me know their reply!


  5. Services should be located near those who use them. NIMBY folks coming back with arguments that Sacramento gives money to its poor are not some kind of magical response to this. We all know it moved for one reason and one reason only: real estate developers didn’t want the station where it was, and lobbied the city for years to close it. And, as usual, the city followed the orders of the real estate developers. End of story.


  6. It is a complete joke to accuse anyone living in or near the central city as “NIMBY”. Sacramento can compete with any city of it’s size in the nation for services and accomodations for the poor. Thusly Sacramentans already have quite a bit in their “backyards”. Measure it anyway that you like… homeless services, accessible public transportation, low-income housing, access to state and government aid agencies etc etc.

    You do realize that development and civic improvement ultimately helps Sacramento’s poor? Either in the form of increased job opportunities, or an increased tax base from which to provide services to the poor.


  7. True enough for private development–but this was paid for by city dollars, and placed on city land, so it doesn’t really do much in terms of increasing tax base. And as to proximity, well, now the Greyhound depot is closer to the city’s homeless shelters and Loaves & Fishes complex.

    The new Greyhound location will be about three blocks from the “Green Line” light rail depot under construction at 7th and Richards, and a couple of bus lines run on Richards, but obviously it has far worse transit connections than the 7th and L location, which was next to both light rail lines and several regular high-frequency bus routes. So yes, for those who don’t have a person in a car to pick them up or drop them off, this location is far less convenient for Greyhound customers. It doesn’t really matter how new or shiny the depot is if it is in the wrong place–which leads one to ask, if the problem with the old building was that it wasn’t shiny, why didn’t the owner simply maintain their building properly? And how well-maintained is it likely to be once it is vacant?


  8. wburg: Exactly!

    Moe: It seems pretty obvious that you’re right. If you just want an eyesore removed, then just renovate. If you want a criminal element removed, then crack down on the criminal element. Seems like both those things could be done for less than $7 million–especially since moving the site just delays the arrival of the criminal element.


  9. wburg
    Moving the bus depot from L street removes a major obstacle to private development in that area. News flash… developers do not want to invest millions into properties next to a seedy bus depot. Since 7th & L property has a much higher value than property out on Richards Blvd, we should expect a net increase in tax base.

    But good points all on why the old site was not maintained (and will the new site be maintained just as poorly?) and concern about how quickly will the old site become something useful.


  10. cogmeyer: The properties adjacent to the bus depot on that block have projects underway: the rehab of the Berry Hotel and the 700 K Street half-block project. Across the street, the owners of the Marshall want to do a rehab project, and catty-corner is a brand-new office building. The buildings across the street are occupied office buildings. I’m not seeing an adjacent property that would benefit by relocation of the depot. And while I suppose it makes sense from a strictly real-estate perspective, if one assumes that the only consideration one should ever take into account in a transaction is property value, it doesn’t make much sense from any other perspective–such as putting a transit-related use in convenient proximity to other transit-related uses.


Leave a Reply to cogmeyer Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: