News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Stockton area highways to get a makeover

Started by bing101, February 28, 2017, 11:06:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

bing101

http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/02/27/pilot-program-will-beautify-stockton,-courtesy-of-caltrans/

This is a Caltrans pilot program for Stockton. It's removing trash and add some murals in some sections of Stockton area highways.


sparker

Quote from: bing101 on February 28, 2017, 11:06:58 AM
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/02/27/pilot-program-will-beautify-stockton,-courtesy-of-caltrans/

This is a Caltrans pilot program for Stockton. It's removing trash and add some murals in some sections of Stockton area highways.

Can't hurt!  CA 99 through the east end of town has always been one of the most litter-strewn sections of freeway I've encountered in Northern California.  Perhaps the reconfiguration/upgrade south of the CA 4 freeway junction will help to lessen that problem in the future.  And $600K won't buy much more than a cleanup effort these days in any instance, so it'll be funds quite well-spent, IMO!   

Max Rockatansky

I've never thought it looked all that bad considering how rough of a city Stockton can be. 

coatimundi

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2017, 11:32:05 AM
I've never thought it looked all that bad considering how rough of a city Stockton can be.

My initial thought on this was "polishing a turd," but I realize that it's beneficial from the greater perspective of the state as a whole. It's not giving Stockton a pretty, new park, but it is improving the way an otherwise ugly but well-used highway looks. Then again, Stockton could probably do a lot of positive things with $600k.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: coatimundi on March 01, 2017, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2017, 11:32:05 AM
I've never thought it looked all that bad considering how rough of a city Stockton can be.

My initial thought on this was "polishing a turd," but I realize that it's beneficial from the greater perspective of the state as a whole. It's not giving Stockton a pretty, new park, but it is improving the way an otherwise ugly but well-used highway looks. Then again, Stockton could probably do a lot of positive things with $600k.

I guess it could be looked at through the sphere of thought with the Broken Windows theory.  Basically the crux of it is that if you make something look maintained and care for that it will discourage crime in the general area.  It seemed to work out in some large urban examples in the 1990s, basically it involved cleaning up graffiti and making things look nice again.

sparker

Quote from: coatimundi on March 01, 2017, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2017, 11:32:05 AM
I've never thought it looked all that bad considering how rough of a city Stockton can be.

My initial thought on this was "polishing a turd," but I realize that it's beneficial from the greater perspective of the state as a whole. It's not giving Stockton a pretty, new park, but it is improving the way an otherwise ugly but well-used highway looks. Then again, Stockton could probably do a lot of positive things with $600k.

The north (and admittedly newer) side of town is actually quite a decent area; the "marina" condos and apartments along the west side of I-5 in the Hammer Lane exit area are no different that similar units in towns with more sterling reputations (my GF's cousins live in one such condo).  A cohort in the audio business (he makes vacuum-tube amplification) recently moved his business back from Denver to Stockton; he's got a unit in a north-side industrial park.   When I asked him why he moved back , he said that both he and his wife have strong ties to the area (he's a UOP graduate), and that if you stayed to the north, you'd be as secure as with any other city of similar size. 

I've done a lot of railfanning in the Stockton area over the years; while some of the areas I frequented seemed to be a bit sketchy at first glance, I don't recall any time that I felt particularly threatened or even moderately unsafe -- even with a camera bag full of equipment.  Taking photos of street trackage in SF's Mission district was more intimidating than anything in Stockton.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on March 02, 2017, 04:49:42 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 01, 2017, 02:30:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 01, 2017, 11:32:05 AM
I've never thought it looked all that bad considering how rough of a city Stockton can be.

My initial thought on this was "polishing a turd," but I realize that it's beneficial from the greater perspective of the state as a whole. It's not giving Stockton a pretty, new park, but it is improving the way an otherwise ugly but well-used highway looks. Then again, Stockton could probably do a lot of positive things with $600k.

The north (and admittedly newer) side of town is actually quite a decent area; the "marina" condos and apartments along the west side of I-5 in the Hammer Lane exit area are no different that similar units in towns with more sterling reputations (my GF's cousins live in one such condo).  A cohort in the audio business (he makes vacuum-tube amplification) recently moved his business back from Denver to Stockton; he's got a unit in a north-side industrial park.   When I asked him why he moved back , he said that both he and his wife have strong ties to the area (he's a UOP graduate), and that if you stayed to the north, you'd be as secure as with any other city of similar size. 

I've done a lot of railfanning in the Stockton area over the years; while some of the areas I frequented seemed to be a bit sketchy at first glance, I don't recall any time that I felt particularly threatened or even moderately unsafe -- even with a camera bag full of equipment.  Taking photos of street trackage in SF's Mission district was more intimidating than anything in Stockton.

I guess it just depends on how aware you are of what might be going on around you.  I've been out doing some road/infrastructure related photo taking in much more dangerous cities than Stockton (I say that knowing it was recently ranked 10th for crime) and didn't have much issue.  Funny thing is that if you dress down and mind your business people tend to leave you alone, it seems like most victims come from the area with most bad cities.  Really there isn't anywhere in California that I've felt concern for my own safety versus say a place like Chicago, Gary, or even Detroit.


coatimundi

I never typed "dangerous". Stockton is just a dump. It sucks. It makes Bakersfield look decent.
Just because a town sucks doesn't mean it's dangerous. Look at Amarillo or Decatur, Illinois. Total dumps, but crime isn't really the issue.

But please continue the "Tales from the Ghetto" direction of the thread.

Max Rockatansky

#8
Quote from: coatimundi on March 03, 2017, 11:06:30 AM
I never typed "dangerous". Stockton is just a dump. It sucks. It makes Bakersfield look decent.
Just because a town sucks doesn't mean it's dangerous. Look at Amarillo or Decatur, Illinois. Total dumps, but crime isn't really the issue.

But please continue the "Tales from the Ghetto" direction of the thread.

Stockton does rank pretty high on the UCR (Uniform Crime Report) index, that isn't something that I don't think anyone could contest.  That would imply that it would certainly be more dangerous than most cities of comparable size.  So I'll certainly stand by the comment I made that Stockton isn't the best as a whole when it comes to being a more dangerous place than most cities comparable in size.  That isn't an implication everyone in the city is a criminal nor that there aren't nice areas. 

That isn't to say that there aren't cities where a dumpy nature doesn't imply high crime, El Paso out in Texas is a decent example of that.  A couple years ago El Paso even had the lowest murder rate for any U.S. City over 500,000 people at the height of the cartel killings in Juarez.  I'd have to look up the individual statistics but I would venture a guess that most Central Valley Cities would fall under the category of high poverty but with average or slightly above average crime rates.

But then again would this story even be news had it been Fresno or Bakersfield instead?   Going bankrupt in the not so far flung past doesn't necessarily bode well for urban beautification projects, even after a decade after the fact.  I even said in my first post that I was surprised that he money was allocated because I didn't really think that 99, I-5, or even 4 looked all that trashy to begin with in the city limits of Stockton.  There certainly dumpy looking areas and segments of freeway along the entire duration of the Central Valley, especially on 99 through the 300-something miles that it is a freeway.  At best 99 could be described as "utilitarian" looking...I would just call it ugly looking highway which is somehow endearing at times.

sparker

Quote from: coatimundi on March 03, 2017, 11:06:30 AM
I never typed "dangerous". Stockton is just a dump. It sucks. It makes Bakersfield look decent.
Just because a town sucks doesn't mean it's dangerous. Look at Amarillo or Decatur, Illinois. Total dumps, but crime isn't really the issue.

But please continue the "Tales from the Ghetto" direction of the thread.

Never intended my comments to be an exhaustive sociological comment about life in Stockton; just observations from visiting the town several times.  The fact that the RR tracks (especially some of the "short lines" that feature quite a bit of street running) traverse primarily the lower-income neighborhoods of the city (which also are some of the older sections of town) -- the sites of many of my visits in past years -- is not at all unusual.  I'd actually compare Stockton to Fresno as far as city "layout" is concerned -- just aligned on different axes.  Fresno's older area is central-west, including downtown and the area between the BNSF/Amtrak line and well west of CA 99.  The newer and, development-wise, more accommodating areas, are arrayed in an arc around the older core, principally to the east and north.  Stockton, on the other hand, is constricted by the Delta to the west and valuable farmland to the east; its grown directions have been N-S in nature.  The south side (Charter Way and below) is prinicpally industrial until well south of the city limits, where the town of Lathrop features a high level of newer "tract" housing, primarily as an attractant to Bay Area "mega-commuters".  Most Stockton development, at least in the last half of the 20th century and going on to today, has taken place on the north side of town; much of it along the I-5 corridor, which wasn't opened until the very late '70's (made it to Lodi about '77, and all the way to Sacramento in '81).  Since it's a much longer "slog" through Stockton for the aforementioned "mega-commuters", Stockton housing isn't widely considered to be affected by the influx of that phenomenon; Lathrop is about as far as commuters are willing to go.  And since there aren't the employment opportunities in the immediate area to expedite such things, the prospect of urban "infill" in Stockton isn't too bright at this time.  It's in pretty much the same situation as other Valley cities -- a blend of limited attractants mixed with relatively low housing costs.  The only thing that sets Stockton apart from similarly-situated cities is the fact that the older (and prima facie, less attractive) neighborhoods are very visible from the major routes going through town, especially the crosstown CA 4 freeway and CA 99.  Stockton being a "dump" or "blighted" is more a matter of perception than stark reality -- one notices the less-than-pristine neighborhoods on the pass-through, and assumes that such is typical of the city as a whole.  Although the city has been battered by successive economic downturns, it's no more or no less viable than other cities that have experienced similar circumstances.     

BakoCondors

Quote from: coatimundi on March 03, 2017, 11:06:30 AM
I never typed "dangerous". Stockton is just a dump. It sucks. It makes Bakersfield look decent.

Aw, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to us Bakobits all year. :awesomeface:




Max Rockatansky

Quote from: BakoCondors on March 03, 2017, 10:07:35 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 03, 2017, 11:06:30 AM
I never typed "dangerous". Stockton is just a dump. It sucks. It makes Bakersfield look decent.

Aw, that's the nicest thing anyone has said to us Bakobits all year. :awesomeface:



I'm amused that so many Central Valley cities got talked about so much in-depth.  Bakersfield and Fresno get touched on every now and then because of 58 or 99, almost never Stockton though.  It's kind of amazing that a city that large really blends into the background, it probably really wouldn't if it was in most other states.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2017, 12:22:57 PM
I'm amused that so many Central Valley cities got talked about so much in-depth.  Bakersfield and Fresno get touched on every now and then because of 58 or 99, almost never Stockton though.  It's kind of amazing that a city that large really blends into the background, it probably really wouldn't if it was in most other states.

That's probably because of its proximity to other larger metro areas.  Although Stockton-Turlock (and all the smaller cities in between) is considered one metro area, it's largely overshadowed by the Bay Area to the west and the state capitol, Sacramento, to the north.  For years it was just another agricultural shipping point; but now the regional utility as an outlying series of "bedroom communities" for Bay commuters has enhanced the perception of the whole area as just an "auxiliary" to the adjoining better-publicized areas.  Unless you live there, it's kind of a place you go through to get to the place you wanted to go originally!   

TheStranger

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2017, 12:22:57 PM

I'm amused that so many Central Valley cities got talked about so much in-depth.  Bakersfield and Fresno get touched on every now and then because of 58 or 99, almost never Stockton though.  It's kind of amazing that a city that large really blends into the background, it probably really wouldn't if it was in most other states.

Another way to think of it:

On one hand, the city proper populations of Stockton and Fresno (especially Fresno, at over 500K) are larger than some well known American cities that have major professional sports teams!  Stockton at almost 300K is larger than Buffalo (which has NHL and NFL teams and once had an NBA team).

On the other hand...the metro areas are relatively limited in both instances, compared to places with a smaller/declining central city population but decades-old development in their outskirts.
Chris Sampang

sparker

Quote from: TheStranger on March 04, 2017, 05:27:10 PM
On the other hand...the metro areas are relatively limited in both instances, compared to places with a smaller/declining central city population but decades-old development in their outskirts.

Practically all Valley cities fit the above description; most, including the "flagship" of the bunch, Fresno, are arrayed in a "fan"-shaped north and east expansion pattern, with the central city (originally centered around the old SP passenger & freight depots, where agricultural products reached the railhead) at the origin point.  Although most of the cities (including the 'four M's:  Madera, Merced, Modesto, and Manteca) do feature some development to the south and west of the central point, most developmental activity has been east of the RR tracks -- and subsequently US/CA 99.  Stockton's different -- there's limited development east of CA 99, largely due to the existence of extensive and valuable agricultural facilities.  Both residential & commercial development has been on a N-S axis between I-5 and CA 99.  In a previous post I mentioned a lack of central-city "infill"; this is in part due to another unusual Stockton "feature":  besides the twin UP rail lines extending north and south (former SP and WP main lines), there's also a E-W BNSF line -- the main Bakersfield-Richmond freight line, dominated by container cargo.  A major BNSF container "hub" lies to the immediate east of CA 99, with train movements almost 24/7, even including the UP-owned lines to the north (BNSF has trackage rights over the former WP between the rail interchange in Stockton and Keddie up in the Feather River canyon).  Trains operating nonstop and making significant noise when rattling over switch points hardly makes for a favorable location for residential development -- hence the lack -- or likelihood -- of such in central Stockton.  So development has occurred to the north & south; industry dominates the south area until about the airport, past which is the town of Lathrop, the farthest NE "bedroom" community associated with Bay Area commuters.  North of the central city, Stockton pretty much merges with Lodi as one continuous mass of housing tracts (and yes, this is the famous/infamous Lodi mentioned in the Creedence song -- the Fogerty brothers have roots there).  Any "infill" in the area is simply new tracts between older tracts in this area.  Luckily -- for open space advocates -- the development has and will likely continue to cease north and east of Lodi -- the recent designation of that area as a distinct wine-producing region (a la Napa and Sonoma) has drastically increased the cost of land so as to make it less attractive to "plant" houses rather than vineyards.   Unlike the more southerly cities strung along CA 99, there's little impetus to expand to the eastern foothills -- and the Delta makes any western expansion unlikely unless some enterprising entity tries to sell a tract made up exclusively of houseboats! 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.