Tag Cloud
Thursday, May 24, 2012
City council calls for 'neighborhood-friendly' bridges
by Melissa Corker, published on July 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM
Storyline: Politics
Loading images
The Sacramento City Council was asked to accept a feasibility study on new river crossings Tuesday night, but council members put off taking any action until they get an acceptable definition of a “neighborhood-friendly bridge.”
The nine-month study was a collaborative effort between the city of Sacramento and city of West Sacramento that reviewed alternatives for new river crossings to improve connectivity between the two cities.
But the study did not specify a particular design for the proposed bridges, and council members – and residents who came to the meeting to voice their opinions – were concerned that the end result would be a “commuter bridge” that floods residential neighborhoods with unwanted traffic congestion.
“We need more connectivity (to West Sacramento) – that much is clear,” said Councilman Rob Fong. “But we have to have something that works (for people) on both sides of the river.”
Two potential areas were highlighted in the study as having the greatest feasibility. One would be located in a “north market” area, spanning the Sacramento River from Township 9 and Richards Boulevard area to south Natomas.
The other potential location would be in a “south market” area and would link the southern part of downtown at either Sutterville Road, Broadway or Miller Park to West Sacramento.
Currently, there are three bridges that cross the Sacramento river from Sacramento to West Sacramento: I Street bridge, Tower Bridge and Pioneer bridge.
The feasibility study, conducted by city staff along with an advisory committee, concluded that new river crossings would “increase economic activity, reduce transit delays and increase riverfront public access and recreation opportunities,” according to a city press release sent Monday.
But residents of the neighborhoods where the proposed bridges would be built aren’t convinced.
Mark Abrahams, president of the Land Park Community Association, said he opposes bridges that are “out of scale” to the neighborhoods they are located in.
“No effort should be spared to create a bridge that is smart, small and takes the neighborhood into consideration,” Abrahams said.
Building new river crossings is not a new idea, but Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson said now is the right time to make it happen.
“Our city has grown,” Johnson said at a press conference Tuesday. “If you go back 10, 20, 30 years, (Sacramento was) much smaller. Now that we’ve grown to 470,000 (people), we need more connectivity outside of downtown.”
Johnson said that, if Sacramento builds a new entertainment sports complex and revitalized the Railyards project, there will be a definite need for “more ways to get in downtown and more ways to get out.”
“I’m not opposed to growth, but not at the expense of our neighborhood,” said Susan Sidhu-Manuel, a retired analyst from Land Park. “Don’t make this about West Sacramento’s transportation needs.”
The Sutterville Road location received the most opposition from residents at the council meeting, and council members took note that it was the least likely to reach final approval.
“I don’t think we should spend any money studying something no one wants,” said Councilwoman Angelique Ashby. “Take (Sutterville Road) off the table completely and be done with it.”
Ashby asked Mike McKeever, chief executive officer of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, if a “commuter bridge” is necessary to achieve the goals of the study, but McKeever suggested using different terminology.
“I think (the term) ‘commuter bridge’ is being used to conjure in people’s minds something like the Pioneer Bridge with thousands of cars.” McKeever said. “Nobody – nobody – is talking about building that sort of bridge.”
New bridges that include both pedestrian and vehicular capacity are estimated to cost between $40 million and $270 million depending on location, design and other variables, according to city staff.
Council members directed staff to return in three weeks with a definition of a “neighborhood-friendly bridge” before the council would consider approving any further studies on the potential river crossings.
“I think we’ve heard enough testimony and description tonight,” said Jerry Way, executive director of the city’s Department of Transportation. “When we come back in open session we’ll be ready to have a conversation about what the definition of a ‘neighborhood-friendly’ bridge is.”
See the possible river crossings here.
See the study executive summary here.
Melissa Corker is a Staff Reporter for The Sacramento Press. Foller her onTwitter @MelissaCorker.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Really NO ONE wants it? That's the first I've heard of that. Actually, the Sutterville Road crossing make the most sense in terms of creating the most access for the people of West Sacramento.
“I’m not opposed to growth, but not at the expense of our neighborhood,” said Susan Sidhu-Manuel, a retired analyst from Land Park. “Don’t make this about West Sacramento’s transportation needs.”
Snark aside, better mobility means better industry and commerce. Which means more revenue. Which means better schools and policemen.
If the Land Park snots don't want the bridges, start with Natomas and Richards Boulevard and the Rail Yards and work our way south. We will deal with their troublemaking and obstructionism later.
Needed additional bridges:
--Sutterville Road to Linden Loop / Lake Washington Blvd (squeal, Land Porkers, squeal)
--Broadway extension to Jefferson Blvd.
--P/Q Streets to Raley Field (perhaps in conjunction with the concrete slab covering that part of I-5)
--Railyards to 5th Street / Lighthouse Drive.
--Richards Boulevard extension to Lighthouse Drive.
--7th/8th streets to Truxel Road.
With regard to Sutterville, come on down someday, let me buy you a cup of coffee at La Bou and let's take a look at the existing congestion on Sutterville during the morning and, particularly, the afternoon commute. Or let's look at the weekend congestion with many thousands of visitors enjoying William Land Park, but bringing traffic to a crawl. Sutterville is already at capacity and cannot handle loads of West Sac commuters. Most will eventually turn north and head towards jobs in downtown, clogging up already congested Riverside Blvd., Land Park Dr. and Freeport Blvd.
Why would we want to ruin one of Sacramento's oldest and nicest neighborhoods and further congest our city's premier regional park for the sake of accomodating West Sac. commuters who'll use Land Park area streets as expressways? Sacrificing one or more Sacramento neighborhoods to fix West Sac.'s failure to intelligently plan their own transportation needs makes no sense.
Moving West Sac. traffic across bridges into the dowtown railyards or District 9/Richards Blvd. areas, where we want to faciliate Sacramento's future economic growth, is the smarter policy, particularly since we are not likely to receive federal funding for more than one new bridge for several decades, if ever. It's a pipe dream to think that the debt-laden federal government would ever give us a blank check for multiple bridges at $40 to $270 million a piece.
Yes, I am a Land Parker and, yes, my family would be directly impacted. But don't hold it against us that we are trying to protect our neighborhood from real harm. Sacramento's greatest feature is the attractiveness and stability of its neighborhoods, giving us a Midwestern friendliness with a California vibe. We have enough strikes against us (i.e., a deplorable local economy, a dysfunctional city government) without sacrificing perhaps our greatest attribute.
A Land Porker
I guess I come from a perspective that is just annoyed at any neighborhood parochialism. I look back at the incredibly short sighted decision in the early 1970's to sell off the right of ways
for proposed freeway routes 143, 148, 244, and the route 65 extension, and can't help but wonder what they were thinking? Well I think I know what they were thinking, anti auto Luddites mixed with parochial communities like Carmichael who thought they could stop growth. But the growth came anyway.