Sibley Street Closure

OK, this is getting ridiculous... Traffic is obviously not going to stay on just Folsom-Auburn Road. Closing roads off, especially Sibley, is a terrible idea. Don't people realize that people will just cut through other areas? Maybe we should close all the roads down in Folsom... I swear this is just going to impact other residential areas. I can't believe they don't see what this is doing to our community.

Open up the Dam Road!!!! Please....

http://www.sacbee.co...p-8995336c.html

It's going to really mess with that children's center on the corner of Bidwell and Sibley. There are probably a lot of Intel parents there. With the closure of Sibley, the parents will have to go up to Riley or down to Folsom to pick up their kid.

I also heard that the reason for the street closure on Sutter is because the Folsom mayor lives there. I guess that road will re-open when he leaves office.

I live in California Hills at Glenn and Sibley and I take Sibley all the time to get to Old Folsom in the evenings for dinner or to go to the bike shop. Trying to get there using Folsom Blvd. or Riley is a nightmare between 5 and 6:30 and forcing residents to take those routes -- which should be intended for commuters trying to get out of town -- will only make them worse.

It's a main route. Plain and simple. It was there before Riley was extended to make it a main throughfare years ago. I've lived on Farm to Market (FM) roads in Texas that had 55 mph speed limits (now 65) and lots of traffic -- common sense said we didn't play on the road. To say that the roads have to be shut down because they are dangerous to kids is a stretch. All roads are dangerous to kids.

It seems that the solution lies in fixing the Folsom Blvd parking lot so that it becomes attractive to commuters again. Change some light timings, lengthen some left-hand turn lanes, etc...

-jason.

Just another incredibly inept attempt at "traffic calming". Close down every available route around the backlog so we FORCE drivers into the mess. Makes no sense whatsoever.

"It's not the best plan, but it's the only plan that has the best effect," said Pablo Sarabia, a committee member.

And...how do they intend to "close" the street so that residents still are able to get in? The same Bee article quoted a local resident as saying

"It makes us an island," Jarvis said. "It's not just an inconvenience. We've only got one way to get there."

So....our wonderful Folsom city leaders have managed to piss off EVERYONE while only making the problem worse.

Reminds me of the recently removed Davis administration. Act too late to help and when you do manage a knee-jerk reaction, it only worsens the problem by cow-towing to a very small number of consituents.

What a Cluster #&*@!!!!

QUOTE (slowthegrowth @ Jan 8 2004, 12:26 PM)

Reminds me of the recently removed Davis administration. Act too late to help and when you do manage a knee-jerk reaction, it only worsens the problem by cow-towing to a very small number of consituents.

Hmmm, that Lyons' recall of the city council is starting to look attractive.

A couple of points of clarification: 1) I'm fairly certain the mayor doesn't live on Sutter St (though former mayor Fait's house backs up to it) I'm also fairly certain that none of the current council meembers lives in the Historic District; 2) the Bee article was inaccurate in that the Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) did not make a decision or even a recommendation to close Sibley. A citizen's ad hoc committee did. The TSC will make a recommendation at its January 22 meeting, followed by a City Council Decision at their January 27th meeting. 3) The Bee was also wrong in saying that left turns from Bidwell to Soutbound Folsom Blvd. would be prohibited (although they had it right in the map caption); the proposal on the table would prohibit left turns from southbound Folsom Blvd. to Bidwell St., in addition to the Sibley closure and the two stop signs. 4) The proposal is for a 60-day trial period, which would allow the city to evaluate the many potential intended and unintended consequences of the proposal, and make modifications or scrap it entirely, if necessary. 5) The modified Scott St. closure has actually been quite successful: both the residents and merchants are generally happy with it now. As for the commuters, it actualy faster to get across Rainbow Bridge now than before the closure; the difference is that the traffic stacks up on Natoma and Riley where it is very visible, instead of in front of people's houses on Scott, Sutter and Coloma, where it was largely invisible to the rest of the city.

As a resident in the neighborhood of Sibley and Bidwell I support the closure of Sibley at Lembi. Keep in mind however that it will inconvenience us residents as well as the commuters. However, the commuters have brought this on themselves. We residents have had to endure commuters who refuse to abide by the 25 mph speed limit, running the stop signs at Lembi/Sibley, Bidwell, Sibley, passing over double yellow lines, littering, and the verbal abuse when some residents on Sibley posted signs reminding commuters to slow down.

Just last night, someone picking up a child at the daycare center at Sibley and Bidwell stopped their vehicle ON SIBLEY FULLY IN THE STREET (I am absolutely not making this up) to run in and get his child. The parking lot was full, but instead of turning the corner to park in the parking spaces for the school along Bidwell, he chose to just stop in the road! It was unbelievable! Then commuters started passing the stopped vehicle ignoring the double yellow lines and the oncoming traffic crossing Bidwell onto Sibley southbound!

So, as much as I would like to believe that all vehicles should be able to use all roads, as usual, a few (or let's say, MORE than a few) commuters have brought the neighborhood to this proposed solution.

The closure means we in the neighborhood have to make adjustments to our vehicle trips - an inconvenience to be sure, but if it stops the current nonsense that goes on, it will be well worth it!

I don't blame residents and commuters alike who are upset at what is happening because of the STUPID Folsom dam road closure.

There should be a mass storm of mail to that fellow who is responsible for the closure, since Hoover dam, Golden Gate bridge, etc. were not closed!

I don't remember his name or the "office"/Bureau he did this from, but heard he just quit or retired, or something

So who do we hang from the rafters for the closure now??? The city officials have been doing everything they can from what I have heard.

The CA senators there in Washington are just sitting on their hands!! They are not helpingfor us. Why are they not knocking on some doors back there???

Well if i can remember right, that dam road, was never meant to actually be a road, only a service road for them to fix it

this is true. It's a catch/22. If it was never closed, would we have gotten the new bridge that's coming? Probably not. However in the meantime, traffic is a nightmare.

9/11 changed a lot of things, Folsom is one.

I agree-- this is a terrible idea that ends up hurting Folsom residents who need to use Sibley to get places.

Here's excerpts from a letter I sent to the City Council:

I am a resident of Natoma Station. I use Sibley Street on weekdays to take my children to Sundance Montessori School on Natoma Street. I also use Sibley Street on Sundays to drive to Trinity Church (on Figueroa). The closure of Sibley Street would force me to detour down to Folsom Blvd. (the opposite direction of where I need to go) or to navigate the already-terrible middle school congestion on Riley Street in the mornings. Believe me, it is hard enough to get my preschoolers to their school on time without getting stuck in a huge traffic jam!

I understand that homeowners like to have quiet, traffic-free roads. (Indeed, I feel some homeowners are taking advantage of the Folsom Dam road closure to create "cul-de-sacs" they never had before). However, drivers have rights, too-- particularly drivers who are residents of Folsom just trying to take their kids to school, attend church, etc. We have the right not to be restricted to just a couple of completely bottle-necked routes so that a few homeowners can enjoy a traffic-free existence.

I don't think the City Council should be in the business of guaranteeing homeowners that the level of traffic on their street will never increase. Consider this: light rail will be coming to Natoma Station in the near future. Presumably this will increase traffic on Natoma Station Drive and Turnpike. Does the City Council plan to close those roads to protect Natoma Station's peace and quiet? I doubt it. My point is that various things (including, simply, Folsom's growing population) cause the traffic on roads to increase. The Folsom City Council cannot respond every time by closing the road-- thus inconveniencing other residents who need that road to get where they are going.

my sentiments exactly!!!

My suggestion to those who are really peeved about this is to do one of 2 things:

1) write to the City Council. Believe me, they do read your emails, and take them in to consideration.

2) Speak up at a city coucil meeting. Believe me, this takes a lot of courage, especially when you know others in the room may disagree with you. However I have noticed that voices do count for something - people that speak up often get their way.

great idea john, will do

Well, it sounds like we can all relax. I just got a phone message from Mayor Steve Miklos (in response to my email), and he assured me that the City Council is not planning to close Sibley St., as it is an important arterial road in Folsom. He said the proposal came from a small group of citizens , and he does not plan to recommend that the City Council even take up the issue.

I think he just got my vote -- imagine, a mayor who actually calls citizens about their concerns!!

If they want to help with traffic, they can stop putting a stop light every 200 yards on the major arterials!!!!