219 replies to this topic

[Terry]

QUOTE (Pacoloco @ May 19 2004, 12:55 PM)

I don't know how that small stretch of Coloma would be classified. There is a school along side, multiple businesses, a library, and about half a dozen homes. But, if the volume through this stretch of street was to increase to the point that if could no longer handle it, I would completely support any traffic calming measures the city would be willing to place.

If this refers to Coloma that was previously subject to the Sutter/Coloma traffic calming, the stretch of Coloma involved in the calming goes from Natoma north to Sutter, and except for the intersection of Coloma and Natoma, there are no other businesses on that stretch. Coloma from Natoma to East Bidwell is not currently subject to traffic calming, but you're right, it has the library, funeral home, middle school, etc.

[tony]

Just thought I'd bring this topic back to the radar screen. The closure is on the city council agenda to review the trial closure tomorrow at 8:00 pm (yes, the agenda says it will start as close to 8:00 pm as possible, but not earlier).

[s0479]

I'm just curious if the road is still being closed since I think the 30 days is up?? My daughter has a meeting in old Folsom next week and I need to tell my mom how to get there.

Thanks!

[Orangetj]

The road is still being closed from 4:00 to 7:00, at least through today.

[tony]

I missed the councile meeting last night. Can anyone give a report on what they decided regarding Sibley?

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (tony @ May 26 2004, 08:06 AM)

I missed the councile meeting last night. Can anyone give a report on what they decided regarding Sibley?

They decided that the timed closure on Sibley should stay in place for now, with a possible re-evaluation to take place when the Glenn/Sibley intersection is signalized and modifications are made to the turn lanes from Glenn to Folsom and from Sibley to Glenn are completed.

[Pacoloco]

Report on last night's city council meeting and the timed closure at Sibley.

First off, thanks to all that made it last night. The community outcome was impressive, and everyone spoke their piece. Regardless of your position, you donated your time away from friends and family, and that is always a sacrifice. If you didn't show up, as my 5 year old likes to say, "Shame on you!"

Cutting to the chase, by a city council vote of 3 to 1 (one member was not present), it was decided to leave the closure in place for the time being. Specifically, the closure will be left as-is, between 4pm and 7pm weekdays, for an additional 30 days. During that time, traffic counts will be taken to determine if 4pm to 7pm is the best time frame of a closure. For example, if the traffic counts show that the closure is optimum between 4:30pm and 6pm, that change will be implemented. The timed closure will continue to be left in place until various other traffic measures are completed. For example, the light at Sibley and Glenn, two northbound turn lanes from Glenn onto Folsom, widening Glenn and Sibley, etc. When these measures are completed, estimated at early September, the closure will be re-evaluated to determine if it is still necessary.

I consider this a win for both sides on many fronts. First, this is definitely not a permanent closure. It is temporary until other measures can be completed that will help alleviate the cut-through volume. The neighborhoods will continue to be protected until those measures are completed. Also, certain considerations were given to commuters which, at the request of the mayor last night, I will not publish here. This has also placed more pressure on both the city council and city staff to complete their various projects as quickly as possible. Believe me, if the city drags its feet on the Sibley / Glenn light, the public will make their voice absolutely heard now.

That’s my review of last night. If anyone else has additional insight or something I may have missed, feel free to chirp in.

[Lembi Resident]

Unfortunately, I disagree. There were no winners last night, except for the soon-to-be opened business at the corner of Lembi and Riley, a few businesses at the top of Bidwell, and maybe a few optimally situated residential addresses.

The many serious traffic concerns were not addressed in a comprehensive fashion. Volume will continue to be a problem. Speed and safety have not even been addressed. The proposed signal at Sibley and Glenn is not a panacea. In fact, it will create greater problems for some surrounding streets.

I see no hope for Folsom residents or drivers. Very sad.

[tony]

Thanks for the update. I fail to see how a double right turn onto Folsom Blvd. will help, when the problem is that there are cars stacked up on Folsom Blvd. I agree with Lembi that this solution seems to fail to address the larger problems, but then, as long as we keep letting city council do traffic engineering in two-hour sessions, I don't believe we will get a comprehensive solution.

Pacoloco: I'm intrigued by your comment abou the mayor requesting tha "certain considerations for commuters" not be published. Anything he says at a council meeting is public information. How does he expect it not to get out?

[bordercolliefan]

I did not attend last night's meeting. As you know, I have my own view on the appropriateness of the closure, but since it generally does not affect me (I typically am not traveling downtown during the closure hours), I did not feel it was my place to urge the City Council one way or the other. (If the closure was full-time, I would feel differently).

Thanks to Orangetj, Pacoloco, and Lembi resident for their reports.

However, your reports left me with some questions.

Pacoloco, I was puzzled by your statement that the City Council made certain considerations for commuters which, at the Mayor's request, you cannot reveal. --What, in a general sense, do you mean by "considerations?" And, how is it that the Mayor has put a gag order on issues that were presumably discussed at a PUBLIC City Council meeting? --I realize that you feel constrained in what you can reveal here, but I hope you can at least explain enough so that the rest of us can understand why there needs to be a veil of secrecy around what is supposed to be a democratic process...

LembiResident, I was surprised that you did not feel that last night's meeting was a "win" for the neighborhood. So that we can better understand your point of view, please explain why you are dissatisfied with the outcome.

Thanks.

[Pacoloco]

Dangit, this is what happens when I open my big fat mouth.

OK, here are those considerations I mentioned, but dont advertize to the public. City Council voted to remove the turn restrictions on Riley street at Lembi and Bidwell. This means that Lembi is now opened back up for massive traffic in both directions, and Bidwell is open for neighborhood cut-through to anyone that wants to get off Riley and down to Folsom Blvd.

Mayor simply requested not to advertize this in the press, so as to not invite the traffic back into the neighborhood. Press is still free to print whatever they want, no gag order is in place. The signs were going to be quietly removed, and hopefully commuter driving patterns would have been established such that drivers would continnue to think that the resitrictions were in place, when they wouldn't be. Thus the request not to blab out this information, kind of like I just did now.

I am biting my tongue for even mentioning this now.

[tony]

Pacoloco: No need to bite your tongue (or swear). It is ridiculous for the mayor to expect decisions made at a city council meeting (especially decisions that will be obvious on the streets) not be publicized.

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ May 26 2004, 10:00 AM)

LembiResident, I was surprised that you did not feel that last night's meeting was a "win" for the neighborhood. So that we can better understand your point of view, please explain why you are dissatisfied with the outcome. Thanks.

I can't speak for Lembi Resident, but my opinion is that two prongs of the three pronged approach to this possible solution were removed, as discussed in Pacoloco's post. Take two legs off of a tripod and see what happens. This approach may simply create different attractive shortcuts for people. The truth is that we won't know what the impacts of these modifications will be until they've been in place (...er...actually out of place) for a little while. Those of us who live along Lembi will just have to keep our fingers crossed that we won't become the "new Sibley". I don't think Lembi offers the same "advantages" to cut-through drivers previously provided by Sibley, but it still is traveled fairly heavily by people who don't live in the area en route to destinations outside of the neighborhood.

All that said, I am pleased that at least the timed closure remains in place, as I'm confindent that this will continue to provide a measure of traffic relief for the entire area, albeit perhaps at a somewhat reduced level compared to before.

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (tony @ May 26 2004, 10:35 AM)

Pacoloco: No need to bite your tongue (or swear). It is ridiculous for the mayor to expect decisions made at a city council meeting (especially decisions that will be obvious on the streets) not be publicized.

Eh...I think the Mayor's comments were made somewhat in jest. The idea was that it doesn't make sense to "advertise" that the left turn restrictions have changed any more than will be obvious to those who go that way. In other words, we wouldn't want to put up a big sign that reads "Left turn available at the top of the hill".

[Pacoloco]

QUOTE (Orangetj @ May 26 2004, 10:47 AM)

Eh...I think the Mayor's comments were made somewhat in jest. The idea was that it doesn't make sense to "advertise" that the left turn restrictions have changed any more than will be obvious to those who go that way. In other words, we wouldn't want to put up a big sign that reads "Left turn available at the top of the hill".

Ditto. Thanks for helping me clear up my fumble.