219 replies to this topic

[tony]

Orangetj: Yes, perhaps context is everything (had to be there?).

[mtnhiker]

I must say I am disappointed in this situation. Keeping
Sibley closed , but opening up Lembi is bad. Bad for the
residents on Lembi and bad for helping to resolve this situation.

In fact they really should have gone the other direction and
actually restricted Lembi even more by placing a closure
on Lembi on downhill side of Diggins cross street. This will remove all
cut thru traffic and really force people to use Glenn.

[persifer]

It doesn't take a brain surgen to figure out that if you close one street the traffic would go to the next easiest way. Pretty soon we'll have all residential streets closed, only allowed to drive on 4 lane roads during commute traffic hours. Or we could all stay at work untill after the commute to "help out" with traffic. Open the roads, even with the traffic (which wasn't that bad to begin with) it was much better than the way it is now. First coloma, then Sibley, why not close off all of Old Town. I live sibly- persifer I can make it home at 5 from bradshaw to blue ravine, faster that from blue ravine to home!!! The city needs to pull their heads out, and quit trying to cater to the loudest voice at that very moment and think about what is actually the right thing to do.

[Orangetj]

QUOTE (persifer @ May 26 2004, 05:50 PM)

It doesn't take a brain surgen to figure out that if you close one street the traffic would go to the next easiest way.

I would say that if the "next easiest way" puts that traffic on roads designed to handle it, rather than having them run through neighborhoods, that's a good thing.

I respect your difference of opinion from mine, but I disagree as to your assessment that the traffic wasn't that bad on Sibley prior to the closure. Perhaps it wasn't that bad compared with Folsom Blvd or Watt Ave at rush hour, but it was VERY bad for a residential neighborhood. In fact, I can't recall ever having seen a neighborhood with as much traffic as I've seen here. Before moving back to Folsom, I lived in downtown Sacramento on what I thought was a relatively busy street. It had nowhere near the number of cars Sibley has been carrying at any time of the day.

In response to your last comment, I would say that is exactly what the city is doing - doing the right thing by protecting a neighborhood, despite the "loud voice" of those who insist that Sibley should carry a major portion of the city's traffic.

[persifer]

I agree that sibley "probably" had more traffic than it should have. It is a very odd street, being a residential 25 mph zone, yet being a main street to the old town area. I have found myself going faster and sometimes much faster than I should be. My street is also used as a cut thru not as much a Sibly but it's also not the same. When Natoma backs up people come on down Persifer to get to Sibley or not to sit on Natoma. Even with alot of extra traffic we (the neighborhood) are not calling for the closure of our street. Let me say this, even if Sibley was opened up to the residents in the neighborhood it would be better, but still not right. I'm feel sorry for the residents that live on Sibley you live on a street with alot of traffic, and even more you live in a city with alot of people. I'm the first person that would love to "keep Folsom small" but we all have to be realistic in what we want.

[dwhandy]

This topic has obviously generated much discussion and much of it has been made by residents of the area affected. However we all must have our say - and as a life-long resident of Folsom I feel compelled to comment.

First, let me note that I don't normally use Sibley Street as a means of travel during the 4 to 7 hours of closure - but once in a while I have used these streets during these hours. Having this (or any) street closed for any timeframe is certainly burdensome to traffic.

Diverting traffic from one area serves only to exacerbate the problem and move it to another area. Several other streets in Folsom are now being affected by the traffic that would have used Sibley Street as a route to get whereever it is these comuters (and visitors and resident) are going.

Persifer Street residents are now feeling the pain of increased traffic. Bidwell Street residents have felt this added flow of cars for years. And Lembi, which is a relatively new street, certainly is a route that many use to get to stores that are on Riley. These routes were built to carry cars from one place to another.

No streets are strictly built to carry residential traffic. It is necessary for most routes to be used by cars that need to traverse these area to get where they are going.

Closing streets is not (and I repeat NOT) the answer to residents problems with additional traffic on their streets. The major problem these residents have with additional cars on their streets is the safety concerns which are involved with the additional traffic. The answer to these safety concerns is not to stop the use of their streets but to enhance the safety of their streets though proper application and administration of laws and rules.

Enforcement of these laws and rules is the responsibility of our Police Department. Why have we not caused the police actions necessary to fix these problems?

Stop lights and other traffic solutions should have been employed.

Increasing the safety of Sibley Street would be greatly enhanced if sidewalks and other improvements were made to this street. There have NEVER been sidewalks added to the older streets in Folsom. WHY?

Kids are never truly safe on the streets of any community. There will always be the errant driver on the street who causes problems. To say that there is a need to decrease traffic on the street to keep our kids safer is simply not an effective means of providing our children a safer environment.

While it is true that increased traffic is a function of the increased number of people living in Folsom it is also influenced by the number of people who traverse through Folsom from other areas and Folsom has no right to tell these people to use other routes to get where they are going.

Folsom Boulevard is not the only avenue through which people can get where they are going. For that matter, neither is Riley Street or Persifer or Bidwell or Lembi or Natoma or any other street. Residents who live along all streets are impacted to one degree or another by the increased number of people who want to travel through our city.

Lets see if we can improve the streets and add more routes for people to get across our city. Let's see if traffic engineering (which seems to be lacking in this city) can finally get their heads back on top of their shoulders and think up the right solutions to these problems.

It was mentioned in the City Council meeting of May 26th that we have to pay three hours of overtime to the city employee who closes and opens the gate on Sibley Street every day. I would assume that these payments are being made out of the "general fund" and that these dollars could have been used more productively in some other area. I would also assume that the people who are doing all the traffic studies associated with this situation would probably have been able to have been used better (and their wages spent more wisely) on other areas of traffic improvement.

Our City Council has done an injustice to people who drive on our streets by closing or using "traffic calming" to attempt to aleviate a situation that they should have know would not improve through closures of streets. Ignorance of the true issue is not going to fix the true problem.

The closure of Folsom Dam Road is not the only thing that has brought about the increase traffic in Folsom. Sure it has been a MAJOR issue and addressing this traffic is important - but the traffic that has affected Sibley Street can not be shown to be directly influenced by the Dam Road closure.

So, if the real problem is the need for improvements in traffic routing across our city then let's get busy spending tax payers dollars in an effort to add traffic lanes to allow for the increased traffic flows that are not ever going to decrease.

Light rail is NOT the answer. Closure of streets is NOT the answer. Stopping left turns is NOT the answer. And, I will admit, I don't have the answer either, but I know what hasn't worked and I also know that the problem is only going to get worse unless we do something NOW to handle the increases in traffic flows that will certainly happen in the future.

[Orangetj]

While I disagree with your opinion that cities should not engage in traffic calming activities in areas that have been disproportionately impacted, I appreciate your reasoned viewpoint.

I think it is important to keep in mind that many of the measures you mentioned above - traffic signals, lane additions to Folsom-Auburn Road, and new routes across the river (new bridge below the dam) - are already in the works. Unfortunately, these things take time to implement and the city has wisely decided that it's historic district needs help now and is worth protecting from the erosion of heavy traffic. This being the case, the measures now in place are really interim solutions. I agree with you regarding the importance of law enforcement, but the reality is that the city does not have the police resources available to dedicate officers strictly to traffic enforcement in any given area. Even if they did, I'm not convinced that this would make a significant difference in the driving habits of people. While it is true that streets are really never particularly safe places for kids to play, certainly they're safer when they aren't traversed by many thousands of cars every day.

I also think it's important to be aware that what is being done now is not some "knee jerk" reaction, but is rather the result of many months of work on the part of citizens and city staff. To presume that this is being done just to quell the voices of a few concerned citizens is an error. The city recognized that this was an area of legitimate concern and acted upon the facts it gathered.

Finally, I'm curious as to your opinion about the appropriateness of walled subdivisions within a town. Since you have made the statement that we need to open up the streets to all traffic in order to improve the natural flow of traffic, do you think this should apply to these neighborhoods as well? I'm not saying I think we should tear down the walls, but certainly they do block off a large number of streets from use by the general public in the same way that the gate on Sibley does. If there were no wall around the Natoma Station area for instance, wouldn't it be easier for those who live in central Folsom to get to the businesses on the other side of the neighborhood? What about those people up in Prairie Oaks who can't take a straight shot through the neighborhoods to get to the outlet mall or the hospital and istead have to go out of their way to exit their neighborhood and add traffic to Blue Ravine, East Bidwell or Iron Point. I'm sure many of those folks would rather just be able to cut through the neighborhood to get where they're going. Again, I don't support such a notion, but it seems to follow logically with the idea that all streets should be open to all people to use to get wherever they're going.

My personal belief is that I consider it disrespectful and inconsiderate to cut through neighborhoods in order to avoid traffic on major throughway's or to get somewhere a bit more quickly. For this reason, I stick to non-residential streets to get where I'm going once I'm out of my neighborhood. I know that many don't share this sentiment, but that's just the way I feel.

[Lembi Resident]

dwhandy:

You say that you know what doesn't work, referring to street closures and turn restrictions. How would you or anyone in the city know whether such a traffic calming effort would work or not? The City Council never gave the plan a fair trial.

Instead, last Tuesday, they voted to discard 2/3 of a plan in the name of compromise! Leaving 1/3 of the plan in place won't work. You appropriately pointed that out. Common sense. Yes, Bidwell, Lembi, Persifer, Wool, etc. will be affected negatively.

Of course children are never safe on our streets. Adults aren't either. (Children are less safe because they ARE children. It's the grown-ups, parents and otherwise, who are supposed to protect them.) Because children will never be completely safe on the streets is not argument in favor of turning residential streets into freeways. Because you will never be completely safe in your automobile, are you going to disconnect your airbag and stop wearing a seatbelt?

It is easy to point fingers at law enforcement and traffic engineers, and say that they are too few in number or ineffective. I doubt any city could afford enough officers to "fix" most traffic problems. And how would the presence of traffic officers address the issue of traffic volume and flow patterns?

This city does have a competent traffic engineering staff. My guess is that if our traffic engineers were allowed to do their work, and City Council would stop back a little, Folsom traffic would not be such a nightmare. (Maybe I'm wrong. But the way things are currently being conducted doesn't seem to work.)

Has City Council simply been giving lip service to their dedication to protect our residential streets, by means of throwing a bone to the residents (30-day trial) and confusing Folsom drivers in the process?!

Or, does City Council just not GET IT?!!!!!!

What other explanation is there for their terribly imprudent decision last Tuesday?

[Terry]

QUOTE (dwhandy @ May 28 2004, 07:42 AM)

Enforcement of these laws and rules is the responsibility of our Police Department.  Why have we not caused the police actions necessary to fix these problems? Stop lights and other traffic solutions should have been employed. Increasing the safety of Sibley Street would be greatly enhanced if sidewalks and other improvements were made to this street.  There have NEVER been sidewalks added to the older streets in Folsom.  WHY?

Folsom PD does not have enough TRAFFIC officers to target every street impacted by commuters and the Sibley traffic calming project is due to COMMUTER traffic. During non-commute times, there are rarely the issues we endure during the commute and thus the Sibley closure hours. You would have to be there on a regular basis to really comprehend the rudeness, dangers, noise, and just complete nonsense that goes on during commute periods. I think you would be shocked. So, as with most things, when you can't appeal to the public (commuters) to do the right thing (not speed, blow stopsigns, litter, cuss residents out and otherwise disrespect the neighborhood) we have to penalize everyone. And I can tell you as a resident of the area, I am inconvenienced too by the closure. However, the inconvenience to me in getting where I need to get during those hours (my home commute is during the closure so I have to go the long way to get to my home, too) is far outweighed by the relative peace I know have (when I finally do get home). I will endure the longer commute home to be able to enjoy my neighborhood once I get there.

Additionally, as to improving infrastructure in older parts of town, the City relies on new development and/or redevelopment of parcels to improve sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Typically, new home plan approvals on previously undeveloped lots include the responsibility for the builder to put the sidewalks, curbs and gutters where there previously were none. Hence, Diamond Glen subdivision on Sibley north of Glenn was approved on the condition they put in sidewalks, curbs, and gutters bordering that property, as was the Raintree Apartments at Lembi on Sibley, and as were the homes constructed in the early 80s on the west side of Sibley south of Bidwell (not sure how the newest home on that very large lot on the west side of Sibley between Bidwell and Lembi got away without curbs, gutters, and sidewalks). So, don't expect improvements on Sibley any time soon unless homeowners start major redevelopment projects there.

If you look around the older parts of town for new construction, you'll see implementation of new curbs/gutter/sidewalks when the new or infill construction takes place, and that's really the nature of infrastructure development. Otherwise, all of us in Folsom would be assessed for the costs of putting these improvements in. I'm not saying I have an opinion on this philosophy, just that's the way it is. As for the historic district, I'm not sure whether or not the City wants to tackle those improvements there for fear that it diminishes the historic look and feel of the area.

[persifer]

Am I wrong in thinking that if any street was closed the residents obviously are going to feel safer?
You could realisticly send your kinds into the street to play from 4 to 7, (I understand that one side of the street is still open...... just making a point.) If you closed the open end or carded Id's for residents only you could feel even safer. Your safety or security at my (and my childrens) expense is not something I'm willing to endure. We get the same speeders, litter bugs, jerks and so on and unfortunately more now after the Sibley mistake. There is nothing and I mean NOTHING that is going to stop it. You cant stop traffic, you cant stop speeders, and you will never be able to stop people from driving through the neighborhoods. Sorry but, Folsom PD is a Joke!!! I'm pulled over at least twice a month, more if I'm on my motorcycle. " were you the one riding wheelies on the new bridge?" "no"
"Oh it wasn't even this color bike, and was going the other way, by the way what are you doing in folsom?" This is the crap I get on avarage twice a month. It's not just me either, never pulled over for a violation, never ticketed, just pulled over for the heck of it. I dont understand this. There is going to be something to gripe about on everthing with everyone. It may have been bad for the residents on Sibley, but now there are many many more just as bad if not worse (including the commuters) now because of the closure

[Terry]

QUOTE (persifer @ May 28 2004, 05:40 PM)

Sorry but, Folsom PD is a Joke!!! I'm pulled over at least twice a month, more if I'm on my motorcycle. " were you the one riding wheelies on the new bridge?" "no" "Oh it wasn't even this color bike, and was going the other way, by the way what are you doing in folsom?" This is the crap I get on avarage twice a month. It's not just me either, never pulled over for a violation, never ticketed, just pulled over for the heck of it. I dont understand this.

You have got to take one LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG, hard look at yourself, Pal. If you're not exaggerating about being stopped twice a month, then there is some kind of behavior that's being displayed by you - either by your driving habits or maybe just your attitude - that gets you stopped by Folsom PD that often!!!!!!!!!!

Are you kidding?

I have lived here all my life - over 50 years - and okay, I've been a licensed driver for 35 of those year, but I've been stopped ONCE by Folsom PD in all that time!!!!! I didn't get ticketed, just warned that the lead in my foot was gonna meet up with the lead in his pencil if I didn't slow down! I was 23 or so I think and driving an old beater at the time........

What the heck are you doing????? If you're truly being stopped that often by Folsom PD, I would go up to the station and talk to the Chief or one of the Lieutenants and ask them specifically what it is about you that you're targeted. I find it very difficult to believe that they pick you out of all the bad drivers in town - TWICE A MONTH! Maybe you really are way worse than the others.

Come on, tell me you're not serious.............

[persifer]

Oh I'm serious............young guy, flashy cars, and lots of toys, please don't read that as arogance or bragging. It's always been at the heart of my issues with the PD. In the last year Ive been pulled over searched and questioned on how I can afford my vehicle, drug trafficking and distribution, vehicular manslauter, and a rash of burglaries in the last 6 months. After the burglary questioning there were frequent rotations and drive by's late night at the house. Their excuse.....white male, similar vehicle. Dont get me wrong, I'd rather have them question me and every other white male with similar vehicle than do nothing. I cant be in the wrong place at the wrong time that often. These aren't traffic stops......these are 45 minute "discussions". If I was speeding, running stop signs and such I could understand. I've been written tickets for laws where the officer was wrong, admitted it to my face, and told me that he doesn't have to know the laws that is what the judge is for. " I write the tickets, the judge will see if they are right" That officer didn't leave untill the cheif of police at the time showed up and took care of the problem. Maybe I just have really bad luck or I just have that "look". This is just one opinion and experience I honestly didn't mean to start a whole discussion on Folsom PD. For the most part they do a great job, but when it comes to crap like this I don't get it.

[dwhandy]

The last two postings have taken this thread off track. I believe there others out there who have an opinion on the Sibley Street Closure - and this is not based on our Police Department's way of doing business.

The real issue is that there are people being inconvienced by "Traffic Calming" and there really ought to be a better answer to getting people across Folsom than to force them to use Riley, Natoma, Sutter, Folsom Boluevard or any other particular "main thoroughfare". There are other streets in Folsom and back in the 40's and 50's and 60's and 70's and 80's there were few (if any) complaints by citizens of Folsom about people driving on any particular street.

I recognize the problem cited by the folks who live on streets that are being affected by the increased number of commuters on our streets today. I have actually been involved with increased traffic when we used to live on School Street. The number of cars that are driving on residential streets in Folsom has greatly increased. Some are using these routes because they live in the area and are used to using these streets. Others are using these streets because they provide a better flow than the main thoroughfares. However, as I have said before, streets were built to carry cars. Not just the cars of the residents who live on these streets but cars of people who need to get from here to there.

I repeat my empathy with those who live on ALL streets where the effect of more traffic has caused them concerns, but I also repeat my earlier statement regarding closure of streets . . . Closing streets when the primary objective is to get traffic moving across Folsom is like closing your eyes when your objective is to read the book or view the movie. Let's see if we can't find a better answer... Traffic signals, street improvements (funded out of the general fund or even, God forbid, out of our gas tax monies), or even some other sort of "traffic calming" efforts.

I don't believe that we should EVER throw out the idea of speed bumps. I'm sure that speed bumps would be a impediment to the Police and Fire departments - but closed gates is quite a bit bigger impediment - wouldn't you agree?

If, as was mentioned several times in this thread, there are commuters who have hassled our citizens, it is incumbent on our police department to investigate these complaints and have this matter corrected.

How can our citizens be ignored by complaints about being acosted by anyone without proper actions by our police department. (This is not meant to start the discussion about Police again - - - it is just a statement that says that our Police Department needs to be counted on to do the right thing for our citizens when a complaint is filed.)

With my sympathies and empathies to all of those on Sibley, Lembi, Persifer, Natoma, Mormon, Bidwell, and other streets where the effects of increased traffic has caused problems, I respectfully submit that we need to get these problems fixed without closing more streets.

[WrongSideoftheBridge]

I've read this thread with some interest as Folsom traffic of course, affects me. I am one of the would be 'cutters' who depending on my destination, could use Sibley as a traffic bypass though I have only done it probably twice. A couple things strike me, first, I can't believe enforcement of speed limits is an unreasonable request of the Folsom PD. I've never lived in a community anywhere in the country (and that would make over 10 of them, small and large) that had as lax of traffic enforcement as the Sacramento region. Believe it or not, in other communities, cops actually sit on the side of the road and ticket people for speeding, especially in grid type residential areas. I used to drive through the now closed Coloma section 3 to 5 times a week and I don't remember ever seeing a cop sitting in those neighborhoods. How many police officers does this community of 50,000+ have, 3? Secondly, from my observation, a good part of the traffic problems Sibley now has is because of the Coloma closing (which of course became a major problem due to the Dam Road closure, do you see a pattern here?). How did Coloma back up Sibley? Well before Coloma closed, Folsom-Auburn bound traffic backed up on the new bridge, often times to Natoma, now with Coloma closed the left turn light going south on Folsom Blvd to turn on Natoma is longer to handle all the increased traffic now forced either up Riley or onto Folsom. This increased light duration now backs up the northbound traffic on Folsom at Natoma, often now past Blue Ravine. More often than not, once you make the light at Natoma, it's clear sailing across the bridge to a momentary backup at the Greenback intersection. This has created a large incentive to short the logjam, whether going across the bridge or going into the HD by using Sibley. Interestingly enough, if you are of the mind to close another road, I would have thought they would make the evening closure at Glenn instead of Natoma as you can still shortcut Folsom Blvd to get to the HD or Riley via any one of the many other streets that intersect Sibley and lead to those places, heck you can still turn left on Bidwell (I think, please correct if I'm mistaken) and shortcut 5 minutes of the wait to cross the bridge. At this rate of traffic funneling, in six months, if not already, it will save time to go Sibley, R on Bidwell, L on Wool, R on Leidesdorf and be one of the two cars waiting for the Leidesdorf/Riley light to change to cross the old bridge! With this line of traffic management, you could see the south end of Coloma closed, Wales closed, Fargo closed, and Stafford as well, these are all residential streets that are used to one degree or another to bypass the main arterials. While everyone can appreciate the plight of having more cars on your street, closures just can't be the answer to my eyes. Why can't their be better planning between Placer and Eldorado counties to address what largely is their traffic? Could Folsom take these two entities to court to force them to correct the burden they are putting on the City of Folsom? A bridge below the dam, though pretty much in the bag, still puts their traffic through our city, just in a different place. I guess if one is looking for silver linings, traffic on E. Natoma and Green Valley is better than before the dam closure!
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out, but I believe following the current path will make things worse before it makes it better, maybe we could just officially make Folsom the City of Dead End Streets!

[WrongSideoftheBridge]

A couple of last thoughts that ran through my head as I made my 7 minute (that can be 35 at night, one of the reasons I bike commute nearly 50% of the time...) commute home this morning.

When I see a police officer on the road, I am concerned about;
a. Getting a ticket for speeding
b. Do I have my seatbelt on

b. is the correct answer though I normally speed and I wear my seatbelt 99% of the time!

The City of Folsom has done a pretty good job correcting the nightmare (even after the Coloma closure) that just a year ago was the intersection of Folsom-Auburn and Greenback, going into Folsom. No roads were closed. A left turn collector was extended and light timing was changed, this made the difference between traffic backed up past Oak Ave. Pkwy. morning, noon, and night to traffic that occasionally now gets backed up to little Oak at Micky D's.

Folsom and the region are growing tremendously, comprehensive traffic solutions need to be put in motion now, what's it going to be like in 10 years when Roseville and Rocklin combined have nearly200k, Folsom has nearly 100k, and Eldorado Hills and Cameron Park are pushing 50k each? A bridge at the Dam that connects inferior arterials Folsom-Auburn and Green Valley isn't going to cut it...or will everyone just cut through Empire Ranch to get to 50?

People can't complain that there are too many cars on my street and poo-poo mass transit in the same sentence.

If you live on a street and are physically angered every day by the cars on the street, it might just be a sign. The city is actively pursueing increased vitality of the HD, whether the commute issues are solved or not heavy traffic in the HD will be a byproduct of that vigor. Just something to think about.