98 replies to this topic

[ducky]

interesting.  looks like the proposed sidewalk project #11 on Figure 10C would take out the row of trees my grandmother planted in 1920.    love those trees.

 

Sorry to hear that, 4thgenFolsomite .  Is that the row towards Folsom Boulevard on Bidwell?

 

The sidewalk gap on Sibley between Blue Ravine and Levy is going to cost a pretty penny.  No wonder they've been putting it off.$88,000 for 800 linear feet of sidewalk.  Something about utilities.  I wonder why some of that couldn't have been moved at the time the mosque site was being graded and before the giant retaining wall was installed.  Oh, well.

In comparison, it's showing $40,700 for 740 linear feet of sidewalk on Folsom Auburn Road by Inwood.

 

I'm excited they are looking at making a safer crossing at Blue Ravine & School for pedestrians and cyclists to access the trails.

[4thgenFolsomite]

yes, that row of giant trees was planted by her.  provide awesome shade.  they are huge now.

[AMETHYST PRODUCTIVITY]

They mention something about library construction. Does anyone have any information about that?

[tony]

yes, that row of giant trees was planted by her.  provide awesome shade.  they are huge now.

Not sure how this topic got onto the Pedestrian Master Plan, but I wouldn't worry too much about the trees for three reasons: 1) the city has shown very little interest in taking on any of the projects listed in the Pedestrian MP (I helped prepare the original MP about 10 years ago, and the current plan is almost identical, but was refocused to highlight Safe Routes to School projects), 2) even if the city were methodically working through the list, sidewalks on the west end of Bidwell street would be a pretty low priority, and most importantly as regards sidewalks in the Historic District  (which are really a low priority for the city because the City Council keeps declaring that they are controversial) 3) there is no reason that putting in sidewalks would require removing the trees. But that is merely one of the myths that keeps sidewalks out of places where they are clearly necessary, especially in the HD. But that's where engineers get to be creative -- figuring out how to put in sidewalks where it is not as simple as running curb and gutter down the edge of the road.

[supermom]

sky bridge. i declare hd should meet future folsom  

[ducky]

Not sure how this topic got onto the Pedestrian Master Plan, but I wouldn't worry too much about the trees for three reasons: 1) the city has shown very little interest in taking on any of the projects listed in the Pedestrian MP (I helped prepare the original MP about 10 years ago, and the current plan is almost identical, but was refocused to highlight Safe Routes to School projects), 2) even if the city were methodically working through the list, sidewalks on the west end of Bidwell street would be a pretty low priority, and most importantly as regards sidewalks in the Historic District  (which are really a low priority for the city because the City Council keeps declaring that they are controversial) 3) there is no reason that putting in sidewalks would require removing the trees. But that is merely one of the myths that keeps sidewalks out of places where they are clearly necessary, especially in the HD. But that's where engineers get to be creative -- figuring out how to put in sidewalks where it is not as simple as running curb and gutter down the edge of the road.

 

Supermom posted the links for the pedestrian and bike plans, neither of which I had ever seen before.

So are they, basically, just wish lists?

[supermom]

I reposted the walk list that KC had posted and just added the bike plan. I saw nothing in the plans that mentioned ADA and found that interesting BTW.

[tony]

 

Supermom posted the links for the pedestrian and bike plans, neither of which I had ever seen before.

So are they, basically, just wish lists?

The bike plan posted was for S50. It is more than a wish list because the developers will be required to build much of it.

 

Frankly, I'm not sure why we have a Ped MP, other than that it really helps to have a plan if you are applying for state or federal funds, which the city has on a couple of occasions done. It also, ideally, is used as a reference any time a road widening project is taken on, in which case the sidewalks improvements ideally get incorporated into the road project.  Ideally is the key word here. Bottom line is that the city has dedicated almost no local funding to implementing the Ped MP. And since the city was sued over ADA compliance a few years back, almost all money that has been spent  on pedestrian improvements has been on curb ramp additoins/upgrades/replacements in an effort to catch up on year of ignoring the ADA requirements. First Sacramento got sued for not moving an adequate plan (they were moving way too slow), then Folsom got sued for not having a plan at all, many years after the deadline had passed. Now every year we spend a few hundred thousand dollars on curb ramps in an effort to get caught up and avoid future lawsuits.

[tony]

I reposted the walk list that KC had posted and just added the bike plan. I saw nothing in the plans that mentioned ADA and found that interesting BTW.

The city has a separate ADA Transition Plan, so they basically took all the ADA stuff out of the Ped MP.