18 replies to this topic

[john]

This is the bridge we're talking about. Currently, it's not wide enough for modern standards and is functionally obsolete... however it is a historical bridge.

[jagayman]

Convert it into a multi-purpose, non-vehicular bridge and build a vehicle bridge nearby.

Jason

[rlveloria]

Preserve it! Build a new structure next to it that will support two cars.Much like the Kings stadium deal. If it's going to cost as much or more to renovate the bridge then just build a new one.

[slowthegrowth]

edited

Edited by slowthegrowth, 06 December 2004 - 10:46 AM.

[Kerri Howell]

Was just talking to my wife about this....

Unless you're able/willing to expand Riley to more than one lane in either direction crossing Sutter or Natoma, it makes zero sense to remove/expand the bridge.  If you did expand it/build another one with two lanes in either direction, it'll simply go right back to one lane once you get over it.

What is REALLY needed is two lanes in both directions on Riley from East Bidwell (at the middle school) through Natoma, across Sutter and then across the bridge to Folsom Blvd/Auburn/Folsom. 

In order to do that, you'll most likely going to affect the powerhouse area (historical), the businesses on the corner of Riley/Sutter (not likely) and the houses right along Riley between Sutter and Natoma (really?). 

Just changing the bridge would not surprise me in the least given the incredibly short-sightedness of our city planners and those responsible for the Dam closure and "traffic calming".  ABSURD!!!!!

[Kerri Howell]

The bridge in question is the Orangevale Avenue Bridge. From Greenback, turn right on American River Canyon and left on Orangevale - It is not Rainbow Bridge.

[tony]

Was just talking to my wife about this....

Unless you're able/willing to expand Riley to more than one lane in either direction crossing Sutter or Natoma, it makes zero sense to remove/expand the bridge.  If you did expand it/build another one with two lanes in either direction, it'll simply go right back to one lane once you get over it.

What is REALLY needed is two lanes in both directions on Riley from East Bidwell (at the middle school) through Natoma, across Sutter and then across the bridge to Folsom Blvd/Auburn/Folsom. 

In order to do that, you'll most likely going to affect the powerhouse area (historical), the businesses on the corner of Riley/Sutter (not likely) and the houses right along Riley between Sutter and Natoma (really?). 

Just changing the bridge would not surprise me in the least given the incredibly short-sightedness of our city planners and those responsible for the Dam closure and "traffic calming".  ABSURD!!!!!

Slow, I think you've got the wrong bridge. This discussion is aboutthe Orangevale Ave. Bridge (which happens to look very similar to Rainbow Bridge. Incidentally, both are being considered for widening, but the widening of Raibow will not add any lanes, only shoulders and a wider sidewalk. The widening proposed for the Orangevale Ave. bridge is to take it from a narrow two lanes to standard lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks.

The city has a pretty informative web site on both projects: http://www.folsombridges.com/

[slowthegrowth]

D'oh!

[Adamal]

Keep the old one for a bike/walking bridge.

[Ahnold]

As I understand it, one point that the article was unclear on is where the money comes from. Yes, a replacement bridge would cost just as much as the rehab - but the funding for a rehab comes from a federal program. A new bridge could not be funded by this source and would likely require funding by the City. So we need to ask if we'd rather potentially lose funding for other local projects in order to have a new bridge, or use federal money to fix up the one we already have. We pay for it one way or the other, but at least using federal money preserves some of our limited local dollars for our other needs.

[tony]

As I understand it, one point that the article was unclear on is where the money comes from.  Yes, a replacement bridge would cost just as much as the rehab - but the funding for a rehab comes from a federal program.  A new bridge could not be funded by this source and would likely require funding by the City.  So we need to ask if we'd rather potentially lose funding for other local projects in order to have a new bridge, or use federal money to fix up the one we already have.  We pay for it one way or the other, but at least using federal money preserves some of our limited local dollars for our other needs.

The money is from Federal Highway Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement funds (HBRR). They come with an 80/20 federal/local split and can be used, as the name implies, for rehabilitation or replacement. In fact, the HBRR funds are planned for rehab and widening of Rainbow Bridge and Replacement of the Orangevale Ave. Bridge. See the project web site for details: http://www.folsombri...ale/funding.htm

That said, it is interesting that the none of the three alternatives considered included only rehabilitation of the existing bridge or rehab and a modest widening. Instead, they compare a full-blown widening from 20 ft to 43'-4" with replacement. It should be no surprise that in this case, the replacement is cheaper. Replacing Rainbow bridge would be cheaper, too, but that one is being widened. But is a 43' wide bridge really necessary here? As they currently exist, the narrow lanes on the bridge provide effective traffic calming, with no significant accident history to support a safety problem.

Fix it and widen to add sidewalks and slightly wider lanes. Alternative 3 indicates that a 9'-4" widening could be accomplished without adding another arch (the really expensive part); this is enough to add a 5' sidewalk and 2' to each lane. Would this be elligible for the federal funding? Maybe not, but a good case could certainly be made for a design exception that saved hundreds of thousands of dollars by relying only on the existing arches. Was this considered? What about maintaining one-lane traffic and striping 4-ft shoulders (no widening required) and adding a separate pedestrian bridge? Call it traffic calming, because that's how it currently functions. Seems that keeping the existing bridge was never a serious consideration by the city. Just another piece of Folsom's unique history lost to "progress" and cost-effectiveness. Got federal funds; have to spend them! Good thing the city did not use the same logic on the Historic Truss or that would be "history" as well.

[john]

Hopefully they can find a way to preserve it and create a new one to accomodate the traffic. It just seems like a waste to tear it down.

A side note, I hope part of the Rainbow Bridge project is dealing with the graffiti... I don't care what the city says, they do nothing to clean up the graffiti. But that is fodder for another thread...

[tony]

A side note, I hope part of the Rainbow Bridge project is dealing with the graffiti... I don't care what the city says, they do nothing to clean up the graffiti. But that is fodder for another thread...

John, you are right on about the graffitti. Some of it has been there since we moved here in 1992.

[jagayman]

First thing to do about Rainbow bridge is to prevent people from climbing the arches. There are so many easy ways to do this.

I've been down on the river side below the bridge and saw three teenagers scamper over the arches in about a minute. An obstacle at the base of each arch would prevent them from climbing over.

I couldn't tell why they were climbing on the bridge, but I can't imagine any good that has ever come from it.

Jason