16 replies to this topic

[ducky]

So the Bureau in all their wisdom close what was a heavily used crossing over the Folsom Dam and now decide that a new bridge is uncalled for. Wasn't a new crossing promised to Folsom when the dam was built? Guess they never got around to it. Of course, that's not surprising since it took them 20 years to realize that they didn't really have an overflow option since houses were built below Dyke 8 and the bureau is just getting around to building the overflow by the prison property (my opinion and my take on the situation anyway. I know others will argue).

Doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in their ability to raise the height of the dam safely.

Seriously? An area that is continually growing and shows no signs of stopping and they say we don't need a new crossing. I hope that a public transportation option is added to the plan for the crossing that the Bureau thinks we don't need.

[4thgenFolsomite]

What's this?! The Bureau says we don't need another crossing? Don't they realize that, other than twisty winding slow Hwy 49 through Pilot HIll to Auburn is the first and ONLY crossing between Hwy 50 (El Dorado County) and Hwy 80 (Placer County) between Lake Tahoe and Folsom? Folsom Lake and the forks of the deep ravines of the north and south fork of the American River create great obstacles to road development. Obviously anyone who wants to get from the south Placer/Roseville side to the El Dorado County side needs to come through Folsom, which currently means directly through historic Folsom and all of our interior community streets.

People from El Dorado Hills/Serrano/Cameron Park/Shingle Springs, etc. heading toward Roseville (for shopping and work, etc.) have to come into Folsom. If they build the new bridge at Oak Avenue (or whereever its planned closer to the dam) at least they don't have to come into historic Folsom. The more traffic that comes into the residential portions of the historic district, the more people that leave their old homes there and they gradually get converted to commercial. Natoma Street is a perfect example of that. What were formerly charming old houses are now turning into businesses with commercial signage and paved parking lots.

It's not right for the Bureau to weigh in on this. Obviously they don't want anyone closer to their dam and their property (for whatever reasons) and they don't feel compelled to balance out their concerns with those of the residents of Folsom. Hopefully other agencies will counter those concerns.

[Silverado]

The reason the Bureau shut the dam road down in the first place was over terrorist concers. While its possible someone could drive a truck full of explosives up there and light it off, they have done nothing to address such a scenario coming via boat from the lake. They wasted who knows how much money putting security barriers and patrols on the dykes, and for what. A blast from behind the dam at water level would be far more effective than something coming from the top, IMO. Closing the dam road accomplishes nothing other than giving the Bureau folks a false sense of security, and the rest of us a traffic headache. Telling us we don't need a bridge just confirms they have no clue.

[john]

I think our front page item was a little misleading. I think one (maybe a few) of the over 100 comments was from a particular person that was asking how much it was needed. Still unsettling though...

[lisasellshouses]

I think our front page item was a little misleading. I think one (maybe a few) of the over 100 comments was from a particular person that was asking how much it was needed. Still unsettling though...

has this one person been visiting Mars for the last few years?

[john]

I bet this person has never even visited Folsom. Probably just some bureaucrat...

[folsom500]

So the Bureau in all their wisdom close what was a heavily used crossing over the Folsom Dam and now decide that a new bridge is uncalled for. Wasn't a new crossing promised to Folsom when the dam was built? Guess they never got around to it. Of course, that's not surprising since it took them 20 years to realize that they didn't really have an overflow option since houses were built below Dyke 8 and the bureau is just getting around to building the overflow by the prison property (my opinion and my take on the situation anyway. I know others will argue).

Doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in their ability to raise the height of the dam safely.

Seriously? An area that is continually growing and shows no signs of stopping and they say we don't need a new crossing. I hope that a public transportation option is added to the plan for the crossing that the Bureau thinks we don't need.

Is this about the replacement road for the dam road or another one that was previously thought of ?

[petro]

So the Bureau in all their wisdom close what was a heavily used crossing over the Folsom Dam and now decide that a new bridge is uncalled for. Wasn't a new crossing promised to Folsom when the dam was built? Guess they never got around to it. Of course, that's not surprising since it took them 20 years to realize that they didn't really have an overflow option since houses were built below Dyke 8 and the bureau is just getting around to building the overflow by the prison property (my opinion and my take on the situation anyway. I know others will argue).

Doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence in their ability to raise the height of the dam safely.

Seriously? An area that is continually growing and shows no signs of stopping and they say we don't need a new crossing. I hope that a public transportation option is added to the plan for the crossing that the Bureau thinks we don't need.

Where did you read that the Bureau thinks a new bridge is uncalled for? Am I missing something?

[ducky]

Where did you read that the Bureau thinks a new bridge is uncalled for? Am I missing something?

It was John's link to a Folsom Telegraph article.

Silverado, there was a prior thread quite a while back where I mentioned the same concern about a boat attack on the dam being much more dangerous than one from the road.

[Silverado]

Silverado, there was a prior thread quite a while back where I mentioned the same concern about a boat attack on the dam being much more dangerous than one from the road.

Yeah, it just makes no sense at all. They put the city into a difficult situation by closing the dam road, when in fact closing the road does next to nothing for its intended effect.

[mylo]

Hang on, it doesn't "do nothing" ... it doesn't completely accomplish, either, but it does "something" for it's intended effect. That crazy jihadist with a nuke driving across has just had his chances revoked!

[Silverado]

Hang on, it doesn't "do nothing" ... it doesn't completely accomplish, either, but it does "something" for it's intended effect. That crazy jihadist with a nuke driving across has just had his chances revoked!

True, point taken, but lets not forget about the crazy jihadist with a nuke on his boat. I guess my point being that anyone going to the time and effort of such destruction ultimately doesn't care whether they need a car or a boat to accomplish their ills.

[john]

Careful Silverado, you're making too much sense... Next thing you know, they're going to close down Folsom Lake!

[camay2327]

Well Folsom still does not have a boat to patrol the lake, i.e. the Fire Chief ????

[Silverado]

Careful Silverado, you're making too much sense... Next thing you know, they're going to close down Folsom Lake!

What and give up all the revenue they collect on use fees... ain't gonna happen. Just shows you where the real priorities are.