#22, September 1, 1999
It seemed to make so
much sense, with those four lanes pointing longingly westward, across the empty
field toward the freeway. After all, hasn't Rainier been in our award-winning
General Plan for three decades?
In my last column, I
looked at the geologic weight of evidence against any project which encourages
people to drive more. But the bottom line, which seems to escape the supporters
of Rainier plan voted down by the Council (a plan that even Rainier advocate
Jack Balshaw called "gold plated") is that Rainier would flat-out
fail to provide more than a half dozen years of traffic relief, according to
the EIR.
Now let's look at the
other arguments. Access to the police station? As David Keller humorously pointed
out, the officers are out on patrol all over town, not dispatched like Keystone
Cops from the station. Access to the hospital? The most critical part of
emergency response is getting the paramedics, who are based at our fire
stations on both sides of town, to the victims. While there is the chance that
Rainier might occasionally shave time from the trip to the hospital (remember,
cars pull over for ambulances), there are far better ways to spend $30+ million
on public health and safety.
The General Plan? For
over two decades, our General Plan called for a freeway interchange at Corona
Road, not Rainier. It wasn't
until1989 that the interchange was moved from Corona to Rainier.
Why? Remember my
column about real estate speculators? They buy cheap land, then convince the
government (and its taxpayers) to fund improvements that increase their land's
value. A Rainier interchange, by giving freeway access to the floodplain lands
along the river, would dramatically increase their value. Ironically, it the traffic
generated by this very development would nullify the congestion-reducing
effects of the cross-town connector.
Why did "all
those studies" recommend Rainier? They reflected the bias of the old City
Council and City Manager, who were aggressive supporters of floodplain
development like the factory outlet mall.
The alternatives to
Rainier aren't as spectacular, but add up to lasting traffic relief, and at a
much lower cost. The first choice is to improve Washington Street. While voters
rejected "Fix Washington First" in 1994, the short-lived nature of
Rainier's traffic reduction was not common knowledge . Our Council has already okayed major improvements to the Washington-McDowell intersection and a new northbound
onramp onto 101 from westbound Washington. This multi-million dollar project is
now being designed.
Corona Road is
another big piece of the alternative. The same night the Council nixed Rainier,
several Council Members proposed plans to sweep the four lanes of Sonoma
Mountain Parkway into Corona and down to the freeway, the site of a new
four-way interchange. The General Plan also calls for connecting Caulfield Lane
to Petaluma Boulevard.
There are other,
smaller things that will add up: Traffic signal adjustments, which have already
reduced cross town trip times along Washington Street. Developing and managing
destinations (shopping centers, and public facilities like ball fields) to
reduce the need for cross town driving. Implementing the soon to be released
Petaluma Bicycle Plan, making it safe, easy and fun to leave the car at home.
More carpooling, trip consolidation, and conscientious use of our cars. If all
these somehow fell short, we could pursue a two-lane connector, sited to avoid
the huge financial and environmental cost of the old Rainier plan.
Why not put Rainier
on the ballot? Support for Rainier may have been wide, but it was thin. The
oft-cited Chamber of Commerce poll conveniently failed to ask people how much
they were willing to spend on it, which could exceed $1000 per household. To
create a simple but meaningful ballot
measure, the Council would have to make controversial decisions about what
share of the cost should come from the citizenry at large versus the floodplain
developers, who would pay for the overruns, and so on.
Rainier was a loser.
I'm glad the Council made the controversial decision to get on with the smart
alternatives.