Comment by Vicky Lambert on May 4, 2010 at 9:57am

Thank you Carrie for a very well worded and well reasoned position statement!

Comment by jef on May 4, 2010 at 10:07am

The back-ups are not caused by the streets or the traffic arteries. The back-ups are the direct result of base security checks. The eminent domain threat to increase the width of the streets is not a solution and neither the state OR the feds will entertain this option. Let the state/feds solve their own problems by expediting base access. Coronado does not need to spend more $$ for an option that is unworkable and expensive. We don't need a seat at the traffic solution table when the ONLY viable options are the feds problem; not ours. Let the feds and the state find and fund their own remedies. $2 million will not buy us a seat at any table. Just like when the bridge was built; we won't be at any table. But $2 million could buy us lots of legal representation when it is required in the future.
I have a request of the mayor and city council members. Please post on ecoronado any contributions you have received from interested parties that will make $$ from a tunnel or the study of a tunnel solution.

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 4, 2010 at 12:21pm

Jef,

Thank you for being engaged in the issue.

I don't understand who you thinks benefit from the tunnel financially. If you mean the contractors that are doing the study, they did not donate to my or any Coronado elected's campaign. I was re-elected in 2008 wih only $6,000 and elected in 2004 with less than $5,000, all came from Coronado residents that wanted my legal and environmental expertise on the council to act on their behalf. My financial disclosures were on file with the City Clerk for anyone to see.

But your point about the bottleneck is well taken. It is the security check that slows people down from racing from the bridge to North Island. However, it is the carrying capacity of 3rd that is the bottleneck. The bridge has a carrying capacity of 5000 cars an hour. Third street only has half that capacity at approximately 2500 cars an hour because of the 25 mile per hour speed limit. The bridge traffic often exceed the 50 mile per hour speed limit if it can.

The base fully mans the ID checkpoints but even if they could get to 5000 cars an hour there would still be the cinch point on 3rd. One solution is to expand third and raise the speed limit. That is exactly what the citizens of Coronado don't want to do, take out rows of houses all the way from the bridge and expand what will be a freeway.

Yes I agree we did not create the problem, but we still want to be involved in fashioning a solution. The federal and state governments require this procedure with detailed studies and I am glad they do for our citizens safety. They also have paid for the majority of the costs to evaluate the options. Once we complete the studies then we can see what options the citizens of Coronado want to pursue. If we do nothing now we have lost that ability until our grandchildren start over and restudy everything at a much higher cost when traffic is worse.

Please stay engaged on the issue. There will be 3 forums starting with the Chamber of Commerce next Wednesday. Come learn more about what options have been reviewed from the bginning in the blue ribbon study 10 years ago and where we are now.

Comment by Sandy Shortt on May 4, 2010 at 12:33pm

I am definitely not on your side.
Prop H is too limiting. The traffic problem should be approached from all angles.
One of the ways that $2 mill. could be spent is in helping homeowners along Third and Fourth install triple pane windows and insulation.
What you don't include in your email is that some homes on Third and Fourth will be sacrificed to a tunnel.
I am voting NO.

Comment by Gail Parker on May 4, 2010 at 1:05pm

Dear Coronado City Councilwoman Downey,

In your letter you’ve included new information about not being allowed “a seat at the (regional traffic) table” unless we continue spending money for a TUNNEL. The people of Coronado don’t want a TUNNEL to be built here. Are you saying that you and some other members of our City Council will refuse to work hard to “ameliorate” Coronado traffic problems if we don’t want a TUNNEL? I am dumbfounded about your advocacy for this TUNNEL and your refusal of support for whatever the voters decide.

It makes no sense that our state and regional governments are insisting that we either build and pay for a TUNNEL that we don’t want, or they will deny Coronado a voice in our traffic discussions. This is new information, and details of the documents and statements that support this information should be provided to Coronado residents immediately. I would think that our elected representatives would be present and fight hard for our city at all discussions about our traffic issues.

While you were on time for the meeting you describe, I am sorry that some participants didn’t leave for work early enough. How often do you and all of our Coronado taxpaying residents experience such a delay? And would you explain how exactly a TUNNEL that ends before the security gate will prevent a queue inside the TUNNEL and up onto the bridge/I-5? A TUNNEL doesn’t solve the problem of waiting to clear base security and traffic can still back up.

“Let’s Kiss the Tunnel Goodbye”
www.StopTunnelSpending.com

Comment by jef on May 4, 2010 at 1:18pm

It appears that there are no plans in the works by the state or the feds to address the traffic problems that don't really negatively affect many here in Coronado. I live between 2nd and 3rd and I have no problems getting past 3rd and 4th during high travel times. 99% of the base traffic will keep alleys and streets clear for cross traffic to pass. Which causes me to question why CORONADO must pay the $2 million for a study. May i suggest the study is turned over to SANDAG and let THEM complete the study. Obviously, the traffic problem is outside of the Coronado limits so let THEM complete the study and address the issue. If the Navy had a problem with the ingress/egress traffic, they would not have cancelled the ferry. I've done some research and the speed limit doesn't effect "cars per hour" because spacing increases with speed. One road lane can move about 2100 cars per hour no matter what their speed. If they go faster, then they're spaced farther apart, to give enough room to brake. http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/almanac.html With this information on hand from a 30 second Goggle search, once again why is this study costing over $15 million. Let's look at this solution: Increase the green light time for 3rd and 4th streets at the Orange Avenue signal during peak traffic times. If you say the base can handle increased ingress and 3rd Street is the problem, then extended green lights will solve the problem. NO CHARGE.

As for my other point, I was making a general request to the city elected officials to publish at ecoronado any $$ received from building or studying a tunnel. If you didn't receive any $$'s from those sources, then you should have the citizens interest at heart. I'm not shaking my finger at anyone.

I'm unable to attend the meetings, alas, because of work outside of California. Maybe the minutes from the meetings could be posted at ecoronado with Steve.

Comment by Thomas Proctor on May 4, 2010 at 1:32pm

Coucilwoman Downey, thank you for putting your position out in a public forum like this and allowing us to give you our feedback. My concern with Prop H (and with the position that the majority of the city council has taken) is that it refers to "long-term traffic relief options," in the plural--as if completing the study would allow for some other option other than the tunnel. But I've read the Final Scoping Report, and in my opinion the only option that the study gives us is a tunnel option.

The options in the Final Scoping Report are (1) do nothing, (2) some sort of park-and-ride program for Navy personnel, (3) an underpass under Orange Ave. at 3rd and 4th, or (4) one of several tunnel options. Option 1 does not require an additional $2 mil. to study. My understanding is that the Navy does not support option 2. And no one supports option 3 because it does not take any cars off 3rd or 4th. So that leaves only leaves the tunnel options. In other words, voting to complete the study is a vote to complete the tunnel study. And since I don't want a tunnel, I don't want to complete that study. Moreover, voting no on Prop H means that a tunnel will never be built, because a tunnel cannot be built without a completed study.

Am I wrong? Does completing the study really allow us to keep any options other than the tunnel "on the table," to use your metaphor?

Comment by Suzanne Ramirez on May 4, 2010 at 2:11pm

If the tunnel being studied were designed to take personnel from the secure Coast Guard facility near Lindbergh Field airport to NASNI or from the secure 32nd street Naval Base, then maybe (assuming there were an extra half-billion dollars available), just maybe a tunnel might be a reasonable alternative. With the Navy saying it will not require personnel to use the tunnel, just what is actually to be gained? One of the tunnel study alternatives calls for the taking of 25 full parcels and additional partial parcels; a second alternative calls for taking 34 full parcels and I believe 17 additional partial parcels. I wonder how those who stand to lose their homes along 4th Street feel about that. Do they even know? I heard our mayor stated at his radio interview that NO homes would be lost. Not true. And just how do you think the traffic will be during the estimated four years of construction? And do you really think it is only four years? It will likely be two or three times that based on past tunnel projects. Think Big Dig. If an under the bay tunnel were proposed, then it would seem that the bridge and 4th Street would not be at a standstill for four+ years. But that is something not even under consideration in the $13 million study we are being asked to funnel more money into. I have heard Ms. Downey argue in essence that we should spend an additional $2 million (or more?) so that we can have a finished study ready for in case money becomes available. That makes no sense. If you are making a pie that is ready to go in the oven when you realize that the apples you used for your pie are contaminated and inedible; would you bake it anyway?? I think not. The tunnel/this tunnel is a really BAD idea that will never come to pass. The Council members should admit that, stop wasteful spending and start looking for real solutions. As an aside, I think Mr. Waiwoode's claim that car pools and public transportation are ineffective is a bit disingenuous. Hell, for $15 million taxpayer dollars, we could have bought a parking lot at the East end of the bridge and provided free bus rides to anyone needing to get to NASNI, probably with funds left over for electric shuttles for use in getting staff around the base!. Or how about we ask the four council members pushing this tunnel study to put up the additional $2 million of their own money and if they are right, once their tunnel is built, we Coronadans pay them generous interest on their investment. I'm not even a Republican, but I am really getting annoyed at elected officials spending taxpayer funds as if they were easy to come by. Maybe looking at so many zeros after the dollar signs of governmental budgets has made taxpayer funds sort of like Monopoly money to them. Say NO to government waste; vote NO on the tunnel. Force the council to look for realistic solutions.
Suzanne Ramirez

Comment by Bruce Johnson on May 4, 2010 at 2:16pm

A tunnel, if it ever happened, would not be paid for by Coronado. However it would be the greatest thing that could ever happen for Coronado. If you had the good fortune to experience island life prior to 1969 you would know what I mean. Just imagine this for a moment. Prior to 1969 there were no traffic lights on the island. Why? They were not needed. Why are they needed now? Has there been a significant population increase in Coronado resulting in lots more cars on the streets? No. The population has increased, but not significantly. Then why such a dramatic increase in automobile traffic? Two simple words. Through traffic. TT. Understand that and you might figure out a solution. We now have a monster in paradise - and that monster's name is TT or Thru traffic. He travels over the bridge and up the strand to terrorize the locals. And like most monsters he is dangerous, powerful, and affects the health and well being of all in his adopted domain. The sad part is he is not even a local monster. He is powered by the 80 to 90% of the traffic on our streets which are going THRU - and not to our island. We need to find a way to quit funneling this TT right through the middle of the island. Route TT under or around the island. Let's focus on solutions rather than all the reasons why things won't work. TT is Coronado's biggest problem, and one that will continue to grow and impact us all more and more in the years ahead. Think back 10 - 20 - 30 years ago about traffic on the island. Now think ahead 10 - 20 - 30 years. What do you see?? I see Gridlock - the monster that ate Coronado. It's a real and frightening thought. It doesn't have to be that way.

Comment by Ella M. Croshier on May 4, 2010 at 2:49pm

Great comments to your letter Carrie. It appears there are more people against the Tunnel than for it. Please take the time to clear up the misinformation that proposition "O" was approved by the voters giving the city council permission to proceed with a study to build a Tunnel. That is not what proposition did. I read it and it asked voters whether or not the council should SEEK SOURCES OF FUNDING for building a Tunnel. I believe voters understood that meant to look into or investigate where the money would come from to build a Tunnel.
Instead the Council took it upon themselves to initiate a full blown study hiring expensive lobbyists and consultants to prepare documents needed to get Federal and State funds to support building the Tunnel. Why
else would the city council authorize such expenses if they didn't plan on building the Tunnel? And, why spend another $2,000,000 to complete the study? You told me at a council meeting that it needed to be completed to put on a shelf for perhaps a later use. It sounds like the seat at the table you are talking about
may include a major transportation plan being hatched which none of us are aware of. It amazes me how elected officials find the public knowledgable subjects when looking for their vote and after that it's an US AGAINST THEM attitude. All of a sudden you become elite members of other governmental agencies that
make up the rules for how you will run our city. This is not how citizens envision their government operating.
Even with a 3rd aircraft carrier our traffic isn't that bad. With $15,000,000 we could have a park and ride operation in effect. I like the idea of just adjusting the traffic lights for traffic hours. We have to start thinking smarter with expending tax dollars whether it's city, county, state or federal.
Ella Croshier

Comment (keep it clean & on topic)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 17
• Next ›
• Page