---

Dry Creek Road Gridlock? Another viewpoint

by Jay O'Brien

The article two weeks ago, "Dry Creek Road Gridlock", has received informal kudos from readers. The NEWS received one email, however, that expresses a somewhat different viewpoint. Mr. Russ Hood from Rio Linda, a 30-year public school teacher, suggested that additional detail should have been included in the area north of U Street on Dry Creek Road.

His email and the ensuing response follow.

Subject: Correction
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:58:48 PST
From: Russ Hood
To: <rlnews@aol.com>
Cc: Roger Dickinson <dickinsonr@saccounty.net>

Dear Mr. Flesch,

An important omission occurs on page 1 of the March 2 edition of the Rio Linda News. The article by Jay O'Brien, "Dry Creek Road Gridlock," refers to a map on the same page that shows (incorrectly) Alternative 1 ending at U Street. The enthusiastic appeal by Mr. O'Brien for  Alternative 2 in lieu of Alternative 1 (as well as 3 and 4) uses this map as evidence that Alternative 1 should not be chosen. However, the map is drawn incorrectly.

On page 3-38 Plate PD-23 "16th Street/Dry Creek Alternatives" clearly shows that Alternative 1 does not end at U St. as the map on page 1 of the News depicts. Rather, Alternative 1 continues north across U Street until it connects, not with 16 St., but with the inner loop of the project itself, which connects to the north with Elverta Road and to the east with 16th St.

Before the readers of the News draw any reasoned conclusion regarding these and other issues, it might be helpful for them to refer to the actual county document, Elverta Specific Plan (www.DERA.saccounty.net), from the Department of Environmental Review and Assessment. The final decision by the county will undoubtedly take into account the valid points raised by Mr. O'Brien, as well as others, i.e., public safety, efficiency, cost, traffic flow, etc. .

Russ Hood
Rio Linda


Subject: Re: Correction
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:34:56 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Russ Hood
CC: Roger Dickinson <dickinsonr@saccounty.net>
    Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>

Mr. Hood,

Thank you for your interest in my article examining the potential gridlock that could be caused by routing the traffic from the Elverta Specific Plan (ESP) and Placer Vineyards developments onto Dry Creek Road. Your email refers to the article published on page 1 of the March 2, 2006 edition of the Rio Linda Elverta NEWS. 

You state there is "an important omission" as the graphic in the article does not include the routing of Dry Creek Road within the ESP. You correctly observe that the extension of Dry Creek Road north of U Street is planned to intersect with the main loop road of the ESP project, should alternative 1 be selected.

Alternative 1, to which you refer, placing all of the new traffic into Dry Creek Road at U Street, is the only alternative of the four that does not propose to route traffic to the south via the intersection of 16th and U Streets.

You conclude "the map is drawn incorrectly", referring to the graphic. Perhaps you missed Erwin Hayer's heading on the graphic, "Proposed Traffic Routes south of the Elverta Specific Plan". Mr. Hayer did not include the routing of the traffic within the ESP, as his comments, and my article, confine themselves to the effects that would be felt south of the ESP area.

The routing within the ESP area does not change the potential problems on Dry Creek Road. Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would funnel essentially the same amount of vehicular traffic past the four schools on Dry Creek Road. Only alternative 2, completing 16th Street between U Street and Elkhorn Boulevard, will avoid further Dry Creek Road gridlock.

As you point out, the graphic does not show Dry Creek Road north of U Street. This is because Dry Creek Road presently dead ends after serving only three residences north of U Street. However, 9th and 16th Streets are shown on the graphic, as those streets continue through to Elverta Road.

It is a fact that alternative 1, the only alternative that does not involve 16th Street, would have less impact on present residents in the area of 16th and U Streets; potentially some such residents might favor alternative 1 over the others, regardless of the impact alternative 1 could have on Dry Creek Road and the schools.

As you suggested, readers should review the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) that is available on line. The NEWS agrees; the RDEIR was announced in The NEWS first on January 19, 2006, and repeated each week for three additional weeks, including internet links to the RDEIR itself.

As recapped in the March 2 article, the potential of widening Dry Creek Road that could wipe out front yards, wells and septic systems, not to mention the possibility of traffic gridlock and risk to the school children, is still very much there. The County will decide. We who are concerned about Dry Creek Road and the schools, and that should be ALL of us, can't let our guard down.

We need to be sure that County Supervisor Roger Dickinson understands that the traffic from the north should come down 16th Street to Raley Boulevard, not via Dry Creek Road.

Another advantage to the 16th Street alternative is the fact that 16th Street becomes Raley Boulevard and has a direct connection to Interstate 80; Dry Creek Road lacks direct access.

Thank you, Mr. Hood, for bringing another viewpoint to the table. It is appreciated.

Jay O'Brien

Previous article on this subject:
Rio Linda News March 2, 2006 - Dry Creek Road Gridlock?
http://rlenews.com/06/060302.html#gridlock

Later article on this subject:
Rio Linda News March 23, 2006 - North / South Route Choice Controversy
http://rlenews.com/06/060323.html

---

jump to top of page