The connection
of Rainier Avenue (possible alignment to the right) between McDowell Boulevard and Petaluma
Boulevard North has long been an item of contention in Petaluma. Much of the political spectrum has supported
it, with a handful of notable holdouts.
In the most recent City Council elections, every candidate publicly
supported its construction, some with more vigor than others. And the public has been consistently,
although not unanimously, strong in its support.
But despite
thirty years of discussion, the connector hasn’t been built. And that’s largely for one very good
reason. With the need to pass under
Highway 101 and over the Petaluma River, the Rainier connector is expensive. There are numerous alternative configurations
and project elements, all of which have their own price tags, but $90 million
is a good round number for finishing the Rainier connector, including an
interchange with Highway 101.
And $90 million
is a huge chunk of money, nearly three times the current annual budget for all city
services.
Despite the
cost, Petaluma continues to toy with the possibility of the Rainier connector. Most recently, a draft environmental impact report was delivered to the City Planning Department. Construction funding still seems a remote
possibility in the near future, but the Rainier connector remains a hot topic.
With the
Rainier connector an on-going topic, it’s reasonable to ponder what an urbanist
should view the proposed road. It’s not
an easy question to answer.
To begin,
the primary rationale for the Rainier connection, traffic congestion relief,
can be rejected. It’s the argument that
Robert Moses offered to New York City for forty years worth of roadway projects,
only to have traffic become increasingly worse.
The problem
is induced traffic, the trips that current local residents would have been making
for the last few years, but have been deferring because of traffic on E.
Washington Street.
Under the
theory of induced traffic, the validity of which has been observed in many
settings, a newly-opened Rainier connector would likely flow easily for a few
months or even a couple of years, but would eventually become just as congested
as E. Washington Street, even without any new local residents. (Note: A dramatic increase in the price of
gasoline or a vehicle-mileage tax might slow the uptake of new road capacity,
but only the first of those seems even remotely possible.)
Simply put,
if the Rainier connector was available, a family that has been happily
patronizing a Mexican restaurant on their side of town would find a new
favorite Mexican restaurant on the far side of town. And they would drive there using the new roadway
capacity. As the sales tax revenue from
a burrito is the same on either side of town, there would be no net gain to the
city, but the primary reason for the Rainier connector would be gradually
consumed.
On the
pro-Rainier side, cities work best when there is a road grid that allows
traffic to find more logical routes around town. In the absence of the Rainier connector, and also
of the proposed bridge across the Petaluma River between end of Caulfield
Street and Petaluma Boulevard South, the Petaluma traffic pattern looks like an
hourglass, with E. Washington Street as the choke point. The Rainier connector would allow more
logical routes between destinations.
On other
hand, completing the Rainier connector, like many major roadway projects, would
likely spur new development. And it
seems likely that the development would be drivable suburban rather than
walkable urban. If the land along and
near the Rainier connector was within the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, I’d
feel better about the likely development pattern, but it’s not, at least as of
today.
Lastly, the
routing of Petaluma Transit is impeded by the absence of a Rainier
connection. Especially given the
location of the transit yard at the intersection for McDowell Boulevard and
Rainier Avenue, a connection to Petaluma Boulevard North would allow more
effective routing and less deadhead time at the start and end of shifts.
So, with the
traffic relief argument discarded, the balance comes down to improved routing
for transit and private vehicles versus the risk of sprawl inducement. It’s a close call, but I’ll come down on the
side of improved routing and in favor of the Rainier connector. And I’ll pair that decision with a hope that
future City Councils will resist the siren call of sprawl and find a way to
make Rainier an urban, not suburban, corridor.
But the
decision was close. Given that the net
benefits are slight, is the Rainier connector worth $90 million? To me, it’s not. I can point to far better uses of $90
million.
If the
infrastructure fairy tapped on my shoulder tomorrow and gave me a check for $90
million, how would I prioritize the dollars?
At the top of my list would be infrastructure needed to get urbanist
projects, such as the Station Area and North Water Street, underway.
Next, I’d
address the deferred maintenance of streets near downtown and other areas of
potential walkable development.
Only with
those two needs met would I look toward the Rainier connector.
Now, I need
to find that infrastructure fairy with the deep pockets.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
