Another Concept
FFFF has been diligent chronicling the fate of the so-called Trail to Nowhere since last summer when City staff began a selective process of pushing for approval and acceptance of the State Natural Resources Agency grant.
Previously the City Council had directed staff to explore an option for the UP right-of-way that would be multi-modal option planned in conjunction with a wider area. This option became the step-child of City Hall, virtually ignored as staff brought back the original plan and worked an approval from the clueless Parks Commissioners.
In this way Parks employees ginned up their own special brand of momentum in which the ludicrous becomes the unavoidable.
Except the City Council disagreed and voted to reject the grant unless it could be spent on something useful to somebody, somewhere else in Fullerton.
But let’s think about it for a bit.
Why doesn’t the multi-modal paradigm that became known as Option 2, work? Running a motor viaduct between Highland Avenue westward alongside a green belt makes sense if there must be a bike path.
Such a design could easily be incorporated into the 50 ft+ easement width. In fact, the exact same thing was already done in the City’s much vaunted Phase 1. The additional flexibility would be of tremendous benefit in the future development of the adjacent 30 acre area, where in-fill development is inevitable, given recent land planning requirements.
A roadway passing through the right-of-way could open up properties on both Truslow Avenue and Walnut Avenue to new configurations and provide commercial opportunities. Ultimately, the numerous deep properties on Valencia Avenue could have access to the new roadway as well.
Meantime, a Class 1 or a Class IV bikeway could built to the desired 10′ wide standard for a 2-way path with a 5′ DG path alongside, with plenty of room to spare. This configuration happens all the time. CalTRANS shares a design image:
As an aside, it’s kind of ironic that all the Trail to Nowhere advocates seem to think it’s a travesty to have a bike path running alongside what would essentially be a paved alley, but they never seem to mention the issue of their beloved bucolic facility running immediately adjacent to the busiest rail corridor in Sothern California.
Oh well. We cant’s expect consistency from those guided by compete ignorance and political animus.
I’ve been thinking about this very subject. What would you rather do? Ride a bike or jog through an industrial wasteland, backs of buildings, etc. or alongside a road way with a modest bit of traffic to keep an eye on folks?
And all you need is 30′ for a sidewalk and a roadway. The other 20′ would be dedicated as parkway and rec trail that would be actually be used by adjacent residents.
What nonsense. And no I’ve never been there. And no I can’t read a plan, and no, I don’t care about commonsense. It’s gesture, stupid.
You would think “professionals” would have the ability to see alternatives. Nope.
Hopefully some of those councilmembers will read this post. Staff should have been chastised, in public, for failing to follow the direction of the council.
Lol
No we don’t need another redundant fucking road. Fullerton is very well connected… for cars. Where we need improvement is connectivity for walkability, cycling access, recreation and a generally healthier more humane environment.
As everyone is well aware, we have no plan to catch up on the upkeep of the roads we already have.
Stop the insanity.
Your head is shoved so far up your own ass you can see out between your teeth.
Would you rather have the Class I trail you keep yammering about to uphold a plan nobody cares about, or no trail at all.
I would rather have it stay an empty lot until such time as they find a reasonable purpose of this property.
An expensive Road to Redundancy Road is not a reasonable purpose.
“As everyone is well aware, we have no plan to catch up on the upkeep of the roads we already have.”
You can thank your union leeches and their council puppets Zahra, Fitzgerald, Flory Chaffee and Quirk-Silva for that.
In any case, Zahra tells us it’s “offensive” to talk about maintenance costs in this poor, deprived area.
“In any case, Zahra tells us it’s “offensive” to talk about maintenance costs in this poor, deprived area.”
It was offensive, but simply because the fix was in and it was never a serious question. The cost would have been covered by park dwelling fees.
They had no good public reason to kill the Class 1 Trail that the city spent a bunch of money planning, choosing to ignore the Bicycle Master Plan with no acknowledgement they even know it exists. And now you all think it’s offensive to even raise the subject of the last minute trail knifing in council because it is decided and can never be spoken of again (even though the original justification was absent).
As to why we do not choose to afford to keep up with maintenance… it’s a matter of funding. It costs what it costs and we be pay about what neighboring cities pay to do their road maintenance. The question is whether we choose as a city to raise the funds to pay to catch up.
And you can only blame Fullerton voters and council majority for there being no plan in place to catch up.
“The cost would have been covered by park dwelling fees.”
Another Hoogerbooger lie. Or maybe he’s that fucking stupid. Park Dwelling fees can only be used for NEW capital projects.
Connectivity? Like from the closed Poison Park to the back corner of Independence Park?
If there’s no money for the roads we have why would you want a useless trail that can’t be maintained either?
Jesus H. Christ, get a grip, knucklehead.
Connectivity as in connectivity. It’s not just about the two endpoints which you pretend people don’t want to go between. It’s about getting from Point A to Point B where the trail is just one leg of your journey. Google maps set to Cycling will give you a good compromise between safety and efficiency cycling route between any two points. And that includes roads of course. And it will tend to choose safer roads for cycling. For example, Wilshire over Chapman.
So say you lived in a home near UP Park and wanted to ride a bicycle to the DMV.
“If there’s no money for the roads”
It may seem like money is fungible but the way government budgets work, it just isn’t. Dollars to spend on public works come from different budgets and sometimes outside sources (state/federal/private), earmarks, statutory requirements, constitutional requirements, etc.
The trail would be covered by the grant and park dwelling fees. So it was funded, which makes these arguments about costs to build and maintenance nonsensical.
We don’t need a “Road to Redundancy Road,” the money is absolutely not there to cover either as a grant, and it’s not there for ongoing maintenance.
Besides all that, the money to fund ongoing maintenance of each additional new road is of a whole other magnitude of cost compared to a class 1 trail with trees maintenance. I mean, even if you wanted to pretend government funds were fungible. Which they’re not. You’d really have to justify the need for a redundant road, and you cannot.
“So it was funded, which makes these arguments about costs to build and maintenance nonsensical.”
There is no funding for maintenance which is a running cost, not a capital cost. Of course you probably slept through your one class in accounting for your useless degree.
“There is no funding for maintenance which is a running cost, not a capital cost.”
Are you claiming the Park Dwelling Fee Fund can only be used for capital expenses?
I looked it up and you are correct and I was wrong, it is earmarked for parks but cannot be used for maintenance. Yes, money is not fungible when it comes to government budgets. Bizarre to have an ongoing source of park funds built in but disallow themselves from allocating those park funds to keeping the park maintained.
So it comes out of the operating budget. I don’t see why council could not change that if they wished. Until 1993 the word “maintenance” was included.
“All money collected as fees imposed by this chapter shall be deposited in the park dwelling fund and shall be used solely for the acquisition, development, improvement, and maintenance of public parks and recreational facilities in the City, as proposed by the City’s Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
On or after July 1, 1993, this section shall read as follows: All money collected as fees imposed by this chapter shall be deposited in the park dwelling fund and shall be used solely for the acquisition, development and improvement of public parks and recreational facilities in the City, as proposed by the City’s Five-Year Capital Improvement Program.”
“There is no funding for maintenance which is a running cost, not a capital cost. Of course you probably slept through your one class in accounting for your useless degree.”
I understand the terms, I wasn’t aware of the bizarre limitation in Fullerton’s ordinance regarding the Park Dwelling Fund. Not the kind of thing you would learn in any MBA program. It’s a detail specific to Fullerton, not a generic principle. But you’re desperately trying to score points so you’re going to intentionally seek to confuse issues.
“I looked it up and you are correct and I was wrong,”
Let that be your guiding principle.
“So say you lived in a home near UP Park and wanted to ride a bicycle to the DMV.”
Now that’s the stupidest thing you’ve ever said, which is saying a lot.
There are half-a-dozen homes across the street from the UP Park. If, for some demented reason they wanted to ride a bike to the DMV (why, to get a bike license?) they would ride down Valencia.
“There are half-a-dozen homes across the street from the UP Park. If, for some demented reason they wanted to ride a bike to the DMV (why, to get a bike license?) they would ride down Valencia.”
Again… as a cyclist you take the route that is the best compromise between safety and efficiency.
It wouldn’t be Valencia. A class 1 bike trail would be in better shape, would have no danger from motor vehicles.
Further, it’s just an example. The point is with each class 1 segment you connect many places to each other with safer routes, not just the two endpoints.
“If, for some demented reason they wanted to ride a bike to the DMV (why, to get a bike license?)”
Jesus Christ. Put on your thinking cap. First of all, the DMV is where you go to get a California ID, not just a Driver License. And every adult, driver or not ultimately is going to need an ID. Second, if you don’t have a driver license, you cannot lawfully drive any motor vehicle to the DMV. You have to go there, fill out forms, take tests, etc ahead of any behind the wheel test. Third people go there to pay registration etc. and it’s not “demented” to use a bicycle to run such errands. Such a short car trip is overkill, spends gas and affords your fat ass almost no exercise.
It seems like you understand English, but you’re just ridiculously obtuse and a victim of limited thinking.
Except that even if those 6 households wanted to go to the DMV to get ID they couldn’t. Your stupid Trail to Nowhere doesn’t even get to the DMV, does it?
Ah, no. It stops at the backass NE corner of Independence Park WHERE IT STOPS!
Put on your limited thinking, fat head dunce cap and go sit in the FFFF corner. You’ve run out of stupid things to babble.
I don’t think this dope has even looked at the plan, let alone gone to the site. Fat ass may have to accompany fat head.
But his comments, sheesh. They’d even get laughed off the Observer site by the Deadhead Kennedys.
It goes to independence park. And you go through independence park to the DMV.
Are you claiming the trail once built would not open into the park? The “backass” end of the park doesn’t make any difference. A little more exercise and enjoyment before you descend into the DMV .
Or are you still.being obtuse?
Getting thinner by the comment, chump.
How funny. Let’s avoid Valencia by…jumping off the Trail to Nowhere and riding through the parking lot to get to…Valencia.
And of course none of the 20 people living across the street from the Poison Park are going to do that. Oh, and BTW, the Highland crossing is going to mean getting off your little bike and walking across an ADA non-compliant cross slope.
You’re right about the cross slopes on Highland that begins to dip down to the RR underpass south of a direct crossing.
But the existing Phase 1 can’t even continue directly across Highland because the dopes didn’t line it up right. Phase 1 wanders down the ADA non compliant hill where it ends at the Walnut Ave. crossing. To continue it to the other side of Highland would mean running across another ADA non compiant slope, BACK UP yet another ADA non compliant slope – a hairpin maneuver in all. Honestly, you couldn’t make up incompetence like this.
Fullerton Engineer: New to Fullerton? This shit has been going on for at least 40 years.
I just saw a picture of you. I hope you’ve lost about 60 lbs before you called somebody else a fat ass.
“the money to fund ongoing maintenance of each additional new road is of a whole other magnitude of cost compared to a class 1 trail with trees maintenance.”
Absolutely wrong. An asphalt street with a concrete sidewalk will last for decades without anybody having to spending a dime on it. The landscaping in that City plan will need constant maintenance plus the cost of water – permanently. Don’t believe it? Look at your glorious Phase 1. I have, and it’s a damn disaster of neglect. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
You’ve made a fool of yourself. Again.
Aw, give the kid a break. Talking out of his ass is habitual. He can’t help it.
You’ve got to be kidding. So you agree with that pile of horse shit?
As to “kid”… that’s funny.
You “reason” like a small child. I want my pudding. I want McDonalds. I want a pony.
So, kid is perfect.
BTW, yes, I agree with what Fullerton Engineer said. He’s a professional engineer, while you are a professional ignoramus. I notice you didn’t address his point-on critique of the disaster known as Phase 1.
Nobody will talk about the Phase 1 facts, although staff was certainly willing to mislead the State about how it doesn’t even connect to Phase 2.
“An asphalt street with a concrete sidewalk will last for decades without anybody having to spending a dime on it.”
I guess if you don’t drive any cars trucks over it. What in the world are you talking about? Were you consulting for the city when they decided to postpone decades of maintenance?
“The landscaping in that City plan will need constant maintenance plus the cost of water – permanently”
Water and landscaping cost money. But it’s not comparable to road maintenance and associated costs.
“You’ve made a fool of yourself. Again.”
I’m pretty sure “An asphalt street with a concrete sidewalk will last for decades without anybody having to spending a dime on it” wouldn’t fly as a valid statement with ANYONE who lives in this city.
Well you’re wrong. Again. Hardscape is cheap to maintain. Landscape is expensive.
“Water and landscaping cost money. But it’s not comparable to road maintenance and associated costs.”
More bullshit from poor deluded hoagie.
Jeez what a blithering boohoo.
JRH = Insufferable Twat + Angry Elf
Is an angry elf anything like a gay dwarf?
Angry manatee.
Thanks for a smart compromise. Option 2 never had a fair hearing or even a preliminary design. Just some cost number some idiot in City Hall pulled out of their backside. Sadly, the Council never even pursued this rank insubordination. That’s the problem with weak politicians who are afraid to actually use their authority and allow themselves to be manipulated/duped/intimidated by people you wouldn’t hire to walk your dog.
But they still voted against the Trail to Nowhere, so that’s a good thing, right? I have no idea why they allowed the thing to drag out unless they still hope for some other use. But that could be agendized as a different project.
What a sensible proposal.
Alas, in Fullertown the people working in City Hall have no ability to see outside their narrow tunnel vision.
Alice Loya learned from the best. And by best I mean worst: Susan Hunt.