Consultants say save the Healdsburg bridge and build a new one next to it

Healdsburg's historic Russian River bridge should be preserved as a bicycle and pedestrian crossing with a new modern bridge constructed next to it, according to the top recommendation of consultants studying the fate of the span.

Those keen on saving the 89-year-old bridge welcomed the preservation part, but not the idea of building a new crossing too.

It will be "another large concrete slab next to this icon," said Rod Stierwalt of Healdsburg, echoing the sentiments of virtually every one who spoke Thursday night at a public forum to consider the bridge's fate.

Where are the people who want a new bridge? Ted Robinson of Dry Creek said to the audience of about 80 people. Everyone is in favor of restoring the old bridge."

Following months of study and public meetings, consultants travelled to Healdsburg and rendered their tentative recommendation, subject to change before their report is presented to the City Council on Sept. 7.

All of the options favored by the consultants, Omni Means Ltd. of Roseville, now include saving the Healdsburg Memorial Bridge, also known as the Healdsburg Avenue Bridge.

At an estimated cost of $25 million, they said a new wider bridge can be built and the old one rehabilitated to better withstand earthquakes and floods.

A strong preservation faction has gathered more than 460 signatures in favor of saving the bridge, and sees no reason to build a modern span just upstream.

A new concrete bridge was decried as unnecessary by critics Thursday. They said it would create four bridges in a close area — a freeway bridge, the historic bridge, a railroad crossing and new span.

One speaker said it was "horrifying" to consider another bridge, while another described it as "a monstrosity."

"It seems like a little overkill to me and not in character with a small town," said Warren Watkins, an environmentalist and retired teacher.

"Obviously there's a lot of passion about the bridge," said Mayor Jim Wood, who attended Thursday's meeting. "It's not just a transportation medium. It's an icon for the community." Wood said that "public input is very important to me" in arriving at a decision on what to do with the bridge.

But he said ultimately what happens to the bridge may depend on funding availability.

While federal and state funding will cover 88 percent of the costs, finding the city's share could remain challenging.

Consultants have scrutinized more than a dozen options for dealing with the 89-year-old span.

A couple of their other top alternatives involve relocat

ing

the existing bridge to the north, or south, and putting in a new one in its place.

The new concrete bridge is considered desirable because it would be wider and meet current road standards.

Under the top alternatives, cars and bicycles traveling on the side-by-side bridges into Healdsburg would enter town through a roundabout where Healdsburg Avenue, Kennedy Lane and Front Street converge.

Consultants used a complex "decision matrix" to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each concept and considered a number of criteria to help determine the best river crossing solution.

Those included historic preservation, public safety, environmental sensitivity, right-of-way impacts, design standard conformance, cost, and the city's financial contribution.

But critics said the study was flawed and did not give sufficient consideration to public sentiment.

Richard Burg of Healdsburg said too much weight was being given to last-minute CalTrans input involving the facilitation of commercial freight, as opposed to residential and tourist traffic.

Mel Amato, a Healdsburg electrical engineer, said the study is flawed and will not withstand a legal challenge.

Amato a couple years ago helped convince CalTrans to revise its calculations that had given the bridge the worst rating of any in the county. Since then the state agency has acknowledged the bridge can carry all legal loads.