Resolution 03448RESOLUTION' C. 3448
3E8081A3 TZING THE CONGRESS OF Tel UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA. IN THE MATTER OE THE CONSTRUCTIONOF
A SECOND TRAFFIC CROSSING. BETWEEN SAN FRANCISCO
AND THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS 388 "EAST
W1ETEEA.2, the jbint Army and. Navy Board Is now making studies for the
location of a proposed new bridge across San Francisco Bay, pursuant to House
Resolution No 529, 79th Congress, Second. Session; and
WHEREAS, the Toll Bridge Authority of the State of California Is making
a similar study under authorization of its Resolution; and
WHEREAS, these reports will be submitted to the Congress of the United
States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 'RESOLVED BY THE COU=L of the CITY 01 ALAMEDA
that the Congress of the United States be, and it is, hereby memorializedon.this
subject and respectfully requested in its study of the aforementioned reports,
to give due weight to the following considerations, to wit:
1 - That the volume of traffic over the present Bay Bridge Is such
as to make plainly evident the immediate need. for a new structure.
2 - That the location of the present Bay Bridge does not adequately
serve the larger portion of the population. of Alameda County.
Out of a total County population of 746,000, the areas east of
Lake Merritt and to the southern County Line, including East
Oakland and the Cities of Alameda, San Leandro and Hayward,
have a population of 391,271. To the traffic emanating from
this area, must be added that which originates in the cities
and towns along Highway 50 and that part of Highway 99 from
Stockton to Bakersfield.
3 That the approaches to the presently existing structure are
not adequate to properly care for the traffic of the Bridge.
4 - That the location of the proposed Bridge should be to the
south of the present structure and so situated that it might .
adequately serve the areas hereinbefore described.
5 - That the construction of a new 3ridge in. close proximity to
the present Bridge would add greatly to the existing confusion.
in, and difficulties of, handling traffic in these areas.
6 - That of all the Bridge plans submitted for study, the Walsh Plan,
providing for a bridgehead at the foot of Army Street in San.
Francisco and a double bridgehead in Alameda - one to serve West
Oakland and points north, and one to serve Southern Alameda
County - would most adequately serve this area.
7 - That the cost of construction of the Bridge proposed under the
Walsh Plan, or some other similar plan, would be much more
economical than any .other proposed location because of the fact
that the lands are now available and epen for the proposed
construction work.
That a recent study of the diversion of traffic from the present
Bridge discloses that approximately 2570 of the present Bridge
traffic woull .. be diverted to the proposed. Bridge if built be-
tween Army Street and Bay. Farm Island, and that the volume of
"Peak" traffic diverted would represent approximately 501 of
such traffic.
9 - That the greatest industrial and residential expansion and de-
velopment in Alameda County has been, and will continue to be,
in the area that would. be m ost adequately served by a Bridge
from the foot of Army Street in San Francisco to Bay Farm
Island in Alameda.
10 That a crossing on the location herein. proposed would bring the
San. Francisco Municipal Airport and the Oakland Airport many
miles nearer each other than another crossing in the vicinity
of the present bridge whicb .. would be of first importance in
case of war.
11 - That the rich San Joaquin Valle, with all its products which
are shipped to the San Francisco market would have a direct
Freeway into the city with a minimum of traffic stops and
with the practical elimination .. of traffic congestion areas.
12 - That a second crossing at the location herein .. suggested would
give a wide distribution of traffic and tend to eliminate con-
gestion rather than to concentrate traffic with increased con-
fusion as would be the case with a second crossing in close
proximity to the present bridge.
and.
DE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that in consideration of these factors, the
Congress of the United States, and all other Bodies vested with authority to
deal with this subject, be, and they are, hereby respectfully urged and requested
to find and determine that the proposed Bridge should have its westerly terminus
at Army Street in San Francisco and its easter]y terminus on I'lay :arm Island in
Alameda and to authorize and direct its construction accordingly.
* * *
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly and regularly introduced and adopted by the Council of the City of Alameda
in regular meeting assembled on the 7th day of January, 1947, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES: CounciLaen Howe, Jones, Osborn, Sweeney and Fresident
Dranscheid, (5).
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 8th day of January, 1947.
(SEAL)
CLARK
City Clerk of the City of Alameda
* * * * * * * * *
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
"Resolution.. No. 3448, MEMORIALIZING THE CONGRESS aF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA
IN 1 MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION C A SECOND TRAFFIC,' CROSSING BETWEEN SAN
FRANCISCO AND THE AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE ."EAST .BAY", introducedandadopted
by the Council on the 7th day of January, 1947.
City Clefilik of the City of Alameda