Adrian's Island.
It's not an unfamiliar name in Jefferson City. It's been discussed for more than 40 years with dozens of studies done on how to get to, and use, the property on the other side of the Union Pacific Railroad.
And, with help from Jefferson City resident B.J. DeLong, the project has been revived once more.
DeLong recently donated $50,000 to get the project started again, with the money being used to pay for the preliminary design work for a bridge to the property. Preliminary design work by Bartlett & West is anticipated to be finished in November.
Officials say it is DeLong's participation and desire to see the project finished in her lifetime (DeLong is 91 years old) that has pushed this long-studied project back to the forefront.
"What's different is we have a benefactor," said Randy Allen, president and CEO of the Jefferson City Area Chamber of Commerce. "The idea of having a more direct connection to the river on the south side has always been there and has always been needed. We have this magnificent river, and we just have this barrier - and the barrier is the railroad."
What is Adrian's Island?
Adrian's Island is actually a peninsula between the Capitol building and the Missouri River that developed as settling sand and riverbottom accumulated from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' rock dikes built in the 1960s to maintain a 9-foot minimum channel depth.
In the 1960s, Harry Adrian received a patent for the land, meaning he found out the newly formed land was unowned and basically claimed the property. He donated the property to the Housing Authority, which still owns it today.
Though it once was a 40-acre property, the actual size tends to fluctuate based on river levels. Bill Lockwood, director of the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, said the island is about 35 acres today, noting at least 5 acres were washed away in the flood of 1993 but, over time, the land begins to build back up.
Blocking access to the island is the Union Pacific Railroad, which has tracks along the river, as well as a significant rail yard.
Why hasn't Adrian's Island worked before?
The project has been studied before. Since 1932, there have been more than 20 studies done on southern riverfront access, access to Adrian's Island and developing Adrian's Island.
A memo to the mayor and City Council in September 1986, written by Lockwood and Allen Pollock, director of the Housing Authority, includes a description of why accessing Adrian's Island had been so difficult up to that point:
"The major problem which no other previous study has been able to overcome is the fact that the Union Pacific Railroad lines and yard in Jefferson City (effectively) block public river access. Of the dozens of plans proposed in the past to mitigate the access problem, there have been none so far which have been successfully implemented. ... Other major factors which have thwarted previous efforts seems to be the lack of commitment on the part of city government to overcoming the access problem and lack of designation of responsibility for the project. Finally, the lack of interest in providing funding necessary to implement a development plan has prevent any progress beyond the planning stage."
The most recent serious attempt to get to the property began around 2006. After doing another study on points of access, the final design was to construct a 120-foot tunnel under the railroad tracks to get to the island, a project that was estimated to cost about $1.7 million and would have used a $500,000 grant from the Missouri Department of Transportation.
Allen said that plan was seen as preferable because it had no visual impact, plus a tunnel would be able to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles.
The project stalled in 2011 when Union Pacific, after years of studying the concept, basically killed the tunnel plan.
"That looked like the best solution at the time; unfortunately, the railroad kind of strung us out with that plan," Lockwood said. "Then when it got down to the bitter end, they threw in the wrench that if they ever needed to do anything to this railroad bridge here, we'd have to tear the tunnel out at our own expense. ... Taking it out would have been much more expensive than putting it in.
"That really sank that issue and that effort after we spent a lot of work to put together what we thought was a really good and workable plan."
Lockwood said the rail yard often is the big problem in Jefferson City, noting other communities have accessed the river over railroad tracks, but those mostly have one or two tracks instead of the multiple tracks at the local rail yard.
The idea returned not long after, being discussed as part of the chamber's economic development initiative Transformation. In 2011, the Millbottom action team proposed studying ways to access the island, either through the previously discussed tunnel or a pedestrian overpass at Bolivar Street. The team recommended a study for up to $450,000 to develop a riverfront and Millbottom master plan, which was not done as Transformation's proposed sales tax did not pass.
As for a bridge, Lockwood said one of the reasons a tunnel was preferred previously is that any bridge would have to deal with both a steep drop in elevation and accommodating emergency and maintenance vehicles.
Why now?
Allen said the last attempt to get to the island using the tunnel was focused on use of grant money and other public funds. But with DeLong's donation, Allen said, the project could become more of a public-private partnership, something that may be more palatable to those who don't want to see taxpayer dollars spent on Adrian's Island.
"I think that changes the whole game," Allen said. "We obviously believe that a bridge solution is viable. ... We believe it's still in the community's interest to access the riverfront."
Allen also said using the island to enhance the city's existing trail and greenway system would be a large economic driver for the area.
Lockwood said DeLong's participation is the type of action needed to get the project going again and actually accomplish it.
"It's a huge step forward," Lockwood said. "The interest is there. ... It usually doesn't take much to kick-start the interest."
Lockwood said as far as riverfront access on the south side of the river, Adrian's Island likely is the city's best bet, as there is nowhere else to really develop along the south river bank because of the railroad.
Because the property is in a flood plain, only passive development would be allowed, meaning the area largely would be trails and a park-like setting. Lockwood said the department would like to do some shoreline stabilization on the property and perhaps build a boat landing for those who want to set off from the Noren Access on the north side of the river and land at Adrian's Island.
Lockwood said he would estimate a bridge to cost about $2.5 million, but noted once the bridge is built, he believes the property could be developed and maintained almost entirely on volunteer labor.
"It's always been a very expensive first step to get over there," Lockwood said.
Both Allen and Lockwood recognize there has often been opposition to this project as much as there has been support. And both compared it to the pedestrian bridge over the Missouri River, saying many were against that project, calling it a waste of public money, but now it's a popular feature of the city.
"When it was in concept, we had a lot of people naysaying that," Allen said. "I think, once people get over to the island and have direct access from this side to the riverfront, people are just going to go, "Why did it take us 40 years or 50 years to do this?'"
What are your thoughts?
In 2010, Jefferson City did a survey of residents that found 54 percent of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the Adrian's Island project at that time (which was the proposed $1.7 million tunnel project). Respondents said the primary concern was the property's location within the flood plain, with the second concern being that the project would waste taxpayer money.
Officials have said the current idea would be to focus on more of a public-private partnership, relying far less on taxpayer funds.
In an email to a News Tribune reporter last month, resident Dennis Morrissey said he remains very much opposed to the idea of developing the property at all, citing security issues and flooding.
"Developing in the river basin is like trying to tame a wild animal," Morrissey said. "The river will flood Adrian's Island, again and again. Cleanup of this property would be expensive and would likely require expensive monitoring/testing to ensure no poisons or contaminants are on the property each time it floods."
"Ms. DeLong's money would be better spent enhancing overlooks of the river such as what we currently have at the end of the street by the Governor's Mansion."
So what do you think? Should the city continue its attempts to gain access to and develop Adrian's Island? Is it a better project if there are no taxpayer funds involved? Let us know your thoughts by commenting in the section below this article, on the News Tribune Facebook page or by contacting reporter Madeleine Leroux at [email protected].