I attended last night's Highway 1 scoping meeting and here are my observations. I hope you will run this piece on Fix Pacifica.
Thank you for your time,
Chris Fogel
* * *
Route 1/Calera
Parkway: Scoping out the Scoping Meeting
The public
environmental scoping meeting was held on March 3 at the Pacifica
Community Center with approximately 70 individuals in attendance
including Mayor Sue Digre and other Council members. The
meeting began at 7:30 p.m. and attendees were told there it would end
promptly at 9:00 p.m.
The
presentation, intended to provide the public with an overview of the
scope and impact of the Highway 1 improvement project, was opened by
Joseph Hurley of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. After a quick introductions and very general overview
of the project’s process, Hurley handed off to Brad Leveen of Mark
Thomas & Company to give a more focused, though short, description
of two proposed improvement projects on the table for discussion. The bulk of the presentation was then handled by John
Hesler of David J. Powers & Associates who discussed environmental
impacts and his role in the project.
Both
proposals seek to mitigate traffic congestion by increasing the number
of through lanes from two to three in each direction along Highway 1
from south of Fassler Avenue to north of Reina Del Mar Avenue.
One proposal
includes the option of a raised, landscaped median. To
accommodate the extra space needed for the median, a more aggressive retaining wall system
would be put in place with slightly more encroachment necessary on both
the east and west sides of the highway.
The cost of
completing both projects was roughly calculated to be $35-45 million. Funding for the project was to come primarily from
the ½ cent sales tax intended by San Mateo County to be applied to
transportation projects. Leveen admitted,
however, that this would not fully fund the project and discussed
stimulus funds and other unspecified sources for the remainder.
Presenting staff
stated that traffic
analysis at the point where Reina Del Mar intersects Highway 1 shows
that two-thirds of the morning, north-bound traffic originates from
points south of Fassler, with the remaining one-third coming from
Fassler itself.
Difficulties
presented to traffic planners include protected wetlands immediately to
the west of Highway 1 in the considered corridor and Vallemar Station to
the east, a structure with historic recognition. These
serve as hard boundaries for the width of the proposed highway widening
and necessarily restrict its scope.
Options that
were considered, but ultimately rejected by the agencies involved
included:
Frontage roads
- scarcity of land on either side of
highway
- little improvement
of traffic
Grade separations
- cost would be 2-3 times the project
currently envisioned
- if implemented, roadway would be raised
at/around Reina Del Mar
crossing point
Signal timing
- already at peak efficiency according to
Caltrans
Roundabouts
- would have little/no improvement on
traffic given current speeds and traffic pattern
Enhanced transit
service
- no reason given as to why this was
dropped
During a
one-hour comment period opened to attendees, the majority of comments
focused on concern over a lack of information, data and presentation of
alternatives related to the project. A number of
comments were also raised relating to the severe impact that local
schools were having on traffic patterns, specifically in the Vallemar
area. The idea of resuming school-bus service to
the community was raised by a number of attendees as a more sensible
solution and suggested that the planners take this into consideration. Other comments wondered about the “life-span” of the
widening project given county-wide growth projections and possible
Quarry development.
The meeting
ended with City Council
member Vreeland stating that he would raise the possibility of
another scoping meeting at the Transportation Authority meeting to be
held on March 4. Vreeland agreed with most
attendees that it was unreasonable to expect the public to offer
meaningful commentary on the proposals given the lack of data available.
23 comments:
How come Vreeland is chiming in on the highway project? I would venture to guess that there are multiple federal agencies that will be involved in this process. Selective step-downs shouldn't be tolerated. He is, or isn't allowed to weigh in. What is it?
Vreeland was standing in the back of the room with the rest of the public. None of the city council members really participated in the meeting -- it was run by the three individuals from SMCTA, Mark Thomas and David J. Powers.
It was my sense that Vreeland was sharing his personal opinion with the traffic planners in saying he understood the frustration among attendees about the lack of data and that he was going to do his part to get more and ask for a "do over" on the scoping.
It *was* strange that the public was being asked to comment on a project that wasn't made available until a day or two prior to the hearing and the process by which this particular project was decided upon was *never* made available.
I'll copy my observations from a comment I made on Riptide yesterday:
I went, too. My sense of the meeting was that its purpose was to simply to let the public know what the county's preliminary idea for Highway 1 was, and to allow discussion of different alternatives. We have these kinds of meetings all the time in my line of work, where a straw-man proposal is tossed out and used as a catalyst to generate ideas.
The complaints about not having documents available to review beforehand were legitimate, and there were some alternative ideas tossed out about how the traffic problems might be mitigated without the need for spending $30 million. The problem caused by parents dropping off and picking up kids from Vallemar Elementary School was brought up, and many in the room agreed it was a major problem, if not "the" major problem. School buses or having kids walk to neighborhood schools rather than being driven to schools around town were offered as alternative solutions. Someone also brought up the idea of moving pylons as they do (or did) on the Golden Gate Bridge, where pylons in the road are moved to allocate extra lanes to heavy traffic during rush hours.
Traffic circles were discussed, but they had already been dismissed by traffic engineers as not being effective for the situation on Highway 1.
It was clear that this will turn into the usual economy vs. environment battle. Lots of the same people who routinely block economic development in town were already trying to stall or quash the project by coming up with all kinds of little nits about the process. Mind you, these are the same folks who routinely complain about traffic problems on Highway 1 as a reason to block development in the southern part of Pacifica.
Thanks Chris for your article review of the meeting, terrific!
Some history. There was a SMTA meeting in Pacifica more than two years ago when transportation/Highway 1 issues were discussed. Overwhelmingly those in attendance were interested in traffic fixes along highway 1. Prior to two years ago there was even city council support for dealing with the Calara Parkway bottleneck problem, that occurred during the time Pete DeJarnatt was mayor and Cal Hinton was on city council.
"How come Vreeland is chiming in on the highway project?"
He is on the governing board of the SMCTA.
He also characterized the proposed timeline of the project as "aggressive" and said it should be slowed down.
It seems that every substantial city improvement in Pacifica is "aggressive" (apparently another code word for no money and no interest). The traffic bottleneck could be considered "aggressive", but that's the usual problem, disconnect from the solution.
At least this city council has stopped claiming this city is "cutting edge", code word for "no growth" I guess.
If Jimmy V. is on the governing board of the SMCTA, why wasn't he aware of the time-line for the project and raise objections beforehand?
I think holding a second scoping-type meeting would be a good idea since there wasn't much information available before Wednesday night's meeting. But I thought the way he sensed the mood in the room and suddenly jumped on the "go-slow" bandwagon, berating Joe Hurley of the SMCTA about the need for another meeting, was a bit unseemly. When he was standing there pontificating on the need for more information and public input, I just kept thinking about how the biodiesel plant was quietly approved without letting anyone know about it.
If Jim has any clout at the SMCTA, maybe he can arrange for one more informational meeting at Council chambers in a month or two. I hope county bureaucracy isn't so entrenched that it's locked into its schedule.
Again, the traffic problem is another 10 year old issue, and Councilmember Vreeland has been sitting on county traffic commissions for almost that duration.
This highway 1 problem sounds kind of like the the Esplanade cliffs, aging sewer collection pipes, non-ADA compliant city hall and all the other "go-slow" city problems = "go never".
Another meeting would be great but not before all the info needed/requested for folks to comment appropriately, has been made available and someone has to figure how to get it out on all the blogs, newspapers, PCT etc so that there can be no complaining about not getting the info. Remember, we live in a town of 40,000 of whom only 3,000 subscribe to the newspaper and heaven knows how many seniors have not a clue about the blogs or even access to the internet. It would probably be a good idea to make the info available at the community center and any place else folks congregate. This project would have a huge impact on Pacifica yet only 70 prox ppl showed up for the meeting!
Maybe Mr. Vreeland didn't have all the information due to the amount of meetings he missed. Maybe he "stepped down" while that discussion was going on because any highway project will involve the EPA, Department of Transportation, and probably stimulas money. Another federal entitlement. Perhaps he's just shilling for votes.
Anonymous, I think you're brilliant.. "shilling for votes" no doubt. Sharon makes a good point that information has a way of not getting distributed in Pacifica-- yet, why wouldn't the city move forward to fix this old bottle neck problem through a best application strategy, whatever that amounts to?
"If Jimmy V. is on the governing board of the SMCTA, why wasn't he aware of the time-line for the project and raise objections beforehand?"
That's a very good question. He claimed in the meeting that he didn't know about the SMCTA staffers' concealment of documents and the public's concern about it. Because Planning Director Crabtree was also blindsided by this lack of data, I wonder what the hell is really going on here.
It's still my first concern, never mind whatever nightmare project is in the works.
Lionel, why would you assume the long overdue highway 1 Calara Parkway traffic project to solve a bottle neck problem would be a "nightmare"?
Now Councilmember Vreeland allegedly not knowing what's happening and failing to support a project advanced by a Board of which he is a member is a bit of a twist.
I betcha the Vreelander is good at twister!
I also attended the meeting. Clearly the 2 plans presented would only have a limited positive solution. Having a large local commuting population coupled with additional traffic from the south, the only way the jam can be mitigated is to eliminate the signal lights at Reina Del Mar & Fassler. Perhaps also at Crespi & Linda Mar. Grade separation, not unlike in Manor, is probably the most effective. The designers & engineers will have to be very creative to avoid some visual destruction of our coastal scape. In addition, it may have an adverse effect on some of the businesses located in close proximity to the highway. I am sure a solution can be found. We have an unusually large population for a coastal town, and future population growth here and in towns south of us, definitely necessitates improvement. I believe the SMCTA saw an opportunity to grab some fed stimulus and or state or county tax measure money, and had to come up with some plan to get the funds. So, I hope we do get an additional chance to be heard and the public informed long enough in advance, and provided with better documentation and details, to enable effective input and discussion.
Our city council and planner will have to take the lead to be sure we get our views heard. I am stunned that our city planner had no knowledge of this plan. He should have been in the loop from the day of the plan’s inception. At the least, Jim Vreeland who has been an SMCTA board member for many years, should have made sure our planner and our council members got in the loop. I definitely don’t buy Vreeland’s contention that he was not informed. He was just being the consummate politician playing both sides of the highway issue. What else is new?
One thing for sure, if we had more local development and businesses providing local jobs, we would have a larger tax base and fewer people commuting out of town to work and shop.
Markus,
I would only question one part of what you wrote: That upgrading the highway might have an adverse effect on the businesses there.
In the short term, while construction is under way - yes. But in the long term, I'd think that they'd benefit. Try entering or leaving Pacifica Lumber as cars are either whizzing by at 45mph plus, or are in gridlock. Neither is fun! I suspect that they'd appreciate having a less-busy frontage road for access!
Like the boon for business that grade separation provided to Eureka Square?
No.
Using Eureka Square as a comparison is troll-like, and I suspect that you know that, but just in case you were being serious rather than just provocative:
Any "impulse" trip (i.e., only after seeing it from the highway) to Eureka Square means taking the Manor exit (if northbound) and doubling back south for a mile, or taking the San Bruno exit (if southbound) and doubling back northward for more than a mile, neither of which is obvious or easy if you don't already know the way.
Using a more appropriate example, Manor southbound is easy, and northbound not so tough, even if it does involve going up the hill and back down again.
On/off ramps at both Reina Del Mar and Fassler would make getting to (for example) Pacifica Lumber quite easy. And not having traffic whizz by as you try to enter or exit would make actually going in there easier still - which was my original point.
Our highway needs these frontage roads for a variety of reasons, for all the reasons you mentioned Laurie, as well as an alternative for emergency vehicles to get through. Would these additional lanes continue the frontage roads?
I agree that Eureka Square is a bit different in that the community to the west got cut off from it, and there's no similar community across from Pacifica Lumber, but the fixpacifica crew wants one there. Any new grade separation should keep that in mind.
Personally, while I'd like an easier on/off experience at Pacifica Lumber, it's not a big enough problem for me to want to spend a few million. Swapping the entrance and exit, and cutting in a one-lane turnout could be a much smaller and less expensive way to help cars get out of and back into the flow.
What I really want to see are some better ways to get kids to and from the elementary school. That could address some of the worst traffic.
I'd also like to see some return commute improvements to flow traffic better into Crespi and Linda Mar.
The impact of both the school dropoffs/pickups and the return commute chokepoints can be seen a long way back in each respective direction.
Kathy,
The plan presented last week included four, regulation-width shoulders - one on either side of the median and one at each edge - which would provide emergency access/egress. The current shoulders (where they exist at all) are too narrow to meet code.
Whatever the final plan (and I hope that it's some version of grade separation with frontage roads), I'm sure that alternative/emergency access will be provided for. I don't think it could be approved for construction otherwise.
Laurie, I totally agree with you re the positive effect for businesses in the long term. I was referring to the adverse effect for a couple of the businesses that may need to be relocated due to space constraints, plus a handful inconvenienced during construction only. Not a big problem of course, unless you are one of the owners. Bottom line, the highway needs upgrading. I just want to be certain that any plan put forth mitigates the present congestion and hazards. I worry that the plan presented last week is the one they plan to proceed with. This will not solve much of anything. We must be heard loudly on this very important issue. Thanks
If access to Pacifica Lumber (and its neighbors) was the only problem, then yes, it wouldn't justify the cost. But if we're having to redesign the highway anyway... I think we're agreed!
I really don't buy the argument about the schools! Even if we can drastically increase the number of carpools (and that's being worked on) and if we could afford to operate a fleet of school buses (too expensive, but more on that below), I think that it still wouldn't be enough to reduce the problem to the level where the existing road design would be adequate going forward.
(Incidentally, the elementary school district has been offered FREE buses in the past, but couldn't accept them because of the prohibitively-high cost of operating them. Also, the high school district recently voted large cuts to its bus program because it can no longer afford the high operating costs - diminishing dollars must go to the classroom! - so we can expect an increase in car traffic to/from Terra Nova, starting this Fall.)
We've probably all been faced with throwing a lot of money into an old car before being forced to conclude that it was time to replace it. I think we've reached the point at which we need to accept that our stretch of Hwy 1 has been sub-standard for too long, that there's no cheap fix that wouldn't require even more being spent before long, and that the time has come to spend the money on a proper, long-term solution.
Post a Comment