The "No Development" crowd is doing everything they can to stall and block this project. Please attend to learn what's going on, and listen to all the excuses that will be given for why a Highway 1 traffic fix should not proceed.
State Route 1/Calera Parkway Project
Pacifica, California Route 1 between Fassler Avenue and Reina Del Mar Avenue |
|
|
Public Information Meeting Materials At the request of the public, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the City of Pacifica and the California Department of Transportation will hold a public information meeting: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 – 6:00 p.m. Pacifica City Council Chambers, 2212 Beach Blvd. The meeting is a follow up to the environmental scoping meeting held March 3, 2010. The purpose of the meeting is to provide additional information about the concepts studied during project development. To allow additional time for the public to comment, the deadline to submit comments for the environmental scoping process has been extended to Thursday, July 22, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. The public may provide comments by calling (650) 508-6283 (TTY (650) 508-6448) or e-mailing smcta_feedback@smcta.com. Written comments also may be submitted to Mr. Joseph M. Hurley, Director Transportation Authority Program P.O. Box 3006, San Carlos, CA 94070-1306. The following materials are on the website and also will be available at the public information meeting: Information Update Report: provides a brief background and history of the project. (PDF, 31KB) Preliminary Concepts Matrix: a list of the concepts considered in table format. The table contains a brief description of each concept, a summary of the concept’s feasibility and effectiveness, and whether or not the concept will be considered for further study. (PDF, 83KB) Preliminary/Draft Drawings: for each of the concepts studied, where appropriate. The development of a concept stopped as soon as it was determined that it was not feasible. As a result, some earlier concepts are not as advanced as later concepts. |
Coastsider story on meeting, including map of proposed highway widening...
Posted by Steve Sinai
83 comments:
SMCTA made a very convincing presentation tonight, showing how widening the highway was the only option that made sense. I almost fell out of my chair when even City Engineer Van Ocampo stood up and said the highway widening would be good for Pacifica business.
There didn't seem to be much opposition after the presentation.
At least no one can say that they didn't come prepared this time!
Having said that, I'm very disappointed that they continue to support a plan that leaves the traffic lights in place. (Despite showing - briefly - a chart which showed that removing the traffic lights and using grade separation instead would have the biggest and longest-lasting positive impact.)
One of their stated criteria was that the cost be "feasible", but they never did define how that would be measured! There's work still to do...
Laurie, it sounded like the option closest to your proposal was determined to be marginally better traffic-wise, but would have cost much more. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I can understand why SMCTA decided a 5% traffic-flow improvement over the widening, while being 50% more expensive, wasn't worth it. The widening came off as the most cost-effective alternative.
Steve,
There was one chart that showed that a light-free option was -- by far -- the most effective. If the chart base was zero (and it went by too quickly for me to be able to determine), then it looked like taking away the lights would result in about a 90% cut in the delays, versus maybe 40-50% for the other options - not to mention that their solution is only good for 20 years from completion date, so a) that's a lot of money to spend on a short-term fix, and b) maybe we should start work now on the subsequent improvement?
We'll need to see when the charts become available on the website.
How was it convincing? Just because they put up a fancy slide with arrows doesn't make it accurate or even true.
Do you recall them mentioning that back in the late '80s when they performed a scoping project based on traffic projections out to 2010? I'd be very interested to know what their traffic projections were for today -- I'll bet they forecast a total traffic mess that this project was supposed to "get the jump on." But we have no current traffic mess and again we're told that we need to plan for the future that, horrors!, is sure to come.
Let's say, just for discussion, what the presenters said was 100% accurate. We currently have a peak traffic delay of 3 minutes (I've experienced this twice in 6 months, but whatever). Projections to 2035 anticipate a delay of 7 minutes.
Do we really want to spend 45 million dollars and deal with two years of construction in order to save four minutes in an economic climate where we can't even afford the upkeep on our existing roadway infrastructure?
Anon @9:25am, oh please, "no traffic", remember the main reason some of you gave for not building the quarry for needed city tax revenue: "Traffic". Reality check! And, those of us who have been on the north traffic delay and the south traffic delay have experienced a 20 minutes or more each way delay; including, almost 10 minutes on Linda Mar Blvd waiting to get on to Highway 1, and being backed-up on Sharp Park Road much longer than that waiting to approach Highway 1. Yes, there is a traffic congestion problem on highway 1 in Pacifica, so after all these years let's be willing to fix it.
You want another solution or none, well you are no doubt part of the those who have worked so hard to continue providing a "retro", broke and broken-down city. Therefore, be happy with the cheapest, best solution.
As mentioned by Steve and Laurie, our county transportation authority came-in prepared with SMCTA paid studies and analysis from impartial companies who specialize in providing such information. These were factual, analytical studies, with several variations considered to arrive at "best solutions". Six lanes will work. Its the least expensive, most efficient way to solve the highway 1 bottle neck problem through Pacifica.
And, remember we're not thinking about the flow of traffic on highway 1 "today". Today, its summer, (some people are on vacation, school is out), the tunnel has not opened, some people are not working (State unemployment is 12%, "we're in the worst recession since the great depression"). No, we're talking about the usual congestion (without the affect of the summer months and the recession), and the future growth projection along the coast. This bottle neck problem needed to be fixed 8 years ago with Measure E at that time, or 4 years ago Measure L could have softened the cost. So, here we are with with some possible assistance from government stimulus money, projected time to build maybe 4-5 years if all goes well, (DEIR 18 months, regulatory review 18-24 months, construction 12-18 months). Get on board!
Oh, some reasons "we can't even afford the upkeep on our existing roadway infrastructure" (your words). Try more of the same, see paragraph 2. Measure A improvement money has been building "trails", then there was "the shuttle", 2 years as I recall.
1) There is no secured funding in place for this project. None. The presenter admitted such and made vague allusions to stimulous money.
2) Pacifica doesn't owe the folks coming up from south of the Slide a nice, new awesome freeway to drive on. I certainly don't expect Montara and El Grenada to put in a two lane highway for my benefit when I travel south on weekends.
Commuters going through our town might have an outstanding experience, but we're the ones stuck with an eyesore splitting yet another one of our communities in half with freeway.
3) Traffic patterns shift. IF we ever got to the problem where, omigod we're spending a whole seven minutes getting throught these two miles, people commuting through out twon will shift their routes and will take the more appropriate 92-to-280 route.
4) There is no bottle neck problem. The traffic congestion problem is a total canard. The only time traffic was backed up to Linda Mar Blvd. was when the one traffic light went out (and Pacifica's finest refused to direct traffic).
Traffic does not back up to the extent as presented and I wish you and other folks would be honest about the size of the "problem" as it exists and wouldn't exaggerate it in order to further their own agendas. The traffic engineer himself stated at last night's meeting that traffic doesn't back up these days to the extent shown on his slides. So that kind of throws his projected 0.75% growth factor nonsense out the window too. Traffic has gone DOWN in the last few years.
The fact is we have traffic lights and sometimes they will turn red and you have to stop. Traffic will back up at the light (because you're stopped, duh!), but once green, traffic cycles through just fine.
So I guess Pacifica is a community full of whiny, self-entitled babies who want a $45 million solution to a current 3-minute "back-up" (traffic engineer's figures based on hitting two red lights) and a projected, possible, maybe seven minute "problem" in 2035.
UNLESS...
It's not about the freeway at all and is about laying down an infrastructure to sustain future land development up and down our coast. It's fine to have a discussion along these lines if you're going to be honest about your motivations, but don't hide behind an OMG WE HAVE TO FIX THIS AWFULL TRAFFIC MESS!!! when there isn't one.
Regretfully, I have not seen a comment relating to the root cause of the traffic. Treat the problem, not the symptom. The majority of the traffic coming into and out of the valley is not due to jobs in Vallemar. It is due to the Pacifica School District (PSD) policy on neighborhood schools. Thanks to the trustees, anyone from any part of town can choose Vallemar School. Hence, parents will drive and drop off their children right at the school, then turn around to leave the valley. Most parents from Vallemar, who do not have to suffer through the traffic, drop off their kid(s) blocks before reaching the school, then turn around. Three possible solutions: (a) force PSD to establish drop-off zones just off Highway 1 on the northbound and southbound directions, (b) force PSD to return Vallemar School to being a neighborhood school, (c) require parents to pay into an effective school bus system (i.e., $100/head). Surely, any of these options would be quite a bit cheaper than $45mm.
The Anon @3:12pm, and "Copy&Paste" comment @3:45pm. What we could do in avoidance of all thing to improve this city is 1) set-up toll stations on highway 1 at each end of the city to stop people from driving through, and 2) at Vallemar follow the Glen Beck suggestion I heard yesterday: "eliminate the public school education".
Just trying to help support you "nothing for Pacifica" folks in the spirit of "let's all get along" community! Fortunately the SMTA Draft Environmental Impact Study will move forward.
"The majority of the traffic coming into and out of the valley is not due to jobs in Vallemar. It is due to the Pacifica School District (PSD) policy on neighborhood schools."
This was discussed at the meeting, and the people who studied the traffic patterns said that only about 2%-3% of the traffic was caused by the school.
They also said that the decrease in traffic in the summer was not because the school was closed, but because traffic everywhere goes down in the summer.
Disagree with Steve Sinai. This from the San Diego Traffic Report:
"...In the 1950's more than half of San Diego school children walked or bicycled to school. That number has fallen below 10 percent as streets have become wider and more dangerous [and in the case of Pacifica, abandoning the neighborhood school model and going with a lottery]. This trend combined with the loss of school bus service, has resulted in an overwhelming increase in parents driving their children to and from school. San Diego traffic alerts show that 20 to 25 percent of rush hour traffic on local streets is now attributable to the school commute."
I'm not even sure about the claim that the school generates the majority of the Vallemar traffic!
The population of Vallemar is about 3,000, so let's assume that that's about 1,000 homes. (About one thirteenth of the Pacifica total in each case.)
The enrollment at the school is 560, with about 100 students coming from within Vallemar, leaving up to 460 coming from outside. Taking into account that some arrive by bus and many are car-pooled or from multiple-kid families, let's assume that around 350 cars bring kids to the school in the morning.
That means that if only a little over a third of the homes in Vallemar have a single vehicle leaving the valley to go to work during the morning commute, it would still exceed the number of cars bringing kids to Vallemar school via Hwy1.
Even if I'm way off in these estimates, it still doesn't account for the fact that the evening commute - several hours after school is out! - is well-documented as being subject to greater delays, on average, than the morning commute.
It's time to put this myth to rest!
Of the total traffic accountable to Vallemar, I recall 5% total, which may be an additional comment to what Steve said. Laurie made an extended coherent comment about that as well.
Anon 3:34pm I was amazed and amused by your comment about "not owing the folks coming up from south of the Slide a nice, new awesome freeway to drive on." Really, aren't we big users of our own highway, plus roads all over the bay area? Many of us actually travel to cities with better business infrastructures to work, shop, medicine, and other reasons. We travel our roads and their roads, but we shouldn't provide an efficient highway for our own citizens and those visitors who pass through up the coast or down the coast?
Anon, you also implied that the issue is perhaps larger than Pacifica alone. To that I agree. The mid-coast part of highway 1 is also congestion, not just weekends, but also during weekdays. We need to provide for our city. County may have a plan for mid-coast.
You've revealed your hand in your last sentences.
You'd like the entirety of Highway One to be turned into a multi-laned freeway system -- community character, charm and make-up be damned.
Potemkin Village lives- here in Pathetica!
The meeting was a Soviet-style presentation of an accomplished plan. (they wish) We are the experts-you are the suppliants.
They don't seem to know Pacifica very well-even though Mr. Hurley lives here.
Good Luck with that!
Anon @8:55pm and 9:49pm, what you call a Soviet-style presentation, I call a well-worked-out professional presentation. And, clearly the amateurs were not in charge on this one.
Hey, you also twisted my comments. What I said was clear enough: "The mid-coast part of highway 1 is also congestion, not just weekends, but also during weekdays. We need to provide for our city. County may have a plan for mid-coast." Again being stalled in congested traffic is not smart, and not "green". NOT GREEN!
And your reply to my statement above: "You'd like the entirety of Highway One to be turned into a multi-laned freeway system -- community character, charm and make-up be damned." Did I say that to you on this blog? No. That's just you ad-libbing again.
Money is a factor, and some of you work very hard at assuring this city has "empty pockets", and "empty pockets" has compounding consequences. Plan B (with plants) and other designs were also worked-out, but deemed potentially too expensive, or had other considerations, such as too close to wetlands, respect for culture issues such as Ohlone Indians. If you want sustainable charm rather than the funky alternatives, the solution is usually an improved economy.
Joe Hurley knows Pacifica, as you've mentioned he lives here. Does he also commute to work? Hope so.
Kathy, are you posting these from some kind of mobile device, or are you just not able to put a coherent sentence together?
Don't expect too much from Kathy, she's set in her ways.
I think Kathy means well and here posts are fine. Give her a break.
I've seen her involvement in other community issues and she should be recognized for them. I won't mention them here out of respect for privacy she may want, but she is involved in the community and that's more than I can say for a LOT of people in this town.
I just get admittedly angry when see a project steam-rolling ahead upon what I see is a flawed premise that everyone just seems to unquestionably buy into: that there's a major traffic problem requiring $45M and two years' construction.
I drive that stretch daily and have done so since October of last year. My wife does as well. We drive at varying times and I noted that both of us drive mostly during the peak traffic times as noted by the traffic engineer.
We don't experience this back-up that's being described.
I even thought of documenting my drive times on some sort of website log to drive the point home.
Anon twice, possibly talking to yourself @8:43am and 9:9:19am. Admittedly some times in these conversations that continue, tracking can be more difficult. Here's the breakdown:
paragraph 4, "Plan B" in this instance is in reference to the highway design, same 6 lane design with the more expensive "B" alternative which includes plants. Also, I only used the word design, understanding the topic is the highway, however adding the word "highway" would have been more clear.
Everything in quotation is referenced. What the other Anon said, what I said. I used the complete statements at issue, and separate paragraphs to add clarity. Still its difficult to track some of these conversations.
Comment about Joe Hurley living in Pacifica is in reference to what Anon said at 6/23/10, 9:58pm: "They don't seem to know Pacifica very well-even though Mr. Hurley lives here."
But, Joe Hurley knows Pacifica of course; he lives here, just as you live here, and we all live here. And, Joe Hurley is stalled in Pacifica traffic just like the rest of us, so he probably understands that part of the traffic issue.
Pacifica = "empty pockets" think you might not have had a problem with that one.
All Anons, if you're not going to use your real names, how about a "pen name" to distinguish from the pack? Just a suggestion. Anon @ 9:43am, thank you for your kind words.
Anon, 9:43am, although you have been traveling highway 1 since October last year, traffic may be lighter now that more people are out of work. The economic recession affecting jobs is at least two years old.
Traffic back-up on highway 1 is an old issue in Pacifica. And as the economy returns, plus regional growth-- again traffic congestion will increase. Traffic was a major excuse used against developing the quarry for tax-revenue generating income for this city in 2006, and further back 2002. How about we eliminate that "we can do nothing" excuse?
$45 million to finally fix the highway bottle neck compared with $50 million to fix the city sewer collection pipes (after the election) doesn't look like a terrible price. Some of the funding may come from "federal stimulus" money. And if nothing happens, at least the Draft Environmental Impact Report (which takes about 18 months) will be completed. Hurray, then we'll be at step 2 (beyond preliminary studies). The DEIR was promised several years back, now we are here.
In terms of government projects moving forward, most steps approved today seem take several years into the future to work-out-- possibly even slower in Pacifica. And, had these decisions been made several years back, the road might be in the process of construction now while traffic is lighter and jobs are needed. That didn't happen, but this is the opportunity to move forward.
Here's the thing: I'd use a pen-name, but I'd rather keep the focus on what I post rather than who I am, even if it is a fake name.
Already I've been accused multiple times of supporting a "do-nothing, let Pacifica collapse" agenda simply because I want to step back and carefully examine the necessity of this roadway project. It's quite an assumption to make. And it's wrong!
This sort of projection of motives upon my posts would only increase 10x should I use a name. So, until it's required, I'll post anonymously.
With regards to traffic projections: my point is with regards to their accuracy.
The traffic engineering firm used a traffic growth figure of 0.75%, but as we clearly know with our own two eyes (and even admitted by the engineer) traffic isn't, and hasn't been at these levels for a couple years.
In other words, we haven't seen the growth that was projected. Point to the recession, increased fuel prices, changing driving habits or whatever, the point is that we already see the inaccuracy of the growth projection today so I don't have a high degree of confidence in projections based on the same (inaccurate) assumption of growth out to 2035.
I'm with Anonymous, using real names only draws attacks regardless of content.
Can I come out and play on this forum?
Anonymous @ various times. Did you attend Tuesday's meeting? Judging by your comments, my guess is no. As was explained, the .75% annual growth is based on average over a much longer period of time. During economic downturns, we may even experience a decline as seen in the past couple of years. I have lived here for 28 years. in 1982, traffic was very light, even during commute hours. The population of HMB was 2500 (its 10,000+ now). We will no doubt experience steady growth when the economy rebounds and the tunnel is open. A very small part of the congestion problem is caused by the schools. Most of the rush hour congestion is caused by commuters from Pacifica and so. of the slide driving to out of town jobs. That's what happens when only about 12% of Pacifica's work force has local jobs. We simply can't allow the thousands of cars barely moving and spewing out polluting carbon emissions. We do have a problem here. This project will not be funded by this city. Having said that, this city's sewer laterals and street/roads maintenance is our responsibility. Our property and sales taxes should take care of the sewer infrastructure, while our streets and roads maintenance is funded by county allocations to all member towns. The problem is that our leaders have not used these funds for their intended purposes and instead have added more trails. Nice but non revenue generating. I think we need to take a close look at our city's leaders performance in the past decade and redirect our priorities. The residential home owners simply can't afford to shoulder more taxes and fees. We need to increase our commercial tax base to gain parity and balance to our revenues, instead of advising citizens to pay for their own street paving or repairs. Our environment is NOT our economy. As Kathy previously stated, "our economy is our economy".
Markus, I was there for the entirety of the meeting and I've referred to figures and terms the presenters used several times in my posts regarding this subject.
The 0.75% figure was NOT calculated by anyone involved with the highway project -- it was taken from another county agency (whose name escapes me at the moment).
That's why the engineer couldn't explain why Half Moon Bay's growth projections were different beyond shrugging his shoulders and saying "It's what [the agency] projects for this area."
Anonymous is right. the meeting felt like a sales pitch to a community or agency other than Pacifica residents.
Anonymous, which ever one you are. Guess what, figures from other county agencies count. That's the kind of data professionals use when they compile a report. To you, the meeting was a sales pitch, to me it was a professional informational presentation.
Also, Anonymous @ 11:33am, Isn't stepping back and not moving forward "doing nothing"? Sure you think traffic is "fine" today during the worst recession since the great depression, but in the estimated 18 months to do the DEIR, or in 4-5-6 years what then? Fortunately you won't have to make this decision, while SMTA moves forward with the initial studies. Hurray!
So, why should the SMTA sell you anything? The meeting was a presentation.
Let's all remember: this proeject started in the mid-1990's. That hardly seems like it was "steamrolling." At the last meeting, people agrued there was nit enough information. Now it seems as if there as too much, in a "soviet style" presentation. Apparently, we are not unlike Fox News commenters screaming at each other. Too bad that is exactly how we got to our current state. Oh yeah, working together is bad, bad, bad, more bad.
Whenever they start rolling out "comment cards" you should realize they're trying to shut down your ability to participate and make it a one-way process.
The most egregious example is during City Council meetings, but it happened here at the Scoping Meeting too: comment cards are collected in the beginning/midway through the event. How the heck are you supposed to know what you want to comment on until you've heard the entire presentation?
Several people wanted to comment at the end of the meeting (including myself), but the meeting was rushed to a close so that participants could speak to the presenters in an "open house" format. Give me a break!
Hey Kathy,
If your "eight-year-fails council" (or whatever you insist on calling it) supports this abortion of a freeway, are you going to praise and support them?
Has the school district thought about re-opening Oddstad School?
People forget that all the jr high school kids have to go to the other end of town to go to Lacy middle school
Anon 9:28pm, 7:59am. Again, I find handing-out comment cards/questions during a comprehensive meeting, then reading each of the exact questions so that the experts could respond: efficient. You seem to view the same event as a conspiracy.
Highway 1 needs updating and improvement for all the reasons previously discussed. Here's our chance. You don't see a problem, so if you were in charge of the county transportation authority that would not happen.
Not being an expert, and without wetland and other considerations, if I were designing the plan my first draft would include a frontage road all the way through Pacifica on the each side of the existing highway.
The existing City council does not support sustainable economic development for this city? 8-years prof positive. The alternative is continuing to pass additional taxes on to our citizens while at the same time this city continues to fail. What's confusing about that, vote them out.
I never used the word "conspiracy," Kathy.
It says something about the strength of your arguments that you have to continually characterize my comments with such loaded invectives.
Kathy, you didn't think handing out cards was efficient during the bio diesel meetings. As I remember you made quite a bit of noise about that.
Anonymous 9:21am, 9:31am. Conspiracy against you, your comments: "Whenever they start rolling out "comment cards" you should realize they're trying to shut down your ability to participate and make it a one-way process". Hey, if you're not that Anonymous, then get a name that distinguishes you from at least 15 others on this article.
No, I didn't attend any biodiesel meetings. Wrong again. Did I comment regarding this city council "pet" project which was flaky on the basis of both financial and expertise merit. I sure did. And you? But, the above article is about Highway 1, so you may be lost again.
I have a feeling that nothing but "nothing" would satify Anonymous @ 9:21am, 9:31am.
I can't speak for Anonymous but I'm all for nothing if the something is a huge waste of time due to funding, scale and excess.
Sharon, I agree, Anon has possibly presented to date the best evidence yet that "parallel universes" really do exist.
Speaking of evidence:
I'd like someone, anyone, to take a picture of the massive traffic backups we've been experiencing (since the late '80s apparently) and post them to this blog (along with date and time taken).
Until then you guys are making this stuff up.
I've posted and posted and posted, shouting from the mountain tops until someone finally listens to ME! GOD.
I've posted and posted and posted, shouting from the mountain tops until someone finally listens to ME! GOD.
TRANSLATION: I must attack the poster because I cannot prove there's a traffic problem.
They showed several pictures at the meeting, also I live right next to the highway by the Vallemar cut. Every day when I come home from work about 5-6 pm there is a backup. So we who live next to the highway (for many years) get to inhale all the noxious fumes coming from this backup. And, when there is any kind of big hangup the traffic starts using our frontage road making it difficult for folks in Fairway Park West to get to their residences.
Gee, as Sharon mentioned the research experts took pictures, and although I don't travel Highway 1 all the time, when I do I'm frequently stuck in traffic. Guess, Anon drives with the "traffic Angel". Maybe he can also take pictures while driving, but let us know what day your doing it, so we can make other highway plans.
Sharon makes the best point of all: stalled traffic = nasty pollution. In the peninsula, some communities even put-up walls as highway pollution barriers. Pollution is serious, and having an adequate highway would improve that health issue. Vehicles not being able to get through traffic, not only to make turn-offs, but if its an emergency vehicle no one wants to hear "sorry we were a few minutes too late".
Anon, wants us to take pictures from the late 80's, anyone got a time machine?
"Did I comment regarding this city council "pet" project which was flaky on the basis of both financial and expertise merit. I sure did."
There's no merit to this freeway idea either, let's hope it doesn't become a "pet project."
Let's call it what it will be: "The Bottleneck Parkway." Murderous merges at both ends -- Rockaway Beach passed by as fast as lightning -- it's truly stupid, but hey, it's BIG!
Anon, improving the highway is not a city council "pet project". Figure-it-out, but it is a fully regulatory SM county transportation authority project, following preliminary studies. Again, first is the Draft Environmental Impact Report (about 18) months.
Regarding the proposed highway 1 plan, exits exist at Rockaway just as they do now, 3 lanes each way, plus an exit lane.
Let's call it what it is: Highway improvement.
No, let's call it what consultants do when receiving a paycheck--serving their masters.
A truly stupid plan about which no one has any idea if these consultants are telling the truth.
Kathy, will you be praising the council if they vote for this crap? You didn't answer the question.
This issue is what San Mateo County Transportation Authority is doing, the DEIR will move forward, nothing to vote for.
Your words are "this crap" in reference to this highway traffic improvement. Beyond that, who are you?
Anon, there is no intelligence in your comments when you cannot accept several preliminary plan designs considered by independent professional specialist consultant groups. Why would these consultants care which plans would turn-out to be the best solutions, lowest cost? You want something "special" beyond that, who will pay for it? What is your plan that city council will vote for to create an "improved economy" city?
Consultants are paid to develop solutions, and not to develop a conspiracy against you, or the people of this city.
I'm Batman.
Consultants know that if they don't come up with solutions beneficial to the requesting agencies, their work will soon dry up.
Just like home sellers hire "independent professional specialist" home inspectors who will their eyes to certain problems.
Batman,
You've got it! Consultants get paid very well to confirm what the powers that be have decided already.
Kathy can continue in her religious beliefs, but I believe in Batman!
"Batman", okay now I know who you are, but I think the analysis working through the research and arriving at several feasible, preliminary highway design solutions is the end-product on this one. The payer in this instance is San Mateo County Transportation Authority with neutral vested interest.
What's actually on the table and moving forward is the Draft Environmental Income Report, that's it, about 18 months to complete. Nevertheless, this is the opening of a window of opportunity for this city to eventually fix the only highway through Pacifica. For all the reasons discussed here, the highway needs updating and improvement.
Why don't you use "Batman" as your pen-name since you don't seem to want to use your real name for whatever reason, rather than blend in with all those other Anonymous postings which sometimes become confusing in total.
I have yet to hear a good counter to any of the evidence put forth by the SMCTA in their meeting the other night. The people opposed to Highway 1 fixes are unable to offer anything other than silly conspiracy theories on the part of SMCTA; or naive, unworkable solutions that have been rejected by the SMCTA for reasons that were clearly explained at the meeting.
When the facts aren't on your side, you do what the widening opponents are resorting too - FUD, i.e., Fear, Uncertainty, Deception.
I don't know why people think this is a council pet project. I haven't heard any of them come right out and say they approve of the widening, and it would go against Council's long history of implementing policies that only result in a rotting city infrastructure.
Kathy must know some insider info... lets let her write. I'd like to know if anything short of an congressional earmark will get the project funded. Maybe Kathy has some good info on that.
To Kathy and Batman, Kathy is right; the next step is the EIR. However that does not mean the project is in anyway permitted. Regulatory agencies often offer comments to EIR's from staff. These comments are not determinations, which must come after the EIR is finalized and permitted through the lead agency which is not Pacifica but Caltrans. It looks like this project may not need to come before council for any further approvals before it is approved, permitted and built.
The project is confronted by the same regulatory agency issues as the Quarry. Any comment and/or determination by a regulatory agency will in essence be making those statements for both properties, the highway corridor and the quarry.
That the council may not be needed any further in this process and that any input from a regulatory agency will also address the quarry makes this issue a much larger issue. This permitting process for the project will also be the basis for permitting in the quarry, A two for one publicly fund work around for the quarry owner.
Todd, this DEIR or EIR should only involve the traffic corridor of where highway 1 exists in that area, and possible areas of access to Rockaway, the quarry, and Vallemar by road, (not the entire quarry property which is separate issue). So, I do not see this as a larger "issue". why do you?
Kathy, you are so cute when you play like this. Your answer is in the post you just read. You are soooo cute!!
Todd, now you're playing, these are your words: "This permitting process for the project will also be the basis for permitting in the quarry, A two for one publicly fund work around for the quarry owner." How is it you make any EIR connection for the quarry other than road, same as for all other road access in that corridor?
I can help you with a lot of things but not how you see things Kathy... sorry.
Todd, you can't even support the statement you made above. Nice put down, but it doesn't work. And, I actually thought you might have something to say that was worth listening to. Nope, waste of time.
"Kathy, you are so cute when you play like this...You are soooo cute!!"
Toddy, I thought those words were reserved ONLY for me. What gives? Things sure have changed now that you are on the outside...
Do you honestly think Caltrans cares what you think?
It doesn't matter what Caltrans or anyone else, for that matter, cares about what Todd thinks or says. He has the complete respect of Steve Sinai. None of the rest of you do. That's all that matters. Next question...
Todd Bray wrote:
"the next step is the EIR. However that does not mean the project is in anyway permitted. Regulatory agencies often offer comments to EIR's from staff. These comments are not determinations, which must come after the EIR is finalized and permitted through the lead agency which is not Pacifica but Caltrans. It looks like this project may not need to come before council for any further approvals before it is approved, permitted and built.
The project is confronted by the same regulatory agency issues as the Quarry. Any comment and/or determination by a regulatory agency will in essence be making those statements for both properties, the highway corridor and the quarry.
That the council may not be needed any further in this process and that any input from a regulatory agency will also address the quarry makes this issue a much larger issue. This permitting process for the project will also be the basis for permitting in the quarry, A two for one publicly fund work around for the quarry owner."
The boys from the Semiotics Dept. at MIT have been studying this message all day in an attempt to decode and extract the underlying meaning. So far, they have only been able to decipher its title, "How to Serve Your Fellow Pacificans". They believe it is a cookbook...
Todd's Press Agent@ 4:39pm...Steve Sinai has my "complete respect" as well for a whole lot of reasons, including in his ability to talk with others, understand issues, and counter arguments. Obviously he has a good sense of humor.
Let's see you are going-out of your way to verbally snipe those who likely agree with you (no doubt I'm on that list too)-- how idiotic is that? Also, by titled pen-name you claim to represent Todd, while trashing what he thinks, so that makes you kind of a putz.
Sometimes Todd has some good ideas. I had hoped that he would continue the conversation this morning, because my understand of what he said was about the same as "Arod" (aka: Rod Serling).
Kathy, you do realize you're responding to Jeff, don't you? I was hoping nobody would respond to his taunts, since it just encourages him to keep going.
Hey you all realize that it's the eggman, don't you!
(Sorry to younger readers, you'll have to google that.)
BTW, this makes as much sense as a six-lane FREEWAY in Pacifica for 1.3 miles. God, what a stupid idea, wake up delusionaries! HELLO!
Steve, I don't believe that is Jeff. But I could believe that Rocky, Jeff or you posted Arod text and "the cook book". Of course, that is frequently Rocky's sense of humor-- but, any of you have this funny capacity.
Consider someone else viewing these target posts. The posting of "Todd's Press Agent" @4:39pm is counterproductive, disturbing and idiotic. I'm looking forward to mid-August when variations on comment posting may still occur but people sign-in.
Here's what I see. You just posted two articles this afternoon (which means you found these articles in advance to share and post). Earlier today you posted my article and fixed one unfortunate typo in follow-up.
You put up article postings for us as well as yours daily when they come-in. You're relatively low profile and don't do a whole lot of complaining. I'm saying to myself, what a great guy this Steve really is, and the along comes the targeted insults-- not from someone with opposing view, but from someone with similar views hiding behind a pen-name no less. Ridiculous!
Anon @9:18pm, and how do you feel about Sharp Park Golf Course?
Kathy, these chains of idiotic comments would end sooner if you'd stop responding to each and every one of them. Sometimes the best way to deal with tantrum-throwing children is to ignore them.
Kathy:
Could you kiss Steve Sinai's ass any more!?! Believe me, it is in NO way reciprocated. You really don't want to know what he says about you behind your back. Don't fret. You are not alone.
Steve Sinai:
Your opinion is irrelevent. Why don't you tell Kathy what you reslly think of her - i.e., she is one of the peeps on your side you have much less respect for than you do for Bray, Butler, Plater, Curtis, etc.? Your words, not mine. Please turn the blog over to someone with a little less arrogance and a bit more intelligence, tolerance, and a desire for true change to this city.
I poop on you all
That my name is high jacked again for whatever childish reason by a stalker/lurker is too bad. The above was not posted by me.
I like stalking my self cause it makes me feel so dirty and perverted.
Well at least Todd remembered to change me this time. How 'bout we change the editor of this blog?
No, I like Steve just fine.
You all need to learn to love concrete less than you do.
Jeff, if I turn this blog over to someone else, it will be to someone local, as opposed to someone who no longer lives here and has no stake in any outcome.
What exactly did I say about Kathy, and when did I say it?
I've been reading your emails and posts for four years. Your writing style and attacks on others are easily recognized.
Steve, I sent Jeff an email and he said the above comments which impersonate him are definitely not him. The core commentary is a re-hash of old issues when you took over the blog, and Jeff and Rocky withdrew. My prior comment "I don't believe that is Jeff" was partially based on that premise.
At that time and for months when the blog was new we all had lots of joint and separate emails. I'm really not the least bit concerned about anything negative you might have said about me-- probably nothing I haven't said about myself from time to time, or at times daily.
Whether it's Jeff or not, you appear to be ignoring your own advice, Steve. I think it's probably the same person who has no social life and posts childish garbage here 24x7. I don't think that person's Jeff, but who knows? You're right -- responding to them just feeds into their juvenile BS, so let's just ignore them.
Despite whatever negatives and discounting the insightful commentary (of which there is a great deal), it makes it worthwhile that everyone who maintains this blog offers a place for Mike Wallach to post his very insightful facts and opinions about Sharp Park. And it isn't at all edited by John Maybury and his paid sponsor, Brent Plater!
Believe me, I try to make it a point to ignore the childish comments, Scotty. I just wish Kathy could learn to ignore them, too.
Scotty, I was for a controlled blog similar to John's Riptide blog but pro-economy, less editing (see how that went). The email sign-in in mid-August Steve has in mind should be helpful in excluding some of these counter productive posts.
The Mike Wallach posts are (your words) "very insightful facts and opinions about Sharp Park", and the technology he employees is amazing!
I deleted the last comment from "Childish Commenter" because it contained nothing but insults and was the type of activity that drags down the blog. (The first time I ever deleted a comment because of content.)
I plan on doing this type of thing from now on. Any complaints?
No complaints here, even though you hate compliments, you're the hero for those of us who desire civility and reason.
May you continue to delete many more such comments, not this one however.
Post a Comment