The
public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment for State Route 1/Calera Parkway
Widening Project in Pacifica opens today.
The
purpose of the proposed project is to reduce congestion on the segment
of State Route 1 that extends approximately 2,300 feet north of Reina
Del Mar Avenue to approximately 1,500 feet south of Fassler and Rockaway
Beach avenues.
All documents for the project can be reviewed on the TA website, www.smcta.com.
The documents also are available at the Sanchez Library, the Sharp Park
Library, the Pacifica City Hall and the Pacifica Community Center, as
well as at other locations.
Caltrans,
which is responsible for any changes to state highways, will hold a
public meeting for people to review the environmental analysis and
provide comments at 6:30 p.m., Sept. 22 at the Pacifica Community
Center, 540 Crespi Drive.
Verbal
or written comments on the Draft EIR/EA can be submitted at the public
meeting or at any time during the review period, which ends Oct. 7, 2011
at 5 p.m. Comments can be submitted via U.S. mail, fax, or e-mail to:
Yolanda Rivas, Branch Chief
Division of Environmental Planning & Engineering
California Department of Transportation District 4
Attn: Thomas Rosevear
111 Grand Ave., Oakland, CA 94623
Fax: 510-286-5600
E-mail: thomas_rosevear@dot.ca.gov
The
California Department of Transportation is the lead agency on the
proposed project; the San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the
City of Pacifica are co-sponsors.
Barbara Arietta
Chair - San Mateo County Transportation Authority, CAC
Email: barietta@hotmail.com
72 comments:
Given the Oddsted traffic report which says conditions have improved to a LOS of C, and the existing conditions report in the GP update draft which says the highway issue is an intersection issue not a congestion issue, and the revised GP existing conditions taken directly from the SMCTA DEIR advertised here you might wonder why they are all so different.
The Oddsted report is using data from 2009 while the GP update/SMCTA reports are using data from 2005 and 2007.
To add to the noise CalTrans sent a letter to the city about the differences asking them to choose a side.
This is going to be an interesting play to watch as the SMCTA has shown it's willingness to alter data to fit it's argument.
Todd (1239), what you say may be true, but now is the time to fix the highway during the economic downturn, while traffic is not as congested as it was in 2005-2008.
The 2006 Peebles Corporation quarry development research, and phone calls made by those of us in support of Measure L indicated that then current highway 1 "traffic" and the prospect of additional congestion was the #1 reason to not to develop that area. Needless to say, the fear, annoyance, and delays of "traffic" was part of the inflamed rhetoric used by NIMBYS to assure continuation of the usual 3rd rate, financially failing city.
Please note if you are one of the 45 people that sent comments to Caltrans/SMCTA regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report back in July of 2010, there is a response to your comments on page 254. Basically none. The new DEIR/EA 2011 should include a section listing the comments and providing a response to those comments. Your detailed comments and concerns about the project have been neatly dismissed in one sentence.
Mitch Reid's comment got me to download the DEIR. He's right. There's a very brief summary of the themes of the 45 comments and absolutely no response. I thought response to comments was required by law, but I guess that's only for a DEIR and not for the scoping meetings. Here's the entirety of the discussion about comments:
"Approximately 45 comment letters and emails were received from members of the public raising questions and concerns about the project. Some of the most common comments included the following:
o Opposition to the need for the project and roadway widening;
o Support for other alternatives, including a grade separation or a roundabout alternative;
o Consideration of a reversible lane to address purpose and need;
o Lack of proper noticing regarding meetings;
o Disagreement with traffic analysis and projections;
o Traffic congestion is caused by schools and project should propose more busses instead of widening;
o Questions and concerns regarding pedestrian and bicycle access; and
o Concerns regarding growth inducement."
I'd advise resubmitting all your comments with a copy of the traffic study for the Oddstad project that says the LOS is now C, a copy of the draft GP update existing conditions from chapter 6 that says the traffic is an intersection issue not a capacity issue, and the recent letter from Cal Trans asking the city to pick between the Oddstad study from 2009 and the SMCTA study from 2005-7 that says if the LOS C is rue then the widening project is not needed. .
The proposed 1.3 mile highway 1 widening is 10 years overdue. Its time to fix the problem.
"No growthers", Pacifica has little money to pretty-up the plan thanks to "you guys", so during the economic "rest period" let's move forward. And, BTW Todd, other cities in San Mateo county have been spending our public Measure A tax money-- its our turn.
Thanks for a summary of the active whining public comments from the NIMBY non-professionals, Anon (11:00am).
Wow, after reading thru a bit of the EIR the SMCTA maybe "throwing" the game on purpose. The traffic data collected in 2005-7 was before the international financial meltdown. None of the data is current, it is at least four years old and does not reflect the enormous down turn in jobs and housing locally or regionally.
"Yesterday I was informed by local staff that traffic studies for the Oddstad project and the draft GP update were coerced into compliance with the SMCTA findings due to pressure from the SMCTA flexing it's financial might."
What does this mean? Are you saying that the findings of the Oddstad traffic study were CHANGED in response to pressure?
Rather than dreaming up evil conspiracies to explain SMCTA's actions, perhaps it makes more sense to simply recognize that Highway 1 is congested, and SMCTA is trying to do something about it.
During Measure L, all you heard from the NIMBYs was how bad the traffic was. Now you're hearing them say that the traffic isn't really that bad. I guarantee that if something substantial is proposed for the quarry, they'll go back to complaining about how bad the traffic is.
“The traffic data collected in 2005-7 was before the international financial meltdown. None of the data is current, it is at least four years old and does not reflect the enormous down turn in jobs and housing locally or regionally.”
Absolutely right Todd. This explains why the LOS has improved to C. Unless you don’t think the economy will ever get better, you may be taking a rather shortsighted approach. What happens if and when the decent economy returns and the tunnel is open adding additional traffic. More congestion and additional polluting carbon emissions. Great for our environment! Lets get this congestion problem fixed now while the money can be had.
Favorite NIMBY meal - Red Herring.
The SMCTA couldn't give a flying f@@k about Pacificans or their opinions.
I looked at hundreds of pages of documents at their consultant's office in San Carlos, and they have no purpose or project other than to push forward the biggest freeway they can shove through Pacifica. They have no detectable flexible thinking capacity whatsover; it's pure bureaucratese, ala Caltrans.
I'll support any effort to stop this bad idea of a freeway through Pacifica.
Steve, you are right in a way. If you could please remove my comment from Aug 10 at 10:16 am that would be swell.
Concerning Measure L opposition being about traffic I disagree. My opposition was about Measure L rezoning the property before a project was proposed and as proof of that I offer up a line from the lawyer Donny Peebles paid to send me a letter two weeks before the Measure L election that demanded I stop saying the measure was about voting away our right to vote on a quarry project in the future. Regardless of the free speech foot in mouth disease of the letters author it indicated to me that Peebles knew he had lost Measure L two weeks before the election. That was sweet.
Since then every lawyer I showed that letter to has bust a gut laughing at the amateurish way in which it was written and took down the lawyers name so that if ever he applied for a job with them they would know not to hire that man!
Measure L was about rezoning the property before a project was proposed, nothing more, nothing less.
And thank you in advance for removing the Aug 10 10:16 am comment
Is Vreeland still representing Pacifica on SMCTA?
What is his position? What is he doing?
I beg to differ slightly with Todd Bray. Measure L was about approving 355 housing units in the quarry before a project was proposed.
And one of the results of that number of houses would be to pour a huge amount of new traffic into the most sensitive highway corridor at the worst possible commute times.
Meetings are for little people?
Jimmy the great does not have to attend meetings
You infidels go to meeting, I don't
"The SMCTA couldn't give a flying f@@k about Pacificans or their opinions."
Lionel (1042), I think the same could be said about Pacifica NIMBYS. Updating and improving highway 1 conditions is an essential safety issue for our citizens as well as coastal travelers if nothing else. Those who wrangle and promote NOTHING for this city put us all at risk.
Todd (1134) with regard the general plan "catch 22" poison bill affecting quarry village development, well you and the 2006 city council 4 won "death by 1000 cuts" to this City, congratulations.
For those interested in this City not functioning at the lowest "pond scum" financial level, the "General Plan Op/Ed" article posted by Stechbart and Wagner today may have some enlightened meaning.
Anon (1220) regarding Measure L, traffic studies were made, and it was the developer's requirement to mitigate traffic. Other than the benefit of Redevelopment, that traffic mitigation would have been another positive win for the city. 1 to 355 housing units was the number suggested in the area GP, that's why 355 units was used in the measure. Actual determination would have occurred in regulation (5 agencies), and Peebles apparently was more interested in building the commercial/retail component first. Right now the city has a redevelopment plan to build 311 units in the quarry, affordable, low income, senior units. Think that's an improvement to what was proposed with Measure L?
The number of units in Measure L would have been non binding if it had passed, so it wasn't about the 355 units specified in the measures language. If Measure L had passed there was no legal requirement the city would have had to approve that number. Measure L was simply to rezone the property for housing of any kind or number. But at this point who really cares? It was like 5 or 6 years ago now. Time to move on y'aul.
Text of Measure L: "City Council is authorized to approve a mixed use residential and commercial development on the parcel known as the Rockaway Quarry, so long as the development plan ... consists of up to 355 residential units."
No one cares about Pacifica period.
Not the County, not the State not the Feds not the Grand Jury not the District Attorney.
Everyone knows the end of the city as we know is very close
"Everyone knows the end of the city as we know is very close"
Is "the end" close enough for the voting citizens to change the economic destiny of this city? Or, will we all be volunteering to fix street pot holes next?
Oh sob sob sniffle, nobody cares. This town started digging its own grave decades ago then just stood there on the edge all happy and stupid until the great recession gave us a real big shove. What lessons will we have learned? Smarter, faster, immune to all the grinnin' spinnin' bullshit politicians? Probably not, but life will go on and we will adapt.
No, we're going to be fixing potholes...really you can replace all 5 and then that 5, etc. and this city will still be broke. I know that's not the popular rhetoric but the structural damage is not just local, it is catastrophic, and the real recovery and repair will not start here. Meanwhile we'll have more Recovery and Repair Pacifica style=More Taxes and ever diminishing services. We're done and maybe that's a good thing, you know? They can't outsource fast enough for me. Can we be annexed by one of the neighbors with revenue? Need a dowry, don't we? Creative matchmaking? But hey, this is Pacifica and we're going to go with slow death instead.
What are y'all complainin' 'bout? Other than SF, what other Northern California city has gotten the national notoriety that our little slice of heaven has? C'mon now. Think about it. You could be talking on the phone to someone back east, or even Calcutta for that matter, and when you tell them you are from Pacifica there is a better than 50 percent chance they will respond with one or more of the following:
1. Isn't that where the homes are falling off cliffs into the ocean?
2. Isn't that where all of those City Council recall campaigns have taken place?
3. Weren't you that city I read about that was unable to meet their financial obligations when everyone else was rolling in dough during that huge dot com boom?
4. Oh, isn't that where our meth shipments come from?
5. Aren't you the city that almost voted itself into first place in that most beautiful city in America contest?
6. Aren't you the city that almost out-begged everyone else in that dogpark funding contest?
And now:
7. Pacifica? Isn't that the place where all those pit bull maulings occurred?
Kinda makes one proud [me tearing up] to call oneself a Pacifican. And for those of you afraid we will be overrun by tourists - not to worry. Robin Leach will never embarass us with any of those "World's Best..." or "America's Finest..." patronizing platitudes. Won't happen. Never. But in our little Pathetica kinda way, you should take pride that in so many ways we really are Number One!
Sorry, almost forgot #8:
8. Hey, isn't Pacifica the place where they are trying to turn a historic, scenic seaside golf course into a frog pond?
"7. Pacifica? Isn't that the place where all those pit bull maulings occurred?"
Isn't that the place where assholes post on Fix Pacifica?
Have some sympathy for a terrible family tragedy.
List writer, you've got a long ways to go before your clunky and labored style and goofy content is ready for primetime but you are perfect for Pacifica. BTW, including #7 is simply despicable. Was that the quality you were going for?
Anon (1104) what makes your personal attack on "list writer" of greater merit? #7 was thoughtless (because we are all suffering to some extent from this tragedy); but, the other more abstract, less immediate stinging points are a solid reflection of city ills. You'd think a city would be embarrassed by some of the financial and backward-thinking inadequacies on the "wrong way" list, of "list writer".
Keep up the good, serious non-denial analysis "list writer", we need more of this. Who doesn't think there's something goofy about aspiring to "win contests", as an iffy alternative to developing an adequate, balanced city economy? Or, a city knowing in advance houses would fall off cliffs, and not planning to prevent that. Or, a "poor city" city council failing to take advantage of available economic development opportunities during an economic boom (2002-08), when knowingly the alternative would be city financial failure.
BTW Anon (1104) as you said "list writer" with keen observation is "perfect for Pacifica", where do you live?
Juvenile Anonymous list writer -
If you don't like Pacifica, why don't you leave?
I just got off the phone with my bank located back east and the first thing they asked me was about the pit bull mauling. Some of you anonymouses need a reality check, not to mention a brain. The original post by Anonymous@5:28 was clever and right on the money. How could you possibly construe a statement of facts as being "despicable" or the work of an "asshole"? BTW - I don't see anything even close to interesting coming from your keyboards. Keep trying though. Rumor has it that if you took an infinite number of monkeys and sat them down to a keyboard, eventually they would be able to create a general plan for Pacifica.
"Who doesn't think there's something goofy about aspiring to "win contests"
Apparently lots of people don't think it's goofy, most notably the Mayor, the Chamber of Commerce, and POOCH.
The city should have known in advance that the economy would fall off a cliff and didn't do anything about it. They're a bunch of incompetent do-nothings.
His Momeeh said he has lists to write so he's not going anywhere. So there!
Steve, I suspect this Scotty is an imposter and not Scotty. "Why don't you just leave" used to be the mantra heard from the NIMBYS, and one councilmember in the form of "if you like Daly City so much why don't you move there". As I recall Daly City has the most money per capita spent on citizens in San Mateo County. By contrast, Pacifica has the least.
Whether NIMBY or pro-economy we all live here. Those of us who can count have a shared economic interest in the success of this city to provide at least "average" services. That "average" ideal of success has been made more difficult with the 50-60% open space. Empty space land for the most part is not economically productive (in this city not even as agriculture).
In their recent General Plan Op/ED article, Stechbart and Wagner may have suggested the percentage developed for tax revenue tends to produce that percentage or near percentage result. In other words, develop 0%, the revenue percentage is near $0. This logical concept is understood in finance as strategic development for "highest and best use", allowing the results to follow.
This city with 50-60% open space is at an economic disadvantage, further complicated by an economic goal of "recreation" (more recently "tourism" or "eco-tourism") set by 2002-current city council majority without developing or supporting development for a tourist destination tax revenue producing infrastructure. Trails with volunteers handing-out a "free sandwich" at the end of the trail is not a viable city survival economic plan. As described by "list maker" too often this city has defied "best practice" methods, the results of which have consequences, with more coming.
Any future post after this one that appears under the name "Scotty" is an impostor.
"Who doesn't think there's something goofy about aspiring to "win contests"
Anon (1012) you quoted me out of context, then you twisted the omission to include your misrepresentation by adding: "Apparently lots of people don't think it's goofy, most notably the Mayor, the Chamber of Commerce, and POOCH."
What I said related to "list maker" (8/12, 528pm) was: "Who doesn't think there's something goofy about aspiring to "win contests", as an iffy alternative to developing an adequate, balanced city economy?"
Maybe you do not agree with that statement, but there is enough bad news in Pacifica without altering context and adding fiction. My view of what needs to happen in this city has been consistent and clear enough. And unlike you I do not hide behind an anonymous name or attempt to alter statement intention. At this point, it seems what should happen on a commercial/retail basis in Pacifica is heavily weighted in tax revenue producing destination economics. One example of that, which might be a positive boost to our city economy, is a premium outlet mall, which we have discussed quite a bit here.
"Any future post after this one that appears under the name "Scotty" is an impostor [sic]."
Anyone who has read my comments before knows how obsessive I am about spelling, punctuation, grammar and sentence structure. Therefore, you would realize that the previous post from "Scotty" could only be the work of our resident juvenile pretending he was me and much too lazy or ignorant to use a spell checker. I wish he would get back to his Tea-bagging event calendar or his Fox News weekend marathons and leave this site to us grownups.
Not happening any time soon. All the baby-boomers on here will run out their clocks waiting for any kind of revenue producing development in the quarry or on Beach Blvd. Fix Pacifica aside, public support is certainly not guaranteed, regulatory issues are daunting, and then there's that little problem of where did all the developers go? And other than the quarry and Beach Blvd you got nothing much to play with.
Not that we needed any additional proof that tea-baggers are idiots, but here you go anyway:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impostor
The document will be hard to trash but the first Achilles heal is the detail oriented minds that put it together. There is absolutely no justification for the public cost ( unofficially at 45 million now according to a high level staffer) compared to the short term benefit, assuming there is a benefit which is doubtful as the signaled intersections at Fasslar and Reina Del Mar will still exist.
The over blown assumptions of the traffic study that says there are 30 minute delays are silly, those are the things to look for, over produced conclusions which this document has plenty of. Detail oriented minds put this together so the freakiest among us will be the best researchers. Read the document and mark ANYTHING that seems over produced or over explained.
The second Achilles heal is the archeological section. Compared to the draft EIR for the Pacifica Village thing from 2002 there are so many reasons for a prolonged dig in the area as it was identified as an Ohlone burial sight and human remains were found during the construction of the new WWTP (as witnessed by city workers who gave me statements). Also the two large "ramp" structures at Reina Del Mar were made with SHELL MOUND material taken from the Sharp Park area by CaltRaNs decades ago for the 380 interchange. There are a lot of reasons this area should be cataloged before any construction starts. Previously test bores were the mitigation recommendation. Seriously, the archeology thing is a major area of exposure.
The third Achilles heal is the wildlife. A multi yeared species evaluation needs to be done to determine just how vulnerable the area is. The Coastal Commission determined Calera Creek to be an environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) during the permitting process for Whole Energy's refinery. With breeding areas identified along the roadway itself for listed and endangered species we need to be the eyes and ears for the CC and USFWS. These two agencies really do rely on our input and if it is reasonable they will use it.
"...over blown assumptions of the traffic study.."
Todd (1132), not so fast, that's your opinion vs. the experts, professionals, and those citizens who sit in traffic. There is nothing "silly" about fixing the needed 10 year 1.3 mile highway bottle neck. And along with traffic studies, archeology and ecological findings were determined in the DEIR.
You are also complaining about the project cost, while at that same time asking for additional "multi-yeared species evaluation" studies which drive-up cost, a seeming contradiction. It's clear enough that the end result of project delays it no highway improvement. That would make you and some of your NIMBY buddies happy, but its another form of "Achilles heal" against progress and the greater good of the people who live here and travel that highway.
The highway transportation system throughout California has employed paid professionals and staff to resolve traffic issues-- that's what they do, which seems to work outside Pacifica. And, SMCTA has done their evaluation. Fixing the 1.3 mile traffic bottleneck can happen here too. City council is the lead agency representing this city; but, if they fail to support and move this project forward, everyone who drives during commuter hours should know who is accountable. And, if city council fails this city again, maybe this time that will finally be the ticket to get rid of them.
not so fast, that's your opinion vs. the experts, professionals, and those citizens who sit in traffic.
Remember, these are the "experts" and "professionals" who presented data and baldly proclaimed to our faces that we sit in daily traffic that backs up 1.15 miles south (past Crespi) in the mornings and 2.06 miles to the north in the evenings.
As anyone who has driven this stretch in the last two years ought to know: this simply does not occur.
To conveniently wrap oneself in a faux enviromentalist mantle to cry out against carbon emissions, to pray for relief from congestion, and to characterize this project as addressing "an essential safety issue" is, quite frankly, a canard.
Opponents are derided and dismissed as NIMBY conspiratorial cranks when in fact the only conspiracy is the one proponents of this project are putting forth: that we have a "problem" that merits a $75 million solution.
How will widening the highway between Fassler and Reina Del Mar fix the bottleneck? There will still be a bottleneck where the highway narrows again at the Vallemar and Fassler lights.
@847 Did he say canard? Pretty fancy vocabulary for this site and a rather provocative post. I'm thinking Mr. Fogel is absolutely correct. All that horrible traffic has up and disappeared along with the rest of our economy. Highway planning is better without the nostalgia. Spend the $75 million, if we must, for something that's actually needed-and we hope, better engineered than this engineer's ego-trip.
Todd, how can you simply with a good conscious make so many crazy connections and out right lies?
"As anyone who has driven this stretch in the last two years ought to know: this simply does not occur."
Chris (847), we have 1 main road through the city. When employment over the hill picks up again, similar to the past, and when additional coastal population occurs (the future)-- that road will be jammed during peak hours and periodic road repair or emergency again. Better to fix the highway bottle neck now while the highway is less congested.
Anon, one of the roads coming over the hill does that highway widening slide with exits, and it works, Westborough I think.
Resisting progress while the world is moving ahead seems to be a compounding disadvantage in this city.
"canard"
You stole my word, Fogel!!
Hehe.
Kathy we will never agree on this issue but you are entitled to you views.
If you fix the highway the Red-Legged Frog will turn back into a tadpol!
Someone on this blog smokes the bad Pacifica shake weed.
Puff puff puff pass munchies puff puff puff pass
TB thinks he is making a bunch of friends again
Whether one agrees with Caltrans that this road-widening will fix the problem we used to have is immaterial. We no longer have the problem and no one with any real insight into the economy would dare predict we'll have it again anytime soon. 'When and if' are lousy reasons to spend a minimum of $75,000,000. Waste of public money is something usually attacked here and rightfully so. This is a monumental waste of money most assuredly serving an agenda that has little to do with good government or Pacifica.
"A woman is only a woman, but a good canard is a duck" - old French saying.
Anon (117) who you kidding, Pacifica loves "free lunch" money, and the substantial cost is paid by our highway tax money. After 50 years, its time to get some of this money back (our share). And, let's see if you can figure it out:
1. Fix the highway now, while the traffic is lower, and
2. Avoid the excuse later "we can't fix the highway, because there is too much traffic."
What happens with highway 1 in Pacifica affects the entire coast, not just Pacifica. Here's a comment from Coastsider 3/3/10, #4: "the wait in traffic in Pacifica is the only major hang up in my commute." Nothing has changed in one year, nothing has changed in 10 years. Same issues: safety, waste of human time, hard on cars, waste of gasoline, bad for air quality.
The design is two auxiliary lanes with the main traffic moving smoothly forward. This is a design that works, is proven, and is observable locally, on Westborough I think (as stated prior). I noticed the transition mid-way coming back to Pacifica several months ago.
A total waste of taxpayer money. I'm neither kidding nor impressed by a quote from Coastsider or having some sort of working model on Westborough. Pacifica no longer needs this boondoggle. Should the day come when we again need a traffic solution this is possibly something to consider along with other ideas. No need to worry about missing some window of opportunity-the ramp up (ouch)to real traffic congestion won't occur overnite. Sigh.
Pure and simple the freeway thru Pacifica should have been fixed and done at the same time as the tunnel project.
Being they have to replace the bridge over Highway 1 still.
And you people whine when we say nothing gets done in Pacifica, well nothing gets done!!
You can try to stop this but this may be the first thing the County does when it takes over Pacifica.
If Coastsiders are frustrated that Pacifica isn't falling over itself to put in a freeway for their benefit, they're more than welcome to begin the process of expanding Highway 92 out of HMB.
Anon (713) the County should send YOU a personal open invitation to advise when YOU are ready to improve Pacifica's highway, and the time table convenient to YOU. At that time YOU can advise the plan, which will surely be different and distinct from that presented from the professionals who do this work throughout California. Again, the through-traffic highway problem is 10 years old, and affects both Pacifica and coastal travelers.
Your "sigh" response defies vision and logic, as you also advocate against using our paid tax money. At the same time you devalue human life quality and safety, while labeling needed progress: a "boondoggle". Anon (1123) a 1.3 mile highway fix is not a "freeway".
Chris (1137) you've brought-up the issue of the entire region, people travel the coast on our part of highway 1. Its time for Pacifica to step-up and do our part, remember Half Moon did their part improving H-92 about 5 years ago. Coastal highway work also needs to be done south of Devil's Slide where highway traffic is jammed.
I hope others who understand the need to fix our highway bottleneck while this "window of opportunity" is open, will send their email comment letters to Yolanda Rivas, listed on the article above. Please do this today or soon, NIMBYS already have. If you want an improved highway, YOU are probably going to have to fight for it and also show-up at the meeting.
Do not widen the highway, fix it, and improve the shoulder, making it wider for safety vehicles. Get some yellow school buses FOR KIDS only to shuttle to and fro. Save the rest of the money by returning it to the taxpayers.
A total waste of taxpayer money. The problem no longer exists and this fifth-rate bandaid was always extremely limited in what it could deliver. That being said, we've seen that when Caltrans has a vision, an agenda, and our money to spend they are nearly unstoppable. And let's not kid ourselves-public input, while solicited and endlessly entertaining, is often immaterial to mighty Caltrans whether for or against. Maybe the enormous budget over-run at Devil's Slide will give them second thoughts before wasting $75,000,000 minimum on 1.3 mile of roadway. Yeah, right. Tax and spend and special interests. Where do you think Pacifica learned it?
From Pacifica Patch "Caltrans construction...Delays on highway 1 this week." This is exactly why the sooner construction on our portion of Highway 1 begins the better. As the economy improves and coastal population grows (and both will happen), the sooner the highway bottle neck gets fixed the better. And, we all know government is slow, so this won't happen instantly.
Anyone know where this $75 million figure is coming from? According to the draft EIR, the more expensive option is $51.6 million.
Past experience with such endeavors?
It is coming from TB and his Pacifica shake weed
I'm told only 45 million at best, only.
NIMBYs pulling it out of their backside to spread FUD?
Opponents of the highway improvement exaggerate costs.
Opponents of the highway improvement try to convince us that the coast will never grow, so there's no need for highway improvements. At the same time, they say that any improvements are useless because growth will cause the highway to jam up again in the future.
Opponents of the highway fix claim Caltrans/SMCTA wants to build a freeway though town, while at the same time saying that since none of the current stops will be removed, traffic will remain jammed up.
The motto of the NIMBYs looks to be, "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks."
Maybe if the Measure L NIMBYs/Nobies hadn't complained so much about traffic on Highway 1, Caltrans/SMCTA wouldn't have noticed.
Caltrans has been committed to widening the highway since long before Measure L. It goes back to the 70's.
"Conspiracy Theory: The Last Refuge of the Powerless Mind"
So... a point you have made numerous times to expand the highway is that a quarry development measure wasn't passed five years ago?
The motto of the Concrete Huggers looks to be, "Now is the perfect time to fix a traffic problem that doesn't exist based on reasons that have nothing to do with traffic."
Or more succinctly, "Deny Reality."
It's not a conspiracy theory if there are documents, maps, drawings, renderings and an extensive history. A quick google brings up the following links. There are lots more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_380_(California)#Future
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4482959049/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4483612224/
Reality is that Caltrans will build it if they want to and it will cost more than projected and take longer than estimated. They build and improve roads for the public to use, they know how to deal with controversy, and they really don't give a rat's ass about the towns their roads go through. It's all about the road to them.
Chris, apparently you weren't around during Measure L. One of the major arguments of the NIMBYs/Nobies was that traffic was already horrible on Highway 1, and development in the quarry would only make it worse.
The No on L website even had a webcam pointed at the intersection to show how jammed-up traffic was.
Post a Comment