Pacifica Tribune, Letters to the Editor, 12/3/13. "Highway suit dialogue" by Bill, Bill, Bill Heilman
| Easy to make traffic go away, just think upside down |
If the city takes any action to approve the project, the suit becomes ripe. Then, if Bonner and Loeb wish, they may proceed with their suit with no prejudice.
----------
Reference - Fix Pacifica reprint, Pacifica Tribune Letter to the Editor, l1/26/13, "Thanks a lot" by Jim Wagner. After adding up the lawsuit cost, $53,668.80, what Jim Wagner said was: "That's how much the city of Pacifica paid their attorney in legal fees to argue the lawsuit brought by Peter Loeb and Hal Bohner to stop the Highway 1 safety improvements. This is the one the judge dismissed because there was nothing the city did that could be sued over."
----------
Comment - Bill, there was nothing to sue over because the lawsuit was premature. "Implied merit" is your dialogue. But Peter Loeb and his attorney Hal Bohner might have known the lawsuit was premature, the City knew it. As Jim Wagner said, "there was nothing the city did that could be sued over" . Nevertheless, the premature lawsuit cost the city $53,668.80 (our public money).
Following the practicality of your "dialogue", Peter Loeb and Hal Bohner should have withdrawn their premature legal complaint; thereby saving the city over $50,000. (These added comments are the personal view and opinion of Kathy Meeh, the blogger who posted the article).
----------
Note photo/graphic: The upside down city is from Medanth/Triad Test, "MDS: creates a relative map with no regard to the absolute spatial position of the entity. This makes sense when you remember that informant perception does not have an absolute spatial positioning."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
54 comments:
This is the kind of thinking we need. Sure we should be afraid to do anything unless it's sanctioned by the king of the Rockaway NIMBY's.
Mr Hellman, are you aware that Loeb has another lawsuit pending? He beat you too it.
What you deleted from the letter:
"Jim, Jim, Jim, you are becoming a highly proficient spin doctor.
"You changed the Calara Parkway Widening Project ("Parkway" is CalTrans ad speak) to Highway 1 safety improvement. Nice twist, makes Bonner and Loeb out to be champions of the dark side. The suit is about following the procedures for widening the highway, not safety."
Now that the NIMBYS have no power with Council all they can do is go to court. This is sad.
Don't be fooled, the NIMBY's still have plenty of power with Council.
They're just following in Plater's footsteps and using Pacifica tax payers to build their war-chest for the next negative campaign.
912, the article reprint follows Mercury News copyright, which includes two paragraphs. The "If the City" sentence stands alone from the first paragraph for clarity. Full LTE's are reprinted with approval by the author. No reason or interest to ask.
The article reference Fix Pacifica reprint of Jim Wagner's article now works here and on the article (I hope). You may view, or scroll down this blog to 11/29/13. The direct Pacifica Tribune 11/26/13 LTE link is here.
What point are you making, if any, about Heilman's comment? We all know the lawsuit is a product of the anti-highway crowd. This lawsuit occurred outside the CalTrans widening process, and temporarily has stopped that process; but the issue is highway 1 improvement, namely fixing the traffic bottleneck (a long standing issue). Traffic congestion is a safety issue.
The Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop article about the lawsuit dismissal is here. And Pacifica Index links to City lawsuits here.
My, the Gang of No continue to ignore the obvious as they grasp to find any opening to oppose the Hwy 1 safety widening. Anything to monkeywrench a safe and efficient commute.
Mr Heilman, here is proof positive the Hwy 1 improvements support safety. Seems to me the City spending funds to legally defend our need for a safe commute makes a lot of sense.
This letter was reprinted in this blog on Tuesday, November 20, 2012.
First published in the Pacifica Tribune Letters to the Editor, 10/30/12.
Save lives by widening Highway 1" by Marilyn A. Peters
"Editor: I gather Mr. Bohner (Letters, Oct. 17) has never had anyone close to him die while waiting for an emergency vehicle to respond to his Vallemar home. Vallemar is one of the areas in Pacifica that can have a longer response time than other parts of the city. My husband died on the garage floor while waiting for the fire department to arrive, and it was not during the commute hour. I was told by the city manager that I shouldn't be surprised at the delay due to my location.
Mr. Bohner is not a firefighter and has no clue about time-delayed responses the fire department encounters when responding to emergency calls that require traveling on Highway 1. Traffic not only backs up during the commute hour but also at various other times during the day. Correcting the timing of the signal would improve traffic flow but not solve the problem.
Something definitely needs to be done to alleviate the traffic congestion on Highway 1. It could save a life
Folks need to stop calling it "Safety Widening". Widening the highway will not make it any safer. In fact with widening, it may make things worse with three lanes of traffic having to squeeze onto one shoulder.
From the Final EIR: Master Response #4: Construct Wider Shoulders for Emergency Vehicle Access. A number of comments expressed the opinion that an alternative consisting solely of widening of the shoulders of SR 1 should be evaluated in the DEIR/EA. The intent of the shoulder widening would
be to improve emergency vehicle response times by allowing emergency vehicles to bypass
congestion during peak travel periods.
As described in Section 1.4.8.7 of the EIR/EA, this suggested alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project, which is to improve traffic operations by decreasing traffic congestion and improving peak-period travel times along a congested segment of SR 1 within the City of Pacifica. Under this suggested alternative, additional capacity for emergency vehicle access would be provided; however, travel times and traffic congestion would not be reduced.
Since this alternative would not meet the purpose and need, it was eliminated from further
consideration.
Safety widening. Safety widening. I'm going to improve my commute.
Less traffic congestion is safer. So it is a "safety widening". Wider is safer. Get it? We also like to call it a "safety modernization" mainly because it pisses NIMBY's off. Seems like it works.
Also Police and Fire have said this widening is needed to improve safety and response times. I believe them over an X Mayor who is not well remembered.
Even Caltrans says it's not a safety improvement. See the section of the EIR cited above.
1248 really, what "section of the EIR cited above" states the highway widening is not a safety improvement? Bet you just made that up, huh?
The 1.3 mile highway 1 widening adds two additional traffic lanes: one to access the highway, one to exit the highway. This should alleviate traffic congestion and improve traffic flow. It follows that safety will be improved for drivers and for emergency vehicles. That's a major point of the project.
The above "quote" from the EIR says it's about "alternative consisting SOLELY of widening of the shoulders."
That is NOT what Caltrans is proposing. As Kathy said they are adding lanes. There will be exit and extended turn lanes.
Way to spin 7:26. No wonder you lost in court.
The EIR statement that " the purpose and need of the proposed project, which is to improve traffic operations by decreasing traffic congestion and improving peak-period travel times along a congested segment of SR 1 within the City of Pacifica" applies to the project and not to the specific alternative. The phrase "purpose and need of the proposed project" is repeated 8 times in the EIR. It never says that the purpose and need of the proposed project is safety. And the alternative of widening the shoulders for the purpose of improving emergency vehicle access is specifically rejected by Caltrans because it does not meet the purpose and need of the project. It could not be more clear. The purpose and need of the project is NOT a safety improvement.
The Vallemar and Rockaway intersections will be 9 lanes wide to provide access and exit.
Hutch, I'm not the person you apparently think I am.
Swing and a miss 953, the report doesn't say anything about gas savings, reduced asthma events, lowered pollution. But those as well as better safety are all proven facts when you reduce traffic. Common sense man. Get some.
A wider highway will NOT reduce traffic. Lots of research shows the opposite. Intelligence. Get some.
A wider highway will reduce traffic jams. (At least for a few years, depending on how much gets built south of Devil's Slide.)
Not much buildable land is South of Devil Slide.
Jeeze, Guys and gals, this project is about staff salaries- not congestion relief, staff salaries first, second and last. Oh and that 50m estimation that will ultimately climb to 75M if the project ever gets permitted which we ALL know will never happen.
I have a relative with a construction company HQ'd on the east coast who was out here twice last year for meetings with Caltrans about this project. Caltrans is their number one client, very lucrative relationship.
Believe me there is absolutely NO REASON in the world he would touch bases with me other than to do a scout of the area. He asked specific questions about the quarry, the 55 acre plot on the east side of SR1 and the political climate regarding this proposal.
This is a proposal that has been generating paychecks since the 1960's of Caltrans engineers and will continue to generate public staffing paychecks for years to come. That is your beloved widening proposal, a cash cow, nothing more.
Todd, the minute ground is broken on this project you owe us. We want you to shut up.
No worries, Todd. Ground will never be broken on the widening project.
Selfdeludedanon @ 6:27, the comments posted here and elsewhere are written not spoken so the request for me or anyone else to shut up is.. well delusional. Simply do not read a comment if you do not like the author of the comment.
A group of environmental advocates has filed a lawsuit against Caltrans over plans to expand Interstate 5 along North County’s coast. In its lawsuit, the Cleveland National Forest Foundation said those lanes will lead to “an enormous surge in greenhouse gas emissions,” counter to what Caltrans’ final environmental report concludes.
Jack Shu, president of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation, said “Adding a lane is only good for two to four years before it’s clogged up again. We know adding new lanes doesn’t reduce congestion.”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/dec/05/cleveland-national-forest-caltrans-I-5-expansion/
Another "expert" speaks. All these crackpot alternative hypothesis are a pile of crap. What makes Loeb or the Cleveland National Forest Foundation or some of you here more knowledgeable than freeway engineers and designers? Answer = NOTHING. You're just throwing shit on the wall and hoping it sticks. Just trying to delay and hope we give up. Good luck with that.
Hutch, do a little googling of your own. It's called "induced demand" and it's not a crackpot alternative hypothesis, it's an established traffic study principle.
University of Toronto researchers finds that widening and building more roads actually creates more traffic.
http://www.npr.org/2011/07/09/137708751/more-roads-may-pave-way-to-more-traffic
"Latent demand has been recognised by road traffic professionals for many decades. J. J. Leeming, a British road-traffic engineer and county surveyor between 1924 and 1964, described the phenomenon is his 1969 book."
"Increasing road capacity reduces the cost of travel and thus increases demand."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/05/03/solving-traffic-congestion/
Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew A. Turner. 2011. "The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities." American Economic Review, 101(6): 2616-52.
Oh well 1:52, Google? Why didn't you say so? That's a horse of a different color. I should tell my brother with the engineering degree that he wasted his time in school. All you have to do is Google it.
While you may find out many things on Google, designing a State highway is not one.
Your same group was ignorantly saying a few months ago "all we have to do is time the lights", "just time the traffic lights" "do a study of the lights." Lights, lights, lights. Well guess what? The professional engineers that do the light timing said it would not help in this instance because there are too many cars for the amount of road. "Not enough capacity."
But that doesn't stop you Googlers. Then you guys said "oh just change the school start times, or buy busses" That was shot down by the school district as unfeasible, but more importantly there's traffic all summer and at 6pm so it's obviously not the school. Hmmmm?
See, you think this stuff is simple and it is far beyond your grasp.
Now you have some hare brained scheme about building overpasses. And because you are such experienced, competent, accredited highway builders, you believe now you have the true solution. It's even on Google.
Did Todd get kicked off Pacifica Riptide? He seems to enjoy being the protaganist on this blog.
here's another example of Gang of No myth-making they label as a fact. One of their key members is Cynthia Kaufman. She is an apparent advocate of the shop worn lament--change school start times and make the schools buy buses. Kaukman was on the school bd for 4 years. Not a peep out of her while on the school board about start times and buses. Now that she is off the board, it's the gospel truth.
Go figure.
Did you read the traffic engineers' research showing that adding lanes increases congestion or are you refusing to look at it?
You can lead a horse to science but you can't make him think.
This just in... The NIMBYs have googled some obscure website that thinks it's best to pour a gallon of water into a quart container!!!
We'll keep you posted on their next exciting findings.
Was the website run by a reputable and respected hydraulics engineering company like the Cleveland National Forest Foundation?
837, did the "traffic engineer" do a study of our situation? If not then you are interpolating data not relevant here. Same thing you did with timing the traffic lights.
Right. No principles developed through scientific studies can be applied here because they weren't done here and didn't use local data. If that's your logic, you don't get science at all. You will be forever uninformed.
This just in.... The NIMBYs saw a report that they are salting the roads and requiring chains in Tahoe and now think it's imperative that we do the same on Highway One in Pacifica.
Tahoe sands it's roads when icy, Tahoe does not use salt. You can thank the CEQA act for that. Thank you CEQA!
Poor pro-development trash from the east coast. How could you know?
Dateline: Pacifica. A man who thought the principles of engineering didn't apply to him because they hadn't been proven locally wondered why the house he built fell down.
You guys were saying the same thing about timing traffic lights a few months ago. "It's proven to work"
You "EXPERTS" were wrong again.
Funny how people who barely work a regular job have so much expertise in things far beyond them.
Dateline: Pacifica. Some NIMBY decided to build their house based upon something they read on a website by the Cleveland National Forest Foundation. The house, along with its builders, were never seen again. The authorities presume that they had no clue what they were doing and fell into the ocean.
Todd
Quit pretending you know everything. Tahoe uses a salt brine solution with sand.
Nevada, uses a salt brine only.
Other states use crushed rock.
The Nimby's were screaming that the salt on the roads killed the pine trees along the highway, it wasn't the salt, it was a bark bettle outbreak.
In the world of Fix Pacifica ... something they read somewhere on an obscure web site is the same thing as research studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
In he NIMBY world the website of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation (or something similar) counts as a peer-reviewed scientific journal for pretty much anything.
Some references:
Duranton, Gilles, and Matthew A. Turner. 2011. The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities. American Economic Review, 101(6): 2616-52.
Fulton, Lewis M., Robert B. Noland, Daniel J. Meszler, and John V. Thomas. 2004. A statistical analysis of induced travel effects in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic region. Journal of Transportation Statistics, 3(1):1–14.
Hansen, Mark. 1995. Do Highways Generate Traffic? Access. University of California Transportation Center.
Goodwin, Phil B. 1996. Empirical Evidence on Induced Traffic: A Review and Synthesis. Transportation. Vol.23, no.1. Feb.
Todd Litman (2001), “Generated Traffic; Implications for Transport Planning,” ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 4, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org), April, 2001, pp. 38–47
Noland, Robert B. 2001. Relationship between highway capacity and vehicle travel. Transportation Research A 35(1):47–72.
Pells SR. 1989. User Response to New Road Capacity: A Review of the Published Evidence. Working Paper 283, Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University.
hey research this: thousands of pacifca voters want hwy 1 fixed. Get'er done after what? 25 years of waffling?
So this anon 9:11 is saying that we have traffic now but if we widen the freeway and reduce traffic it will help for a while until more people build because there's less traffic. This is not a new theory.
It may make sense in some areas, but not the highly restricted coastal zone we live in. No cars come from the west. Building is severely limited by local cities as well as the Coastal Commission. The towns to the south are few and far between. Pacifica's population has not gone up in 30 years.
Swing and a miss. I guess it's back to Google Pete.
From 9:11's own link
"With so much induced traffic, adding road capacity does little to reduce congestion. However, the aggregate relationships presented here may not hold for an individual highway project."
That means that this theory does not apply in every situation.
This is why Google is not your friend.
Nobody knows how many Pacifica voters want Caltrans' extra-wide plan. We've never voted on it. A lot more Pacificans are opposed to this neighborhood-damaging, business-killing, years-long construction traffic nightmare than support it.
There it is again - the logic that says that principles that have been established in numerous research studies do not apply in Pacifica because we're not like other places. We're special. And besides, those studies don't support what we want to believe.
"A lot more Pacificans are opposed to this neighborhood-damaging, business-killing, years-long construction traffic nightmare than support it."
I don't see a groundswell of opposition. The only people who oppose it are the same NIMBYs who oppose everything.
one lane dirt roads--buggies. That'll fix our traffic mess!
Why is it business killing? There will be access to all businesses and these workers have to eat lunch and maybe dinner and lodging if they stay in town.
Nice spin 157. Your own "studies" and "research" state that "induced traffic" does not occur everywhere or in every instance.
Kind of like what you guys were saying with timing traffic lights. You were screaming that it works elsewhere until the company that does it said it wouldn't work here.
We don't live in a vacuum. What works or is true in one place is not in another. Try to see past your one dimensional perspective.
build it you apes and build it now. got to get thru this town faster!
LOL! The NIMBYs now have a development solution: create lots of traffic and pollution and all our problems will be solved!
Post a Comment