Pacifica Riptide, letter from Cynthia Kaufman, 2/7/14. "Grassroots campaign launch February 15 to stop Caltrans' plan to double the width of Highway 1 in Pacifica."
| How about we continue to make your commute impossible? |
The volunteers will also be asking for signatures on a petition that reads: “To the Pacifica City Council: The Caltrans plan to widen Highway 1 is not good for Pacifica. It will cause more problems than it will solve. I support pursuing a combination of alternatives that can improve traffic congestion on Highway 1 and that will be less damaging to Pacifica." Read more.
Submitted by Jim Wagner
Note: photograph from US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway, Public Roads, "The Congestion problem".
Note: photograph from US Department of Transportation/Federal Highway, Public Roads, "The Congestion problem".
Posted by Kathy Meeh
35 comments:
We know who runs city council.
It is the "gang of no"
These people have little interest in the truth. Only in stopping this at any cost.
Remember when these same folks were against the Quarry because there was too much traffic?
I have a Facebook group, please join if you support this long needed fix www.facebook.com/groups/FixHighwayOne
Glad to see the positive momentum beginning to increase visibility for the call to develop alternative transportation options and not widen Highway One.
The recent report released about CalTrans highlights it as an organization being out of step with current needs. Clearly not the experts anymore; local voices are carrying appropriate weight.
"Demands and expectations on Caltrans have also changed since the Interstate-building era. As early as 1972, when Caltrans was formed out of the Department of Highways, there were calls for more multimodalism and less reliance on auto-mobility. More recent passage of state planning goals in AB 857 (2002) and transportation greenhouse gas reduction strategies SB 375 (2008), signal a need for Caltrans to support reductions in auto travel via low transportation-
demand land use patterns. These outcomes are precisely the opposite of what Caltrans was set up to do—foster higher auto-mobility—and the department has not adapted to them. At the same time, Californians are driving less, a trend that creates optimism for achieving state planning and policy goals and that should allow for less spending on highway capacity. Other expectations that have developed since the Interstate-building era include concerns for economic and environmental justice, livability, and economic development. New technologies in planning and operations, and expectations of mode choice have all complicated Caltrans’ world."
"Two themes run through our findings and recommendations. One is that Caltrans, once a national leader among state transportation agencies, has fallen out of step with current “best practice” in transportation practice and the express aims of California state policy. The other is that the department’s culture not only has not come to grips with new realities, but also frequently runs on process rather than outcomes. In other words, Caltrans is in need of both modernization and organizational culture change."
http://calsta.ca.gov/res/docs/pdfs/2013/SSTI_Independent%20Caltrans%20Review%201.28.14.pdf
Http://t.co/ghV4LS7BgJ
@ 343, nice try taking things out of context.
This report really has nothing to do with our situation. It's just another diversion.
Here this was in the report also:
"We also note that Caltrans has many strengths that give us rational hope for its reform. Chief among these is the dedication of much of its top leadership and most of its staff to serving the public interest and improving their department’s performance. This strength was evident to us in the more than 100 interviews we conducted with current Caltrans employees. In those interviews, repeatedly, Caltrans staffers also openly acknowledged problems, many of the department’s own making."
Here's the real link that 343 didn't provide http://www.calsta.ca.gov/res/docs/pdfs/2013/SSTI_Independent%20Caltrans%20Review%201.28.14.pdf
This is from the same report 343. Sounds like Caltrans is doing a pretty good job:
Projects
Carmageddon I
In July 2011, the south side of the Mulholland Bridge was demolished as part of a project that added a carpool lane to a 10-mile stretch of northbound I-405. In November 2012, this project received the Grand Prize at the 5th Annual America’s Transportation Awards competition.
Carmageddon II
A stretch of I-405 was shut down while crews dismantled the northern side of the Mulholland Bridge over a weekend. Like Carmegeddon I this project was completed ahead of time.
I-5 Boat Section
That section of I- 5 carries more than 190,000 vehicles each day. The work was completed in a record 38 working days, rather than the projected two years. The project was named one of ten finalists for the national 2009 America's Transportation Award.
Presidio Parkway Project Demolition
Doyle Drive, the critical link between the Golden Gate Bridge and central San Francisco, is a 1.6-mile approach, which opened along with the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937. A crew of 300 workers and 40 excavators demolished 151 bridge spans and 307 columns in just 57 hours.
Devil’s Slide
Opened in March 2013, the $439 million project features two 4,200-foot long tunnels Cable Bridge Upgrades
Carquinez Bridge
The original span was replaced in 2003 by a graceful new suspension bridge. The cost was $240 million.
The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge
Known as the region's workhorse bridge, it carries more than a third of the traffic of all of the state-owned bridges combined. Construction of the skyway portion of the bridge was completed in 2007. The new East Span opened to traffic in 2013.
Benicia-Martinez Bridge
The $1.2-billion project includes a new toll plaza plus reconstruction of the Interstate 680 interchanges at Interstate 780 in Benicia and Marina Vista/Waterfront Road in Martinez.
Programs
Seismic retrofit program
The current Seismic Retrofit Program has been focused on identifying and retrofitting existing bridges statewide. Phase 1 included 1,039 bridges, costing $1.082 billion, and the second phase of 1,055 bridges is 83.6 percent complete.
MacArthur Maze
At 3:42 a.m. on Sunday, April 29, 2007, a tank truck carrying 8,600 gallons (32,500 liters) of unleaded gasoline overturned on the connector from Interstate 80 west (from Berkeley) to Interstate 880 south. The deadline to finish the project was beaten by over a month, and it was completed only 26 days after the original accident
Angeles Crest Highway
You have to remember Peter Loeb, and Hal Bohner, know far more than the Federal Department of Transportation, all the Engineers and Caltrans.
Overpass at Vallemar is the alternative option I want to see. Widening is what we may have to settle for.
The overpass is not a better option than widening. That stretch of highway does not have enough capacity. All the experts say that there are too many cars for the amount of road. That overpass at Vallemar will not solve that problem. And it won't do anything for the backups at Fassler. Besides, do you want a giant cement interchange or a couple of lanes added?
Giant cement interchange, please. It will solve the problem although it may be a more costly option. Of course, the longer we delay, the more the costs of every option go up. If I recall correctly, it was the preferred option of Caltrans' engineers and was set aside in favor of the lowest cost widening. You get what you pay probably applies here.
Everything that Hutch just said is incorrect. The issue is not about capacity. The experts have not said that there are too many cars for the amount of road. Caltrans says that an overpass at Vallemar will fix the backups at Fassler and at Vallemar by eliminating the Vallemar traffic signal. They said that the overpass (Caltrans uses the term "grade separation") would have the most traffic benefit. It was rejected because it's more expensive and because it has different environmental and right-of-way impacts.
Please read the FEIR about the grade separation alternative:
"Northbound and southbound through
traffic on SR 1 would no longer have to pass through a signalized intersection at Reina Del Mar
Avenue. This alternative would provide the most substantial travel time benefits for traffic on SR 1."
"Travel times would be better than [the widening]."
"A grade separation would provide the most substantial traffic operations benefit."
"The grade separation alternative was primarily rejected because of the substantial additional cost to make a workable interchange and because of the increased environmental and right-of-way impacts."
231 Thank you for confirming my recollection on Caltrans position
on the overpass/grade separation option. It gets lost in the heated rhetoric surrounding the issue. Inaccurate cost estimates and budget overruns are so much a part of any Caltrans project, sometimes understandably so given the delays, that to dismiss the best engineering option because of cost makes little sense. Here again, we're going to get what we pay for. Either do it right, or fail to fix the problem we allegedly want to fix.
I think it was the light-timing experts who said their technology would not solve what they deemed to be a capacity problem. Did Caltrans say that? Don't know and so what? We do know Caltrans identified grade separation as the best highway engineering option before discarding it for the widening option due to cost concerns.
Here come the traffic experts. Why don't you use your name. Peter? Afraid? Peter Loeb said tye same thing to me over on Riptide.
You are incorrect annon 231, experts DID say that our problem on the stretch of highway in question is one of not enough capacity (too many cars for the road.) Here's a link to the letter http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2013/08/about-this-traffic-signal.html
You can pull things out of context, it doesn't make them right. Caltrans decided the grade separation is not the best solution, so you are wrong again.
Your side has come up with one zany alternative after the next. Traffic light timing, changing school times, busing kids, telecommuting, car pooling. They are all shown not to be viable alternatives.
"Right of Way Impacts" A nice way of saying most of the businesses at Vallemar would have to go. And you would have monstrous overpasses, on off ramps in front of Vallemar Station. Nice alternative.
Why do the majority of the people who are no for widening the Highway usually seem to post under "anonymous"? In this very important discussion for our community, if you are "anonymous" your comment will have no validity to me.
Ooo, oww, eee, bam, wam, walla walla bing bang!
I fear The Widening has become The Rapture for some. Such fervor, such faith, such ferocity. How about The Traffic Congestion? Isn't that what we're trying to alleviate? The Wise Men at Caltrans have said that grade separation (overpass to mere mortals)is the best solution. That's a fact, not a leap of faith.
Hey, I want my trash picked up! Just kidding Chris Porter. I know you don't roll that way, but there are many valid reasons posters in a small town wish to remain among the anonymi. Why not judge them by their ideas? I try to do that no matter who posts, but admit it isn't always easy.
The majority of all posts on this site are anonymous.
BTW the hippies are in front of Linda Mar Safeway passing out fliers about Highway 1.
Why is this minority of the same people that have opposed everything forever latched onto this "horrendous" widening. I really believe that most don't work, ergo, no commute, or aren't one of the thousands of single occupant cars trying to get through this bottleneck on a daily basis, i.e. Vallemar residents. You know, those of us that pay taxes, help our kids do homework, participate in our kids sports events, really hope to high heaven that our officials will fix this thing before our kids are arguing about it. Come on you guys, what's the real beef besides NO?
With an overpass you would have to get rid of long standing businesses, the gas station, Toms Body Shop, the market and most of the parking area for Vallemar Station. Changing the entire character of a very special neighborhood.
Caltrans may have said the overpass would be the best solution to eleviate traffic, but there are many more things that go into weighing the "best" alternative. Traffic is just one item to be considered. Quality of life, historic buildings, impact on a neighborhood and price also come into play.
It's going to come down to the Coastal Commission, isn't it? And maybe a few other regulators. This stuff is all just rhetoric on a blog that happens to reflect a majority in favor of widening. Or it could be about frequency and identity switching. Benefit of the doubt, most posters on Fix favor widening. A few posters don't, and even fewer want the best solution regardless of cost fully explored. That's always been grade separation according to the expert highway builders at Caltrans. Time will tell. Lots of time.
This is what you would get with a grade separation at Vallemar;
http://www.cityose.com/city/california-los-angeles-city-limit-highway-overpass-b.jpg
These people have no interest in an alternate plan. This is just another in a series of delay tactics. If they can delay this long enough they know nothing will be built.
Overpass? Traffic alleviating, life saving overpass? Oh no, Not in My Backyard!
Anon 456 said "The Wise Men at Caltrans have said that grade separationis the best solution. That's a fact, not a leap of faith."
That is NOT a fact. But it is another exageration from the gang of no.
As stated before Caltrans said "A grade separation would provide the most substantial traffic operations benefit."
They did not say it's the best alternative.
834 I'd settle for a solution offering "the most substantial traffic operations benefit". Thank you very much.
Pretty weak argument the anti widening people present. I want whats best for Pacifica but you're not convincing me that a giant expensive concrete freeway exchange at Vallemar is the best way to go.
910 See how you are. Grade separation is the best way to go according to the best experts in the industry--Caltrans. The idea was dismissed too soon and too quietly.
Just like the bypass and tunnel, or in smaller scale closer to home, making Sharp Park an off-leash dog beach. Time to revisit these so-called decisions.
"BTW the hippies are in front of Linda Mar Safeway passing out fliers about Highway 1."
I was wondering why Wagner posted a LTE from a year ago
No matter how many times you repeat it 10:12 Caltrans never said grade separation was the best way to go.
Maybe we should go out and continually press the walk button while you guys protest Saturday.
758 No better use for your time, I'm sure. If it rains you can shower and shampoo right there. Now that would stop traffic.
A nice woman in front of the Linda Mar Safeway asked me to sign the petetion last night to stop the Highway widening. She gave me a flyer that stated lots of misrepresentations and when I tried to question her she could not answer what her facts were based on. She then told me she did not want to argue with me. No one was trying to argue but if you don't know what the background of your "side" is about, you should not be asking anyone to sign a petition. And by the way, thank you to whoever wrote this petition by acknowledging there would be "possible" sound walls...We all no "possible" means no so someone read my post when I still was posting on RIPTIDE.
To the use of "anonymous" or even "anonymi" which I really like, this is too important an issue to not stand behind your comments. I do read all comments and feel I am openminded enough to listen to all sides but in this important community decision, I listen more if I know who is speaking.
758 anon refer you to 834(yours?) and 846. We're done.
7:29
You know when boredom kicks in you get desparate.
Post a Comment