Submitted by Bob Hutchinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Pacifica's Economic Plan
Submission and comment policy
Want to share an article or opinion? Unlike some other Pacifica blogs, Fix Pacifica won't bury viewpoints we disagree with. Send your submission, along with your name, to fixpacifica@gmail.com.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
People may comment anonymously, but any comments that degenerate into 1) personal attacks against individual blog participants; 2) incomprehensible gibberish; or 3) attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed.
Search This Blog
Recent Comments
Get this Recent Comments Widget
Historic Sharp Park Golf Course
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(719)
-
▼
March
(56)
- An alternative point of view on climate change
- CA still talking about water reforms, scarcity and...
- Wall Street Journal - Climate Forecast: Muting the...
- CA Senate unloads Yee baggage, broad Chow context,...
- Participating McDonald's to offer free coffee for ...
- Tax time, a few deductions to consider or not
- Bicycle view riding down Devil's Slide Trail, and ...
- Weather depressing you this morning?
- Worried that changing times may be hurting our imp...
- Climate Change Committee gone nuclear
- San Mateo County Parks will do its best to maintai...
- Devil's Slide trail opens today, the geology
- BREAKING: Common Sense Prevails in San Francisco B...
- Political career over, CA Senator Leland Yee arres...
- Growing older locally, planning ahead may not be g...
- Pete's Harbor redevelopment finally moves forward
- Please join us for a special presentation
- Water shortage in California's future, and past, a...
- New apartment complex at Skyline and Sharp Park co...
- City Council meeting, Monday, March 24, 2014
- BPA and other plastic chemicals are toxic to humans
- Coastal Commission approves Holiday Inn expansion,...
- Hat's off to Elaine Larson for our highway history...
- Pedro Point man killed by police yesterday after s...
- Last chance to serve on the San Mateo County Civil...
- Poverty in San Mateo County update
- In a complicated salary contract offer, JUHSD unio...
- San Jose government pension reform initiative revi...
- Police catch burglar with assistance of neighbor's...
- Woman who drowned at Linda Mar State Beach 3/14/14...
- St Patrick's Day 2014, for better or worse
- Planning Commission study session and meeting, Mo...
- Highway 1 delay - we all pay
- State Senator Mark Leno and SFO Public Information...
- San Mateo County Devil's Slide Coastal Trail opens...
- One less alleged criminal in Pacifica
- The highway widening is the compromise, enjoy!
- City climate action plan moves forward
- ALISTER MacKENZIE TOURNAMENT, MAY 31 TO SAVE SHARP...
- Economic Development Committee, tonight, Tuesday, ...
- City Council meeting, Monday - March 10, 2014
- Some parcel taxes may never go away, why waste our...
- Traffic bottleneck solution, still waiting...
- Move forward to make Highway 1 safe and efficient
- Stop the debate, fix the highway already
- Oakland adding population
- A market research firm sells you a new city tax or...
- Pacific Skies mobile home residents win for now
- Reminder City Climate Action Study Session tonight...
- Lite single-use plastic water bottle ban on SF cit...
- Looking forward to a poetry column in the Pacifica...
- Library tax, San Jose
- News from science trails: ability to speak, maybe...
- Planning commission begins 2014 with rest
- Public input in replacing one bridge between two c...
- Global Warming, seeking a balanced view and practi...
-
▼
March
(56)
Visitors:
104 comments:
That 1% must be very stubborn.
How do those guys feel about an overpass? You could do a series.
99% support the widening? In your freakin' dreams. Spin some more BS.
How about a tunnel from Fairway to Linda Mar! Overpass won't work. That discussion is a delay tactic, nothing more. Read the EIR. And the 1% are the same people that have blocked any progress in this town for 30 years to the detriment of the rest of us. They have had their day. Go retire to the Hobbit hovels and leave the rest of us to rescue this town.
Run for your lives!
Man, I wanna meet that 1% that blocked progress for 30 years. They
gotta be some powerful people.
Overpass won't work? I did read the EIR and it says it would provide the most traffic relief! And really, this 99 to 1 percent nonsense would make Brent Plater blush.
99% that is BS. The loud Hawaiian shirt group is twisting the numbers again.
Good lord. 1%? Really? That argument is so vacuous that anyone reading it will be instantly suspicious. If you refuse to tell the truth, I suggest you not mention percentages at all. Because you're just making your entire argument fall apart before you've even made it. Stop treating us like we're stupid.
The EIR also says an overpass would cost a lot more than the widening alternative; and the businesses on the corner of Highway 1 and Reina Del Mar would have to be wiped out in order to build the access ramps.
The hippies falsely claim Caltrans wants to build a freeway through town, and then press for an alternative that effectively creates a freeway through town.
Then the hippies complain that two businesses would be removed as a consequence of the widening, yet propose an alternative that would damage an even number greater of businesses.
Hippie logic. Sheesh.
1% is in fact generous. Statistically, anti hwy 1 folks equal zero. Their last demonstration pulled 15 people. They will have another tribal gathering mar 29 at 11AM. Compare this with 18,000 south Pacifica and south coast drivers stuck in traffic. As mentioned before, majority rules. I suppose anti hwy 1 folks object to being compared to the smug elite the Occupy folks protested against. Guess shoes fits!
Steve you know as well as anyone that they don't want an overpass alternative. It's just a ploy to stop anything from being built. They know if they can fool enough people into asking for the overpass they will kill any chance of anything being built. That is what they want. That's what they always want. Nothing except trails and open space.
Caltrans said an overpass would provide the best traffic solution. Final cost and final design are unknown--as in all things Caltrans. Actual support for either option or for doing nothing at all is also unknown but provides endless entertainment, star turns, ad income for The Trib, etc. And then there's the California Coastal Commission whose position is also unknown but actually counts.
So you are saying that every single person who drives that stretch supports widening? I guess you must have stopped each of them to ask their opinion. I guess I wasn't driving that day, it must have caused a heel of a back up.
And the'15' who protested are the only folk opposed? Amazing really - almost everybody I know is opposed, and yet not one protested, or is a hippy.
Statistically, I'd suggest you don't understand statistical sampling. Or democracy.
Thank you, Kiwi Al. You said it better than I could.
The vast majority of comments submitted to Caltrans, so far the only quantifiable measure of public opinion, were against the widening.
Caltrans said an overpass was not the best option. It still involves extensive widening, removal of more businesses, ruining Vallemar and at a much higher cost. You guys don't want the overpass anyway, it's just a way to stop anything from being built.
"Overpass won't work? I did read the EIR and it says it would provide the most traffic relief! And really, this 99 to 1 percent nonsense would make Brent Plater blush."
March 14, 2014 at 7:29 PM
You know, it gets old when someone claims a report said this or that without citing the section and page where they pulled that little gem from. About 99% of the time (nice number) the rest of the report debunks their quote. People are getting wise to the bull.
the 1% had Council backing as Council was part of the 1%. That's over now
Only 1% oppose the widening??? That's quite an arsenal being trotted out to vanquish 1%. You got your old go-to it's a safety widening, bogus statistical sampling (heehaw), selective amnesia re the Caltrans findings, and of course, someone wraps the stinker in a flag! All this for 1%? From the masters of the universe? Hysterical.
You think hippies want an overpass? It happens to be the best traffic solution per Caltrans and was dismissed too early for reasons that need to be questioned. Hippies want neither the widening nor an overpass. Troubling isn't it?
747 And a Hawaiian Shirt shall lead them? We going to a luau?
No dress code in Bankruptcy Court. Just try to act professionally.
357 There's always a dress code. How quick can you add "will save us from bankruptcy" to those fantastic ads and letters?
11:33 said "it gets old when someone claims a report said this or that without citing the section and page where they pulled that little gem from.'
It's been cited before on this blog but for those too lazy or stupid to look it up, here it is again:
"This alternative [grade separation] would provide the most substantial travel time benefits for traffic on SR 1." FEIR Vol. 1 p.37.
"A grade separation would provide the most substantial traffic operations benefit ... " FEIR, Vol 1, p. 40.
Steve Sinai said the EIR also says that "the businesses on the corner of Highway 1 and Reina Del Mar would have to be wiped out in order to build the access ramps." I challenge Steve to cite where in the EIR it says that - because it doesn't.
If I was either of the ex-fire chief co-signers of this document, I'd be a little hacked off that my message is being appropriated - all I'm seeing here is the pro-widening people insulting anyone with an opposing point of view. 'Hippy', 'Occupy', '1%', 'Go retire to your Hobbit hole'.
I'm actually interested in what emergency services have to say, but they've been co-opted by some folk who really appear to *hate* anyone who disagrees. Using base insults or invented statistics isn't promoting your point of view. Quite the reverse.
Almost every last person I've talked to about this who is against it is a born-and-bred Pacifican. They've dealt with the bottleneck for as long as it's existed and still don't want that widening done. They're not hippies, they have nice cars, they own their homes and they have kids in college or grandkids nearing college. Those people don't deserve to be insulted.
Grow up and fix your messaging.
For those too "stupid" to figure it out, Caltrans said the best option is the widening. There is more to figuring out which alternative is best than which one provides a little more traffic reduction. Hell if that were the case then they should build a tunnel. Haha. When taking into account cost, affected businesses, aesthetics, right of way land use and environmental impact Caltrans say the widening option is superior.
Comprende?
No sale. It's not hard to comprende what this is about and it isn't traffic or Caltrans' best way to relieve the bottleneck. Supported by 99%? Maybe 99% of realtors, mortgage brokers, insurance people, scavenger companies, building trades. In other words, it's about money. Nothing wrong with that except when you pretend you're on some holy mission and water ain't wet. In all things, follow the money.
Since when would realtors, mortgage people, insurance companies, building trades be in it for the money? Oh wait a minute, maybe you're right because we all have jobs and are fighting this traffic twice a day and in my case my fellow workers are fighting it more than twice a day so if following money means we are trying to not waste fuel being held up in traffic CONSTANTLY you are right!!! Where did all the traffic come from Saturday and Sunday? Maybe it was a nice day and people wanted to come here. Sorry....
Some folks believe that widening the road will be growth-inducing and that the most vocal and organized proponents of widening may be more focused on growth, for various reasons, than finding the best way to relieve traffic congestion for Pacifica. So silly. That kind thing never happens.
This is no conspiracy of realtors to increase growth That is how ridiculously paranoid some of these hippies are. Some of these same people believe 9/11 was faked and cell phone towers are killing us. Oh and radiation from Fukushima is washing up on Linda Mar Beach. Don't expect any rational thinking from these folks.
Well I feel better! Thanks 848. You're a beacon of hoot.
1021 once legal is clear, the choice before City Council to fix the highway 1.3 mile bottleneck though Pacifica is: a) narrow median or b) wide median. Choice c) is "no build". The studies, research, and public process are completed (including the FEIR).
The 854 inventive rehashing of alleged 10 year old letters (long prior to established research), and the multiple suggested alternative solutions to persuade choice c), "no build" is more NIMBY Kabuki.
Finally, with City, San Mateo County, and Caltrans process completed, choice c) "no build" is not a viable City or Regional option.
Yes there are some crazy conspiracy theories among the far-left. Of course, the far-right thinks that Obama is a Muslim commie born in Africa that is going to declare martial-law and take your guns. Neither side has a monopoly on crazy conspiracies. That's different than observing that realtors generally are in favor of building more houses so they can sell them.
This is a State Highway millions of vacationers, commuters depend on our State highway system. It is also a matter of State and National security in case of emergency. These same upgrades have been done from San Diego to the Oregon border. Do you think the State or Caltrans is going to let a few Pacifica hippies stop it? Relax it will be done.
Follow the money always works. Tells you who will campaign for this thing
and there they are! Pushing it for all they're worth.
Remember, no campaign is complete until you have wrapped the issue in a flag.
"These same upgrades have been done from San Diego to the Oregon border."
Actually there isn't a stretch of Highway 1 from San Diego to Oregon that is even remotely as wide as the proposal.
"Actually there isn't a stretch of Highway 1 from San Diego to Oregon that is even remotely as wide as the proposal."
You obviously haven't been on Highway 1 south of Santa Cruz.
More spin and BS from the gang of no.
Highway 1 is three lanes each way plus 2 drivable shoulders and a landscape median south of Santa Cruz. And it's 4 lanes in each direction plus 2 drivable shoulders and median through LA County. At exit/entrance points it is wider.
I call breathalyzer on 710!
More lies from the gang of no
Oh please please Caltrans can you make us like LA County? You know with those really wide roads and all that concrete?
I checked Google maps and couldn't find a stretch in either of those places that was over 100 feet across. And that included a stretch that was 11 lanes wide! In contrast, the proposed Calera project would be over 150 feet. Can someone find a coordinate that is wider than that? If so I'd like to see it. (Google maps has a handy distance marker on the lower left corner.) Happy hunting!
Oh 845, you're talking about the actual width? Well, you're no fun. Can't we just slyly hide behind something less precise and surprise everyone later? Is now really the right time to tell them they need to pack a lunch to cross it on foot?
Let me teach you how to use Google maps. Try Hwy 1 south of the little town of Marina at Imjin Pkwy Hwy 1 is about 175' wide 8 lanes including shoulders for several miles.
Another place look at the City of Santa Barbara 8 total lanes including drivable shoulder and median.
Try the Garden Street exit Hwy 1 north in Santa Barbara. Over 200' across including exit/entrance points.
Oh yeah, and Santa Barbra is so trashy.
Ventura at the Ojai exit 175' inc exits
Oxnard over 200'
Over 500' wide including median about 2 miles south of Marina
Another of the noby's objections shot down
"Hwy 1 south of the little town of Marina at Imjin Pkwy Hwy 1 is about 175' wide 8 lanes including shoulders for several miles."
Nope, just about 100 feet.
"Garden Street exit Hwy 1 north in Santa Barbara. Over 200' across including exit/entrance points."
You appear to be counting a couple of frontage roads, otherwise looks like this one just about ties us.
Keep in mind that all of your examples are actual limited access freeways. The question we need to ask is, do we want a stretch of road in our crowded little Rockaway district that is as massive as the widest stretches of freeway on the California Coast?
Some people have never seen a freeway they didn't love. I don't know how wide Hutch's freeways really are but Santa Barbara residents hate the freeway running through their town. After years of battles it was shoved down their throats to accomodate all the commuter traffic from less expensive towns. Several large employers in Santa Barbara including UCSB. The growth of the freeway that runs through the sand dunes from Marina to near Monterey city limit was pushed through to accomodate and encourage housing development on the old Ft. Ord property. It's been decades after the Fort closed and they are still waiting for developers. Sound familiar? Wide and often empty road. Waste of funds and a blight on the landscape. And the bottlenecks at the Monterey-end are worse than ever.
I always liked what Reagan said about the Soviets...trust but verify. Prosit!
Shot down? Not really. All I'm seeing is those really wide freeways that are not in any way pedestrian friendly, and move cars through very fast, and thinking ours might be, maybe, a little smaller. Good job!
The question we need to ask is, do we want a stretch of road in our crowded little Rockaway district that is as massive as the widest stretches of freeway on the California Coast?
Good question. We only need it to be just as wide as it needs to be to put an end to the time wasting, air polluting, traffic snarl-ups that happen there every day. And not one inch wider.
Two bigger and badder bottlenecks for $53 million. Round-up with Caltrans to $100 million if they start this decade.
"Actually there isn't a stretch of Highway 1 from San Diego to Oregon that is even remotely as wide as the proposal."
Well we all seem to love HMB. I'd say, go take a look at the hwy at the intersection of hwy 1 and 92. The pedestrians don't seem to have a problem making it across the intersection there.
Oh, want to slim the hwy project down, take out the landscaped median. What makes us think we're so special that we can prevent a fix of hwy 1, a state arterial, to help traffic flow and make it safer. The hubris of some!
Here's an artists rendition of the new highway at Rockaway. It does not look massive or out of scale for Pacifica. It looks about the same to me.
http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af240/hutchiebaby/key-view-2_zps5de2c78c.png
"I'd say, go take a look at the hwy at the intersection of hwy 1 and 92."
I just did. It's under 100 feet. The Caltrans proposal would be half again as much.
"Over 500' wide including median about 2 miles south of Marina"
The paved part totals about 80 feet. The landscaped median is 400 feet. More like two separate highways with over a football field wide swath of wilderness between. They can do that kind of thing in the middle of nowhere.
Come on folks, you can do better than that! So far the only parts of Hwy 1 that anybody can find that are at all comparable in size are ugly freeways. Nothing comparable to a 150 foot wide stretch with traffic lights through a small town. But keep looking!
"Here's an artists rendition of the new highway at Rockaway. It does not look massive or out of scale for Pacifica. It looks about the same to me."
The artist's rendition is South of Fassler, which isn't even part of the widening. The widening will more than double the width of the highway. Since when does twice as wide look "about the same"?
When are the "gang of no" not lying?
Never.
The submission and comment policy as stated on this site is "attempts to turn conversations into grade-school playground brawls, will be removed."
The anonymous comment at 12:29 certainly qualifies for removal under this policy.
That's not true 10:52. The widening goes south of Fassler about 1/8 mile. It's just as wide there as it is on the north side of Fassler. That picture is an acurate rendition of the width of the new highway.
Here's Caltrans map:
http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af240/hutchiebaby/cropped-pages-from-calera_pkwy_deir_ea110801combined-11_zps652d2fe4.png
1044 first you say go find any stretch of highway one that come "remotely close" to the 150" here. Then they find many places. And NOW you change the rules and say it must have traffic lights and be through a small town.
They're getting desperate now.
Artist's rendition? That should tell you all you need to know about accuracy. And why is it not a surprise to find we're not comparing apples to apples in the How Wide Is Your Freeway contest? No surprise at all.
They actually want a real LA style freeway here. Sure and it's all about relieving traffic congestion and saving gas and time. Sure.
If that artists rendition is so inaccurate then why does the anti widening group use it on their website to illustrate how bad widening will be?
http://hwy1pacifica.wordpress.com/do-you-want-a-freeway-in-pacifica/
"It's just as wide there as it is on the north side of Fassler." Not true. You can see the map better if you find it in the FEIR Vol. 1, p. 115 of the pdf. You can zoom in and clearly see that the highway is much wider between Fassler and Reina Del Mar than it is at the south side of the Fassler intersection.
Hutch 814,133, and Anons 1218,318 the highway 1 at Rockaway Blvd (Caltrans approved photographic rendering) clearly shows the proposed 1.3 mile highway widening design is efficient, and not taking up more space or land than is needed. The streamline design allows for the same 4 lane highway, plus 2 access and exit lanes. No additional space is taken up with frontage roads, and the existing turn lanes are replaced. Win, win!
Naysayer 1113, 217 no surprise the "freeway" fiction you have introduced and propagated is imaginative, but that highway 1 road construction will terminate in only 1.3 miles (about the length of 23 football fields). Even so, from you will chapters of fear-driven "crashes at either end of the "freeway" follow?
And its unlikely that Santa Barbara "hates" highway 1,101 that brings tourists, commerce and commuters to, from and through their city. (Santa Barbara has a downtown and other destinations off the highway.) Its reasonable that residents there may "hate" the merged highway 1 and 101 traffic, which is generally fast and busy.
Meantime back in Pacifica, its unlikely that our city and region would "hate" the results of improving our traffic bottleneck. After all, only a possible 1% (if that) of drivers who are slowed-down and stalled in traffic would "hate" better safety solutions, or the default condition of choice c, "no build", (whereas choice a is "narrow median", and choice b is "wide median").
Thanks to San Mateo County, our City, and Caltrans, this project will move forward. And from the positive 99% who desire a better, safer highway, thumbs up!
My highway is bigger than yours. HAHAHHA. Well, the desperate search is on for more excuses to not address our traffic needs, documented over 30 years. Now the old saw is trotted out--never done anywhere else avoids the obvious geographic evidence that Pacifica has one north-south arterial and all east-west turns jam traffic to a standstill. Now where else might this be the case?? Well, lovely and environmentally friendly south coast surfer heaven orange county.
Kindly review:
Pacific Coast Highway (Hwy 1, aka PCH) and reef point drive: 8 lanes plus break down shoulder--south Newport Beach.
PCH at Jamboree: 12 lanes Newport Beach.
Some locations even feature 3 turn lanes! And this stretch of PCH ranges from an apparent 4 lanes to the mentioned 12. Commuters figure out the dedicated turn lanes and merge back into the main N-S lanes. Pedestrians even manage to get across the street,-- a center median where they can wait one light. Just like as planned for Pacifica! Pull these locations in tight with Google satellite and take a look.
Feature this: Caltrans developed a solution and everyone uses the road. Wonder how many of these local folks take the bus, walk to work, ...
Next excuse please....
Folks, it's easy to lose track, but this discussion was in response to this tidbit:
"These same upgrades have been done from San Diego to the Oregon border."
Our crowd sourcing experiment has uncovered nothing comparable to the Calera Creek plan, just some stretches of freeway with really large medians. This really is an unprecedented plan for a scenic coastal highway.
Clearly the no side is scrambling. Every time they say something it's disproved.
Highway not widened past Fassler = Untrue
Nowhere else is Hwy 1 as wide = Lie
It's a giant freeway = Not by the pictures
Add to that: it's not a safety issue, an overpass is better, buses will work, time the light, bla bla bla
3:33 you said it wasn't widened at all south of Fassler. Which is it?
Hey Newport Beach pretty scenic coast highway. Geez, if they take 12 lanes is 6 in Pacifica the end of the world?? Is the quarry more scenic than south coast PCH??
318 Possibly to make a point without using any facts, just like you! While it may suggest size, it has no place in a discussion of real dimensions because it is wide-open!! to misinterpretation and bias.
448 Forget it. You're arguing with zealots. They just want it bigger. Bigger road and bigger town. What is important to you about Pacifica and this part of the coast, what you and so many others value, is of no importance to people on here who support this widening. They have no sense of what will be lost forever. It is of no value to them. It's the same old battle. Their claim of 99% support is, of course, preposterous. But with big money at stake the lies are also big. And make no mistake, it's all about the money. It never fails to amaze me how eager people can be to sacrifice things of true and irreplaceable value to fatten someone else's wallet.
Do you all realize that Hwy 1 @ Fassler is already 11 lanes wide? Lane counting isn't the issue, the plan only adds two of them, but in the process somehow doubles the width.
Kathy, 99% of Santa Barbarans hate the freeway running through their town.
436 Lame Counting Surfer, That's some approach. You describe a nightmare and actually expect people to snooze. Good job!
798 at least we've "smoked you out", and clarified once again the usual NIMBY infrastructure game plan for Pacifica is NOTHING, complimented by NO SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISE (while this city rots).
So with others moving into this region (population growth) using the highway that passes through this city, and for others who have business outside their neighborhoods (work, shopping, hospitals, entertainment, a life)-- what do you propose as an alternative to fixing the progressively "bad news" congested highway 1? The highway issue is about big safety, big health, big time efficiency. The cost of living is high in our region, and we are all interested in living in this city, but FMV that is a separate issue.
727, highway (1) 101 that runs through Santa Barbara, Ventura etc. has been there forever. Its the highway trail in and out of town. Unless you are more specific, no one knows why you think people who live in Santa Barbara "hate" highway (1) 101. Maybe voices are telling you that?
I'm not 7:27 but I've had friends and relatives in Santa Barbara and they all hate the freeway running through the middle of town.
859, well Highway (1) 101 is not in the middle of the Santa Barbara downtown, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Here's the map. I lived in Santa Barbara for a short time years ago, and visited there as well. I don't recall residents "hating" the highway. Why would they?
Then again, there was probably some point 727, 1113 was making: Santa Barbara highway (1) 101 related to our highway 1 updating? Not sure what that might have been, do you know? Maybe 727, 1113 will connect the dots.
Kathy you are right in that they want nothing for this town. Nothing. This is why we're dying on the vine. 708 is using the nimby strategy of painting us as people who want to pave paradise. We all love it here. None of the people I know that are for the highway want to lose the character of this small beach town. But there are a few real zealots that do want this town to go downhill. They file lawsuits and protest every project and development. They try to delay so builders will give up, and even write them and tell them not to even start. These are the people that are really damaging our city. And in thier twisted mind they think they are saving Pacifica.
Kathy, some history and current events--the freeway that bisects SB, including downtown, is called the Crosstown Freeway. Go figure. Unpopular with the locals--probably because it brings in outsiders--you know how real Santa Barbarans are. Completed in the late 80s/early 90s after a 40 year, multi-generational battle. Caltrans and Sacto first wanted to make it an elevated freeway because it was simpler and cheaper. Still using the same criteria! Locals said no. Four decades later a compromise was reached and a grade level freeway with a few underpasses was built. The Tunnel Timeline is similar, no? People have learned to live with the Crosstown, if not love it. As time goes on the old neighborhoods are forgotten.
Today, the locals are again rejecting Caltran's cookie-cutter approach to "solving" traffic congestion. This time in Montecito where they keep the real money. Montecito has a long, acrimonious history with Caltrans and actually clobbered Caltrans a few years ago over some proposed HOV lanes or something. The current fight is again over Caltrans lazy approach to congestion relief. The concerned citizens call themselves Common Sense 101. One of them is family. Smart money is on them. Unlike Caltrans they have no shortage of cash and no defective bolts to live down.
BTW, if you're old enough to "smoke" you need to realize some of us are neither nimby nor widener. I favor an overpass because it will provide the best traffic relief. I also favor ALL revenue producing development, however choosing an inferior solution to the traffic congestion in order to encourage development will not solve the traffic problem. Hell, this is Pacifica--it may not even result in development. Wouldn't that be typical of this town?
Zealots are bad news no matter which flag they fly. Seems like solutions are found in the middle ground through honesty and fairness, not hidden agendas, labels and tactics meant to polarize. Of course the dome of stupid has been firmly in place over Pacifica for some time.
1112, appreciate your thoughtful reply and background of the Santa Barbara Crosstown freeway. I agree with your observation, that Santa Barbara in attitude is a bit like Pacifica.
The following is a Los Angeles Times/Miles Corwin, 4/19/88 article about the elevated (1) 101 freeway through Santa Barbara-- It seems after 40 years of squabbling, planning and additional funding by Santa Barbara: ...."The city, however, will finally get the freeway it wants. And it's not just another anonymous swath of concrete cutting through town. The city contributed $250,000 for arches, ironwork and other flourishes so one of the freeway under-crossings will look like a Spanish Renaissance bridge and be a gateway to the city. .... "If this was Ventura, or, for that matter, most any place else, this freeway would have been built long ago," said Joe Callahan, who studied numerous freeway proposals when he served on the City Council in the 1950s. "But this is Santa Barbara, and Santa Barbara wants things done a certain way. And if they're not, people are willing to wait until they are." And are the Santa Barbara "locals" happy now? Your commentary is NO. Not happy prior, not happy now. But the highway through Santa Barbara, including freeway entry and exit lanes to various city destinations is functional and efficient.
The Pacifica highway bottleneck was identified by San Mateo County Transportation Authority about 30 years ago. The 10 year public meetings and studies are complete. We have an opportunity now (not later) to greatly improve the 1.3 mile traffic back-up in Pacifica.
Because NIMBIES have worked so hard to keep this city poor, our options are more compatible with "what would the City of Ventura do?" Ventura would move forward for the benefit of the people and the region-- and so should Pacifica.
The overpass you desire would have been an option with the proposed quarry development in 2006 (the quarry developer supported that option). That was then.
There is no reasonable middle ground in this city that has adequate, substantial influence. If you think you are that, you're on the NIMBY menu and your good will and desire to cooperate and compromise will be eaten.
Thus, I believe the reasonable alternative to further delays, endless reconsideration, and underlying expectation of "nothing for Pacifica" is the proposed 1.3 mile highway widening project: Choice of a) "narrow median", or b) "wide median". Ultimately these are not inferior choices. They are direct, efficient solutions, which have a workable history and repeated track record. "Cookie cutter" is better than zero, and the compensation is no concrete distraction from the otherwise beautiful view.
1135 Favoring the overpass means you want nothing built. You are a NIMBY. The choices are to widen or do nothing. And beside the overpass theory included almost as much widening plus a giant cement structure.
809 Favoring the overpass means you want an overpass built. And overpasses, grade separations, have evolved greatly from the gulag style Caltrans tends to lead with. You should see their good stuff. But beyond design considerations, it is the solution that best solves traffic congestion and all your issues. Well, probably not all your issues, but, hey, we're all god's children.
255, AN OVERPASS IS NOT AN OPTION. Get it?
It is not, and will not be considered. It is only being used by the NIMBY's as a way to try and delay any project for many more years. It still involves extensive widening.
The NIMBY's only chance of stopping this is to convince enough people that they want an overpass, tell our city council, who would then (they hope) not approve the project funding.
If you say you are for the grade separation or overpass you are saying that nothing will be done and we will lose 50 million in funding.
Get it now?
Yeah, Caltrans is saying it's my way or no highway. Get it now?
No 4:33 Caltrans, the Chamber, City Council, The Tribune, the County and 99% of commuters say it's our way, the highway
416 Here's what I get. You must be absolutely sincere and I always respect sincerity, so calm down. We both want what's best for our town. But in pursuit of that, you would allow Caltrans to make a key, town-changing decision for us by dismissing the grade separation solution much too early in the process. A unilateral decision about the town we live in appears to have been made by Caltrans in that 'big mama knows best' style for which they are notorious. And of course they present it as a 'my way or no highway' deal. That is classic Caltrans blackmail that they have used all over CA for decades with mixed success. Because this is a coastal town, other issues mix in and people become polarized around those issues. My issue is simple, I want it done right and I want this town to have that choice. Council didn't drop the ball on this, they left the field. This being coastal CA, I'm pretty sure others are going to stay in the game. No doubt, some will be your dreaded nimbys and some will be people who just don't like being pushed around or told to take second best. In your worldview there may be no difference. That's ok.
448 dude you're hearing things, again.
How exactly did an overpass get excluded as an option? It's classic Caltrans muscle-flexing, but any local fingerprints on that? City or County?
5:51 This is not "early in the process" It is the end of a 30 year process. The Calera Creek Parkway plan IS the compromise put forward by Pacifica environmentalists that Caltrans agreed to. Now you want to go back and redo everything?
6:00 As the Publisher of the Tribune said last week:
"The Calera Creek Parkway plan was actually engineered by an environmentally minded city employee, Tim Molinare"
It was not a Caltrans plan but they adopted it because of pressure from concerned Pacificans.
7:38: That is complete fiction. The Caltrans proposal for a 150-foot wide highway was not Tim Molinare's plan. It's totally a Caltrans plan. The widening plan didn't come into existence until well into the 2000's, long after Tim Molinare was gone. No way is it the "compromise plan put forward by Pacifica environmentalists that Caltrans agreed to." Environmentalists have opposed this plan ever since Caltrans unveiled it.
"The simple truth is that building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, in fact, it increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse."
An excerpt from Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream
by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck, North Point Press, 2000, pp. 88-94.
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/roadbuilding-futility.html
Kathy, Just saw your 158. Appreciate the tone and I understand how you arrived at your position. I really do. It's not easy to be a Pacifican. My money is still on the "reasonable middle ground". That's where most Pacificans live. Enjoyed the menu comment. You mean they're not all vegans?
I think Andres Duany was the architect for Peebles quarry project.
Hey 1124 a job is just a job.
1104 some of "them" may be meat eaters, check Riptide. One thing "they" support to some extent in Pacifica is restaurants.
I'm a vegetarian (not a vegan), don't worry you won't be on my menu. But the spicy highway fast food side dish will be.
Hutch at 7:55p said...
"Highway 1 is three lanes each way plus 2 drivable shoulders and a landscape median south of Santa Cruz. And it's 4 lanes in each direction plus 2 drivable shoulders and median through LA County. At exit/entrance points it is wider."
Ah, no. Highway 1 is not 4 lanes in each direction plus 2 driveable shoulders and a median through LA County. In the more commercial parts - through the harbor and Long Beach it's wider, but not what you are suggesting. In particular the part that is closest to the ocean is absolutely not what you are describing. You might be thinking of the 405 Freeway? Just what isn't needed in Pacifica.
That stretch of one from just past Pajaro Dunes through Moss Landing til it bypasses Castroville and heads off through the artichokes towards Marina and the Monterey Peninsula is certainly not that wide. Not even close.
We're talking about a mile-long stretch of highway between two traffic signals in a small coastal town. And some people want it to be as wide as an L.A. freeway? That's just insanity.
Post a Comment