The Daily Journal/Samantha Weigel, 6/29/15. "Residents raise concern over proposed 101 ramp: San Mateo, Burlingame neighbors attend meeting on Peninsula Avenue interchange."
| Pacifica: stalled Highway 1 traffic is good for air quality, plovers, red-legged frogs, trails. And continued "NO" on anything progress. |
Currently, there are no southbound ramps at Peninsula Avenue; instead drivers must travel down Amphlett Boulevard to enter at Poplar Avenue. Two design options for Peninsula Avenue, both of which require purchasing numerous commercial and residential properties along Amphlett Boulevard to make room for the new ramps, range from $56 million to $71 million.
.... “I’d like you to help reassure the Burlingame residents in the community,” said Burlingame Councilman Michael Brownrigg. “While really it’s San Mateo’s land and a San Mateo project, it also has a significant impact to Burlingame. So how do you persuade people that you’ll be a good steward for everyone’s interests and not just San Mateo?” Marilou Lee, a resident on the San Mateo side of Peninsula Avenue, also expressed worry the project would create more traffic and therefore safety issues; but noted concerns from Burlingame residents shouldn’t inherently stop the project." Read article
Note photographs. Protest of 1.3 miles highway 1 widening improvement through two intersections from a Pacifica Riptide article.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
11 comments:
San Mateo should just get in touch with Pacifica's NO group.
I'm sure the NOBIES would be happy to hand over our Measure A tax dollars to help San Mateo move forward and keep Pacifica in the dark ages.
1135 That's not how Measure A funding works, but you can be forgiven your massive literary license because IF the anti-widening group could, we all know they would.
Kathy
Do you post articles about other cities just to show Pacifica incompetence?
Pacifica is just like the meth freak who is going down the road to disaster. Deny, deny, deny and listen to the wrong people.
Pacifica receives much more than it contributes to Measure A funds, annually. The distribution is based on population not the amount of sales tax a city generates. And as all you Yessie throwbacks scream everyday Pacifica doesn't have a large tax base. Pacifica receives approx 900K a year in Local Share for the measely 200K it contributes. Pacifica is making money hand over fist from Measure A funds. There is no lost Measure A money to discuss. Paifica gets 4.5X the amount it contributes.
And if you haven't heard the FEIR for the widening has cost Measure A funds an additional 5 million dollars, plus staff time for Caltrans, the county TA and Pacifica.
Todd
Have a snickers, we know how mad you get...
Todd 1141, good point you make: our "Local Share" is based on population, rather than City revenue. Then, we should be contributing a greater share of city revenue-- rather than mooching off funding from other cities in this County. Being the poorest city in San Mateo county is no prize!
I'd give Todd the benefit of the doubt on this one. Our moronic plans for, first, the Taj Mahal City Hall by the Sea under Vreeland, and, second, the Legacy Library Council Chambers, under Nihart, have easily cost this city over one million dollars. And they're still spending! Caltrans and the county could spend five million and more while we dither for years over a project that will never be built. Bureaucracies live to spend and spend to live.
Aww, can we just mooch?
and how much has all the lost lawsuits cost the City of Pacifica in staff time and litigation fees?
In other unreported Pacifica News:
Charlie Fisher passed away last week!
Cities get sued all the time for reasons we may applaud or condemn depending on our personal interest in the issue. You want to stop that, take it up with the Supreme Court because you're going to need to change the US Constitution.
Post a Comment