Pacifica Tribune, Letters to the Editor, 10/20/15. "My Way Or... " by Gil Anda, Burlingame.
 |
| Ah, driving through Sharp Park: busy time of day, accident, emergency, etc. |
| Oh sure, keep protesting, that will fix our highway 1... yeah, yeah, yeah (like never). |
Opponents to the highway-widening project have come up with several alternatives; all of them addressed in the FEIR and all of them unworkable as far as addressing future traffic congestion. Of these alternatives, timing the lights is the most practical, but should only be considered along with the widening to maximize traffic flow and reduce our carbon footprint.
As far as any conspiracy theories about CalTrans causing traffic james to promote the widening project; CalTrans has absolutely no incentive to do that. There is a very limited amount of Measure A money available for an even longer list of projects ready and waiting for this funding. Pacifica, at present, is actually in the position of being in line ahead of everyone else.
Members of my family own property that would be bought for the widening project, should that project move forward. I have also served on Pacifica's Green Building Task force, Climate Action Task Force, and WSPAC."
----------
Note. Photographs - Gang of no face page image protesting highway 1 widening is from a San Mateo Times/Aaron Kinney, 2/15/14 article. "About two dozen people gathered Saturday afternoon along Highway 1 to launch a campaign against a Caltrans proposal to widen roughly 1.3 miles of the coastal corridor." Stuck in Sharp Park traffic face page image is from Pacifica Riptide. Disclaimer. The choice of photographs and captions is that of the poster (below).
Posted by Kathy Meeh
58 comments:
Owning property that would be bought by Caltrans for the project shouldn't disqualify you from having a public opinion about this old chew toy, but it does put that opinion in perspective. No disrespect to Gil Anda intended.
The highway needs to be widened to accommodate for future growth.
Like it or not, SF Bayarea is growing and the problem will compound by the year.
Instead of stifling growth, the nay-sayers should perhaps look for sustainable and more attractive growth.
11:10: Agreed! If all that energy was put to something productive, think of what could be achieved.
There you have it in a nutshell. The reason for widening the highway is to accommodate growth. Problem is, widening won't do that. Even Caltrans acknowledges that the improvement in travel times at rush hour will be minimal. If you really want to end traffic jams on that section of the highway and accommodate growth, the only solution is to eliminate the light at Vallemar. You can do that with an overpass or a roundabout. Keeping the light and widening the highway will do nothing to reduce the congestion, and the time lost while you're stuck in traffic hell during years of construction will never be regained.
Caltrans already looked at a roundabout and overpass at the Vallemar intersection. The traffic was too heavy for a roundabout, and roundabouts take up a large amount of space. The overpass would require removing the businesses from that corner.
I think the idea of a roundabout has a lot of merit. The roundabout could be built with the center offset towards the West to reduce or eliminate impact on the businesses at the Raina Del Mar / highway one intersection. The Highway does not have to bisect the circle for the roundabout to work.
The big berm across from Gorilla BBQ and Ash's was put in for an overpass. Back when 380 was going to be built.
Roundabouts would be a constraint on North to South traffic flow.
The simple solution is to increase length of green lights going North or South.
A roundabout would actually be quite nice. And enlarging the section between Vallemar and Rockaway would also help handle potential additional traffic to Rockaway Quarry Commercial dist/zone.
Come to think of it, Rockaway Quarry would be an excellent area for an underground IT data-center/internet communications node point for SF Bayarea because of its current price, access to SF and the larger Bayarea.
It could have data-centers underground (up to a million sqft or more) and businesses above ground which would utilize the data centers (software, IT, startups etc). The data-centers could be cooled for free with the nearby ocean water.
I wonder if the new owners have thought about this possibility?
Google or Facebook or Amazon or Microsoft in Pacifica anyone?
See here for an example of what Google is doing: Tech Real Estate: Google Cloud Platform Opens A New Data Center In South Carolina
Most people in Pacifica can't drive in a straight line already. Through in a Roundabout and all bets are off!!!
Under-grounding that close to the ocean is unlikely, factor in sea level rise an the cost plus life of the project make it unlikely anyone will do it.
@3:30p.m. Perhaps you have not been around town long enough to remember when the Pacifica Community Center on Crespi was the Telephone Company Building ( Pac Bell or AT@T). It was a short lived venture as the salt from the wetlands corroded all the underground wires and the building was abandoned by the telephone folks.
Isn't a large portion of the Quarry property a similar type of wetlands? Why would the results there be any less catastrophic than what occurred at the Crespi site ?
I lived in Long Beach where there is a huge roundabout on PCH that is always backed up durin the ccommute hours and that was 30 yrs ago.
Build the overpass and compensate any businesses in the way. Are we really choosing the inferior widening solution (inferior to the overpass by Caltrans' own early assessment)to preserve a few businesses that can be relocated or replaced? Oh, I don't think that's the real reason. Overpass--the solution disliked by both the enviros and the pro-widening crowd. That's proof it's the right solution.
Yes, let's build the Embarcadero freeway in Pacifica. Have we learned nothing?
913 An overpass at Vallemar and the Embarcadero Freeway? Hardly the same in scope or function. Take a deep breath, maybe try yoga, herbal teas, chrystals.
10:13 Absolutely the same in function (or why else build it?). But shorter, of course.
You must know that the nobies are calling the widening "concreting the coast" - so can't you imagine the opposition to that amount of "scenic" concrete up on pillars?
Ever try your own remedies? Seems they're not working!
Wrong again! An overpass is the best engineered solution to the specific problem and the fact that it's opposed by both enviros and their polar opposites tells us so.
@Dan -- Those days are gone. All long haul communication links today are fiber optics. Last mile copper is disappearing owing to cellular and radio (WiFi) technologies.
One upside of copper based POTS (plain old telephone system) is availability during power outages. But even that is being taken care of with highly available cellular tower technologies. All it requires is your cell phone is charged. Also, no one uses Copper to transmit power over long distances. Its typically very high voltage over some alloy of Aluminium.
Two key requirements for Data-centers are Power & Communications. I am not sure what kind of Power could be made available at Rockaway Quarry site. These big Data-centers can easily consume 100MW (yes, MegaWatts) or more. That kind of power would require a dedicated HV or UHV (Ultra High Voltage) lines. It is difficult but not impossible for PG&E to get that kind of power to Pacifica for a paying customer. It will also require an on-site substation etc.
Google is experimenting with floating barges in the Bay. The problem with that approach is you have to draw power and communications all the way to the barge. But real estate is free. See here: Google Barges .
There is another company called HavenCo which hosts part of its Data-centers in Sealand. See here HavenCo & Sealand .
It is true that those Data-centers cost a lot of money to build. But in today's world they are a necessity. And especially so for a place like SF Bay which thrives on technology. I know a number of companies in SF, San Jose and in between who pay pretty penny for Data-center space.
See here for a list: Data-centers in SF
I would imagine the renting space in Pacifica would be much cheaper than anywhere in SF.
Part of the reason why so many software start-ups are based in downtown SF is because of proximity to the DCs. The new trend in DCs is consolidation. Instead of every small to medium to not very large companies having their own independent DC, the trend is to build super massive DCs which can host multiple customers/companies.
Another trend is Amazon/Google/Micrsoft Cloud. Instead of customers bothering with IT infrastructure, they simply buy compute capacity on Amazon Cloud. See here Amazon Cloud . Instead of buying the IT setup and dealing with maintenance, uptime and depreciation, one can simply buy capacity on demand on Amazon and pay for only what they use.
My final point is being that Rockaway Quarry is zoned commercial and given its proximity to SF Bayarea and given the extent of flat terrain in the 80 acre lot -- I think this is a fantastic space for next generation of data-centers. And certainly a kind of venture that would bring premium employment and tax revenues to a city like Pacifica.
The DC doesn't have to be underground. It could very well be above ground. One could easily build a pretty efficient heat exchanger utilizing the cold ocean water to cool the DC. The heat from the DC can be used to warm the city water. Its worth a thought.
Very Large Enterprise IT Infrastructure is what I do for a living. And if the owners are anyway interested in this idea, I can help point them to interested parties. This is certainly a very expensive enterprise. But there are interested investors and companies who are very serious about this kind of business. See my handle for a quick intro to the players.
No one said that it wasn't the best engineering solution, but visual (as previously pointed out, twice) and cost issues both preclude it from being built. It's all really quite simple if you think it through! Next!
And another wrong. Some of those enviros support the overpass as the best solution.
The sooner Caltrans builds anything to get me down the coast through Pacifica without having to stop, the better. "Pacifica - it got an exit at both ends!"
Yes, widen the highway to get people through Pacifica and out the other end as fast as we can.
224 LMAO. Really don't care who opposes the overpass solution because their primary interest isn't solving the traffic congestion in the best and most effective way. They either want the road widened to enable development or they're some tree-hugging twirly. It's that simple. Visual, enviro, cost issues and all the rest are smoke-screens manufactured by people who see this project as a way to achieve a different agenda. It's simple. Don't settle for second best. Focus only on the problem and fix it. Actually fix the problem you claim to be concerned about. What a concept.
Roundabouts on a highway. Overpasses on a scenic highway along the ocean.
You guys are just full of bad ideas.
Why don't we try retiming the stop lights that were last done in 1983 first?
11:58 "Actually fix the problem you claim to be concerned about." Yeah. This. Widening won't. Eliminating the light at Vallemar will.
@1158-
You seem to excel at obnoxiously criticizing others and telling them what to do, yet you offer nothing in terms of ideas or solutions. Think you can hold back the arrogance just a bit?
410 High Five!
428 When all else fails, you choose to sound like a fortune cookie. Next!
@12:07-
Oh snap! Really? That's all you got? I see why you offer no ideas or solutions.
I used to live in Vallemar and other than the impact of Vallemar School, it's just one big cul-de-sac for local residents with no other exits. To build an overpass to relieve traffic congestion on Highway One in my opinion is just a waste of money. Any idea ever given to closing Vallemar School and relocating it elsewhere ? It doesn't seem to serve as a local elementary for Vallemar children anymore, but more of a charter school for all Pacifica kids. Perhaps a trade-off: build a nice new school somewhere else in Pacifica and use the surplus Vallemar parcel to build affordable senior housing that will likely have much less impact on local traffic than a school.
Even Caltrans identified grade separation as the best way to relieve traffic congestion. They then unilaterally dismissed the idea as too costly and too complicated due to right of way issues. Pro-development crowd goes wild! Safety becomes the theme. Problem goes unsolved. Welcome to Pathetica!
1131, core congestion convergence problem "solved" with the widening-- studied and FUNDED!
Moving the School (as suggested by Dan, 752) even better if the District has space available elsewhere.
Light timing improvement to follow, secondary but of course.
"core congestion convergence problem "solved" with the widening-- studied and FUNDED!" Not true on several levels. Not solved, not studied, not funded.
Nimby liar 936, here's the studied CalTrans Highway 1 widening, with current funding available. True, true, on "multiple levels".
For more articles and information: search this blog, "Highway widening". Or, try an internet search "Highway 1 widening, Pacifica, CA". If all else fails, contact the City, or a City Councilmember.
If you're part of the anti-highway crowd, you know there is a Highway 1 widening plan moving forward. Two (2) anti-Highway 1 widening lawsuits against the City, County, State already lost by your Gang; the Federal lawsuit is currently pending.
Highway 1, Calera Parkway convergent traffic congestion is real, and is not a new issue. Moving forward to fix the traffic congestion has been a 10+ year public process.
Then again, you may have been away from the City for about 12 years.
The Caltrans highway widening plan will not solve the congestion problem, all alternatives have not been studied (combinations of alternatives, ITS - Intelligent Traffic Systems, etc.), and it is not funded. The City Council has to pass a motion to request that the funding for the final design be allocated by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority. That hasn't happened yet. And it won't.
1122, as you may very well know, City Councils past brought the traffic congestion issue to the County, hence passed the necessary motions to move forward with the traffic congestion studies; also, they voted on the wide vs.narrow median design. Funding is currently available.
After the 3rd lawsuit is again defeated, and any additional "community" meetings are scheduled or not, City Council will vote-- hopefully to build it!
The "alternatives" you suggest have been considered by CalTrans studies, and have been eliminated as the needed core structural fix.
"The "alternatives" you suggest [combinations of alternatives, ITS - Intelligent Traffic Systems] have been considered by CalTrans studies, and have been eliminated" Nope.
136, "Nope", light timing was considered by Caltrans, listed among other "alternatives" in their reporting.
The "intelligent" timing system was considered (or also considered) in a City Council session a few years ago, but the vendor said it would not be the core solution for that part of Highway 1.
Highway 1 traffic congestion through Calera Parkway occurs because too many cars converge into, and disburse from that area. Traffic backup occurs mainly during peak traffic hours, in event of an emergency, an accident, etc.
Next time driving Highway 1 through that area, view it for yourself.
Intelligent Transportation Systems are a whole lot more than light timing. Never considered by City Council. See US Department of Transportation.
Q: What is ITS?
A: ITS improves transportation safety and mobility and enhances American productivity through the integration of advanced communications technologies into the transportation infrastructure and in vehicles. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) encompass a broad range of wireless and wire line communications-based information and electronics technologies. - See more at: http://www.its.dot.gov/faqs.htm#sthash.F6E4fpu0.dpuf
257, vehicle communications between cars. Oh that's nice. Some of us are waiting for the driverless car too. Quick link to your reference, here.
2:57, the city brought in a company called Rhythm Engineering to see if their InSync traffic management system would work on Highway 1. Rhythm Engineering concluded that it wouldn't work.
http://fixpacifica.blogspot.com/2013/08/about-this-traffic-signal.html
Technology changes fast and ITS is no exception. Whether or not the city acted with due diligence with InSync, it's time to take another look. Good faith examination of an intelligent alternative with minimal disruption and low cost vs CalTrans estimate haha of 55 Million and years of hellish detours for a second-rate "solution". Gosh, seems like a no brainer, but then again all I want out of the deal is improved traffic flow.
All you want is improved traffic flow? OK, let's look at what we have: Two lanes of traffic in each direction that get filled up during commute hours. But then we basically add a third lane's worth of traffic between Fassler and Sharp Park Road (or vice-versa in the evening) but we still have only two lanes to handle it. No wonder it backs up, but Rhythm said that their solution can't fix that there's just too much traffic for the road capacity. Maybe what we need to do is create a third lane in each direction between Fassler and Sharp Park Road? Oh, wait, that's what CalTrans is proposing. But do we have the funding to do it? We do? Great! Problem solved! Let's fix it!
126 Yes, yes, you want to widen the highway--perfectly clear. Wideners seem positive that widening is the only solution to traffic congestion or something. They need it to be so. Me? Not so much. I'd like to avoid the expense and pain of major surgery for mediocre results. Another look at evolving current ITS technology is warranted--current technology examined with due diligence and good faith. Due diligence and good faith. If that fails, then make that overpass real pretty, do it right and let's really fix the traffic congestion problem.
If someone (Caltrans) had a 60 year old idea for the widening, that hasn't changed one bit and was waiting for what they (Caltrans) described as the local political will to build their little toy road, wouldn't you be suspect that that idea hasn't evolved one bit in the last 60 years?
If you go through the various widening documentation at the Caltrans District 4 HQ (D4) you will see the thought process from the 1960's in a letter to a local resident declaring the road needs to be widened and specifically because the distance between Fasslar and Reina del Mar is too great a distance for any type of improvement beyond widening the road.
Fast forward to 1999 and you find a document signed by the current Director of D4 approving the widening as the answer.
Now, today, we are being asked to accept some cookie cutter idea from the 1960's, widening, as the answer to congestion relief when Caltrans own EIR states clearly a grade separation at Reina Del mar is the only way to get true lasting congestion relief.
But, and here's the punchline, the Wideners still want the road widened to allow for more development when a grade separation is the only way to ensure enough congestion relief for their dirty little petty developments for development sake fantascies.
The Wideners in town are a very small group of people. they do not represent the political will Caltrans needs to widened the highway. Unfortunately Caltrans is operated by people who can't learn to adapt their original 60 year old proposal. To quote from the movie BLADE RUNNER, specifically Roy, "TIME TO DIE".
In the 1960's, 2 plus 2 was equal to 4, cars had black rubber tires and windows were made of glass. Just because it's sixty years later doesn't mean that the answers have changed.
Adding lanes to the short section that causes the traffic jams every day is such an obvious solution, I don't understand why a very small group of people is fighting it. If there was an even easier solution, wouldn't it have been done by now?
1102 Spoken like a true Widener. Forgive me if I doubt your primary interest is better traffic flow, because it's not. That's as obvious as the connection between the Wideners and a tiny group of pro-development interests. Your behavior gives you away when you show no interest in CalTrans' best solution, ie, grade separation, and then refuse to explore today's ITS as a fix. You Wideners aren't about the traffic and never have been. Pacificans know that.
Hey 1102 a not so small group of people fighting your "solution" showed up at the polls just about a year ago to make their opposition heard. You don't listen. They'll be back to say it again, loud and clear.
11:02 A very large group of people are fighting this - and raising significant amounts of money to do so - because it's obvious to them that the widening solution is no solution at all. It creates new bottlenecks at either end of the widened section, the extreme congestion created during multiple years of construction will never be made up for, and the time saved when the widening is completed will be minimal and not worth the cost in both time lost and taxpayer money spent. Why is there opposition to trying other solutions at less than 1/100th the cost to see if they can make a difference in the congestion? Because the real objective isn't about reducing congestion, it's about expanding capacity of the highway. It's what Caltrans does.
Wrong, 1138. I've argued for a long time that grade separation is the ideal solution, but we just don't have the funds to pay for it. Pragmatism! Just like I want a Tesla S, but I can't afford it, so will settle for my Toyota to get me to work - which it does just fine. So the Toyota isn't my dream car, but it's better than something that breaks down just about every day, like Highway 1.
And 1143, it IS a small group of people being vocal about it. Elections are unpredictable things, particularly in an off-year. I agree, too, that it's a relatively small group arguing back, but that doesn't change the fact that most people just want the highway problem fixed.
Todd is trying soooo hard to be the next Curtis. He's getting close but you gotta admit that Curtis was the King of all bullshit and propaganda.
Describing people who want traffic relief as "Widners" who are only after increased development is just another example of the bullshit machine in action.
Don't fall for this. They are only seeing an xray of themselves in the mirror. The NOBIES, NIMBIES and "I GOT MINE's" are fooling no one. They have been using traffic as a means to choke the economic life out of Pacifica for decades.
They simply do not care about anyone but themselves and if they run out of funds for their campaign they just bring another lawsuit.
Sick bastards. Move to Bolinas would you? You'll fit right in.
Dear, 1:02 Widener, it's okay to be who you are. Being a Widener is just being old fashioned and there's nothing wrong in a person being old fashioned. But don't expect others to be old fashoined just because you and your Widener buddies are. Some folks have moved on and evolved. :)
Todd 211, doing nothing for 60 years to fix another known structural problem in this City?
Then, our city and regional Nimbies who work against such progress and common sense must be very evolved.
(Such enlightenment doesn't make those of us affected appreciate your thwarting efforts more.)
@Todd:
Pot kettle black? Do you likewise see yourself as a "Narrower"? C'mon Todd, admit it. You would narrow or eliminate Highway 1 if you could just to ensure people stayed away from your private little paradise. You know that's true. Any objective observer can see right through your misdirection. As a matter of fact, I bet every siren that sounds off on Highway 1 gives you the same tingle up your leg as does the cash register ringing to a small business person. If you would just be honest, with yourself and with us, that your only real concern is the possibility of any type of growth here in Pacifica. How fortunate for you and your cohorts that the original denizens of Pacifica weren't that selfish.
Send a little enlightenment over to CalTrans. They're the ones peddling you Wideners an outdated and inadequate solution which just happens to fit your true agenda. Now, that raises some intriguing questions about Caltrans and how it sustains its bureaucracy in the 21st century.
528 E for effort to you (well, in truth, more like a D-), but "Narrower" just doesn't have the same resonance as Widener. You know, no tingle.
@608 Kathy came up with Thwarter, but I still prefer plain old Obstructionist.
837 Yeah? And I prefer Widener. Gee, such sensitivity from the group that's been calling the anti-widening crowd (and it's a big crowd) nimby, nobee, gang of no, etc. By comparison "Widener" sounds almost poetic. Definitely descriptive. It's a keeper. Wear it with pride!
Post a Comment