Friday, March 10, 2017

Sabotage. These new 3 council members will do anything to avoid helping the AM and PM commutes...


 

item 11
full packet: page 373

1) The installation of additional In-Sync adaptive systems along Highway 1 at the intersections with Crespi Drive and Linda Mar Boulevard.  Vendor says system won’t work during AM and PM commute. Not installed. No experience data for at least months

2) The construction of pedestrian and bicycle over-crossings across Highway 1 and Reina Del Mar, Fassler Avenue and Crespi Drive.  No plan in place, no funding. Will not improve traffic flow. Get in line for funding, if ever

3) The introduction of an ordinance that will prohibit any formal Council action to support or approve the construction of additional through lanes along Highway 1 without first obtaining a majority voter approval of the Pacifica electorate to be debated mar 13.
 
Submitted by Mark Stechbart

38 comments:

Steve Sinai said...

The ordinance as proposed in #3 is slanted so that an "against" vote keeps the city council from supporting or approving of the highway widening, while a "for" vote doesn't obligate council to support and/or approve the widening. That's unfair and unbalanced, which is what you'd expect from an ordinance written by NIMBYS who look to game the system to get what they want. The ordinance needs to be fair to both sides rather than being written in a way that favors NIMBYS.

Alternatively, consider the vote as a referendum that advises council on what the community wants, but doesn't lock council into anything.

I don't have a problem with trying out In-Sync, as long as the NIMBYS don't drag the trial out endlessly if the results aren't what they hoped for. Six months, max.

Anonymous said...

Dragging out the process is the currency of the NOBY's. It is, always was and always will be their favorite trick to kill everything in Pacifica that is not on their pet project list.
Unethical is as unethical does.

Anonymous said...

pacifica commuters need hwy 1 fixed. What is council's complaint? Why can't they either say yes or get out of the way and let the county fix the road?

Larry said...

They have 3 votes right now. Why don't they just kill it on a vote. Why spend all the money on a vote that's rigged (just like they did to the election) and unfair. You better believe that they are up to no good. The conniving turds.

Anonymous said...

Funny that you would whine that, "The ordinance needs to be fair to both sides rather than being written in a way that favors NIMBYS". Especially when one considers that so many of the comments that challenge FP's uber liberal, anti conservative, anti Trump invective end up in FP's trash heap. So much for fairness...

Guess where this comment ends up.

Dan Murray said...

Am I missing something here? Highway 1 is a state highway that partially travels through Pacifica. Caltrans, therefore the State owns the highway as well as any left over right-of-way. If the projected widening is within the prescribed right of way, Pacifica residents and the City of Pacifica have no real voice in the matter even if the State exercises eminent domain to obtain any additional land needed.

Any proposal that requires voter approval for the highway work to proceed is just a feel good measure; it does not carry any real weight as to what Caltrans might eventually do.

Anonymous said...

Because if they vote now, it can be easily overturned. What they're doing is making it like the quarry, where they can lie about it every time it comes up, and have the chance of never having it fixed.

Steve Sinai said...

"...Especially when one considers that so many of the comments that challenge FP's uber liberal, anti conservative, anti Trump invective end up in FP's trash heap. So much for fairness..."

Sheesh. One day the blog is accused of being too right-wing, and the next day the blog is accused of being too left-wing.

Anonymous said...

This is Pacifica. Up is down, inside is out, left is right, right is wrong .......
just trust the NOBY's. They're smarter than everybody. Just ask them.

Anonymous said...

This is submitted by Mark Stechbart. I recall his 3 minutes when they discussed in-sync at Council, he said not only would the county deny the funds for in-sync, but that it would be an embarrassment to even ask. Well, we asked, and the county said, great idea, here you go! How can he pretend to have a clue on this topic after being so utterly wrong?

Kathy Meeh (memo to "utterly" stupid troll) said...

921, with regard to our Highway 1 congestion, I recall Mark Stechbart's Highway 1 comments at City Council being concise, valid and true.
Factually, light timing is a secondary improvement.

Widening is the solution for our traffic overload through Vallemar-Rockaway.
Of course, CalTrans professionals have researched and studied this over a decade-- and, the flow of traffic in that area is observable as well.

Johnny Fair Play said...

If there is going to be a public vote on the highway widening then why not a public vote on rent control?

Monday Morning Quarterback said...

All I read here is whining and crying. The city council caters to the Gang of No. The election was rigged by Deidre.

Why don't some of you crybabies get off your asses and run for city council.

Kathy Meeh (tricks are not zen) said...

733, having enough progress candidates running for City Council is seldom (if ever) the issue. Whereas too many progress candidates running for office (diluting the vote results) sometime is.
In this City, the frequent tactics advanced by the organized Gang of No/NIMBIES in elections (and sometimes outside elections) is a lying and cheating, "ends justifies the means" strategy.

Anonymous said...

@5:59- No one in their right mind would ever accuse you and Kathy of being right wing, or even centrist, for that matter. Your trash/spam folder and your endless hit piece postings on our President and half of the population that voted for him makes my point.

BTW, show me one posting of yours and Kathy's that proves me wrong. Can't find any, can you? That's because in the many years FP has been online, there hasn't been a single one. And who are you kidding with your "no party preference" voter registration B.S, anyway? Really, exactly when since Obama became president have you ever supported a right wing/conservative/republican issue or candidate? At least have the courage and integrity to call yourself what you truly are - a liberal Democrat. At least Kathy isn't trying to fool anyone - just silence them.

Even though FP will no doubt delete this comment, as they do to so many that expose their flagrant political hypocrisy, at least I know they've read it.

Anonymous said...

With a majority on council, the No-Nothings could flat-out kill the highway widening project at their next meeting by putting the project funding request up for a vote and denying it. Boom. Done.

They aren't doing this because they want to draw upon that pool of funding for their half-assed 'solutions' and have the county pay for their harebrained traffic management ideas. If they voted the project down, the city would have to come up with its own money for these hallucinations.

I would have no problem if the city directed Caltrans to come back with a much smaller widening project, but it's the height of hubris for this city council to play Pretend Traffic Engineer and to direct Caltrans on what to build and where!

And Steve, you missed a step in your analysis: Not only does a "for" vote not obligate the council to move forward with a project, but before a vote can even happen council would vote to allow it on the ballot. In other words, even if 90% of Pacifica wanted the highway widened, council can choose not to place it on the ballot. And if it passes, they can choose not to request subsequent funding, etc., etc.



Kathy Meeh (bla, bla, bla) said...

9:41, from all indications President Trump is an alpha predator (self interested) psychopath, which (except as this City and our people are affected) is irrelevant to needed economic, civic, and social solutions for this City.

And your stated Trump vote data is somewhat incorrect, especially for our State and Region. Trump vote: Nationally 46.1%, California 31.6%, San Mateo County 18.4%.
Therefore in San Mateo County, 81.60% did NOT vote for Trump. (Next time try Google first.)

Fix Pacifica (the blog name and title) was offered and ascribed by Steve Sinai. Great title, righteous quest! Solutions exist for the entire community.
Steve is generally more willing to listen to nonsense views (which fall outside reason and are off topic and irrelevant). Whereas I'd prefer to spam factless, feckless comments,(and would require comments posted with real names).

Not sure what your view or version of centrism (or pretend centrism) is, but I suspect Steve's general political views are center-left (similar to mine). He would better describe that if he wished (my observation, it seems obvious).
Nationally and regionally, many NIMBIES may vote for similar candidates and similar issues.

Other than that distraction, do you have thoughts, opinion, ideas about traffic congestion solutions for this City? You know, Fix Pacifica-- rather than pounding YOUR ongoing "hypocritical" (your word) blather.

Steve Sinai said...

How does everything on this blog turn into an argument about Trump?

Anonymous said...

My comment with the link to steckbart speaking at the city council didn't appear. It was made around 11:30 today. Please post it, it is purely factual, and your readers deserve to know the truth.

Anonymous said...

anyone on council worry about our commute? Will they really support permanent gridlock? Does council truly believe a totally plugged stretch of our only access road every night, every morning and all weekend on nice summer days is good for Pacifica?

Steve Sinai said...

4:43, I'm not seeing anything in the "Awaiting Moderation" or "Spam" folders.

Anonymous said...

Same reason all things end up about Deirdre Martin and her NOBY puppet masters.
He's a liar.
He conned the electorate.
His handlers enabled him and helped create plausible deniability.
Democracy was wounded.
His dishonesty and actions will lead to a catastrophic collapse.
That's why.

Steve Sinai said...

5:19, this blog is Fix Pacifica, and Martin is local. It's reasonable to talk about her. There are plenty of other places to argue about national politics.

Larry said...

Do the math someday. Earning opportunity lost times time spent in traffic. Now I would posit that earning opportunity lost applies to leisure time, or time with kids as well as work. 15 minute average delay per morning times your hourly earnings potential per year. Do your own math. 1.25 hours per week times the number of weeks you work. I'm not counting evening commute.
Keener is satisfying a campaign promise and enhancing it with future council and community deadlock. A bonus for him and his minions. He's a cancer in this town and needs to be excised.

Anonymous said...

Kathy Meeh said, "I recall Mark Stechbart's Highway 1 comments at City Council being concise, valid and true."

Here are Steckbart's relevant comments:

"I don't think the TA is going to pay for this, I think even to ask the TA for this money will be slightly embarrassing, because it's out of the purview of how this works."

We asked the TA (Transportation Authority) for the money, they said sure, here you go, fully funded! No embarrassment at all.

Watch for yourself, at the 1:43 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_f--X-y_vc&list=PLFUunuheJ0ZU25IaKfa31mnHMxGy_V4Ob&index=4&t=6366s

Anonymous said...

Earning opportunity lost times time spent in traffic.

The "gang of no" doesn't care. Most of them don't work. Except the ones who draw a couple crappy paintings, sing a crappy song, or live off the taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Stechbart wrote this in red on item #1, and it is patently false:

"Vendor says system won’t work during AM and PM commute."

Here is what the vendor actually said at the 1/23/17 council meeting (taken verbatim from powerpoint infographic at 1:10 mark):

"On hwy 1 In/Sync can:

Reduce delay and overall queuing during peak periods.

Delay the onset of congestion and clear it more quickly.

Move traffic MUCH more quickly during off-peak times."

Also Stechbart says that pedestrian overpasses "Will not improve traffic flow".

Also not true, overpasses allow the lights to be timed optimally for traffic flow, because they don't need to allow extra time for slower pedestrians to cross the highway. The In/Sync system would best take advantage of this fact.

One more point to keep in mind, In/Sync guarantees expected results or they give a full refund. And the expected results are about 1/2 of the traffic relief of the of highway widening best case scenario, at about 1/100th the cost, and with almost no traffic disruption during installation.

Anonymous said...

light timing the fake solution. Wasted tax money. Fake "facts" from the Gang of No. Pedestrian overpass denied by county. Pacifica has no plan stan.

1. City staff report 1-23-2017 mtg item 5 :
file:///C:/Users/mstec/Downloads/Snapshot-6797.pdf (top of page 2)
Rhythm Engineering, however, notes that In-Sync is not the solution to the peak-hour traffic along Highway 1

2. Insync testimony on camera at Council 1-23-2017: time mark 1:09 to 1:10:19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_f--X-y_vc&list=PLFUunuheJ0ZU25IaKfa31mnHMxGy_V4Ob&index=2
Adaptive technology not going to solve peak hour congestion… volume over –capacity no system can fix.

3. TA Project eir: timing won’t work.
http://www.smcta.com/Assets/SMCTA/Projects/Calera-Parkway/Hwy-1-Calera_Public_Info_Mtg_6-22-10_v15_web.pdf concept H, page 37.
===================================================================

Anonymous said...

9:26 cherry picking, and intentionally misleading.

Yes, the in/sync guy did say that their system won't "solve" peak traffic, but the powerpoint slide up at that very moment said it would "Reduce delay and overall queuing during peak periods, delay the onset of congestion and clear it more quickly." In other words, they would make gridlock last for a much shorter period of time, making the traffic jam shorter, for instance, extending to Fassler in the morning, rather than all the way to Crespi. And this can be accomplished in months rather than years. No wonder the TA was so eager to approve the funding!

Steve Sinai said...

"And the expected results are about 1/2 of the traffic relief of the of highway widening best case scenario..."

I'm curious about where the above figure came from.

In the presentation, the guy from InSync said their system would improve traffic during peak periods anywhere from 10%-20%. According to Table S-1 (page xiii) of the final Calera Project EIR, widening was expected to reduce delays by 65% during peak periods in the year 2035. Since traffic only gets worse as time goes by, that suggests widening improvements would reduce delays even more in the years before that. So at the absolute best, InSync would only be a 30% improvement over highway widening. It's likely much less. That's not effective enough for me.

Still, with the money back guarantee from InSync it doesn't hurt to give it a try as long as the trial period doesn't drag on as part of a delay, delay, delay strategy. The InSync rep said if there isn't a satisfactory improvement within three months, the city could ask for our money back.

Anonymous said...

light timing is Trumpian fake facts. Insync guarantee does not cover oversaturation = commute. Read the contract gang. Whatever benefit might exist around commute has no definition. Is benefit 10 minutes, 1 min or 30 seconds. I would love to sell you guys some swamp land. Can you imagine the Gang of No admitting they were wrong about light timing and asking for the money back when all their minions on this blog have already declared victory?

Steve Sinai said...

"Can you imagine the Gang of No admitting they were wrong about light timing and asking for the money back when all their minions on this blog have already declared victory?"

That thought had occurred to me. The results of the trial and the decision as to whether to ask for a refund need to be released to the public so that the council is held accountable. I normally would say a quantifiable improvement goal would need to be achieved, but won't because the NIMBY majority on council will set a very low bar.

Steve Sinai said...

"Insync guarantee does not cover oversaturation = commute. Read the contract gang. Whatever benefit might exist around commute has no definition."

Is there a copy of the contract posted online?

Bob the BS caller said...

Alternative truths. During the council meeting Van Ocampo, while he was reading the staff report, I believe said that it would save 6 seconds during commute. If the company guarantees 6 second reductions while at the same time saying it won't result in reduction of traffic at commute, then what do they guarantee, 6 seconds? Is that 6 in the morning and 6 at nite per week or per day? Seems we have some experts in contract law that should be able to answer that.

Anonymous said...

all fine print contract words in staff report for mar 13 meeting. Seems terms, times and definitions would be in clear english so us poor taxpayers can figure out what council just bought us that is sooo good for us. Have fun.

Steve Sinai said...

I read the contract. A real cure for insomnia. On the other hand, I'm very interested in seeing how the system does.

As I was reading the boilerplate severability clause, I was reminded of how some of the self-imagined Matlocks opposed to quarry development were saying the boilerplate severability clause in the developer's agreement with the city meant the developer could ignore parts of the contract if he wished. I wonder if the NIMBYS will make the same claim with this contract?

Anyway, from what I can tell, once the system is set up there's a three-month trial run. The money-back guarantee condition is very vague. There are no numbers in it at all with regards to what determines success. It's basically, "If you don't think our system has improved traffic conditions, we'll refund your money." So does that mean that a 1% improvement in traffic lets InSync keep the money and the NIMBYS declare our traffic problems are solved?

craig roark said...

I find it a scalp scratcher that the city won't assign kids in certain neighborhoods to attend the nearest school of their residence. Why are kids in Linda Mar attending Vallemar School? Shouldn't they be going to Cabrillo or Ortega? It seems that every parent drives their kid to school nowadays which creates more backup. How about getting fellow classmates parents having a car pool for those living close in the residence. I guess that might make too much sense so why do it!

Anonymous said...

craig, it's not the city government that decides who goes where. Talk to the school district about this. Different governmental system.