Thursday, July 2, 2015

Highway 1 widening community conversation

Community conversation, right.  Nice idea, but why bother?

Pacifica Tribune/Lorie D. Tinfow, 6/30/15. "The start of community conversation about Highway 1 improvements."

Image result for NIMBYS against highway improvement picture
Fix the congestion is easy enough.
Other cities modernize highways
through their cities, so should we.
Image result for highway 1 widening, Pacifica, CA  picture
"Home again, home again."
Daily Highway 1 congestion.
".... ...  I have certainly been aware of the need to launch a community engagement process but action had been delayed pending the resolution of a lawsuit filed in mid-2013 that challenged the project's environmental process.

.... ...  What seems not to be in dispute is that vehicle congestion exists at peak morning and evening times along that particular stretch of the highway. I say "not disputed" in part because traffic congestion is documented in the City's 1980 General Plan and the need for improvements to address it is included in the Measure A San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan that was passed by voters in November 1988.
.... ... There have been three governmental agencies involved--Highway 1 belongs to the State of California (CalTrans), the funding for improvements would come from San Mateo County Transportation Authority, and, of course, the

impact report (FEIR) was completed. In it, eleven project options were evaluated based on criteria including each one's ability to address the expected congestion levels through 2035; its impact on wetlands, safety, business and bicycle access; and total cost including whether there would be ongoing operational costs."  Read more.

Image result for against highway 1, Pacifica, CA picture
"Our way, or the Highway."
Continued suing, a conversation?
Of course it is, our (nimby) way.
Image result for not agreeing picture
35 years of planning highway 1
improvement, no action, over yet?
Reference - CA Department of Transportation, District 4.  "Project Location:  IN SAN MATEO COUNTY IN PACIFICA ON ROUTE 1 FROM SOUTH OF FASSLER AVENUE (PM 41.7) TO NORTH OF REINA DEL MAR AVE (PM 43.0).  Scope:  Provide operational improvement by adding one lane in each direction.  Purpose & Needs:  Improve traffic operations, decrease traffic congestion and delay, and improve peak-period travel time.  Project Description: The project proposes to widen State Route 1 (SR 1) from four lanes to six lanes (three through-lanes in each travel direction) in the City of Pacifica, County of San Mateo, California. The portion of SR 1 proposed for widening extends from approximately 1,500 feet south of Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue to approximately 2,300 feet north of Reina Del Mar Avenue, a distance of 1.3 miles. The project includes improvements to the two intersections within the proposed project limits."
Related article - Pacifica Tribune/Jane Northrop, Staff Wrioter, 3/17/15. "Tentative decision reached in CEQA highway widening case." "San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Marie Weiner tentatively denied the claims in the CEQA lawsuit brought by Pacificans for a Scenic Coast about the proposed widening of Highway 1."

Note Photographs. Daily highway congestion at Rockaway by Horace Hinshaw from the related Pacifica Triobune article. Blocked brain smiley face from SodaHead opinions.  Highway construction by Lara Cooper from Noozhawk/Santa Barbara, CA. The conversation.. sue again from Pacifica Riptide. 

Posted by Kathy Meeh

6 comments: said...

"Community conversation, right. Nice idea, but why bother?" - Kathy Meeh

H Kathy,

I believe City Council mandated it in their spring 2015 goal-setting:

Item #5 of video below:
"*5. Community engagement process related to Highway 1 widening project"

First slide:

Steve Sinai said...

We've been talking about Highway 1 for years. Make a damn decision, already. said...

@Steve Sinai ...and collecting fees related to it for years, also.

Tom Clifford said...

Pacifica City, is just touching the surface of a real problem for the City.
the State put a five year time limit on the fund collected to be used for the stated goal or the money must be returned to those entity's that it was collect from. What the City can spend the money on is clearly stated in the municipal code. As each five year deadlines came up the City spent the money on various projects, most having nothing to do with the Highway. Someone has some explaining to do and the State takes a dim view of Cities that don't follow the rules.

Anonymous said...

The plot thickens. Thanks, Tom Clifford.

Sharon said...

@steve sinai I'm with you. My neighborhood is flooded with HWY 1 overflow and snake parkers all the time making it difficult to even get out of the driveway. I am not anxious to have a giant construction project next door but I wish something productive would get done to alleviate the situation.