Comments by Leonard Woren

Albertsons closing in HMB

I’m sure that if Albertson’s isn’t replaced by another market that Safeway will accomodate all right—by raising prices to even more ridiculous levels.

Any item that is carried by both Target and Safeway is nearly double Target’s price at Safeway.

Coastside fireworks cancelled

A major part of the expense for Light Up the Sky Fourth of July is permits for closing SR 1 and especially for law enforcement to deal with doing so.  My understanding is that almost half of the budget goes to these items.

Could someone from the organization post a followup comment here with your full line-by-line budget?  Thanks.

The claim is that the highway has to be closed for safety reasons.  Of course, nobody cares about the huge mess this creates in El Granada, particularly when the fireworks are over and traffic is at a standstill for an hour afterwards.  One year, 911 was called to attend to a local resident, and the medical personnel who came from the fire station a block away had great difficulty getting there due to the totally jammed traffic.  Drivers had no place to go to get out of the way of the fire engine.  They literally could have walked to the location faster than they were able to drive there.

When the signal at Coronado was being considered, some people insisted that it was necessary in order to provide safe crossing for pedestrians.  So I have to ask, why is it still necessary to close the highway for fireworks?  How many of the Light Up the Sky Fourth of July decisionmakers live in El Granada?  Seriously—this is not a rhetorical question; I want to know.

I propose that they discontinue closing the highway and save that money.  If they only have to raise half as much money for the event, it would be a lot easier to do so.

Video:  Tour Devil’s Slide and repairs with Caltrans geologist

This video is not only way beyond anything that any other newspaper can or will do, but it’s also beyond and much better than anything that TV news seems willing to do.  Overall, TV news and all other media seem to have lost interest.  I’ll echo Kevin’s thanks.

But you guys didn’t get a ride down in the tethered work platform… THAT would have been an unbeatable video.  (There probably isn’t enough money in the world to pay me to do that.)

But the reporter (Barry) should have done a “60 minutes” style challenge of the geologist’s statement that there is nothing to anchor a bridge to.  (Sure there is—if CalTrans was willing to build a 250’ free-span bridge.) Overall, still top notch coverage of the whole miserable situation.

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

Hey, Ken, regarding your quoting George Muteff and your response (in the middle of the second to last paragraph), see the end of my May 24, 10:00 am comment above!  Of course, the Foothill proponents haven’t responded to it.

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

What would be the annualized maintenance costs for Foothill/Bayview?  Who would pay?  These would not be State-maintained highways, and as they would be completely within the City of Half Moon Bay, HMB would have to pay for the maintenance.  If they attract off a significant fraction of the existing SR 1 traffic, they’ll get pretty beat up and require a lot of maintenance.  Where will this money come from?

Ray’s non-answer notwithstanding, I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions above:  what roads do we need “for the current population” and then by extrapolation (multiply by 2) for the buildout population?  How can people push for more more more roads without being willing to say what’s enough?  Maybe enough is never enough for some people.

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

After reading the last few comments in this thread, it seems to me that we need to either approach this disagreement from a different angle or abandon it and close out this thread.

My first thought is that many, if not most of the people who moved to the Coastside moved here because they liked what they saw.  That’s why so many work so hard to keep it that way.  So one question that I would put out is “Why move to someplace and then gripe about the way it is?” If you think that SR 92 is too curvy, or SR 1 through Devil’s Slide too dangerous, or all of the roads overcrowded/inadequate, why did you move here?  (If you don’t like the foghorn, don’t move here and then try to get it muted.  That actually happened in the mid-90s.  The effort failed because a large number of people appeared and insisted that the foghorn be kept as was before the newbie complained.  Check the Review’s archives for that story.)

My next question to try to focus the discussion would be to the “we need bigger roads for the people who are here now” group:  Please describe precisely what size SR 1, SR 92, Foothill, Bayview, whatever, that you believe is required for the people who are here now.  After that, then please explain precisely what size SR 1, SR 92, Foothill, Bayview, whatever, that you believe will be required for *double* the current population.

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

Apparently many people in the Terrace subdivision blame Mike F for the signal and voted against him because of that.  I can’t wait to see what the current councilmembers do about the traffic signal.  I’m betting that they do nothing to eliminate it.

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

George Muteff continues to repeat the fundamentally flawed idea that more development should be allowed in order to fund/build infrastructure to serve those already here.  The problem with that idea is that when such infrastructure is built, all of its capacity will be used up by the latent demand of those already here, and then when the new development which funded it is online, there will be a call to allow more new development in order to fund more infrastructure needed to serve the last round of development.  And so on, forever.  Personally, I believe this is actually an intentional scheme.

George also repeats the other red herring, that Measure D limits growth.  *It does no such thing*.  It only limits how fast we get to the train wreck.  Rate controls and limit controls are two totally different things.  The major problem is the limit.  Rate controls exist only in an attempt to allow the community to absorb and provide for the growth.  If we don’t bring the targets down drastically both in the City and the unincorporated area, this place will be completely unliveable at “buildout”.

George writes “Both firms independently came in with estimates under $10 million for a two-lane road between Foothill/92 and Bayview/1, with [...] a traffic signal at both ends.”

Ah yes, more traffic signals.  Please explain how putting another signal on SR 92 will improve the flow of traffic on SR 92.  This will negatively affect everyone using SR 92 through 92/Main.  Maybe I shouldn’t care, since it’ll improve things for me at the expense of those south of Bayview.  The same people who are objecting to CalTrans eliminating the “free right turn” from NB SR 1 to EB SR 92 should really be screaming against a signal at Foothill / SR 92.

George claims that some contractors say it can be built for $10M.  Even if that’s true, where exactly would that $10M come from?  That’s the profit from 20 of those houses.

“It is possible that the residents of HMB won’t be obligated for any of the cost.”

Anything’s possible.  What’s likely?

Opinion: Fear of Foothill

Please show me where I said “cavalier.”

Caltrans gives HMB a chance to discuss traffic light

Kathryn - I think that the temporary lane closures at Capistrano are counterproductive.  I understand that they were an attempt to keep drivers from cutting through Princeton to save a few minutes.  I don’t see how the lane closures accomplish that, but by eliminating what traffic engineers call “storage” at the signalized intersection, it’s easy to see that it greatly increases the congestion at that intersection, making it just as bad as the badly-implemented Frenchman’s Creek and Coronado signals.  I suggest that what needs to be done is to remove the temporary lane closures, put up a “no right turn on red” sign for turning right out of Princeton onto SB SR 1, and possibly tweak the signal timing to make it proportional to the demand which is probably 90% from M/MB.  That said, this will just move the problem to Coronado.

Brian - “fast” and “government” are incompatible concepts.  But good catch on the fact that only the tunnel construction traffic can fit past the cranes…

If CalTrans is truly working 24x7 on the repairs (does anyone believe that???), then they could take breaks and allow northbound traffic from 6:30-8:30 am and southbound traffic from 4:30-6:30 pm, only losing 16% of the day, and maybe not even that if some of the work can be done with traffic flowing in one lane.  Since congestion as a function of traffic level is a hyperbolic curve, switching a relatively small fraction of the traffic from 1/92 to 1 through the slide area would result in a drastic improvement to the 1/92 situation.  Similarly for the evening commute.

Caltrans gives HMB a chance to discuss traffic light

I’ve made it pretty clear that I think that most proposed new traffic signals on the Coastside are unnecessary because the problems can be solved via alternative means.  I think that, as is typical of CalTrans, this signal is overkill.  Why not just change the “merge” sign back to a “yield” sign, as it was before the 1995 closure?  And then enforce that as strictly as a red light would be enforced?  Would you try to claim that CalTrans needs a CDP to change that sign?  I think the real issue here is who lives south of 92.  As in influence.

(BTW, Kevin, what “appropriate conditions” do you think HMB can or should impose on this signal?)

Those of us in El Granada and points north will remember this when the HMB CC attempts to resume littering the northern portion of the city with unnecessary traffic signals.

Caltrans gives HMB a chance to discuss traffic light

“And I believe El Granada is considered part of HMB so El Granada Elem. is in HMB too.”

Unbelievable.  That’s worse than HMB’s police chief saying that the Sheriff’s substation is in Montara or a senior County staffer saying that Seton Coastside is in El Granada.

As to Kevin Lansing’s comment and Brian Dante’s reply, Brian got it right—the timing of the signals should allow traffic flow strictly by the percentage of the direction of traffic.  If 1/3 of the traffic trying to go east on SR 92 is northbound, then 1/3 of the time the signal should allow only the right turns from SR 1 to SR 92, and 2/3 of the time the signal should allow only the left turns from southbound SR 1 to SR 92.  Nothing else is reasonable or appropriate.  It’s arrogant of the people south of SR 92 to think otherwise.  It’s arrogant of the City Council to think that their opinion on this is relevant.  When SR 1 past the slide is open, we’re going to install a toll booth and anyone who lives in HMB will have to pay.  Think that’s silly?  It’s NO MORE silly than HMB thinking that they should have a say in tilting the service level at 92/1 to disproportionately favor those south of 92.

During the 1995 closure, when the 92/1 intersection was sabotaged by changing the “yield” to “merge” at the end of the NB to EB transition, I routinely went down to Kelly and made a U because it saved 5 minutes.  If HMB blocks the new signal on the NB-EB transition and then tries to limit such U-turns at Kelly, I can and will suggest a number of other workarounds for SB traffic to approach 92/1 from the south, all of which will congest HMB further but will still result in improved travel times from the northern communities.

HMB Review waves its petard about, with predictable results

So the Review wrote “One more thing: We promise to apply the same journalistic standards to our work on the Web that readers have become accustomed to in our news pages over our long history. Just as we don’t rush things into print, we will do our best to assure that what you read on our Web site is accurate.”

I, for one, think that’s hilarious.  Yep, I have no doubt that they will apply the same “journalistic standards”.  That’s the problem.

Although, once again, my disclaimer is that I firmly believe the problem isn’t the reporters, may or may not be the editor, but the publisher is definitely the problem.

Caltrans will be at HMB City Council tonight

As a follow-on to Tim’s funny-but-true comment, I’d like to remind people that when the SR 92 uphill passing lane construction was basically complete, CalTrans kept the “construction zone” signs up for many many more months, going out for a couple of hours a week to piddle around just so that they could say it wasn’t yet finished.  We drove past blocked-off lanes for *months* waiting for CalTrans to run out of excuses.

That said, I’m sure that lawsuits filed by a certain pro-bypass person trying to stop the tunnel just might have caused some of the delay.

Opinion:  Foothill Bypass, Part II: A legal (and literal) quagmire

Tim, please reread my earlier comment.  I was referring to SR 92 east of town as a country road.  SR 1 is not quite the same through the communities, although it is pretty much a country road between communities.  Not that there’s much left of “between” at this point.

Opinion:  Foothill Bypass, Part II: A legal (and literal) quagmire

Tim - you attack those you call “no-growthers” and you complain there are no bike lanes / pedestrian areas on SR 1.  I guess that you would be surprised that all of the people I know whom you would consider “no-growthers” support and have been pushing for many years for implementation of the parallel trail to support pedestrians and bicyclists next to SR 1 but a safe distance away from the cars.  HMB (under Mike!) has started to move on this.  In the unincorporated Midcoast, the County has yet to even indicate that they understand the request.  They have no plans that I can think of to implement anything.  Nor does CalTrans.  Could someone tell the California Department of TRANSPORTATION ("CalTrans") that “Transportation” isn’t exclusively motorized vehicles?

With a 150’ wide right of way for SR 1 currently occupied by a 42’ wide road through most of the Coastside, the parallel trail could be 12’ wide and 75’ away from the existing vehicle road.  There are some difficult spots but they could be handled with some imagination and flexibility.  But imagination and flexibility aren’t in CalTrans’ repertoire.

Text below copied from the certified County LCP:

2.56 Improvements for Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails

a. Require, if funds are available, that CalTrans provide adjacent or separate facilities for bicycle and pedestrian trails in accordance with the policies of the Recreation and Visitor-Serving Facilities Component and the County Bikeways Plan. If a tunnel is constructed behind Devil’s Slide, require as part of the project that CalTrans construct a bicycle and pedestrian trail outside the tunnel.

b. Require, as a minimum, that CalTrans provide adequate right-of-way on new or expanded roadways to allow the future development of bicycle and pedestrian trails in accordance with the policies of the Recreation and Visitor-Servicing Facilities Component and the County Bikeways Plan.

Opinion:  Foothill Bypass, Part II: A legal (and literal) quagmire

Ray, you refer to “4 lanes to allow for right/left turn bays.” If you’re specifically intending this to mean that there would still be only one through lane in each direction, then I could certainly get behind that.  If you intend this to mean more than one through lane, then I (and MANY others) remain opposed.  Please clarify.  When most of us hear “4 lanes all the way through Montara”, we think of El Camino in Redwood City, which is mostly a nominally 4 lane street PLUS turn lanes, so it’s actually mostly 6 lanes wide.  That’s just unacceptable here.

CalTrans’ standard is that a lane is 14” wide.  Including the shoulders, the current SR 1 in El Granada is 42-43” wide.  That’s roughly 2*14+2*7.  (I went out with a tape measure once in the middle of the night in ~1996.) All that’s really needed is a proper left turn in a lot of places, which would make it 3*14+2*7=56.  If that’s all you are pushing for, I’d guess that a lot of people would support it.  If you are pushing for 4*14+2*7 or 5*14+2*7, many many people will continue to oppose it.

If you look at the improved SR 1 in Montara, it’s mostly 3 lanes, with some right turn pockets.  It seems to me that it works well enough, and is all we really need in most parts of the Coastside.  Except in the improved section of SR1 in Montara, virtually all of the center merge lanes are grossly inadequate.  THAT’s why they’re dangerous.  If Coronado had had a proper northbound -> eastbound turn lane and a proper westbound -> southbound merge lane, the signal there would have been unnecessary.  Same for Frenchman’s Creek, Medio, Mirada, etc.  Probably the same for Filbert and Poplar except that the right turn lanes there are better.  But even though the highway pavement is wider in the Filbert/Poplar area, there are no usable merge lanes for turning left out onto the highway.  Fix that and the demand for a signal should greatly diminish.  And fixing that would be must faster and cheaper than a signal, particularly because it needs to be fixed anyway as part of installing the signal.  So fix it FIRST and THEN evaluate the need for a signal.

As to SR 92 east of downtown, I’d support useful shoulders and a center turn/merge lane.  Again, that would make it 3*14+2*7=56 feet, compared to the current 2*12+2+2=26 (I’m guessing on that, I’m not going to go measure it.) But 5*14+2*7=84 feet is just ridiculous for a scenic country road.

Opinion:  Foothill Bypass, Part II: A legal (and literal) quagmire

Some people try to claim that the 1% (City) and 3% (County) growth RATE limits will keep the Coastside from being overdeveloped, and therefore we can max out the infrastructure now.  That’s a red herring argument.  All the RATE limits do is delay the train wreck.  Unless the buildout targets are brought down, all the proposed infrastructure expansions will be eaten up by new development, and in a few decades there will be people demanding that the roads be widened to 8 lanes.

Most of Southern California has no buildout limits.  That’s why there are 12 lane freeways which are totally jammed, and 14 lane intersections (98th & Sepulveda at LAX) which are totally jammed.

Mike McCall wrote “I’ll listen any plan.  With the exception of a four-lane HWY 1 going through/past Montara!”

So are you saying that it’s ok to have a four-lane SR 1 going through El Granada?  If so, why is that ok, but not through Montara?

Dan Blick wrote: “Are we going to keep trying to jam 10 lbs of stuff into a 5 lb bag [...]”.  No, the overdevelopers are trying to make it into a 10 lb bag so that they can try to stuff 20 lbs in.

Opinion:  Foothill Bypass, Part II: A legal (and literal) quagmire

One of the things that I find most amusing about CCF’s proposal is that Cypress Cove objected to the possibility of traffic on Stone Pine from the new city park, yet CCF is proposing something that will likely dump much more traffic onto Stone Pine than the park possibly could.  This could get interesting.  Actually, I think I know where this is headed:  CCF snookers enough people into supporting their Bayview/Foothill “solution” which includes an underpass connection to Stone Pine, then the Cypress Cove people block that, and we end up with a stoplight on SR 92.  The really funny thing about that is that it would benefit Midcoast people at the expense of those who live south of Bayview and continue to use SR 92.  A traffic signal on SR 92 east of Main would be a DISASTER.  Want proof?  Block off Main completely at SR 92 and turn off the signal and see how much better evening traffic moves.  Not that I expect this will ever be tested.  (Why won’t it be tested?  “Never ask a question that you don’t really want to know the answer to.")

Charlie Gardner admits that Bayview/Foothill won’t solve the problem “but will go a long way to help.” How’s that exactly?  *Moving* a bottleneck doesn’t solve anything.  But of course if the bottleneck is moved, then there will be calls to increase the size of the next segment.  And so on and so on.  Years ago, Dennis Coleman wrote “The baloney is sold one slice at a time.”

If one accepts the BS that we’ve “50% built-out now”, and if we *double* all the existing road capacity just “to serve the people who already here”, what happens when we get to 100% buildout?  Does that mean that certain people will be demanding 8 lanes for SR 1 and SR 92?  The problem is that unless/until the buildout numbers are brought down, there isn’t much point in expanding infrastructure because the expansion will be totally eaten up by more growth.  The claim that a 1% (HMB) or a 3% (County) growth RATE limit solves the problem is a complete red herring.  As was stated at a County LCP Update hearing on the growth rate, “We’re headed towards a train wreck and I don’t see any reason to speed towards it.” Unless the target is revised downward, no rate limit can avoid the train wreck.

More to follow… I think I’ve hit some length problem since part of my comment just disappeared.

Media examine Coastside life without Devil’s Slide

The MMDA was probably killed before I moved here in 1994, so I know little about it other than the basic concept and I can’t add anything further other than I believe it was to be a permanent fix for having the highway on the ocean side of the mountain very close to where it is now.  Now that the tunnel construction has started, this possibility is lost forever.

As to whether it’s a long term project, an engineer will have to comment on that.  I’d guess that it could be completed in a small fraction of the time that it will take to build the tunnels.  The earthmoving to remove the slide and carve a new shelf on solid ground for a short distance might be less than the amount which will be moved to build the tunnels.  In fact, how much did they already move at the southern approach?  It’s probably comparable.  There must be some old reports which give numbers regarding the MMDA.

Regardless, I remain convinced that engineering has little to do with the decisions regarding Hwy 1 between Montara and Pacifica—it’s mostly politics.

Page 12 of 15 pages « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 >  Last »