Caltrans gives HMB a chance to discuss traffic light

What the heck is wrong with trying them out and seeing if they help, just like Mr. Moghbel said at the council meeting?

So the HMB folks have succeeded in intimidating Caltrans or misrepresenting that they have a weightier say or a majority opinion. Mr. Moghbel specifically stated that the lights would be turned on in a matter of days once the flashing yellow software updates were complete. So now they reversed course - Councilman Gorn and Mr. Lansing must be happy.

Starting immediately and until such time as HMB officials start displaying a more inclusive attitude towards this common resource, I think the rest of the coastal communities should boycott local HMB businesses.

Brian Dantes El Granada

I think it interesting to note that the separate right turn lane at that intersection was actually introduced during the LAST slide closure specifically with the intent of moving HMB traffic (read Ocean Colony) onto 92 faster. Then mayor Naomi said that her constituency was HMB and if the mid-coasters didn’t like it, they should petition for annexation so we could vote for the city council too.

Add to that the city’s position on the Beach Inn and other developement issues on the west side of Hwy 1, and I think any illusion of “we’re all in this together” is misplaced.

I’m not surprised the official position is supporting what’s best for HMB residents ONLY, as they are the ones who put them in office. It isn’t the fair position, but in their case it is the logical position.

Ms. Carlson,

I can’t fault your logic, unfortunately. I would hope, however, that HMB Council members will be wise enough to realize that alienating their neighbors hurts them long-term. As of today, no one in my house is patronizing any local HMB businesses, particularly on Main Street, until such time as is perceived these attitudes change.

I’ve just received an email from Mr. Moghbel from Caltrans:

> The Department is working closely with all our > local partners to respond to all issues raised.
> As you have mentioned The City is going to > discuss the signal light issue at the next > council meeting set for next Tuesday, at which > time citizens can have their input. Please > check with the city for the time and the place. > Our District Director, Mr. Sartipi could be > contacted at > > KEYHAN MOGHBEL, Chief > Project Development South - Peninsula > Tel. (510) 286-7189 > fax (510) 286-4897

So at a minimum, HMB has succeeded in delaying the metering lights for another week or more.

Please Mid-Coasters, email and call Mr. Moghbel and Mr. Sartipi and ask them to turn on the metering lights immediately as they originally planned. Go ahead and discuss it fine — but give the solution a chance to see if it helps. Don’t let one selfish group bog it down in red tape.

Brian Dantes El Granada

Out of the five schools located on the Coastside there are three (HMBHS, Cunha, and Hatch) located within City limits.

In the case of Cunha and Hatch, many of the students live in the Midcoast. Cunha is the only Coastside middle school. Hatch has a spanish immersion program that attracts many students from the Midcoast and even some who live over the hill. (There is a girl in my daughter’s class who lives in San Bruno). These non-HMB students must be dropped off in the morning by their parents since there is no CUSD busing.

So, not only does HMB have to handle the traffic that originates from its own residents, but there is also the added Midcoast traffic from school drop-offs in the morning.

The bottom line is that the so-called “free” right turn at Hwy 92/1 also benefits Midcoast residents who are either heading back home or getting onto Hwy 92 to go to work after dropping off their kids. If that right turn becomes congested, it can block cars attempting to go North on Hwy 1 and disrupt traffic flow all the way back to Kelly Avenue.

Mr. Lansing,

While there may be some substance to the points you make, I am highly dubious that they form the real basis of yours and others’ objections to these metering lights.

Regardless, the sources of the northbound SR1 traffic are immaterial. In the simple name of fairness, the congestion at that intersection should be evenly spread among the cars coming at it from all directions.

Brian Dantes El Granada

Oh boo hoo. Traffic flow on Kelly will be backed up. (Who takes Kelly anyway but people from the south?)

Apparently you have absolutely NO IDEA how bad traffic is on Highway 1 from Montara to HMB. It takes from 1 to 1.5 hours to go 6 miles, with Fridays being the exception for some odd reason.

People from the north do not have the luxury of driving their kids all the way to Cunha or the high school, it simply takes too long. And I highly doubt that there are many who send their kids to Hatch from north of Frenchman’s Creek. I have seen many, many kids getting out of the cars at 6:15 – 7 in the morning in El Granada to walk to school because you can walk faster than the cars!

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

“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.

Leonard:

Let’s be clear about one thing: CalTrans’ installation of a new signal light last weekend with zero advance notice, zero public input, and zero application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from the local authority, was illegal. Pure and simple.

As an elected official yourself, I’m sure you would agree that this kind of behavior from a public agency like CalTrans is unconscionable.

Traffic lights are kind of hot-button issue on the Coastside these days. Should residents now be worried that CalTrans will surreptitiously install a new traffic light at the end of their street without any notice or permits whatsoever?

That being said, I am sure that once CalTrans applies for the legally-required (emergency) CDP, the locally-elected HMB officals will evaluate the project on its merits, and impose any appropriate conditions that are deemed necessary, as required by law.

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.

Mr. Lansing,

It is still not clear (to me at least) that what Caltrans did was “illegal, pure and simple” for all the reasons that I have listed in previous posts. I do not by any means claim to be an expert on the maze of bureaucratic laws in this area, but my readings and conversations with others have led me to believe that Caltrans has the authority to do what they did. I believe the only reason they have delayed is because of the intimidation of a wasteful lawsuit (despite the fact they would eventually win). If I were in Mr. Sartipi’s shoes, I’d be pretty fed up with trying to help communities that seemed to have so much infighting. But it’s probably par for the course, unfortunately.

And I certainly don’t find an agency’s attempt to mitigate the traffic situation quickly “unconscionable.” I do, however, find unconscionable the efforts of some HMB officials residents to bias an already bad situation in their favor.

I am curious, sir - do you object to the metering lights only because of the procedure you believe was not properly followed? Or do you object to them on their merits? If the former, I find that pretty specious. If the latter, I’m at a loss to understand your reasoning on the simple principles of fairness - particularly in light of the fact that Mr. Moghbel committed to disabling the lights if they did not help the overall situation.

Now that all said - morning traffic onto SR92 from southbound SR1 (all the way from El Granada) hasn’t been bad since last Wednesday) - at least when I typically hit it between 830am and 9am. Anyone know why? Has the argument about the metering lights become moot for another reason?

Brian Dantes El Granada

I think the argument about the metering lights is misdirected. My direct experience, verified by conversations and posts on Coastsider, is that the big clog in the morning is at the light at Capistrano Rd. in El Granada. In the afternoon it is as Hwy 280 (n and s) and 92 eastbound all squeeze multiple lanes onto the single lane of 92 westbound.

During previous closures of Devils Slide (this is my 4th) CalTrans opened the Slide to one way traffic during peak commute hours. We don’t need a new light in HMB - we need an open lane, with controlled alternating traffic directions, between Pacifica and Montara during peak morning and afternoon commute hours.

While this may increase the repair time to fix the Slide I think we would be willing to endure that extension for relief on a daily basis. The inconvenience for CalTrans cannot approach the nightmare residents from Montara through HMB must stomach twice a day.

Ms. Slater-Carter,

I think many (including myself) felt as you. However, Mr. Keyhan Moghbel of Caltrans explained at the HMB City Council meeting last week why these are not options.

Mr. Moghbel said that Caltrans data showed that the SR1/SR92 was the main chokepoint that had a ripple effect all the way north.

He also said that the cranes being used on Devil’s Slide to make the repairs were too wide to allow traffic through. But then he later said that the tunnel construction traffic was still using Devil’s Slide - so there is an inconsistency there.

I’m not sure which I’d rather have, frankly. A faster repair with no access at all, or a slower repair with partial access.

Brian Dantes El Granada

Brian Dante wrote: “…morning traffic onto SR92 from southbound SR1 (all the way from El Granada) hasn’t been bad since last Wednesday) - at least when I typically hit it between 830am and 9am. Anyone know why? Has the argument about the metering lights become moot for another reason?”

I don’t know, but I have heard directly from many people who live north of 92 that the two biggest sources of congestion are (1) the inability of El Granada residents to efficiently exit out onto Hwy 1, and (2) the interruption in southbound Hwy 1 traffic flow caused by the Frenchman’s Creek light.

The post from Lisa Martin (on another thread) indicates that people from ELG are now leaving their cars parked in Miramar overnight to avoid having to negotiate the ELG exit-clog in the morning.

Over the years, the County has approved the building of hundreds of new single family homes up in the ELG hills, which adds up to a huge cumulative impact on traffic. This is County planning at work.

At Wednesday’s MCC meeting, perhaps somebody should ask County Supervisor Gordon what kind of traffic El Granada residents will experience if the number of housing units on the Midcoast is eventually doubled from the number that exists today—-as Supervisors Gordon and Hill are both pushing for as part of the ongoing Midcoast LCP update.

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.

KSC,

The crane presently being used at the site must be disassembled to pull in the outriggers. the pictures show it takeing over 20 feet of road width. I doubt traffic couild pass until this phase of the project is done. After the piers are placed there will be a period when the road re-building phase might allow one way traffic.

Perhaps the best solution for morning is re-striping the highway south of El Granada to have two lanes for southbound. I think a commuter lane from the bridge in miramar to HMB might be possible with foot traffic being diverted to the old bridge below at frenchmans creek. If bike and foot traffic were diverted to the coastal trail in mirimar, the commuter lane might extend to the light at coronado. Set the speed to 25 for both lanes to ensure more satey and get the kids to school on time.

The only solution for the night commute is to turn the light green all the time at main and 1. I think shutting down 35 from black mountain and detouring all traffic to 92 via 280 might improve the flow there. Then BFI should close at 3:30 to stop the crawl behind truck. Tey have such a monopoly they would not lose a cent of business. Their should be clause in their use peormit to allow egulation of hours in an emergency.

TP

Mr. Keyhan Moghbel indicated to me that the metering lights issue would be discussed by the HMB City Council at a meeting tonight (Tues, 5/22). But I think he may have been confused into thinking that the Council meets every Tuesday night. It is my understanding that the HMB Council does not meet again until June 5th. Is that correct? If not, could someone please post here when the meeting is to be?

But if so, it is infuriating that HMB will have succeeded in delaying these metering lights for three weeks just with bureaucratic procedure alone.

I have written letters to Caltrans asking them to move forward immediately with these metering lights - and I encourage all other mid-Coasters to do the same.

Brian Dantes El Granada

Mr. Dantes,

I think there are two separate issues here. At least, I’ve had conversations with quite a few people, and that’s the conclusion I am forming.

Yes, there are real traffic issues. And there is more pain for drivers from north of 92 than for drivers from south of 92.

It may be entirely reasonable to implement some kind of traffic control for the right-hand turn from the south at the Hwy 1/92 intersection. And apparently, this can be done at any time, if the authorities so decide.

What I am hearing from people who value following the laws is this:

1. Use temporary traffic controls if that’s what the authorities wish to do. These can be done using traffic cops, or using temporary metering lights (assuming such portable devices exist, and I imagine that they do).

2. Apply for an emergency CDP for authority to install permanent lights, if that’s what the authorities wish to do.

The above offers no endorsement nor any rejection of having some kind of traffic control where Caltrans installed the metering lights.

The issue I am hearing regarding this installation is based on the following:

1. Caltrans has been trying to get local agreement to install such metering lights for years now, and has never obtained support to do so.

2. Caltrans is alledged to have installed these permanent metering light fixtures with no notice, no permission, and on a weekend, to boot.

If what I have observed and concluded is correct, the right things to do are:

1. Let the police direct traffic or use temporary lights, as they see fit (and as they could have done at any time).

2. Apply for permission to install permanent metering lights.

3. Respect the right of the city of Half Moon Bay to decide whether or not to allow permanent metering lights.

We have laws governing the process by which things are done - especially, things which will be permanent. I understand that these laws include contingency procedures for emergencies, too. People like Mr. Lansing are not to be faulted for demanding that Caltrans follow the law - and as a planning commissioner, he should be applauded for doing so.

Separately, I think we should be doing more to improve traffic flow.

I have suggested a series of one-way segments circling the Albertsons plaza during the morning and evening commutes to speed traffic through the three adjoining intersections.

Many have urged a one-way commute-hour opening of the road over Devils Slide, or even a less-comprehensive repair, assuming such a thing would be sufficient.

And some are identifying additional serious choke points along the mid-coast, and suggesting improvements there, too.

I hope we all get through this OK, as friends and neighbors. And I hope this brings us all together to appreciate the fragility of this wonderful area where we all live.

Best,

Hal Bogner from south and west of 92

Mr. Bogner,

The intent and tenor of your note is much appreciated. I mean that sincerely. I wholeheartedly agree with many of your points - most particularly that some of these issues would be moot if law enforcement were out actively doing traffic control as they should be. Metering lights and road closures would be completely unnecessary if CHP and the County Sheriff were helping rather than sitting in their cars shouting through their bullhorns.

Nevertheless…

From a legal perspective, I remain unconvinced that Caltrans does not have the authority to do just what they have done. It makes no sense to me that a city government would have any say-so whatsoever over state resources.

And from an ethical standpoint, I feel the same way. SR1 and SR92 and their intersections are shared transportation resources amongst all our communities. No single community should have exclusive control over a shared resource.

I’d be willing to bet we’d be seeing the same level of resistance from HMB even if the metering lights were “temporary.” The bottom line to me is that Caltrans was trying to mitigate the situation in the name of fairness and promised in front of a room full of witnesses that they would disable it if it didn’t have an overall improvement - and still the HMB through up blockades. Even should it turn out that there is some bureaucratic insanity that allows them to do this, it was wrong of them to do so.

I also would like to see some coming together over all of these infrastructure crises of late. My hope is that this will serve as a wake-up call to all of the Coastside communities that hobbling infrastructure only hurts those already living here. The proper way to limit growth (which I support by the way) is through legislation and enforcement thereof. Now that I have been educated by some regarding the lack of the latter, particularly in the unincorporated areas, I will support efforts to fix that.

But in the meantime, my votes at the polling booth and the marketplace will go to leaders and businesses who support fairness and improved roads and utilities for all of us.

Mr. Bogner, thanks again and I hope dialogue can take place like this for all of us. I hope you will encourage your City Council to do what’s right - regardless of any perception of bureaucratic paperwork that wasn’t properly filled out.

Brian Dantes El Granada

Has Caltrans, or anyone for that matter, provided any data, or at least estimates, as to how the metering light will actually affect the north and south bound commutes? Is it plausible that restricting the northbound access could increase that commute by 30 minutes while reducing the south bound access by several minutes due to other choke points? I would be more than willing to increase my commute time to a reasonable degree if I knew that it was going to in fact decrease the commute for those headed south on 1. I understand the frustration and the strong desire to do something ASAP, but unless I see some answers to these questions I will continue to lobby Caltrans and the rest of the planet against the light.

If the unthinkable happened and the only route out of HMB was North 1, would the citizens in El Granada north be willing to restrict their access to Highway 1 north to a single lane with a metering light to ease the commute from HMB? Without any input from Caltrans as to the effectiveness of such actions? How many times have government actions of good intent, had the opposite effect?

Keyhan Moghbel of Caltrans stated at the May 26th HMB City Council meeting that their traffic engineer had determined over several days that the main choke point for the SR1 southbound traffic was the intersection with SR92. While he did not offer the gory details, he did say that their data showed that the merge with the northbound SR1 traffic was part of the problem.

He also said they would monitor the effect of the lights and disable them if they did not have an overall net improvement on the congestion.

Given the immediacy of the problem, I felt like that was enough substance to justify the attempt. It is so frustrating to have any action regardless of the issue in this area be bogged down in red tape. Things take forever and a day to get done — it seems like one needs 100 signatures just to blow your nose.

And yes, I would support fair traffic mitigation on SR1 should that ever become necessary.

Brian Dantes El Granada