Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Opinion: Foothill Bypass, Part III: We can’t afford it
Mike Ferreira is a former member of the Half Moon Bay City Council and a former member of the city’s Planning Commission. This is the third part of a three-part article.
The Official Foothill Bypass won’t solve our traffic problems and is fraught with environmental and legal complications. And we can’t afford it. One of the biggest flaws in the long-standing Foothill Boulevard proposalin the City’s LCP is its configuration as a City of Half Moon Bay operated “bypass”. This is a city of less than 13,000 people which historically has had chronic budget problems and which couldn’t even maintain its own streets until the Ritz started laying its golden eggs just a few years ago.
The idea that a city of such a small size could construct and maintain-- yes, maintain—a 4-lane eastern bypass stretching from Young Avenue and Highway 1 in the north and over creeks and wetlands to connect with Highway 92 just east of Hilltop is downright zany. But that’s how it’s drawn up in the city’s Land Use Plan.
Assuming it could even be permitted, it would have to be constructed to highway standards or it would be reduced to rubble by highway traffic usage in a relatively short time. Conservatively, such a bypass would cost at least $150 million and the city would have to set aside millions per year for maintenance and reserves to operate it. I am not familiar with any other small coastal city that operates a bypass of State Highway 1—not Monterey, not Moss Landing. not Watsonville, not Aptos, not Capitola, not Santa Cruz, not Pacifica, not Daly City, and certainly not Bolinas.
And that’s why so many of us have concluded that the only purpose for its inclusion in the Land Use Plan back in the 80s was to facilitate the development of vacant parcels in the City’s foothills. It’s the only sensible explanation for its existence, because there’s no other credible rationale.
The idea of building a below grade intersection at Highway 92 is not new. It was the city’s traffic engineer’s preferred alternative when he studied the issue in the late 90s during the city’s Foothill negotiations with Ailanto over Pacific Ridge. The problem was that it would have added $8 million to the project (The cost has certainly gone up since then).
The city manager then proposed that a traffic signal would be the “short term” solution (for which the developer would pay) and the below grade connection would be the “long term” solution (for which the public would pay). This interesting, to say the least, proposal was never tested at the City Council. The Foothill alignment ran into other problems with wetlands and ensuing problematical realignments, so no Coastal Development Permit has ever been applied for.
In conclusion I would say that CCF’s re-proposal of the Bayview/Foothill Bypass of the 90s, reducing it to two lanes, and restricting it to autos would reduce the overall cost of building it and maintaining it, but it would still be very expensive. And, it wouldn’t really function as a bypass, just as an extra side street with some limited circulation value. And certainly not enough of such value as to justify a significant public expenditure. Or emergency permits. Or throwing in the towel on lawsuits. Or looking the other way as laws are ignored or fudged.
Comments
I would like to start by addressing a few comments posted on this site that are inaccurate, according to the information that I have, regarding Foothill. The purpose is simply to educate coastal residents with facts, and hopefully sway voters in a direction that will improve our quality of life. Foothill, as proposed by CCF, would be a 2 lane road, connecting 92 (by the goat farm) to HWY 1 at Bayview (1/2 way between Grandview & Terrace Avenue).
The idea that infrastructure is a “new buzzword” is not supported by the facts. The idea that Foothill is being “resurrected” is equally not supported by the facts. This idea, or issue (as it is rapidly becoming), is not being revisited because Devil’s Slide is out, although no doubt with the Slide’s closure there is more attention being paid to traffic circulation. It is being revisited because, in my opinion, it is necessary. Traffic circulation in HMB is, has been, and will continue to be an issue on the coast. It should be. In the almost 30 years I’ve lived on the coast, the population has more than doubled, and the only traffic “improvements” I’ve seen are two traffic lights; one at Miramontes Point Road, and another at Frenchmans Creek. Highways 1 & 92 are two lane roads, as everyone knows. The “improvements” at 92 & Main will be helpful, but 92 will still be a two lane road.
Some of you may remember that I discussed Foothill during my 2005 City Council candidacy. That discussion is still available on my website, [url=http://www.electgeorge.net]http://www.electgeorge.net[/url] . Under the “Views on Local Issues” link, in the Protection of Private Property Rights section, I discuss infrastructure and Foothill Blvd. Go see for yourself.
Growth, or potential growth in HMB is a non issue. Using infrastructure to choke growth is unconscionable, and that is exactly what has been going on here for the last 10-15 years. We have a 1 % growth mandate in HMB, voted on and approved by a significant majority in this town in 1999. It’s called Measure D. That said, rate of growth is off the table. The evidence is clear, by any measure one cares to use we will have growth. The question isn’t whether or not we have growth, but how we manage it, and plan for it. Foothill is one way to help us now, and in the future, in terms of traffic circulation.
Over the same timeframe, 10-15 years, the public has continually and consistently heard people vociferously spout what can’t be done, and why they feel it can’t be done. Let’s look at what we can, and must do. Just for a moment, let’s look at the glass as half full, rather than half empty.
CCF, Mr. Bacon, Mr. Gardner, and others are suggesting that we need to look at infrastructure improvements that will make a positive difference in our lives. They are correct in bringing these issues front and center. LOS (level of service) on 92 is at F, and now, with the Slide down, we’re off the charts. There are no guarantees in life. Will the Slide reopen? If so, when? Hopefully we’ll see Devil’s Slide reopen later this year. Once reopened, how long before it goes out again? As for the tunnel, what guarantees do we have that it will open in 2011 (@ a projected cost of $270 Million)? Who can guarantee that it will open at all? We never know what the future holds. The old saying, “hope for the best, plan for the worst” is probably appropriate here. Even if both those roads were open tomorrow, and stayed open forever, Foothill would be a very valuable addition to our circulation needs.
Mike, Thanks for bringing out 'the rest of the story'. While the costs of building and maintaining Foothill would be paid by HMB taxpayers, it would probably be most heavily used by folks living in the unincorporated areas. HMB would be subsidizing the County taxbase.
HMB residents living south of 92 would seldom have the need to use it, yet they'd be paying for it and stuck in the traffic mess that would be created by the Foothill traffic turning onto 92 at the new light.
Tim Pond, in a previous comment listed the growth rate and exceptions for HMB. He did not mention that the County has its own set of exemptions, but has a growth rate of 3% - three times that of HMB. (although the BoS voted to reduce it from 125 to 75 the next action was to add 50 unit per year for the handicapped and their caretakers, bringing the annual growth rate back up to 125 units (3%).
It appears the folks in HMB would be asked to add an expensive project of dubious value to the Citys ongoing expenses that would benefit the county and divert traffic away from local business.