Pacifica considers widening Hwy 1 near quarry

Journalistically, Barry again fails to provide a balanced picture here. Why slant the article to list zero pros to the road widening? And why identify the naysayer as “citizen Bob Pilgrim” instead of the more descriptive and correct “Sierra Club activist Bob Pilgrim”?

Why would Pacifica spend $300,000 on environmental documents related to the widening? Because the widening ease commute traffic, perhaps? Because it would benefit Pacifica residents? Because it would help local businesses? Because it can be a “win-win” situation, as Pacifica officials stated?

“Growth Inducing” seems to be the new “boy who cried wolf” mantra against any infrastructure project.

It’s not like widening the road will REQUIRE more people to move to the area, like the “Growth Including” claimants would have you believe. The need already exists; Pacifica seems to be taking the necessary precautions to address the situation adequately for all involved. Spare us the rhetoric, please.

Comment 2 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 01  at  7:30pm  •  All my comments • 

I chose “citizen” to describe the capacity in which Bob was commenting on the plan, as I described Scott Holmes in terms of his job as Public Works Director. As far as I know Bob was not speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, so to describe him the way you suggest wouldn’t be fair to either Bob or the organization.

I linked to the story because I hoped people would read it for themselves. But in quoting, I tried to capture both the pros — “win-win” and “paid for” — as well as the cons —”growth inducing”, a quote that appeared in the Tribune, which is hardly an organ of the Sierra Club. Bob got the last word, because that was the order in which it appeared in the story.

Finally, I didn’t know that Bob Pilgrim was a member of the Sierra Club. That’s a pretty scary bunch. I’ll consider myself warned.

Stella and Bob Pilgrim, as Pacifica citizens, have been involved with Highway 1 in this stretch for decades, quite without prompting from the Sierra Club.

Why would this particular piece of Highway 1 be studied for widening when it is already the width of the highway on both ends, namely two lanes in each direction? Quite bizarre. One must ask, who, specifically, benefits?

In the several previous widening schemes, a number of small businesses on the east side would have had the front part of their property cut away, destroying the businesses. (Geesh, just when the Shell station finally started to sell gas at a competitive price!) For those businesses and several residences, widening is lose-lose.

The traffic problem at Rockaway and Vallemar is due to the lights, not the width of the highway. No lights, no jams. So the real thrust will be to take out those lights with a freeway-style road. But that won’t sound as good as “widening” to the citizens of Pacifica, given all the negatives of the freeway on Highway 1 through the northern part of the city.

Pacifica is already built out for its land and resources. Its commute traffic is due to too many cars on the highway during certain hours, testimony to the failure of the city government of decades past and to the county government for the midcoast (which provides the component of cars that causes the jams in Pacifica—witness the no-jam situation in Pacifica when the highway is out at Devil’s Slide) to plan for a population appropriate to the two areas.

Widening highways to relieve traffic never has more than a very short-term effect in growing regions of California. Then the problems with traffic become bigger than before due to the additinal growth rationalized by the momentary extra road capacity. It’s much wiser and less costly to provide therapy for growth junkies, figure out ways to make current highways work better, and figure out ways to reduce the number of automobiles on roads.

Carl May

Consideration of whether something is growth inducing is fundamental in California Law — look at the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA isn’t exactly “new”.

Given the excess of people over housing in California, there isn’t a substantive difference between “require” and “facilitate”. If you build it, they will come.

Barry writes: “As far as I know Bob was not speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, so to describe him the way you suggest wouldn’t be fair to either Bob or the organization.”

Bob Pilgrim has been listed as the contact person for the Sierra Club campaign against Measure L since August, in both the Loma Prietan, newsletter of the local Sierra Club chapter, and their website.

In general, diplomatic protocols should be observed toward the Sierra Club and its leaders. For example, Mark Massara, in his August 30th letter to the Pacifica Tribune opposing Measure L, signs his name “Mark Massara, Esquire.” Mr. Massara, Esquire, should always be titled and addressed as such in this or any other publication.

I’m just wondering what is the statistical correlation between the views of the so-called sports advocates like Joel Farbstein and those who seem to favor all-manner of growth-inducing projects such as: (1) widening Hwy 1 in as many places as possible, and (2) Measure L in Pacifica (535 new-houses).

http://www.pacificaquarry.org/

Just my opinion, but I’m thinking that correlation is pretty darn high.

Joel writes: “It’s not like widening the road will REQUIRE more people to move to the area, like the “Growth Including” claimants would have you believe.”

Joel, are you saying that the only a project that requires people to move to the area is growth inducing? if not, please define ‘growth inducing’.

Also, what exactly is a ’ “Growth Including” claimant’?

Thanks

Kathryn

Touche, Barry, on your reply. My point: It doesn’t take much effort to include both sides. But instead of building community support, you purposefully chose inflaming language.

Suggestion: Frame the discussion accurately by quoting Chris Hunter’s Pacifica Tribune article that the Vallemar intersection “is considered a Level of Service F, which means it just isn’t adequate by any standards.” And/or state proponents of the widening say it’ll ease traffic flow and benefit businesses and residents, while detractors claim it will be growth inducing. (Was that so hard?)

Suggestion: State the fact that alternatives are being explored, (you had at least 2 choices from the Tribune article alone): 1. “While the Sierra Club has publicly opposed a Highway 1 widening, and Pacifican Bob Pilgrim stressed that again Monday night, Holmes again pointed out that the eventual Environmental Impact Review would identify several alternatives.” (Alternatives are a good thing, right?)

1. “Holmes said he believes the project is intended to alleviate a specific congestion problem in Pacifica, not to increase the highway capacity to SF or Montara. ‘We do have a jam-up,’ he said. ‘We’re not allowed to take sensitive habitats for capacity increase. The EIR will look at three or four options.’” (Options are a good thing, right?)

Why do you try to instill fear about infrastructure improvements? If something is wrong, why live with it? Why not fix it? Thankfully, most of us are not George Bush, and we can alter our course.

Corrections: -This isn’t Pacifica�s money, it’s San Mateo County’s Measure A funding. -All references should have been to “growth inducing”.

And, to address Kevin Lansing: 1. Please get your facts straight: Its up to 355 housing “units,” not (“535 new-houses”). There could be 50, there could be 100; they could be affordable housing, they could be residential over commercial, or other. 2. How can you say I support Measure L when I’ve never voiced an opinion either way?! I can’t even vote on it; all I can do is correct factual inaccuracies by either side. 3. Labeling me as an advocate for physically fit youth, wow, that’s a serious charge. Go ahead, also label me (correctly) a parks and recreation enthusiast. I can take it.

Sorry Joel, I typed in 535 instead of 355. Either way, that is too many houses (and cars)! And you can bet the developer is going to max out on the number because that is where the biggest profits are.

Mssrs Farbstein and Bacon have unique notions about what Coastsider’s operational mission is or should be. In this case, Barry linked to a Tribune article while giving a capsule summary describing the pro position in more words than the anti’s objections, but then is accused of news slanting by these two. Thanks for being vigilant and “objective” concerned citizens, both of you.

Farbstein faults Barry for not elaborating as much as the Tribune article, and not making inferences lacking in the original. Ditto Bacon. Ummm? The link is there: anyone interested knows how to click on it. But let’s not do that if we’d rather complain that Coastsider is biased.

Don’t worry, Joel, I am not too interested in this issue because there’s plenty south of Pacifica to worry about, but it appears disingenuous of you to say you can’t vote on this issue, but omit the fact your wife is a Pacifica planner. That hardly leaves you the objective purveyor of facts you represent yourself as.

You write above, “Why would Pacifica spend $300,000 on environmental documents related to the widening? Because the widening (might?)ease commute traffic, perhaps? Because it would benefit Pacifica residents? Because it would help local businesses? Because it can be a “win-win” situation, as Pacifica officials stated?”

Your logic is flawed here as you begin with a concluded fact, that Pacifica has to spend $$ on studies, to reach, as yet, unproven claims that these things might work out. And they might not, but Pacifica has to spend the $$ in any event. That doesn’t prove anything at all, except that it’s an expensive project.

I hope my friends forgive me for tossing out a bone, but it seems that everything is “growth inducing,” even doing nothing. So like Joel suggests, it is weak sounding. However, it is one of the only arrows left in the environmentalist quiver. I say this having seen what Republican placement of ideologue bureau heads in all of the supposed watchdog agencies of government is doing to the environment and endangered species.

“label me (correctly) a parks and recreation enthusiast”—Joel Farbstein’s words. How about living up to that image? Given the HMB council is looking to develop homes in what was to be the new park, maybe you’ll stop oppoding it and speak in favor or developing it for its intended purpose. While it didn’t make any given group perfectly happy, do you think it should be written off because it wasn’t Naomi’s idea? Who wins by that logic?

Ken (How’d I know you’d write?): All Coastsiders who commute through Pacifica will benefit from these traffic improvements (1) and environmental concerns are being addressed up front (2). That’s the story. How is that a bad thing?

But Coastsider devoted its only 2 paragraphs to environmental issues, which it knows is a hot-button issue sure to get King, Lansing and Carter to post. No mention of the current condition (substandard), no mention of commute improvements, and no mention of exploring options (which is really what gives everyone hope). The story didn’t bury the lead, it didn’t even mention it.

FYI, the link didn’t work from day 2. My wife (true, she’s a planner) has nothing to do with the widening, or any roads. The funds involved are San Mateo County’s, not Pacifica’s.

I guess commuters will have to continue reading the Pacfica Tribune for more balanced coverage.

P.S. I’m more than happy to talk parks (on that other string; I’ll meet you over there). Let’s start with the Sewer Plant Road parcel, which the city already owns free and clear.

Joel, I hope that your confidence that the planners have figured it out right is not premature and will be bourne out by the studies.

Call me cynical, but if an introduced third lane lasting a few tenths of a mile “gives everyone hope,” I imagine the impact of 700+ residents’ vehicles and those of their guests will bring everyone back to reality as they merge into the existing roadway.

Comment 13 by Barry Parr  on  Nov 04  at  11:38am  •  All my comments • 

I also failed to mention that the “growth-inducing” effect is not the best argument against widening the highway at that point.

That’s really only part of the problem. First, widening the highway won’t work. Expanding highways just brings more traffic. It’s a known problem.

Second, it will lead to the continued degradation of Pacifica. Even sitting in a parked car waiting to make a turn on Hwy 1 will tell you that the speed and amount of traffic on that stretch of road must already be intolerable for pedestrians and cyclists. Increasing the traffic on that road will make it even more miserable to be anywhere near that road. That highway and its concrete median barriers already divide much of the community from the ocean.