Weekend travel times approach an hour on Hwy 92

Nice article. The charts are an eye grabber, particularly the top chart demonstrating travel time to HMB (west on Hwy 92). It is interesting from several perspectives. First, I believe it shows October 8th as the date data was collected, showing a high peak, over a four hour plus period. By date shown, it might suggest reasonably normal weekend travel times, as the Pumpkin Festival is yet to come, with Halloween even further away. It appears to verify what we have all known for a long time. Is it possible to demonstrate the weekday data as well?

Secondly, I can’t help but share my first blush thought at these charts, particularly the top one mentioned above. Do the words ‘Foothill Blvd.’ ring a bell?

Finally, I think I see a logo on the charts. It appears to be the infamous lcp organization lettered in the logo; interesting that they are able to provide data to the public that clearly supports one of our traffic circulation problems. Perhaps we should send this to the Coastal Commission, demonstrating our need for traffic solutions (Foothill Blvd.) to better comply with the Coastal Act.

Thank you Barry, for your attention to an important issue, the facts you demonstrate, the way you do it, and finally for the opportunity for us to discuss it.

George Muteff

Mr. Muteff,

First, you ask for the weekday data. Barry has a link to the data for today on the right, marked “Live traffic charts.”

Second, you again try to revive your proposed “Foothill Bl. solution.” Other than your fellow CCF’ers, no one seems to agree with you.  My own understanding is this:

a) The tiny bypass you propose does not look to me like it changes much of anything; it runs a tiny distance and dumps people right back onto Hwy 1, and adds a new bottleneck to Hwy 92.  Even your natural allies at the Review declared it “dead on arrival.”

b) You want to abrogate the settlement agreement between Ailanto and City of HMB to build your wished-for road across that approved project.  You seem to want to get the City sued again, whereas elsewhere you criticize others for causing the City to get sued.

c) The Ailanto developer showed maps and data that he said showed that your “Foothill” idea was inbuildable due to wetlands, and that this analysis was done by the same firm that CCWD used for their Carter Hill pipeline project - not folks who you would expect to be biased in favor of finding wetlands where there are none.  Have you obtained their data and maps, and can you refute them?

I know that I raised this question in one of Coastsider’s Town Hall topics in answer to your assertions there, and you changed subjects.  Perhaps this is a more convenient place for you to discuss things realistically.

Sincerely,

Hal M. Bogner
Half Moon Bay

It is clear that the weekend traffic time shows that the current hwy 92 design is unsufficient in handling the current traffic volumes. It would be prudent for all of us to stress to the county that hwy 92 needs to be enhanceed to support the current needs of our community. Just think if we had a serious emergency on the coastside on a weekend!
Ray

The City is now starting the $21 millior Main & 92 project. The SMCTA is working on the next project between that and the base of the hill.  The last number given a few years ago was “$30 million and climbing fast” so $50 million might be where it’s at by now. Where the SMCTA is at this time in terms of permits, accumulated money and likely schedule is something you might get by giving them a call.