This will only seem like an improvement if you don’t live in the neighborhood, or if you never leave your car.

If Sam’s or Big Wave had sent me the flyer, I would have been happy to run it. I don’t support Big Wave, but we don’t limit access to Coastsider based on points of view.

This fundraiser illustrates some of the complexity associated with Big Wave.

I have two sets of issues with the project. The first is that it’s the wrong project for that site, and the wrong site for that project. The second is that the developers have been less than forthcoming with the community about the agricultural uses of the site, the project’s environmental impact, the relationship between the for-profit and nonprofit parts of the project, and the project’s sheer size. Follow the links for more information on these issues.

I believe the families associated with the nonprofit are sincere, but it’s difficult to determine the line between its stated charitable purpose and its role as a marketing arm of the for-profit development.

As far as I’m concerned it’s a mistake to retaliate against businesses who support the nonprofit. We’re going to have to learn to disagree with one another without declaring war.

Finally, I do believe Big Wave’s opponents have done a good job of sticking to the facts and trying to keep its supporters doing the same.

Assembly Members Arambula and Skinner have different fax numbers!

A hearing is scheduled for this Tuesday or Wednesday. 

The Coast is under attack and this time, if the proposal to require the Coastal Commission to pay for all legal services previously supplied by the Attorney General is approved, it will leave the Commission with very limited ability to defend itself in a lawsuit or enforce the Coastal Act. This is one of the most serious threats to the continued viability of California’s coastal protection program since the attack on the constitutionality of the Commission in the Marine Forest case.

The commission may be unable to initiate lawsuits to protect public access or other coastal resources. This also effectively means that the Commission would be unable to deny any applicant or to impose any conditions on any proposal that the applicant opposes, based on whether the Commission could afford the cost of litigation. It means that coastal protection as we have known it is over. Please read the full discussion below and then take action immediately, since this proposal is supported by Jerry Brown’s Office, the Department of Finance, the LAO and the Committee staff. This proposal is currently being considered in the Budget sub-committee and will be acted on shortly.

http://www.thepelicaneye.com/2010/03/coast-needs-your-help.html

I saw that you gave Sam’s a one star “rating” in Yelp because the owners are hosting this fundraiser and I think that’s a pretty lousy thing to do (especially since you apparently like the food). Most people assume the ratings have to do with the quality of a business and not the politics/ leanings of the owners

So no, I don’t think opposition to Big Wave should include spurious restaurant “reviews” intending to hurt the livlihood of people who work there.

There’s a time and a place; if you want to boycott and encourage others to do so, there are a lot more reasonable places to make your point. This letter and suggesting people send comments is reasonable. Restaurant reviews are not.

I haven’t made up my mind yet if Big Wave opposition is more NIMBY hysteria or well grounded in environmental concerns but these sort of tactics don’t sway me to the latter position.

But never look at that particular stretch in Pacifica without keeping the quarry property (on the ocean side of the highway) in mind. Past objections to and votes against quarry overdevelopment in Pacifica have been partially based on the inevitable traffic clogs that extensive housing and commercial development there would exacerbate. More lanes there might well be a ploy to pre-empt such objections in the future (using everyone’s tax money rather than making it the developer’s expense), even though common experience tells anyone traffic with six lanes in that particular stretch and at those bookending intersections would still be a big mess due to the highway with fewer lanes at either end. There are also businesses on the east side of the stretch to be widened that will be damaged.

Another thing we can’t forget, however, is the long-term campaign to have a freeway through the rest of Pacifica. Continuing bad traffic in an interloping six-lane segment between the intersections would help promote extension of the freeway as an ensuing highway “solution.”

Chesbro, out of Arcata, is an interesting state legislator in that he was first a state senator who is now a state assembly member. One might say his future is past? We once met him at the abandoned townsite of Wheeler on the Lost Coast, where he was backpacking with his sons. That was the only time we saw evidence that the outhouses at Wheeler had been cleaned in the recent past. I guess state parks wanted the senator to enjoy the experience.

For those who don’t get out except to go from their car to their front door, and to those so separated from their world that they think pavement is in the natural order of things:

There are already bike and foot paths where the recreational roads are proposed and being paved on the midcoast. Nothing is being accessed that isn’t already accessed. California Coastal Trail access in Fitzgerald Marine Reserve is being removed for trail users by the effort to move the designated trail away from the best route along the bluffs (the closest all-weather route to the ocean and the route that fulfills the established spirit and mandate of this state trail). The bluff route is the one that has been considered the coastal trail in presentations to the county’s trail committee for decades as the committee reviews the county trail plan, it is the one that was used by Coastwalk (a coastal trail walking organization) starting with the first San Mateo county Coastwalk in 1988, it is the route designated in the first northern California coastal trail hiking guide published by Coastwalk and Bored Feet Press and remained the route in the revision of that guide, and it is the coastal trail route used by hikers for decades—not the (perfectly adequate) dirt bike path downhill along the faultline being proposed for pavement at an outrageous cost.

Where paved roads are constructed in place of trails, access to the more forgiving natural surface is removed for walkers and hikers. There is a negative cumulative effect on the bodies of people who walk or run on paved surfaces, especially on joints, that does not occur nearly as readily on natural surfaces. Literally, our bodies did not evolve for locomotion on hard paved surfaces. Thus, pavement on trails degrades the recreational opportunity for many. You spend money to make things worse.

For the California Coastal Trail (CCT), at least part of that money usually comes by way of a grant from the Coastal Conservancy. This money almost always comes from a state bond fund designated for the purpose as part of parks and recreation bond measures passed by the voters of California. (In past statewide polls, walking and camping on the coast has been one of the top recreational desires of Californians.) Anything paid for with bond funds costs roughly twice as much as paying cash on the barrelhead because of the interest on the bonds. Accordingly, such money should be used as efficiently as possible for the purpose(s) designated. For the CCT, this means getting as much of the trail desired by Californians as possible with the money available and not blowing away the bond kitty for very few miles of “trail” by spending precious trail funds on paved roads build with heavy equipment. See HMB’s paved coastal road for one example of how to waste money. See the recently built road across Mirada Surf West away from the ocean and away from the pre-existing trail for another.

What we are seeing is the urban mentality at work, wrecking, couhnty project by county project, our already much-diminished scraps of nature and open space along the ocean on the midcoast. The urban-oriented government units involved love it for the money it brings into their departments. Money that will continue to be spent long after the initial construction destruction is over, thanks to the much higher maintanance costs involved versus a more natural trail (see recent resurfacing of HMB’s coastal “trail”) and to such things as managing runoff and pollutants from the pavement.

In any case… traffic light systems roughly cost about that of a roundabout (pending any right-of-way aqcuisitions, though CalTrans pretty much has a wide swatch of easement up and down the whole length of 1). Longer term, roundabouts are a bit more cost-effective.

Underpasses, I see someone referred to them as cost effective. For one, we are in California much less the coastside, so ADA and environmental restrictiveness will surely come into strong play. At a minimum, I’d guesstimate each underpass to be $800K-$1M in actual cost (not “Congressional-style costing”), and that might be too low. And it still misses the NUMBER ONE rule in pedestrian thoroughfares which I stated at an MCC meeting a month or so ago… pedestrians will continue unsafe passage if a more direct route is available (think crossing 1 at Vallemar to get to the post office, vs. using the under/overpass at California in MB). Cost-benefit.

“Large amounts of additional hard paving for those on foot and bicycle involve unnecessary expense, destroy existing access to some coastal and community features in our area ” with “all of the social, financial, political, and environmental burdens that go with it.” </i>

Many of your neighbors don’t care. They want a bike and foot path, as it provides access to some coastal and community features in our area. It’s a crazy little thing called fun, and they don’t feel that a concrete trail, or recreational development, or tastefully designed turnabout is not turning the coastside into Manhattan (which I think some ppl here feel is || this close to happening). The coastside is going to grow, whether you like it or not… restricting the required infrastructure to support reasonable planned growth is too short-sighted.

Reminds me of a spin on an Oscar Wilde quote
“I think you love talking about doing nothing. It is the only thing you know anything about.” or perhaps “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of (doing) nothing.” or Aesop’s The Ass and the Shadow
“In quarreling about the shadow we often lose the substance.”

...enough poetry hour. I think I’ll run a book on Hwy 1 crossing. Right now 1:3 odds saythat nothing gets done, because any and every solution is met with 137 reasons not to. David, ...your underpass is 125:1. What should I put you down for? ;-)

Alternate budget cuts were suggested.  One student made a particularly critical point:  Students must feel safe in school, from bullies and other threats, to be able to do their best in the academics. 

I think it is important for folks to know that the district board has very little discretion in is spending choices.  I have not looked at the budget, but it seemed that the students had.  I think discussions with the students about their priorities and needs might lead to some ideas administrators and parents might not have thought of.

Unfortunately there was no staff report available at the meeting. 

With the stop lights at Crespi and Reina Del Mar set up the way they are this will be a very expensive way to add vehicular storage between 2 traffic lights - particularly as this will be just a wide spot between 2 sections of the 2 lane highway.

Why not look at a way to keep traffic moving while allowing cars from the eastern neighborhoods to merge.  roundabouts are safer for pedestrians and can handle high volumes of traffic.  A roundabout engineer should be commissioned to study this area.

All but one of the examples show a suburbanized, scene totally dominated by development and not a scene that fits our coastal context.

Where ya gonna put ‘em in the context of a two-lane highway in our actual place with our actual intersections?

Fine for carrying light traffic, not encouraging and with guaranteed continued backups for heavier traffic. It is already the heavier traffic times that are the problem for our intersections. In light traffic times, green light priority makes intersections fairly effective, enough so that improvements that might come with roundabouts at light times seem hardly worth the effort.

The crossings of roundabouts, set back from the roundabout, are a joke for our area when it comes to known behaviors of pedestrians and drivers in, especially, heavy traffic times. My, how nice, polite, and trusting everyone is in the crossing example. Is this roundabout in Stepford? No way for crossing Highway 1, where traffic will have to be stopped in some mandatory manner for at-grade crossings—and that means backups at crossings. At-grade crossings would be even worse if the traffic entering a roundabout is multi-lane. And though slower, traffic leaving a busy roundabout is dangerous for pedestrians because the status of people in crossings do not come into clear focus until the driver approaches their desired exit, this at a time when drivers are paying attention to other vehicles in the circle (that’s the shape, folks) and are thinking about speeding up to the next roundabout. Note the absence of crossers in the Hamilton, ON, example (a roundabout I might have actually been through when visiting one of my leading photographers at McMaster).

So, after a lot of theoretical discussion, the inappropriateness of roundabouts and other expanded pavement and associated road development embodied in the charette’s suggested approaches remains. Safe crossings at intersections and between intersections remains a completely unresolved issue. Roundabouts of an appropriate size and number of lanes for the amount of traffic at busy times would require additional private land at all but possibly one or two of our intersections and landscape-changing grading at all. A changed alignment for Highway 1 will involve community disruption.

Large amounts of additional hard paving for those on foot and bicycle involve unnecessary expense, destroy existing access to some coastal and community features in our area (for example, access to less developed open space and more natural areas of parks), follow undesirable routes in order to accommodate the pavement, and carry an unnecessary environmental cost (both locally in direct environmental degradation and beyond in terms of the energy costs and pollution involved in pavement, both asphalt and cement).

Remembering our limited and overdrawn local resources, increased road and other development will create a setup for further overdevelopment and overpopulation of our area and all of the social, financial, political, and environmental burdens that go with it. And the overdevelopment may well be exempted from environmental review at the state level because the transportation scheme sets up possibilities for SB375 exemptions.

Expanded, suburban-style road development also plays right into the schemes of our county politicians and their developer “owners”/buddies, schemes obvious in the revised LCP our urban-thinking Supes are trying to lay on our area, in the affordable-housing fronts for market-rate housing developments we must battle every decade (people in Moss Beach are particularly sensitive to these), in their “Laughco” promotion of consolidation of our area with HMB to dilute our small measure of community control even further, and in the cornucopian approach to oversized water development.

When planning changes that should bring needed improvements to an area, it is best to be realistic. The people best qualified to be realistic are locals—and not just those locals selected for their inclination to roll over for outsiders.

So my suggestion is to be aware of your surroundings and out of respect for those who ask, control your dog until they pass.  The fact is there are several areas suitable for off leash walking, the bluff being one of them.  Once the new trails were graded 2 years ago, more people have been using them.  There are now bikers and hikers that hadn’t considered using them until the improvements were made.  I am OK sharing these trails with them, however, I don’t expect those new to the bluff to impose restrictions on those of us that have been co-existing without incident for the last 30 years that I have been accessing them.  BTW: I am one of several that clean up after the dogs daily; and I am aware of the excellent work in that regard that takes place in Montara.

Thanks to everyone for the suggestions.

Given adequate space to pursue the enormously popular activity of off-leash recreation, it would be more feasible to keep other spaces dog-free or on-leash-only for those who want that, and conflicts between user groups would be minimized to a far greater extent.

Insightful park/trail planning that adequately and reasonably accommodates all user groups is the key, whether it’s planning to accommodate bikers and equestrians such that biker-hiker and biker-horse conflicts are minimized, planning to accommodate the off-leash community such that dog-hiker and dog-horse conflicts are minimized, or planning for adequate access for hikers.

There are bound to be conflicts in any situation where land or *anything* is shared.  Hikers, bikers, and equestrians have issues with each other from time to time, just as hikers and off-leash dog walkers sometimes have issues with each other AND hikers and hikers sometimes have issues with each other.  There are problem people in any group.

Conflicts can certainly be minimized with better park planning and reasonable access for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnT1HXo7p_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05qGz5B1Wg&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO1bi6inF60&feature=related

Time Lapse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2n_XEBasQg

As strong as the bond may be between a person and their dog, as well as dogs may serve as surrogate children, the reality is they are not children and our society does not treat them as such.  We were all children once.  I think it is best not to equate tolerating children with dogs.  The subject is emotional enough as it is.

I’ve had two scary and eye-opening experiences with aggressive dogs on the Coastside.  One at Ross’s Cove where the dog ran at me from way down the beach, snarling and trying to circle behind me with his owner running and calling from far off.  I was completely at the mercy of that dog until his owner finally got there.  Made me consider carrying pepper spray or big stick.  The other time was horseback riding Rancho Corral de Tierra when a pack of dogs came at me, circling and aggressively barking at my horse, with the professional dog walker not even in sight yet. Fortunately my borrowed horse did not panic at this rightly frightening scene and no one was injured.

I don’t want to be grumpy with people I meet on the trail, so when someone’s dog rubs their muzzle on me or jumps up to say hello and gets my clothes muddy, I don’t complain, but I wish I didn’t have to put up with that.

“The death rate for hip fracture patients is higher than for other people of the same age who do not sustain the injury. About 24 percent of hip fracture patients over age 50 die within 12 months after injury because of complications related to the injury and the extended recovery period.”

While training our dog, perhaps the most striking thing I noticed was that all the dogs obeyed the instructor from day one.  Over time, the dogs started obeying their masters.  I’m pretty sure that most of the training was of the humans.

Why mention this?  Because some people are naturals with dogs.  And the rest aren’t.  While you haven’t been threatened by dogs, others have (and two of us have posted our personal experiences here).  I’m glad you’ve had such good experiences.  I hope you can see that your experience is not universal.

If a dog runs up to a senior and the senior backs away and trips, or the dog jumps up on them (in a friendly way), falls over and breaks a hip, I hope you’d agree that it’s not the senior’s fault.  Can we agree that this kind of risk has to be part of the discussion?  I’d like to find some arrangements where dogs and humans can both get the exercise they need.

A little background about us: we are strong contributors to POST, GGNRP, Defenders Of Wildlife, WWF, PETA, Ocean Conservancy, Best Friends Sanctuary, Humane Society of America, ASPCA, to name a few; so we are all for a balance between the existence of modern man and the need to preserve nature and its wild creatures. It seems everything that we are talking about is a matter of degree.  I think that we see the same issues, it’s a matter of a different perception of the intensity of the problem.

Folks who appear to want to limit off leash dog areas propose Smith Field as the solution. The dog park at Smith Field may be satisfactory for those people who don’t want to walk, but are there instead to socialize their dogs. It is not enough for those of us who would like to enjoy this beautiful coastside to exercise ourselves and our dogs at the same time (because there is not enough time in the day for everything- work, family and exercise).

Conversely, those of us who would like to maintain many areas for off leash walking need to acknowledge the sometimes unpredictable and unpleasant behavior of our dogs (just like we can’t always predict and control everything that our children do). I am empathetic to the unpleasant experiences that people have had with dogs and can only add my own experience.  I can honestly say that in the last 12 years of walking our dogs off leash on a daily basis, I’ve never been physically threatened by any off leash dogs. My experience of walking dogs has been the enjoyable and peaceful experience I think we would all want.

I feel that there is a need on the coastside for off leash areas where both dog people and non dog people can co-exist. While I appreciate not everyone loves my dogs as much as I do, I pay my fair share of taxes too. I don’t see why I shouldn’t have the same access to this area as anyone else, as long my dogs and I are not bothering anyone. From what I have gathered from all of our walks in Montara, Moss Beach, El Granada, and Half Moon Bay open space areas, my dogs and I have not been a threat to bicyclists, on-leash dog people, or people without dogs (old and young). However, if my off leash dogs mere presence is perceive as a threat rather than their behavior, then this is a different issue. I cannot control other people’s fears, therefore,  I don’t feel that my dogs and I should be restricted because of it either.

I wish that everyone could be responsible dog owners, just like I wish that that everyone could be responsible parents, then we would not have so many societal ills; but can we (people with common respect, and common courtesy, and common sense) reach out and co-exist peacefully? We then can lead by example for the younger generations to come.

The solution that satisfies everyone is to have designated off-leash areas. These include the dog park at Smith Field in HMB, Esplanade Beach in Pacifica & the 16 acre off-leash area at Pulgas Ridge. There are several other dog parks on the peninsula as well. A brochure listing the parks is available from the CA State Parks here: http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/531/files/wherecanitakemydog3_03.pdf

If these aren’t adequate, then perhaps those who want something different for their dogs need to do the work & raise the funds to make it happen.

So, with that as background, imagine that you’ve just had back surgery, and the number one thing your doctor tells you to do is get out and walk.

Just in my limited experience, trying to follow doctor’s orders to get strong again, I’ve had dogs rush out of a yard onto the street, straight for me, in what looked like full-on attack mode as if I was about to injure their masters.  I’ve had large dogs run up and jump up on me on San Pedro Mountain road.  I’ve had a dog come at me only to have the owner tell me that I shouldn’t walk with a walking stick because his dog was trained to attack people with sticks.  I’ve helped fend off a dog that came after a neighbor and her dog (on leash, doing the twice-a-day training she was diligent about; she twisted her ankle in this incident).  I’ve even had a leashed-up dog outside the post office bite me as I simply walked past (the owner said, “I don’t understand.  She’s so gentle with my grandchildren.”  Since I’m not a member of his pack, and since the owner told the dog to stake out and defend that turf, in retrospect, I’m not surprised at all.  The poor dog looked as confused as I did afterwards, as if he knew something wasn’t right). 

What’s the common thread?  People didn’t control their dogs, and someone else had to deal with it.

I’m all for having areas where dogs can run.  They need to.  I’m all for people having dogs.  It’s good for people, and good for dogs. 

But I’m also for responsibility.  Yelling, “He’s friendly!” at a distance is not voice control.  It’s an injury waiting to happen for the person who’s got a bad back, or the aged.  A broken hip is not something someone in their 70s or 80s needs to deal with. 

Who can tell from a distance that someone cannot afford to have a dog jump up on them? or that they fear dogs and may fall over just trying to back away?  (I’m reminded of a friend who was mauled at a young age by the family dog, fortunately a rare enough thing, to be sure, but I can’t imagine she doesn’t harbor a well-deserved fear of dogs coming at her).  There is is simply no way anyone can know how the stranger on the trail is going to react to a dog coming at them.

The responsibility for what the dog does is on the person who has chosen to bring that dog into their family.

I don’t think anyone would suggest that San Pedro Mountain Road or our beaches should be off limits to the elderly or the person with the bad back.  Nor that it should be off limits to dogs.  I’d like to see a solution for co-existence, too. 

If you’re still with me, here’s my initial contribution to finding that solution—sharing this point of view that dog lovers may not have considered:  the need for exercise for the aged and injured, and the real concern that an unleashed dog encounter might lead to injury.

If we can agree that this is a real concern, perhaps we can come up with some ideas on how to get dogs and humans the exercise they need without creating problems for each other.

I often see dogs off the leash on the trial out to Mavericks and in Wavecrest.

Greg

However, in my experience, few of the off-leash walkers in Montara (Rancho Corral de Tierra) have any sort of control over their dogs.

I’ve walked two different dogs, each of whom had social issues, in the area over the last ten years.  One, a large akita mix, would get aggressive with dogs that approached him. The other, a smallish basenji mix rescued from the streets, is terrified of other dogs.

I can’t tell you how many owners let their dogs get in our faces, yelling ahead of the approaching dog that “He’s friendly!”, or just repeatedly yelling the dog’s name in a vain attempt to recall him.

At the same time, I’ve also seen plenty of responsible owners leash their dogs when we approached.  I don’t know if they always do that or they read my body language, but I greatly appreciate their taking some responsibility and setting a middle course in managing their dogs.

Can anyone explain what happened to the first EIR?  Is anyone benefiting from this other than EIR consultants?

Steve Lowens

Legally it is an expressway. You may not like it, but it is what it is. This was explained in detail both at the MCC meeting and at the MPRC traffic and trails meeting.

As such, legally, the posted speed limit cannot be lower than 45mph regardless of what the roundabout configuration or advisory signs attempt to do to discourage cars from traveling the legal speed limit.

“I’ve stated on at least three separate occasions: there is no posted lowered speed, even suggested, in a roundabout.  The lowered speed is created by the configuration, not by decree.”

Because the speed limit is not lowered, if someone attempted to negotiate the roundabout at 45mph - like I said, regardless of configuration or cautionary signs - a pedestrian puts him or herself at risk of being struck and injured or killed.

The data that you yourself cited supports the high probability of a pedestrian fatality at these speed (85%).

My point is, the driver that struck the pedestrian wouldn’t have been doing anything wrong since they would be driving at or below the legal speed limit. It just seems like a recipe for anything but “safe crossings”

We just had a serious injury accident in Moss Beach. I’m not sure we want to risk another.

I think you can, and stop calling it an expressway, it’s not.  The point is that you already have people crossing all over the place where there is no crosswalk. By providing officially sanctioned crossing points, you can at least make traffic aware (markings, surface treatments, islands,  warning lights, etc.) that they need to yield to people crossing.

“My understanding is that it would in fact be illegal if the posted, legal speed in the roundabout were lower than 45mph. “

I’ve stated on at least three separate occasions: there is no posted lowered speed, even suggested, in a roundabout.  The lowered speed is created by the configuration, not by decree.  How clear do I have to be?  I’m finding it VERY hard to believe based on your questions that you have any familiarity with roundabouts in Europe.

“Would this be the same doc that says that pedestrian fatalities when struck at 40mph is 85% in exhibit 2.2?”

Good lord.  Do I need to hold your hand, or can you read it on your own?  The point of that exhibit is that roundabouts lower speeds to 15-20mph at entrances and exist which lowers fatality rates by 70-90%.  Did you try reading the text on page 24 that goes with that figure?  There is even a Cliff’s Notes version in the margin for the reading challenged.

It seems you are only trying to bait me, so I guess I give up trying to contribute anything thoughtful at this point.  Good luck finding people to help you improve the plan.

Cheers,
Tim Nelson
La Honda
SLAC

Tone, Tim.

So you’re suggesting traffic signals then? Can’t have a crosswalk in the middle of an expressway otherwise, right?

Last I checked, traffic signals are neither cheap nor aesthetically pleasing, nor great for keeping traffic moving.

“Did the expert indicate that adding non-signalized intersections that slow traffic (not by maxim but by configuration) would be “illegal” in some way.”

My understanding is that it would in fact be illegal if the posted, legal speed in the roundabout were lower than 45mph. You could likely have suggested speeds signs in yellow that propose a lower speed (like tighter curves on Devil’s Slide and 92) but the legal speed through it will need to be 45mph or higher - which begs the question of what happens when people ignore the cautionary sign and proceed through at a legal and permissible 45mph just as a pedestrian steps off the curb and into traffic?

“Read. The. USDOT. Document.  How many times do I have to tell you that they are routinely used on even faster roads here?  45 vs. 35: not a big difference?”

Would this be the same doc that says that pedestrian fatalities when struck at 40mph is 85% in exhibit 2.2?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00-0672.pdf

Tim, you can’t get around the fact that Highway 1 in its current designation must carry traffic at 45mph - through roundabouts or otherwise.

A roundabout without a signal must legally be able to maintain a minimum speed of 45mph regardless of what the suggested speed is.

“Expressway?  Freeway?  Which Half Moon Bay are you living in?”

I live in Moss Beach.

—David

Hey, what about a crosswalk where there is no roundabout!?  I know, it’s a revolutionary concept… maybe that is just pushing the envelope too far, so I’m not surprised you were unable to conceive of it.  Call me a risk-taker!

Did the expert indicate that adding non-signalized intersections that slow traffic (not by maxim but by configuration) would be “illegal” in some way.  Why would that be different than another kind of intersection (e.g. signals?)  Again… there is no lowered “designated speed limit” at a roundabout.

“I don’t doubt this for a second. Of course, there is a big different
between roundabouts in urban areas designed for motor vehicle traffic of 35mph or slower and proposing a roundabout in an expressway rated at 45-50mph.”

Read. The. USDOT. Document.  How many times do I have to tell you that they are routinely used on even faster roads here?  45 vs. 35: not a big difference?

Underpasses are expensive so maybe you will afford one each half mile or so.  Most people will not walk to these: I agree with the study on this.  Overpasses are hideous.  Really.  How anyone could object to the the aesthetics of any other recommendations and come out in favor of them is a complete mystery to me.

“I have lived in, and traveled extensively through, Europe and I do not recall seeing mixed use roundabouts designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on expressways and freeways. In urban city centers? Sure. On rural roads? Absolutely. On freeways and high speed expressways - sure, but never with pedestrian crossings.”

Expressway?  Freeway?  Which Half Moon Bay are you living in?

expressway |ikˈspresˌwā|
noun
a highway designed for fast traffic, with controlled entrance and exit, a dividing strip between the traffic in opposite directions, and typically two or more lanes in each direction.

freeway |ˈfrēˌwā|
noun
an express highway, esp. one with controlled access.
• a toll-free highway.

Hwy. 1 in HMB is not a controlled access road. Is that what you want it to become?  It surely sounds like it.

Yes, apparently. How are crosswalks incorporated into roundabouts as proposed in the draft report cheap?

How much cheaper is a roundabout with crosswalks than an underpass? Overpass? 

I haven’t seen numbers attached to either, so I remain in the dark on their true cost. Perhaps you have seen these numbers compared and can share those for the purposes of advancing the discussion?

“You seem to be an expert on traffic laws.  Do you have credentials or expertise of some sort?”

Nope. But I am on the MCC and had a chance to probe into this a bit with Dave Holland during his presentation to us. I defer to his research in this area which he shared with the MCC re: the necessity for Hwy 1 to maintain a minimum speed of 45mph in its current designation as an expressway. Am I missing something?

“Pedestrians are far safer at roundabouts than signalized intersections.  It’s not theory.  It’s data on intersections that have been changed from one to the other.”

I don’t doubt this for a second. Of course, there is a big different between roundabouts in urban areas designed for motor vehicle traffic of 35mph or slower and proposing a roundabout in an expressway rated at 45-50mph.

I have lived in, and traveled extensively through, Europe and I do not recall seeing mixed use roundabouts designed to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists on expressways and freeways. In urban city centers? Sure. On rural roads? Absolutely. On freeways and high speed expressways - sure, but never with pedestrian crossings.

“Read up.  Pedestrians are far safer at roundabouts than signalized intersections.  It’s not theory.”

I don’t doubt it, but irrelevant. See above. Even if Highway 1 weren’t an expressway, pedestrians/cyclists on any surface crossing are most certainly not safer than when they are off the road surface entirely as is the case with an overpass/underpass. I’m not sure why you keep coming back to signalized intersections. If I haven’t made it clear already, I am most definitely not in favor of those.

One last note: Tim, please try to remain civil. You are not under attack here - certainly not by me, anyway. We are having a public discussion about the pros/cons of various traffic mitigation tools. This does not need to be a heated or contentious dialog. I think you’ll find that you’ll be judged as much on the merits of your observations as you are in the manner in which you choose to present them.

I’m finding it difficult to have an rational discourse with you. 

Crosswalks are cheap and can be put anyplace where they are deemed convenient.  Is it that hard to understand?

You seem to be an expert on traffic laws.  Do you have credentials or expertise of some sort?

Read up.  Pedestrians are far safer at roundabouts than signalized intersections.  It’s not theory.  It’s data on intersections that have been changed from one to the other.

Cyclists are trickier, but from what I can tell, errors were made in early designs (you still see them here) to place a bicycle lane around the outside of the circle.  That turns out to be a serious no-no.  Cyclists in traffic do not slow the circle.  BTW… yes… I ride several thousand miles a year (road only) and do consider myself an expert for that reason.

READ THE USDOT DOCUMENT I POINTED AT FROM END TO END BEFORE CLAIMING ANY MORE EXPERTISE.  Please.

But they would go out of their way to cross at a crosswalk?

“So, you are saying that existing signalized intersections (that bring traffic to a full stop) are illegal?”

They probably should be. Presumably, the reason these are allowed is when green, traffic flows unrestricted at a minimum of 45mph and is therefor consistent with the expressway designation. 

By contrast, with a roundabout, not only must traffic be able to safely negotiate the roundabout at 45mph or faster but traffic must be able to stop from 45mph or faster for a pedestrian that has stepped off the curb.

At a signalized intersection, the yellow light which is timed for the posted speed of travel, provides notice to drivers that they will need to begin to slow in preparation to stop.

At a roundabout, if a driver is proceeding at 45-50mph and someone decides to step off the curb in the path of a car, what happens?

I’m all for roundabouts as a way of smoothing vehicle traffic merging onto and off the highway. Used in this way, they could be quite effective in normalizing traffic speeds.

However, add pedestrians and cyclist crossings into the mix and the efficacy (and legality?) of roundabouts goes entirely out the window.

—David

New. But how does that factor into the discussion?

http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/00068.htm

From the first paragraphs of the introduction:

“Traffic circles have been part of the transportation system in the United States since 1905, when the Columbus Circle designed by William Phelps Eno opened in NewYork City. Subsequently, many large circles or rotaries were built in the United States. The prevailing designs enabled high-speed merging and weaving of vehicles. Priority was given to entering vehicles, facilitating high-speed entries. High crash experience and congestion in the circles led to rotaries falling out of favor in America after the mid-1950’s. Internationally, the experience with traffic circles was equally negative, with many countries experiencing circles that locked up as traffic volumes increased.

The modern roundabout was developed in the United Kingdom to rectify problems associated with these traffic circles. In 1966, the United Kingdom adopted a mandatory “give-way” rule at all circular intersections, which required entering traffic to give way, or yield, to circulating traffic. This rule prevented circular intersections from locking up, by not allowing vehicles to enter the intersection until there were sufficient gaps in circulating traffic. In addition, smaller circular intersections were proposed that required adequate horizontal curvature of vehicle paths to achieve slower entry and circulating speeds.

These changes improved the safety characteristics of the circular intersections by reducing the number and particularly the severity of collisions. Thus, the resultant modern roundabout is significantly different from the older style traffic circle both in how it operates and in how it is designed. The modern roundabout represents a substantial improvement, in terms of operations and safety, when compared with older rotaries and traffic circles (1, 2, 3). Therefore, many countries have adopted them as a common intersection form and some have developed extensive design guides and methods to evaluate the operational performance of modern roundabouts.”

It’s a dense read with a lot of science (mostly high-school level physics) inside, but if you really want to understand the issues, it is an excellent resource.

Cheers,
Tim

“We put one in this past year with the construction of our new home.”

Now… was this “new construction” or did you demolish an older home first?

Your original rant contained an entire paragraph about failed roundabouts in the NE US, which are in fact, not roundabouts.  They are traffic circles and other types of rotaries.  You can yell until you are blue in the face that “a circular intersection is a circular intersection”, but to anyone that understands the difference you are simply screaming “I don’t know anything about modern roundabouts”.  Older style rotaries and traffic circles are deeply and fundamentally flawed, and a modern roundabout passes more than twice as much traffic per lane than these archaic designs.

According to the numbers in the study, a single lane roundabout is adequate for the locations they are being placed: maybe not the pumpkin festival, but if you are going to demand no backups for that event, you will get what you deserve: solid pavement throughout HMB.

As far as traffic during the study period.  Did you measure it?  I’m sorry but snapshots are anecdotal at best.  Do you know what time the photos were taken?  What day? I was not there that weekend, but at least I looked at that period.  It covered a weekend in June.  The Sunday of that weekend, June 28, was 70 degrees and sunny.  Now… I don’t know what traffic was like on that day (I did not measure it), but we all know that a sunny, 70-degree Sunday, June 28 in HMB is a recipe for traffic loads that are in the top few percentile.

Anyway… I’m trying to be rational about this, are you?

Talk to a civil engineer.  I’m pretty certain that’s not going to fly for this purpose.  Still, you are talking about some $$$ items.  I’m also not sure that the charettes (with which Carl seemed to agree above) aren’t right: that people will only walk so far out of their way to use an underpass.  If that is the case, it renders them relatively ineffective.

“Speaking of cost, let’s not lose sight of the fact that any roundabout that can’t safely handle 45mph is likely going to be a huge and expensive mountain to climb given Hwy 1’s designation as an expressway with a minimum 45mph speed.”

Don’t be silly.  So, you are saying that existing signalized intersections (that bring traffic to a full stop) are illegal?  There is no set speed limit in a roundabout.  The speed limit remains 45-55, or whatever the surrounding road is.  Typical use of roundabouts in my area is on roads with 90-110 speed limit, that is 55-65 mph.

For additional information on this petition please go to:
http://www.ca4democracy.com/

John Lynch

I’m also noticing private property where drainage ditches and stream banks have been obviously treated with herbicide. Once you start noticing it, it’s hard to miss.

Again, whatever the label on the circular traffic device, it needs to be scaled for the heavy-period traffic loads. The greater the traffic, the bigger the circle and the more lanes it needs. At-grade crossings at roundabouts are a no-go due to the steadily-moving vehicles, so the entire safe crossings issue remains with roundabouts, whether or not there are safe refuges halfway across the roads for pedestrians and bikes to regroup before chancing the other half of the traffic. In fact, where we need safe crossings between major intersections, there is no reason to weld them onto the roundabout issue.

Look at the examples in the consultants photos. Nothing close to a busy-period Highway 1 there in the paved-over urbanized development, or setup for urbanized development, shown.

Back to the beginning—the outside consultants lacked awareness of major midcoast realities and didn’t pick them up in the short time they were here. I dread what they might come up with for Moss Beach and Montara with such an approach. We have enough problems with the county and a few locals wanting to pave an unnecessary road in Fitzgerald and call it the “Coastal Trail.”

We put one in this past year with the construction of our new home. A below ground dissipator would essentially add what looks like a drainage grate to the lowest point in the underpass pavement. Below that is a big, perforated tube that catches the runoff and drains it away into the surrounding soil. In our case, it was designed to drain a 10k square foot lot and was nowhere near 1/4 mile long. Total cost was about $10k. Not really a deal breaker in the big scheme of things.

Speaking of cost, let’s not lose sight of the fact that any roundabout that can’t safely handle 45mph is likely going to be a huge and expensive mountain to climb given Hwy 1’s designation as an expressway with a minimum 45mph speed.

I am personally against dropping the speed limit absent an alternate high-speed access road, but even if I were in hfavor of such a scenario, I would still caution us to think long and hard about the financial and political challenges in re-designating Highway 1 as opposed to working within the constraints of its current expressway designation.

I know I sound like the world’s biggest cheerleader for overpasses/underpasses in this thread, but having essentially been sold a bill of goods with multiple variations on roundabout configurations (which certainly have their points of appeal - I don’t deny it) I would like nothing more than for us to collectively take a step back before we get too much further down the road and define our objectives (ostensibly, safe crossings) before selecting a tool and focusing on it at the exclusion of others.

My frustration is that we have spent countless hours looking at four shades of blue rather than a blue, a red, a yellow and a green.

“BTW, although it is a very painful proposition, I can see (topographic maps + satellite images) an alignment for a road against the hills from just south to south of HMB where a “big road” could be placed without robbing people of their homes”

This pains me too, and for the record, I was 100% opposed to Caltrans’ proposed 6 lane bypass that would have devastated McNee State Park and forever altered the face of our community. I, and many others, worked long and hard to open up the agenda to considering alternate options including both a dewatering option and a tunnel. Although my personal preference was for dewatering, at least we managed to get off the bypass agenda and find a solution that better met the needs of the community. All that being said, there is an element of having thrown out the baby with the bathwater when we defeated Caltrans’ bypass. An shorter, narrower, scaled down inland connector to 92 that added some modest capacity to an overburdened Hwy 1 isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and the traffic studies that exist today all point to the fact that we needed to have planned for this eventuality 15 years ago. Even if we started down this path today, it would be a long way off before we could bring infrastructure up to the level it needs to be to accommodate not only a growing resident population but the further demands of being a visitor serving destination.

That’s a long winded way of saying I agree that an alternate inland route is a painful and unpleasant dialog, but one that we can’t put off forever and one that needs to be looked at now as part of this dialog.

“It turns everything into right turns.”

I’ll shed a tear for the NASCAR fans. :-)

—David

That’s one of the main points of the roundabout.  It turns everything into right turns.