Comments by Leonard Woren
June 04, 2006
Hey, Ken, regarding your quoting George Muteff and your response (in the middle of the second to last paragraph), see the end of my May 24, 10:00 am comment above! Of course, the Foothill proponents haven't responded to it.
June 03, 2006
What would be the annualized maintenance costs for Foothill/Bayview? Who would pay? These would not be State-maintained highways, and as they would be completely within the City of Half Moon Bay, HMB would have to pay for the maintenance. If they attract off a significant fraction of the existing SR 1 traffic, they'll get pretty beat up and require a lot of maintenance. Where will this money come from? Ray's non-answer notwithstanding, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions above: what roads…
June 01, 2006
After reading the last few comments in this thread, it seems to me that we need to either approach this disagreement from a different angle or abandon it and close out this thread. My first thought is that many, if not most of the people who moved to the Coastside moved here because they liked what they saw. That's why so many work so hard to keep it that way. So one question that I would put out is "Why move to someplace and then gripe about the way it is?" If you think that SR 92 is too curvy,…
May 27, 2006
Apparently many people in the Terrace subdivision blame Mike F for the signal and voted against him because of that. I can't wait to see what the current councilmembers do about the traffic signal. I'm betting that they do nothing to eliminate it.
May 24, 2006
George Muteff continues to repeat the fundamentally flawed idea that more development should be allowed in order to fund/build infrastructure to serve those already here. The problem with that idea is that when such infrastructure is built, all of its capacity will be used up by the latent demand of those already here, and then when the new development which funded it is online, there will be a call to allow more new development in order to fund more infrastructure needed to serve the last round…
May 21, 2006
Please show me where I said "cavalier."
May 22, 2006
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.…
May 22, 2006
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…
May 20, 2006
"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,…
May 19, 2006
So the Review wrote "One more thing: We promise to apply the same journalistic standards to our work on the Web that readers have become accustomed to in our news pages over our long history. Just as we don’t rush things into print, we will do our best to assure that what you read on our Web site is accurate." I, for one, think that's hilarious. Yep, I have no doubt that they will apply the same "journalistic standards". That's the problem. Although, once again, my disclaimer is that I firmly…
May 18, 2006
As a follow-on to Tim's funny-but-true comment, I'd like to remind people that when the SR 92 uphill passing lane construction was basically complete, CalTrans kept the "construction zone" signs up for many many more months, going out for a couple of hours a week to piddle around just so that they could say it wasn't yet finished. We drove past blocked-off lanes for *months* waiting for CalTrans to run out of excuses. That said, I'm sure that lawsuits filed by a certain pro-bypass person trying to…
May 15, 2006
Tim, please reread my earlier comment. I was referring to SR 92 east of town as a country road. SR 1 is not quite the same through the communities, although it is pretty much a country road between communities. Not that there's much left of "between" at this point.
May 14, 2006
Tim - you attack those you call "no-growthers" and you complain there are no bike lanes / pedestrian areas on SR 1. I guess that you would be surprised that all of the people I know whom you would consider "no-growthers" support and have been pushing for many years for implementation of the parallel trail to support pedestrians and bicyclists next to SR 1 but a safe distance away from the cars. HMB (under Mike!) has started to move on this. In the unincorporated Midcoast, the County has yet to even…
May 14, 2006
Ray, you refer to "4 lanes to allow for right/left turn bays." If you're specifically intending this to mean that there would still be only one through lane in each direction, then I could certainly get behind that. If you intend this to mean more than one through lane, then I (and MANY others) remain opposed. Please clarify. When most of us hear "4 lanes all the way through Montara", we think of El Camino in Redwood City, which is mostly a nominally 4 lane street PLUS turn lanes, so it's actually…
May 11, 2006
Some people try to claim that the 1% (City) and 3% (County) growth RATE limits will keep the Coastside from being overdeveloped, and therefore we can max out the infrastructure now. That's a red herring argument. All the RATE limits do is delay the train wreck. Unless the buildout targets are brought down, all the proposed infrastructure expansions will be eaten up by new development, and in a few decades there will be people demanding that the roads be widened to 8 lanes. Most of Southern California…
May 11, 2006
One of the things that I find most amusing about CCF's proposal is that Cypress Cove objected to the possibility of traffic on Stone Pine from the new city park, yet CCF is proposing something that will likely dump much more traffic onto Stone Pine than the park possibly could. This could get interesting. Actually, I think I know where this is headed: CCF snookers enough people into supporting their Bayview/Foothill "solution" which includes an underpass connection to Stone Pine, then the Cypress…
April 27, 2006
The MMDA was probably killed before I moved here in 1994, so I know little about it other than the basic concept and I can't add anything further other than I believe it was to be a permanent fix for having the highway on the ocean side of the mountain very close to where it is now. Now that the tunnel construction has started, this possibility is lost forever. As to whether it's a long term project, an engineer will have to comment on that. I'd guess that it could be completed in a small fraction…
April 27, 2006
From Coastsider.com's citation of the Mercury News article: "Still, he said, engineers are confident they can fix the slide with new technology that uses a web of cables under the roadbed." Ok... to what are they going to anchor the ends of the cables? I suggested in 1995 and again this time that they build a bridge over the relatively short slide zone. They have steadfastly refused to consider it, responding tersely that there's nothing to anchor it to. Well, if they can anchor the cables for a…
April 18, 2006
Fixing the road would be more helpful.
April 12, 2006
Yep, gotta make sure that nobody can see that just as in 1995, they're not doing anything.
As I said in 1995, CalTrans should be completely disbanded and replaced with a contracts administrator. All projects will then be completed faster and cheaper.
Page 15 of 17 pages ‹ First < 13 14 15 16 17 >
Facebook
Twitter
RSS