Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives c/o Hal Bohner

Transcription

1 Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives c/o Hal Bohner A n g e l i t a A v e n u e P a c i f i c a, C A phone hbohner@earthlink.net Via September 6, 2012 Mr. Bijan Sartipi District Director California Department of Transportation District 4 Bijan.Sartipi@dot.ca.gov Re: Caltrans Proposed Calera Parkway / Highway 1 Widening Project in Pacifica Dear Mr. Sartipi: Caltrans is proposing to widen Highway 1 in Pacifica. We write on behalf of Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives (PH1A), an organization advocating implementation of alternatives to Caltran s proposed Highway 1 widening project. PH1A believe there are viable alternatives that can substantially alleviate traffic congestion sooner than the widening project as currently proposed, that these alternatives could be promptly implemented, at less cost, and with far less impact to neighborhoods, businesses, and the environment. As you may be aware, Caltrans proposed widening project is called the Calera Parkway project, and Caltrans has prepared and circulated a Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment concerning the proposed project. (Draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment for State Route 1 / Calera Parkway / Highway 1 Widening Project San Mateo County, California 04-SM-1 / PM 41.7/43.0 / EA ) Page 1 of 5

2 Caltrans has, of course, studied some alternatives to the project and reported the results of those studies in the DEIR/EA, and in the DEIR/EA, Caltrans rejected as unfeasible all project alternatives except widening. However, PH1A have studied the DEIR/EA carefully and believe that some of the rejected alternatives, as well as alternatives which Caltrans failed to consider in the DEIR/EA, would be far superior to Caltrans selected alternative. The purpose of this letter is to request that Caltrans place its widening project on hold and properly study alternatives to the project. We believe that it is very likely that implementation of an alternative or alternatives could render highway widening unnecessary, or if widening is nevertheless necessary it could be reduced in scale. Some of the alternatives worthy of further consideration include changes in traffic signal timing, modifications to the Reina Del Mar intersection, a flex lane with moveable cones, increased public transportation, increased school bus service, car and van-pooling, and changes to school schedules. However, we would like to explain in this letter our thoughts about just one of the many alternatives and why we firmly believe that this specific alternative would be superior to the alternative which Caltrans has elected to pursue. In the DEIR/EA the alternative of Signal Interconnect & Signal Timing Improvements was rejected. The DEIR/EA states (emphasis added): Signal Interconnect & Signal Timing Improvements without Roadway Widening This alternative would install signal interconnect cable between the Fassler Avenue/Rockaway Beach Avenue and the Reina Del Mar Avenue signals to coordinate timing of green phases. A variation of this alternative would also include widening to add a third lane in the northbound direction. The environmental and property right-of-way impacts for this alternative would be minimal. The estimated construction cost for this alternative for signal interconnect only is approximately $0.3 million. Signal interconnect would not, however, provide an appreciable benefit due to the distance between the two signals. This alternative was primarily rejected because the Page 2 of 5

3 traffic operation benefit would be considerably less than the proposed Build Alternatives. (DEIR pgs. 36 & 91 of 287) However, Caltrans has apparently recently reversed this decision and is now planning to include signal interconnection and timing improvements as part of the Calera Parkway project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Biological Opinion (BO) dated January 29, 2012 concerning the Calera Parkway project. The BO describes the Caltrans project and states at page 6 of 46: Other project components include:... Replacing the existing intersection traffic signal equipment at both the Fassler Avenue and Reina Del Mar intersections and interconnect the two signals. Upon reading this we ask ourselves why Caltrans cannot interconnect the existing signals and adjust the signal timing immediately, instead of at least three years from now when the widening project is predicted to be completed. Further, if replacing the existing intersection signal equipment is required, that could apparently be done promptly as well. And, the $300,000 price tag would obviously be preferable to the currently estimated price tag of over $50 million for the widening project. There seems to be no valid reason to delay signal interconnection and timing improvements until the widening project is done. There can be no doubt that there are sometimes significant traffic delays and Caltrans seems to believe, as do we, that interconnecting the signals and resetting the timing could reduce traffic delays. It is important to note that Caltrans own consultants have concluded both that interconnecting the signals and improving signal timing could have significant benefit to traffic flow and that it is standard practice to coordinate traffic signals to minimize delay in congested corridors. I am attaching a copy of a memo from Fehr and Peers, transportation consultants to Page 3 of 5

4 the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, dated December 10, 2008 (SR1 Supplemental Memo regarding Signal Timing for Existing Conditions.pdf) The memo states at page 3 of 4 (underlining added): Southbound (PM Peak Period) Unlike the AM situation, traffic conditions in the PM peak hour could be improved to LOS D conditions with retiming and coordination of the two signals. The main difference between the AM and PM is the Fassler Avenue intersection: as described above, in the AM, two major movements must be served, and they cannot be served concurrently, which precludes effective platooning and the benefits of coordination. However, in the PM, the two major movements at Fassler Avenue (the southbound through movement and the southbound left turn) can be served at the same time. Approximately 30 seconds after southbound Reina del Mar Avenue turns green, both the southbound through and protected southbound left turn at Fassler Avenue would turn green. This might require retiming the traffic signals to a shorter cycle length, such as 150 seconds. Currently, the two traffic signals operate independently of each other and are not coordinated. In a congested or urban corridor, engineers usually coordinate traffic signals to minimize delay and vehicle stops. This is less common in suburban locations, where traffic volumes are lower and traffic signals are spaced farther apart. According to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, it is recommended to coordinate signals that are less than half a mile apart (these signals are 0.57 miles apart). Thank you for your consideration of the above proposal. Please contact PHIA at the address above so that we can meet with you to discuss this matter further. We look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Pete Shoemaker, Chair, Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives Page 4 of 5

5 Hal Bohner, Member, Pacificans for Highway 1 Alternatives Copy: Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Malcolm.Dougherty@dot.ca.gov Madeline Cavalieri, California Coastal Commission mcavalieri@ coastal.ca.gov San Mateo County Transit Authority Carole Groom (Chair), cgroom@smcgov.org Karyl Matsumoto (Vice Chair), Rosanne Foust, Don Horsley, Terry Nagel, Naomi Patridge, Sepi Richardson, karyl.matsumoto@ssf.ne rfoust@redwoodcity.org dhorsley@smcgov.org tnagel@burlingame.org naomip@hmbcity.com sepirichardson@ci.brisbane.ca.us Encl: SR1 Supplemental Memo regarding Signal Timing for Existing Conditions.pdf Page 5 of 5