WEATHER »
<b>GRIDLOCK GALORE:</b>  The only thing messier than Highway 101 traffic is the bureaucratic warfare over how to fix it.

Paul Wellman

GRIDLOCK GALORE: The only thing messier than Highway 101 traffic is the bureaucratic warfare over how to fix it.


Green Light for Highway 101 Widening

Push for Changes, More Study Overwhelmingly Defeated


Friday, January 17, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

What Caltrans director Malcolm Dougherty wanted most for Christmas was “a statement of consensus” — not to mention a clear sense of momentum — from elected officials throughout Santa Barbara County in support of Caltrans’s plans to widen Highway 101 and to add a carpool lane from Carpinteria to Montecito. This Thursday — well after most Christmas trees have come down — Dougherty got everything he wanted.

And then some.

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) board — made up of the five county supervisors and elected representatives from each of the county’s eight cities — voted 11-to-2 to embrace Caltrans’s current plan and to reject separate but overlapping demands from the City of Santa Barbara and the Montecito Association to make significant changes and to study the project some more. The majority argued the project needed to proceed without delay to alleviate the pain and misery suffered by thousands of motorists stuck in rush-hour gridlock every day. The widening, they argued, would be good for tourism, employers, workers, farmers, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and anyone else stuck on the freeway. Mostly, they said, they owed it to the 79 percent of voters who agreed to tax themselves back in 2008 — by approving Measure A — and to spend $140 million on the freeway widening.

The Montecito Association — as well as its political alter ego, Common Sense 101 — wanted the project amended to keep the existing left-lane ramps by the Cabrillo/Hot Springs and Sheffield interchanges. The City of Santa Barbara demanded that Caltrans redesign the project to include — and pay for — the widening of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge by the city’s bird refuge. On December 17, Dougherty issued a lengthy letter telling both to pound sand. He declared that the existing left-lane ramps confound driver expectations and are inherently not as safe as right-hand ramps; they would not be part of any Caltrans project. Likewise, he rejected City Hall’s demands, insisting that those changes — which he acknowledged had merit — needed to be pursued separately.

Over 25 wait to have their chance to speak, at Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.
Click to enlarge photo

Elisa Ramirez/Santa Maria Times

Over 25 wait to have their chance to speak, at Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.

This week’s extremely lopsided vote stands in stark contrast to the exceedingly narrow 7-6 decision rendered by the same board in May when SBCAG last visited the same issues. At that time, the board went the other way, instructing Caltrans and the SBCAG board to meet with representatives from City Hall and the Montecito Association to hash out these remaining issues. They also voted in favor of recirculating the environmental document, if need be. While many of the SBCAG boardmembers were far from convinced that such hashing out took place to the extent that they wanted, most were unwilling to call Dougherty’s implied bluff. “Is he going to take his ball and go home?” asked Supervisor Salud Carbajal — whose district includes Montecito — in an interview before the vote. “I don’t know. But I don’t want to find out.” Carbajal — who made the motion to endorse Caltrans’s plans Thursday — said he was convinced by Caltrans’s argument that the proposed changes could set the freeway widening back by as long as six years and many millions of dollars. Likewise Carbajal said he had been told by Governor Jerry Brown’s staff that Dougherty’s letter — and the Caltrans plan — had the governor’s full blessing and support.

In making the motion to support Caltrans’s plan, Carbajal argued that the bridge widening sought by City Hall — not to mention a San Ysidro Road interchange and a roundabout for the intersection of Olive Mill and Coast Village roads — should be pursued separately and concurrently, leaving open the $64 million question (or close to it) where the money for such projects might come from.

In supporting Carbajal’s motion, 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr acknowledged the project’s shortcoming and Caltrans’s many imperfections, but said she ultimately felt compelled “to keep the faith of the voters,” referring to the 2008 Measure A election, in which county residents agreed to tax themselves to the tune of $1.2 billion over the next 30 years to pay for various transportation projects, most notably the freeway widening. At a time when elected officials are considering whether to take other tax measures to Santa Barbara voters, the risks of breaking that faith — or even appearing to — carries obvious risks not lost on anyone in the hearing room. Solvang Mayor Jim Richardson added, “Promises were made to widen Highway 101, and that needs to be completed.”

Peter Adams, on the board of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, speaks his mind to the room at the meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.
Click to enlarge photo

Elisa Ramirez/Santa Maria Times

Peter Adams, on the board of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, speaks his mind to the room at the meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.

Since the May meeting, which Dougherty flew down from Sacramento to speak at, the lobbying by all sides on the biggest and most significant public-works project to hit the South Coast in decades — weighing in at an estimated $425 million — has been nonstop and furious. Although the terms of the debate have been wonky and weedy in the extreme — intelligible only to traffic engineers — the politics has been bruising and personal. Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider emerged as Caltrans’s loudest and most relentless critic, frequently complaining that past promises made by Caltrans and SBCAG to widen the Union Pacific bridge were never delivered. “Fool me once, shame on you,” she’s frequently said. “Fool me twice, shame on me.” Only by getting the bridge work included as part of the official project description, Schneider insisted, could City Hall have confidence that funding for the job — estimated between $15 million and $20 million — would ever materialize.

But Schneider’s message was complicated by the fact that her campaign consultant and longtime political confidant Jeremy Lindaman was also the paid political consultant for Common Sense 101, the Montecito group lobbying to retain the left-lane ramps. Among local politicos, Lindaman — shrewd and combative — has emerged as a polarizing figure in recent years. The backstory to the Highway 101 fight almost eclipsed the issue itself: Was Schneider hoping to score political points with rich Montecito donors as part of her — and Lindaman’s — long-term political ambitions? Was she trying to show up Carbajal in front of his constituents? And had Lindaman, the high-profile lighting rod, become the tail wagging Schneider’s dog? While such questions became the source of incessant speculation in political circles, certain facts clearly emerged: City Hall’s critique of the Caltrans plan got lost in the din of Common Sense 101’s objections. And relations between Schneider and Carbajal — strained since Carbajal declined to endorse Schneider in March for if and when he eventually and inevitably runs for Congress and she runs for his seat — have degenerated to the barely talking stage.

While Caltrans supporters have seized on this melodrama as a handy excuse to dismiss Schneider’s arguments, the fact remains that City Hall — from left to right and top to bottom — has been uncommonly united in its objections to key elements of the Caltrans plan. City Administrator Jim Armstrong voiced similar concerns during his 10-minute presentation to the SBCAG board. He noted the city’s planning commission voted unanimously that the Union Pacific bridge absolutely needs to be part of the widening project description. Without that, the commissioners have objected, funding is uncertain. And City Hall’s senior traffic planner, Rob Dayton — unleashed and unmuzzled in recent months — was given free reign to attack Caltrans’s draft environmental report.

Over 25 wait to have their chance to speak, at Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.
Click to enlarge photo

Elisa Ramirez/Santa Maria Times

Over 25 wait to have their chance to speak, at Santa Barbara County Association of Governments meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.

Dayton has contended that Caltrans’s own studies demonstrate the extra road capacity created by the freeway widening will cause traffic to back up once motorists hit the city limits. Santa Barbara interchanges will be choked. And city streets will be clogged with drivers seeking shortcuts through Santa Barbara neighborhoods. This information, he and the planning commission have insisted, needs to be included front and center in any environmental report. Instead, he complained, it’s barely alluded to in less than a sentence. Caltrans has insisted that Santa Barbara’s traffic congestion would be even worse than that if no project were built, but its engineers have acknowledged that there will be “trade-offs.” Even Councilmember Dale Francisco — the council’s most conservative member and who is now seeking the Republican Party nomination to run for Congress — made the trek to Santa Maria this Thursday to speak against the Caltrans project as proposed. Without the bridge widening included, he warned SBCAG, City Hall would not issue the coastal development permit that will eventually be necessary for the project to move forward.

This was the drum that Schneider beat on Thursday with her fellow SBCAG boardmembers. Without clear and convincing guarantees that the Union Pacific bridge would be funded, Schneider said she could not bring herself to vote for Carbajal’s measure. “I don’t think saying, ‘Okay, Caltrans, you win,’ will make them double up and make that happen,” she said. Although Schneider came up far shorter than she or Lindaman expected, her fellow boardmembers took pains to reach out with olive branches. One asked her what language could be added — short of recirculating the environmental impact report and changing the project description — that could win her vote. Supervisor Steve Lavagnino promised as the new chair of the SBCAG board to do everything he could to help her secure the funding for the bridge widening.

Money, as always, was the root of contention. Not only did SBCAG commit $140 million to the freeway-widening and carpool-lane project, but it also committed $135 million in state and federal gas tax revenues that would otherwise have funded major road-capacity-improvement projects throughout the county. Without those gas-tax revenues, public works departments throughout the county will be forced to forgo certain projects for the next 30 years or find alternative funding. Supervisor Peter Adam — who is making the county’s deteriorating road conditions the focus of a ballot initiative — seized on this in casting the only other vote against Carbajal’s consensus motion. “Caltrans is the owner of this thing,” Adam said of the freeway project, “but we’re going to pay for over half of it. I find that a little disturbing. Maybe more than a little bit.”

Roger Aceves, board member of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, listens during the meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.
Click to enlarge photo

Elisa Ramirez/Santa Maria Times

Roger Aceves, board member of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, listens during the meeting about the Highway 101 widening project.

Offering the most biting rebuttal to Adam’s concern was North County activist Andy Caldwell of COLAB, whose support for Measure A proved vital to its passage in 2008. Caldwell noted with his customary rhetorical flourish that the last page of the Measure A ballot statement — which was mailed out to county voters — explicitly acknowledged that SBCAG would be using state and federal gas-tax revenues as matching funds to build the freeway widening, as well as a raft of other projects that Measure A revenues would help fund. Supervisor Lavagnino acknowledged that the ballot language may not have spelled out the new realities in a way that the average reader could grasp. But even they understood the significant sacrifice that entailed, he said, “I firmly believe the majority of people would be with us today.”

In the battle for the board’s hearts and minds, SBCAG and Carbajal clearly out-hustled and out-muscled a well-financed opposition endowed with political connections all the way up to the governor’s office. More than that, one of its key players — Ron Pulice — formerly ran a family-owned construction company that built hundreds of freeway miles in Arizona, giving him the stature and professional credibility to go toe-to-toe with Caltrans’s experts. They argued — with solid evidence — that the safety record of the left-lane ramps was far better than Caltrans asserted. By retaining those ramps, the Montecito activists argued, the project could be built two years faster and $60 million cheaper. But Caltrans engineers said the cost saving would be negligible and pointed out that the left-lane ramps could be retained only by cutting short the carpool lane. This alternative inflamed transportation activists with groups like COAST, who noted that they would never have supported Measure A if the carpool lane had not been included. Without their support, they added, Measure A could not have passed.

Supporters of the freeway widening argued Common Sense 101’s real agenda was to kill the project — not change it — just the same way Montecitans killed the last freeway-widening effort in 1992. (In that effort, Caltrans fully embodied the jack-booted bureaucracy of its stereotype and the photo simulations of what the project would look like — provided by Caltrans itself — were devastatingly bleak.) In recent months, freelance reporter and writer Ann Louise Bardach has jumped into the fray, bending ears and twisting arms against the Montecito opposition. At Thursday’s meeting, Bardach lambasted the Montecito activists as entitled “one-percenters” — rich, white, old, and exclusively male — suggesting at one point that members of the Montecito opposition were impervious to the agonies of gridlock as they could hire people to be stuck in traffic in their stead. Nor did it help the opposition when Sara Miller McCune, a wealthy philanthropist and politically influential player of considerable reach, privately took Schneider to task and publicly rebuked the opposition for holding the freeway improvement “hostage.” The final nails in the coffin came last week when Assemblymember Das Williams, State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson — liberal stalwarts of the Democratic Party and the Santa Barbara Democratic Central Committee itself — all came out against further delays.

The next step is for Caltrans to certify its draft environmental impact report. At that point, Caltrans and SBCAG can begin in earnest the final design work and searching far and wide for the $150 million still needed to cover the estimated cost of construction. It remains to be seen whether the Montecito Association or Common Sense 101 will file a lawsuit challenging the adequacy of the environmental analysis, though SBCAG strategists assume such an attack is inevitable. Supervisor Janet Wolf didn’t get in the last word — that distinction went to Goleta Councilmember Roger Aceves and her rival in this year’s supervisorial race — but she may as well have. “I’m glad we’re at this point,” she said. “It’s like just move forward, drive safely, and let’s get on with it.”

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Never underestimate the brain drain and weakness of an elected assembly.

Georgy (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great summary Nick. One key piece you left out was the approved motion was to hire independent engineering consultants to do the design work, rather than keep going with Caltrans. I think that was one of the conciliatory offerings to the MA and CS 101 folks.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good job Malcolm Dougherty!!!

bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Never overestimate the Mayor's can of whupass for hire. She showed her true colors in this manufactured controversy. Her sell out to the MA and CS 101 has forever tarnished her brand. Forget running for higher office Helene. Way to flush your "hard earned" dollars down the toilet MA / CS101. I am sure that your oversized egos will drive you to double down on a useless lawsuit aganst the EIR. 11-2 epic fail for the plutocracy.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SBCAG has voted emphatically YES to eliminate the 101 left-side and ramps and continue the widening. Helene looks terrible and politically opportunistic since the vote was 11 - 2 to GO AHEAD. She is locked in with Peter Adam, what a pairing!
Since this was absolutely gonna happen in any case, the Mayor wasted a lot of her valuable time ON CITY PAY to hassle with this. Why isn't she working on City pension issues and 16 other items of appropriate business? Lindemann works for Montecito 101 and also for Helene...hmmm.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Mayor Schneider! Remember when you vowed to get to the bottom of the mess at the SBPD? You know the forged paperwork, pre checked boxes ect. Now they have gone on an ass kicking and a character assassination spree. The lawsuits are piling up. Watch the city settle these for millions of dollars. Good thing you "saved" the budget by cutting good paying full time jobs and replacing them with part time workers at almost the minium wage. Meanwhile city services have gone downhill. You are a phony liberal / progressive, an opportunist at best. I relish your political downfall.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good little trolls . Sit under the Southern Paciific bridge and hiss while packed together like rats. Listen for the echoes of Malcom's laughter from above as he whizzes by in his gilded carriage , in route to Saluds' coronation.

geeber (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geeber is teh funnie.

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If the City of Santa Barbara wants to fix the UP bridge there is a simple solution. Eminent domain. The bridge works fine for the UP, and they will contribute no money to upgrade it. So the City should take it over and build the bridge they like. Would only cost $100 million or so, when all the bells and whistles are added in.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 8:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Withhold those CDPs!

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 4:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Project became a political football allowing posturing for potential candidates to pretend they were fighting for local interests while knowing the approval was a fait accompli.

Nice finesse to try and have it both ways. Glad this is finally settled, so just get it done. Then we can concentrate on what really needs to get done in this town infrastructure wise.

BTW, what happened to all that state water we have been paying for that was to protect us from a "drought".

All those who voted for state water and were warned it would not be there when we actually needed it, can you please explain why we spent all that money for something that in fact is not there?

How much have we spent on state water since the last major drought?

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM HERE:

"But Schneider’s message was complicated by the fact that her campaign consultant and longtime political confidant Jeremy Lindaman was also the paid political consultant for Common Sense 101, the Montecito group lobbying to retain the left-lane ramps. Among local politicos, Lindaman — shrewd and combative — has emerged as a polarizing figure in recent years. The backstory to the Highway 101 fight almost eclipsed the issue itself: Was Schneider hoping to score political points with rich Montecito donors as part of her — and Lindaman’s — long-term political ambitions? Was she trying to show up Carbajal in front of his constituents? And had Lindaman, the high-profile lighting rod, become the tail wagging Schneider’s dog?"

John_Adams (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown.

Writing ``(In that effort, Caltrans fully embodied the jack-booted bureaucracy of its stereotype and the photo simulations of what the project would look like — provided by Caltrans itself — were devastatingly bleak.)'' is wacko, Nick.

Real jack-booted thugs would throw you down the stairs and break your back, Nick.

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you live in a city that not only tips the scales of justice, but knocks it over into a big hole and buried it...
What do you expect.
I think this is the only thing that the Administrator will let the officials comment on...
Make him proud folks, make him proud!

touristunfriendly (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The mayor protested she did not want to be hoodwinked by Caltrans, but at the very same time she was hoodwinking her own constituents for her own personal gain. She blindly insisted there was no congestion on Coast Village Road--just so she could support Montecito's fatally flawed, left-lane nonsense.

She left her own citizens to fend for themselves, while she became Montecito's carpetbagger. On behalf of a half-a-dozen, out-of-touch and out-of-city obstructions, she used her position, her planning commission and the city's staff to build support for Montecito's unbuildable scheme.

Is that grounds for recall?
.

Brunswick (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Misinformed commenters such as Brunswick should take time to go back and read Schneiders own words from about a week ago, before casting ignorant stones. There are severe planning and funding problems with this plan and the corruption and ineptitude of Caltrans will soon be on full display.
http://www.independent.com/news/2014/...

geeber (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Geeb, your gal failed her CS 101 masters. Get over it . Please let us "misinformed commentors" aka "good little trolls" in on your special information about Caltrans' corruption and ineptitude. Cut to crickets chirping...

Herschel_Greenspan (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gosh, geeber, I am sure you swore to give this up and accept the wisdom of more enlightened bureaucrats [Malcolm] and traffic engineers! what gives? The trolls shot was beneath you.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems like Mayor Schneider and city staff were standing up for the people of Santa Barbara. Of course a politician from Solvang wouldn't care about more traffic in our city. But I would have thought Supervisor Wolf and Carbajal would have been more thoughtful. They represent us too.

LC (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Respectfully , Herschel G, you won't see it if you don't want to look for it.
You must know about the Bay Bridge engineering fiasco ? You don't know about the agency falsifying bridge safety reports , then covering up the scandal? You think it prudent for the average Caltrans employee salary to be making $100,000 ?!? No crickets here.
The list of inefficiency and corruption is long and sordid. Not quite sure where all the trust comes from with you guys?
DD , yes I am obviously in the minority on this one and have lost the argument . Nonetheless , I will be here every step of the way to remind you guys when you get what you asked for.

geeber (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That area is gonna be underwater anyway .

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Underwater? Someone say underwater?.

Your tax dollars are underwater paying for this "settled science" report about Santa Barbara being underwater, UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING NOW!

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publicat...

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 18, 2014 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First, let me say that I agree with foo about the state water debacle. It's exactly as we planners said and warned: when you really need it, it won't be there.

But, alas, his-her last post about sea level rise is incomprehensible. I'm not sure about his-her point, but I think I get it, based upon past experience.

Foo, please elucidate.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Excellent Caldwell editorial in the NewsPress (1/19/14) contrasting the allocation and uses of voter-approved Measure A funding between the south and the north county, along with the timely reminder voters who passed this billion dollar local transportation slush fund were unequivocally promised the 101 widening.

Too late for South County on now specious grounds to hold up the present 101 widening project claiming there is not enough money to do it they way they now demand (include the UP underpass changes, or else no widening).

The South County just chose to spend their Measure A share differently than North County until they have no more money left, so they can't now obstruct completion now of the primary Measure A promise - widening Highway 101 simply because of their own South County bond money intransigence.

Money was originally set aside for the 101 widening. South County could have spent the rest of their Measure A share widening the UP underpass when they had the chance, but they spent their Measure A share elsewhere. That was their choice. Too late for South County to now cry over what they should have done.

Just do it.

Note to GM: Think obliquely, and I think you got it too.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"You think it prudent for the average Caltrans employee salary to be making $100,000"
-- geeber

Cleverly stated. There is a rhetorical difference between the "average employee" and the "salary average"!

In addition, that $100K figure includes benefits. If you look at the average of just salaries, that's $75K. Caltrans salaries are unremarkable compared to any large company in the private sector. The pensions offered by my previous corporate employers kick butt on Caltrans pension too.

Averages can be mis-leading and abused. One needs to look at the mathematical distribution as well.

http://www.modbee.com/2011/03/10/1592...

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Adams vs. Caldwell. An interesting matchup.

EastBeach (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope the whole thing blows up and THEY NEVER BUILD IT.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 19, 2014 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Foo's quote: "Excellent Caldwell editorial in the NewsPress (1/19/14)..." You lost me there on at least two levels.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

foofighter and Mr. Caldwell speak the truth. As someone involved with the development of the Measure A expenditure plan, I can tell you most of the other agencies were shocked that the City of SB didn't ask for more substantive projects to be included in the plan. They seemed to lack leadership in this area, and many thought it would come back to haunt them in the future, and it has. The City staff and Council were very supportive of all the funding requests from the alternative transportation crowd (COAST, Bike Coalition, etc.) for sidewalk, pilot commuter train, bike lanes/paths, etc., but didn't seem interested in a large capital project, even though a new or modified interchange to provide better access to the larger Cottage Hospital was suggested at that time.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Measure A adopted by Santa Barbara voters in 2008 and strategic plan for expenditures adopted in 2010.

City leadership during that period: Mayor Marty Blum and Mayor Helene Schneider

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 20, 2014 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh ho, so now we have a "new" player in the mix--welcome, "Indyholio"! Game on. Who's paying you--Lash? Granite? Americans for Prosperity? Let's rock.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 4:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Indyholio, your comment is useless since we are here now, 6 years after Measure A, we're gonna build it... I'm just a guy who drives it all the time [since 1980], not a front for other interests, let's do it now and this johnny-come-lately biz is baloney. Or, my preference: DROP THE WHOLE PROJECT OF WIDENING; and close the stupid left-side on/offramps, more biking, buses, etc.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 21, 2014 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DrDan, youse rocks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-boke... . Where are the cowards?

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sure GregMohr and DrDan, I'll play, but only when you guys start making sense. Let me know when that happens.

Indyholio (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Welcome, Indyholio. Great is we can get more substance to the discussions, instead of nit-picking rejoinders and name-calling non sequiturs.

foofighter (anonymous profile)
January 22, 2014 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's rock.

GregMohr (anonymous profile)
January 23, 2014 at 1:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: