When you look at it on a map, it looks like a straight shot. When you

proposed route. Some peaks there are over 4,000 feet. The area is by no> means pristine, but it is very rural, with cattle ranches, a few houses,

scout camps, and state and county parks. It has much wildlife and not much> traffic, considering its proximity to the Bay Area. Also, the Lick> Observatory is there and very sensitive to light pollution. It is rated as> one of the top 10 most important astronomical observatories in the world.

drive>

that>

Pombo's proposal brings passionate viewpoints from both supporters and> non-supporters. The question at hand is how to create traffic-alleviation­> between the Bay Area and Central Valley bedroom-communities­ of Modesto and> Turlock. This traffic includes residential, commercial and industrial> traffic. Nonetheless, the most visible sign of the Central Valley's growth> is the raw amount of housing tracts and you'll see--it's tremendous.

Under the presumption High-Tech stays exclusively in the Silicon Valley over> the years, I personally support Richard Pombo's idea, and here's why:>

(1) I-580, I-238 and I-880 are heavily taxed by traffic in the morning,> showing their current infrastructure as quite aged. ROW for widening is> extremely limited, and if such drastic improvements (let's say, two extra> lanes for each side of I-238 and I-880) were made, many residential areas> (whose workers locally aid the blue-collar industry) would be put in> jeopardy. Some of these residential areas are <30 years old, and are of> medium-density status. If you're a resident of these areas and are of lower> socio-economic status, and have your property given to CalTrans (i.e.,> California Department of Transportation), then your fallback options for> residence in the Bay Area become quite limited. The only options from these> individuals seem to be East Palo Alto, Richmond, and Hayward, which> tragically, are slowly becoming victim to expensive medium-density housing.> So in the end, where do these home-owners end up going? The Central Valley> or down south towards Hollister.

(2) Many commuters digest along I-580/I-238/I-880 from their residence> Central Valley. While these commuters *alone* are not responsible for> I-580/I-238/I-880 traffic backups, they are sadly forced into a> "one-size-fits-all"­ routing en route to high-tech jobs in the Silicon> Valley, creating a bottleneck. An argument against this can be, "why not> widen CA-84, that'll help"? True, this point is valid, however the> "choke-point" at Altamont Pass will not be alleved much, if at all under> this proposal. Granted, public transportation over the Altamont Pass is> currently available, however no rhetoric can change a person's mind whose> pereceptively in complete-control of his or her schedule (...now, this is> from a statistical and not absolute standpoint), and therefore drive an> automobile. The Greens can scream at this at the top of their lungs, but> truth be told-- they cannot control everyone's transport behaviours how hard> or how emotional they may try to be. Simply put, ideology is subjective,> much like my support for Pombo's highway.

This does not discount the positive-effects of public-transportati­on, and> its marginal growth in ridership over the years are not being discounted.> Basically, for those who like public-transportati­on, and have time> infratsructure to support its operation, it's their free-will.

(3) Making a direct-connection between Modesto, Turlock and San Jose is an> effective way to alleviate I-580 from out-of-region traffic. Pombo's> highway will do this. It is possible to enter San Jose via Alum Rock, and> the drive towards here would be extremely scenic through the hills and> mountains. The Boy Scouts, land-owners and Lick Observatory can still> manage w/ Pombo's Highway in existence--and it would not be the end of the> world. With careful planning, no grade is impossible to tame. And when the> need is great enough, laws can be changed to legally fit this route as a> critical-corridor for the economic state of the world's 10th largest> economy. Interestingly, Los Angeles motorists can benefit from this highway> too, and not be forced to take I-580 or CA-152 (...which coincidentally,> whose full freeway-upgrade can serve as an alternative for Pombo's> Highway--BUT would create a US-101 bottleneck, much like I-580 @ Altamont,> in Morgan Hill and south San Jose).

...For reference, here's a Pombo Highway discussion made in June 2004:> http://tinyurl.com/­43elt. The responses were quite spirited (many logical,> but some are not). Nonetheless, it's amazing the overall level of> awareness that is given for Pombo's project.

Let's keep this topic rolling; the more input the better! My closing> argument (...not in anyway downsizing the OP's seemingly open-viewpoints for> both cars and public-transportati­on) is the following:>

`Cars and public-transportati­on are both beneficial to the State's economy,> however standardising just one as the *only* logical alternative for our> future generations seems irresponsible.`

Pombo's proposal brings passionate viewpoints from both supporters and> non-supporters. The question at hand is how to create traffic-alleviation­> between the Bay Area and Central Valley bedroom-communities­ of Modesto and> Turlock. This traffic includes residential, commercial and industrial> traffic. Nonetheless, the most visible sign of the Central Valley's

| Agreed - absolutely agreed - but unfortunately there are a lot of > | reasons, dating back to the 1950s, why this did not happen. Suffice it > | to say that sprawl was not an accident, but was instead a deliberate > | choice. Race had a lot to do with it, too - even though African > | Americans clamored for jobs to come back to the urban core of the East > | Bay, nobody was buying. >

When I think of the Silicon Valley development, though, I'm> thinking more of the early 1970s and subsequent times. I don't> think racism was nearly as much of a factor as simply being able to> get cheap land and local governments willing to bend over even> without a trip to the Vaseline counter at Long's.

| With more housing stock available the upward pressure on prices might > | lessen and you'd see a lot of people moving in. But this isn't going to > | magically occur without a sizeable change in federal and state planning > | practices and without infusions of funds to promote urban redevelopment.>

Another factor, which I mention with some trepidation because the> jury pool could easily misinterpret it, is the hostility to even> well-crafted development plans on the part of many in Oakland and> Berkeley. In Berkeley I can kind of understand it, but certain> politicians in Oakland would rather have a raggedy city than one> with vibrant development if there's a chance that someone in real estate> would make even a buck. That's a self-defeating attitude. > Celebrity Mayor had managed to fight some of that, but he now seems> absorbed in his potential run for Attorney General, with the result> that the City Council (at least those members of it who aren't> doing a reasonable imitation of furniture) can reassert its > historic hostility to anything that has the potential of > bringing progress to Oakland.

Oakland's crisis is of a vastly different nature, as you note. And

crisis is 50 years old, although it's been truly dire for about 30-35

those years. I vividly recall Jerry Brown's plans to bring 10,000 new

residents to downtown - I assume that hasn't occurred?>

When you look at it on a map, it looks like a straight shot. When you drive> the area (on Route 130 and over to Del Puerto Canyon Road), you can see that> it is very rugged country with mountain ranges that run perpendicular to the> proposed route. Some peaks there are over 4,000 feet. The area is by no> means pristine, but it is very rural, with cattle ranches, a few houses, boy> scout camps, and state and county parks. It has much wildlife and not much> traffic, considering its proximity to the Bay Area. Also, the Lick> Observatory is there and very sensitive to light pollution. It is rated as> one of the top 10 most important astronomical observatories in the world.

Why is Pombo wasting our money on what the San Jose Mercury News called (in> a March 11, 2005, editorial) a "fantasy", when commuters need solutions now?> Here are some ideas that will help, I believe:>

-- Highway 84 from I-680 to I-580 through Livermore needs to be upgraded so> that commuters do not have to go to the I-680/I-580 interchange in Dublin to> connect to I-580 going east.

-- The southern route, from 101 to 152 then over the Pacheco Pass could be> upgraded in its run over to I-5 near Los Banos.

I am no expert and people on this board have had ideas about solving this> San Jose-to-Central Valley commute issue.

My sense of Rep. Pombo is that he is utterly clueless, except when it comes> to pandering to his campaign contributors -- mostly oil, timber and mining> interests. He and Tom Delay have been running quite a racket, in requiring> contributors to "pay to play" when it comes to legislation. With him as> chair of the House Resources Committee, it gives "fox guarding the henhouse"> a whole new meaning.

Also, when I drove over to the Central Valley, I couldn't help noticing all> the Pombo Real Estate signs. I know that Pombo says this is "his cousin's"> business, but it seems too all-in-the-family that a road Pombo proposes> could lead to extensive development in an area where his family's real> estate business is a major player.

I do not see anyway around the economics of this: cheaper housing in Central> Valley, new highway to commute on, people move out of San Jose for the> cheaper housing of the Central Valley, many of them do this, and in short> time, we have another traffic jam. What then, another road?

Pombo's road will not solve anything,

Outlook_developer wrote:>> Any road like this will encourage massive development of all those flat>> farmlands around Patterson, Newman, Westley and Gustine. Silicon Valley>> workers will see cheaper housing with the possibility of commuting over the>> new highway and there will be a land rush. The populations of these towns>> will soar. But then, all these new homeowners will still need to get to>> Silicon Valley to work. They will get in their cars and drive over Pombo's>> new road. So many of them will, that, within a very short period of time,>> this new highway will become jammed, and we will have Altamont Pass II. They>> may have a couple of golden commute years before the Central Valley towns>> fill up with new developments, but after that, the traffic will stretch for>> miles, just like from Livermore on out to Tracy on I-580.>

If this is true, then the unmet demand already exists now and it shows> all the more that we need to build it.>

YES!>

It certainly will. Those who say "we can't build our way out of> congestion" are asking and answering the wrong question, a strawman> argument really. We can and should build enough roads to eliminate> congestion or at least reduce it to acceptable levels -- but it's not> something you can do once and be done with; we have to keep building> them forever, or at least, as long as the population is growing.

Outlook_developer wrote:>> This seems like a big waste of money. Not only would the costs be very high>> and the construction timeframe into the decades, there are other sensible>> alternatives that would cost much less and could be in place much sooner.>

I have strong doubts about this. Tell us what you think would be better,> so we can snipe at it along with Pombo's idea.>

I don't see that this is more important than a freeway. At worst, a wall> or roof on the nearby section of the freeway would shield Lick.

This has already been done to some extent, by moving the highway from> 1st St. in Livermore to Airway Blvd. farther west. But as Carl Rogers> points out, this just connects the existing bottlenecks of the Sunol> Grade and Altamont Pass. If you must insist that traffic go through> both of those, then widen _them_. (Which won't be cheap or done soon.)

The bottleneck here is the two-lane section between Gilroy and Casa de> Fruta. I'm all in favor of widening that, but it's unlikely because> people live along part of that road. More likely, it will get rerouted> down into Hollister along CA-25, a route so far out of the way that> most drivers will keep using the present route anyway.

The best solution is to reduce the need by opening up these nearby> areas to home building now.>

* Alviso (though you might need to build on stilts due to flood> hazard);

* Coyote;

* San Jose's east foothills, in spite of the mudslide threat; flatten> the hills first if need be;

* The Berryessa horse-ranch area reachable by Berryessa Rd. and> Calaveras Blvd.;

* The Calaveras Reservoir area, which is now useless as a park anyway> because all access to the lake is fenced off for no apparent reason;

* Sunol; and>

* The Palo Alto foothills, between Foothills Park and Skyline Blvd.,> most of which is now wasted on their "open space preserve".

If Santa Clara and Alameda counties didn't have "urban growth> boundaries" to "protect" these areas, there wouldn't be people> commuting there from the Central Valley.>

The Democrats are just as crooked, just more successful at maintaining> a code of silence when they're in power.

It's laughable that a partisan of the existing-homeowner cartel such as> yourself would object to that.