Feds say opponents report on toll road was flawed

A small development in the battle over the 241 toll road in southern Orange County: The Federal Highway Administration has found that a report submitted in opposition to the proposed Foothill South tollway was flawed.

The report said that it was possible to mitigate for traffic in the southern part of the county in the future by widening the 5 Freeway and making other street improvements. In essence, the FHA says the report by Smart Mobility on behalf of toll road opponents, used faulty reasoning to reach that conclusion.

The Transportation Corridor Agencies hailed the ruling was a victory. Why? That agency wants to build the toll road and they're trying to persuade anyone who listens there is no practical alternative to the Foothill South toll road. In addition, TCA says that the Coastal Commission used the report as a reason to reject the Foothill South toll road's route through San Onofre State Beach earlier this year.

Of course, the 5 Freeway was hardly the only factor in Coastal Commission's 8 to 2 vote against the toll road. The commission's staff found the toll road would have a range of detrimental environmental impacts. The commission's decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Department of Commerce and whether the new FHA finding makes a difference in Commerce's decision remains to be seen.

--Steve Hymon

photo: Sandy Huffaker / AP

The press release from the TCA is after the jump.

The press release from TCA:

FHWA Rejects I-5 Widening Alternative
Agency concludes I-5 widening proposal by toll road opponents is not an alternative to completing the 241 Toll Road

IRVINE, Calif. (Oct. 28, 2008) – Stating that it would result in higher project costs, diminished traffic capacity and greater adverse impacts, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has rejected an engineering report commissioned by toll road opponents that claims widening Interstate 5 and arterial streets in South Orange County is preferable to completing the 241 Toll Road.

FHWA completed an independent review of a report by Vermont-based Smart Mobility Inc. (SMI) and stated that its plans are “not reasonable and feasible.” FHWA reviewed SMI’s recommendations and changes to the Arterial Improvements Plus HOV and Mixed-Flow Spot Lanes on I-5 (AIP), an alternative plan that already had been dismissed as unfeasible by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA).  TCA is working toward construction of the final 16-miles of the 241 Toll Road to help alleviate traffic congestion in South Orange County.

“We have determined based on our review that the SMI recommendations would result in an alternative with a higher total project cost, diminished traffic levels of capacity and traffic flow, and greater adverse impacts than was suggested in the SMI reports,” states the report by FHWA’s Office of Infrastructure.

-more-

Page 2

The report also states, “While SMI asserts its recommendations will not adversely impact travel and result in substantially lower project costs and impacts, there is no reasonable rationale or technical basis provided upon which these recommendations are founded.”

According to Caltrans and TCA, the SMI report contained numerous flaws and omissions, including such things as neglecting to account for planned carpool lanes and underestimating the cost of condemning homes and businesses. (TCA’s cost analysis of the AIP alternative, widening I-5 and select arterials, is $3.7 billion — about three times the cost of extending the 241 Toll Road. It also would condemn more than 1,200 homes and businesses, and displace more than 2,200 people and 4,000 jobs.)

Contrary to project opponents’ claims, the FHWA determined that TCA and Caltrans followed a context-sensitive approach in the design of the project and all alternatives. This included reaching out to, identifying and integrating the concerns and issues for a variety of stakeholders.

The FHWA also determined that it was reasonable, well-founded and appropriate for Caltrans and TCA to eliminate the AIP for consideration of alternatives during the planning process. The FHWA also states that SMI’s recommendations to modify the AIP original AIP alternative would negatively impact traffic flow, safety and the environment — and increase costs — even more than the original AIP.

-more-

Page 3

A few examples include:
•    SMI’s recommendations regarding interchanges at Avenida Pico, Crown Valley Parkway, El Camino Real and La Paz Road do not meet engineering standards,
are made without supporting analysis, or degrade safety and traffic operations.
This includes adding a flyover to Crown Valley Parkway that would require a 180-degree curve to connect with the northbound off ramp, which would severely impact the safety and operation of trucks by creating a speed differential between cars and trucks.
•    SMI recommended that El Camino Real, a four-lane roadway, be reduced to three lanes to accommodate the I-5 widening. FHWA rejects that recommendation because El Camino Real, a designated “secondary arterial,” must remain a four-way highway under Orange County design standards.
•    SMI recommended shifting the alignment of the road to avoid right-of-way impacts along one side of the corridor; FHWA points out that doing so will only increase the severity and the number of properties affected on the other side. Additionally, shifting the alignment would make it difficult to use existing infrastructure, thus increasing design and construction costs.
•    SMI recommended using retaining walls where the right of way has been widened, with estimated costs of $100 to $250 million.

In February 2008, the California Coastal Commission objected to the TCA’s coastal consistency certification for the completion of the 241 Toll Road. The Commission’s objections relied exclusively on SMI’s report to support the conclusion that widening I-5 and arterials was a reasonable alternative.  The Commission cited the SMI report as a factor in its objection.

-more-

Page 4

“The ‘Smart Mobility’ Reports provide ample technical, economic, and social data to show the I-5 widening would not only be a logistically and technically feasible
alternative, but one that would be less costly, less socially damaging, and less environmentally damaging than the proposed toll road or the I-5 widening alternative described by TCA,” states the Coastal Commission staff report recommending the commissioners reject TCA’s certification.

“It is distressing that the Coastal Commission staff and commissioners based their decision to reject the completion of the 241 on a bogus report that does not even qualify as a legitimate engineering report in the state of California,” said Jerry Amante, chairman of the Foothill-Eastern TCA. “This so-called engineering report from a firm that isn’t even licensed to practice in California was just one more delay tactic by opponents of the 241 that has prevented TCA from delivering a much-needed alternative to I-5 for the millions of Southern California motorists mired in gridlock on a timely basis.”

ABOUT COMPLETION OF THE 241
After 20 years of exhaustive research and careful analysis of 40 alternatives, including the widening of I-5, local, state and federal regulatory agencies all agree that the completion of the 241 Toll Road is the best alternative to significantly reduce traffic congestion and minimize the impacts on people, wildlife and their habitat. Extending the 241 will relieve traffic on Interstate 5 in South Orange County by providing an alternative route. With construction of the toll road, two miles of Interstate 5 will be retrofitted to collect and treat runoff, improving water quality in the Trestles area.  Without the toll road, travel from the San Diego/Orange County border to Mission Viejo will take one hour in 2025. With the toll road constructed, the same drive on Interstate 5 will take 25 minutes and it will take 16 minutes on the toll road. The new road will provide an alternative to Interstate 5 for the hundreds of thousands of motorists a day who travel between San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles Counties.

Comments

[Bill Collins]

The completion of the 241 will worsen traffic for two reasaons:

1. Lanes of the I-5 would be closed for years during construction; and

2. Traffic improvements to the I-5 will be not happen if the 241 is finished due to a contract the TCA has with CalTrans.

It's not really about improving traffic. It's about more development - OC's never ending specialty.

[Steve]

"That is the atom bomb that blows the opponents arguments to smithereens. It shows that opponents like Hymon have zero interest in traffic relief and are concerned only for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp and other bugs.

TCA has offered a balanced plan that relieves traffic AND protects the environment. That's been confirmed by federal and state agencies alike.

Hymon and his ilk continue to stick their heads in the sand and just wish for traffic relief to go away. Sorry, that's not a solution.

Finish the 241 already and connect it to the I-5."

Please name me just one freeway expansion in california or the usa that has permanently relieved traffic congestion?As soon as these roads are built they fill up and people are pissed off again about traffic jams.Back to square 1.
Personally i think having a pristine area like trestles is muich more important than having another freeway.I mean come on.Beautiful coastal parlklands or freeways.A no brainer.BTW,that is a state park-hands off!

[John Grove]

The Fed. Hwy Admin, like most of the Bush/Cheney administration is full of partisan right wingers. FHWA has consistently supported toll schemes. Look at the rest of the near bankrupt OC tollroads which now seek a bailout from the Feds.

[BOB2]

One of the worst projects in California. Sheer greed on the part of developers in South County, and a necessary part of the next step to keep alive, the already collapsing TCA financial Ponzi scheme. Now they want to be part of the "bail out" of the junk bonds for the San Joaquin corridor, which has been a disaster, "and" the Eastern corridor.

The TCA has got to act fast, as they are depending on SEC Chairman Christopher Cox to carry the water for the TCA with Paulson, and arrange for the TCA junk bonds to be bailed out,. Thus, I expect that the pressure on the Local Planning processes and Federal bureaucrats to fast track/rubber stamp this purely political decision, has been enormous.

There are far better solutions both from a transporation and financial standpoint to accomodate traffic and trips from San Diego to Orange County, but these people have a vested interest in taking State Parks in lieu of the adjacent lands that they intend to develop.

[Traffic Relief NOW!]

I love that Hymon thinks that the Federal Highway Administration's determination that the I-5 can't be widened is a "small development."

That is the atom bomb that blows the opponents arguments to smithereens. It shows that opponents like Hymon have zero interest in traffic relief and are concerned only for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp and other bugs.

TCA has offered a balanced plan that relieves traffic AND protects the environment. That's been confirmed by federal and state agencies alike.

Hymon and his ilk continue to stick their heads in the sand and just wish for traffic relief to go away. Sorry, that's not a solution.

Finish the 241 already and connect it to the I-5.

[Marcotico]

This whole project is a mess on both sides! The TCA claims about traffic reduction are jsut as flawed as the opponents claims. And if the South Orange County cities wanted this so badly, why did they fill in all the possible connection points between the potential 241 and the 5 up to the county line.

If you look at Google Earth you can see that some of those housing developments are less than 2-5 years old. All of those cities like San Clemente, and San Juan, want all the benefits, but clamor against any traffic coming through their city. An isn't the TCA on the verge of bankruptcy? How do they plan to build this thing without massive public subsidy?

I hate to say it, but this situation is becoming more positional, and we are at a point where nothing will get built because there is no longer room for compromise.

[OC Driver]

The case against the road is all built on flawed reports and junk science from consultants hired by road opponents. The Coastal Commission staff, notoriously anti-road and anti-growth, used the opponents' info in abundance to sell commissioners against the 241. We need the road. The Feds say widening I-5 isn't an option. Let's get on with it and complete the 241and save the endangered OC commuter!

[Cecil]

Keeping the city traffic congested for a decade should be a crime. The Coastal Comission should be brought to court for their high handed haughtiness. People need traffic relief. The bumper to bumper traffic on the 91 consumes 57% more fuel than flowing traffic. It creates 89% more car pollution. The government should look at both sides of the issue and not just the fact that a bird will have to fly an extra 100 feet to land.