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.

OC toll roads: Why not have a sale?

I wanted to circle back to a story that ran in The Times over the weekend: The toll road agency in Orange County is seeking a $1.1-billion loan from the federal government because of the drop in the number of motorists who are willing to pay to use the 73, 241, 133 and 261 toll roads.

As my colleague Susannah Rosenblatt explained, the Transportation Corridor Agencies already has $4.6 billion in bonds it's trying to repay. As Rosenblatt pointed out, the agency's own website says that current bonds "can only be repaid by future tolls and development fees, taxpayers are not responsible for repaying the debt if future toll revenues fall short."

That no longer appears to be correct. The federal government, of course, is taxpayer funded.

The obvious question is this: If you own a business and people are no longer buying your product because of the cost, would perhaps lowering the price be a remedy? At present, for example, it costs $5.25 to drive the 12 miles of the southbound 73 toll road at peak hours, according to the TCA's trip calculator. That's not cheap.

Agency spokeswoman Lisa Telles told me today that she's asked that often, but there has not been a discussion recently about lowering the tolls. Telles added that one problem is that traffic is off everywhere -- so the number of potential toll road customers is down -- and that tolls would likely have to be cut significantly in order to attract new customers.

"To cut tolls in half, we would have to double the traffic to make up the revenue," she explained.

I countered that the toll roads could cut tolls 25% and that would mean a net gain in revenue if traffic is doubled. Telles pointed out that the risk in doubling traffic is that speeds could slow down on the toll roads, giving less incentive for motorists to buy their product.

It's hard to say if that will happen. The 73 toll road, for example, carried an average of about 78,000 vehicles per day in September 2007 on its three lanes in each direction. In September 2008, the road carried about 83,500 vehicles daily. To put that in perspective, stretches of the 10, 405, 101 and 210 typically carry between 250,000 and 300,000 cars per day and sometimes more, according to Caltrans. And the 73 toll road is in the process of adding a fourth northbound lane.

I also talked with Bob Poole, the director of transportation studies for the Reason Foundation, the libertarian group that is big on toll roads as market-based solutions to traffic. I asked Poole about lowering tolls -- there's nothing more market-based than supply and demand, after all.

"They have a real problem with the 73," Poole said. "They can't afford to take in less revenue by lowering the rates."

In other words, it's those pesky bond repayments that are killing the 73. Telles, too, agreed that projections for the number of motorists who would use the 73 have never been met since the road opened fully in 1996 -- about the same time that the notorious 5-405 bottleneck at the El Toro Y was improved, giving motorists less incentive to shortcut around it on a toll road.

In short, the 73 is a rare example in the Southland where supply exceeds demands on the roadways. I still think a reduced-price strategy is the way to go. What would you do if you were calling the shots?

-- Steve Hymon

Photo credit: Don Kelsen / Los Angeles Times

San Onofre tollway hearing: somewhere between scrum and Iron Maiden concert

I read the news this morning and said to myself "I'm glad my name isn't Susannah Rosenblatt." Nothing against Susannah -- she's a friend and fine reporter. But she got assigned the fun of attending today's get-together in Del Mar in which more than 650 people had requested to speak either for or against a proposed toll road that would slice through part of San Onofre State Park in northern San Diego County.

Let's repeat that: more than 650 public speakers. The toll road is a serious issue, of course, and in no way am I belittling it. But as a veteran of more than a few public meetings, I have to wonder how many of those folks will have something original to say.

The California Coastal Commission earlier this year rejected the road that would connect the 5 Freeway to Rancho Santa Margarita. But that decision has been appealed to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which has the power to overturn the Coastal Commission's decision. Of course -- and I knew you'd ask -- any decision made by the department can be appealed to the federal courts.

Susannah e-mailed me a few observations:

Acoustics in the cavernous, corrugated-roof hall were muddled; the restless crowd broke into cheers or boos between speakers, whose message could at times not be heard clearly.

The federal attorney presiding over the hearing showed exasperation with the crowd's vocal reactions, in spite of her repeated warnings. By 12:30 p.m., the marathon hearing was already behind schedule.

Beside the thumbs up and thumbs down audience members were permitted to flash above their heads, many toll road opponents waved dollar bills when politicians spoke in favor of the project. 

Members of construction workers union were there to voice their support for the project. "Instead of being caught up in traffic, you have easy access to where you want to go," said Rick Baptist, 49, a heavy-equipment operator. "People that have families down here need to eat."

Outside the hall, vendors hawked kielbasa and vegetarian falafel, but the crowd seemed to be thinning out as the hearing continued midday.

One curly haired anti-toll-road demonstrator in colorful board shorts wandered to the front of the hall, where security guards directed him back. He toted a handmade sign reading: "if you want more freeways, move to the east coast."

--Susannah Rosenblatt and Steve Hymon

photos: Susannah Rosenblatt