For more than a year, Foothill-South opponents have been hanging their hat on their "study" that "proves" the I-5 can be widened while demolishing just 31 homes (better to boot 31 families onto the streets than damage one hair on a flea-infested Pacific pocket mouse I always say!). This study - conducted by Smart Mobility, a four-person engineering firm in Vermont, was used by the Coastal Commission as "proof" that Caltrans, the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Corridor Agencies didn't know what they were talking about when their 20 year, $20 million analysis of alternatives showed that more than 1,200 homes and businesses would have to be removed.
LA Times reporter Dan Weikel investigated and found that - shockingly - the Vermont engineers, who aren't even licensed to work in California, got it wrong. The smoke and mirrors of this "study" have been blown away.
Now, which reporter will look into the allegation by Surfrider that the 241 will impact the Steelhead Trout in San Mateo Creek, when there is no evidence that they even exist there? And what about the canard that having the 241 connect to the I-5 will change the shape of the waves coming into Trestles a half-mile away? Apparently, if you've got green credentials you can get away with any allegation as fact and no one will call you on it.
Perhaps a hungry investigative journalist might want to report about how scare tactics, fear mongering and lies are used by environmental groups to generate opposition against this needed infrastructure project.
Flaws found in O.C. tollway foes' study
The report had backed expanding the I-5 instead of building the turnpike. Toll road officials call the analysis superficial, inaccurate.
After years of work and careful campaigning,
a long-in-the-works traffic study that is a centerpiece of the effort
to stop a toll road from slicing through one of Southern California's
picturesque coastal parks has turned out to be flawed.
The report, commissioned by tollway opponents, said that improving Interstate 5 in south Orange County is a far better option than building the controversial six-lane turnpike -- four miles of which would be constructed within San Onofre State Beach Park.
But Smart Mobility Inc. of Vermont, which conducted the study, neglected to account for the planned carpool lanes, underestimated the cost of condemning homes and buildings, and unilaterally proposed narrowing frontage roads.
Tollway opponents conceded the report's mistakes but said revisions still show that a revamped I-5 is a better alternative than the proposed toll road.
The Foothill South toll road would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 south of San Clemente.
Fixing the interstate has been a major theme of tollway opponents in public forums, pending lawsuits, and before the California Coastal Commission, which must authorize the toll road.
But as the Foothill South headed into the approval process earlier this month, tollway proponents uncovered flaws in the Smart Mobility study.
For instance, researchers overlooked the addition of a carpool lane in each direction along a 7-mile stretch of the I-5 in San Clemente, which would add about 24 feet to the width of the improvements they studied.
The oversight calls into question a major conclusion of Smart Mobility -- that only 31 properties would have to be condemned if highway designs more suited to urban areas were used for I-5.
Officials for the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies, which is planning to build the Foothill South, contend that expanding the interstate cannot be done without a massive condemnation of 1,237 homes and businesses.
Tollway opponents revised their findings last week after they learned of the mistakes. When the errors were corrected, they said, another 28 condemnations would result, raising the total to 59.
"Factual errors were made," said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, one of several environmental groups that oppose the Foothill South.
"In no way does this change our fundamental conclusion that improving the 5 is eminently feasible.
"We hope the TCA will stop using scare tactics and join us in the search for accuracy."
Tollway officials say that Smart Mobility's work is so superficial and inaccurate it cannot support the finding that improving the I-5 is a better alternative than the Foothill South project.
In addition to the miscalculation of highway widths, tollway officials question the proposed interchange designs, the narrowing of major frontage roads to make way for new highway lanes, and condemnation costs that were calculated using the assessed value for properties rather than fair market value as required.
"The Smart Mobility study is seriously flawed," said Paul A. Bopp, the engineering manager for the Foothill South project. "We've never heard of these guys. They aren't licensed in California. They don't know the area. They lack local experience. Their work looks like someone just drew highway designs on a Google Earth map."
The TCA, which operates more than 50 miles of tollways in Orange County, contends that 898 homes and 339 businesses would have to be condemned and about 2,208 people and 4,000 jobs would be displaced to improve Interstate 5.
Construction costs would hit at least $2 billion, more than double the estimated cost of the tollway, according to the agency.
Those findings, TCA officials say, are backed up by two decades of research and a $20-million environmental analysis of the Foothill South project.
Overall, TCA records show that more than 40 alternatives were considered by local, state and federal agencies -- eight of which made it to final review.
"There's no engineering behind the Smart Mobility study that we can see," said Thomas E. Margro, the TCA's chief executive.
"They've gone at this with a broad brush and haven't provided a lot of detail to show the 5 is a feasible solution."
Whether there is an alternative to the tollway is a central issue in the legal and regulatory battles surrounding the Foothill South, which would divide the northern half of San Onofre lengthwise, threatening wildlife habitat, watersheds and recreational resources.
Toll road opponents allege in pending lawsuits that the TCA failed to thoroughly consider alternatives to the tollway in its environmental impact reports, a potential violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Also, federal and state approvals are contingent upon a complete evaluation of alternatives.
In late September, a scathing staff report from the California Coastal Commission, which regulates development along the state's shoreline, disagreed with the TCA's contention that there are no feasible alternatives to the Foothill South.
The report cited Smart Mobility's work and recommended against supporting the toll road.
The transportation planning and engineering firm has done several reports for tollway opponents over the past two years.
The latest and most complete was released in September. Tollway opponents say the work has cost more than $100,000.
Smart Mobility researchers said the TCA's rejection of the I-5 option was based on conventional highway designs, such as partial cloverleafs, that can require large numbers of condemnations.
State-of-the-art improvements -- including streamlined interchanges -- would minimize condemnations, the report concluded.
In addition to the 7 miles of carpool lanes in San Clemente, the report overlooked two northbound lanes along the I-5 around Ortega Highway in San Juan Capistrano and a southbound auxiliary lane at Avenida Pico in San Clemente.
TCA officials said they were further concerned that Smart Mobility's highway layout would eliminate parking areas and lanes from major frontage roads, such as Rancho Viejo Road, Camino Capistrano, El Camino Real and Avenida de la Carlotta.
At Avenida de la Carlotta, two of the street's four lanes would be eliminated.
They also were concerned that the bridge and roadway at busy Crown Valley Parkway and I-5 would have to be raised substantially so a redesigned off-ramp could pass beneath.
"Their study is not worth the paper it's printed on," said Peter Herzog, a TCA board member. "The sad part is the Coastal Commission staff is taking it as gospel and putting it in their report."
Lucinda Gibson, a principal at Smart Mobility, said only 28 more condemnations resulted because the I-5 corridor is wide enough to handle the lanes the original study overlooked.
Gibson said that it is possible to raise Crown Valley Parkway, and that the traffic volume along the frontage roads, which she considers overbuilt, were low enough to justify using some of their right-of-way to widen the I-5.
Despite the study's errors, tollway opponents say the TCA could not escape the conclusion that it failed to consider highway designs for I-5 that can eliminate about $1 billion worth of property condemnations.
They cited a 2006 preliminary study by the city of San Clemente of proposed interchange improvements at Avenida Pico and I-5, which recommended three designs that minimized condemnations.
Toll road foes also point to TCA studies done in 2003 showing that improving I-5 would accommodate traffic growth as well as or better than the Foothill South.
Tollway officials ruled out the option during the review process because of high costs, the lack of state funds, and the large number of property condemnations.
"We expected the TCA to attack the study, but we feel the conclusions will hold," said James Birkelund, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to stop the tollway.
"The TCA has failed to fully evaluate the alternatives like expanding I-5. There are clearly state-of-the art traffic designs that they didn't consider."
The report, commissioned by tollway opponents, said that improving Interstate 5 in south Orange County is a far better option than building the controversial six-lane turnpike -- four miles of which would be constructed within San Onofre State Beach Park.
But Smart Mobility Inc. of Vermont, which conducted the study, neglected to account for the planned carpool lanes, underestimated the cost of condemning homes and buildings, and unilaterally proposed narrowing frontage roads.
Tollway opponents conceded the report's mistakes but said revisions still show that a revamped I-5 is a better alternative than the proposed toll road.
The Foothill South toll road would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 south of San Clemente.
Fixing the interstate has been a major theme of tollway opponents in public forums, pending lawsuits, and before the California Coastal Commission, which must authorize the toll road.
But as the Foothill South headed into the approval process earlier this month, tollway proponents uncovered flaws in the Smart Mobility study.
For instance, researchers overlooked the addition of a carpool lane in each direction along a 7-mile stretch of the I-5 in San Clemente, which would add about 24 feet to the width of the improvements they studied.
The oversight calls into question a major conclusion of Smart Mobility -- that only 31 properties would have to be condemned if highway designs more suited to urban areas were used for I-5.
Officials for the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies, which is planning to build the Foothill South, contend that expanding the interstate cannot be done without a massive condemnation of 1,237 homes and businesses.
Tollway opponents revised their findings last week after they learned of the mistakes. When the errors were corrected, they said, another 28 condemnations would result, raising the total to 59.
"Factual errors were made," said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, one of several environmental groups that oppose the Foothill South.
"In no way does this change our fundamental conclusion that improving the 5 is eminently feasible.
"We hope the TCA will stop using scare tactics and join us in the search for accuracy."
Tollway officials say that Smart Mobility's work is so superficial and inaccurate it cannot support the finding that improving the I-5 is a better alternative than the Foothill South project.
In addition to the miscalculation of highway widths, tollway officials question the proposed interchange designs, the narrowing of major frontage roads to make way for new highway lanes, and condemnation costs that were calculated using the assessed value for properties rather than fair market value as required.
"The Smart Mobility study is seriously flawed," said Paul A. Bopp, the engineering manager for the Foothill South project. "We've never heard of these guys. They aren't licensed in California. They don't know the area. They lack local experience. Their work looks like someone just drew highway designs on a Google Earth map."
The TCA, which operates more than 50 miles of tollways in Orange County, contends that 898 homes and 339 businesses would have to be condemned and about 2,208 people and 4,000 jobs would be displaced to improve Interstate 5.
Construction costs would hit at least $2 billion, more than double the estimated cost of the tollway, according to the agency.
Those findings, TCA officials say, are backed up by two decades of research and a $20-million environmental analysis of the Foothill South project.
Overall, TCA records show that more than 40 alternatives were considered by local, state and federal agencies -- eight of which made it to final review.
"There's no engineering behind the Smart Mobility study that we can see," said Thomas E. Margro, the TCA's chief executive.
"They've gone at this with a broad brush and haven't provided a lot of detail to show the 5 is a feasible solution."
Whether there is an alternative to the tollway is a central issue in the legal and regulatory battles surrounding the Foothill South, which would divide the northern half of San Onofre lengthwise, threatening wildlife habitat, watersheds and recreational resources.
Toll road opponents allege in pending lawsuits that the TCA failed to thoroughly consider alternatives to the tollway in its environmental impact reports, a potential violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Also, federal and state approvals are contingent upon a complete evaluation of alternatives.
In late September, a scathing staff report from the California Coastal Commission, which regulates development along the state's shoreline, disagreed with the TCA's contention that there are no feasible alternatives to the Foothill South.
The report cited Smart Mobility's work and recommended against supporting the toll road.
The transportation planning and engineering firm has done several reports for tollway opponents over the past two years.
The latest and most complete was released in September. Tollway opponents say the work has cost more than $100,000.
Smart Mobility researchers said the TCA's rejection of the I-5 option was based on conventional highway designs, such as partial cloverleafs, that can require large numbers of condemnations.
State-of-the-art improvements -- including streamlined interchanges -- would minimize condemnations, the report concluded.
In addition to the 7 miles of carpool lanes in San Clemente, the report overlooked two northbound lanes along the I-5 around Ortega Highway in San Juan Capistrano and a southbound auxiliary lane at Avenida Pico in San Clemente.
TCA officials said they were further concerned that Smart Mobility's highway layout would eliminate parking areas and lanes from major frontage roads, such as Rancho Viejo Road, Camino Capistrano, El Camino Real and Avenida de la Carlotta.
At Avenida de la Carlotta, two of the street's four lanes would be eliminated.
They also were concerned that the bridge and roadway at busy Crown Valley Parkway and I-5 would have to be raised substantially so a redesigned off-ramp could pass beneath.
"Their study is not worth the paper it's printed on," said Peter Herzog, a TCA board member. "The sad part is the Coastal Commission staff is taking it as gospel and putting it in their report."
Lucinda Gibson, a principal at Smart Mobility, said only 28 more condemnations resulted because the I-5 corridor is wide enough to handle the lanes the original study overlooked.
Gibson said that it is possible to raise Crown Valley Parkway, and that the traffic volume along the frontage roads, which she considers overbuilt, were low enough to justify using some of their right-of-way to widen the I-5.
Despite the study's errors, tollway opponents say the TCA could not escape the conclusion that it failed to consider highway designs for I-5 that can eliminate about $1 billion worth of property condemnations.
They cited a 2006 preliminary study by the city of San Clemente of proposed interchange improvements at Avenida Pico and I-5, which recommended three designs that minimized condemnations.
Toll road foes also point to TCA studies done in 2003 showing that improving I-5 would accommodate traffic growth as well as or better than the Foothill South.
Tollway officials ruled out the option during the review process because of high costs, the lack of state funds, and the large number of property condemnations.
"We expected the TCA to attack the study, but we feel the conclusions will hold," said James Birkelund, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to stop the tollway.
"The TCA has failed to fully evaluate the alternatives like expanding I-5. There are clearly state-of-the art traffic designs that they didn't consider."
Big deal; the TCA's entire Environmental Impact Report is bogus.
That's not just my opinion, it's the Coastal Commission's. They need to sign off on a permit.
Of course, TCA could always appeal to the federal government. But two of their best friends, Ken Calvert and Gary Miller, are under investigation. Vertex B and C of the Triangle of Corruption, you might say.
Hope I didn't mong any fear or scare any tactics.
There's still time to change. Save yourselves.
Posted by: Alex Brant-Zawadzki | October 16, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Yeah, and the Coastal Commission thinks the bogus Smart Mobility report is A-OK. And that tells us you and the Coastal Commission don't care about facts, just stopping the toll road.
Go back to your whiny personal blog.
Posted by: Away with you | October 16, 2007 at 10:02 PM
There are Steelhead Trout in that stream. I put them there.
Posted by: | October 17, 2007 at 12:21 AM