Toll road studies challenge Orange County agency findings

By: PHILIP K. IRELAND - Staff Writer | Monday, January 16, 2006 9:21 PM PST ∞

CARLSBAD ---- With a vote just days away on whether to run a six-lane toll road through San Onofre State Beach, a coalition of environmental groups opposed to the project has released a pair of studies that question the accuracy of the quasi-government agency that stands to profit from the road's construction.

"We believe the (Transportation Corridor Agencies') numbers simply can't be trusted," said Michael Fitts, an attorney with the Endangered Habitat League. "In fact we believe they're wrong."

Claire Climaco, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Corridor Agencies ---- the consortium of 17 Orange County city governments created to plan and build toll roads in that region ---- defended its numbers.

She said the differences in the agency's studies versus those of the environmental groups are the natural outcome of two different sets of data.

The decision on the toll road lies with the Foothill South Transportation Corridor Agency, which will meet at 9:30 a.m. Thursday to certify the final environmental impact report on the project and vote on the alignment for the toll road.

The Endangered Habitat League is one of several environmental groups that have rallied to support the California Department of Parks in its opposition to the proposed route through San Mateo State Campground and San Onofre State Beach.

The route was one of several alternatives examined by the Transportation Corridor Agencies for dealing with the growing congestion on Orange County roads. Options included doing nothing, widening Interstate 5 and various feeder streets, or running routes through and around San Clemente.

Each route was judged by the number of homes and businesses to be seized by the legal doctrine of eminent domain. State law allows the taking of private property with proper reimbursement for a greater public good such as highway construction.

The coalition studies concluded that agency planners overestimated the number of "takings" by a factor of 10, Fitts said.

Fitts said he and others wanted to know how the agency arrived at such a larger number of seizures ---- the main argument used to reject options based on widening Interstate 5.

Civil Engineer Peter Bekey of KCA Engineers Inc. concluded that no structures would need to be taken to widen Interstate 5 in San Clemente by one lane in each direction. To widen the freeway by two lanes each way, 23 to 27 buildings would need to be seized.

In contrast, the agency concluded that 383 homes, plus many more businesses, would be sacrificed to widen the freeway. Climaco said agency planners arrived at the number by applying Cal Trans design requirements.

The widening option was eliminated without further study because of the number of required seizures, said Climaco.

Climaco offered no opinion on Bekey's study.

In another study prepared for the California State Parks Foundation, engineer Norman Marshall concluded that the option to widen Interstate 5 was superior to any other in two of three agency-defined categories.

Contact staff writer Philip K. Ireland at (760) 901-4043 or pireland@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.