Toll Road System: Short-Term Benefits and Long-Term Alternatives

The Times has written often and well concerning specific aspects of the toll roads planned for the San Joaquin Hills, Eastern and Foothill transportation corridors. However, like most in Orange County it has not assembled a clear and comprehensive analysis of the hidden costs of the roads.

The less publicized financial costs of the San Joaquin Hills toll road include the $120-million limited federal guarantee, Caltrans’ cost of maintaining and insuring the road and approximately $7 million per year in development impact fees, in addition to annual toll fees projected to increase from $52 million in 1997 to $489 million in 2033. The depressive effect of massive new residential development (required in order to justify the roads economically) on existing home values and the effect of contractual non-competition with the toll road are less easily quantified financial impacts of the project.

Environmental costs of the toll roads include the reduction or destruction of native habitat and critical animal corridors and the adverse health impact of increased pollution from automobile emissions. In addition, as a result of the roads themselves and the accompanying residential and commercial development, the aesthetic and physical benefits of this beautiful area will be substantially reduced.

After we pay these costs, the suburban spread that now characterizes much of northern and central Orange County will extend farther south, and traffic congestion will afflict still broader areas of the county. The proposed toll roads reflect a continuation of the transportation and development planning that over the past 20 years has been proven so ill--conceived.

It is incumbent on all of us, including The Times and the community’s social and political leaders, to reconsider available alternative long-term solutions (including a combination of light rail systems and revised zoning regulations) to Orange County’s transportation problems before the tremendous financial, environmental and aesthetical costs of the toll roads are incurred.

MICHAEL L. VEUVE

Tustin

In response to the article (May 27) that Citizens Against the Tollroads were planning a rally at UCI on June 6, I would like to make the following clarifications. First of all, I was not a co-founder of the group, I only volunteered to help with the publicity and be the group’s spokesperson. I admire people who have the fortitude to act on principle when odds are against them and agreed to be a part of a large team of workers.

One of our alternative solutions to traffic congestion is light rail not rail. There is a difference. Light rail is like the Trolley in San Diego, BART in San Francisco, and Metrolink in Los Angeles. It does not create the noise and negative impacts that rail (Amtrak) does. (Though there is definitely a place for rail in any transportation system.) In particular, we would like to see more priority placed on promoting the Orange County Fixed Guideway Agency’s project, an automated elevated guideway system which will be seeing initial federal funding in January, 1994.

The old issues that we are addressing will continue to be addressed until the proper solutions are found. By building massive roadways that are intended to serve future development and not addressing the current traffic congestion, is not being prudent.

The poll you refer to that was done in Irvine in the 1980s showing residents’ support for the San Joaquin Hills project, was done by the Irvine Co.-owned Irvine World News. Need I say more. The slow- growth majority that was defeated was Larry Agran’s group, and they were defeated because of their stand on gay rights and affordable housing, not their slow-growth stand.

Lastly, Joel Reynolds’ statement that the courts aren’t likely to bar the tollway construction is precisely why our group was formed. We realized the voices of the people needed to be heard when laws, rules and regulations were being ignored for the sake of 1,500 short-term jobs. For the $1.2- plus-billion project that figures out to nearly $1 million per job. Now is that prudent thinking?

JUDY DAVIS

Irvine