Tollway Hinges on Smog Issue

When it comes to the San Joaquin Hills tollway, there are two very different stories making the rounds these days.

Listen to the boosters: If built, the 17.5-mile tollway linking San Juan Capistrano with Newport Beach will take about a fourth of cars off of traffic-choked Interstate 5--Orange County’s “main street.” The hours spent bumper-to-bumper would be cut in half. With traffic moving more efficiently, smog would be reduced.

Now hear the tollway foes: The gain for some South County commuters with the tollway will be somebody else’s loss when it comes to air pollution, loss of wildlife and lifestyle. Carbon monoxide levels in some cases will approach or exceed federal standards, whereas today they do not.

That’s the debate. And the outcome will affect the quality of life for years to come.

Air quality drives regional planning these days, and it’s the make-or-break issue that both sides concede may dictate the fate of the tollway, which will be discussed in a series of public hearings beginning Thursday at Santa Ana City Hall.

Road builders are waging a tough campaign to prove that the San Joaquin Hills tollway will reduce smog levels in a wide area stretching from Santa Ana to San Onofre, even though it’s expected to handle more than 150,000 trips per day.

Already doubtful of the air quality benefits claimed for the tollway, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has gone even further, challenging Orange County’s long-cherished strategies for growth, the county’s biggest industry through the go-go days of the past two decades.

“Let’s face it, if they build this road it will be doomsville,” says Elisabeth Brown, president of Laguna Greenbelt Inc., one of the environmental groups seeking to halt the tollway project. “It will mean the urbanization of the entire area. The reason that people came here would be gone. We would never see the hills again.”

In its arguments against the tollway, the EPA charges that local officials are squandering opportunities to revamp Orange County’s development destiny.

In short, the EPA and environmentalists are claiming that county officials are legally obligated to consider downzoning to prevent growth that would generate tollway traffic. They also suggest that the county might cluster development into denser pockets that can be served both by mass transit and improvements to existing roads.

“There are potentials for land-use changes, and those should be looked at,” said Jeane Dunn Gesselbrecht, an analyst with the EPA. “Where are the alternatives to putting a major corridor in that location? If land-use planning changes could be accommodated, then that may be a sensible solution to protect air quality.”

It’s too late for that, tollway officials argue, since 98% of the land involved is already committed, either to development or open space, and downzoning would require financial compensation to landowners.

And that, says the EPA, is precisely what’s wrong with Orange County’s planning. Development decisions are made before transportation projects receive ultimate approvals and funding. Instead of determining what level of traffic and air pollution the land can sustain, EPA officials claim, the county has decided to build roads to accommodate the plans of major land owners and developers.

What’s more, the EPA notes that only 56% of the land along the San Joaquin Hills route is currently in “existing land-uses,” while another 42% is committed to planned housing and commercial developments that don’t yet exist and potentially could be scaled back.

Although tollways officials are loathe to admit that the tollway will spur growth, the EPA contends the highway would induce new development by opening up otherwise untraversed terrain.

Indeed, the very agreements that set up the tollway agency in 1985 refer to several benefits. Chief among them was to facilitate “orderly” growth in the virgin back country of Orange County.

By the county’s own estimates, 500,000 people will be added to South County’s current population of about 550,000 by the year 2010. But county officials have argued strongly that these people will come whether or not roads are here to handle the added traffic.

The draft environmental impact report for the San Joaquin Hills tollway puts it succinctly: Highways do not have “a consistent or predictable impact on land-use.”

That comment echoes the beliefs of USC Prof. Genevieve Giuliano, who contends that growth is affected more by the availability of developable land, favorable economic conditions and “local political support.”

To buttress their arguments, tollway officials cite a recent study showing that population and automobile travel surged dramatically in the San Francisco Bay Area from 1975 to 1987, even though miles of highway lanes increased only 3.3% during the same period.

“Growth will occur anyway,” said Steve Hogan, a traffic planner with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. “The truth is, there is certainly enough traffic demand already to justify construction of the (tollway). If the traffic doesn’t go there, it will go someplace else. People will use Moulton Parkway and other arterioles in that area. . . . Without the corridor, we can help the situation somewhat with other street improvements, but we’re not going to be able to help things significantly.”

At the heart of the tollway defense are traffic studies dating back to 1976 that show horrendous conditions on I-5 and Pacific Coast Highway unless the San Joaquin Hills tollway is built.

Project boosters claim that by 2010 the tollway will result in 30,000 to 40,000 fewer trips on I-5 than would occur if the San Joaquin Hills route isn’t built. On nearby Moulton Parkway, the number of daily trips would be cut in half.

Average traffic speeds, except near tollway ramps, will increase in the area, according to the EIR. One study suggests a trip on the tollway could result in a 15-minute time savings during rush hour from Irvine to San Juan Capistrano contrasted with the same trip on I-5.

All of this will result in a 14.7% reduction in average carbon monoxide exposure levels in an area that not only includes South County, but portions of Santa Ana, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach as well, according to the EIR.

The EPA is skeptical, arguing that the carbon monoxide data does not reflect the tollway’s tendency to encourage trips that would not be taken now due to congestion. What’s more, the EPA claims, the tollway will make it easier for motorists to justify traveling longer distances to destinations that are currently forsaken.

Add to this the fact that the tollway will stimulate growth beyond what county officials currently project, even in outlying areas such as Riverside and north San Diego County, the EPA contends. That’s because people will want to buy cheaper housing in those locations--as they do now--and commute to jobs in Orange County.

The tollway’s draft EIR acknowledges that growth not only could be stimulated in outlying areas, but that development already in the works may be speeded up.

Tollway officials counter that such factors are considered in regional analyses undertaken jointly by the region’s growth-monitoring and smog agencies--the Southern California Assn. of Governments and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The result was a decision to include the tollway in their regional air quality and mobility plans, which seek to comply with federal clean air deadlines for Southern California.

That’s true, EPA officials admit. But those regional air quality and mobility plans have not yet been approved by--you guessed it--the EPA.

What’s more, the tollway’s own environmental review shows that, based on newer computer traffic modeling by county staffers, traffic volumes will be sufficient by the year 2010 to push carbon monoxide levels along some sections of the road higher than federal guidelines would permit.

This would occur in the corridor between Laguna Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road, and near John Wayne Airport, from Jamboree Road to Birch Street.

“This is an unacceptable impact,” argues the EPA’s written critique of the tollway project.

Environmentalists cite the county’s own studies from the mid-1980s, which showed that even with the San Joaquin Hills tollway, average speeds on I-5 may be lower in 2010 than they are now, largely because of continued growth.

“Why should we support the tollway,” Brown asks, “when things are only going to get worse? I don’t have to have the answer . . . I know enough to know that what’s being proposed is not going to cure anything.”

More than 300,000 new residential units and millions of square feet in office and retail space as well as recreational and educational facilities are planned in South County. Even if the transportation system could handle such an impact, more than 20% of the traffic expected to use I-5 and the San Joaquin Hills tollway will simply be vehicles passing through from places such as Los Angeles and Riverside, tollway officials say. All of Southern California is growing, tollway officials argue, so even if Orange County were to slow its own growth, the roads would still be overwhelmed by traffic from other locations.

In 1986, county documents showed that that even with all planned transportation improvements in place, the county’s highway and transit system would be insufficient to meet expected demand.

Even the EIR for the San Joaquin Hills tollway concedes, for example, that traffic would flow freely only if 30% of the rush-hour trips are in the car-pool lanes. That’s a level of ride-sharing that experts admit has not been achieved anywhere in the United States.

To reach the same level of service that would occur with existence of the tollway, project boosters claim, I-5 would have to add six lanes south of the El Toro Y--a costly undertaking that would remove dozens of homes and businesses and force reconstruction of existing street-freeway interchanges. For similar reasons, according to tollway environmental documents, double-decking I-5 was rejected. Local streets could not handle the on- and off-ramp traffic, studies showed.

Joel Reynolds, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), says redirecting some of Orange County’s growth into denser pockets in existing cities or curtailing it are necessary tools that should be used when other alternatives fail. Reynolds, who wrote a stinging critique of the San Joaquin Hills tollway EIR, is expected to testify against the project during the coming hearings. If the EIR is approved, the NRDC is expected to file a lawsuit.

Disputing real estate experts who argue that growth is inevitable, Reynolds says: “A lot of the housing that is not already under construction absolutely will not be built without the toll road.”

The expense of paying off landowners is debatable, Reynolds adds, because most development agreements with the county could be renegotiated. The cost of doing so, Reynolds argues, should be weighed not only against the cost of constructing the tollway, but also against the inherent value of unspoiled resources.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez has strong doubts that downzoning is feasible or desirable at this point. But he contends there certainly is room “for negotiation and dialogue” on existing development agreements.

And last week, Stanley T. Oftelie, executive director of the Orange County Transportation Commission, got into the act, writing a letter to the EPA that requested the agency to back off.

Downzoning, Oftelie’s letter stated, would involve transportation agencies in land-use decisions over which they have no jurisdiction. “Your proposal would require a major change in the land-use decision making process and a considerable expense,” he wrote.

At risk, Oftelie’s letter concluded, are all of the pending road and transit projects in the county. “All of the county’s projects . . . either have been completed or are under study using an approach similar to the San Joaquin Hills. . . .”

That’s the point, the Laguna Greenbelt’s Brown argues.

“Building a toll road is 1950s and 1960s technology,” she says. “If we had a different way of moving people, not cars, the landscape would look very different. And given the way they have built subdivisions, it’s very difficult to retrofit mass transit.

“We will be paying for those mistakes,” says Brown, “and so will our children.”