[Dryerase] The Alarm!--Highway 1 widening controversy

[The Alarm!Newswire]

Controversy Over Funding for Hwy 1 Widening

By Rachel Showstack
The Alarm! Newspaper Contributor

Now that the California Transportation Commission (CTC) has refused to 
set aside extra State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding 
for the controversial Highway 1 Widening Project, Santa Cruz County 
must look elsewhere for the $7 million needed for the project’s 
environmental review. The Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) 
expects to decide where that money will come from after a public 
hearing at its November 7 meeting.

Several transportation commissioners have expressed interest in 
reprogramming funds from previously approved projects, including the 
$10 million set aside for the acquisition of the Union Pacific Railroad 
right-of-way from Santa Cruz to Watsonville, where the RTC plans to 
develop the Santa Cruz County Coastal Rail Trail. But on October 10 the 
RTC staff made a recommendation for the commission to consider 
programming new federal transportation money—Surface Transportation 
Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) 
funds—toward the environmental review, as an alternative to 
reprogramming already promised funds.

“Taking money away from projects you’ve already promised money to sets 
a really bad precedent,” said Transportation Planner Rachel Moriconi. 
Reprogramming the funds set aside for the rail right-of-way would 
definitely stall acquisition, which would in turn postpone the project, 
she added. The RTC is currently in closed negotiations with Union 
Pacific to settle on a price for the purchase of the right-of-way.

Let the voters decide
Regardless of how the RTC decides to fund the Highway 1 Widening 
Project’s environmental review, it has yet to face the question of 
funding for the project, itself. The latest “cost-escalated” budget 
estimate for widening the highway to six lanes from Morrisey to State 
Park Drive is $328 million. Some transportation commissioners have 
recently begun to express interest in widening the highway to eight 
lanes and extending the project to Larkin Valley Road, which would 
greatly increase the project cost.

But the RTC has only committed to spending $46 million of its projected 
available funds. The remaining funds would have to come from other 
sources.

The commission recently voted to place a sales tax measure to acquire 
funding for the project on the November 2004 ballot. For a sales tax 
measure to pass in Santa Cruz County, it must be approved by two thirds 
of the voters. According to County Supervisor and Transportation 
Commissioner Mardi Wormhoudt, it would be impossible to fund the 
project without a sales tax. Santa Cruz County will have to wait 
another two years to know whether it can afford to widen the highway.

According to Micah Posner of People Power! and the Campaign for 
Sensible Transportation, programming any kind of funding toward the 
environmental review without voter approval of the sales tax would be 
undemocratic. “They are trying to widen the highway before they know if 
the public will support it being widened,” he said.

But Wormhoudt argued that the RTC should go through with the 
environmental review because she wants Santa Cruz residents to be able 
to make an informed decision on whether the Highway 1 Widening Project 
should happen. “Its important that people know what the costs are, both 
economically and environmentally,” she explained.

Where has all the money gone?
Santa Cruz Mayor Christopher Krohn asked the CTC not to provide 
additional STIP funds for the highway-widening project because he was 
concerned that the development of other important transportation 
infrastructure could fall by the wayside. Instead of widening the 
highway, Krohn said the RTC should focus its resources on metering 
lights for highway on-ramps, a “parking cash-out” program, which would 
encourage commuters to leave their cars outside of the city, additional 
funding for the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and the 
implementation of the county bike plan.

Using new state or federal transportation funds or reprogramming 
existing funds toward the Highway 1 Widening Project’s environmental 
review would undoubtedly make less money available for other projects, 
according to Moriconi.

In anticipation of the need for extra funds for the environmental 
review, the RTC voted in June to shift funding for three regional 
projects, including the $10 million it set aside for the acquisition of 
the railroad right-of-way, from fiscal year ‘02–’03 to fiscal year 
‘03–’04. Acquiring the right-of-way is the first step in developing the 
Coastal Rail Trail, a twenty-mile bike lane along the railroad corridor.

Wormhoudt, who voted against setting aside the rail funds, sees the 
acquisition of the right-of-way as a key element in creating a balanced 
countywide transportation system. “The money earmarked for the purchase 
of the rail line is a really modest sum, and it’s all we’ve got toward 
providing some sort of alternative,” she said. “I really hope there 
would not be an attempt to use that money.” If the RTC were to decide 
to use the rail money for a different purpose, it would have to get 
approval from the CTC.

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Act, a 
potential source of new federal money for the environmental review, is 
dedicated to funding projects that improve air quality through 
mitigating traffic congestion. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, the 
favored option for the added lane, qualify for CMAQ because they are 
designed to reduce traffic.

But Campaign for Sensible Transportation member Peter Scott argued that 
HOV lanes only work to relieve congestion under very specific 
conditions. “You have to have at least ten percent HOV vehicles,” he 
explained. “Otherwise, you don’t get optimum help adding HOV lanes.” 
Lanes that are originally designated as HOV lanes frequently become 
standard multi-flow lanes, Scott added. If STP and CMAQ funds are not 
programmed toward the environmental review, they could otherwise be 
used for projects like bike lanes and road improvements.

High costs for what?
At the October 10 RTC meeting, when Transportation Commissioner and 
County Supervisor Jan Beautz insisted that the environmental review 
should address the possibility of widening the highway to eight lanes 
instead of six, Wormhoudt questioned the project’s value as a cure-all 
solution to Santa Cruz’s transportation problems. “This escalation of 
discussion of lanes is exactly why we can’t talk of using one 
transportation alternative to solve all of our transportation 
problems,” she said. “It indicates the absurdity of the never-ending 
battle of trying to solve traffic congestion problems by adding freeway 
lanes.”

According to Beautz, widening Highway 1 is more important than bicycle 
infrastructure because it would reduce congestion on neighborhood 
streets. “The congestion on Highway 1 causes local residents to use 
surface streets to drive across the county,” she said. “We need to keep 
our cross-country traffic on the highway and not put it off on local 
streets where people live.”

But Wormhoudt argued that when the freeway reaches capacity people are 
likely to use alternative modes of transportation rather than taking 
local streets. “People have decided it’s not worth it to make that 
commute at commute hours. They’ve arranged carpools, chosen to take the 
bus, or decided not to work so far from home,” Wormhoudt said. “But 
once you’ve added lanes people go back to that mode.”

An informed debate
Last spring, the RTC considered placing a sales tax measure for the 
highway-widening project on this November’s ballot. But after 
conducting an extensive poll through Gene Bregman & Associates on 
voters’ willingness to approve the sales tax, the commission decided to 
postpone the measure until 2004.

Sixty-one percent of voters polled said there was a “great need” to 
widen Highway 1 with carpool lanes in order to reduce traffic. However, 
only 43% of those polled said they would vote in favor of a ballot 
measure to provide funds for the project by instituting a one half cent 
sales tax throughout Santa Cruz County for a period of twenty years. A 
20-year half-cent sales tax would raise about $400 million over the 
next twenty years, which would provide the funding needed for the 
project.

The poll results did not indicate a high likelihood that two-thirds of 
Santa Cruz County voters would approve the measure. According to 
Posner, “The reason the RTC did not put the measure on this cycle is 
because they’re not sure it’s going to pass,” he said. “To pass a sales 
tax, you really have to get consensus among the public.”

The public hearing on funding for the environmental review will be held 
at the Santa Cruz City Council Chambers (FC) on November 7. Those 
interested in learning more about transportation issues in Santa Cruz 
County are welcome to visit People Power! at the Santa Cruz Hub for 
Sustainable Transportation, 224 Walnut Ave., Santa Cruz, CA 95060 or 
call 425-0665.

       All content Copyleft © 2002 by The Alarm! Newspaper. Except 
where noted otherwise, this material may be copied and distributed 
freely in whole or in part by anyone except where used for commercial 
purposes or by government agencies.