.
(E-mail ALL the OCTA Board Members by clicking HERE.)
.
Let’s get right down to the heart of it. Opponents of the 405 Toll Lanes (known as “Alternative 3”) claim that the spending of public money to build the toll lanes is a theft of public money and a subversion of democracy, since nothing about any toll lanes was mentioned in the campaign for the Measure M sales tax, or is included in the Measure itself, and there’s no way Measure M would have got the 2/3 majority it needed if voters knew it would lead to toll lanes. Voters were convinced to tax themselves an extra 1/2 cent for the promise of expanding freeways – and toll lanes are not free!
Here is the Toll Trolls’ counter-argument to that, as expressed to me by an OCTA member who called me last night and talked my ear off, does not want to be identified, (and actually opposes the Toll Road for his own separate reasons.)
- 1.3 billion is currently available from the Measure M sales tax. (I was right about that, unlike other confused journalists.)
- 1.3 billion is exactly what is needed for the extra lane of Alternative 1, and nearly what’s needed for the two extra lanes of Alternative 2 (which costs 1.4 billion – the extra .1 can be finessed somehow.)
- “The only thing OCTA owes voters” is the extra lane, or two, of Alt 1 or 2; and whether or not OCTA also constructs toll lanes is none of voters’ business.
- The Toll Lanes – Alternative 3, which is like Alternative 2 but with the two inner lanes converted to Toll/HOV lanes, costs 1.7 billion – that’s .3 or .4 billion over what the sales tax paid for.
- This extra .3 or .4 billion will be covered by bonds financed by the tolls. The rich folks paying the tolls are paying for their own toll lanes themselves. So settle down and be happy with your two new general purpose lanes.
Only a LITTLE BIT OF THOUGHT about that leads us to retort: “Wait … NO! That’s just not right! In fact … Hell NO! WTF?????”
Because under Alternative 3 we taxpayers would be paying $1.3 billion of our sales tax money and getting NOTHING in return. Okay. Let me make this “concrete.” We’re talking about a stretch that currently has FIVE LANES (with the far-left one currently being a 2+ carpool lane.) Alternative 3 (like Alternative 2) would build two extra lanes off to the right for a total of SEVEN LANES.
BUT!
Then it would take the two inner lanes, and convert them into high-priced toll lanes (or lanes for 3+ occupancy vehicles who would also have to pay a reduced toll themselves.) And this leaves the rest of us taxpayer/commuters with…
FIVE LANES. Just like we had before we spent $1.3 or $1.4 BILLION.
We will have got nothing. We will have been lied to. We will have been bilked.
This is the basic, strongest, and unanswerable argument against the Alternative 3 Toll Roads. There are plenty of other interesting arguments, pro and con, some more and less compelling than others. But this is the one that sits in the middle of the discussion like the Sphinx. And I will publish this piece now, so that all of you can start getting used to this. I’ll add more to this story later, with info about each of the 17 Board members who will be voting on this; contact info; and a running headcount of where they stand and why. And speculation on what could really be influencing their positions.
See you soon..
Our Coverage Thus Far:
- “Lexus Lanes” on the 405? Help Stop the Latest Toll Road Outrage!
- Perfect Circularity: A 405 Toll Lane for the Sole Purpose of Funding a 405 Toll Lane?
- OCTA’s Will Kempton to Betray OC Voters?
- Proposal Unites Enemies in Costa Mesa, against HB Mayor Don Hansen.
- 405 Toll-Gate For Dummies: How the proposed toll lanes are illegal.
- My Modest Proposal to build “Expensiveways” on the 405
- A Taxpayer Bailout for the Failed 73 San Joaquin Hills Toll Road?
- Seal Beach and Westminster to Join Costa Mesa in opposing 405 tolls
- OCTA expects BILLIONS in revenue from 405 Tolls!
- 405 Toll Projection – $2.95 for Three Miles!
- Cooking the Books with Two VERY different sets of numbers…
- How We Can Defeat the 405 Toll Lanes! And … Meet Your OCTA Board!
- Huntington Beach Mayor Hansen Rebuffed by his own City Council
AND NOW, somebody has created the excellent…
No 405 Tolls.Com!
E-mail ALL the OCTA Board Members by clicking HERE.
.
Excellent, Vern.
And remember that under Measure M, OCTA can ask voters for approval if they want to change the specific capital projects allotted to various projects or the share of the Measure M tax dollars going to different areas.
If they think they have a project that is so much better, let them present it for approval and ask the voters if they want to spend 1.3 billion to build two toll lanes on a FREEWAY.
“We will have got nothing.” With Alt 3, aren’t we gaining 1 general purpose lane?
Alt 3 gains 1 general purpose lane and converts an existing HOV lane into a toll lane/3+ HOV (maybe) and adds another toll/3+ HOV lane…that hardly seems to be “nothing”. For the vast majority of people who do not use the HOV lane, doesn’t that add another lane to use?
TJ, you make it sound like there are three new lanes. The two new lanes are both Express Toll Lanes, while the existing FREE carpool lane becomes a FREE general purpose lane.
Local residents who will endure five years of construction while all North/South and all East West bridges are torn down and replaced and they will have very limited access to the new lanes, the vast majority of which will be paid for by taxpayer funds promised for FREEWAY expansion.
Both new lanes are Express Toll Lanes, with all the extra expense of transponders, surveillance systems, accounting systems, and enforcement, as well as additional weaving lanes, which they don’t really have room for. The car pool requirement is increased to 3+ from 2+ and every vehicle in the new Express Toll Lanes will require a transponder and account.
Alternate 3 will be longer than Alternate 2 so they can tear down one more almost new bridge at Fairview and create a carpool lane to carpool lane connector to try to feed more traffic into the Ponzi scheme known as the 73 San Joaquin Hills Toll road.
MQ- Feel free to re-read my comment and I don’t see how one would say that I am making it sound like there are 3 new lanes. I clearly say one new general purpose lane, one new toll/3+HOV and the conversion of and existing HOV lane into a toll/3+HOV. Sheesh…can’t we at least agree on what it is going to look like? I thought that Vern, after last nights, comments on the Lexus Lanes string agreed with what it looks like. There are plenty of arguments against it that one should not have to be deceptive to imply that there is nothing gained with Alt 3.
The existing FREE carpool lane is not free unless you are carpooling. The fine is very expensive if you are a single in the carpool lane. If like so many other drivers, one is not in the carpool lane, there is one new general purpose lane available without charge. Those who are in the general purpose lanes pay taxes just like those in the HOV lanes. Like I have said a few times, I doubt that the goal of carpool lanes are achieved with the number of people I see driving who as their 2nd person is a non-driver (i.e. a child).
OK, I’ve been dying to write back to you for a few hours TJ, but stuck running a choir rehearsal. (My bread and butter.)
Am I exaggerating by saying we taxpayers get NOTHING for our $1.3 billion? Shit, not by much. It’s “nothing” in the way that, say, the consolation prize in Glengarry Glenn Ross of “a set of steak knives” is “nothing.”
Look – the average Joe taxpayer/commuter who can’t afford the $9 toll every day is trading what we have now – 4 general purpose lanes and a 2+ carpool lane – which will very soon have continuous access and costs nothing – for 5 general purpose lanes. That is practically nothing.
It’s nothing, considering what he is paying to make that trade: First of all $1.3 billion of our taxpayer money, PLUS all the hassles and disruptions that Quimby described so well above. I’d say that trade is so close to getting NOTHING – nothing compared to what we were promised – that I’d call it nothing. What, our 2+ continuous access carpool lane is no longer a carpool lane. That’s it.
And that carpool lane, which we have now, is gonna seem like it was a general purpose lane in retrospect, compared to what we’ll be looking at if they pass alternative 3.
#1. Our current carpool lane is free.
#2. You know that it is SO much easier and more common to have one friend to travel with than it is to have two.
#3. Not to mention, even the 3+ cars are gonna need transponders, deal with bureaucracy, sometimes pay tolls, as Quimby outlined.
and #4. Right now there’s an exit off our carpool lane pretty much every mile or so; soon it will be continuous access. This would also be the case with Alt 1 or 2. With Alt 3 there would be only TWO exits over the course of a 13-mile toll lane.
So I’m comfortable saying we would be getting “nothing” for our $1.3 billion sacrifice, under alt. 3. It’s the kind of nothing like being a good boy or girl all year long and then getting a lump of coal in your stocking kind of nothing.
PS.. In case you noticed, don’t want anyone to think I’m being sneaky… I altered the number of lanes in my story, subtracting one from each scenario because I was told that the stretch currently has 5 lanes, not 6; and it’s gonna be built out to 7 (its very limit) not 8.
Didn’t have an opportunity to walk over to the freeway and take a peek and count the lanes before writing my story.
No change to our arguments
I am glad that you brought up the average Joe commuter…when I see the average Joe commuter, they are generally not in the carpool lane and they only have access to the current # of general purpose lanes. The average Joe commuter would receive one extra lane to utilize in Alt 3. You may think it to be nothing, which is fine…I seem to think it is something, although not perfect or maybe even the best.
Fortunately, I believe that the average Joe commuter would receive two extra lanes in Alt 2…here is an idea, get rid of the current HOV lane that the average Joe commuter does not get to utilize and let that person enjoy three extra lanes or even utilize flexible HOV hours similiar to what they have up in the SF/OAK area (I think on the 14 they have it going up to AV/Palmdale too). Although, I do believe that Alt 3 has more lane miles than Alt 2, but not sure why they can’t remedy that although costs more money. To me, for something this big we should not only take the better of the 3, but instead actually come up with the BEST of all.
Another way of looking at it is the theft of the existing HOV lane into a far more limited access, higher occupancy or toll lane. At the hearing I attended the board rep. wouldn’t commit to keeping the “express” lanes free for any HOV saying it will depend upon usage – which I read as their goals of maximizing revenues/tolls and maitaining the 13 minute target for the 73 to 605 stretch of the 405 ‘express/toll way. (so there may not be any more free, even HOV access after the first few months of openning).
Readers please let your members of the OCTA board know that you do not want your tax dollars stolen, that you don’t want 405 expansion alternative three, that you want alternative 2 and no new toll lanes, especially ones built with tax moneys we’ve already paid for FREEway expansion.
Every County Supervisor is a member of the OCTA, so contact your supervisor
See http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Government/Board%20of%20Supervisors/Your%20Board%20of%20Supervisors
for names and contact info
Plus the mayors (or a councilmember) from the cities of
Laguna Niguel (Paul Glaab)
Tustin (Jerry Amante)
Fullerton (Don Bankhead)
Orange (Carolyn V. Cavecche)
Fountain Valley (Larry Crandall)
Garden Grove (William J. Dalton)
Anaheim ( Lorri Galloway)
Huntington Beach (Don Hansen)
Lake Forest (Peter Herzog)
Santa Ana (Miguel Pulido)
are on the OCTA board
So if you live in any of those cities let your mayor (or Councilmember) know your thoughts on this.
Could one look at the current HOV lanes as the prior theft of a general purpose lane? I am not familiar with the process of developing HOV lanes though either so maybe I am wrong.
No. Existing HOV lanes are free to those meeting occupancy or other (emission) requirements, have plenty of opportunities for entry or exit and reduce traffic on the other lanes. These express lanes are for highly limited access, i.e. mostly long distance through traffic not for local drivers (who paid Measure M taxes), and may end up being toll only lanes. Through Measure M taxes we have paid almost enough to build 2 new lanes but with alternative 3 most of us that live along that stretch of the 405 loose an HOV lane and get one GP lane.We cannot count the “express lanes” as HOV lanes because there is no commitment to keep them with free HOV acess and access to those lanes will be at so few points as to make them worthless for many. By their own projections alternative 3 gives GP drivers more congestion and slower drives than alternative 2. And all that arguement doesn’t address the many questions about the credibility of the figures they have provided for alternative 3 to make it look better than it could be.
Not sure if you answered my question through your explanation…can you explain why restricting/changing the use of a general purpose lane to an HOV lane is not essentially theft (I wish I had a better word) of a public roadway so that only a select group can use them?
I understand your explanation on the limited access, potential charges for the 3+, etc…that is not my problem and we are likely in agreement on that. My beef is more with the idea of the HOV lane in general especially since from my experience it seems that the goal of removing cars is not necessarily met by the HOV lanes since it seems that there are quite a few kids that are the 2nd passenger or cars that would already be carpooling (i.e. families going on vacation for example).
If you never use HOV and don’t think you benefit from the incentive for ridesharing/carpooling then you can see that as a loss or theft. The purpose is to serve socialy desireable goals including a reduction in traffic congestion and therefore less need or urgency to build more lanes. As to how they are actually used in practice, I can somewhat concur and would be open to changing requirement that two adults be in the vehicle. Ideally it would be 2 liscenced drivers but that would be more a problem for the Highway Patrol to enforce as not until after a vehicle with two adults is pulled over could they determined who is or isn’t liscenced.
Thanks for your response…those in favor of the HOV lane concept I think would have a problem with the result (or maybe they would not…) if we did not allow kids to be the 2nd passenger. IMO, the result would be more cars in the general purpose lanes which would add to gridlock. The general public would then realize that the HOV lanes are not really serving the purpose of reducing traffic for the average commuter but instead is adding to it with the exception of a select group who would enjoy less congestion in the HOV lanes…
I would love to see a study of how many cars appear to be driving with underaged non-drivers as the 2nd passenger…
*”it is better to light a candle that to shake your fist at the dark!”
Look folks……there are plenty of choices “IF” those in command of the system
were willing to hear them. Any of you been up to SF lately? Their car pool lanes
offer flexible hours. Let’s think out of the box completely…….and simply say: Add
one Toll Lane which only charges a fee during rush hours. Add another Car Pool
Lane that is FREE and never charged….which offers “all vehicle use” 10AM to 2PM…….Car Pool required at all other times – until 11PM to 5AM which also offers
All Vehicle Use privileges.
They do much the same in NO. CAL. – of course they have folks that know how
to read and write up there no matter their ethnicity. Should we do it for the 405?
No brainer…..of course!
Well, at this point Winnies, we’re looking at three alternatives. And Alt 3 sucks. And Alt 2 is pretty good.
Dunno who’s shaking their fist at the dark here, me and Quimby are doing our best to shed some light for everybody.
Winner winner! Better to wait a bit and come up with the best alternative instead of just picking the better of the 3. Rethink the whole thing.
Well, maybe, but I’m afraid the bunch of us smartie-pants just stepped into this pretty late in the process. They’ve been working on these alternative plans for years. I just happened to be in the right place at the right time two Saturdays ago, which is probably the only reason we’re talking about this now.
Just a simple question: Where does the fee collected go? Does it pay off the work, which I understand will be paid by tax payer dollars, or will it be revenue above and beyond the cost of the project? Is the taxpayer expected to pay twice for this project?
Why the toll in the first place?
CJ
That’s not a simple question.
The first .4 billion of tolls collected would go toward the construction of the toll lanes, which cost .4 billion more than the rest of the project, and .4 billion more than we have from the sales tax.
After that … well, the toll lanes still take money to run, the “surveillance systems, accounting systems, and enforcement…” as Quimby lists. And maybe in the future the tolls would finance some other traffic-related improvements, as I hear the 91 tolls do.
But hopefully we won’t find out. My money is on the people stopping this boondoggle.
Why the toll in the first place?
Because people living in Newport Coast can afford to pay it without feeling it and most of the rest of us can’t.
To expound a bit on Vern’s excellent answer. Initially the tolls would go mostly to making payment on the bonds that would be required for the extra construction and equipment. Those bond payments are both principal and interest, i.e. money borrowed and profits for those holding the bonds. And the issuers/marketers and underwriters always get a profit from the creation and sale of bonds. It is more money for the poor financial sector and investors from creating government debt for a questionable project while so many other truly needed infrastructure projects continue to go unfunded. .
Dr. D., We agree generally…we do hate Toll Lanes and all of their variations…but
we also do in fact have to admit that the 405 is or can be the largest parking lot in America. However, we firmly believe in Restricted Toll Lanes which can be used for all Car Pool traffic for free in off hours. The only time Toll Lanes should charge is during Rush Hours and Certain Holidays which have a applified traffic history…like Mother’s and Father’s Day and Thanksgiving….get it? Week-ends on 405 and the 5 south from Irvine Center Drive…..are the worst. Where is the OCTA plan for that area? Think we can make suggestions “that aren’t too late in the process” if we make them now?
So long as you agree that we should be able to use the transponders to strictly enforce the 65 mph speed limit on the Expensiveway, we are in accord.
*OK……forget the whole thing….Take the Alt #2 and kick the can down the road
for another 4 years….
Won’t everyone on the OCTA be out on term limits by then?
But … but … my modest proposal! Why don’t you like my modest proposal? Isn’t it better than Alt #2?
*Dr. D., please Diane Harkey does need an affordable “intern”….maybe she will give you the nod…… The big difference is that Diane believes that only Escalades and Porsche SUV’s should be allowed on the Tollways. She also might call them:
“Exclusiveways” or “Boutiqueways”! Those Big Pick-up Trucks should pay double of course!
I am offended that you consider me “affordable.”
I take it that she does not respond to your e-mails?
*Dr. D., very perceptive as usual. You are not exactly correct. She does send us Newsletters and Fund Raising event info. She does not respond outwardly to our
e-mails….but will take our phone calls. Interesting.
We also apologize for any perception of calling you cheap. We would never say that in any regard. Nope…only the finest Cuban Cigars will do…you have us convinced!
Please give Asmb. Harkey a call and let her know that the Orange Juice Blog says hello.
Hey, you called me “affordable,” not “cheap”! Had you said cheap I actually might have been offended!
There was a short time that we were getting along good with Diane — simply because she’d turned into a real fireball in opposition to the Fairgrounds Swindle. She was the loudest of the legislators who had originally voted for the sale and changed their minds, with the refrain: “Those who have made a mistake have the biggest responsibility to fix it!” At that time we learned she was also an equestrian, and her staff was supposed to give me a picture of her on a horse, for a positive piece I was gonna write. Alas, the pic never came, and I never wrote the piece.
Now she’s just another rightwing nutjob in Sacramento, joining Tim Donnelly in his anti-immigrant crusades and calling High Speed Rail “cultural genocide” because it is proposed to cut through a little farmland.
For someone who doesn’t much care about cultural genocide, being able to rally around the call of “cultural genocide!” is a wonderful opportunity. It is emotionally bracing, on the one hand, and by dilution of the concept’s impact it also helps to discredit it in those places where it is most appropriate.
I do appreciate her stance on the swindle, but frankly I expect no less of any local politician.
It was funny – at the beginning, when nobody was paying attention, EVERY OC legislator okayed the Swindle – with the exception of Silva and Duvall.
Then I give Solorio credit for being the first lawmaker, responding to our constant bitching, to admit he’d made a mistake and get out in front of fixing it. They hate admitting mistakes.
Eventually we had EVERY OC legislator changing their tune and fighting against the Swindle, with TWO EXCEPTIONS: The hardcore ideologue Chuck DeVore who just doesn’t believe in public property; and Mimi Walters who had to recuse herself because her hubby (who’s ALWAYS getting her in trouble) was elbow-deep in the Swindle.
Where is the official history of the Swindle? I remember Solorio being on the wrong side, then later on the right side, but not that he made that switch first. He has the most sensitive antennae around, so his front-running-away from a certain impending disaster doesn’t surprise me. Still, I give him props for it, as I’m sure would the OC residents who have died for lack of affordable health insurance, if they could.
Norberto has made noise about writing the book some day. Maybe I should instead, seeing as how busy he is.
Solorio did switch first, with a big mea culpa. And good thing, our two OC Democrats have (had) a lot more power in Sacramento than any of our Republicans, being part of the majority, not to mention Latino.
Since some are using the 91 as an example, can anyone point to something built to help congestion on that alignment using the “extra” money generated, err the “overtax”? Anything?
Vern
They are starting again. below is a copy of my email to John Moorlach, but I think its at a dead end.
Bill
From: Bill Oliver
Date: 5/6/2015 1:03:03 PM
To: john.moorlach@ocgov.com
Subject: Toll Roads on 405
Committee Members.
What will it take to get you to understand that OC does not want or need toll roads. You asked the voters and they said NO. They did say yes to more lanes on the 405 that will help traffic, but why would we pay for more lanes and still at the end of the day still have only 5 lanes unless we want to pay more.
Take the extra lanes that you want to build and make them THRU lanes to major exchanges like the 605-55-5 so that cars would have limited entrance and exit going from and to San Diego or LA.
Maybe the solution is to have the consultants be a little more forward thinking for the money that they receive for consulting. Water from a 5 inch pipe does not fit to well into a 3 inch pipe.
Bill Oliver
bgolfn@chesstech.com