Paul Glaab, Pat Bates, and “Toll Road” Jerry Amante at an OCTA Board Meeting. Quote is made up, but seems pretty appropriate based on the story.
In a meeting of the OCTA Highways Committee this morning, toll lane proponents admitted that the votes were not there for their plan to add tolls to the 405.
Instead, the committee voted to recommend to the full OCTA board that they proceed with Alternative 1 for the time being, with the understanding that the right-of-way for Alternative 1 would be broad enough to include the toll land proposal.
If this passes at the board level, this would eliminate from further consideration as “locally preferred alternative” some of the least popular features, including the highly controversial widening through College Park in Seal Beach, the direct connection to the failing 73 toll road, and the taking of businesses in Fountain Valley.
This would leave open future consideration of toll facilities and the possibility of adding two free lanes through the most constricted area of the freeway between Brookurst and the 22.
This recommendation is not binding on the full board, where there are more fervent toll supporters than on this committee.
Lucy Dunn, speaking for the Orange County Business Council, lavished praise on the OCTA and their plans for managed lanes, with a promise to help educate the public on the benefits of tolls. Her comments about educating the public were echoed by OCTA board members, who were careful not to criticize the abject failure of their CEO and his overpaid propaganda staff and project manager, who failed dismally in their efforts to educate us all.
[Sad note 2022 – video lost over the years]
So adding a second lane would cost another $1.3 million later, as opposed to $100,000 now?
This is insane. This is actually, certifiably, insane.
The right of way is the same for adding one lane as for adding two lanes from Harbor to the 22, which is where the bottleneck is. Almost all of the cost in this project comes from knocking down and rebuilding all of the bridges across the freeway. So we can still go with a more robust version of Alternative one, or a more sensible version of Alternative 2 with today’s vote.
Between the 22 and the 605, Alternative 2 would have added one additional general purpose lane, requiring additional right of way and moving the Almond Ave wall in College Park, which really provides very little benefit.
What if anything is the purported advantage of not building the second lane now?
They are trying to create a false choice between alternative one or alternative 3. See, they have a lot of projects to do, and they just can’t move another $100 million towards Alternative 2 this early in the Measure M process.
Bear in mind that an Alternative 2 light or 1+, which would build two free lanes where they are most needed, probably only costs 50 million more than alternative 1.
So today’s vote was Alternative 1 as long as it does not preclude Alternative 3, but don’t educate the voters enough to figure out that Alternative 2 is the choice that gives most bang for the buck.
I saw it all a little different, so I’m a-gonna write my own story. There were seven very different people on this sub-committee, and most of them do not favor Alternative 3, even secretly. Alt 1 seemed to be a convenient safe temporary compromise for all of them.