Juxtapositiion - Carlsbad Says Build the Monstrosity

I just have to say this...READ THE TWO FOLLOWING POSTS!

Carlsbad's new mayor Matt Hall says yes to the entire I-5 Expansion.

Carlsbad City Council Takes Issue With I-5 Expansion

We now see what a bunch of crap City Hall really is to the people of Carlsbad. On one hand they take issue with the expansion, and in about 30 days send a resounding YES at the SANDAG meeting. Sure sounds like two faced politics to me! What about you? Take issue with something but approve it? Geez, did they do that with the new power plant? No. Seems City Hall can slip and slide to take issue with whatever they want when pushed by the people,  and then do what they want when the whim suits them.

Okay, Mr. Hall. Leave it for the kids to decide. After they suck in the poilluted air, I suppose you'll be decrying the traffic jams that may be partly responsible for their respiratory problems, cancers and other medical issues. Maybe they can ask why Dad thought it was such a great idea to get as much traffic on the freeway as possible and why good old Carlsbad looks so much like Los Angeles? Gee, in these old pictures it looked so nice.....

Surprise...Surprise... SANDAG endorses larger I-5 expansion

 SANDAG endorses larger I-5 expansion

Widening still needs state's approval

REGION: SANDAG endorses larger I-5 expansion

By CHRIS NICHOLS - cnichols@nctimes.com

North County Times - Californian | Posted: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:00 pm

 

Regional leaders endorsed plans Friday for one of the largest Interstate 5 expansion options available, saying they want the flexibility to build as large a freeway as money will allow in future years.

The vote by the San Diego Association of Governments Board of Directors is not the final say on the size of the much-contested freeway widening.

But it bolsters the odds that state transportation leaders will choose the larger six-lane widening from Del Mar to Carlsbad, instead of four lanes or none at all. Two or four new lanes would be added from La Jolla to Del Mar. And, because of funding limits, only four lanes would be added from Carlsbad to Camp Pendleton.

During the board's downtown San Diego meeting, roughly 30 residents, environmentalists and current and former North County leaders called on the board to support smaller expansion models or scrap them entirely in favor of more mass transit.

Their urgings did little to change the 16-3 vote in favor of the larger project.

Carlsbad Mayor Matt Hall, who voted 'yes,' said nothing is final about Friday's action.
"Remember, this is a long-range plan," Hall said. "To constrain it today (by endorsing a smaller expansion) would be short-sighted. Give our kids an opportunity to vote on what's right. ... We can always, through this board, constrain it at a later date."

The vote moves SANDAG's draft 2050 Regional Transportation Plan forward. That plan includes more than $100 billion worth of freeway and transit proposals, including the I-5 widening, for the next four decades.
The regional plan won't be ready for a final SANDAG vote until September 2011, but it is very likely to guide the California Department of Transportation in the spring and summer as it chooses how large an expansion to select. The majority of the new lanes proposed would serve car-poolers, buses and solo drivers willing to pay a fee.

SANDAG's endorsement is pivotal because the agency controls half the funding for the I-5 expansion, which would cost up to $4.5 billion at the largest build-out.

Laurie Berman, Caltrans' regional director, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday afternoon. Many more steps, including approval from the California Coastal Commission, must be completed before Caltrans can start construction in 2013.

Representatives for the cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach and La Mesa were the only ones to oppose Friday's vote on the Regional Transportation Plan, based on their desire to see a smaller expansion.
"There has to be a point where this widening has to stop ---- we cannot build our way out of congestion," said Solana Beach Mayor and SANDAG board member Lesa Heebner. "I am not happy with the super-sized (expansion option) that ended up on this list."

Former Solana Beach Mayor Marion Dodson, who sat on an I-5 expansion panel a decade ago, said that by choosing six new lanes, Caltrans would break a promise it made not to take any private property.
Adding six lanes along the 27-mile corridor from La Jolla to Camp Pendleton would force the relocation of 53 to 112 homes and businesses, a Caltrans official said at a recent meeting.
Hundreds more properties would lose part of their land or rights of way.

San Diego City Councilwoman Sherri Lightner, speaking to the board during the meeting's public comment period, said she stood "in firm opposition" to plans for the larger expansion, noting that community planning groups in Torrey Pines and other areas in the corridor want a smaller project.
"You are giving Caltrans a de facto approval of an expensive and destructive alternative," said Lightner, who is not on the SANDAG board but represents residents from La Jolla to Carmel Valley.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, who is on the SANDAG board, made Friday's motion in support of the Regional Transportation Plan, and its larger I-5 expansion option, saying it was the best for the region.

Encinitas City Councilman Jerome Stocks favored the larger project, though he said he was "not 100 percent thrilled with it." In an earlier vote on Friday, Stocks was unanimously elected chairman of SANDAG's board.

National City Mayor and SANDAG board member Ron Morrison said the regional board must make bold decisions to meet transportation needs. He said past decisions to build new freeways weren't always easy or popular.

"Where would we be without (Interstate) 805?" Morrison said. "We wouldn't be like San Diego. We'd be like Omaha. No offense to Omaha."

Call staff writer Chris Nichols at 760-740-5426.

Carlsbad City Council Takes Issue with I-5 Expansion Plans!

Council takes issue with I-5 expansion plans

by Alyx Sariol Coast News Group

 

CARLSBAD — City staff reported Nov. 16 that they have found Caltrans’ proposed I-5 widening project plans to contain insufficient details and lacking in clarity on its impact to Carlsbad if the project moves forward.

Staff’s statement on the project’s shortcomings came after months spent reviewing the detailed Draft Environmental Impact Report and Study, or EIR/EIS. They presented the analysis to City Council members at a workshop Nov. 16.

Senior Planner Scott Donnell and other staff members highlighted “significant concerns” in the proposal, including a lack of transparency on the project’s impact to Carlsbad.

“The analysis of impacts to Carlsbad is incomplete and the information provided is inadequate,” Donnell said. “The EIR needs to be revised to clarify that.”

Proposed impacts include the replacement of bridges and under crossings; additional High Occupancy Vehicle lanes; sound wall barriers; and the addition of Direct Access Ramps, Donnell said.

Staff cited concerns with these plans, like the projected loss of lagoon and farmland along I-5 and an increase in noise and pollution that has not been slated for mitigation by sound walls in some areas.

Donnell also noted that Caltrans conducted an “inadequate analysis of our city policies,” while also neglecting the coastal policy and city noise regulations.

In addition to the widening construction, Caltrans has designated $50 million for “community enhancement projects” for property within the project’s footprint.

They include trail connections at various points in Carlsbad, as well as beautification of the La Costa Park and Ride area.

“It’s an attempt by Caltrans to mitigate some of the other impacts of the project,” Director of Transportation Skip Hammann said.

Hammann noted that the earmarked budget for improvement projects is more than necessary to complete them, and Caltrans is open to other project ideas from city staff.

Hammann discussed several projects suggested by staff members, including a realignment of Carlsbad Boulevard and Palomar Airport Road; Carlsbad Village Drive gateway improvements; and the expansion of Chestnut Avenue, linking Holiday Park with Pine Avenue Park.

Hammann provided a rough estimate of an additional $50 million to complete staff’s recommended projects.

“We can ask for these things, but how likely is it that Caltrans will consider them, we don’t know,” Hammann said.

Caltrans will consider Carlsbad staff’s comments and suggestions, as well as other public input, before releasing their preferred widening alternative and a final EIR/EIS. They are expected to release a decision sometime next year.

San Diego County residents are encouraged to comment on the project by the Nov. 22 deadline. Comments can be made online at www.keepsandiegomoving.com/I-5-Corridor/I-5-intro.aspx

Read more: Coast News Group - Making Waves in Your Neighborhood

Solana Beach Staff & Consultants Report

A small but enthusiastic crowd welcomed the Solana Beach staff and consultants who reviewed their 196 page report(available on the City of Solana Beach web page) on the effects of the proposed expansion on the City of Solana Beach.

The report criticizes the CalTrans Draft Environmental Impact Report for being “ambiguous and unstable”.  The Draft EIR discusses the legally required NO BUILD option and four options that call for expansion of the existing freeway.It does not, as legally required, state a Preferred Option and it does not discuss other mass transit options.  Experts hired by Solana Beach described this report as not in compliance with State and Federal law and in need of being totally recalled, rewritten and then re-circulated.  Council Member Dave Roberts stated that “we should get our money back from CalTrans” for having to expend $80,000 to prepare this report.

Recent reports on the effect of the I-5 expansion on the cities of Del Mar, Carlsbad and Oceanside are now available. The Oceanside report describes in detail the extremely negative impact of the proposed expansion on the city and its residents and questions the modest improvement, if any.   The Carlsbad and Del Mar reports are both very critical of the methodology, the omissions of key sections (greenhouse gas emission, air pollution) and the totally ambivalent nature of the report make it nearly impossible to comment on.  The general consensus:  the Draft EIR was a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.

Don’t forget to get comments in to CalTrans by the deadline:  Tuesday of next week.

Send to:           Shay Lynn Harrison, Environmental Analysis Branch Chief

                        CA Department of Transportation – District 11

                        Division of Environmental Analysis, MS 242

                        4050 Taylor Street

                        San Diego , CA   92110

Electronic Mail:  I-5_NCC_EIR_EIS@dot.ca.gov

  

Steve Goetsch

Solana Beach , CA

COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Protect coast from freeway expansion

COMMUNITY COMMENTARY: Protect coast from freeway expansion

by Mindy Martin

Courtesy of The Coast News Group

  Coast News Group

I recently attended a meeting organized by citizens and the Sierra Club regarding proposed expansions to the 5 freeway. I am embarrassed to say that, before this meeting, I was largely unaware of this project. It was no secret. This publication has run a few stories. The city councils have been mulling it over for a while now. And, of course, citizens groups have already organized an opposition! Yet, even though I live less than a mile west of the freeway in Oceanside, I had no idea about the monstronsity Caltrans is planning.

A recent transplant from the East Coast, I like to joke that the state of California finds itself in such a mess because the weather and the views are so lovely that people just don’t care about politics. I’m beginning to see that there is some truth to that, and I fell into the trap. I volunteer, but it occurs to me now that I only get involved with feel-good projects. Like so many people, I’m turned off by the tenor of local politics and exhausted by what seems to be a wildly inefficient process. Like so many other people, I’ve been leaving the work, the oversight and the standing up to someone else.

Well, not any longer. After listening to the presentation and doing some thinking and research of my own, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

First, the Sierra Club, like Caltrans, has a bias. It also seems clear that some of the citizens organizing the meeting are something shy of moderate. I strongly support conservationist causes, too. All fine, but this is not merely an environmental issue; it is a community issue. One need not be an environmentalist to acknowledge the aesthetic value of the coastal and lagoon views. Obscuring those assets with concrete sound walls is a bad idea. One need not be an environmentalist to be concerned about construction over the lagoons, especially given the 40-year completion horizon. And, one need not be an environmentalist to realize that a freeway the size of the 15 will bring noise and traffic that will forever transform the beach cities.

Second, everything I read and my own intuition suggests that more lanes only encourage more people to drive. And, once the congestion returns (if you’re not convinced that it returns, take a trip up to L.A.), we have the same traffic and the same poor public transit system — with no money for improvements. A $4.1 billion freeway project surely saps resources and removes the immediate incentive to develop transit and/or explore innovative alternatives to congestion problems, like getting freight off the freeway or re-routing trucks during rush hour. Right now, we have a fantastic train that is almost entirely useless, and prohibitively expensive, for commuting. Perhaps, we could use a fraction of these dollars to work on that?

Finally, we cannot rely on our elected officials to handle this for us. Since the meeting took place in Carlsbad, two Carlsbad mayoral candidates, both of whom presently serve as

councilmen, attended. Keith Blackburn said he had yet to take a position on the expansion. There is a lot of information, he said, and he just hadn’t made up his mind. Initially, Matt Hall was similarly noncommittal. But, as he explained that this was very complicated, that council had been reviewing this for years, I leapt to my feet with the obvious follow-up. “How, then, can you have no position?” Ultimately, he said he supported some expansion, though not the whole enchilada. I wondered if he held back because the election was so close or because he sensed that it was a tough room.

I’m sure these are good men. But their job is to juggle interests, and the citizens’ are just one among many. The bottom line is that we cannot assume that our representatives know what we want or share our views. We have to tell them, demand action and go around them when necessary.

Join your neighbors Citizens Against Freeway Expansion on Facebook and I-5 Plague website at www.i-5plague.com/. Both have instructions to submit comments/questions. The deadline in Nov. 22.

Mindy Martin is an Oceanside resident.

Read more: Coast News Group - COMMUNITY COMMENTARY Protect coast from freeway expansion

Project to expand I-5 continues to draw community opposition

Project to expand I-5 continues to draw community opposition

by Bianca Kaplanek

 

Courtesy of The Coast News

  Coast News Group

COAST CITIES — Two weeks before a Nov. 22 deadline to comment on a proposal to expand Interstate 5, two public hearings were held to address the project. Although the Nov. 8 events were different, the message was the same.

Despite claims from the California Department of Transportation, lead agency for the project, few in North County believe widening the freeway will relieve congestion. They also doubt the project will enable the county to comply with state mandates to decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

In July, Caltrans released a 10,000-page draft environmental impact report for public review. Since then Caltrans has held a series of informational workshops to inform the public about the project.

The majority of residents who attended those presentations did not support the expansion.

State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, said she requested the Nov. 8 informal hearing, held at Solana Beach Presbyterian Church, to allow the agencies involved with the project to speak to the public.

Also on hand were Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Chairman Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach, representatives from Caltrans and the San Diego Association of Governments and Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board.

Kehoe said she would include public input from the meeting in her letter responding to the EIR.

Caltrans is proposing to widen 27 miles of I-5 from La Jolla to Oceanside. The project is estimated to cost between $3.3 billion and $4.5 billion depending on the option selected. Many speakers said the money would be better spent on mass transit.

Alternatives include adding up to four managed lanes for carpools, buses and single-occupancy vehicles willing to pay for use. Another option features two additional general purpose lanes. There is also a no-build option, which many residents said was dismissed too quickly.

About four of the approximately two dozen speakers supported the project, saying it would bring much-needed jobs to the area.

That night, Del Mar City Council authorized its 18-page comment letter on the EIR.

The report, the letter states, fails to provide sufficient or effective alternatives or adequately address the project’s main purpose and impacts to the San Dieguito Lagoon and local feeder roads.

City officials also said the no-build alternative is dismissed prematurely and truck traffic was not sufficiently considered.

Read more: Coast News Group - Project to expand I 5 continues to draw community opposition

Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project at State Senate Transportation Meeting in Solana Beach

Courtesy of NBC San Diego
Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project
Economic, environmental, traffic-inducing concerns cited
By GENE CUBBISON
Updated 8:47 PM PST, Mon, Nov 8, 2010

Source: Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project | NBC San Diego

The proposed widening of Interstate 5 through coastal North County ran into another wall of public opposition on Monday from residents of the area.

They voiced numerous objections at a Solana Beach town hall held by the state Senate's Transportation Committee. The public meeting was attended by nearly 300 people.

"I do not believe that pouring more concrete and creating lanes for cars, trucks and buses will solve our problem with congestion and gridlock," said Solana Beach resident Mary Jane Boyd, one of two dozen speakers who took the microphone during the three-hour session. "It certainly will do nothing to improve the quality of the air we breathe."

Much of the testimony centered on health concerns and environmental damage that could occur to wildlife living in six coastal lagoons, 32 acres of wetlands and 74 acres of coastal sage.

Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project

WATCH

Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project

"This project will induce traffic onto the freeway and eliminate the opportunity for inducing traffic into high-speed rail," said Solana Beach resident Lane Sharman,

The CalTrans project would encompass 27 miles from La Jolla to Oceanside and offers four options besides doing nothing -- officials warn that doing nothing would more than double current peak-average travel times along the stretch to upward of 70 minutes.

Those options call for eight or 10 general purpose lanes, four or five in each direction; and four interior, "managed" lanes for high occupancy vehicles, separated either by buffering roadway stripes or by concrete barriers.

The low-end cost estimate of the "8 plus 4" options is $3.4 billion; the high-end estimate for the "10 plus 4" options is $4.5 billion.

The resulting travel time for the "10 plus 4" options ranges from 28 to 37 minutes, and from 37 to 45 minutes for the "8 plus 4" options.

Between 50 and 112 homes, and 10 to 13 businesses, along the route would have to be condemned and demolished for right-of-way. Nearly 2,000 other homes would be impacted by freeway noise, about 1,600 of which would receive noise abatement measures at CalTrans' expense.

The proposal is supported by representatives for general contractors, civil engineers and the Automobile Club of Southern California.

Solana Beach resident Steve Goetsch reminded state senate officials and Caltrans representatives that directors of the San Diego Association of Governments long ago urged Caltrans that no homes should be acquired by eminent domain for future projects.

In an interview following the town hall, Goetsch -- whose neighbors across the street have received notices that their properties are in the path of the right-of-way -- said it's already adversely affecting their lives.

"By law, you must tell anybody that you sell the home to," said Goetsch. "Your home, at that point, is essentially value-less. At that point you can sell; no one's going to buy it."

The project's written public comment period expires Nov. 22.

CalTrans officials said they hope to have a decision on the preferred option by the middle of next year.

It appears "doing nothing" is out of the question, though, as the total number of vehicle trips along that stretch of I-5 is projected to reach 1 million by 2030.

If the decision is ratified by the Federal Highway Administration, the timeline for competion is 2013.

(Correction: The timeline for completion of the final EIR/DIR and NOT construction on the project is projected to be 2013. The start of the actual physical construction of the project would be sometime after that.) bjs

Source: Residents Protest I-5 Widening Project | NBC San Diego

Opinion: Alternatives to the Widening of Interstate 5

A member of Citizens Against Freeway Expansion gives his take on the widening of I-5.

By Steve Goetsch | Email the author | October 31, 2010

Jerome Stocks recently expressed his opinion about the widening of I-5 on Encinitas Patch. In reply, I would like to discuss the first of five alternatives, the one that CalTrans never discusses: the No-Build option.

The proposed expansion of I-5 has exploded in size and cost from the original project approved by SANDAG in 2000, which was projected to cost $516 million, cover 20 miles and last 13 years. The current Caltrans proposal is projected to cost $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion, cover 27 miles and last up to 40 years.

More importantly, SANDAG stated emphatically at that time (as former Solana Beach Mayor Marion Dodson has repeated for 10 years) that there was to be "no taking of private property." When Caltrans Manager Arturo Jacobo was questioned about this contradiction at a June 2010 Solana Beach City Council meeting, he replied that with the present Caltrans proposal it was not possible to avoid taking private parcels.

A Caltrans document (see PDF) lists up to 230 homes or businesses that could be "partially acquired" and up to 36 parcels that could be "fully acquired." Six homeowners in Solana Beach have already received notices that Caltrans wants to acquire their property by eminent domain and as many as five parcels could be condemned in Encinitas.
                         

 http://o3.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims3/PATCH/resize/273x203/http://hss-prod.hss.aol.com/hss/storage/patch/35a5f45c408caac706f7c785128d7ebd

Pdfs (1)

Will the proposed expansion of I-5 relieve traffic congestion? The Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A & M University, which Caltrans helps to subsidize, states bluntly in its annual report on Urban Mobility: "You can't build your way out of congestion." After the proposed 40-year expansion program, it is doubtful that traffic would run smoothly for more than five years. Why? Because a freely running freeway attracts traffic from other routes of transportation, thus clogging itself—a major new freeway or freeway expansion attracts more development, which adds more traffic. In plain English, expansion doesn't solve the problem.

What are the alternatives? Mass transit is something the San Diego region has barely explored. Los Angeles, home of more freeways per square mile than any other city in the world—and the nation's worst congestion—is embarking on a crash program to rebuild the light rail system the city foolishly dismantled in the 1950s.  A trolley line is now scheduled to be built from downtown San Diego to the UC San Diego campus and the UTC shopping center. It should be extended all the way to Oceanside.

Unfortunately, trolley lines cannot share the tracks with passenger or freight trains due to federal safety laws. The heavy truck traffic from San Ysidro transiting our county could and should be diverted to freight trains or barges to remove the slow-moving, highly polluting and very dangerous monster trucks from our freeways. Germany has banned such heavy trucks from their highways except at night, which would also lessen the congestion at rush hour.

Finally, some countries are beginning to charge drivers by the total number of miles they drive each day. Some also charge extra for entering heavily congested areas during weekdays, as the Conservative Mayor of London, England, has already done.

The 800-pound gorilla in the room is growth. Why is San Diego County the only California coastal county that does not have a Slow Growth or No Growth law in place? Have we ever had a referendum on the continuation of decades of rapid growth? These  factors should all be considered when discussing the proposed I-5 expansion.

Steve Goetsch is chairman of the Solana Beach Public Safety Commission and the Solana Beach Clean and Green Committee. He works as a medical physicist at the San Diego Gamma Knife Center, assisting neurosurgeons and radiation oncologists in treatment of patients with brain tumors. He also teaches graduate students in medical physics at San Diego State University.

State Senate panel plans hearing on I-5 expansion

By Robert J. Hawkins San Diego Union Tribune

October 27, 2010

 

The proposed expansion of Interstate 5 from Del Mar to Oceanside will be the subject of a hearing by the state Senate Transportation Committee on Nov. 8 at Solana Beach Presbyterian Church, 120 Stevens Ave., Solana Beach.

The 11 a.m. – 2 p.m. hearing will be chaired by the committee’s Chairman Sen. Alan Lowenthal of Long Beach and hosted by committee member Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego.

The Nov. 8 hearing will include testimony from key public officials involved in the I-5 project, after which the public will have an opportunity to comment.

"We'd like the hearing to be a forum where San Diegans who are impacted by the project, whether homeowners or users of I-5 -- thousands of us are -- to get a full understanding of the project," said Kehoe in a phone call on Wednesday. "We hope that his will give San Diegans an overview of the project, the extent of it, how much this will cost, in general."

Scheduled to testify are Mary Nichols, chair of the state Air Resources Board, on the impact of the state’s two major air quality bills, AB 32 and SB 375, both passed after this project began. From Caltrans will be Laurie Berman, director of District 11 and Allan Kosup, director of the I-5 corridor for Dist. 11. Executive director Gary Gallegos of SANDAG is expected to address the use of TransNet funds for the project.

Opposition groups, including CAFE (Citizens Against Freeway Expansion) and the Sierra Club, indicate they plan to address the hearing as well.

"I think this will be a first time that Caltrans and SANDAG will discuss an overview of the project for public consumption. It is very important. These are the two key agencies," said Kehoe. "Your average San Diegan should get a lot of questions answered at the hearing."

Since the state Department of Transportation released a draft Environmental Impact Report on the $3.3-to-$4.5 billion, 20-year, project in July it has been the subject of numerous hearings by public groups and five workshops by the state agency.

The draft plan offers five options, from doing nothing to widening to corridor to 14 lanes – more if you include on ramps, opponents say. There are proposals for managed car-pool lanes and sound barrier walls which will required the taking of some homes and businesses along the corridor.

Several cities -- Solana Beach, Encinitas and Oceanside – are funding their own impact studies. A couple of opposition groups have vowed to file suits if necessary to halt the project.

An extended public commentary period for the project ends Nov. 22. Caltrans expects to make a final recommendation one year after that.

While the Senate Transportation Committee has no plans to add its own comments on the project to the thousand that Caltrans has already received, a staffer says that remains a possibility.

The committee has no oversight over the project, noted Kehoe, "but to use a Senate policy committee for a hearing is not unusual. There will be no vote taking. It is an informational hearing."

Town Hall Meeting

CAFÉ Town Hall Meeting

Citizens Against Freeway Expansion (CAFÉ) in conjunction with P.L.A.G.U.E. has been sponsoring a series of town hall meetings to provide information beyond what CalTrans has been offering regarding the I-5 expansion project. Each meeting has been moderated by a representative from SANDAG. To date, they have held these meetings in Solana Beach, Encinitas and Oceanside. Each meeting held to date has had the support of their respective city councils with city council members attending. At each of these meetings there were anywhere from 300-400 attendees seeking information and answers to their questions. On Wednesday 10/20, it was Carlsbad’s turn.

Let’s first start with the differences between Carlsbad’s town hall meeting and the others.

1. First, Carlsbad is the ONLY coastal city not to sponsor one of these meetings. The City Council did not get out the message and as such, Carlsbad had a whopping 50-60 attendees. Impressive isn’t it? Carlsbad could lose a total of 114 properties and we only had the interest of 50-60 people. HP stands to lose property including common area and only a total of 4 people cared enough to attend. Definitely not impressive. By the way, those who did attend our community meeting at the pool were all notified of this meeting…more than once.
2. Councilman Kevin Blackburn arranged to have the meeting held at a community church in downtown Carlsbad. To his credit, at least he did attempt to do something.
3. City Council representation: The only two attendees were Kevin Blackburn and Matt Hall -each a candidate running for mayor.
4. When asked their position on the I-5 project by attendees, the response from each candidate was curious. Kevin Blackburn stated he did not have an opinion yet and would have to attend more meetings and get more information. Matt Hall hedged his answer initially referring to the lengthy EIR. The most he would commit to was there must be something done even on a smaller scale. Since Matt Hall has been Carlsbad’s representative on SANDAG’s transportation committee for about 10 years, and this project was initiated about 10 years ago, how much more time does he need to study the issue? Mr. Hall also accused the representatives from CAFÉ of lying about their information. Nice. As for Keith Blackburn, why he needs more time is not clear. The council representatives from Solana Beach, Encinitas and Oceanside have had the same information for the same amount of time. Do they have some ‘magical’ thinking powers that our Council members do not have?

Now a summary review of what was presented at the town hall meeting:

1. The I-5 expansion project began in 2000 as a $600 million project to run about 20 miles. The current project 10 years later: $3.4-$4.5 billion to run about 27 miles.
2. In 2000, the project proposal stated there would be NO taking of any private property. My how things have changed. Depending on the final scope of the project, there could be a total of 400 properties taken or impacted one way or another. Does eminent domain ring a bell?
3. Scope of the project: The presenters had some terrific visuals of how this project will look. If you have driven I-15 as well as the I-5/405 connection in Orange County, you will have a sense of what will happen. Do view the videos posted on this blog to get a sense of the concrete tunnel our beautiful coastal freeway will become. The options on this project run from doing nothing, just adding HOV lanes or expanding upwards to 14 lanes. Bridges over freeways and lagoons will be built/re-built with our lagoons having wide expanses of concrete over them to accommodate 14 lanes and feeder ramps.
4. I-5 Coastal Views: They will be GONE. Our stretch of I-5 is the only portion of the freeway system from Washington State all the way south that has a coastal view. If you enjoy the pleasure of seeing our beautiful Pacific Ocean as you drive along the freeway, think of what it will be like to see walls of concrete as you sit in traffic. Besides sound walls, there will be portions of the freeway with retaining walls upwards to 20’.
5. EIR Report: This is an enormous document that most people will never read or understand. However, some experts outside of CALTRANS have read it and have noted some serious flaws in this document. Contrary to what CALTRANS states, emissions DO NOT improve with speed. Federal studies have documented that by adding more lanes, ergo more vehicular traffic, only adds MORE emissions. Speed of traffic is not the issue.
6. No other options considered: It was brought to everyone’s attention that CALTRANS has only studied the option of building more lanes and bridges. Seeing that this is their sole function, this information is not surprising. No studies have been initiated re traffic management for trucks, cargo on trains, etc. Keep in mind the effect of NAFTA and the push to allow more trucks cross the border. With more traffic lanes, there will be more trucks, buses and cars.
7. Pollution: The immense scale of this project will result in increased air & noise pollution as well as particulate emissions. See related articles on this blog as how this will affect our quality of life in HP. This project will affect our health & well being. It will also affect our property values.
8. Sound Walls: If you think sound walls are the answer, consider a few important facts.

• Sound walls will mitigate some sound for those homes that will abut right up to the wall. Yes…several HP homes could have a sound wall immediately against their homes. However, CALTRANS has stated, and their documents confirm, that while La Jolla, Del Mar, Solana Beach will get sound walls, by the time they get to our portion of the freeway….there is no guaranty we will have a sound wall because they do NOT have the funds to build them. Think what life will be like with 14 lanes of traffic and no sound walls.
• Sound walls will increase the freeway noise level for those homes further away from the freeway. As explained by an engineer, the effect is similar to the function of a megaphone. The sound walls will project the sound up and away. So people in the Terrace, your noise level will increase along with other adjacent communities. It is not just a Village problem…it is a HP problem.
• Property tax/HOA increase? It was presented that recent information has come to light that if we do get a sound wall, it could be considered a property improvement and therefore subject to a property tax increase. So that could affect HP common area. If HP property taxes increase, so do our dues. By the way…if we lose homes…our dues will have to increase to make up for the loss of income from those homes that CALTRANS takes.

9. Legal: Pamela Epstein is an attorney with the Sierra Club who has presented the various legal hurdles to be faced through the EIR process. Fortunately there are a lot of agencies that need to sign off on the proposed project. Once this process is complete, depending on the outcome, P.L.A.G.U.E. has hired a legal firm in the Bay Area to file suit. Ms. Epstein reminded everyone that November 22nd is the deadline to submit your EIR questions emphasizing that it must be in question format in order to get a response.

So stay informed and get involved. There is a lot of information posted on this blog. Email Carlsbad City Council and keep the pressure on them to be proactive & represent Carlsbad residents. All other coastal cities have allocated funds for an independent study of the EIR. Carlsbad to date is doing it with ‘staff’. Go to City Council meetings. Like our monthly HOA meetings, they allow an initial window for resident questions. You need to submit your question in writing to the Council and you have 3 minutes to state your opinion and/or ask your question. Council meeting dates are posted on this blog and there is also a link to the City’s website. We all are busy. But there is a lot at stake here. If you think this will magically go away or someone else will take care of it….you are wrong. Everyone needs to do something!

I-15 noise complaints fall on deaf ears

This was 2008 and things just keep getting worse!

Sound walls would cost too much, Caltrans says
By Ruth McKinnie BraunSTAFF WRITER
March 9, 2008 San Diego Union Tribune

The widening of Interstate 15 is making life easier for commuters, but not for some residents whose homes back onto the freeway. For them, more lanes mean more noise.

And Caltrans is offering them no relief.

In 2003, the California Department of Transportation identified 41 areas along the 20-mile expansion route from Escondido to south of Miramar Marine Corps Air Station where traffic noise would be loud enough to require a sound wall.

But plans for all but seven walls were jettisoned, not because they weren't needed but because Caltrans decided they would cost too much.

The freeway project's total price tag was estimated at $800 million, but that has soared to nearly $1.3 billion because of rising costs for materials, including concrete and steel. Federal, state and local tax money are paying for the expansion, which will accommodate 380,000 cars a day once it is finished in 2012. In its busiest sections in the county, I-15 now handles 300,000 cars a day.

By the end of this year, the work between Centre City Parkway and state Route 56 will be completed, but residents of one Rancho Bernardo neighborhood say traffic noise is already unbearable and will only get worse once more lanes open.

Last month, Caltrans began work on the southern section of the project from Route 56 to south of the Marine base. Caltrans Director Will Kempton, who attended a groundbreaking ceremony beside the freeway Feb. 29, said he considered bringing a blank check from Sacramento because costs have grown so much.

Residents of a Rancho Bernardo neighborhood known as Bernardo Heights say that with Caltrans already paying far more than expected for the project, the state agency should be a good neighbor and reconsider a sound wall that would allow them to sleep at night and use their backyards.
 
“There is no sense of accountability,” said Kira Golin, a Rancho Bernardo resident who lives on Corte Sosegado, which backs up to the freeway.

Had all 41 sound walls been built, it would have cost about $19.4 million, about $6.7 million more than Caltrans budgeted. The seven walls approved cost about $5.1 million.

Caltrans is also building a sound berm and wall beside the Doubletree Golf Resort in Rancho Peñasquitos, even though the golf course wasn't eligible for noise abatement. The agency said material excavated for the freeway project will be used and will save Caltrans money because it won't have to pay to haul the material away.

Anything but quiet

Corte Sosegado has the look of a quiet suburban street, with homes neatly painted off-white with rust-colored trim and well-groomed yards. But there's nothing quiet about it.

Since lanes were added to I-15, neighbors hear the constant roar of tires thundering on pavement, truckers heartily downshifting and applying air brakes, and motorcyclists revving their engines. By the end of the year, the freeway will grow to 14 lanes, up from nine.

So far, Caltrans has opened lanes on an elevated section in the middle of the freeway and replaced a single northbound exit lane to Bernardo Center Drive with two that are higher and closer to Corte Sosegado than the old exit.

The neighbors long for the days when all they heard was the low rumble of white noise from the freeway. Dave Smith, who lives at the end of Corte Sosegado, about 100 feet from the freeway, sleeps with earplugs and a homemade sound wall propped against the sliding glass door in his bedroom.

A 984-foot-long, 12-foot-tall wall that would have lowered the traffic noise on Corte Sosegado by up to 6 decibels would have cost $487,000. It would have replaced a 6-foot wall that backs up to yards closest to the freeway. Caltrans was willing to pay $189,000, or $21,000 for each of the nine homes in the neighborhood that qualified for noise relief.

In recent months, Smith and Golin appealed to Caltrans, and Golin said she sought help from her state legislators, Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula, and Assemblyman George Plescia, R-San Diego. Frustrated, Golin also contacted Just Fix It, a column in The San Diego Union-Tribune  that tries to help people solve problems in their neighborhoods.

Gustavo Dallarda, Caltrans' corridor director for the I-15 expansion, said the state had no choice but to strictly follow its formula for determining how much it would spend on sound walls.
“It's not an open checkbook when it comes to noise abatement,” Dallarda said.

Residents on Corte Sosegado said they aren't asking for that, but they believe Caltrans' formula is too low and almost guarantees that a wall won't be built.

Although Dallarda said the costs forced Caltrans to reject most of the walls, the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol in place when the agency decided which I-15 sound walls would be built allows for exceptions and urges “common sense and good judgment.”

Dallarda said Caltrans used solid judgment. Walls that are up to 10 percent over the allowed cost are approved, he said. In the case of Corte Sosegado, the wall would have cost 2½ times more than the agency would authorize.

In light of Golin's complaint, Dallarda has agreed to conduct more testing at Golin's home next month.
And Plescia and Hollingsworth have asked Caltrans to conduct additional sound tests once construction in Rancho Bernardo is finished at the end of the year. If the tests show that a sound wall is needed, Plescia said, “then we have to fight for the funds.”

Dallarda reiterated that the agency must strictly follow guidelines on how much it can spend on a sound wall.
“The bottom line is there are rules in place and we are following them,” he said. “There is no wiggle room.”

66-decibel standard

Caltrans considered sound walls in areas where noise was expected to reach at least 66 decibels, the level at which noise abatement must be weighed. (The decibel level for a chirping bird is 44, while the grinding of a garbage disposal is 80 decibels.)

All of the 41 walls that were considered would have lowered traffic noise by at least 5 decibels, the amount Caltrans requires.

Each wall was judged separately and could be nixed if its cost exceeded the amount Caltrans allowed under its formula. One of the walls was denied because it would have cost $13,000 more than the agency would pay.

Thousands of houses, condominiums and apartments border the expansion route. After doing noise tests at hundreds of locations and using a computer model to predict future levels, Caltrans decided 472 homes would be affected the most by the project.

Caltrans' formula for calculating sound-wall construction costs is tied to the state's Construction Price Index. The allowance covers any easements needed for a wall and demolition of any existing wall.

The amount Caltrans will pay per home is adjusted every two years; the minimum allowance for homes was raised to $32,000 in 2006.

Caltrans has refused to provide sound walls in other areas of the state. More than 500 property owners along a section of state Route 210 through San Bernardino County are suing the agency over noise and other issues.

Paul Stevens, an attorney for the residents, said Caltrans has spent millions fighting the lawsuit, filed in 2003.
“To take a stonewall approach in the political process and the legal process makes no sense,” Stevens said. “Who are they actually serving? They are supposed to be serving the people.”

One of the seven areas where a sound wall was approved along I-15 can easily be seen just across from Corte Sosegado on the west side of the freeway. The estimate for the 3,280-foot-long wall was $1.5 million, about $500,000 more than Caltrans was willing to pay.

George Cooke, who lives in the neighborhood known as High Country West, said residents were persistent in lobbying the agency. He said the price included significant legal costs to secure an easement on which the wall would be built. Residents offered the easement without legal wrangling, which reduced the cost to an amount acceptable to Caltrans.

A visit to both neighborhoods offers a loud-and-clear example of what a sound wall can do. While High Country West is hardly quiet, it's significantly quieter than on Corte Sosegado.

Did Carlsbad Spend a Ton of Money on The Power Plant and Ignore the People on I-5?

It seems incomprehensible that the City of Carlsbad has had the wherewithal to make animations of the proposed I-5 expansion project a year ago, when the EIR/EIS was just recently released. Seems they actually had a heads-up on what this might be like way before the citizens knew what it could, or would become. Maybe just an artists rendering, but certainly seems an accurate depiction of what is proposed.

While citizens were worrying about the freeway expansion, and the City of Carlsbad was seemingly ignoring it, they were spending money apparently doing video animations of the expansion, while vilifying the appearance of a proposed new power plant. Note the conspicuous absence of any sound walls to block the views? Note that only the "ugly" power plant is shown as an obstacle to views in the one video. Note the "flyover" entrance to the HOV lanes? Talk about ugliness in Carlsbad!

Note that the cities of Solana Beach. Del Mar, Vista and the Sierra Club joined with Carlsbad to fight against this power plant. Carlsbad pulled out all the stops, and focused much energy to try and get this power plant stopped. Yet, why haven't they done the same with the I-5 Freeway expansion? Don't these city officials see concrete as ugliness? Don't they see sound walls as blocks to the "natural beauty of our coastal views". Must be that a few hundred yards of industrial plant blockage of the view is worth fighting for, but miles of ugliness of concrete sound wall and concrete is just fine, because we're not hearing much from our elected officials.

If Carlsbad spent as much time and energy concerned about their citizens, and the effects of the I-5 widening project, as they have on the NRG Power Plant project, we'd be giving them accolades. Instead, they deserve onions as I see it. Or maybe just stink weed.

Eyes Wide Closed

Some people have adopted the "ostrich syndrome" where they bury their heads in the sand, and say it will never happen. We've heard that this project has been long talked about but nothing has ever become of it. Tell that to the people in Carmel Valley and where the I-5 - I-805 merge takes place. They talked about that for years and it's a mess. Traffic backs up just as it always did, just a bit further up the road. Move the mess a bit at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars perhaps. Put in truck bypass lanes that never materialize as such?

Some people think that cancer will never happen to them either. But it can and does. They can see the signs way before it becomes self-evident and presents significant problems, but it's ignored.  And, in the case of the freeway expansion, concerned residents believe, like a metastasizing mass of concrete, it will come our way and cannot be ignored; now is the time to take steps to minimize the impact before it's too late to do anything at all. The time allocated for public input is running out, and once the die is cast, only lawsuit after lawsuit will slow this down. And is that where we want to be? Emptying our savings accounts and retirement funds to fight an ongoing battle for endless years, while the State uses our own tax money against us? Those who have their heads in the sand have an easy choice. They can say "I didn't think it would ever happen", or "Maybe I should have reacted more quickly and positively before it was too late" or maybe they'll just sell out to avoid being the butt of "I told you so" quips? 

NOISE POLLUTION – Some Cause and Effect Issues to Consider

Noise isn't just a bother and an annoyance. It's lots more than that. It has severe physiological and psychological effects on the human body and mind. Here's some issues to consider, from some of the best medical-social research we have to offer:

Sleep Disturbances

Uninterrupted sleep is known to be a prerequisite for good physiologic and mental functioning in healthy individuals. Environmental noise is one of the major causes of disturbed sleep. When sleep disruption becomes chronic, the results are mood changes, decrements in performance, and other long-term effects on health and well-being. Much recent research has focused on noise from aircraft, roadways, and trains. It is known, for example, that continuous noise in excess of 30 dB disturbs sleep. For intermittent noise, the probability of being awakened increases with the number of noise events per night.

The primary sleep disturbances are difficulty falling asleep, frequent awakenings, waking too early, and alterations in sleep stages and depth, especially a reduction in REM sleep. Apart from various effects on sleep itself, noise during sleep causes increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increased pulse amplitude, vasoconstriction, changes in respiration, cardiac arrhythmias, and increased body movement For each of these, the threshold and response relationships may be different. Some of these effects (waking, for example) diminish with repeated exposure; others, particularly cardiovascular responses, do not. Secondary effects (so-called after effects) measured the following day include fatigue, depressed mood and well-being, and decreased performance. Decreased alertness leading to accidents, injuries, and death has also been attributed to lack of sleep and disrupted circadian rhythms.

Long-term psychosocial effects have been related to nocturnal noise. Noise annoyance during the night increases total noise annoyance for the following 24 hours. Particularly sensitive groups include the elderly, shift workers, persons vulnerable to physical or mental disorders, and those with sleep disorders

Other factors that influence the problem of night-time noise include its occurrence in residential areas with low background noise levels and combinations of noise and vibration such as produced by trains or heavy trucks. Low frequency sound is more disturbing, even at very low sound pressure levels; these low frequency components appear to have a significant detrimental effect on health.

Cardiovascular Disturbances

A growing body of evidence confirms that noise pollution has both temporary and permanent effects on humans (and other mammals) by way of the endocrine and autonomic nervous systems. It has been postulated that noise acts as a nonspecific biologic stressor eliciting reactions that prepare the body for a fight or flight response. For this reason, noise can trigger both endocrine and autonomic nervous system responses that affect the cardiovascular system and thus may be a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. These effects begin to be seen with long-term daily exposure to noise levels above 65 dB or with acute exposure to noise levels above 80 to 85 dB. Acute exposure to noise activates nervous and hormonal responses, leading to temporary increases in blood pressure, heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Studies of individuals exposed to occupational or environmental noise show that exposure of sufficient intensity and duration increases heart rate and peripheral resistance, increases blood pressure, increases blood viscosity and levels of blood lipids, causes shifts in electrolytes, and increases levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol Sudden unexpected noise evokes reflex responses as well. Cardiovascular disturbances are independent of sleep disturbances; noise that does not interfere with the sleep of subjects may still provoke autonomic responses and secretion of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol. These responses suggest that one can never completely get used to night-time noise.

Temporary noise exposure produces readily reversible physiologic changes. However, noise exposure of sufficient intensity, duration, and unpredictability provokes changes that may not be so readily reversible. The studies that have been done on the effects of environmental noise have shown an association between noise exposure and subsequent cardiovascular disease Even though the increased risk for noise-induced cardiovascular disease may be small, it assumes public health importance because both the number of people at risk and the noise to which they are exposed continue to increase

Children are at risk as well. Children who live in noisy environments have been shown to have elevated blood pressures and elevated levels of stress-induced hormones.

Disturbances in Mental Health

Noise pollution is not believed to be a cause of mental illness, but it is assumed to accelerate and intensify the development of latent mental disorders. Noise pollution may cause or contribute to the following adverse effects: anxiety, stress, nervousness, nausea, headache, emotional instability, argumentativeness, sexual impotence, changes in mood, increase in social conflicts, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis. Population studies have suggested associations between noise and mental-health indicators, such as rating of well-being, symptom profiles, the use of psychoactive drugs and sleeping pills, and mental-hospital admission rates. Children, the elderly, and those with underlying depression may be particularly vulnerable to these effects because they may lack adequate coping mechanisms. Children in noisy environments find the noise annoying and report a diminished quality of life.

Noise levels above 80 dB are associated with both an increase in aggressive behavior and a decrease in behavior helpful to others. The news media regularly report violent behavior arising out of disputes over noise; in many cases these disputes ended in injury or death. The aforementioned effects of noise may help explain some of the dehumanization seen in the modern, congested, and noisy urban environment.

Impaired Task Performance

The effects of noise pollution on cognitive task performance have been well-studied. Noise pollution impairs task performance at school and at work, increases errors, and decreases motivation Reading attention, problem solving, and memory are most strongly affected by noise. Two types of memory deficits have been identified under experimental conditions: recall of subject content and recall of incidental details. Both are adversely influenced by noise. Deficits in performance can lead to errors and accidents, both of which have health and economic consequences.

Cognitive and language development and reading achievement are diminished in noisy homes, even though the children's schools may be no noisier than average Cognitive development is impaired when homes or schools are near sources of noise such as highways and airports Noise affects learning, reading, problem solving, motivation, school performance, and social and emotional development These findings suggest that more attention needs to be paid to the effects of noise on the ability of children to learn and on the nature of the learning environment, both in school and at home. Moreover, there is concern that high and continuous environmental noise may contribute to feelings of helplessness in children

Noise produces negative after-effects on performance, particularly in children. It appears that the longer the exposure, the greater the effect. Children from noisy areas have been found to have heightened sympathetic arousal indicated by increased levels of stress-related hormones and elevated resting blood pressure. These changes were larger in children with lower academic achievement. As a whole, these findings suggest that schools and daycare centers should be located in areas that are as noise-free as possible.

Negative Social Behavior and Annoyance Reactions

Annoyance is defined as a feeling of displeasure associated with any agent or condition believed by an individual to adversely affect him or her. Perhaps a better description of this response would be aversion or distress. Noise has been used as a noxious stimulus in a variety of studies because it produces the same kinds of effects as other stressors. Annoyance increases significantly when noise is accompanied by vibration or by low frequency components. The term annoyance does not begin to cover the wide range of negative reactions associated with noise pollution; these include anger, disappointment, dissatisfaction, withdrawal, helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion. Lack of perceived control over the noise intensifies these effects.

Social and behavioral effects of noise exposure are complex, subtle, and indirect. These effects include changes in everyday behavior (eg, closing windows and doors to eliminate outside noises; avoiding the use of balconies, patios and yards; and turning up the volume of radios and television sets); changes in social behavior (eg, aggressiveness, unfriendliness, nonparticipation, or disengagement); and changes in social indicators (eg, residential mobility, hospital admissions, drug consumption, and accident rates); and changes in mood (increased reports of depression)

Noise exposure per se is not believed to produce aggressive behavior. However, in combination with provocation, preexisting anger or hostility, alcohol or other psychoactive agents, noise may trigger aggressive behavior. Our news is filled with examples of this kind of behavior.

The degree of annoyance produced by noise may vary with the time of day, the unpleasant characteristics of the noise, the duration and intensity of the noise, the meaning associated with it, and the nature of the activity that the noise interrupted. Annoyance may be influenced by a variety of non-acoustical factors including individual sensitivity to noise. These include fear of the noise source, conviction that noise could be reduced by third parties, individual sensitivity, the degree to which an individual feels able to control the noise, and whether or not the noise originated from an important economic activity. Other less direct effects of annoyance are disruption of one's peace of mind, the enjoyment of one's property, and the enjoyment of solitude.

Greater annoyance has been observed when noise is of low frequency, is accompanied by vibrations that contain low-frequency components, or when it contains impulses such as the noise of gunshots. Annoyance is greater when noise progressively increases rather than remaining constant. Average outdoor residential day-night sound levels below 55 dB were defined as acceptable by the EPA; acceptable average indoor levels were less than 45 dB. To put these levels into perspective, sound levels produced by the average refrigerator or the sounds in the typical quiet neighborhood measure about 45 dB. Sound levels above this produce annoyance in significant numbers of people.

The results of annoyance are privately felt dissatisfaction, publicly expressed complaints to authorities (although underreporting is probably significant), and the adverse health effects already noted. Given that annoyance can connote more than slight irritation, it describes a significant degradation in the quality of life, which corresponds to degradation in health and well-being. In this regard, it is important to note that annoyance does not abate over time despite continuing exposure to noise.

Effects of Multiple Sources of Noise Pollution

The evidence related to low-frequency noise is sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern. It is a special concern because of its pervasive nature, because it arises from multiple sources, and because of its efficient propagation, which is essentially unimpeded by conventional methods of either building or ear protection. Adverse health effects from low-frequency noise are thought to be more severe than from other forms of community noise. This form of noise is underestimated with the usual types of sound measuring equipment.

In residential populations, combined sources of noise pollution will lead to a combination of adverse effects such as impaired hearing; sleep disturbances; cardiovascular disturbances; interference at work, school, and home; and annoyance, among others. These effects are the result of stress from noise, stress that has been increasingly linked to illness.

Summary

Noise represents an important public health problem that can lead to hearing loss, sleep disruption, cardiovascular disease, social handicaps, reduced productivity, impaired teaching and learning, absenteeism, increased drug use, and accidents. It can impair the ability to enjoy one's property and leisure time and increases the frequency of antisocial behavior. Noise adversely affects general health and well-being in the same way as does chronic stress. It adversely affects future generations by degrading residential, social, and learning environments with corresponding economic losses. Local control of noise has not been successful in most places. This points out the need for improved methods of local control that should include public education, enlightened legislation, and active enforcement of noise ordinances by local law enforcement officials. Part of the solution may require federal or state legislation aimed at supporting local efforts or the restoration of federal funding for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.

Originally posted in a handout at HP Pool Meeting on October 9, 2010

I-5 Widening Project

There is a deafening silence around Harbor Pointe. It's a combination of the residents and the City of Carlsbad showing a seemingly lackadaisical attitude toward the I-5 widening project that will potentially increase the size of the 5 freeway to 14 lanes. Yes, you read that right, 14 lanes! Ten traffic lanes and 4 carpool or HOV lanes as CalTrans likes to call them.

Add to that, a sound wall approximately sixteen or seventeen feet high running down the complete length of Harbor Pointe from Poinsettia to Palomar Airport Road that will make life here like living in a fish bowl. But wait, there's more. The sound wall is not a given at any rate. It's "recommended" that it be built to minimize the enormous noise impact the project will have, but it's also "not reasonable" because CalTrans and the rest of the people who plan these things didn't plan enough money to protect humans from the effects of the project. So. it may or may not be built. The latest scenario is that it's less and less likely to be built as time goes on and money dwindles. That in itself is scary enough! And, in any case, the information that is contained on the CalTrans releases called an EIR/EIS appears faulty to say the least. (They won't respond in detail to anyone...just generalities which leaves us all very suspect! And you all know how much any of us trust the State of California when it comes to telling the truth about anything or spending money!)

Here's a link to the EIR/EIS for your perusal. It's interesting how much time they take to assure they protect wildlife and how little they took to assure humans are protected. Great time and cost spent on concern about how disconnected some community members might be, and how the freeway might split a community in some places, but total disregard for the rest of the community in others. Just unbelievable.

To see the proposal page just for Harbor Pointe, go to Part Two, Page 54. That's just the pictorial; the rest of the entire document bears review, especially Part 3 about sound, etc.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/Env_docs/I-5NCCDraft.html

Time to get off the dime and contact the City of Carlsbad, your state and county officials and anyone you can think of that will help stop this debacle from happening. Here are several links to groups fighting this so you can see what they are presently doing:

Torrey Pines Community Planning Board  http://www.torreypinescommunity.org/

P.L.A.G.U.E. website  http://www.i-5plague.com/

Another group actively campaigning against this debacle is CAFE, Citizens Against Freeway Expansion

Another great site:  Citizens for Smart Freeway Planning   http://smartfreeway.ning.com/ 

CalTrans admits this won't solve the traffic problem, just push it back further down the line. There are a sprinkling of dollars for public transportation to help assuage the conscience of the community but only a pittance. We need better community public transit, not ribbons of concrete. Pollution, noise, dirt and congestion for years, all for what? So they can stand back and wonder what to do next when the answer was at hand 50 years ago...public transit? Light rail, commuter rail, more scheduling (not less like we have now) better funding for rail and bus, more feeder lines, better paratransit systems to get people to the Coaster and other transit.

If cities like St. Louis can do it, why can't we? Their transportation system makes ours look like crap, and ours was started first. In fact, they looked at the San Diego Trolley as a model for their system. Thank God they took the good and then ran away, because their system and bus and paratransit actually serves the people of a city much larger with huge suburbs. While out system just continues to disintegrate while some fools invest in concrete.

One wonderful legacy for our kids, eh?