Sierra Club Joins Lawsuit to Challenge SANDAG's Flawed Transportation Plan

RELEASE: Sierra Club Joins Lawsuit to Challenge San Diego Governments’ Flawed Transportation Plan

Posted on January 23, 2012

For Immediate Release
January 23, 2012

Sierra Club Joins Lawsuit to Challenge San Diego Governments’ Flawed Transportation Plan

Club leaders cite concerns about plan’s contributions to pollution, climate change

San Diego, Calif. – The Sierra Club announced today that it has joined the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity as a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit against the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). The lawsuit challenges SANDAG’s 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and was filed in the San Diego Superior Court in November 2011.

According to the plaintiffs, SANDAG used a deficient process to develop a flawed plan that will invest heavily in freeways at the expense of public transit. The plan will unnecessarily increase pollution and exacerbate global climate change. San Diego is the first region in the state charged with updating its long-range transportation plan under SB 375, a new State law intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – and climate change – through smarter land-use and transportation planning.

“SANDAG’s plan is disappointing. The agency missed an opportunity to be a leader. It could have set an example of how to plan for future transportation needs without putting public health and the environment at risk, but didn’t,” said Kathryn Phillips, Director of Sierra Club California. “SANDAG’s plan will lead to more sprawl and traffic. What the region needs—and what the law calls for— is a visionary future that accommodates growth while protecting our air and natural resources. We need a plan that recognizes that the world has changed and that people want a transportation system that includes more and better transit.”

SANDAG approved its $200 billion transportation plan in October 2011. The agency is required to update its vision for regional transportation developments every four years. The recently approved plan front-loads the expansion and extension of regional freeways, which will promote sprawl and reinforce the region’s dependence on expensive, car-oriented transportation.

Most of the transit improvements identified in SANDAG’s 2050 plan would be delayed by decades and fall far short of creating a robust transit network comprised of efficient rail systems supported by bus, bicycle and pedestrian options. Instead, the plan would encourage more driving, leading to more air pollution in a region that already suffers from very poor air quality.

“Having an environmental powerhouse like the Sierra Club join us as plaintiffs further supports our belief that SANDAG violated the law” said Jack Shu, president of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation. “SANDAG failed in its obligation to serve all of our communities and plan for a better future.”

SANDAG’s plan relies so heavily on freeways and sprawl that regional per capita greenhouse gas emissions will actually increase over the coming decades, interfering with California’s landmark efforts to curb climate change.

“As drafted, SANDAG’s plan will be increasing greenhouse pollution at a time when the rest of the world will need to be making dramatic reductions in order to avoid the worst of climate change,” said Kevin Bundy, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re very pleased to have Sierra Club on board with this lawsuit, and we hope SANDAG takes this as a sign of just how wrong they got it.”

Throughout the planning process, opponents of the plan have urged SANDAG to prioritize transit investments in the urban core and reject extending freeways into the far reaches of the county.

Thanks to Steve Goetsch of  Citizens Against Freeway Expansion for forwarding this information!

Lawsuits Filed Over $200 Billion Transportation Plan

We all knew this was coming, so come it did, albeit from a different, but entirely welcome direction.

Lawsuits filed over $200B transportation plan

Environmentalists contend scheme favors freeways over public transit

Written by Christopher Cadelago  10:20 a.m., Nov. 28, 2011

Two environmental organizations challenged a plan outlining $200 billion in regional transportation projects through 2050, alleging Monday that the San Diego Association of Governments’ planned investments in freeways would come at the expense of public transit, increased pollution and exacerbated global climate change.

The lawsuit brought by the Cleveland National Forest Foundation and the Center for Biological Diversity alleges that regional transportation officials replied on inadequate environmental studies in approving the long-range planning document on Oct. 28.

The lawsuit, filed in San Diego County Superior Court, lists several violations of the California Environmental Quality Act.

“The time to move aggressively toward a more sustainable way of life is upon us,” said Jack Shu, president of the Cleveland National Forest Foundation. “SANDAG’s plan promotes an unsustainable vision for San Diego County: More traffic, less transit; more pollution, no solutions.”

SANDAG's chief spokesman said the agency had yet to review the lawsuit and had no immediate comment.

The 2050 Regional Transportation Plan, regarded as a blueprint for the transportation network over the next four decades, includes projects to add 156 miles of trolley service, 130 miles of managed highway lanes, and nearly $4 billion for bicycle and pedestrian projects, among other things. It also calls for turning the downtown trolley lines into a subway.

SANDAG at the time the plan was approved said transit should receive about half of the total funding. But most of the public transit improvements would be delayed for decades and, once completed, would come up short of the robust network needed and instead encourage more driving, according to the lawsuit.

On greenhouse gas reduction goals, the plan says the county would double its target by 2015 and meet it in 2030, the two state-mandated deadlines. After that, the document projects the region would lose ground in pollution reduction.

“SANDAG’s plan flies in the face of everything we know about climate change,” Kevin Bundy, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement. “The science is clear: We need ambitious, lasting reductions in climate pollution by 2050, and that means livable communities with access to transit systems that really work. More freeways and sprawl won’t get us there.”

Attorney General rips San Diego Pollution-Reduction Plan

Attorney general rips San Diego pollution-reduction plan

The state attorney general issued strong criticism of the San Diego region’s draft transportation plan for the next several decades because it “sets too low a bar” in reducing pollution and contains “significant legal problems.”

The target of Kamala Harris’ critique is the 2050 Regional Transportation Plan and its companion piece, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, as well as the underlying draft environmental impact report. These documents, drafted by the San Diego Association of Governments, are a roadmap for the next 40 years of transportation and residential/commercial development in the county.

Within hundreds of pages of documentation, the plans lay out the county’s strategy for meeting state-mandated reductions in greenhouse gases, which are widely believed to contribute to global warming.

The reductions, under the plan, would be 7 percent by 2020 and 13 percent by 2035 through land use policy and expansion of public transit and highways.

Among the criticisms outlined by the attorney general in her 12-page letter to SANDAG are:

• That by merely conforming to state standards, SANDAG’s plan fails to address a region “already overburdened with pollution.”

• That SANDAG needs to identify minority and disadvantaged communities and better-analyze how their health would be affected by the transportation plan.

• That pollution will ultimately increase over the 40 years covered by the plan.

• That a “suite of strategies” outlined by SANDAG (roadway expansion, more public transit) do not deliver long term reductions in pollution.

• That SANDAG fails to fully disclose some of the methodology and models used to come up with its predictions.

Harris calls upon SANDAG to rework a number of parts of the plan to meet the state standards for air quality.

The staff of the California Air Resources Board, which is charged with setting and enforcing pollution reduction standards, is submitting a report Thursday which says the SANDAG plan does meet state standards.

In the largely positive report, the air board staff indicates that if SANDAG approves its own draft plan substantially as is in October, it should also be approved by air board. The San Diego regional plan is the first in the state to reach this level.

Lynda Gledhill, a spokeswoman for Harris, said Wednesday that the attorney general’s office has been monitoring the SANDAG plan because it is the first of its kind in the state.

While the tone and concerns of the letter may echo similar comments submitted by groups including the Sierra Club and the Cleveland National Forest Foundation, Gledhill said the report was generated internally.

The attorney general reviewed the plan, in part, to make sure it complied with state law.

SANDAG executive director Gary Gallegos expressed disappointment that the letter was received four weeks after a specially extended deadline for comments. But he added that Harris’ “comments will help us strengthen the air quality portion of the plan.”

He said that part of the concern results because SANDAG’s plan extends 15 years beyond the 2035 date set by the Air Resources Board. This is unchartered territory for air pollution modeling, noted Gallegos. “This one reason why the plan will get reviewed every four years. It will be reviewed 10 times by 2050,” he said.

Gallegos also noted that technological developments — much like the introduction of the electric car today — and alternative fuels of the future could dramatically change their projections in coming decades.

SANDAG board chair Jerome Stocks was less generous. “We just spent three years in a very public process to reach this draft,” he said. “If the attorney general wants to talk with us at this late hour — if they want to talk about the next RTP, good — we’re talking about in 2012.”

Stocks said he is “deeply troubled by the attorney general stepping out of the role as the state’s top cop and into the role of regulator. (The air board) is the regulator.”

Contact: bob.hawkins@uniontrib.com • (619) 718-5253

Caltrans picks smaller I-5 expansion plan

By Chris Nichols:  North County Times Posted: Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Transportation officials announced Wednesday that they plan to widen Interstate 5 along North County's coast by just four lanes ---- not six ---- marking a victory for local citizen and environmental groups that opposed what they dubbed "super-sized" options for expanding I-5.

For several years, the California Department of Transportation, along with federal officials, had considered three plans for widening the often traffic-choked interstate. The largest was a $4.5 billion expansion that would have added four express lanes, two regular lanes and concrete barriers separating the lanes from La Jolla to Camp Pendleton.

The decision to build only four express lanes (open to buses, carpools and drivers willing to pay a fee) reduces the project cost to $3.5 billion. It also cuts in half the number of homes and businesses slated for seizure and removal to make way for the project, Caltrans officials said.

As many as 60 properties remain eyed for removal under the smaller expansion, many in Carlsbad and Oceanside, officials said.

"It came down to a question of 'Is it worth it?' ... Was it worth these impacts and costs? We concluded it was not," said Allan Kosup, Caltrans' I-5 corridor director for the region.

"Clearly we heard a big concern about the size of the project," Kosup added, noting that the opposition from North County coastal residents "was certainly a piece of the puzzle" in deciding to limit the expansion.

Caltrans must still clear many hurdles, including obtaining a development permit from the California Coastal Commission, before the agency can widen the freeway.
Caltrans estimates the first phase of construction ---- a northbound and southbound express lane from Encinitas to Oceanside ---- could start as early as 2013.

Solana Beach Mayor Lesa Heebner, who strongly opposed the larger widening plans, said Caltrans' pick of the smallest option was a victory for environmental and mass-transit advocates.

She added it is "a real turning point for our region in that we're acknowledging there's a point where you can no longer build your way out of congestion. And we've reached that point."

"I think (Caltrans) saw the handwriting on the wall. I think they finally bowed to reality," said Steve Goetsch of Solana Beach, who organized much of the opposition to the plans through his citizens group, Committee Against Freeway Expansion.

Caltrans officials said legislation proposed by State Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, also factored into its decision.
Kehoe introduced a bill in February that, in its initial form, called for mass transit projects to be built before any further freeway expansion on I-5.

The bill was later softened considerably. It currently supports the expansion of the four express lanes as long as transit projects, such as the double-tracking of the coastal railway, proceed at the same time.
On Wednesday, Kehoe praised Caltrans' smaller expansion choice.

"This is a good solution," she said. "It provides for I-5 expansion in the narrowest right of way, reducing environmental impacts and saving homes."

Caltrans has maintained that the I-5 expansion is only part of its larger effort to improve mass transit and the environment along the coastal corridor.

Kosup, of Caltrans, noted that $400 million would be spent to add eight miles of a second coastal rail track during the first phase of freeway construction.

It has also pledged $200 million for natural resource preservation along the freeway.

Last year, the San Diego Association of Governments, the region's planning agency, endorsed plans for a six-lane freeway expansion for much of the project area.

Some leaders on its board of directors, which includes elected county and city leaders from across the region, had said they did not want to handcuff the project in any way.

"I don't feel like it's a loss," said Jerome Stocks, SANDAG's chairman and an Encinitas city councilman. He explained that the regular lanes nixed by Caltrans would not have been built for decades as part of the last phase of construction.

He added that drivers on I-5's regular lanes will benefit once the express lanes are built, even if they don't use them.

Stocks said carpools, buses and vanpools will leave the regular lanes, freeing up space for everyone else.

"Their congestion will improve," Stocks said.

NOTE: The terrible congestion, noise dirt, dust, pollution and mess will STILL be here with us for years as CalTrans digs, and lays miles of concrete along our western perimeter. The fight is long from over, folks.

Senator Kehoe Wins Big for Logical Transit Solutions!

Coastal panel backs Kehoe's 'transit first' bill in 11-1 vote

By Robert J. Hawkins

Originally published March 11, 2011 at 2:26 p.m., updated March 11, 2011 at 5:48 p.m.

 
DEL MAR — The California Coastal Commission gave a ringing 11-1 endorsement Thursday to a bill by Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) that would require all state coastal areas to build out their mass transit before widening major highways.

If the bill becomes law it will have major implications for the proposed expansion of Interstate 5 along the San Diego County coast, from Del Mar to Oceanside.

The state is proposing to build out I-5 to as many as 14 lanes, seven in each direction. The construction would be phased in over decades and could cost as much as $4.5 billion. CalTrans is expected to state its preferred option by the end of this summer.

Some backers of the I-5 project have said Kehoe's law would delay and possibly kill the expansion they say is needed to address congestion. Opponents of the expansion contend that, among other things, the project would not improve drive times enough to justify the cost.

The commission vote "illustrates the growing support for better transit options up and down the state,” said Kehoe, in a prepared statement. “Improved transit service costs less, lowers pollution, and reduces congestion."
According to Kehoe’s policy director Deanna Spehn, the commission asked that language be inserted into the bill that ties its goals to the existing law SB 375, which sets targets for reducing greenhouse gases and other pollution.

“I look forward to working with the Coastal Commission to include more specific references to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” the senator said.

A first rewriting of the bill is expected next week, said Spehn.

Other “tweaks” to the bill’s language, according to Spehn, will include a clarification of the transit options and a requirement that the state Department of Transportation base construction decisions on the most current Census figures.

The three-page bill also requires the state to study the impact of a highway expansion on local surface streets and to fund and build first any improvements to those roads. The state must also work with local agencies to ensure that any expansion is done “without compromising the unique features of the coastal zone.”

Spehn said that SB 468 will have the first of several Senate hearings in April. Should it survive a Senate vote in June, it would undergo a similar process in the House. All bills must be completed by Sept. 10 this year, after which the governor will have 30 days to dispose of them.

Courtesy of the San Diego Union Tribune

How Many CalTrans Workers Does it Take To Change a Light Bulb?

The answer? They can't estimate it!

I just had to post the following e-mail I received in response to a maintenance request for a freeway street light that is out, posing a safety issue at an on-ramp apex:

Maintenance Service Request - Ticket #: 513443 - Our Response

Thursday, March 3, 2011 5:12 PM

From:

"Caltrans Division of Maintenance" <no-reply@dot.ca.gov>

Add sender to Contacts

To:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Situation Acknowledged. Unable to estimate time needed.
Additional Message:	Your request is scheduled for repair within the next 30 days. This ticket will now be closed.
MSR Ticket Number:	513443
Commit/No Commit:	commit
Date Submitted:	2011-02-26 15:28:11
California County:	San Diego
State Highway Route:	5
Nearest Town or City:	Carlsbad
Nearest Cross Street:	Poinsettia Lane/Aviara Parkway
Mode of Transportation:	Car
Direction of Travel:	Northbound
Time Situation Noticed:	7 pm - 8 pm
Type of Situation:	Traffic Lighting
Nature of Situation:	Street light is out on northbound I-5 at very furthest point where Poinsettia Lane on-ramp meets the #4 lane of I-5. I visually saw this light out, and was advised there was another light that is intermittent but did not personally view it.
Geographic Location of Situation:	Reference would be directly across the freeway from south building of the LaQuinta Inn on the Northbound side of I-5.
Your Email Address:	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It is now 10 days following the initial request and the light remains dark. Obviously the folks at the CalTrans yard about a half mile from the site have much more to do. Ticket "closed." What the hell is that? So they don't have to look at it or what?

This is what you have to expect for your tax dollars, and the behemoth ribbon of concrete these brilliant people want to foist on north county! When they can't even change a light bulb in a reasonable amount of time, what would ever make any of us believe they can do anything to alleviate traffic, other than pour miles of congestion like a bad sinus.

Maybe Sen. Joel Anderson, R-El Cajon isn't entirely off-base with his idea to dump CalTrans. Maybe not turn it over to the cities,  but perhaps hire private contractors with performance standards that need to be met and surpassed. Get these people off their shovels and on to what they get paid to do.

UPDATE: On March 14, at approximately 10:00 AM, 17 days after the initial service request, these lights were replaced or repaired, whichever was applicable. Just imagine this agency in charge of your municipal street lighting. Worse, your electric power, or gas, or water? You'd be sitting in the dark, cold and thirsty! Is it a shortage of money? Not when they spend all the money dreaming ways to lay new concrete! It isn't money that's needed. Maybe more work and less management?

Journalism in North County Misleading as Usual?

I-5 editorial false and misleading

I read with dismay (but little surprise) the North County Times' false and misleading editorial, "Kehoe bill is poison pill," Feb. 20. The North County Times has reported dozens of stories of citizen opposition to the proposed expansion of Interstate 5 since July of 2010, which the editors have apparently failed to read.
The cities of Oceanside and Solana Beach, for example, shared consultants to evaluate the draft environmental impact report at a cost of $80,000 each. The Solana Beach report called the expansion plan "ambiguous and unstable," and Councilmember Dave Roberts facetiously suggested suing Caltrans to get our money back. The Oceanside report found very little benefit from the proposed expansion while enormous harm would befall Oceanside citizens, who may lose up to 18 parcels (including apartment buildings) and 26 more partial "takes."
Dozens more comments on the DEIR savagely criticized Caltrans for a horribly botched report that totally ignores air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Sen. Kehoe is to be complimented for taking this case to a higher court. Despite the rabidly pro-expansionist vote of the San Diego Association of Governments board, the reality of the California budget crisis is that we cannot afford this monstrosity and the funds are better spent improving mass transit.
Steve Goetsch
Citizens Against Freeway Expansion
Solana Beach