Issues regarding the Highway 1 Corridor

Introduction

In Santa Cruz County, Highway 1 is the primary north-south highway, running from the Monterey County line at the Pajaro River bridge (milepost 0) to the San Mateo County line north of Waddell Creek (milepost 37.45).

Between Santa Cruz and Watsonville, Highway 1 is essentially a four-lane freeway, and is an object of controversy and concern. The most heavily traveled section of the road has been operating at capacity during peak hours since the late 1980s. Some feel that the resulting traffic congestion mandates widening the road to six or eight lanes, a strategy that is sure to fail, in that such a strategy will not relieve traffic congestion on the road. (For details see this page.)

Adding lanes to Highway 1 will not only increase traffic congestion (particularly on other streets and roads), but will also exacerbate global warming. In addition, such a strategy does little to enhance our mobility. It wastes precious resources that could otherwise be used to improve public transit and other transportation modes.

Nevertheless, the majority of our Regional Transportation Commission has made the widening of Highway 1 its top priority for the expenditure of our scarce resources. The result is that there are now three Highway 1 widening projects that are currently in various stages of completion (or not, as the case may be). We summarize those three projects in the following paragraphs.

Descriptions of Highway 1 Widening Projects

• The Route 1/17 Merge Lanes Project: This is the project for which basic construction was completed in November 2008, extending from the Pasatiempo interchange on Highway 17 to the La Fonda overcrossing on Highway 1. Although this section of the route includes the Fishhook, nothing at all was done to the Fishhook. Furthermore, even Caltrans admits that this project will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion; it is billed as primarily a safety improvement project. The landscaping for this project was delayed until its funding was finally released in October 2009, and has yet to be installed.
  “Merge Lanes” puts it mildly: It is a project to widen (except for the Fishhook itself) this section of Highway 1. It was approved by our Regional Transportation Commission in 1998, and finally gained the needed funding in 2006.
  As originally proposed in 1987, the project would have replaced the existing Fishhook with a three-level flyover. However, there was much objection, led primarily by the Fishhook Neighbors. Caltrans then presented a number of lower-cost options, which eventually resulted in the current project. At that time, the estimated cost was $33.4 million, a number that subsequently increased significantly.
• The second Highway 1 widening project is called the Soquel/Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project. This project, which would widen the highway between the Morrissey Boulevard and Soquel Drive interchanges, forms a 0.98-mile piece of the nearly nine mile, eight lane HOV Lanes Widening Project (see below). It should rightfully be included in that larger project, especially since it builds in the eight lane capacity at the La Fonda bridge overcrossing with a near doubling of the road cut at that point and the removal of all the adjacent vegetation. For this reason, and because it does not improve the confusing interchanges at Morrissey Boulevard and Soquel Drive, and because it provides only minor improvements that would provide for pedestrians and bicyclists, we strongly oppose its separate construction.
  Therefore we (along with many others) submitted detailed comments and questions relating to our concerns on Caltrans' Environmental Document.
  Those comments along with the responses to them may be viewed by clicking on the above link—see especially Comment letters 8 and 9 and accompanying responses. Those responses are unsatisfactory. It became clear that Caltrans' intention was to avoid any serious consideration of alternatives to highway widening by its strategy of piecemealing the longer HOV Lane Widening Project into smaller projects, a strategy known as “segmentation”. Such segmentation constitutes a flagrant violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it precludes consideration of alternatives in the larger project and because it avoids analysis of the cumulative impacts of each smaller project.
  Since we had no further opportunity to influence the actions of project proponents, and since Caltrans faced no further block to beginning construction, we decided to file a lawsuit challenging this project. A copy of the “Verified Petition and Complaint” is available here. We believe we have a strong case.
  If our lawsuit is successful, the Soquel/Morrissey widening project would be folded into the larger HOV Lanes Widening Project, and Caltrans would be obliged to evaluate the potential for increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions and additional consideration of a range of alternatives to the longer HOV Lanes Widening Project. (Such evaluation was not undertaken for the Soquel/Morrissey project.)
  Since it seems likely that additional information may be forthcoming relating to the Soquel/Morrissey (“Auxiliary Lane” Widening Project, we are creating a special web page, including a number of Frequently Asked Questions along with our responses. That page may be viewed here.
• The third Highway 1 widening project is called the Highway 1 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lanes Widening Project. This is what was originally “Phase 2” of the Highway 1 Widening Project. It would widen Highway 1 all the way from Morrissey Boulevard to Larkin Valley Road by adding a full HOV (carpool) lane in each direction, in addition to auxiliary lanes for this distance. Thus Highway 1 would be doubled in width, widening it to eight lanes from the current four for the entire distance—nearly nine miles. (The “Soquel-to-Morrissey Auxiliary Lanes Project” is a one-mile segment of the HOV Lanes Widening Project.)
  Environmental analysis of this project is currently ongoing; our Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) has already allocated the funding—at least $10 Million of our scarce resources—for this analysis. The cost of this project, originally estimated at approximately $300 Million, was to have been provided by an increase of the County's sales tax—half a cent over 30 years—an amount that was the principal part of Measure “J”. This measure was soundly defeated in November 2004 by the voters. It gained the support of a mere 43 percent of the voters—far less than the required 67 percent. (The Campaign for Sensible Transportation, through its work on the “NO on J” campaign, helped to defeat this measure.)

The Transportation Funding Task Force

In the wake of the defeat of Measure “J”, the SCCRTC created, on September 1, 2005, the Transportation Funding Task Force (TFTF), whose goal, under the leadership of County Treasurer Fred Keeley, was to put together a funding proposal for a sales tax ballot measure that might pass in an upcoming election.

In May of 2007, the TFTF recommended that a survey of likely voters be undertaken, and a telephone poll, conducted by the Oakland based EMC Research, was undertaken in early October. The results of that survey are posted here. We did some additional analysis, which appears here.

The TFTF held its final two meetings on October 29 and November 14, 2007. The final meeting on November 14 was attended by 59 of the 76 task force members. Although originally it was envisioned that two-thirds of the task force members would be required to recommend any funding proposal to the SCCRTC, this condition was weakened last Spring, to require that only two-thirds of those voting would be needed to recommend a funding proposal to the SCCRTC, since it was noted that some of the task force members were not attending meetings.

Four roll-call votes were taken at the November 14 meeting. The official recordings of those votes, including exactly who voted for what, appear here.

The main motion was offered by Bill Tysseling (Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce), and seconded by Jim Van Houten (Watsonville Wetlands Watch). It proposed a $600 million funding plan, to be paid for by a half-cent increase in our sales tax lasting for 35 years. The motion specified $300 million for Highway 1 improvements and transportation demand management projects, $35 million for rail-related projects, $130 million for bus and specialized transportation for seniors and the disabled projects and $135 million for local road repair, school safety and bicycle and pedestrian projects. It was passed by a vote of 42 to 16, with the 42 constituting 72.4% of the 58 who voted, or 55.3% of the total task force membership of 76. This proposal is therefore the one that will be forwarded by the Task Force to the SCCRTC for further consideration.

Just prior to the above motion, an amendment was offered by Virginia Johnson (Ecology Action) and seconded by Al Smith (commuter-at-large). It stated that “The plan funded by this ballot measure shall be consistent with Assembly Bill 32 by having the effect of a net reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and each project be at least Greenhouse Gas Emission neutral over the life of the measure.” This amendment was defeated by a vote of 20 (33.9%) to 39 (66.1%).

The first roll-call vote of the evening was on an amendment offered by David Wright (Friends of the Rail Trail) and seconded by Micah Posner (People Power). It stated that “The plan shall include funding for passenger rail along the coast, such a passenger rail project shall undergo the same processes as any other project, and the appropriate body shall make a determination as to feasibility and benefit.” This amendment passed by a vote of 44 (75.9%) to 14 (24.1%).

The final vote was taken on an amendment offered by Paul Elerick (Campaign for Sensible Transportation) and seconded by Ellen Pirie (County of Santa Cruz), that would designate $0.5 million of the $135 million portion of the recommended plan for a study of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). This amendment was passed by a vote of 39 (73.6%) to 14 (26.4%).

Commentary on the Task Force process

It seems clear from the votes described above that in spite of over two years of work by the members of the Transportation Funding Task Force, a broad consensus on a recommendation for a suitable ballot measure was not reached. There were a number of difficulties:

• The 76 members of the TFTF did not seem representative of the County's general population, as judged by the results of the survey of likely voters that was recently done (in early October, 2007). Our analysis of the results of that survey, which may be found here, show that concern for global warming, maintenance of local streets and roads, interest in use of the rail line, and expanding and maintaining our bus system ranked considerably higher than a desire to fund projects that would add lanes to Highway 1. However, well over two-thirds of those Task Force members attending the meetings seemed staunchly committed to Highway 1 widening, and unwilling to consider less costly, more modest proposals that might work to relieve traffic congestion in Santa Cruz County.
• In fact, the above-mentioned survey was agreed to only very late in the game—too late to enable significant discussion of its results. It seemed to be assumed that the current policy set by the majority of the SCCRTC—that top priority for funding be given to Highway 1 widening projects—be the starting point for any discussions, and that any alternative strategies be not worth considering.
• The makeup of the Task Force seemed overly influenced by those members of the SCCRTC who are the strongest advocates of Highway 1 widening. It was often stated by such advocates (and others) that if those of us who opposed highway widening projects insisted in our opposition, the SCCRTC would just continue to use any available funds to widen Highway 1, and that other desirable projects, such as rail-related projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects and bus-related projects would suffer for lack of funding.
• When the TFTF finally agreed in May, 2007 to conduct a survey, it approved a motion that our “Plan C”, along with three other proposals drafted by TFTF members, would be presented to the survey respondents in order to test the likely response to such plans. In fact, “Plan C” (or anything similar to it) was not tested for in the survey, although two other proposals were tested for, both of which included Highway 1 widening. Hence it was never determined whether likely voters might look with some favor on a proposal similar to “Plan C”.
• Given the survey results, which clearly demonstrated strong concern for Global Warming issues among the survey respondents, it is astonishing that the “Johnson Amendment” (see above) was defeated by the TFTF majority. (It is stated in the meeting minutes that “The subsequent [main] motion addressed greenhouse emissions” but this is not true. That motion contains the words, but they have no clout.) It would seem that any proposal put to the voters that ignores Global Warming issues would stand a very slim chance of gaining the needed two-thirds majority approval. Perhaps there is the recognition (and the fear) that Highway 1 widening projects would not be able to qualify for the “net reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” condition. If that's the case, then we should not be advocating such projects.
• It is unfortunate that the amount of funding recommended for rail-related projects is insufficient. During the process it was stated (without citation) that local funding for rail is not really needed since there are ample federal funding sources for rail projects. This is not true. Federally funded rail projects typically require at least a 50 percent local match, whereas federally funded highway projects typically require much less, more like a 20 percent local match. (See “Tipping the Playing Field: How America's Federal Funding Policy Heavily Favors Roads Over Transit”.)
• It is worth noting that those opposing the main motion included representatives from UCSC, from the City of Santa Cruz and from the State Coastal Commission, all of whom represent key agencies whose support for a sales tax ballot measure would seem crucial.

RTC declines to support TFTF recommendations

On February 7, 2008, The RTC voted against proceeding with the placement of a sales tax ballot measure on the November 2008 ballot, and with this action declined to follow the recommendations of the TFTF.

Thus, over two years of assiduous effort by the Task Force, with many workshops, meetings, and a voter survey failed to produce a public consensus for funding Transportation Improvements in Santa Cruz County.