Flaws found in O.C. tollway foes’ study

After years of work and careful campaigning, a long-in-the-works traffic study that is a centerpiece of the effort to stop a toll road from slicing through one of Southern California’s picturesque coastal parks has turned out to be flawed.

The report, commissioned by tollway opponents, said that improving Interstate 5 in south Orange County is a far better option than building the controversial six-lane turnpike -- four miles of which would be constructed within San Onofre State Beach Park.

But Smart Mobility Inc. of Vermont, which conducted the study, neglected to account for the planned carpool lanes, underestimated the cost of condemning homes and buildings, and unilaterally proposed narrowing frontage roads.

Tollway opponents conceded the report’s mistakes, but said revisions of the study still show that a revamped I-5 is a better alternative than the proposed toll road.

The Foothill South would run 16 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to I-5 south of San Clemente.

Fixing the interstate has been a major theme of tollway opponents in public forums, pending lawsuits, and before the California Coastal Commission, which must authorize the toll road.

But as the Foothill South headed into the approval process earlier this month, tollway proponents uncovered flaws in the Smart Mobility study.

For instance, researchers overlooked the addition of a carpool lane in each direction along a 7-mile stretch of the I-5 in San Clemente, which would add about 24 feet to the width of the improvements they studied.

The oversight calls into question a major conclusion of Smart Mobility -- that only 31 properties would have to be condemned if highway designs more suited to urban areas were used for I-5.

Officials for the Irvine-based Transportation Corridor Agencies, which is planning to build the Foothill South, contend that expanding the interstate cannot be done without a massive condemnation of 1,237 homes and businesses.

Tollway opponents revised their findings last week after they learned of the mistakes. When the errors were corrected, they said, another 28 condemnations would result, raising the total to 59.

“Factual errors were made,” said Dan Silver, executive director of the Endangered Habitats League, one of several environmental groups that oppose the Foothill South.

“In no way does this change our fundamental conclusion that improving the 5 is eminently feasible.

“We hope the TCA will stop using scare tactics and join us in the search for accuracy.”

Tollway officials say that Smart Mobility’s work is so superficial and inaccurate it cannot support the finding that improving the I-5 is a better alternative than the Foothill South project.

In addition to the miscalculation of highway widths, tollway officials question the proposed interchange designs, the narrowing of major frontage roads to make way for new highway lanes, and condemnation costs that were calculated using the assessed value for properties rather than fair market value as required.

“The Smart Mobility study is seriously flawed,” said Paul A. Bopp, the engineering manager for the Foothill South project. “We’ve never heard of these guys. They aren’t licensed in California. They don’t know the area. They lack local experience. Their work looks like someone just drew highway designs on a Google Earth map.”

The TCA, which operates more than 50 miles of tollways in Orange County, contends that 898 homes and 339 businesses would have to be condemned and about 2,208 people and 4,000 jobs would be displaced to improve Interstate 5.

Construction costs would hit at least $2 billion, more than double the estimated cost of the tollway, according to the agency.

Those findings, TCA officials say, are backed up by two decades of research and a $20-million environmental analysis of the Foothill South project.

Overall, TCA records show that more than 40 alternatives were considered by local, state and federal agencies -- eight of which made it to final review.

“There’s no engineering behind the Smart Mobility study that we can see,” said Thomas E. Margro, the TCA’s chief executive.

“They’ve gone at this with a broad brush and haven’t provided a lot of detail to show the 5 is a feasible solution.”

Whether there is an alternative to the tollway is a central issue in the legal and regulatory battles surrounding the Foothill South, which would divide the northern half of San Onofre lengthwise, threatening wildlife habitat, watersheds and recreational resources.

Toll road opponents allege in pending lawsuits that the TCA failed to thoroughly consider alternatives to the tollway in its environmental impact reports, a potential violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Also, federal and state approvals are contingent upon a complete evaluation of alternatives.

In late September, a scathing staff report from the California Coastal Commission, which regulates development along the state’s shoreline, disagreed with the TCA’s contention that there are no feasible alternatives to the Foothill South.

The report cited Smart Mobility’s work and recommended against supporting the toll road.

The transportation planning and engineering firm has done several reports for tollway opponents over the past two years.

The latest and most complete was released in September. Tollway opponents say the work has cost more than $100,000.

Smart Mobility researchers said the TCA’s rejection of the I-5 option was based on conventional highway designs, such as partial cloverleafs, that can require large numbers of condemnations.

State-of-the-art improvements -- including streamlined interchanges -- would minimize condemnations, the report concluded.

In addition to the 7 miles of carpool lanes in San Clemente, the report overlooked two northbound lanes along the I-5 around Ortega Highway in San Juan Capistrano and a southbound auxiliary lane at Avenida Pico in San Clemente.

TCA officials said they were further concerned that Smart Mobility’s highway layout would eliminate parking areas and lanes from major frontage roads, such as Rancho Viejo Road, Camino Capistrano, El Camino Real and Avenida de la Carlotta.

At Avenida de la Carlotta, two of the street’s four lanes would be eliminated.

They also were concerned that the bridge and roadway at busy Crown Valley Parkway and I-5 would have to be raised substantially so a redesigned off-ramp could pass beneath.

“Their study is not worth the paper it’s printed on,” said Peter Herzog, a TCA board member. “The sad part is the Coastal Commission staff is taking it as gospel and putting it in their report.”

Lucinda Gibson, a principal at Smart Mobility, said only 28 more condemnations resulted because the I-5 corridor is wide enough to handle the lanes the original study overlooked.

Gibson said that it is possible to raise Crown Valley Parkway, and that the traffic volume along the frontage roads, which she considers overbuilt, were low enough to justify using some of their right-of-way to widen the I-5.

Despite the study’s errors, tollway opponents say the TCA could not escape the conclusion that it failed to consider highway designs for I-5 that can eliminate about $1 billion worth of property condemnations.

They cited a 2006 preliminary study by the city of San Clemente of proposed interchange improvements at Avenida Pico and I-5, which recommended three designs that minimized condemnations.

Toll road foes also point to TCA studies done in 2003 showing that improving I-5 would accommodate traffic growth as well as or better than the Foothill South.

Tollway officials ruled out the option during the review process because of high costs, the lack of state funds, and the large number of property condemnations.

“We expected the TCA to attack the study, but we feel the conclusions will hold,” said James Birkelund, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has sued to stop the tollway.

“The TCA has failed to fully evaluate the alternatives like expanding I-5. There are clearly state-of-the art traffic designs that they didn’t consider.”

dan.weikel@latimes.com