No Need for Freeway Lanes Tiff : * Federal, State Agencies in Bureaucratic Tug of War Over Expansion

Just what does it mean to widen a freeway? A bureaucratic dispute between federal and state agencies over a section of the Santa Ana Freeway turns on that very question.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency, charged with ensuring that clean-air standards are met, has raised objections about so-called “auxiliary lanes” proposed for the widening project between the Garden Grove and Riverside freeways. At stake is whether the project along that section will be 10 or 12 lanes.

The EPA disagreement with Caltrans centers on whether the proposed extra lanes are in fact regular lanes in disguise because of their length. Auxiliary lanes generally are considered only for merging traffic between on-ramps and exits. But there’s precedent for what Caltrans wants to do. In fact, the two sides have gone through this exact debate before on other sections of the widening project, only to have the state view prevail in the end. So one good question to be asked about the argument is why it continues at all. This difference seems as much as anything to be a simple bureaucratic turf battle.

Part of the problem is that the federal government has considered the Santa Ana Freeway widening project on a section-by-section basis, almost as if it were a series of separate projects. So earlier opportunities to have the overall philosophical differences resolved have been lost. It would have made much more sense to render a decision on the merits of all the proposed auxiliary lanes at one time, when previous sections of the widening project were under review. That didn’t happen, for reasons that are not entirely clear.

At stake for the state is the acquisition of costly rights of way. Delay in approval could mean much higher costs and more frustrating delay. But the state is not without blame; it should have provided clearer evidence earlier in the process that it believes auxiliary lanes will not adversely affect air quality.

At the same time, there are arguments to be made that these auxiliary lanes relieve bottlenecks and actually ease pollution caused by cars stalled in traffic. The success of the milelong southbound auxiliary lane on the San Diego Freeway between the Euclid Street and Harbor Boulevard exits is a case in point. Moreover, while it is true that people ride in auxiliary lanes when not entering or exiting a freeway, the lanes are designed so that motorists must change lanes or find themselves funneled off.

So while both sides have a point, there is no reason for further delay and higher cost. The dispute already has been resolved on other sections of road, apparently to the satisfaction of both sides. There really is no reason for either the federal government or the state to have to answer the bell for another round of bureaucratic boxing.