Second Thoughts on Tollway

Like energy companies whose finances are too good to be true, toll roads in Orange County are being second-guessed today in a more skeptical environment.

Directors of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency have decided to scale back the planned Foothill South extension from eight to four lanes. While the reduction indicates that at least one important lesson has been learned from the road’s outsized and overly ambitious cousin, the San Joaquin Hills tollway, the reduction still may not be enough to warrant proceeding with construction.

The toll road concerns of recent months have covered a range of topics. The Foothill corridor dilemma has all of them and more. It’s the “more,” the environmental price to be paid, that really raises the biggest questions about going forward with the project.

This road was conceived as an outlet from Mission Viejo, the new southern cities and development yet to be built in Rancho Mission Viejo south toward Interstate 5 near San Onofre State Beach. For starters, this north-south route immediately raises the now-familiar toll road problem of noncompetition clauses. Although many improvements have been made along the freeway corridor in recent years, the state should not be boxed into a position where it is unable to make needed upgrades.

Then there is the question that most troubles the authority directors. Stung by overly optimistic ridership projections, the San Joaquin Hills tollway now is in danger of not being able to meet its obligations to investors. The Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency is more successful, but thankfully some at the agency are getting the message that anticipated ridership can’t be based on pipe dreams.

Inflated ridership hopes at the outset could turn off investors in view of the recent history of inaccuracy. It is encouraging therefore to hear forthright engineers say that there is no justification for expecting that the traffic can support an eight-lane road. Tollway officials already are reexamining projections for the eastern part of the county and will do a new independent analysis of the San Joaquin Hills road. It’s good to see the agency now going for down-to-earth numbers.

In general, demand arises from need, and it is against the public benefit of meeting a need that any evaluation of environmental impact must be weighed. Need now does not appear to be that compelling. But the environmental trade-off remains high. One of two proposed routes would carve through San Onofre State Beach, a folly that would be irretrievable by laying pavement in one of the beauty spots of Southern California. What justification can there possibly be now for paying the high price for this alternative?

Whatever route the road takes still raises questions, and both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have had concerns. Environmentalists worry that the 16 miles of road through remaining wild land in Orange County would harm threatened or endangered species, and pour concrete through some of the prettiest land in the region.

The scaled-back design is a start, but proponents have a greater task. That is to justify how lasting damage to the precious environment could be warranted by the agency’s desire to build something simply because it is planned. For too long that mentality has prevailed on infrastructure projects in Orange County, where big-ticket decisions often have been made before the residents who must live with them arrived. This is a different region today. True, much open space already has been set aside, but extra care must be taken not to damage the remaining precious wild land--especially for a project that may not pencil out.