Coronado's Most Read Newspaper & Community Website

Save Our Streets - Or Why I support Prop H!

When I first ran for election in 2000 I did not support what I understood to be “the tunnel.” I did not win in 2000 but ran again this time successfully in 2004. During that time I educated myself on what the whole SR 75/282 Corridor project was all about. It is not just about whether we build a tunnel or not. It is about CORONADO having a seat at the table when decisions about land use in Coronado happen.

When the bridge was completed in 1969 many Coronado residents had not supported the process. The bridge was advocated by developers that wanted to expand development in Coronado and the U.S. Navy, who needed to get people to NAS North Island to work. The Federal and State Governments stepped in and solved “their” problem. If we walk away from this planning effort now, we are telling the State and Federal Governments that we don’t care and we will leave it up to them again. It isn’t hard to guess what they will do. As the traffic increases they will just expand third and fourth streets to get the traffic off of Interstate 5 and dump it on Coronado to queue up for the security at the base. Just last week I happened to have a 6:30 am meeting and the other participants were stuck on I-5 for over an hour because traffic was backed up all the way from the base.

To expand the streets requires eminent domain. All of the folks concerned that some of the tunnel study options would require eminent domain haven’t thought through the alternative. The traffic has to go somewhere. If we don’t create, in essence, another street (i.e. the tunnel) then it has to stay on surface streets. Every time I drive through Rosecrans in Point Loma I look at the beautiful stately homes on what was a grand entrance to the town, properties with a bay view at one time. Now they have a view of a busy state highway that Navy personnel use to get to the Sub base. The residents of Point Loma didn’t volunteer to turn their streets over to the control of the Navy or CALTRANS. It just happened. Remember:

Coronado did not exercise eminent domain to direct the traffic from the bridge to Third Street. The State of California did.

Coronado did not fund the bridge or its maintenance. The State of California did and through CALTRANS still does.

Coronado did not put the tolls on the Bridge to reimburse the tax payers for the bridge. The State of California did.

If Coronado walks away from solutions to ameliorate the traffic caused by commuters going to NAS North Island, the State of California (CALTRANS) and the U.S. Navy will choose a solution for us.

Vote Yes on Prop H to preserve your place at the table as traffic solutions are being found. Vote yes on H to Save Our Streets. Email SaveOurStreetsCoronado@gmail.com if you are willing to go on record to save our streets.
Carrie Downey

Tags: H, Prop

0 members like this

Next Post >

Comment by jef on May 18, 2010 at 10:37am: http://www.coronado.ca.us/tcp_web/images/mis_summary_report.pdf

See pages 122 and 123. Are we SURE this isn't about a TUNNEL ONLY?

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 18, 2010 at 11:02am: Prop H speaks for itself- Do you want the study completed or not. It's very simple.

People who don't want to see the results are turning it into a vote on the tunnel. I think the Voters are smarter than that. Everything else is scare tactics and symantics. If you don't want to finish the study Vote No.

If you want to read the EIR/EIS in its entirety and be able to hold government agencies accountable to its findings in the future (i.e. the Navy, CALTRANS, SANDAG and future Coronado City Councils). Vote Yes.

I started this blog by explaining that finishing the study helps prevent some option worse than a tunnel. It also helps us weigh the efficacy of other options such as the TDM/DSM measures. Everything costs money in today's world. As a voter I want to know the facts about where my money will be going to fight traffic for the next 20 years. Reading this study will help me figure that out. I hope it will help you. If you have an alterntive that wasn't studied and you think should have been, then you can comment to the EIS/EIR. Everone who has blogged on this topic should do so. Your input is most definately welcome. Bu if the EIS Draft is not put out for public comment all of this disucssion is gone from the public record.

Just like the reasons over 80% of registered voters DIRECTED the city to seek funding for a tunnel has been missing from this blog. They voted to seek funding. I believe they knew exactly what that meant. Hire lobbysists and complete the studies (which were discussed at the council meeting when the measure came up) necessary to determine how much a tunnel would cost before seeking money to pay for it. It would have been impossible and short sighted to seek funding to build a tunnel then when time for construction started the amount collected was woefully deficient. Now have they taken too long Absolutely. Has the delay and additional alternatives to please CALTRANS and the Navy made it drag out and cost more. Absolutely. However it would be a waste not to finish the study and someday have to do it all over again because we didn't have the forsight to finish what the voters asked us to start.

Vote YES on H to finish the study and provide enough information for us, the 80% of people that asked for this in 1998 AND future councils and voters to see the impact of traffic options.

Comment by Terry Escala on May 18, 2010 at 11:28am: Ms. Downey,

How is it that the Council ever started to study the concept of a tunnel in this town in the first place?

Under California law, the General Plan is the "Constitution" of the City and the Circulation Element is a mandated portion of the Plan.
What I understand you to say is that the Coronado General Plan, does not address the traffic issues we have in the town. Also, the Circulation Element does not address a tunnel project because the City has not approved it as a capital project. The concept is confusing, since the City has not approved the tunnel as a capital project to be considered in any part of the General Plan, which has as it's purpose to be a guide to what a community wants. The General Plan is a statement of goals, listing of objectives and a vision of what might be. Thus the question begs to be asked and residents deserve a concise answer, where does the Council get the authority to study the tunnel project, let alone use public funds for that purpose?

Ever since the 1969 when the bridge was installed, Coronado has not had a functional Circulation Element. There has been a lack of initiative and planning by Council members that have resulted in numerous law suits against the City for 3rd and 4th Streets as the "permanent" or "primary" route to North Island. Allegations of inverse condemnation, reduction in market value, continuing nuisance, allowing dangerous conditions and other sustaining personal injuries have been brought to court and settlement to property owners on those streets have been reached. Unfortunately only a few have had some justice and others have not.

Also, according to Mr. Tanaka, the General Plan does not address our traffic problems and the State is not obligated to comply with Coronado's General Plan.
If that is true, then how has the increase in traffic been addressed since the bridge was built? How is that able to be changed now if the tunnel is not approved?

Terry Escala

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 18, 2010 at 11:54am: Mr. Escala,

I need to correct you. I did not state what the general plan does or does not state about the traffic. I stated that it does not contain a discussion of the tunnel.

I am concerned by the tone of your questions that you are either an attorney or contemplating suit because you believe you did not receive adequate notice about the possibility of a tunnel when you bought your house. For that reason this is not the appropriate place for me to be addressing your comments. Additionally because I am an attorney I don't want anything I say to be misconstrued as legal advice to you so I would direct you to review the city's documents that are accessible on our web page.

Comment by jef on May 18, 2010 at 12:31pm: I read the previous 2002 study. It concluded, BUILD A TUNNEL. I don't want a MASSIVE construction project, the taking of an islander's home or the cost to build such tunnel. Therefore, I will vote NO on Prop H.

Can anyone GUARANTEE us that there will ALWAYS be three carriers based on North Island? What if we built it and nobody came?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/08/stacking-decks/

"The Navy expects that the ships and their 3,500-sailor crews will only be in port at the same time for less than 30 days a year. The base also said it would stagger work start times for the three vessels."

A tunnel to alleviate 30 days of traffic jams out of 365?

Comment by Suzanne Ramirez on May 18, 2010 at 12:33pm: What if we built it and 3 more came??!! If we keep making it easier to accomodate traffic through Coronado (read build a bridge to replace the ferries, make 3rd and 4th one way raceways, now a tunnel0 we will continue to invite more traffic. If our streets can tolerate 3 carries now, what's to say that doubling the capacity with a tunnel won't allow for 6 carriers??

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 18, 2010 at 1:00pm: The Navy ship complement does not have that option. The fleet is down to its lowest number in decades and the carriers are strategically homeported in different geogrphic locations to make patrolling and homeporting the most efficient. Without getting into the details of ships force structure, they wouldn't want all of the assets homeported in one location to avoid the Pear Harbor scenario among other reasons. They have however had 4 (some visiting) carriers at NAS North Island many years ago.

Comment by IVAN M. DUNN on May 18, 2010 at 1:33pm: Regardless of how many carriers and other NASNI commuters exist now or in the future, the prognosis for worsening traffic jams either underground in a tunnel or above ground on 3rd and 4th early in the morning and in the afternoon five days a week is very high. I believe the following items are fairly solid predictions: (a). the number of cars will increase beyond current estimates (as in the past), (b). the back up will continue on the bridge and I-5, and (c). other negatives (e.g., eminent domain, more taxes, unknowns such as venting towers etc.) will occur and further detract from the ambiance of our town. The tunnel will not be funded. The Navy will not build a bridge or a tunnel from NASNI to the "mainland".. That's not what the Navy does.

My fundamental issues are that a tunnel will not reduce traffic coming onto the Island or deal with today's 24/7 issues across the island in residential streets, avenues and alleys. A holistic, top down, out-of-the box vision and strategy that addresses all aspects of the city-wide traffic issue is needed. I hope the Blue Ribbon Study provides that. If it does, we need to advertise and implement its provisions as soon as possibly without letting the expense and controversy associated with a tunnel interfere.

By the way, a person I know who works at NAB told me this morning that she went to work via Imperial Beach today because of the backup on the early in the morning. She drove for 30 mins going to NAB via IB and she anticipated taking 45mins-an hour via the bridge.

This dialogue is helpful.

Comment by Aleene Sexton Queen on May 18, 2010 at 3:56pm: I hope THE EAGLE has picked up on this blog and will post a link to it in the next issue. I think other islanders would find this blog and the information contained herein helpful. How 'bout it EAGLE?

Comment by Terry Escala on May 18, 2010 at 6:24pm: Ms. Downey,
You do not need to correct me about what the General Plan says about the traffic. I read it, so I know what it says. On the other hand you said that:
"The City has not approved it as a capital project. It is only being studied. That is the point of the EIR to give the City and the public enough information to decide if it is something that should be added to the circulaiton element."
Given your explanation, can you tell me how the Council has authority to study the tunnel project and where I can find this information? I have looked and can't find the answer in any specific document on the City web site.
I am not planning a law suit, so you do not need to worry about me. However, there may be people that want to know more on the issue of not receiving adequate notice of the possibility of a tunnel in the General Plan when they bought their homes. So, if those people exist like you think they do, I agree that they should get legal advice if they feel this is a matter which could negatively impact them. As I see it, this is an important discussion regarding what goes on in the City concerning residents safety, how efficiently our tax money is spent and it's affect on the town that elected you. Since the Council has made it clear that the State is not obligated to comply with the General Plan, constituent dialogue with City officials is even more important and really our only viable option. Thus your answers to these questions are very helpful for when we go to the polls to vote on the tunnel.
Thank you in advance for answering my question.
Terry Escala