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 19, 2010 at 5:52pm: If we don't build a tunnel, because there is no funding, does that mean $13.2 million + $2 million (if H passes) was a waste of taxpayer dollars?

vote NO on prop H.

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 19, 2010 at 6:23pm: No Jef

Having a completed study allows us to both pursue any option we want (and get funding for it) but and/or have something to fight with in case an agency with higher authority decides they want to push for the 6 lane freeway or something else we don't want like a road from the bridge along the bay to NASNI, ruining the Ferry landing and views from Centennial park in the process. Both options were discussed by CALTRANS in the past.

Finishing the study gives all of us future options. Vote Yes on H. Get informed and Get involved.

Comment by jef on May 19, 2010 at 6:32pm: Thanks Councilwoman Downey. I'll dig deeper and look for CALTRANS' plans for Coronado and the SR-75/282 corridor.

Comment by Suzanne Ramirez on May 19, 2010 at 6:34pm: Carrie--
It is really annoying for the "yes" folks to trot out the vote in 1998 because everyone I've spoken to about that vote thougtht, as did I, that it was merely a vote to look into whether there would be funding available for a tunnel. I never in a million years would have voted yes at that time if I had been told you would be expending millions of taxpayer dollars on tunnel studies. And I am far from alone in this regard. How about asking this--Would you have voted in favor of the 1998 proposition if you knew it meant spending a minimum of $13 million dollars on lobbyists and studies? I think you would have much different numbers. That is why there is such a backlash. Many of us feel like we were duped and the Council had no right to laumch into spending monies. Likewise, this request for a vote, like that one, seems misleading in how it is presented. How about simply asking: Do you want a tunnel? Do you want the Council to expend an additional $2 million on the current study? And please don't tell us one more time that it is mostly federal funds. Taxpayer funds are taxpayer funds. And $2 million is $2 million.
Hyperbole? Me? I'm "trying to take away voters rights" Huh?? I have urged and will continue to urge everyone to vote, vote to let Council know that we disapprove of what you have done and what you propose to do.
I don't know where you conclude that the "No on H campaign doesn't want other citizens to read the studies". Quite strange to me. I have seen nothing to give you that idea. My read of the comments from the many "no on H" bloggers is to encourage peope to consult the documents, don't buy into someone else's interpretation or slant, read the documents.
I personally think we should just call the study "done". Let everyone see what has been done so far. We don't need to know what the difference is between an exit on the base and an exit just outside the base. I don't care. I don't want the tunnel under 4th street either way. I don't believe it is to our advantage to spend an additional $2 million on consultants and engineers. You try to make it sound like no one can say anything or offer solutions at all if we don't give you the go ahead to spend an additional $2 million. Not true. People are now paying attention, now that we know just how much you have spent; it was very hard getting this information out of the City, you know. People are now offering solutions, better solutions that what this tunnel study covers. I hope prop H goes down in flames and I hope that the Council will then listen respectfully to all who come before it with suggestions.
What makes you think and keep saying that only if people vote yes will "everyone have the ability to read the executive summary"? Is something being kept from us unless we "go along" with what the four councilpersons want?

Comment by jef on May 19, 2010 at 8:52pm: I read the Scoping Notice from 2004. The City DID serve notice to residents and have open forums for comments. The comments and the number of times that particular comment was made is included in the document. That was helpful to me. I did see the many ideas posted on this blog. The EIR was disclosed but it didn't give estimates on the COST of the report. I find that a troubling omission, in hindsight. Looking at the study area I see 3rd Street from the alley between E and F to Alameda was omitted from the study area. The study area also extends PAST Alameda and onto NASNI. Are we getting a FULL and COMPLETE study for $15.2 million? Will THIS study be accepted as a FINAL report with these omissions and changes (the NAVY says no tunnel on base property)? The continued usage of the phrase "the project" instead of "the proposed project" is disconcerting to me. It implies that a FINAL decision has been made. The decision to do one of six alternatives. A NO vote isn't the end of traffic studies, problems and solutions in Coronado. It's just the end of THIS particular study of the six listed alternatives. A yes vote will lock us in, in my opinion, to one of the six with some TDM/TSM included in all.

For that reason, I will vote "NO" on Prop H, at this time. When CALTRANS threatens a superhighway, THEN we can pull the incomplete study off of the shelf and finish it. It's been good for 7yrs so most of the data must have a long shelf-life. California is LEADING the nation in "green" solutions for transportation. Let's take a "green" look at the traffic problem. Let's go right to Alternative #1 and pour Alternative #2 all over it, without a study. We should focus on carpooling, ride sharing, public transportation and high occupancy ferries.

Again, the Final Scoping Report tells me that adequate commentary was solicited by the City from the public/residents prior to contracting for the EIR Report. It would have been helpful to have an estimate of the costs of the study INCLUDED in the scope. It would have been better if Prop O was clear on the costs and the scope (as interpreted by the City Council) associated with a yes vote.

Comment by jef on May 19, 2010 at 9:48pm: http://www.coronado.ca.us/tcp_web/images/Final_scoping_report2.pdf

Most residents/voters are NOT fulltime participants in our local, state and federal govts. For the purposes of OUR local issues, let's hope we get volunteers to go door-to-door and go OVERBOARD with public notice before we start a project of this caliber.

Comment by Carrie Anne Inada Downey on May 20, 2010 at 12:35am: Thank you for all the people that have taken the time to go to the webpage and read through documents to educate yourself. The reports that are available on the city web page are all part of the larger process, however, if the City wants to go to Congress to get funding for the tunnel there needs to be completed environmental documents. Likewise, if we decide not to build a tunnel and the traffic pushes the Navy to seek expanding 4th Avenue a completed study will allow us to push back with a less draconian alternative to our home owners and our quality of life.

As a percentage of a $580 million project $15 million for the required Federal studies represents less than 3% of the total project cost. That is consistent with other large construction projects.

In 1998 neither the voters nor the city had experience in projects this large and did not know what the costs would be. When we went to the government to seek funding, the requirements for funding such a large project became apparent. The federal government agreed to give us funding for most of the study work if we showed our seriousness with a small percentage of city matching funds. We were allowed to show staff time as our match, so we did. The very issues brought up in the years since then including terrorisim and earthquakes required further study work and added to the costs.

Recall, the voter mood in 1998 was similar to the mood now. After years of talking about options, the Blue Ribbon commission recommended an advisory vote on a tunnel be put forth at the next election. There was public support to do SOMETHING. So the City went to the voters for the approval to move forward. If the voters didn't realize seeking funding meant searching for tax dollars I'm not sure what else it could have meant. I think they knew we would have to go to the federal government for the money. As we should because it is federal employees commuting to work that cause the traffic issues. Maybe they didn't think it through but seeking government funding from Congress means hiring lobbyists. Federal appropriations is complicated. First the potential funding source has to be identified that the project could fit into. Then the staffs of key congress people have to be convinced the project really does fit into the federal requirements for funding. It was because of federal lobbyists that the vast majority of the EIR/EIS costs were paid for by the federal government. That is also as it should be, their requirements called for the studies.

I am sorry if people feel dooped. But finshing the study will not change anything about the past but will broaden our future options.

I am going to close this blog now I think it has run its course. Thank you all for your interest and input and for all the readers who have takent he time to educate themselves on this important topic. Don't forget to Vote!

I am going to open up another blog at some point to talk about TDM measures, and their costs since there seems to be strong interest on wanting to promote more van pooling, etc. Lets discuss how much van pooling, etc. will cost each year to get single occupancy vehicles off the road and discuss funding options. I look forward to everyones participation on the new topic.

Thank you all for participatng. I will leave the blog up for new people who haven't read the dialogue but will not be allowing new posts or posting myself.