Comment by lisa on March 24, 2009 at 9:35pm

I think we need a traffic solution for Coronado...no doubt. I'm concerned that the tunnel costs will be too high and that the financial impact will be a heavy burden to the City of Coronado. I'm curious, regarding the 'studies' that have to be completed, who pays for those studies and if it's more than one party, who has the biggest financial responsibility? The City of Coronado, the Navy, the State? I think we have to continue to consider this as a solution. I've yet to hear of a better solution; I'm just concerned about the costs. Perhaps bringing back the toll will alleviate the costs. I've heard different numbers about costs so far, can you share what the running tally for the research has cost so far...who has paid for it? I think more people should walk or ride bikes in Coronado. I'm as guilty as the next person since we drive to the Community Center, Ferry Landing and sometimes to school if we are running late. Summer is always a crunch with tourists, but I think we could all drive a bit less and get some traditional exercise walking, razoring or biking around the island.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on March 24, 2009 at 10:44pm

The studies that we have done have been largely funded by the United States Congress through previous Transportation bills. I don't have the exact dollar figure that we have spent thus far, but I will track it down. Thus far, we have been successful at getting appropriations to study our traffic woes, but a larger solution like a tunnel will take a level of funding that will dwarf our past efforts.

Comment by Jamie Edmonds on March 25, 2009 at 2:03am

Wow--this should be an enlightening discussion--and to have it out here in a public forum which allows argument and rebuttal is refreshing to say the least! Thank you again, Mr. Mayor!
I look forward to getting more information on this important issue that effects all of us so directly since I'm sure many of us are in the dark about a lot of the details. I hope it can stay civil and on point.
I've got to see if I can dig up that old picture of the proposed tunnel across the bay back in the 50's before they built the bridge. ;-)
I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing, but since the Navy has stated: " . . . alternatives which propose a tunnel that would daylight on Naval Air Station North Island are not within the range of possible mutually acceptable traffic improvements." it looks almost like we're on our own. Since it is mostly the NASNI traffic problem for which the tunnel was the proposed solution why would the Navy want to even be involved in "Coronado's Tunnel" if it daylights on Alameda instead of on base? How are we going to get the owners of the dozen or more residences near third and Alameda to understand that the City needs to buy their homes ( ) to build a tunnel? Does a "Public-Private Partnership" still satisfy the requirements of Prop 99 passed last year? "Proposition 99 more narrowly prohibited 'state and local governments from using eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence [if the owner has occupied the residence for at least one year], as defined, for conveyance to a private person or business entity', subject to some exceptions. It did not prohibit rent control nor the use of eminent domain for properties other than residences occupied by the owner for over a year". (source: California Voter Information Guide)
In this post-September 11th, 2001 world is a tunnel primarily used by military personnel yet which passes through unsecurable civilian residential areas really even feasible anymore? I don't see the Navy going for it as it would represent a significantly higher vulnerability to a lot of our military personnel. And besides, it's only going to address a certain percentage of the surface street traffic (some of the morning and afternoon NASNI commute). It does nothing for the NAB commuters or those who use NASNI Gates 5 or 1.
Not that I'm advocating the tolls, but on the other hand if they go both ways they might discourage non-NASNI/non intra-Coronado commuters from short-cutting through Coronado to get downtown and avoid the I-5. In a conversation with one of our fine police officers recently, he opined that even the previous much lower tolls "kept a lot of problems out of Coronado".

Comment by Ian McJannet on March 26, 2009 at 10:55am

Some questions: at what times and on which roads are the tunnel concepts meant to be improving traffic?

What I always understood was that the main solution was meant to be a tunnel from the bridge to the base, and I don't understand what that could solve. The military already has a cheap and fairly effective solution for their traffic--they control their hours, and they keep their people on 3rd/4th for the most part. I imagine most residents know by now that if there is a lot of military traffic, it is best to take an alternate route to the bridge--I can say from experience that unless there is a great deal of civilian traffic, alternate routes tend to be very effective. If there is a great deal of civilian traffic--then the bridge also tends to be slow, in either direction.

Any tunnel, or at least any tunnel with an eye for managing military traffic, will have little impact during the summertime, when traffic in Coronado is the worst--not due to military but rather civilian traffic. More interesting ideas for traffic in Coronado might be a cross tunnel around Glorietta/4th ave to redirect some traffic off of Orange, and give pedestrians more reasonable access to the other side of the island. A stop sign or light fixture along 3rd/4th before Orange might be an interesting measure as well, it could give the city better traffic flow control as well as another way for pedestrians to safely cross 3rd/4th street (like say, B) without heading all the way up to Orange. A tunnel, especially one potentially more than a mile long, seems like a very risky and drastic proposition, and I wonder whether the risk and cost are worth the reward.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on March 28, 2009 at 7:32pm

The main purpose of a tunnel project is to add more capacity to move traffic. A tunnel project would accomplish this goal. The second purpose would be to improve the movement of cars on the surface streets, especially where 3rd and 4th Streets intersect Orange Avenue. Again, a tunnel concept would improve the workability of our traffic grid in this way.

Would a tunnel be safe? It is just as safe as any other type of roadway. It is quite a bit safer than a bridge, and we didn't fear that kind of construction in the 1960's. Potential hazards exist all around us and I am not a proponent of letting fear deter us from considering possible solutions.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to whether or not such a project can be financed, and whether or not it is feasible and worthwhile to do so. I believe it is worth exploring.

Comment by Ian McJannet on March 30, 2009 at 11:13am

While I agree that fear should never be a determining factor for any project, I do think that risks and costs should be considered against potential rewards. I can see that there is an advantage in removing a number of cars from the surface streets, but I have yet to see anything to convince me that the cost, let alone potential risk, is worth the traffic improvements we could see. I certainly don't think that there is anything dangerous about driving in a well made tunnel--but the process of creating them can cause potentially significant damages to property values in the land above the tunnel. I don't actually know what level of risk is associated with that (beyond having read about damages caused by similar projects), but I would hope that we are carefully examining it before moving forward.

This document should make for interesting reading.

Comment by Sandy Shortt on March 30, 2009 at 2:43pm

I am not in favor of the tunnel, but feel strongly about putting the toll back on the bridge. The people using the bridge should pay for it and it's maintenance. Putting the toll back would also lessen the traffic volume along Orange because it would discourage people from using our streets as a free alternate to Hwy 5.
We lived in New York for 36 years and are very familiar with tolls. They practically invented them back there... The point of slow traffic at the toll booths is not terribly valid. Military personnel, residents, and Island employees would have electronic sensors on their cars, which allows them to flow on through the tolls. These sensors can be funded automatically through a credit card, bank account, etc..
All of the lanes would be electronic - 'paid by sensor' with one lane being manned for tourists, etc. who don't a sensor one. The manned booth could be to the far right or left.
With a permanent toll that always puts the profits into a maintenance fund, we could hopefully lower the toll from the amount that was mentioned at the public meeting at the community center. I believe it was $2-3 or more.
The toll could possibly be a pay one-way only event.
The excess traffic our city streets endure, because of people using Orange instead of 5, would lessen and thus the costs associated with road repair would, too. The air polution would be reduced. The terrible confusion and noise caused by the traffic would be reduced.
Obviously I don't have all the answers, but think a toll is a must!!
Thank you for considering these points.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on March 31, 2009 at 10:13am

Thank you Sandy and Ian :-)

Comment by Jamie Edmonds on March 31, 2009 at 3:31pm

With all due respect, Mr. Mayor. To answer your original question: "What do you think of a tunnel?" and in response to your assertion that: "Would a tunnel be safe? It is just as safe as any other type of roadway. It is quite a bit safer than a bridge, and we didn't fear that kind of construction in the 1960's." As one who's job it will be to protect the users of the tunnel I would have to respectfully disagree. Saying that a tunnel is as safe as a bridge, let alone safer than a bridge, I believe, is unsupportable by the available data. No one would argue that one is safer at the top of a crowded high-rise than in a single story ranch-style home. Any time you put large numbers of people (about 500 by my calculations if it backs up all the way) in an enclosed space, underground, in soft and sandy soil, under the water table, which bisects a known active earthquake fault, surrounded by large quantities of fuel (500 fuel tanks), hundreds of sources of ignition (sparks from grinding metal during a crash or heat from exhaust headers), potentially toxic vapors (Carbon Monoxide from exhaust fumes) the removal of which relies on mechanical ventilation systems, unknown military chemicals/weapons or other unidentified Hazardous Materials, with limited means of egress, and those hundreds of people are known by terrorists to be almost entirely military personnel . . . . It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Navy would have their concerns about their people even using this tunnel--regardless of whether it daylights on the base or off.

The original vote to put in a "cut-and-cover" tunnel failed to pass in the special election of 1988 with 58.6% voting "No" and only 41.4% voting "Yes". The re-worded ballot in 1998 to seek funding sources to build a bored tunnel did pass 83% to 17% and gave birth to this Commission which has been seeking these funding sources for the last 10 years. As I mentioned before, this is a new post-September 11th, 2001 world and we and our military live in a very different reality now than we did back in 1998 let alone 1988. The danger from terrorism, both domestic and foreign, can not be dismissed as a red-herring when you cluster large number of military targets together in a confined space.

I'm not saying don't build a tunnel. I have no dog in this fight as I only live a third of my life in Coronado. I serve the wonderful people of Coronado and whatever they decide to build I am prepared to lay my life on the line to protect them. As a fire service professional, my job is to make sure the people have the facts to make an educated decision regarding Public Safety. Here's my reality that I must consider when I think of how I'm going to defend this tunnel:

"The catastrophic consequences of the tunnel fires (e.g., the Mont Blanc tunnel, 1999, the Austrian Kaprun funicular tunnel, 2000, and the Swiss St. Gotthard tunnel, 2001) not only resulted in loss of life, severe property damages, but also left the public with a lack of confidence in using such systems. Fire safety in rail and road tunnels is challenging because of the specific features of the tunnel environment.
[ . . . ]
Underground infrastructures are considered high-order terrorist targets because of their high visibility and cost. They have been the target of 40% of all terrorist acts worldwide. The type of threats can range from a fire incident (vehicle fuel, flammable cargo, liquid fuel tankers, flammable gas tankers), explosions (car bombs, truck bombs, boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion, emplaced charges), radioactive, chemical, to a biological attack. The damage can be somewhat limited (casualties, vehicle damage, cosmetic, damage to ventilation and lighting systems, traffic sensors, etc.) and structurally major (liner, roadway, ceiling collapse, portal structural damage, tunnel flooding for submerged tunnels, complete tunnel collapse). Resulting repair costs can be in the range of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars and the down time can be a couple days to more than a year. Such costs often can be dwarfed by the costs associated with business disruption from these incidences, which often can be much greater than the physical repair costs. Over the past 10 years, terrorist attacks on transportation systems have claimed many lives and caused major disruption. Events such as those on the Tokyo subway (1995: 12 deaths and thousands sick), on the train station in Madrid (2004 and 2005: 191 deaths), on the Moscow Metro (2004: 39 deaths) and London (2005: 56 deaths) resulted in raised awareness of the vulnerability of infrastructural systems to terrorists’ attacks. They have raised many questions with regards to the management of safety and security issues of existing and projected infrastructure in enclosed spaces, which require consideration and solutions."

Source: www.ashrae.org/doclib/20070727_miclea.pdf

===================================

The new fault zones cover a region where the Rose Canyon fault ends and connects through a series of smaller fractures to the offshore Descanso fault.

They include the Spanish Bight, Coronado and Silver Strand faults, which cross beneath Coronado Island and head south offshore.

The fractures are most clearly defined under San Diego Bay near the San Diego-Coronado Bridge, where the Silver Strand fault passes beneath it.

In 1999, the California Department of Transportation hired a team of geologists to better characterize fracturing under the bay. One earthquake zone included in the new maps runs just east of the Hotel del Coronado.

Defining faults under downtown has proved more difficult over the years, simply because the earth is covered by asphalt, concrete and buildings.

But the new fault-zone maps reflect findings from geologic studies of individual construction sites over the past decade.

"We're seeing a more extensive faulting in the downtown (area)," said Bill Bryant, a senior geologist with the California Department of Conservation and the California Geological Survey.

SDSU's Abbott said he expects that the pattern of fault lines downtown is similar to what geologists have seen below San Diego Bay. "What it means is virtually every project built in (downtown) San Diego is either on or close to an active fault," Abbott said.

Geologists have estimated that the strongest earthquake along the Rose Canyon fault could reach 6.9 on the Richter scale.

The degree of shaking at any one point along the fault, which runs from Los Angeles to San Diego, depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from its epicenter and the composition of soils at that point.

Downtown San Diego is built on terrace deposit, which includes ocean sediments and red, silty sands, Landry said.

It is softer and therefore amplifies the rocking motion of an earthquake. The granite bedrock found in some parts of San Diego County's backcountry provides more resistance to damage from tremors, Landry said.

Coronado is built on even softer, sandier soil than downtown. " (emphasis mine)

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20021125-9999_1m25faults.html
=======================================================

The new fault map for the area including Coronado can be downloaded here:

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ap_maps/point_loma.pdf


More background data:

Special Election, June 1988:

Advisory Prop. G "Do you support the construction of a cut and cover tunnel under Fourth Street utilizing existing right of way to carry the east-west commuter traffic between the bridge and Naval Air Station North Island in order to help solve the traffic circulation problems of the city?"
Yes: 2251
No: 3183
Measure failed to pass.



Municipal Election, November 1998:

Advisory Prop. O: "Are you in favor of the City of Coronado seeking funding sources to construct a bored Tunnel between the Coronado Bridge and the Naval Air Station?"
Yes: 6064
No: 1249
Measure passed.


Measured against a billion dollar tunnel, I think we should at least pursue assisting the Navy with their pilot program they are pursuing and further explore our own less costly solutions to reduce the NUMBER of cars coming across the bridge in the first place. Prevention saves more lives and property than protection. Cure the disease and the symptoms will take care of themselves.

Comment by Mayor Casey Tanaka on March 31, 2009 at 4:18pm

There are dangers associated with any project and any type of roadway. I concede that a tunnel has a lower safety factor than just driving down 3rd or 4th Streets, but I do not consider a tunnel to be inherently less safe than the bridge. I wouldn't want to be on the bridge if there was an explosion or during an earthquake. In fact, I wouldn't want to be present anywhere during such a disaster. To me, the tunnel and the problems it may or may not solve are primarily financial issues, not ones of safety.

I would be happy to work with the Navy if they were to outline a comprehensive program to lessen the number of cars coming into Coronado. No such comprehensive program exists. We are trying to take the lead in dealing with this issue. Every City Council for the past 40+ years has been working to improve the City's traffic problems vis a vis Navy commuter traffic and our own indigenous traffic. We will continue to seek better traffic solutions for our residents and our neighbors.

Comment (keep it clean & on topic)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page