About OC Progressive
  • Gus Ayer
  • Andrew Davey
  • Heather Pritchard
  • Joe Shaw

  • Our Manifesto

    Donate to OC Progressive

    "The most consistent and smartest thinking and writing about progressive politics isn't happening in Sacramento, but being churned out day after day on sites and by organizations like Calitics, Orange County Progressive, and the California Budget Project." - CalBuzz

    Contact

    Talk to us.

    Connect



    Search




    Advanced Search





    Orange County Progressive
    -Change for Orange County-


    Orange County's Failed Toll Road Experiment

    by: ocprogressive

    Tue Jan 27, 2009 at 13:06:59 PM PST


    (Part 1 of a six part series)

    The private Orange County Toll Road experiment now has enough history to be deemed a failure. An examination of the quasi-private toll roads in Orange County shows that toll roads are not a cost-effective way of delivering roads to the Orange County driving public.

    Of the four authorized toll road projects, one was never built, one was bought out by the government, one cannot be completed, and the worst one is now insolvent and headed for bankruptcy.

    ocprogressive :: Orange County's Failed Toll Road Experiment
    Toll roads are expensive. They start with higher costs to build. The costs include a massive burden of overhead costs that public freeways don't have. They require extra land acquisition costs to accommodate toll booths and additional toll collection lanes, an entire infrastructure of equipment that includes toll booths, toll machines, cameras, transponders and computers.

    Credit to build toll roads comes at higher rates than other government borrowing, since it's not secured by the full faith and credit of the government, but instead by the revenue stream that a toll road will generate.

    Then there are the ongoing operational costs, with a small army of toll booth attendants, customer service personnel, billing clerks, payment processing, an armored car service, a cleaning service to clean the toll booths, a personnel department, et cetera.

    Not to mention rooms full of expensive shoes and suits - bond consultants, lobbyists, public relations staff, marketing and advertising experts, financial advisers, consultants to estimate traffic and explain why revenue estimates fall short, lawyers, executives, managers, accountants, and a board room full of local elected officials.

    Added to this are costs you might not think about, like the bank fees for credit card processing and disaster insurance in case some calamity stops the tolls from rolling in.
    .
    Then there's the final externalized cost to taxpayers. Toll roads only become financially viable if there is sufficient congestion on alternative routes. That's why the 91 Express Lanes' original owners negotiated non-compete clauses, an agreement so onerous that it eventually forced OCTA to buy them out at a profit.

    So why have Orange County politicians embraced toll roads and worked so feverishly to prevent the insolvency of the 73 - the San Joaquin Toll Road?

    First and foremost is the Republican anti-government ideology. Instead of paying for public goods with taxes, "conservatives" need to come up with some different way of funding public needs that appears to eliminate government funding and those hateful "taxes."

    Yet somehow, our local Republicans,  adamantly opposed to any tax increase, have no compunctions whatsoever about increasing tolls, which they have done with a vengeance.
    On the 73 San Joaquin Hills Toll Road, the  tolls have sky-rocketed. Since 2002, the peak hour cash toll at the Catalina toll station has more than doubled, from $2.50 to $5.25. The differential between the cash price and the FasTrak price, which started at a quarter in 2003 has tripled to $ .75. In the same period, the Consumer Price index has risen around 21%. Tolls are one of the few places where politicians can raise fees indiscriminately without voter approval.

    The biggest fraud conservatives have used to justify private highways is that user fees are only paid by those who use the roads. That hasn't proven to be the case.

    In fact, drivers on the Foothill/Eastern toll road have been subsidizing the Newport Coast users of the 73, and all drivers pay with increased congestion when higher tolls force more cars back onto the freeways or onto arterials.

    Secondly, it's a way for local projects to jump to the front of the line of other needed projects, without any independent cost-benefit analysis to the proposed roads.

    Third, and most importantly, it's a boon to developers who want to open up raw land for development in deals that are far more favorable than they would get from Caltrans.

    Finally, though, it's about not admitting that this experiment is an abject failure, and that Orange County taxpayers are once again going to pay the price for a  massive failure of conservative ideology.

    The saga continues in these installments

    The Wreck of the 73 - The Looming Insolvency of the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road (Part 2)

    The Phantom Zombie Toll Road above (or below) the Santa Ana River San Joaquin Hills Toll Road (Part 3)

    241 South - Waterloo for the OC Power Structure  (Part 4)

    The Best of Tolls, The Worst of Tolls - the 91 Express Lanes (Part 5)

    Tags: , (All Tags)
    Print Friendly View Send As Email
    My personal rant (4.00 / 1)
    has to do with the fact that the 73 entrance is so much closer to where I live than the 5 but I have to pay 50 dollars a week if I want to use it to go to and from work.  That's twice as much as I would pay for filling my tank once a week.  It's literally highway robery.

    So as we tighten our belts, more more and people can't afford the toll road and then what?  We all have to pay for it in a bailout?

    Failure indeed.

    "The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal does not have to put the word 'compassionate' in front of his name to prove that he gives a shit"
    -- George Clooney


    EPIC FAIL... (4.00 / 1)
    That is. But when will TCA admit it? When will the OC Supes admit it? Their concept of "transportation" has failed.

    It's amazing to compare & contrast our failures to LA County's success. They build rapid bus lines and light rail lines, and Metro ridership is at a record high. We keep expanding freeways and subsidizing "tax-free" toll roads, and our toll roads are going bankrupt.  

    We shall overcome!


    [ Parent ]
    The reason for the toll roads was not to (4.00 / 1)
    help transportation, it was to open up developable land, both residential and commercial.

    For years, I sat through Planning Commission and Board hearings on these roadways and dozens upon dozens of development projects.  The whole thing was nothing more than a planning scam.

    Remember TIPS?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  No one else does either.  It was a planning department tranportation theory that disappeared after development was approved.

    And who does the Eastern Benefit?  Why TEC, of course, along with their benefit from ANY AND ALL transportation projects regardless of whether commercial or residential.  Have to get those far away cars to their commercial areas.  WHY build commercial close to housing in Riverside when, ka-ching, you can muck up the air, wreck open space, and put lots of bucks in Don Bren's pockets.

    The whole thing--particularly the 73--was a terrible scam.  And those of us that testified at the hearing, or made written comments, turned out to be (oh no!) right.


    One fact I'd like to develop (0.00 / 0)
    Is the amount of money that eventually went back to the developers to pay for the right-of-way. In correspondence with TIFIA, the TCA indicated that only 265 million of the 520 million of developer's fees was used for initial construction of the roads, with the balance either credited back to the developers for right-of-way acquisition or used for additional capital projects.

    One of the original selling points of the toll roads was that they would be paid for with a combination of federal money,state money, development fees, and toll revenue. Of course, the original selling of the 73 indicated that the road would be paid for in ten or twelve years, then tolls would end.



    [ Parent ]
    Absurd (4.00 / 1)
    Those damn toll roads are a pointless waste of money and of natural resources. I remember driving to visit family in Laguna Beach in the late 1980s and seeing the sign the city had put up on Laguna Canyon Road warning of the devastation the road would cause on what was at the time a still natural coastal canyon landscape. Only after the 73 opened did I understand just how destructive to the landscape it was.

    The crazy thing is that toll road and privatization advocates still point to Orange County as an example of the benefits of privately operated roads. So this is a story that needs to be told, and kudos to you for telling it.


    NEWPORT COAST DRIVE TOLL: dubious,suspicious,farfetched,fishey (0.00 / 0)
    If you don't like paying this Toll Pay Off with out the right to receive a gift Tax write off on your next tax bill look at this web site to make your day "TOO" do something about it.  www.newportcoastdrive.com  

    The site at Newport Coast Drive . Com post's: a  January 2008 letter to our Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, JR asking for a review of a flawed past opinion. And Showing the real Documented  LCP. Coastal  Mitigation's and the Findings  with 36 exhibits as authentication's.

    Also there's a November 2008 letter to our California Coastal Commission. Peter Douglas, Executive Director. Asking him to take this obnoxious toll of Newport Coast Drive as there LCP Coastal "FINDINGS" call's out this shortest free road mitigation bypass around CDM, As agreed to by all In the Irvine Coast  Development Agreement and section C. LCP. Findings. This binding LCP Agreement  is before the TCA. changed there by laws from building Freeways to building Toll Roads.  

    Still waiting for meaningful documented reply's from both parties. If you wish to help save your money write to them. Be sure to ask for a meaningful refund of your dollars taken to date. Our the funds to be spent on Orange County Coastal Parks.

    Why worry we live in the best Government Money can buy.  Thank You. Ronald Douglas Kennedy



    Don't forget... (0.00 / 0)
    Don't forget that even if an Orange County toll road went bankrupt it could NOT legally be opened up to general use.  When each of these toll roads was built there were "memo agreements" with EPA that there would be a minimum per vehicle occupancy, forever and ever.  This was the only way EPA could certify that each would not increase vehicular emissions in an already "non-compliant region" for air quality. Maybe they don't want the SJHTC to go belly up and have people discover this.

    Reply and Up Date. NEWPORT COAST DRIVE TOLL (0.00 / 0)
    Greetings Nodozer: the Irvine Coast LCP Development Agreement was approved first It is a legal Contract giving the Public Coastal LCP Road Mitigation, Newport Coast Drive from PCH to MacArthur Blvd. It is a Public free road easement. Below is a up date on trying to have the California Coastal Commission correct there mistake to the Attorney Generals Office at the time of there Opinion.  

    NEWPORT COAST DRIVE TOLL: dubious,suspicious,farfetched,fishy

    Greetings: How far will the cover up go in the tolling of Click here: Newport Coast Drive ?  New letter out to California Coastal Commission CCC. At bottom of page 1.  October 18 2009.
        Question will our A. G. Brown's office continue to look the other way if CCC Peter Douglas confirms MR Chuck Damm, South Coast District Director of CCC long Beach made false written statement which the A. G. Office relied on in there Opinion that there was no. Coastal Mitigation "LCP Findings" issue to resolve which allowed the tolling of Newport Coast Drive by the TCA Toll Road Agency?
        Your letters to MR. Peter Douglas asking for the false information given the A G to be corrected will then require the suspension of tolls on Newport Coast Drive and all tolls to date to be returned to the Public in some form. I lobby for the body of the funds to go to Crystal Cove State Park restoration & bilding fund.      Thank you  Ron

    October 18, 2009

    CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
    MR. Peter Douglas Executive Director
    45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
    415-904-5200

    Subject: Newport Coast Drive Tolling. Not called out in the Irvine Coast Development Agreement County of Orange June 9,1988. Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents" WHY ARE THE CCC FINDINGS NOT BEING FOLLOWED? or enforced by the your good offices?

    Dear MR. Douglas,

    (Note the first version of this letter to you dated October 4, 2009 is amended in this revised request by dropping the wording --"under the "Public Records Act". as referred to in your denial letter of October 14, 2009 by MS. Jessica Reed. Senior Legal Analyst. )

    I am asking you to reply to my letter's to you of November 3, 2008, as now posted on my web site and the later March 9, 2009 letter to you pleas find a copy of this letter enclosed.

    In my letter to our Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. January 16, 2008 "Request for review of Opinion No. 93-1205 per information and documentation below". as found at www.newportcoastdrive.com [with my exhibits] Where I again make the point that the Road wright of way and the building of Newport Coast Drive from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard was part of the Quid Pro Quo for a Coastal Development Permit, and called out in the "Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents"

    The controlling argument for the original A. G. opinion of May 12, 1994. Should have been in following the callouts of: Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents. If not for a letter from Chuck Damm CCC. Long Beach letter, 1994; copied to me by Rodney Lilyquist A. G. office, wear MR. Damm makes this false statement of intent. "As I mentioned in our October 1st, letter . the portion of Newport Coast Drive where a toll is proposed is not in the Coastal Zone. As such. we cannot assert jurisdiction without a direct tie to the adopted provisions of either the Irvine Coast LCP and /or the coastal development permit. Our research shows no such tie" [my exhibit 11.]

    I ask you and your good office, again to correct this false statement by MR. Damm to the Attorneys Generals office for his Opinion No. 93 - 1205. relying on my three exhibits below and other buttressing facts in my letter to the A. G. and site at. WWW.NEWPORTCOASTDRIVE.COM

    [my exhibit 12] Memorandum December 4, 1987 To. Commissioners and interested Persons from Chuck Damm. Page 4, (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    [my exhibit 13] CCC. Commissioners and Interested Persons. November 19, 1987. from Chuck Damm. Subject: County Of Orange Irvine Coast Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan Amendment. More detail of the road as mitigation Page 22. (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    [my exhibit 1] Irvine Coast Development Agreement County Of Orange, June 9, 1988. Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents" Page 22. (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    Respectfully watching for your reply as the public has paid over sixty six million dollars in Tolls for using what was given as LCP. free public road mitigation. I am specifically asking you that the: CEQA, EIR and LCP. Findings, specified be followed as originally called out in June, 1988.

    Sincerely,

    Ronald Douglas Kennedy

    4741 Sleeping Indian RD.
    Fallbrook CA. 92028- 8875
    otrkennedy@aol.com


    [ Parent ]
    struggling consumer (0.00 / 0)
    Sad news! The private Orange County Toll Road experiment now has enough history to be deemed a failure. An examination of the quasi-private toll roads in Orange County shows that toll roads are not a cost-effective way of delivering roads to the Orange County driving public. In relation to public awareness, most people can't find their way back to their accustomed usual ways of living, it must be due to a drop in income, and this leads them to being struggling consumers.  Well, it isn't a great idea to go back to the way things were, spending freely regardless of any temporary money problems that come up.  The titanic amount of leveraged credit led to a unstable market and economy.  The Federal Reserve reports up jiffy in some activity, but consumer activity has dropped off.  Doubtless that many financiers would use short-term loans to get the struggling consumer back to normal. The best to do it we must all cooperate in reviving our economy sturdiness and pray for the best.  

    Newport Coast Drive Toll, up date 1 27 10 (0.00 / 0)
    Rodney O. Lilyquist, Chief Opinion Unit                                December 24, 2009
    State of California Attorney General Office
    California Bank Plaza
    Suite 700
    110 West "A" Street
    San Diego, CA 92101-3711

    Dear Mr. Lilyquist      

      Subject: Foot Note 7.  In Opinion 93-1205, relied on a Fraudulent Letter,  not a simple mistake?

    As I have called out in my letter request for review to A. G. Brown. January 16, 2009.  and now posted at  www.newportcoastdrive.com [ and my exhibit's]

    Rodney you wear gracious in coping the letter and writing  "Ron I belive this is the letter we relied upon for foot note 7. Rod"  Letter to Benjamin B. Nolan, Newport Beach Public Works Director, dated Feb, 13, 1974. from Charles Damm District Director, California Coastal Commission, CCC. [my exhibit 11] and   MR. Damm stating  "As such, we cannot assert jurisdiction based on the toll issue without a direct tie to the adopted provisions of either the Irvine Coast LCP and/or the coastal development permit.   Our research shows no such tie."

    In my letter to MR. Peter Douglas Executive Director CCC. October 18. 2009. Below & also posted at the bottom of page one in the above web site, [my exhibit's 12 & 13] showing two separate document's Mr. Charles Damm presented to CCC. Commissioners with his name on each as "South Coast District Director CCC". And  [my exhibit 1] Irvine Coast Development Agreement.  "EXHIBIT C Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents"  These  documents call out &  show by a Map photo LCP. Road Mitigation from PCH to MacArthur Boulevard.

    The LCP.  Road Mitigation is clearly called out again in the "Irvine Coast Development Agreement"  Section D.page's D-9 & 10.  "Previously Exacted Benefits "in the 1988 Local Coastal Program" at  "D. Early construction of four lanes of pelican Hill Road from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard"
    Why were these:  stated facts, photo road map overlay Findings not enforced at the Coastal Commission our in your Opinion. Will one of you enforce our laws buy correcting this Fraudulent Opinion 93-1205?

        I request a copy of the Cover Letter to your Offices which gave you the fraudulent Damm Letter for your pending Opinion leading you away from enforcing the "LCP Road Mitigation Findings", The only relevant question from day one. under Public Records Act, 6250.

    Also do you have a copy of the missing report by MS. Olivia Maiser [my exhibit 14 page 4] "Attendees" As a Special Assistant to Attorney General Dan Lungren. Pleas find additional information of her being the special guest of  "Assemblyman" Gilbert Ferguson at the Pacific Club in N. B. December 9, 1993.  and after presentations by: County of Orange Lawyer, TCA Lawyer from Nossaman LLP. and my rebuttal to there incorrect boiler plate sham words. Gilbert stood up and asked MS Maiser on the spot for an Opinion. [ my web site page 11. at (1) =] [exhibit 15] Ms Maiser of the Attorney Generals Office --- ---

         I request a copy of hear report if you have it in your San Diego Offices or if you can find it else where. under Public Records Act, 6250.  If lost or destroyed did you ever read it?

                                                                        Thank You. Ron
    Ronald Douglas Kennedy

    CC:
    J. Matthew Rodriquez Esq. Chief Assistant A. G. C
    MR. Peter Douglas. Executive Director CCC.

    ----------------------------------------

    October 18, 2009    

    CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
    MR. Peter Douglas Executive Director
    45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000
    San Francisco, CA 94105-2219
    415-904-5200
    Subject: Newport Coast Drive Tolling. Not called out in the Irvine Coast Development Agreement County of Orange June 9,1988. Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents" WHY ARE THE CCC FINDINGS NOT BEING FOLLOWED? or enforced by the your good offices?

    Dear MR. Douglas,

    (Note the first version of this letter to you dated October 4, 2009 is amended in this revised request by dropping the wording --"under the "Public Records Act". as referred to in your denial letter of October 14, 2009 by MS. Jessica Reed. Senior Legal Analyst. )

    I am asking you to reply to my letter's to you of November 3, 2008, as now posted on my web site and the later March 9, 2009 letter to you pleas find a copy of this letter enclosed.

    In my letter to our Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. January 16, 2008 "Request for review of Opinion No. 93-1205 per information and documentation below". as found at www.newportcoastdrive.com [with my exhibits] Where I again make the point that the Road wright of way and the building of Newport Coast Drive from Pacific Coast Highway to MacArthur Boulevard was part of the Quid Pro Quo for a Coastal Development Permit, and called out in the "Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents"

    The controlling argument for the original A. G. opinion of May 12, 1994. Should have been in following the callouts of: Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents. If not for a letter from Chuck Damm CCC. Long Beach letter, 1994; copied to me by Rodney Lilyquist A. G. office, wear MR. Damm makes this false statement of intent. "As I mentioned in our October 1st, letter . the portion of Newport Coast Drive where a toll is proposed is not in the Coastal Zone. As such. We cannot assert jurisdiction without a direct tie to the adopted provisions of either the Irvine Coast LCP and /or the coastal development permit. Our research shows no such tie" [my exhibit 11.]

    I ask you and your good office, again to correct this false statement by MR. Damm to the Attorneys Generals office for his Opinion No. 93 - 1205. relying on my three exhibits below and other buttressing facts in my letter to the A. G. and site at. WWW.NEWPORTCOASTDRIVE.COM

    [my exhibit 12] Memorandum December 4, 1987 To. Commissioners and interested Persons from Chuck Damm. Page 4, (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    [my exhibit 13] CCC. Commissioners and Interested Persons. November 19, 1987. from Chuck Damm. Subject: County Of Orange Irvine Coast Segment Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan Amendment. More detail of the road as mitigation Page 22. (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    [my exhibit 1] Irvine Coast Development Agreement County Of Orange, June 9, 1988. Exhibit C "Irvine Coast Local Coastal Plan Findings Of Approval And Supporting Documents" Page 22. (see Exhibit 13 in the Executive Summary). [my exhibit 4] of the colored map road layout as proposed.

    Respectfully watching for your reply as the public has paid over sixty six million dollars in Tolls for using what was given as LCP. free public road mitigation. I am specifically asking you that the: CEQA, EIR and LCP. Findings, specified be followed as originally called out in June, 1988.

    Sincerely,

    Ronald Douglas Kennedy

    4741 Sleeping Indian RD.
    Fallbrook CA. 92028- 8875
    otrkennedy@aol.com



    Active Users
    Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

    Menu

    Sign up to comment or write your own diary.
    Be a part of the OC Progressive community.
    Make a New Account

    Username:

    Password:



    Forget your username or password?


    Blog Roll

    Political

  • skippy the bush kangaroo
  • Irvine uber-blogger Kdrum
  • Political Animal
  • AmericaBlog
  • echidne of the snakes
  • Digby
  • Firedoglake
  • Balloon Juice
  • Daily Kos
  • The Moderate Voice
  • Eschaton
  • Jesus General
  • The Huffington Post
  • Down with tyranny
  • UnqualifiedOfferings
  • first-draft
  • Rising Hegemon
  • Lawyers, Guns & Money
  • steve audio
  • Progressive Democrats of America Blog
  • Progressive Democrats of America
  • Ed Cone
  • left coaster
  • rude pundit
  • GayPolitics.com
  • Andrew Sullivan
  • Pam's House Blend

  • Where your money went

  • The Big Picture
  • Calculated Risk
  • Paul Krugman


  • California

  • Calitics
  • Food & Water Watch
  • California Budget Blog
  • Rough and Tumble
  • Courage Campaign
  • calbuzz
  • Aquafornia - California Water Blog
  • LA Progressive
  • Politics in the Zeros
  • High Speed Rail Blog


  • OC Arts And Culture
  • OC Arts and Culture

  • Local OC

  • The Liberal OC
  • The OC Weekly
  • DPOC
  • Orange County for Darfur
  • Bubbling Cauldron
  • Greetings from HB
  • Irvine Housing Blog
  • Orange Juice
  • Dissent the Blog
  • The Moving Target
  • Bolsavik
  • Navel Gazing
  • ECCO, Orange County's LGBT PAC
  • Pacific Progressive

  • Reality-Based Wonkiness

  • The Oil Drum
  • Real Climate
  • Climate Progress
  • Project for Public Spaces
  • Planetizen
  • Global Public Media

  • Other Important Stuff

  • La Vida Locavore
  • Inhabitat
  • Streets Blog LA
  • Street Films
  • Smitten Kitchen
  • Towleroad


  • Subscribe in a reader
    Powered by: SoapBlox