|
Hwy 149 Expansion Project FAQsBelow are a set of FAQs intended to illuminate the issues regarding the Highway 149 Expansion that is slated to turn Hwy. 149 into a four-lane freeway, complete with a Los Angeles-style clover-leaf interchange at the intersections with Highways 99 and 70.
What's the history of the expansion project?Studies for the expansion project go back to at least 1991, which estimated the price at $41.5 million. CalTrans initiated the expansion project in 2001, which included producing a quick, cheap environmental review in lieu of a comprehensive analysis -- hoping that no one would suggest otherwise. BEC and one federal agency challenged the CalTrans environmental review, forcing the agency to create an Environmental Impact Report in 2002, which was finalized in 2003. In 2002, BEC pushed for a quicker and cheaper alternative to the expansion project that would make the intersections safe within months instead of years. CalTrans and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) received permits in 2002 for the expansion project , but have failed to implement the most time consuming, comprehensive, and significant portion: a Habitat Conservation Plan ( HCP). The funding for the expansion project was not made available until mid-2005, slowing the project down by many years. The intersection of Highway 149 with Highways 99 and 70 south of Chico is clearly dangerous. Isn't widening the road and adding clover-leafs the best and quickest way to make it safe?Wider roads and clover-leafs are certainly safer than the current situation, but they are not the quickest route to safety. Funding and environmental constraints (and other issues) can prevent projects from being built. This is why CalTrans will often use a stop-gap measure that quickly -- and cheaply -- addresses safety issues. For example, the intersection of Ophir Road and Hwy. 70, just south of Oroville, is unsafe. Traffic signals are being installed at Ophir Road because the funding and permirs aren’t available for a large-scale widening. If traffic signals will work at Ophir Road, why not use them on the Hwy. 149 intersections?Why indeed? BEC has been pushing to signalize both Hyw. 149 intersections since 2002, but its proposal has fallen on deaf ears. The local media hasn't helped the situation, preferring to focus on the project expansion as the only solution to the safety issue. Perhaps the local media should be asking CalTrans the following: if the agency knew that Hwy. 149 was dangerous in the early 90s, why wasn't it pushing to get traffic signals installed immediately? The agency surely knows that multi-million dollar freeways and cover-leafs take years to be funded, permitted, and constructed. What is BEC's proposal?1. Signalize both intersections at a cost of approximately $250,000 each or use a fly over ramp. 2. Diminish traffic speed between Chico and Oroville to 55. 3. Lengthen turn lanes on Hwys 99 and 70. 4. Provide more funding for more CHP personnel in the area to enforce the lower speeds. 5. Most of the traffic on Hwy 149 is from Oroville to Chico and vise versa (DEIR/S May 2002), so it's important to increase the number and frequency of buses during peak commute hours and provide incentives to use mass transit. What's the cost of BEC's proposal vs. the expansion project?The cost of installing a signal at the Hwy. 149 intersections is approximately $250,000 for both intersections, versus an estimated price for the expansion project of $130 million. What's another alternative to widening roads?CalTrans neglected to look at all of the alternative suggestions to the Hwy. 149 expansion project and disparaged alternative solutions, including commuter rail service. A freeway lane carries 1,800 cars per hour, or less than 2,200 people. A single light rail track can comfortably carry from 8,600 to 16,000 people per hour equating to four to seven freeway lanes (The Rochester Rail Transit Committee, Inc.). A report by the Institute of Transportation Studies at U.C. Berkeley, The Full Cost of Intercity Transportation, indicates that while internal system costs for transportation place rail highest at $0.233, highways at $0.198, and air at $0.124, when social costs such as air pollution, congestion, noise, and accidents are added to the analysis, rail is the clear winner at $0.0002 with air travel at $0.0043, and highways at $0.0045 (Levinson et al., June 1996). And as transportation advocates know, widening roads fuels speed, accidents, sprawl, conversion of farmland and wildlands, ironically resulting in more congestion (Sacramento Bee 2/28/06). What are the environmental issues?No legal general plan Air quality Inadequate analysis of all of Hwy. 70 expansion Induces growth Destroys habitat and kills species Where can I find more information on this issue?Here is a set of articles and columns produced by BEC on the Hwy. 194 expansion issue:
|
||||||||||
