People Power of Santa Cruz County

Contact Us

Why widen Highway 1?

Published Saturday, September 11, 2004

Proponents of widening Highway 1 have yet to offer any credible justification for their assumption that the proposed widening will actually relieve traffic congestion.

We do not think it will work. Where is there a freeway that has been widened "to relieve congestion" that has actually achieved this goal?

Not in adjacent Santa Clara County, where a recent widening of Interstate 880 immediately resulted in increased congestion, and where a recently widened Highway 101 is more congested than before, and where a widened Highway 85 filled up the day it was opened several years ago.

Even if the proposed project was to solve the traffic problem, it is too expensive, too environmentally damaging and would take too long. There are better, less costly strategies that could result in significant benefits in a shorter time.

Consider the following:

• Induced traffic is one reason a widened road fills up. The new Master Transportation Study adopted by the city of Santa Cruz states, "When road capacity is increased, total travel time will equalize until traffic moves at the previous levels of congestion." However, Caltrans freeway engineers and their consultants, who have modeled the traffic flows, have yet to incorporate the concept of induced traffic into their models.

Even without accounting for induced traffic, a widened highway will fill up, owing to overall growth. How long will that take? After it fills up, then what? These key questions remain unanswered.

• Is it reasonable to spend half a billion dollars (or more) of local tax money on an unsubstantiated "solution" to our transportation problems?

Many believe that demand-reduction strategies may work better.

Measures that encourage car pooling, increase bus use, enable telecommuting and flextime, encourage bicycle use, implement "parking cash-out" programs, or even make better use of the rail right of way, could not only work to address the "traffic problem" but would also provide non-auto mode options for those needing to get from one place to another. Such measures would reduce environmental impacts, and many could be enacted sooner than any project that would add lanes to Highway 1.

An effective demand-reduction strategy requires knowing, at a detailed level, where people are coming from and where they are gong. Such origin/destination data do not now exist and should be gathered.

• A strategy should be analyzed that combines lesser capacity-increasing measures, such as ramp-metering and possible bypass lanes for emergency vehicles, with demand-reduction measures. It has not been considered.

• Caltrans policy provides for complete vegetation removal within the construction footprint. A scaled-back project would reduce the impacts of tree removal.

• What effects will a widened Highway 1 have on residential and commercial streets? For example, the single-occupant auto traffic on High Street, Bay Street, King Street and Mission Street in Santa Cruz is currently beyond the carrying capacity of those streets whenever UC Santa Cruz is in session. If the highway is widened, there will be an increase in the number of vehicles that enter and leave Highway 1. Where will they go? Where will they park?

• The current plan is to collect a half-cent increase in the local sales tax for 30 years, with at least 83 percent of the funds so generated to be allocated for road and street improvement construction projects, i.e., for automobile-related amenities. Such an unbalanced expenditure plan will guarantee, over the next 30 years, a reinforced dependence on the private automobile, and will preclude opportunities to provide funding for public transit and other non-auto-related modes. The proposed expenditure plan does almost nothing to support our well-used but ailing bus system, and provides only token support for other modes.

• The proposed expenditure plan would use local tax monies as the primary funding source for adding lanes to Highway 1 (a California State Highway), and yet much of the road use is by out-of-county travelers. State and federal funds would make only a minor contribution. Shouldn't a state highway project be financed with state funds?

• Even if we use local tax funds to widen Highway 1, Santa Cruz County provides too small a tax base to fund such a large project  the largest in the county's history. According to the current financial analysis, the State Park Drive to San Andreas Road section of construction would not even begin until the 25th year of the tax measure's enactment.

Let's rid ourselves of this outdated, overpriced plan and instead pursue sensible projects that will provide an increase in mobility for the residents of Santa Cruz County.

Peter Scott is a Santa Cruz resident and a member of the steering committee for the Campaign for Sensible Transportation. Visit the Web site at www.sensibletransportation.org.