Costs, Traffic Effects Dominate 405 Freeway Expansion Meeting

By Jessica Carrier

An aggravated crowd settled into Hill Middle School on Wednesday night to hear a short presentation on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s plans to expand the 405 Freeway.

While a proposal to add high occupancy toll lanes to the freeway has triggered backlash from city leaders in northwest Orange County, residents and officials in Long Beach are worried about the effect on side streets, as well as the cost of increased construction-related traffic during the project.

Long Beach city leaders contend they are being asked to bear an undue burden of the cost for the project’s impact on city streets.

“Why would the city of Long Beach have to pay over $6 million for a state project that will impact its residents?” asked Long Beach City Traffic Engineer David Roseman. 

The main subject of the night was the Supplemental EIR/EIS Draft that OCTA published in June for the 405 Improvement Project to begin construction in 2015.

The draft addresses the city of Long Beach’s concerns about costs and construction burdens impacting intersections such as 7th Street and Bellflower Boulevard, 7th Street and West Campus Drive, and 7th Street and East Campus Drive.

OCTA has come up with three options for expanding the 405 in northwest Orange County.

The first alternative, which was previously chosen by the OCTA board and is its current recommendation, would add one general purpose lane to either side of the 405 between Euclid Street and the 605. The second alternative permits the addition of two general purpose lanes in both directions from Euclid to the 605. The third alternative allows for one additional general purpose lane in both directions, one toll lane in both directions, and converting an existing carpool lane into a second toll lane.

The estimated cost is $1.3 billion for alternative one, $1.4 billion for alternative two, and $1.7 billion for alternative three. Construction would begin in 2015 and finish in 2020. The first alternative would take the least construction time: an estimated 48 months. The third alternative would take 54 months.  

After studying 36 intersections in Long Beach, OCTA found that the number of intersections which would need improvement as a result of the expansion project were five for alternative one, nine for alternative two, and eight for alternative three. The OCTA recommends alternative one, and Caltrans will take that into consideration when selecting its preferred alternative.  

Along with Long Beach’s Roseman, a representative for Long Beach Councilman Patrick O’Connell voiced concerns about funding for the project.

Both officials took issue with OCTA’s Fair Share Percentages outlined in the Supplemental Draft. The Fair Share Percentages are what percentage the OCTA is willing to pay for the work its environmental impact studies have deemed necessary.  

Presenter and consultant for the OCTA Kevin Haboian assured them that a meeting would be had between the city of Long Beach, Caltrans, LA Metro, and OCTA to reach a resolution for the issue of funding.    

Roseman doesn’t think that will be so easy.

“Our council is pretty adamant that we’re not paying a dime,” said Roseman. “We sent a letter to Caltrans in May asking for the Supplemental Draft to be delayed until we could talk about the funding. But we never heard back.”  

Joel Zlotnik, Media Relations Officer for the OCTA, sees the issue differently.

“There’s a state formula as to how these projects get paid for,” said Zlotnik.  “If there is an already congested intersection, and our project only adds a 5 percent increase in traffic, is it fair that we should pay for all of the improvements that need to be made at that intersection?”

While most of the speakers at the meeting addressed Long Beach concerns, a handful of Orange County residents attended, including Seal Beach Mayor Gary Miller and Los Alamitos City Councilman Richard Murphy.

Concerns raised by Orange County residents included opposition to the toll road proposal, the impact to freeway adjacent businesses such as Boomers in Fountain Valley, the impact on overpass bike lanes, and the overall length of the project on the heels of the ongoing West County Connector project.

The Caltrans and OCTA staff were on hand at the meeting to answer questions. Audience members were also encouraged to submit verbal comments to an OCTA official, or written comments to the Branch Chief of Caltrans District 12, Ms. Smita Deshpande, at 2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612.  Responses could also be submitted by email to the address 405.Supplemental.Draft.EIR.EIS.@parsons.com.

Here are some highlights from the meetings Q & A session:

Public Commenter—We have already had public hearings where we gave our comments.  Do we have to start all over?

Haboian—No, you don’t. When we received the comments from Long Beach we put a hold on the finalization process.  Those comments will be taken into consideration and be responded to in May [along with all comments received before August 12.]

Public Commenter—How much weight does the OCTA recommendation have?

Haboian—The OCTA is the funding agency for the project.

Public Commenter—Who’s in charge? You said that the OCTA has the money and Caltrans has the final decision.

Haboian—Both of those statements are true.

Public Commenter—If you don’t agree [on the preferred alternative], who’s in charge?

Haboian—In he spirit of partnership, we will work together to resolve the matter and come to a common decision.  

Public Commenter—How many bridges will get worked on?

Haboian—Eighteen bridges south of the west county connector.  And that’s because when you widen the freeway the columns have to be moved, so the bridges are affected.