Date: 07/18/95 07:34:17 AM
From: Scott T Boyd (scott@hax.com)

Subject: A history of the Devil's Slide bypass project.

Someone asked....

>can someone clear something up for me??  what's the big deal with the
>tunnel??   i've heard that the tunnel would be cheaper and easier to build.  
>this defies logic for me........can someone clear it up?

The short of it is this - tunnel experts are saying that a tunnel that
would satisfy the requirements of the Local Coastal Plan would cost in the
neighborhood of $60 million.  Shank/Balfour & Beatty submitted an informal
bid for $65 million, with the possibility of reducing the cost if softer
rock is discovered as they dig.

Caltrans disagrees (they insist on a much wider tunnel, and estimate cost
at over $120 million).  Nevertheless, Caltrans is currently placing the
cost of a freeway over the mountain at $82 million.

$60M < $82M

That's the cheaper part.  Easier comes from this simple observation:  Given
that tunnels tend to have little or no environmental impact, approvals from
all of the permitting agencies should go a lot faster (especially since the
current environmental studies documents are technically stale and will, at
the very least, need to be updated if not entirely redone).

In addition, the litigants have made it clear that they would not oppose a
tunnel, whereas they would almost certainly start additional litigation
should Caltrans choose to not obtain an evaluation of a tunnel's
feasibility.

For lots more details, please check out the web site at:

http://www.montara.com/

>i would love to be pro tunnel
>
>so someone convince me, okay? :)

Well, don't try to read it all in one breath... Actually, the material
below isn't aimed at convincing you one way or the other.  You can make up
your own mind, and what better way than to get informed.  For lots more
information, covering much more of the entire scope of the issues, check
out the web site.

>oh yeah.....and why does cal trans seem to not even want to consider the
>tunnel?

Caltrans began the planning for a 6-lane coastal freeway to extend to Point
Conception (that's down near LA) back in 1958.  The design for this was
done in 1965.  Every county to the south of San Mateo county rejected the
plan.  San Mateo didn't.  Nevertheless, the election of Governor Brown
ushered in a new era of no more major highway projects.  Stymied, the
Caltrans engineer who designed the freeway, a Mr. Trombatore (sp?), waited.
Sure enough, Brown eventually was replaced by Deukmeijian (did I butcher
the spelling?), and Mr. Trombatore became head of Caltrans.  The new head
of Caltrans District 4 (our district) reported that the number one Caltrans
priority, as told to him by his boss, Mr. Trombatore, was the freeway (now
affectionately known as The Bypass).  Caltrans revved up their engines and
started the project up again.

[warning -- serious time passes here, and I don't have all of my notes in
front of me to guarantee appropriate time frames and event ordering, but
it's the rough spirit of things I'm trying to convey here.]

Now this got a number of folks mighty interested.  Many of them got
together and met with Caltrans to request that an environmental impact
study be done.  This group included (forgive me, I can't remember them all)
the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Committee for Green
Foothills, the Sierra Club, and several other groups.  They met.  Caltrans
said no way would they do an impact study.  The groups threatened legal
intervention.  Caltrans stuck to their guns.  The threat might have been a
bluff, but a surprise (single person) donor came up with a chunk of money,
enough to get things rolling, and the lawsuit was filed.

In the ensuing 10 years or so (pun intended), the court case has been in
front of two judges (the first one died), and Caltrans has been required to
do quite a bit of environmental impact studying.  They might have gotten
away with doing no study at all, but these watchdog groups got the court to
hold them to a higher standard.  I hope to put together a list of the
court's ruling so people can see just what Caltrans was required to do that
they didn't want to do.

Ironically, had Caltrans gone ahead and done the study when they first set
out to build the project, they would have been done long ago with the
entire project.  Environmental laws back then were far less restrictive,
McNee Ranch wasn't a state park, the Monterey Bay and Fitzgerald Marine
areas weren't protected by powerful laws, and the EPA and Army Corps of
Engineers had far less stringent guidelines.  Caltrans has done quite a bit
to bring this on themselves.

While many of the players at Caltrans have retired or moved on, it's a
place with a long sense of history, and many people work there for entire
careers.  This battle seems to be something of a grudge match for some of
them, and conversations with a few people there seem to bear this out in my
(limited) experience.

Other factors have been suggested for why Caltrans wants to build a bigger
road.  I'll mention these for completeness.

- Bigger roads means more development.  The causal effects are well known.
For example, every time Florida widens the roads on island areas to make
evacuation during hurricanes easier, more people move in and the roads get
clogged again.  NPR even did a show on this topic.  Most (roughly 95%?) of
the undeveloped land between the mountain and Half Moon Bay is owned by one
or two companies (depending on whether or not anyone can nail down whether
they're the same company or not).  The holdings map is shaded mostly in two
patterns.  The first and largest is the Half Moon Bay Development Holdings
(or somesuch), a subsidiary of Westinghouse (which has done much of the
development on the coastside, and is responsible for South Wavecrest, I
believe).  A good chunk of land is owned by a consortium that apparently
intends to build golf courses, one just south of the mountain, and another
across from the HMB airport (to go along with the intended three story
shopping center at the airport).  Some suggest that Westinghouse and others
have a large financial stake in ensuring that they get to develop.  

- anticipation of the eventual need for wider roads.  Caltrans is a "build
it once and forever" kind of organization.  They suspect that they'll
eventually be called upon to widen the road (in spite of the fact that the
Local Coastal Plan, which is the law, requires rural stretches of Hwy 1 to
be 2-lane only).  Every plan they've shown to date, including their tunnel
estimates, would allow for at LEAST four lanes, and perhaps as many as six.
A Caltrans official told me one day (at the Half Moon Bay High School
meeting right after the road closure) that he doesn't trust us to limit our
growth.

A snippet of interesting history -- It used to be that, when Caltrans
decided to build a road, they'd go before the Highway Commission to present
their plan.  It was quite typical, at the time, for the Caltrans spokesman
to be immediately followed by "The Developer", who would present the plans
for the buildout of both houses and businesses, showing where they would
all fit nicely along the new highway.  At one such meeting, strangely, the
commission chose to deny the request.  A certain Mr. Trombatore, an
imposing figure, got up from his seat in the back, marched down to the
front, and in his best Kruschev manner, pounded his fist on the table and
instructed the commission to change their decision.  They did.

- jobs.  Building freeways is a good way to spend lots of money.  Many
construction workers, architects, haulers, and so forth get to work for a
few years on a heavy construction project.  One bumper sticker around here
says that the bypass will provide 2000 jobs.

- power.  Spending big freeway bucks is a great way for politicians to
score points with two major constituencies.  First, the public always likes
the politician who brings in major non-locally-generated public works
projects to be spent locally.  Second, and perhaps more importantly,
someone has to be the recipient of such locally-spent bucks.  Construction
firms are a great place to find campaign contributions, especially when
they're getting a few million at a whack.

- Finally (phew!), Caltrans has no relevant recent experience in building
tunnels.  One line of thought is that they wouldn't have any cronies to
subcontract the work to.  Another is that they simply don't think in terms
of tunnels because they haven't been building any since the last bore of
teh Caldecott (back in the 70's?).

I encourage you to read some of the documents that are available on the
web.  These include materials from Caltrans and interested third parties.
Many more documents, including all of the Caltrans tunnel documentation (as
provided under a California Public Records Act request) are in the process
of going online.

If anyone has any corrections, clarifications, or other comments on the
above commentary, I welcome the feedback.

Best regards,
scott boyd
Editor, Montara Mountain Free Press

http://www.montara.com/