TOM FUDGE<\/a><\/p>\n May 18, 2011<\/p>\n<\/div>\n SAN DIEGO\u00a0\u2014 Residents of San Diego County\u2019s north coastal areas feared Interstate 5 would balloon to 14 lanes under a freeway expansion plan put forward by local planners and politicians. But a bill by State Senator Chris Kehoe would limit the expansion to two additional carpool lanes in each direction, bringing total lanes to 12.<\/p>\n Enlarge this image<\/a>Photo by Bill Morrow<\/p>\n Above: Interstate 5, north of La Jolla, would not be expanded to 14 lanes under a bill that goes before the State Senate appropriations committee on Monday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The chairman of SANDAG, the local planning agency, said that part of the bill has the agency\u2019s support.<\/p>\n Kehoe\u2019s bill, SB 468, was introduced as a way to force the expansion of I-5 to wait until mass transit projects in the area were complete. That bill met stiff opposition from SANDAG planners and other people who thought it would unreasonably postpone the freeway’s completion.<\/p>\n The \u201ctransit-first\u201d elements of the bill have since been eliminated. They\u2019ve been replaced by compromise language intended to protect air quality and the wetland environments close to the coast.<\/p>\n The possibility that the freeway would expand to 14 lanes was by far the most controversial piece of the I-5 plan. The large freeway footprint would have given the I-5, between La Jolla and Oceanside, 10 general-purpose lanes and 4 carpool lanes. The notorious \u201c10+4\u201d plan would have required condemnation of hundreds of properties.<\/p>\n Kehoe said her legislation would prevent that.<\/p>\n \u201cMy bill would maintain the smaller footprint of the road,\u201d she said. \u201cIt saves almost all of the 400-some homes and properties that would have been taken by the bigger footprint.\u201d<\/p>\n The bill goes before the senate appropriations committee next week. People who have fought the widening of I-5 reacted in a positive but cautious way. Steve Goetsch of Solana Beach, founder of the Committee Against Freeway Expansion, said the bill sounded like a step in the right direction but the final outcome is still be up in the air.<\/p>\n \u201cThis has a lot of moving pieces and it\u2019s hard to keep track of,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Those moving pieces include the California Coastal Commission, which must approve construction permits, and CALTRANS, which has final authority over the freeway expansion.<\/p>\n Jerome Stocks, chairman of the SANDAG board, said the bill\u2019s language that limits I-5 expansion to 12 lanes is not a big deal, because the agency was never determined to build a 14-lane freeway. Stocks added that SANDAG reexamines its Regional Transportation Plan every four years, and things could change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n http:\/\/www.kpbs.org\/news\/2011\/may\/18\/state-law-would-limit-expansion-i-5\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reprinted from the San Diego Union Tribune: TOM FUDGE May 18, 2011 SAN DIEGO\u00a0\u2014 Residents of San Diego County\u2019s north coastal areas feared Interstate 5 would balloon to 14 lanes under a freeway expansion plan put forward by local planners … Continue reading ![\"Interstate](\"http:\/\/kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com\/img\/photos\/2011\/05\/18\/I-5_t250.jpg?2fda506767b58ed02cfc53b8db969377bec8c5c0\" "\\"Interstate")
<\/a><\/p>\n
![Enlarge this image<\/a>Photo by Bill Morrow<\/p>\nAbove: Interstate 5, north of La Jolla, would not be expanded to 14 lanes under a bill that goes before the State Senate appropriations committee on Monday.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nThe chairman of SANDAG, the local planning agency, said that part of the bill has the agency\u2019s support.<\/p>\nKehoe\u2019s bill, SB 468, was introduced as a way to force the expansion of I-5 to wait until mass transit projects in the area were complete. That bill met stiff opposition from SANDAG planners and other people who thought it would unreasonably postpone the freeway’s completion.<\/p>\nThe \u201ctransit-first\u201d elements of the bill have since been eliminated. They\u2019ve been replaced by compromise language intended to protect air quality and the wetland environments close to the coast.<\/p>\nThe possibility that the freeway would expand to 14 lanes was by far the most controversial piece of the I-5 plan. The large freeway footprint would have given the I-5, between La Jolla and Oceanside, 10 general-purpose lanes and 4 carpool lanes. The notorious \u201c10+4\u201d plan would have required condemnation of hundreds of properties.<\/p>\nKehoe said her legislation would prevent that.<\/p>\n\u201cMy bill would maintain the smaller footprint of the road,\u201d she said. \u201cIt saves almost all of the 400-some homes and properties that would have been taken by the bigger footprint.\u201d<\/p>\nThe bill goes before the senate appropriations committee next week. People who have fought the widening of I-5 reacted in a positive but cautious way. Steve Goetsch of Solana Beach, founder of the Committee Against Freeway Expansion, said the bill sounded like a step in the right direction but the final outcome is still be up in the air.<\/p>\n\u201cThis has a lot of moving pieces and it\u2019s hard to keep track of,\u201d he said.<\/p>\nThose moving pieces include the California Coastal Commission, which must approve construction permits, and CALTRANS, which has final authority over the freeway expansion.<\/p>\nJerome Stocks, chairman of the SANDAG board, said the bill\u2019s language that limits I-5 expansion to 12 lanes is not a big deal, because the agency was never determined to build a 14-lane freeway. Stocks added that SANDAG reexamines its Regional Transportation Plan every four years, and things could change.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nhttp:\/\/www.kpbs.org\/news\/2011\/may\/18\/state-law-would-limit-expansion-i-5\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Reprinted from the San Diego Union Tribune: TOM FUDGE May 18, 2011 SAN DIEGO\u00a0\u2014 Residents of San Diego County\u2019s north coastal areas feared Interstate 5 would balloon to 14 lanes under a freeway expansion plan put forward by local planners … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-contemporary-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=337"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":339,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/337\/revisions\/339"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mediation.lawreaves.com\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"http:\/\/kpbs.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com\/img\/photos\/2011\/05\/18\/I-5_t700.jpg?f40c0e74b997dbb01ce524758e0d04a31382c8af\"){kind=link}