From: MCP FEEDBACK
To: Megan Mettee
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 17:48:27
Subject: Mid County Parkway Project: New Feedback - ID# 1076
Attachment(s): 0

From Anders Wistrom AndersWistromPE@att.net
Message Sent:
The Need for the Mid County Project is not Demonstrated:

The mid-county project assumes that transportation costs (time) is reduced 
with the project.  However, effective transportation of goods and people 
from Orange County, Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors, or from the 
proposed Modal Transportation Center in Victorville to the inland and 
further north and east will require a contiguous transportation network 
with no bottle necks (such as the Corona I-15 intersection, Green River 
along I-91, etc.).  Any improvements east of these well known bottlenecks 
will surely negate any savings provided by the proposed project.

Notwithstanding the lower fuel prices that we are currently experiencing, 
higher fuel prices are inevitable as emerging economies will continue to 
compete for oil.  It is not clear to me and other experts in the field 
that a continued build-out of the freeways is the way forward considering 
that the cost per ton for goods transported by rail is a fraction of the 
cost compared to goods transported by trucks. Furthermore, mass transit 
can more cheaply provide for most of local and commuter transportation 
needs.

Summary General Comments:
The need for the Mid County project has not been demonstrated considering 
future and far-future transportation needs and constraints when fuel 
prizes return to $4 a gallon and beyond and where existing traffic bottle 
necks west, north and south of the proposed project have not been 
mitigated.  A simple linear extrapolation of

Alternatives Evaluation is Misleading and Incorrect:

The evaluation of alternative routes is arbitrary and is inconsistent with 
commonly accepted practices.  For example, different routes have a 
different number of on- and off ramps that suggest different 
transportation needs.  For example, Alt. 9, has fewer connection points 
between the terminal ends suggest a route mainly for truck transportation 
of goods and cross-county commuter traffic.  While routes Alts. 4, 5, 6 
and 7,  with several more connection points, suggest a design that would 
accommodate both local and cross-county traffic.  Given that the 
alternatives are designed with different users in mind and cater to 
different transportation needs, the proposed ranking of alternative routes 
is seriously flawed.  In essence, the RCTC is comparing apples and 
bananas!

Comments on RCTC use of Criteria when Ranking Alternatives:

The following provides a few short examples of errors committed by RCTC 
when evaluating criteria at the planning level to reveal “substantative 
differences” between alternatives.  It is noted that the analysis is 
seriously flawed and misleading.

1.	Construction Cost:   The difference in estimated construction cost 
between alternatives lies within the accepted range -15 percent to +20 
percent of estimated planning level costs.  Assuming $3.1 billion for the 
base cost the planning level estimate range between $2.5 billion to $3.7 
billion.  Consequently, any estimated cost differences of approximately 
$600 million above the base cost cannot be distinguished for this type of 
planning level estimate.  It follows that any ranking based on costs, as 
presented by the RCTC is not only misleading but also fundamentally 
incorrect.

2.	Social/Community Impacts:  The evaluation of noise impacts is lacking. 
The analysis was conducted using a simple two dimensional analysis 
assuming that noise attenuation is constant in the direction perpendicular 
to the proposed road.  The analysis is flawed because noise attenuation is 
also a function of topography and vegetation (e.g. shielding and/or and 
amplifying noise), road grade (e.g. uphill, downhill grades), areas of 
acceleration and de-acceleration (e.g. on-ramps, exit ramps), among other 
factors.  Furthermore, the analysis was conducted for conditions in 2007 
and does not project potential noise impacts for neither already planned 
developments or even built-out conditions.  These flaws seriously 
undermine the validity of the ranking.

3.	Water Resources: Noting that the presented report is a planning level 
study, reported impacts to water resources lies within the generally 
accepted margin of error.  Consequently, based on the information 
presented by the RCTC it is impossible to differentiate between 
alternatives also for this category.  It follows that ranking of 
alternatives based on Water Resources as a criteria is incorrect.

4.	General:  Rankings along other criteria such as Threatened/Endangered 
Species and Sensitive Plant Communities are carried out in a similar 
manner.  Planning level estimates are used as “hard” numbers and any 
observed differences are noted as “substantative differences” without 
considering the inherent uncertainty of such planning level estimates. 
This is not only wrong but also misleading.

Summary General Comments:
Planning level estimates are used as “hard” numbers and any observed 
differences are noted as “substantative differences” without considering 
the inherent uncertainty of such planning level estimates.  Given that the 
reported differences between alternatives are relatively small it follows 
that it is impossible to differentiate between alternatives when 
reasonable .  The methodology used by RCTC is not only incorrect but also 
misleading and provides a false sense of security when in actuality any 
differences noted are too small to make a difference.

Conclusion:
To summarize, the evaluation conducted by the RCTC on how alternatives 
compare DOES NOT reveal any “substantative differences” between the 
alternatives for the majority of the criteria listed.  Consequently, going 
forward with ANY alternative at this point without additional study and 
review would open

Short Biography of Anders Wistrom, Ph.D., P.E.
Anders Wistrom has graduate degree, MSc, in Civil Engineering from the 
Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden (1977), Master of Science, MS, in 
Environmental Engineering from the University of California, Davis (1982), 
and a Doctorate degree, Ph.D., in Environmental Engineering also from 
University of California, Davis (1993).  He has over 20 years experience 
working in both public and private practice as a consulting engineer and 
engineering manager for large infrastructure projects.  He has also 
dedicated over 10 years as a researcher and university professor at Los 
Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico and at University of California, 
Riverside.

Anders Wistrom lives on 16760 Multiview Drive, Perris, Califoria 92570 and 
would potentially be impacted by noise if Alt. 9 is constructed.