From: Ralph Hileman
Date: * No Date *
Subject: Letter for Public Record-MCP/EIR/EIS Proposed for Riverside County, CA.
Attachment(s): 0

From: Ralph Hileman, Resident of Lake Mathews Estates, Chair RAGLM 
14176 Grande Vista Ave. 
Perris, CA 92570 

This note is to oppose the Mid County Parkway (MCP) Project proposed for Riverside County, CA.  I urge you to adopt the no-action alternative because of the numerous and significant environmental impacts that will result from the MCP.  Being the cut-off date for public input on the EIR/EIS is Thurs. Jan. 8, 2009, I wish to have this e-mail entered as part of the public record on that proposal for a parkway/freeway. 
  
This freeway is not needed,  the cost  is not even close to reasonable,  there are no available funds to build it with, they don't know how other needed funds will be generated, they don't know how the freeway will pay for itself once built, it will be a huge taxpayer burden, it will not do what it was designed to do or what they claim it is designed to do, it has too many impacts on health, pollution, noise, habitat and rural living, it does nothing to aid local job creation, it will not be efficient, there will be far too many impacts on developers and impacts created by developers due to increased development around the freeway as a buffer. 
  
There is far too much mitigation still under way with this project.  This will add a horrendous cost to the already 3.5 billion dollar cost to build.    Riverside County Transportation Commission's (RCTC) own reports show this project cannot pay for itself.  In looking at 53 projects using measure "A" funds on a benefit to cost ratio, this project rated 46.  They say this is about moving traffic between San Bernardino and Corona.  It's not.  It's about goods movement from Long Beach to March Air Base and for that you need the tunnel punched through on the other side of the 15, at the Cleveland National Forest.  The tunnel project rated 52 and 53 on RCTC's Measure "A" benefit to cost ration study of Oct. 23, 2006, done by Bechtel Corporation.  Building this over some 20 years, as money is generated and will inflation costs over that time period make this project unreasonable and a waste of taxpayer dollars, and at a very critical financial time in this country. 
  
The route was moved to this location in spite of the fact that RCTC's own staff told them that the location should be on the 74.  RAGLM had proposed this years ago. DHL has left March Air Force Base, throwing all the big plans for the second largest transit hub right out the window.  We would be far better off expanding the 74, putting the trucks on it and widening Cajalco to four lanes, as has been the counties plan for many years now.  Put the residential traffic on Cajalco Rd. and truck traffic on the 74.  SB375 will pull many of the trucks off the roadways so this freeway/parkway will serve the area as planned.  The county of Riverside could put this money to far better use on the roadways they want to expand and the new roadways they have in the works.  Please tell RCTC to stop this project and let Riverside County deal with its future traffic needs. 
  
SB375 and the Healthy Communities component of the revised Riverside General Plan will call for a need for agricultural lands to be preserved in order to grow and supply Riverside County residents with food.  Riverside gets a large amount of its pollution from winds blown into the area.  This makes proper planning of roadways that create more greenhouse gas emissions even more vitally important for this area.  This parkway/freeway will not do that.  The Mid County Parkway doesn't serve the residents in the rural communities it cuts through, because they can't get on and off the thing easily and RCTC's own EIR states that the freeway could likely cause added travel time for the rural communities effected by this freeway, thereby generating adding greenhouse gas emission, not reducing them. 
  
Records show increased fires when major roadways such as these go through open, rural, habitat areas.  These fires create their own wind, blowing the fires into the rural communities, taking out homes, animals and human lives and dropping a huge cost bill in the lap of taxpayers.  CA has already set it self up to be one of the highest fire area in the country.  Lets not add to that with this project, that runs through so much of Riverside's habitat area.  As this freeway goes up a 4% grade and brings in bridges to do that, how do we stop smokers from throwing cigarettes out their car/truck windows as they drive over these sensitive habitat areas and starting brush fires that then destroy the habitat area, homes and lives the bridges were said to protect? 
  
The Press Enterprises showed Gavilan Peak and this big undeveloped piece of land next to it, in their Mon. Jan. 5, 2009 edition of the paper, section "A:.  They said that the freeway will go in just to the right of the peak.  What they didn't tell readers is that on that parcel of land are the plans for some 400 plus homes and the first school (K-6) to come into this rural area. 
  
We have all read and heard about the health impacts to children when they live or attend schools close to these major roadways.  This proposed freeway will run between Gavilan Peak and the school.  The children could lose years of lung growth and health officials are seeing the kids they have studied now suffering breathing complications in their early thirties.  Many of the residents in these rural communities moved out to them for their heath, because they already suffer breathing problems.  They have done their due diligence in protecting their health and minimizing the healthcare costs placed on taxpayers.  Now RCTC will force them back into hospitals and damage their health by bringing the freeway here and forcing them to suffer further.  Many will not be able to afford to move, and where would they go? 
  
This 400 plus project has negotiated Open Space areas within the project with the county and now RCTC plans to cut right through it and block off trails that the communities have been using for years in this very equestrian area of the county.  The new revised General Plan to go before the Supervisors sometime this year will allow for rezoning along these major roadways.  What is now rural residential will become or permit commercial construction.  This then dissects the rural community, the Open Space and habitat areas into smaller and smaller pieces.  Then high density development goes in as a buffer to the urban and rural areas from the commercial areas.  This leaves very little rural area left and forces those with a rural lifestyle to give that up as animal keeping codes then change due to the added development in the area.  Addressing how the trails will cross or go under the freeway is yet another Mitigation issue that is being addressed, but has it's cost been added to that 3.5 BILLION DOLLAR cost or will it be just another "Over-Run" cost added on at the end? 
  
In mitigating the Open Space and Habitat issues that will be effected by this freeway, how do we protect those lands?  Area residents took on double density development in trade for Open Space Habitat.  The county promised us residents that doing this trade (density transfer) would not open the door to other developers with the same double density type projects and also promised that the Open Space lands would be kept as Open Space Habitat in perpetuity ... meaning forever.  Yet some of the mitigation talks are of trading Open Space lands in effected areas for Open Space lands somewhere else in the county.  RCTC can't just come in and undermine promises made by the county to the residents of these areas. 
  
On the other side of the roadway from the Gavilan Peak is another project, called Belle Meadows.  The project has an equestrian staging area set up in the project plans to meet the needs of the community as a whole and to make the project more comparable with the equestrian community and habitat sensitive areas within and around the project site.  RCTC will run this proposed freeway right through where the staging area is set to go in.  Running this freeway through both of these two projects, that have about double the density allowed for this rural area, will basically require higher density development along the rest of the freeway and around it. 
  
The Mid County Parkway (from the I-215 to the 15 freeway) came in 46th, out of 53 in an RCTC study of Measure "A" projects.  What did the analysis look at?  Value of time saved @ $10 per hr., which came to $4,810,000.00.  Value of distance Saved @ 40 cents per mile, which came to $7,990,000.00.  Value of energy consumption saved @ $3.19 gal, which came to $150,000.00.  What will that cost really be in 20 years, when this project may still not be finished?  Value of air pollutants saved @ Cal Trans current rates, which came to a negative  $417,788.00.  Value of accident reduction savings @ Cal Trans current rates, which came to $5,486,232.00.  In this report it was estimated that this portion would cost 1.931 billion dollars.  The benefit to cost ratio for the MCP from the I-215 to the 15 rated 0.0.  What does the rating look like once we add in all the cost over-runs that are sure to come? 
  
The EIR says that this freeway is to: “Provide a parkway that is compatible with a future multi-modal transportation system.”  When this freeway isn’t set up to conveniently allow area residents access to and from the freeway, how can it be “good” for area residents and what will a “Multi-modal Transportation System” do to the communities as a whole?  Multi-modal is another term for more then one means of transportation.  This open the door to things like future train routes along the Mid County Parkway/Freeway and very large, 70' plus long trucks and trucks that could be 6' and wider?  This will add far more greenhouse gas emissions to this habitat rich area. 
  
Taking into account the state of our economy, the amount of time before this freeway will actually be completed and the rising costs, it is clear that this project has been under estimated and would cost far more then the EIR states. 
  
The MCP is unnecessary and ill conceived. Existing infrastructure like Cajalco Road and the Ramona Expressway are already undergoing widening and will  serve the traffic needs of the area.  These Improvements will provide a financially and environmentally responsible alternative to the MCP. Its current cost of 3 to 3.5 billion dollars will likely balloon as the project encounters delays and problems due to protracted environmental permitting and litigation; it will also lead to residential sprawl in undeveloped areas that will require costly public services which cities and the county must provide and area residents do not want.  Rural lifestyles call for very little county services and the residents want it that way.  This freeway will force these residents to take on added services and the costs for those unwanted services. 
  
I urge you to adopt the no-action alternative to the MCP and choose environmentally and financially sound alternatives for growth and development in western Riverside County and southern California. 

Ralph Hileman 
Chair, Residents Association for Greater Lake Mathews 

Reply to r.hileman@ieee.org 
909-229-3546 cell or 951-780-3947 msgs