Speak Out

Dear Ms. Bechtel: National Forests are created for the multiple uses and benefits of all Americans, and for the sustained yield of renewable resources. Effective management of these resources will provide benefits to the American people, while ensuring the productivity of the land and protecting the quality of the environment. The proposed Irvine-Corona Expressway tunnel project does not utilize the land and fiscal resources for the optimum benefit of the American people as its creation would cut through the protected lands of Cleveland National Forest and local waterways. During the spring of 2009, Inland Empire Waterkeeper conducted a public research survey of 100 residents of Temescal Valley, a community that would be directly affected by the construction of the tunnel, with some of the results included herein. I am a concerned citizen and urge you to reconsider the Irvine-Corona Expressway project in light of the following points: 1. Cost – An estimated minimum cost of $10 billion is too much money to spend during a national and statewide fiscal crisis. Please do not consider wasting such an exorbitant amount of taxpayer money on an unprecedented project. At 64%, valley residents are primarily concerned about the cost of the project. 2. Construction Time – A lengthy minimum of 15 years for project completion does not make the tunnel a viable long-term solution to our transportation dilemma. As the local population grows during the construction of the project, the marginal benefit of the project to each driver will decline to nearly zero by the time it is complete, making it of no utility to easing traffic congestion. At 61%, survey respondents are secondarily concerned about the potential for a situation where both the construction time and cost increase indefinitely as production proceeds. 3. Risk for the National Forest and people – Our National Forests were not intended to be lands conserved for future development projects that would wipe away their intrinsic benefits. The project scope is unprecedented and excessively risky to life and property, with potential cave-ins, explosions, flooding and other construction and long-term risks. The third highest topic of concern from survey respondents, at 55%, fear the tunnel would cause irreparable ecological damage to the forest. 4. Construction Impacts – Numerous years of construction time will cause lasting damage to air and water quality in surrounding communities. The forest would also become crisscrossed by unsightly access roads and other facilities needed to service the tunnel. Residential roads would be impacted daily by truck traffic, and the ever-present drilling operations would be a maddening noise to residents and local wildlife. The change to the physical and visual landscape of the forest is the fourth highest issue of concern to local residents at 43%. I urge you and your consultants to take into consideration the following alternatives to the project: 1. Expand existing freeways – It is sound economic and environmental sense to expand on our existing roadways instead of building new. Valley residents indicated clear preference for the better management of existing roads and primarily supported improving current freeways as a solution to congestion. 2. Implement commuter rail – Residents suggested better mass transit and public transport as the second most common response to solutions for traffic congestion. With technology that already exists and present successful examples (such as San Francisco’s BART), commuter rail is an obvious choice as a long-term solution in alleviating freeway overcrowding. Please consider these alternatives for easing future traffic congestion between Riverside and Orange Counties for the sake of our National Forest heritage and the lives of local residents and commuters.

Email

Full Name

Address Line 1

Address Line 2

City

StateAlabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Zip

Yes, I would like to receive a copy of this letter.