Weather | Beachcam
Login | Contact Us | Staff | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic Edition | Subscribe to the paper

HomeNewsCounty News

Opinions differ on 101 traffic plan


Download Podcast  Download this story as a podcast!
Order Photos

If you go

What: Public meeting on the Highway 101 widening at Mussel Shoals and La Conchita.

When: From 6 to 9 p.m. Tuesday.

Where: City Council Chambers, 5775 Carpinteria Ave., Carpinteria.

To submit written comments: Send by Sept. 13 to Ron Kosinski, deputy district director, Division of Environmental Planning, Caltrans District 7, 100 S. Main St., Suite 100-Mail Stop 16 A, Los Angeles, CA 90012.

Video: Highway 101 near La Conchita: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/stip/2004%20ITIP/images/movies/ventura_101.mov

Like the sound of the surf, the steady hum of traffic on Highway 101 is background noise for the people who live in the beach hamlets of Mussel Shoals and La Conchita.

But like the ocean at their front door, the highway sets a rhythm for their lives.

"Oh, totally," said Terry Brown, an urchin diver who has lived in La Conchita for 13 years. "You can't just jump in your car anytime and run get a gallon of milk. If you don't time it right you'll just get stuck."

Plans are moving forward to add another lane on Highway 101 in both directions between Mussel Shoals and the Santa Barbara county line.

The proposal is on a list of California Department of Transportation future projects scheduled to begin in 2011.

The plans, estimated to cost more than $116 million for the six-mile stretch of roadway, will be discussed at a public meeting in Carpinteria on Tuesday.

The project is meant to improve traffic flow and safety by adding a carpool lane in both directions and eliminating the ability for drivers to turn left into and out of Mussel Shoals and La Conchita.

Although officials from the California Highway Patrol said the area is not among the most dangerous in the county, residents beg to differ.

"I can't tell you how many close calls I've seen," said Ray Gann, who runs the Stranded Market produce stand out of a truck parked in La Conchita next to the highway. "It's a dangerous intersection."

Possibly more accidents

In March, Malia Schnackenberg, a 19 year-old Santa Barbara City College student, was hit and killed while trying to turn left out of La Conchita to go south on the 101.

"I wasn't working that day. I was in the house, but I heard the crash, and when I turned to look out the window I saw her car flying down the highway," said Gann.

His 24-year-old son and his son's friend ran to help, but when they got to the girl she was already dead, Gann said.

Although he supports the proposed changes, he worries improvements to the highway will actually speed up traffic and possibly lead to more accidents.

After Gann drops off his younger son at a school in Carpinteria, he comes back to La Conchita but drives past the community intersection, avoiding the left turn. He instead goes farther south and gets off at Seacliff, then drives back north to his home.

"That adds probably five miles to my trip, but it's safer," he said.

That's exactly what residents will have to do under the plan now being proposed.

Another component of the plan includes the construction of a pedestrian tunnel under the highway, giving La Conchita residents access to the beach. Right now they either have to cross the highway or walk through a 4-foot-high drainage canal.

In 1964, state highway officials had promised to put in a pedestrian crossing when the road was widened, several La Conchita residents say, but that never happened.

Residents who also lived through the deadly mudslide of two years ago, however, say that beyond everything else they're concerned about safety.

Just about everyone who lives in the two communities has either seen accidents or knows of people injured or killed along that stretch of road. In some ways, turning in to and out of Mussel Shoals is even more dangerous because drivers have to cross the two-lane highway on a turn, giving a driver less time to react.

Issues not being addressed

From 1998 to 2001, four people died on the roadway between Mussel Shoals and the Santa Barbara County line.

Seventy-seven others were injured in accidents there, according to state traffic data.

Since then, only Schnackenberg has died in a traffic accident, according to information from the California Highway Patrol.

But residents in the two communities have felt the safety issues haven't been addressed.

"It's so dangerous you'd think they would have done something by now," said Elenore Canty, who almost died after being broadsided while trying to turn left out of La Conchita in 1998.

Canty, who used to manage the La Conchita Market and is now an at-home caregiver for Ventura County, suffers from short-term memory loss and hip problems from her injuries.

"I've done a lot of research on that spot, and they were supposed to put in an overpass or a light or something," she said. "They've known for years it's dangerous. I hope and pray that something is done."

While safety is a concern, it appears that it's traffic congestion, which can also be a safety issue, that's finally pushed the project forward.

"It's going to happen," said Mike Bell, chairman of the La Conchita Community Organization.

Traffic averaged about 62,000 car trips a day in 2000 and has only gotten worse, especially during rush hour and on holiday weekends, when traffic jams can extend several miles in both directions. State studies show the numbers will grow to more than 100,000 trips a day in the coming decades.

Bell has worked with residents trying to come up with compromises everyone can live with. Some residents didn't want an overpass, for instance, that would have blocked their ocean views. They wanted ways to get on to and off the highway, but they didn't want to increase the traffic coming into their small communities, said Bell.

Even the issue of closing off the left turns was tough to agree on. It comes at certain costs, especially for the hotel at Mussel Shoals and for residents trying to quickly get places.

"But I've polled the community, and I think we all agree it needs to be closed for safety," said Bell.

It would make it harder to go south out of La Conchita or north from Mussel Shoals, but most residents already avoid making those turns. The plan also would include extending the onramps and offramps for both communities.

Residents have brought up a few issues related to the plans. Gann, the roadside produce seller, wonders if spending an estimated $5 million just on the pedestrian tunnel is a smart move, when the existing drainage tunnel could be reconfigured for less. Gann said he also would like state officials to consider moving the freeway away from the existing location and closer to the hillside, possibly solving the erosion problem in the process.

Brown, the La Conchita urchin diver, wonders how long the "fix" will last.

"I think it's going to reach capacity pretty quickly," he said. "People already go fast, theyll just go faster with an extra lane. That will increase the noise and pollution. I dont know, I guess Im just leery about whatever the state or county does."

Discussions

Posted by GlenWilcox on August 24, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's see, that's $19 million per mile. Seems like you should be able to BUILD a freeway mile for that much. At Caltrans, common sense seems to have left the building.

Posted by BeaHappi on August 24, 2007 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No kidding! And $5 million for a pedestrian tunnel? I'd love to see the budgets to know how these estimates were arrived at.

No one should have to cross the highway to get to the beach and those turn lanes are very dangerous. How much does a walking bridge cost? Why not something like that?

No wonder it takes so long to get anything done...

Posted by surfmedic91 on August 24, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why not hire some of the illegals that are waiting to be deported. I bet 50 of them could do it for $100K in less than 6 months. Pile all the debris into the surfline and create a new reef.

Posted by Common_Sense on August 24, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The key to public funded projects is the deep pockets of the public agency paying for them. That is one of the reasons public works projects are so expensive. They screw us taxpayers. Recall the $50,000 Nasa hammer, etc of years ago.

Another part of this equation, and probably a significant one and the reason public agencies are willing to pay this much (other than the fact that they dont see it as their money), is the more $$ they spend, the longer the job can run (no pressure to finish quickly because a companies profits are not at risk) and thus they can employ more people for longer periods of time. Thus the reason such things like the 101 bridge took 7 years. Recall the Northridge quake. Many bridges went down yet new ones were built in a matter of months. Why? Because there was incentive to get them done due to the negative impact on the eeconomy caused by the roadways being down. There is really no incentive for this to be done and an upside in regards to employment to have it take a LONG TIME, which is obviously expensive when it comes to labor costs.

Posted by Face on August 24, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

$116 million so that "Oh Totally" can get his milk faster? Someone must be doing the dope. Make a pedestrian crossing or put in a light. This is absurdity at its finest.

Posted by potatoebay on August 24, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only real solution is an overpass. You may have to give up some view for safety. This isn't an easy problem to solve. If it was easy, it would already be in planning.



Discuss this article
(Requires free registration.)

Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.

Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.

We do not allow the following:

  • Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
  • Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
  • Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.

Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn:

Loading videos... If you don't see them shortly, you may need to download the Flash Player.