Overheated And Absurd On The 241 Tollroad Completion

My favorite parts of today's OC Register story on the latest delay in completing the 241 tollroad are these passages:

The fact that the road would loom over the San Onofre State Park campground, as well as slicing through the middle of the park, also was a major concern, [California Coastal Commission coastal analyst Mark Delplaine] said.

"Looms"? The road "looms over" the campground? It's not just near it, but loooms over it -- as in, to "rise before the vision with an appearance of great or portentous size."  Kind of like how the Dark Tower of Barad-Dur looms over the land of Mordor.

Not only that, this looming quality is apparently an actual "fact."

No, we wouldn't want to simply state that the Foothill-South comes within 385 feet of the inland San Onofre State Park campground. Reader must be convinced that it looms menacingly (is there any other kind of looming) over the campground.

Then there's the rhetoric of California Coastal Commission staffer Mark Delaplaine, which is pretty over-heated and hyperbolic for a guy who's supposed to be a presumably objective analyst.

"The campground is a huge issue," he said. "It's almost unconscionable from our perspective – a highway that close to a campground valued mostly for its pristineness. We think it destroys (the park). It becomes unusable. You're not going to want to go there. It's such a breath of fresh air in Southern California; just a priceless resource."

Why should Mr. Delaplaine even bother completing his staff report, when it is pretty obvious what conclusion he plans to reach?

It is so unconscionable for "a highway [to be] that close to a campground," I imagine Mr. Delalpaine would support demolishing the section of Interstate 5 that runs right by the beach camping portion of San Onofre State Park and moving it further inland. After all, the I-5 is much closer (225 feet) to the beach campground -- where 90%  of park visitors go -- than the 241 route is to the inland campground. And clearly those thousands of visitors don't think the I-5 "destroys" the popular beach campground and renders it "unusable."

Hmmm. The tollroad would be 385 feet from the comparatively lightly-used inland campground and will have a soundwall. The I-5 is 225 feet from the heavily-used beach campground (and has no soundwall).

Funny how that comparison never makes it into news stories.

As for "pristineness" -- get real. The inland campground is nice -- but it's basically generic Southern California scrubland:

If you listen to the rhapsodic descriptions of tollroad opponents, you'd expect to find Adam and Eve strolling around, perhaps among this pristine stand of old growth powerline towers:

Mr. Delalplaine's absurd comments fly in the face of common sense and experience and should rob him and any report he has a hand in of credibility as an objective analysis. I would urge as many Orange Countians as possible to tour the proposed route for themselves, in order to better equip themselves to see through the over-the-top rhetoric and untruths that emanate from opponents of completing the 241.

UPDATE (3-2-07): The question of whether the 241 completion is a "PLA" project has been raised in these comment and by liberal blogger Andrew Davey. No doubt 241 completion opponents hope to spark some conservative opposition by claiming it's a PLA project. Andrew, by the way, has devoting many pixels to anti-241 blogposts that mix the patina of authoritativeness with blanket a priori assertions of truth -- which curious since Andrew didn't know until I told him on Monday that San Onofre State Beach is federal property leased from the Defense Department, that they have a say in selecting the alignment and they prefer the chosen alignment.

In any case, I spoke with Lisa Telles of the Transportation Corridors Agencies about the PLA rumor. She said TCA has made no such requirement and leaves all labor arrangements to the construction contractor. In this case, the contractor uses master labor agreements (MLA) as a matter of course, and is obtaining its labor and an MLA on this 241 completion.

Comments

[NeoN D. SuRFeR]

all the road would do is open up more land for development, and would do ZERO to ease traffic.

Save Trestles for the surfers...

NN
http://sanonofre.com/blog

[Art Pedroza]

Jubal/Matt,

Is there a PLA on this project?

[Put down the bong surfer dude]

Neon Surfer, you set a new record for the most wrong information in the smallest amount of space:

1) 14,000 homes in Rancho Mission Viejo have been approved. They're coming. Toll Road or No Toll Road. If Foothill-South isn't built, they'll just use the city streets in Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, etc.

2) There are currently a quarter million cars per day on the Toll Roads, imagine if those quarter million cars were on the freeway. This idea that a new road at one of the most congested chokepoints on the freeway wouldn't relieve traffic is ludicrious at best.

3) Save Trestles? Why, is it going somewhere? There is ZERO evidence that the Toll Roads will have any impact on the water quality of Trestles at all.

By the way, here's a trivia question for you, do you know why it's called Trestles? Because there is a TRAIN TRACK that runs right along the beach.

You may consider its construction delay a victory, but doing nothing isn't going to solve the traffic problem.

[Jubal]

Art:

I don't know. I'm looking into it.

[Paul Lucas]

No need Jubal I can assure you there is a PLA on this project.

[Art Pedroza]

Paul, Thanks. If that is the case, this project needs to be opposed.

[Jubal]

Really, Art? The existence of PLA would outweigh all other considerations?

[Art Pedroza]

Jubal/Matt,

For me it would.

[Jeff Flint]

It doesn't matter whether there is a PLA or not, because it clearly would be a prevailing wage project.

[flowerszzz]

Someone tell me....I know the Board of Supervisors, about 5-10 years ago, vote for the PLA for all county public works projects over a certain $$ amount? Did that PLA have an expiration date on it? I am confused because I was under the impression that it did not expire ...so I am thinking that all this talk about if it is a PLA project or not is a waste of time because it has to be PLA...correct?

[Art Pedroza]

Jeff,

Wrong. I have NO PROBLEM with prevailing wages. I do have a problem with forcing contractors to send their employees to the union hall, and then hiring them from the union. Go to http://stoppla.com/ and see for yourself. PLAs are a terrible wrong and we should NEVER support projects that have PLAs on them.

[Jeff Flint]

Art:

I wasn't commenting on whether PLAs are good or bad. I support free markets. But in California, any project using public money has to pay prevailing wage, and the way we calculate wage essentially means the union scale, so on most public works, they end up using union labor whether there is a PLA or not. That was my only point.

Jeff

[Art Pedroza]

Jeff,

I will admit that many of the larger construction companies, particularly those in the highway construction business, are union shops. However, not all of them are. My point is that it is unfair to force the open shops to submit to PLAs. Only one party benefits from that - the unions. We as taxpayers get screwed in the process when the bidders are limited, the costs go up and the delays set in...

[Andrew Davey]

Thanks for the nice birthday gift, Jubal. Your site has provided me some much needed inspiration for my weekend post on Calitics . And oh yes, I did know about the federal issue. However, the federal government has NOT GIVEN APPROVAL for TCA to build the toll road...
And while we're at it, NEITHER HAS THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION NOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SANDAG) (and both of them also have jurisdiction over this project). Nice try, but I'm working hard to do my homework on this project. Whenever I write essays on big topics like this, I always remember to do my research.

But still, thanks for the mention. ; )

[Jubal]

Andrew:

You were very surprised when I told you San Onofre State Beach was federal property -- that the state merely leases it. It was clear you didn't know that.

And nowhere did I say the Green alignment has been approved by the federal government -- which in this instance would collectively mean a few federal agencies. I said it was the route the DOD prefers.

[Jubal]

I just read your Calitics entry where you say you were "being quiet out of courtesy" to me. I'll take you at your word.

[Bladerunner]

First as to the PLA, Jeff is right....since this is a prevailing wage project there would be no additional cost factor. With public works projects of this size all bidders are familiar with and often work with PLA's. Both the large union and non-union companies that work with PLA's also have the economic wherewithall to put down a bond which most of the small non-union companies do not have the capacity to do. In Southern California there is no difference on major public works projects in costs. PLA's don't make sense for smaller projects where many of the bidders would be non-union companies who have a small but stable closely held work force. On this project though , no difference in cost, notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary.

Second, as to the substance of this; wouldn't it be a good idea if people got out of the box and started thinking about some alternatives---like getting DOD to agree to an alternative route; or trading some beach property for that property taken out of the Park; or having the Toll Agency purchase federal or private land to compensate for the STate park land being used? The alternative to the toll road is a widening of the I-5 with the resulting huge cost of eminent domain for homes and businesses. And, of course, for the lawyers. Why not factor in a good chunk of that potential cost and purchase some federal or private land that would create an even better Park then now exists?
The money saved on lawyer fees alone would pay for a greenbelt into Christianitos Camp.

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

Well, this barely matters anyway considering the TCA is now being sued by, of all people, Rancho Mission Viejo, who claim the so-called "Green Alignment" chosen by TCA violates a previous agreement between the two bodies.

Ratchet up that lawsuit count to FOUR: Two from the district attorney's office, one from Natural Resources Defense Council, and one from Rancho Mission Viejo, the only private landowner impacted by the 24l.

I hope you've all been well, I've missed posting here.

[Art Pedroza]

B/R,

No. You and Jeff are wrong. There is more to construction than the wage level. Open shops have a lot more flexibility than union shops, which have to abide by sometimes arcane work rules. Moreover, PLAs limit bidding by essentially excluding many open shops. Less bidders = higher bids = higher costs. This isn't rocket science...nor is it political science, putting most of you at a disadvantage. Again, go to www.stoppla.com and see for yourself.

[Bladerunner]

no Art, you are wrong. As you yourself admit, the large highway projects are virtually all union. And thats what we're talking about here. The big boys bid on these projects, PLA or no. So your arguments are FUBAH.

And spare us the biased web sites. Those people are paid to fight unions, prevailing wages and PLA's. You will get the same type of "we're always right and the other fella is always wrong" analysis by going to the construction trades web sites. If the private sector construction company wants to use a PLA, that's their business.

[redperegrine]

Blade:

FUBAH? That's new one on me. Of course I'm familiar with that old favorite: FUBAR. Does "H" stand for "Hope"?

[redperegrine]

BTW, you're both right. With a PLA in place subcontractors have to hire out of the hall - pay prevailing wage and the union benefits burden, and handle the paperwork, etc., all of which has to be monitored for compliance by the GC and a little army of paperpushers working for the unions and the gov't.

It's also true that many public works contractors and subs have MLAs in place anyway. The latter is supposed to guarantee stabilty and harmonmy (i.e. no strikes) but could be assessed by a cynical person as a form of extortion. The costs are passed along to the taxpayers.

[Mr. Pavement]

Nice try, but I'm working hard to do my homework on this project. Whenever I write essays on big topics like this, I always remember to do my research.

Oh please, Andrew. I've read your posts. Your "research" consists of copying-and-pasting text from anti-241 websites and sections of news articles sympathetic to your viewpoint.

That's regurgitation, not research.

[Art Pedroza]

B/R,

PLAs are not needed. CBAs are already in place. The only thing you accomplish with a PLA is to shut out non-union bidders. You cannot even say that they prevent strikes, because historically they have failed to do so more than once.

I know shops that are signatories to CBAs and even they don't like PLAs. They are a political abuse and should never be allowed when public money is involved. If a private owner wants to screw himself with a PLA, that is up to him or her. But when public money is on the table, we should all be allowed to bid - assuming we meet project bond and financial criteria, etc.

[Kevin D. Korenthal]

I have studied and written extensively on the subjects of PLA and prevailing wage. The fact that this project would be covered under existing prevailing wage law is precisely why there should not be a PLA.

PLAs force the 85% of the construction industry who is union-free as a condition of employment, to:
1) Pay union dues
2) Pay into union health, welfare, and pension plans (this in addition to the plans the contractor is already invested in),
3) Be hired through union hiring halls
4) Use only state approved union apprentices

Since a Prevailing Wage project requires that the contractor have wages and benefits in line with that law, the merit shop contractor is guaranteed to get hit twice for benefits PLUS he must pay Union dues on behalf of each of his workers.

PLA's unlike prevailing wages are outright discriminatory. PLAs Implicitly discriminate against a group of people who happen to be out of political favor. In the case of PLAs, it only serves two purposes: to reduce competition by decreasing those willing to bid this work such as the PLA that led to only one qualified bid on the new LAPD headquarters, and to classify a whole group of people as unfit to work on a project paid for with their tax dollars. This is an outrage. You are by no means, in any way, shape or form a "conservative" if you make excuses for why PLAs are EVER acceptable or harmless. Conservatives use t and reason, not emotion to explain their positions. The only benefit of a PLA is to give the unions a larger cut of the action and that is an emotional, not a factual reasoning.

[Bladerunner]

RP--Bingo....hope is the right answer. And the definition varies depending on the company you're in if you know what I mean.

You hit the nail on the head with the MEA's. On most major projects delay is death(read major bucks)so MEA's or PLA's or PSA's in certain situations make sense. Notwithstanding Art's flamethorwing, both public and private sector general contractors will take advantage of the benefits which include not only what you refer to but also expedited resolution of disputes, workers compensation carveouts to save substantial $$$ in work comp premiums and ensuring quality control.

Art continues to make erroneous(any company can bid on these projects unless there is a pre-qualification provision which has nothing to do with a MEA, PLA or PSA) or irrelevant(Compliance programs do assist in reviting out prevailing wage violaters but don't provide the additional protections) claims. I'll say it again---these agreements don't make alot of sense when you have alot of small mom and pop contractors bidding. But those aren't the bidders on the 241. it's the big boys--they're almost all union signatores or work on union jobs enough to be familiar with the paperwork. Most of the non-highway government PLA work gets bid through non-union companies who don't hesitate to bid because they know they will make a profit.

RP- some of the unions are very competitive and work well with these agreements. But for smaller trades which are not so heavily unionized it does pose a problem-- some of the smaller trades seem to survive on these type of agreements. But this is not an issue on a major highway project. Which gets us back to Jubal's point--whether there is such an agreement or no shouldn't be the deciding factor on support or opposition to the 241. It should rise or fall on the substantive merits.

[Leonidas]

Good grief. How can so much nonsense be put into such a small amount of space by so many ignorant people in such a short time? Focus like a laser beam PLA fans:

1) PLAs are used by some union bosses to keep their market share from falling off the cliff all together (curently the unions make up less than 18% of the construciton workforce in CA.)
Anyone that wants to pretend that PLAs are anything other then that shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. When the OC Register and the Oakland Tribune call out PLAs for that they are, you know there is something wrong with them.
2) PLAs have NOTHING to do with prevailing wage. It is paid regardless and is based on a modal rate which means it's union scale (we are one of only two states to have such a stupid, wasteful modal rate). While taxpayers should be outraged, it is not part of this discussion, period.
3) The "argument" that PLAs are O.K. because "most heavy construction is done union" is as irrelevant as it is ignorant. What % of "heavy construction" is union? What is considered "heavy construction"? (Answer: anything unions actually have a majority of workers in, which ain't much). If only one company out of 100 is non-union in the "heavy construction" world and the PLA due to its discriminatory aspects keeps them from bidding, does that still make the PLA O.K.? How about letting the market work here instead of some fat union boss and political hack determining how people should work?
4) OC's PLA did have an experiation date on it and it died thanks to the new majority on the board (ask Cynthia sweetheart how she likes PLAs now) didn't fall for the unions promises this time (how is that new El Toro International airport?).

If ANY project has a union-only PLa it should be killed. Any Republican that supports a PLA should be beaten from the party. Ignorance on that grand of a scale in cannot be tollerated. The D's have plenty of room for those types.