The Foothill South toll road--in whose interest, exactly?
The California Coastal Commission has already said no way. Now the fate of the proposed toll road 
through San Onofre State Beach lies with the Bush administration--and given the administration's distaste for environmental protection and near-hostility toward parks, that can't be a good thing for the "Save Trestles" crowd.
But the feds aren't supposed to just decide based on how much they like the road. The criteria are supposed to be narrow--the road's supporters are supposed to show that it's in the national interest, overriding local and state interests.
The Transportation Corridor Agencies have come up with some creative arguments for why the road, which would travel the length of the inland canyon that's also part of the state park, as well as running through a nature preserve in south Orange County, is in the national interest. Like it would make coastal access easier. Actually, I always thought coastal access was supposed to mean people's ability to use the beach up to the high tide line, not to provide high-speed transit from, say, the desert. Another argument involved quick evacuation in case of an accident at the San Onofre nuclear plant. Not only has the plant been operating for decades without one, but it's odd to think that residents of San Clemente, by far the closest community to the nuclear plant, would escape it by driving south to the entrance of the freeway.
The editorial board has taken a stand several times against the toll road, and a new editorial is in the works. But the federal government's involvement raises different questions to address about the road. Exactly what should it mean for the toll road to be in the national interest? Here's a place for all of you who didn't get to speak at the big Del Mar hearing to have your say. A summary of the toll-road agency's viewpoint, sent to me by its public affairs person, is after the jump.
Photo: L.A. Times
1) Furthers the national interest in development of the coastal zone. 241 provides an alternative evacuation route, serving the national interest in public safety on a nationally significant transportation corridor. The Federal Highway Administration agrees – noting the lack of alternative routes for re-routing of traffic and commenting on the risks to the region if the 5 is not functioning. Also noted that evacuation plans fro the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station rely heavily on I-5
2) Involves the priority consideration given to orderly processes for siting major regional transportation facilities and in improving mobility on the Interstate Highway System. The purpose of the project is to provide relief for I-5 – the most important transportation corridor of the second largest metropolitan area in the nation and a primary corridor for goods movement and international trade between the US and Mexico.
3) Furthers the national interest in providing access to the coast for recreational purposes. The coastal commission has made formal findings that congestion on this portion of I-5 interferes with coastal recreation access. (findings regarding north county transit district’s railroad passing track extension)
4) Furthers national interest in improving, safeguarding and restoring the quality of coastal waters by installing water treatment system along 2 miles of I-5 that are currently untreated.
5) Furthers national interest by assisting the state in complying the federal Clean Air Act requirements. The 241 is a transportation control measure identified by the EPA and the Air Quality Management District as necessary to meet clean air standards. While the emission benefits of any one TCM may be modest, in the aggregate they play an important role. As a practical matter, no single project would be likely to provide the equivalent emission reductions for the 66 lane miles of the 241 within the South Coast Air Basin.
6) Furthers national interest by providing improvements to enhance training mission at Camp Pendleton. The Marine Corps has acknowledged the project will provide important training and infrastructure improvements.
* A project is of significant and substantial national interest if it will benefit large metropolitan areas. The 241 will benefit 21 million Southern California residents
* The national interest is furthered by the activity outweighs the adverse coastal effects
* No reasonable or available alternative. Alternatives proposed by opponents violate state design and safety standards, have enormous community impacts and have no source of funding – thus they are not reasonable and available.
* State and federal transportation funding is in crisis – highway trust fund depleted
* The Secretary’s review is de novo – does not focus on the rationale underlying the objection.
The Federal government has no authority which allows them to dictate state decisions. Let's fight for State Rights.
Posted by: Jim Hieatt | October 10, 2008 at 04:33 PM
You will all someday tell your grandkids what a beautiful canyon, and surf spot this used to be...when it's gone, it is gone!
Count the examples, and what a precedent to set for our national parks.
Posted by: RALPH | October 10, 2008 at 04:19 PM
THIS ROAD IS THE VEHICLE TO BUILD THOUSANDS OF HOMES ALONG ITS CORRIDOR. MAKE NO MISTAKE.
IT IS A "FOR PROFIT" VENTURE THAT WILL LOSE MONEY UNTIL THE HOMES AND STRIP MALLS ARE BUILT TO SUPPORT IT.
MORE HOMES AND RETAIL IS JUST WANT WE NEED.
ITS BULLS*%#.
HAVE WE NOT HEARD ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WOES OF THE OTHER TOLL ROADS, IF THEY ARE LOSING MONEY ON THOSE WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO BUILD A NEW ROAD THAT WILL NOT IMJOR THE MOST CONGESTED PARTS OF THE 5 / 405?
IT MAKES NO SENSE...FOLLOW THE MONEY......
Posted by: ron | October 10, 2008 at 04:13 PM
As it happens, R.H., I live in south Orange County. Not as long as you have.....a mere 24 years. I think we've seen from the comments on both sides here over the past few days that there is room for disagreement on this issue no matter where people live.
Posted by: Karin Klein | October 08, 2008 at 07:18 PM
I have lived in San Clemente 31 years. Yes, the area has grown as many other places That is why the 241 was originally plotted to join the 5. This should have been built 5 or 10 years ago. There is hardly a day that the I-5 north and south are not clogged bumper to bumper. There is only one way in and one way out. We have much truck traffic coming from San Diego south. The two right lanes are taken over by trucks. When there is a crisis, accident north or south the freeway quickly becomes jammed. Many will get off and try to get through on the side streets which quickly become jammed. If we had an accident at San Onofre, within minutes we would have no way out. We must have an alternate route SAP. If we don't build this road, transportation south or north will become impossible. People in Los Angeles know what their traffic is during peak times and they have many alternate routes. L.A. Times before you start judging a situation why not come down and spend a few days here and then maybe you can write a True Story?
Posted by: R H. Thomas | October 08, 2008 at 06:13 PM
I have asked this question for the past twenty-plus years: " Why is the SR241 directed to the Coast rather than easterly from the SR74(Ortega Hiway) along the Riverside/San Diego Counties Line connecting to I-15 in the Temecula Area? THAT would provide access for many, many more people from both eastern and western areas. I realize the I-15 is crowded; however the I-5 CANNot handle anymore traffic than it currently has.
Please consider this alternative. Costly? Yes; however, Cost Effective in the "Long-Run".
Posted by: R.K. Dickey | October 08, 2008 at 04:17 PM
The people who oppose the toll road all seem to focus on their little world, and not on the big picture and the big future of Orange County. If people are so concerned about the developers and the number of people in the area, then why have they not started a campaign for negative population growth or a campaign for people to move away and build on some other pristine land in Arizona (have you seen around Phoenix lately? It used to be wide open spaces, too).
You see, the population continues to grow and it happens all around the world. In fact, this is what allows our nation to remain economically strong so that we can continue to enjoy the lifestyle we have (housing, clean water, national safety, hope for a future as an American, and stuff like that). In fact, this is why you and I are here and living in Orange County! We are here because of the weather, the jobs, the beauty. Unfortunately, none of us want to pack up and leave it to help keep it in the pristine condition it once was back in the 1600's. Sad, but true.
So now we have to find the compromise between keeping it all pristine, and allowing people to live here freely. This brings us to where we are now. Currently, the 241 dumps off onto Oso Parkway and creates a lot of excess traffic that flows over to the 5 or takes Antonio Parkway down to Ortega Highway and then onto the 5. When Rancho Mission Viejo is completed (this isn't up for debate, it is simply what is coming), the situation will just get worse.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't be building at all. Couples would only have one child, and we would only need the existing homes and buildings we have in the world today--possibly even tearing down buildings as the population shrinks away to zero so that the land can go back to what it was before we set foot on it. But that isn't reality.
Developments like Rancho Mission Viejo have made their plans so that over 2/3 of the land remains untouched--not a bad compromise if you ask me. Following Rancho Mission Viejo, we will watch as homes and buildings in our county are torn down- and people are displaced- so that new multi-family developments can pack more people into the existing space. Welcome to California!
The extension of the 241 is simply preparing for the future of the county, without using tax money to fund the project - it will only charge those who use it. Without the toll road, six new lanes for traffic need to go somewhere else - most likely the I-5. Now, just try to imagine the equivalent of the El Toro-Y (where the 405 and 5 come together -- 9 lanes on each side!) being placed in Mission Viejo, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano. Now, imagine all of the people who would lose their existing homes to accomodate such a project. Sad, indeed.
I appreciate that mass transit is a better idea, but Los Angeles and Orange County just didn't grow in a manner that allows for mass transit as the only means of transportation. Maybe in the future, after all the homes have been torn down in favor of high rises and we resemble San Francisco, mass transit will be practical. At the moment, mass transit only works as a supplement to our vehicular needs. Furthermore, if something does happen at the nuclear plant, you and I are not going to be waiting for a train.
In the end, the 241 is a compromise. If the builders of that road have not made enough accomodations to save the surf, save the Indians, save the gnat-catchers, save the salmon, save the frogs, save the flowers, save the people from themselves, then no builder should ever be allowed to build again because something is going to get trampled.
The 241 is doing what needs to be done to alleviate a condition that is here and only getting worse, but everyone wants to make it out to be the bad guy. Without it, we will pay through the nose in tax dollars to rip out existing homes and upset families to build a wider freeway. We will also spend more on gasoline (is that what we want to support?). We will damage the environment with more smog and greenhouse gasses while we sit in traffic on the 5 freeway, Oso Parkway, Antonio Parkway, and Ortega Highway. We will lose more people to traffic collsions and emergencies where help can not get through due to a traffic jam. We will all lose time in our lives as we struggle to get home and to work.
So, if we like it or not, without the 241 we will just keep losing. Is that what you really want so that you can rescue a wave that may or may not be hurt? Is that what you really want so that you can enjoy that weekend of camping that you so proudly drove your gas-guzzling RV to get to? Is that what you want so that you can live a life in harmony with nature at the expense of everyone elses' lives?
Posted by: DJ | October 07, 2008 at 03:29 PM
We live in south San Clemente a short distance from the I-5. Over the thirteen years we have lived here the traffic on the I-5 has increased dramatically. It is now commonplace for traffic to slow to stop and go conditions during times of the day that were once almost unheard of. We also live in the shadow of the San Onofre Nuclear power plant and with the memory of the Trade Towers crumbling to dust on 9-11 still fresh the I-5 is absolutely incabable of handling a crisis situation.
The completion of the 241 is desperately needed. It's time for the powers that be to move forward. Lets get the 241 completed.
Posted by: Don Moery | October 07, 2008 at 01:16 PM
No to 241 Toll Road.
1) Public lands trump 'privatized' highways.
San Onofrore State Beach campground. While owned by Dept. of the Navy, the land could revert to the State if and when the Military opts to release it's interest. Contrary to other posts, San Mateo campgrounds offer a more rustic camping experience, often preferred over the rather barren parking lot of the cliff side camping.
2) Urban redevelopment.
Best alignment for new high-volume traffic corridor will require massive urban redevelopment. An unfortunate reality brought about by political unwillingness to craft truly workable options in the long term. Loss of homes and businesses will undoubtedly occur. The actual number of those affected is clearly debatable. Allocating land from the planned developments an applying it towards highways seems like a reasonable shift. The land is planned for development; merely shift the development from homes to traffic infrastructure.
3) Faulty planned residential development.
Placing development schedules of homes ahead of infrastructure is foolish. Such patterns require reactive political scrambling in order to mitigate traffic congestion and other ills of faulty planning. Wiser solution is to revisit the 14,000 units planned, and phase development post-infrastructure.
4) Continual traffic congestion.
Regardless of what traffic engineer or traffic planner says, the old axiom of “build it and they will come” applies to roadway expansions as evidenced in numerous transportation studies. Additional capacity, even in the form of alternate routes, is purely a short-term solution. Time after time, capacity expansion leads to more travel and thus the 'old' traffic congestion simply is held at bay for a time.
5) Fallacy of job creation.
Testaments to job creation are merely old-guard appeals to the admittedly lucrative multi-year construction contracts. I suspect that if one of the other SR 241 alternative routes was being seriously considered, the final contracts for both demolition and construction in urban areas would be even more lucrative to the skilled trades. The construction unions are valuable and their arguments for seeking more jobs are reasonably expected. Their deeper political allegiance is misguided. Any massive contract possessing even a small chance of seeing political approval will gain the unions support. Union interest in the project terminates immediately once any project is completed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Posted by: Lucien Belmont | October 07, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Come on now people of southern California and Orange County, let’s be honest with ourselves and recognize the real aspects of the SR-241 Completion Project:
• The San Onofre beach areas will NOT be directly impacted! (ref. the story of the little surfer boy and his surfer father reviewing the large aerial project map during the day of at the 9/22 Hearing. The little boy exclaimed to his father that the Toll Road will NOT come anywhere near the beach!!
- If a little boy can use his common sense to see that fact, it begs an answer to where the rest of the project opponents’ minds are really poised.
• Yes, the SR-241 Completion Project will cross Subunit 1 of the San Onofre Park, but it will NOT impact the cherished areas of Subunits 2, 3, and 4 – all along the beach.
- Subunit 1 is located inland and is comprised of very sparely populated vegetation including scrub oak, thistles, and stunted desert plants. This is not exactly a pristine ecological environ with lush green grass and thick trees. You can see the Campground on MSN’s (internet) and using the Birds Eye feature, view the entire extent of Subunit 1. While looking at the nearby campground, you will note that the term “campground” may be inappropriate term, because there are mostly RV motor homes and RV trailers PARKED in the camping spots. You’ll have to look hard to find someone actually camped-out with a bedroll like the cowboys of days long past. That’s probably because the ground area is hard, dusty dirt, which is really best-suited to stinging red ants, black widow spiders, and any one of California’s five species of rattlesnakes.
• Yes, the SR-241 Completion Project will cross Subunit 1, all situated on land owned by the US Government and leased to State Parks with:
- provision requiring the State to properly manage the area, and
- a provision for TERMINATING the lease at ANY TIME!!, and
- a specific EXPIRATION date. (this is NOT a lease in perpetuity!!)
• Yes, the SR-241 Completion Project will provide funds for the future operations and facilities development of this park and others. (Gov. Schwarzenegger will not have to run to Washington to plea for additional funds to operate San Onofre State Park).
• Yes, the SR-241 Completion Project will take some land of Subunit 1, but it compensates by preserving the natural resources of other areas, many factors larger than the SR-241 footprint on Subunit 1. As most of you know, the SR-241 project alignment across Subunit 1 was favored by the US Government, instead of directly impacting the Marine Corps Base. So now do you get it, people of California? The lease area of Subunit 1 of the Park most-likely will be terminated by the US Government unless we ALL recognize that the Park and the SR-241 Project must work together for the benefit of ALL!
Posted by: Dale Nuelle | October 07, 2008 at 11:07 AM
PS:
the park issue -- the park is not owned by the state, it's leased from the Marines. So saying that the park is something that Californians will have forever is simply not ture. It's way inland from the beach and is mainly used as a place to park your stuff but most of the visitors are at the beach. It is adjacent to some fields that the Marines currently lease for agriculture but that's not a forever thing either..
The toll road will skirt the fringe of the park, it's not going right through the middle, as some have characterized it. The toll roads are used mainly during the day during peak traffic hours, so the impact at night to campers will be minimal. (the more desirable beach camping is RIGHT NEXT to I-5 -- so by comparison the toll road will be hardly noticible). The Marines may decide to use those agricultural fields for training. If so, then the impact from the road will be inconsequential compared to the marine's combat training.
Posted by: Meg | October 07, 2008 at 09:59 AM
I support the toll road 100% because:
-- we need the traffic relief
-- 14000 homes have already been approved for development in the area, without the road there will be massive gridlock
-- the road was carefully planned protect the environment.
-- Trestles will not be harmed at all, according to Fish and game and many other studies.
-- the whole "save trestles" campaign is a red herring -- it gets people all fired up but the truth is Trestles has already been saved. The toll road won't change/impede/alter or destroy trestles at all. In fact, the water runoff filtering (which will also filter runoff from I-5 which currently goes straight into the ocean) will make the water cleaner at Trestles. So, if you really want to save trestles, you'll support the road.
-- Right now, trestles is separated from I-5 by a 1/2 mile stretch of open space. The toll road will not touch/alter or impede that at all. The toll road will connect on the OPPOSITE SIDE (EAST) of I-5. there will be no visual impact from the beach, and if you are surfing you might catch a glimpse of the road connector on the other side of I-5 but I doub't you'd be paying much attention.
-- there is no funding to expand I-5 and even if there was funding, widening would not create an alternate route out of south county or san clemente.
--other routes are either more environmentally damaging or require homes to be condemed.
--and don't even get me started on trains/trolleys/ and other public transportation. I'd love to see it too but it won't happen in our lifetime.
Posted by: Meg | October 07, 2008 at 09:46 AM
There is only one reason the TCA is pushing this project on us, around us, and through us -- their developer supporters want to be able to build new tracts in South County but don't want to pay for the road capacity to mitigate the additional traffic their projects will create. They want us taxpayers to pay for that instead while they pocket the profits. Enough, already!
This was the only reason for the 73 toll road -- which bisects Laguna Coast Wilderness Park, irrevocably damaging the public's park and negatively affecting the wildlife there -- and it allowed Aliso Viejo to be built at taxpayer expense. Now they want to AGAIN pave over public lands... which were supposed to be set aside as mitigation of open space for their earlier developments, not to mention a popular state park.
If they really wanted to do what the law requires and provide sufficient road capacity for their projects, they could build it themselves on their own property or pay to widen the I-5. But they have no intention of doing that as long as they can get the TCA to back their schemes and get us taxpayers to pick up the tab for them... AGAIN.
There is absolutely no other reason for this road system to be built. No one has ever before mentioned the need for emergency exit routes in case San Onofre blows its top -- somehow I doubt that public safety is motivating the TCA in any form. If I-5 needs relief, then widen it or double-deck it or provide alternate transportation options which would disturb public lands -- already bought and paid for by us, the taxpayers, and owned by us and future generations -- to a far lesser extent. As I said before, enough, already!
Posted by: Melissa | October 07, 2008 at 09:33 AM
The traffic is there. The need is there. The Jobs are there. Let's build it!
Posted by: Fair-n-Balanced | October 07, 2008 at 09:13 AM
The signs should read "Save Trestles From Riverside Surfers" because that is what objections to the 241 extension are all about.
It is not about anything else except we do not want more surfers in the water at Trestles.
When we used to surf Trestles in the late 50's we thought it was crowded if 10 people were in the water.
The bottom line is we need the traffic congestion relielf that the 241 extension will bring.
Posted by: Ernie Schneider | October 07, 2008 at 08:12 AM
I gave the following testimony before the Commerce Department on September 22.
My name is Sally Cruz-Wright, Vice-Chairman of the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians, identified by the Office of Federal Acknowledgement, as petitioner 84B.
I stand before you today as a living testament to the existence of the Acjachemen People. A people who once occupied the village of Panhe. A village that has been estimated to be 9000 years old. The village of Panhe that is in what is now known as the real O.C., but traditionally known as the Acjachemen Nation. A village that was in existence long before America was reportedly discovered as taught in American history by Columbus in 1492. I stand before you as a living testament to the existence of a people and a village that can prove their existence prior to the birth of the United States.
When my mother was growing up her father would not allow her to wear her hair long unless she kept it curled, because uncurled she looked too Indian. It was my grandfathers attempt to shield her from a racial bias that was directed toward those of Indigenous heritage. She was shunned by the other children she went to school with, they would not hold her hands because they were stained black by the walnuts she picked to help her family survive. I also grew up feeling the shame of looking too Indian, I would not allow my mother to braid my hair…because it made me look like the Indians on TV.
I mention these things as examples of what has been taken away from the Indigenous American. Our identity, our language, our culture, our land, our heart. We have given up much to be assimilated into a society that would only accept us if we denounced who we were. A society that drove us to shame of being Indian. A society that we never really accepted, that we never really felt comfortable with. In today’s modern society there is a new found resurgence and the Indigenous Americans are proud to proclaim their ethnicity.
On Sept 19th 2008, a meeting with the TCA was held on Panhe. During the course of this meeting events unfolded that brought to the forefront the toll the continued fighting to protect our villages and sacred sites is taking on our elders. During this meeting a statement was made by an elder of this tribe, that we cannot hold back progress, progress is inevitable, the toll road will go through, and Panhe will be impacted. This elder suggested that we agree to the offer made by the TCA of 5 acres to replace Panhe, a place that we can use in perpetuity, a place that is not sacred to our people. Once this statement was made, I stated to how dare you speak of this in front of our guests, speak this way on Panhe, I am ashamed.
The emotional impact of my elder’s statements led me back to Panhe as the morning dawned Sept 20th, 2008. As I stood on the ridge at Panhe, and I listened to the wind a understanding came over me. The look of emotional detachment I saw on my elder’s face was in fact the look of pain. The words of defeat she spoke were actually words of exhaustion.
Panhe is regarded as a sacred site by the Acjachemen People. It has a cultural and religious significance to my people; this is where I come to refocus, to renew my inner spirit, to lay my problems down. This is where I come to speak with the ancient ones for guidance in the decisions I make. This is where I come to feel the wind and the comfort of my ancestors. This is where I come to honor them; this is where I call home, the home of my Indian heart, my Indian knowledge, my Indian passion, my Indian fire.
For the reasons stated above, I beseech the secretary of commerce to uphold the ruling made by the coastal commission.
Posted by: Sally Cruz-Wright | October 07, 2008 at 12:06 AM
The proposed 16-mile extension of the 241 is needed for many reasons. These reasons include but are not limited to:
1)unclog congestion on Interstate 5
2)improve public safety by serving as an alternate evacuation route from both San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station and Camp Pendleton.
3) provide access to the new communites in South Orange County
4)increase access to beach areas
It will also provide access to areas of the Ranch that most would never have the ability to access or see.
The Ranch has built some of the most respected, beautiful communites in the US, the future development (which is land they own, and for which they have full entitlements) promises to be just as impressive with an incredible amount of open space.
The toll road and the development that will occur in that area, are the ideal development for the area and will only enhance the surrounding communities, and be place for future generations to cherish.
Support appropriate development that will preserve the open space, provide saftey routes and enhance the community.
Posted by: Eric Altman | October 06, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Let's get things in perspective. We are talking about traffic convenience versus a park. CA State Parks are put aside in PERPITUITY for the enjoyment of people and protection of our natural & cultural heritage. THEY ARE NOT HOLDING SPOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, DAMS, ROADS, ORPHANAGES, ORGAN DONOR BANKS, DAY CARE CENTERS, GATED COMMUNITIES, GOLF COURSES, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AIRPORTS, POWER PLANTS, SCHOOLS , TRANSMISSION LINES, SUPER JUNKMARTS, ETC. They are BLACK HOLES as far as development is concerned. DO NOT USE OUR PARKS FOR YOUR PET PROJECTS. That goes DOUBLE for habitat reserves that was put aside as mitigation for development. Go around or build somewhere else. You may think the parks and nature reserves are the path of least resistance, but this campaign has shown you were VERY VERY WRONG in your assessment of the opposition. It also reveals your skewed list of priorities, and how your value open space: a commodity and nothing more. Privatize profits, socialize costs. It is the oldest tactic in the playbook.
By the way, does anyone out there really believe that traffic on the 5 will somehow improve if the 241 extension is built? PLEEEEASE. The TOLLROAD makes money by deliberately causing congestion on the free roads - they don't want improvements on the 5 or the potential bond holders won't get a return on their investment. The ONLY VALID purpose EVER for that road was to get people from South County and Northern San Diego County to the International Airport at El Toro. Guess what will never be built: THE AIRPORT.
You can't solve congestion by building more roads - it's like buying a bigger belt to solve an obesity problem. It doesn't work and it doesn't address the fundamentals of what causes gridlock.
My favorite comments in favor of the 241 have to be: "improving access to the coast", “improving water quality in the San Mateo delta”, and “decreasing emissions”. Road kill is TCA’s solution to wildlife management.
Posted by: K W | October 06, 2008 at 10:37 PM
The toll road will NOT hurt Trestles. I repeat the toll road will NOT hurt Trestles. It's a total lie!
And, that's why I'm soo angry. Far too much is at stake in the world for groups like Sierra Club and Surfrider to be engaged in false scare tactics and mistruths to simply gain membership and millions of dollars in contributions. This is all about "ENVIRONMENT, INC." baby! Lots of BS, bloated egos, bulging bank accounts and salaries to match.
"Save Trestles" . . . "Save Trestles" they repeatedly extol to us surfers and we respond with our trust, thousands of hours of volunteer time, millions of dollars in contributions and unqualified extensions of our hearts. The problem is they're lying and they know it. Scripps and others have shown them for what they are -- liars!!
This is nothing more than organizational greed and the need of certain individuals to create a following. Mark "Messiah Complex" Massara of the Sierra Club is more interested in public attention from the adoring crowds and wooing his latest "hottie" from the audience than the need to be honest and tell the truth. His disciple Mark Rauscher from Surfrider is equally bad -- just not as smart. These are indeed dangerous qualities when you place these types of people in a position of influence or power.
We surfers should demand more from our "leaders" than greedy lies. I'd expect it from our traditional enemies not our own. That's my point "they" are NOT "us!"
Surfing is, above all, about our souls and connection to this planet. As long as the Sierra Club and Surfrider are actively engaged in lying about this road -- they have no soul and do not deserve to be protected and/or promoted by the surfing community.
You can fool me once . . . .
Posted by: sanOsurf | October 06, 2008 at 09:20 PM
I am for the continuation of the 241. Living in south county and having major bumper to bumper traffic south bound on the 5 going through San Juan capistrano and San Clemente on the weekends is redicuous! 3 hours to San Diego (90) miles...With all the unused land east of the freeway and not using a fraction of it for the 241extensionis is not smart. The traffic wastes gas, adds to the local polution and needs a soultion.
I would be willing to bet that a majority of the opponents never drive in that traffic on the weekends. As far as the surfers, that toll road is not going to change any wave break.. so whats the problem and I have been surfing Orange county beaches for 40 years too !
Posted by: Tom Morrison | October 06, 2008 at 08:06 PM
Major infrastructure is always a compromise of competing values. Obviously if the only consideration was the immediate environment, nothing would qualify to be built.
HWY 241is an essential element in improving traffic flow which translates into less oil consumption and more efficient use of people's time. We are in an energy crises with a concern for climate change, so the oil savings is significant. We are also in an economic crises and time is money and access is employment.
Global Commerce in the San Diego Region alone amounts to $53 Billion. The I-5 and I-15 corridors north to the ports are reaching capacity. HWY 241 will help avoid limiting the tremendous economic multiplication provided from Global Trade. Again, all these trucks will be more efficient if the flow is according to standard engineering tolerances rather than slug flow.
While there are some legitimate scientific environmentalis providing a respectful counterpoint, the vast opposition consists of C.A.V.E. people. Citizens Against Virtually Everything. Our National Economy and Security requires a balanced and practical look at the the project. I think it is clear that HWY 241 should be constructied as soon as possible.
Posted by: David Nilson | October 06, 2008 at 07:00 PM
People, please.
The following points have been established ad nauseum, but I'll repeat:
1.) 241 is not an "escape route." San Clemente citizens would have to drive Toward the Nuke Plant to get on the toll road. Got that? Toward the disaster to avoid it.
2.) It won't "relieve congestion on the I-5." The 5 is Free. People in South OC choose free over toll right now at the rate of 5 or 6 to 1. Toll roads are so under-used right now OCTA is proposing toll subsidies-- unproven, with no identified source of funding-- to try to get these assets utilized. Which leads us to,
3.) 241 doesn't Go Anywhere. Look at a map. Go on, look. The I-5 serves San Diego, South- Central- and North-OC, LA, and-- together with the 405-- all places people want to go.
The 241 serves the newest, tiny, OC boutique communities. It connects San Onofre with the 91 Freeway-- already the most dreadful road in OC. You'd have to be dumb, rich beyond belief, or both to pay $15 to get off a road that actually takes you somewhere to get on one that dumps you on the 91. Seriously.
There are two kinds of 241 advocates: those who work for TCA or real estate interests in some capacity, and those who simply don't think things through.
Just because a government agency-- abusing it's authority in the process-- promotes a lame road doesn't make it less lame.
Posted by: pete van nuys | October 06, 2008 at 06:37 PM
The Coastal Commission hearing was a complete joke. At best it was a kangaroo court held for the misguided fringe on the outskirts of the environmental movement. The hearing was filled with complete misinformation from those that oppose the completion of the 241 Toll Road. Thank God for the Commerce Secretary who agreed to hear from the public and did not allow the harassment of pro Toll Road speakers so that the every one could have their say prior to an informed decision.
It is unfortunate that those that don’t want the road would resort to scare tactics with misinformation concerning the project. I’m glad that we now have an agency looking at this project that will do its homework and will understand the difference between the truth and fiction. It is now time to complete the 241 Toll Road!
Posted by: Duane Cave | October 06, 2008 at 05:56 PM
There is so much misinformation on this message board it is truly stunning.
TCA is not a private company, but a public government agency.
San Mateo Creek is hardly the "gold standard" of water quality. It is the repository of water runoff from the I-5 that is completely untreated. It's also completely dry about 99% of the time.
Widening the I-5? Ask Caltrans... it would take out hundreds of homes... and we don't have the $2.5 billion to do it anyway.
The truth is that for all of the wishing for trains, monorails or magical transporting boxes, we're going to be reliant on cars for the next 100 years. They may be electric cars or hybrid cars, but they are going to be cars and they are going to need roads.
The comments from some of these folks are amazing in their refusal to acknowledge the facts.
If ignorance is bliss, this is Eden.
Posted by: Ignorant Masses | October 06, 2008 at 05:30 PM
if its one thing, south orange county needs, its the toll road, the traffic is horrible and there in no alternative way out of san clemente.
they have already determined that there will be safeguards inplemented for the inviroment. this is for all of us.
Posted by: dean lewis | October 06, 2008 at 05:27 PM