Ruling on OC toll road could come within days

Environmentalists and transit planners are hoping for an early Christmas present, each hotly anticipating a decision from the U.S. Commerce Department on the fate of the proposed Foothill South toll road. The road would cut through part of San Onofre State Beach's parkland and a decision is scheduled by Jan. 5, but could come within days.

It's been a waiting game for both sides since a Sept. 22 hearing before Commerce officials in Del Mar on the controversial $1.3-billion, 16-mile road that would connect Rancho Santa Margarita in southern Orange County with Interstate 5 in northern San Diego County.

The California Coastal Commission voted earlier this year that the toll road violates the state's Coastal Act because of environmental damage the road would cause. The Transportation Corridor Agencies is appealing the decision to the Department of Commerce.

A quick recap of the years-long dispute: Toll road opponents, which include a number of environmental groups, have blasted the road as an unnecessary boondoggle that will destroy camping at San Onofre State Beach, home to a prime surf break, and hurt wetland species there. Toll road supporters say that the road will be environmentally sensitive, won't harm surfing and is needed to ease gridlock.

As for the timing of the decision, a Commerce Department spokesman was tight-lipped on the matter, declining to speculate on the decision-making process. The announcement will be one of Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez's  last before he leaves office with the Bush administration. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has been nominated to take over the Cabinet post. 

In the meantime, groups opposing the road aren't cheered by the Bush administration's push for changing environmental rules on issues ranging from oil development to endangered species protection. Environmental groups say those rules will weaken existing laws. In addition, officials with the Federal Highway Administration recently rejected toll road opponents' arguments that widening Interstate 5 is a better alternative to building the toll road.

What happens if the Commerce Department overturns the Coastal Commission?

Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas says that he doesn't expect that to happen because there's no basis in law for a reversal.

"Obviously we'll look at a decision and see what the basis was," Douglas said on Tuesday. "The secretary of Commerce can't just say, 'Gee, I like the toll road' or 'I think it's good for traffic relief.' There are criteria that have to be met. But if [a reversal] happens, we'll look at our options. We will not shy away from seeking judicial review of the decision."

Douglas also said that the TCA, which wants to build the road, still must get a permit from the commission to construct the project.

Lisa Telles, a spokeswoman for the TCA, said the agency may also choose to sue if the decision doesn't go its way. "We're going to wait and see what the decision says," Telles said today, adding, "One thing we know that hasn't changed is the need for transportation improvements in south Orange County won't go away."

In other words, however the Commerce Department rules, the dispute is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

--Susannah Rosenblatt and Steve Hymon

Comments

[Still Waiting in Traffic]

In 1981 (before the San Mateo Campground was even built) the road was planned in anticipation of traffic congestion... and we waited... and traffic grew worse.

In 1996 there was an Environmental Impact Report that was certified, but the federal government decided to change the rules midstream in order to "streamline" the process... and we waited... and traffic grew worse.

In 2005 the new EIR was certified and the permitting process began. Many of the federal and state agencies that were part of the decision-making process prior to the EIR certification (remember the "streamlining" process?) were now dragging their heels... and we waited... and traffic grew worse.

Now TCA has nearly every permit needed to build the road, except from the unaccountable, unelected Coastal Commission. So TCA did what any public agency would do when their needed project was rejected for no discernable reason... it appealed the decision... and we waited... and traffic grew worse.

So the Secretary of Commerce will rule on this appeal. If he overturns the Coastal Commission decision, they will sue and we will wait... and traffic will grow worse.

Nearly 30 years and still only one route through this area. No alternate routes through this choke point.

The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station received permission from the NRC to have their emergency personnel get an extra half-hour to get to the Nuclear Plant in case of emergency. They explained that traffic has gotten worse and there is only one route.

Yet still we wait.

And traffic gets worse.

[Steven Chan]

Actually, there are three other routes through this area. There's the Metrolink Inland-Empire Orange County Line, the Metrolink Orange County Line, and there's the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route.

$1.3 billion to subsidize congestion-inducing highways will not let the state meet its air quality goals.

[Still Waiting in Traffic]

Would that be the surfliner route that runs along the beach at Trestles? The one that has dozens and dozens of pillars along the beach that haven't stopped the surf from coming in at Trestles? That train route?

According the Southern California Association of Governments, the completion of the 241 is needed to alleviate the air pollution caused by cars idling on the I-5.

And I don't want to be in the area if emergency personnel for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are waiting for the train to respond to an emergency.

You want to add trains through San Clemente? Try to tell that to all those anti-241 folks down there. Ask Wayne Eggleston if he thinks double-tracking through San Clemente is a good idea. Ha!

Those trying to stop the 241 don't want more trains, they want to stick their heads in the sand, cross their fingers, and hope that will solve the traffic problem.

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

Toll roads do not improve traffic. This toll road would dump MORE traffic onto the southbound 5 freeway at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Toll roads are "Traffic Incentives". Property near toll-road interchanges is especially dear, as it allows for rapid access for employees and customers alike. These employees/customers tend to work in large office complexes and live in multi-car homes. These homes are built in clusters along toll roads. All these drivers add to the congestion on not only the toll road but nearby arteries as well.

The 241 was never about traffic relief, regardless of the spin. The simple truth is that building more roads will not improve traffic. Improving the roads we already have will improve traffic. Widening the 5 is a necessary step and the longer we wait the more expensive it will be.

Respectfully.

[Paul Sez]

I have to laugh whenever I see TCA plants going on and on about how the 241 toll road is supposed to be some sort of "traffic solution" especially in light of the Orange Country Transit Authority's finding that the 241 will do little to nothing to alleviate traffic congestion long term along the I-5 corridor.

If the Transportation Corridor Agencies were in the business of providing traffic solutions, they would be offering solutions as HOV lanes, increased municipal transportation and light rail. But they're not.

Bottom line - the TCA is in the business of doing one thing, and one thing only: building toll roads whether they're needed or not!

[Watcher]

Obviously the TCA hopes for one more gift from the Bush adminstration before he leaves office. Thankfully, the new administration will probably overturn any approval the Bush Commerce Dept might try to issue during the last weeks of his adminstration. If not, I hope the Coastal Commission will litigate any Bush decision in the courts. The new federal attorney general probably wouldn't defend a Bush decision.

[Cindy]

Wow, I see some very uninformed comments here in favor of this proposed toll road. Whether or not the toll road was planned before or after the creation of San Mateo Campground is irrelevant. The plan was a bad one from the start that violated the Coastal Act (among others) whether or not San Mateo Campground or San Onofre State Beach was or was not already there. Laws or whatever was passed a long time ago saying even if Camp Pendleton pulls out, that land is to become either a state park or preserve.

TCA is very well known for their deceptive business practices. They are struggling for life; their roads are a failed experiment. They will say whatever they need to say, whether or not it is the truth, because they are grasping for funding and public support to survive. They have even asked for Federal assistance, taking a large chunk of money away from all transportation needs for our entire country. What business does TCA have building more toll roads when they are already in financial trouble?

The bill creating the TCA and toll roads needs to be eliminated and those roads should be free for all to ride. We already pay for roads through taxes. We should not have to pay to drive any freeway. Our state should fix their financial troubles and not pass off our transportation needs to private companies. Stop developing literally every inch of land left in Southern California and traffic problems won't continue to get worse.

Some think the purpose of this toll road is to relieve traffic. I want to remind everyone that TCA gets what is called an impact use fee of about $4,000.00 for every house built along their toll road. 16 miles of open land with nothing but a toll road. What do you think will happen? How many new homes do you think will fit along that 16 mile stretch of open space? And the only road they will have available is that toll road. What do you think that is going to do for the traffic problem in Rancho Santa Margarita or San Clemente? If you think traffic is bad you haven't seen anything yet. TCA does not care about your traffic concerns, they care about revenue. Tolls and impact use fees is how they make their money. And so far it is not working very well, if it was TCA would not be crying for a Federal bailout.

Now I'm not saying traffic is not a problem or that something should not be done about it. This proposed road has been mis-sold to the public as a false solution. Don't let TCA fool you.

Open space is good for our environment. It helps global warming--miles of concrete and pollution only adds to the environmental problems. The Coastal Act was created to protect our beautiful coastlines. For those of you who might not care too much about that, think of this as revenue. Many travel to the California coast on vacations. Scar the coastline with development, block access to our beaches you are going to take away the reason people come here. Any of you pro-toll road people own a business that travelers may spend $ at? You think twice before you support any coastline development.

The proposed road was in violation of our coastal, environmental and endangered species act from the very beginning and there is no way the proposed route TCA has chosen will ever be compliant. Trestles attracts tourism from all over the world, San Mateo watershed is our last natural creek from mountains to sea, San Onofre State Beach is probably our last undeveloped beach in Southern California. This is more important than another financially failing toll road and the possibly of hundreds of thousands or more new homes and drivers on our already congested roads.

TCA needs to stop pushing for their poorly planned project and stop wasting our tax dollars with court proceedings trying to fight the law. If an average everyday citizen killed an endangered species what do you think would happen to you? But TCA is above our laws and TCA believes they should be allowed to do anything they want.

Abolish TCA! Save San Onofre!

[Julianne Bradford]

The major important issue here is that the TCA wants to take over 60% of a state park. If this decision is reversed a precedent will be set for all other state parks in America. This decision will have consequences that could negatively affect EVERY other state park in our entire country! Take overs of other state parks across America could be accomplished easily. Proponents for "better transportation" would point to San Onofre as a precedent for taking over pieces of our state parks across America. This is an issue that will affect every single state park set up "in perpetuity" for future generations.
This is a huge national issue. Not just a local one. It's not just driven by the TCA to get the decision reversed. It's driven by land and real estate developers that have had development projects planned along the 241 route for years. Real estate developers are waiting for the decision to be reversed. I heard them speak at the hearings. Even with real estate values and the economy suffering, developers want to build thousands of new homes and businesses along the proposed route in hopes of drawing more people on to the 241 pay freeway at $15 a car each way!
If this decision is reversed and a State Park is sacrificed for the 241, we can look forward to articles in papers across the country about how other transportation authorities want to put in a better route to Yosemite or pave over parts of Yellowstone. All in the name of "easing traffic".
241 proponents don't want to find another route. They want to facilitate the builders and developers that want to put in more homes and businesses in the most crowded part of this country. They want access to our future generations heritage and inheritance, Americas' State Park lands.
If this decision is reversed, we will be telling our children that there USED to be a state park system through out America where you could go to see our countries protected natural wonders.When they ask to go to a park we will be left with taking them to Disneyland at $100 a ticket or a postage sized piece of land at the end of a planned community that a developer put a slide and swing set on.

[Chris Evans]

I think it just all boils down to greed. Everyone I have seen in favor of the 241 toll road extension stands to make money from it. Pretty simple.

[Brent]

Really another road for the rich? Who can afford this now? Got to be $8 a day or close to it, how many of you have the extra $160 a month?

[Aaron]

WE DON"T WANT MORE ROADS!!!

If this toll road is built, all of the natural beauty in the canyon that it runs through will be gone FOREVER.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION is the solution, not toll roads. No more big business raping our land for money. NO MORE!

[twigpuddle]

And remember that when we add the toll road and open up the back country for further development...the traffic will get worse. What then?

Just have to drive I-5 into Mission Viejo where a toll road was already built to alleviate traffic. Seems to be traffic there every single day...could it be that building more and more roads does not work?

[Larry92108]

Please do not allow the destructive Trestles toll road.
We can not build ourselves out of the overpopulation problem.
But with Bush having only a few days before he leaves office, I know he will give stong consideration to punishing the people who voted for his opponents by about 1 million votes.

[Vernon Johnson]

This is an emotionally volatile issue, of that there can be no doubt. However, As I stated in my speech before the Commerce Department Councel in the last public hearing, the financial records of the TCA should be evidence enough that it is not a wise investment. I urge everyone concerned (supporters and opponents alike) to review the publicly availbale financial statements. You will find them at http://www.thetollroads.com/home/about_news_annual.htm

Anyone who reads and understands(good luck) this information will agree that this is an already falied government sponsored Ponzi scheme. It should not only be denied the opportunity to commit more financial mayhem, but should be disbanded altogether. It's a flabbergasting example of corruption and greed. I'm just talking about the existing toll roads and not any planned non-existent ones!

I am aware of at lest two occasions in the 1990s where the TCA spent money that should have gone toward paying down the astronomical debt on campaigns to make sure proposed mass transit projects were voted down. Egregious as that was, it is dwarfed by the amount that has been spent on attempts to brainwash the area's citizens of the "need" for the 241 south. There is even a perverse non-compete contract with Caltrans that prevents widening of I-5.

The true reasons this project is being pushed so hard is because the proposed route is the easiest one to punch through (only a few large realatively untouched properties to deal with), and it will support a planned development of over 14,000 new homes and the attendant commercial properties. The local municiplaities cannot resist the prospect of the projected tax revenue. That's all there really is to it. As in the Rancho Santa Margarita area, the residents of this new development will have only one form of free flowing transportation in and out of thier community, you guessed it, a TOLL ROAD.

Forget about the Environmental concerns and the traffic issues just long enough to take a look at it from the MONEY angle. It's tuly outrageous, but no surprise.

[Mark Marchese]

Further discussion, research and or debate is exactly what is needed in this case.The commerce secretary needs to uphold the long deliberated decision to deny the TCA approval to build this road and we as Californians need to look at the options and alternatives available to us that have the least impact on the environment while still furthering the economic and transportation needs of the state. The toll road is a poor solution to California's traffic issues. A major rehab of existing infrastructure is required and in an environment with no funds available in the budget it is even more important not to rush into poorly conceived "quick fixes" like the ones that have brought us here.

[sheldon]

Cindy's comments regarding financing were on the mark. The claim that no public money is used for these projects is misleading at best. Quoting from TCP's application for federal assistance:

“The acquisition costs will total approximately $5.1 billion and be funded with $3.2 billion in tax-exempt senior toll road revenue bonds, $1.1 billion in TIFIA loan proceeds, and $800 million in cash on hand. The acquisition proceeds in total will be used to defease all of the outstanding bond indebtedness of SJHTCA and FETCA incurred in connection with the planning, designing constructing and financing of the System.” Application for $1.1 billion in federal loans from the FHWA under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (“TIFIA”), 23 U.S.C. 601-609, June 8, 2008, Ex. 77.

Note the words: "tax exempt". That certainly represents a public subsidy, and a significant one. And any doubts as to who the bond holders will turn to if the bonds don't perform?

Regarding performance: Taken a drive lately on the 125 extension in south San Diego county? Based on casual observation of the amount of traffic on that route, it seems highly doubtful that current revenues exceed expenses.

I applaud the honesty of one TCA speaker at the last public hearing. I didn't record his exact words, but I think I accurately paraphrase here: "we need the jobs and associated benefits to the economy that this project will generate." Or, more succinctly "it's about the money". In these times, good jobs are needed. But it doesn't take much imagination to find valuable investments to support, that don't pave over parks and other irreplaceable natural features.

[Travis]

The solution to traffic is not more roads. The solution is less sprawl. Southern California has been designed around a reliance on the automobile. Reduce the number of cars on the road by building denser population centers that are close (walking distance!) to jobs and mass transportation centers.

[LOVE OUR MOTHER]

How would a 16 mile toll road ease traffic? To me, it seems that the rich will get to work a few minutes faster and everyone else will still wait. Why not establish express busses that run on freeways to truly cut down on traffic congestion. Busses like this run in Oregon and other areas and while helping to ease traffic, busses help make a friendlier community. Why should our comforts of driving one-to-a-car on an express route with our radio and coffee cup come before the survival of our children on this planet? Why don't we just start building a wall to dam the ocean and open a 20 lane express-way? Just see how Mother Nature responds then. For all those in favor of a toll-road, I feel you should ask yourself why??? Why are your personal time-saving, traffic-detesting needs more important than the EARTH?? Is saving a few minutes worth destroying our human life-sustaining habitat?
Help us, Help You, and join in on this revolution of the mind. Haven't we put enough tolls on our own health and Earth? Shouldn't we be figuring out ways to support communal transportation, tear down unused roads and re-establish natural habitats? Lots of questions here for such a puzzling debate, the puzzle is why this toll road is even an issue, when the answer is clear within ALL hearts and minds. However, I do have the answer to the riddle at hand, no matter what the decision of this debate is...MOTHER NATURE Always Wins!!!!!

Thank You EVERYONE.
Your Global Support is acknowledged and deeply appreciated. WE LOVE YOU!

SAVE TRESTLES!!!!!

[drew Brophy]

The Toll road is about developing the land behind San Clemente. Just like all the toll roads in the county are about accessing land. Follow the money, who stands to benefit from the road? Why do they want to build it so bad? Do we need more cookie cutter houses in the hills? They will only add to the traffic problem. The real solution to traffic is to drive less. If you do not like Traffic, get a job were you live or move to where you have a job. I live and work in San Clemente. I live here because I love Trestles and the our small town atmosphere. Thousands of surfers, and people enjoy the Trestles area everyday. They get here just fine without the toll road. Trestles is known world wide as the best surf area in southern California. I doubt it will be the same with a giant double decker clover leaf freeway extending through the valley. The pollution will be sure to follow, as they try to build on every last scrap piece of land. If the coastal commissions decision gets appealed, we will know that the Secretary of Commerce is corrupt. I am sick of the greed and corruption. I am suspicious of anyone who is for the Toll Road, they are either ignorant to the facts or have something to gain.

[pete van nuys]

Even before our current financial crisis, the Toll Roads were a failure-- traffic volume figures show they move fewer than 20%, usually nearer just 10%, of the cars on parallel freeways.
The toll ways were never intended to reduce congestion, or "improve" traffic; their sole role was to create the illusion of access to new developments along their routes, so the Irvine and Mission Viejo companies could sell ever more houses.
Stopping the toll road will not stop development, but it will save the last clean and natural watershed in SoCal from destruction. And it will force developers-- and the county-- to deal honestly with the transportation issues before us.
Caltrans has said they will support efforts to double track under the I-5 freeway. Modern rail travel is coming to California; gas prices will rise with growing global demand-- both these trends are inevitable. As density increases our travel and daily commute patterns will change.
The 241 South is a dinosaur, dead broke, and doomed. Let it go....

[Julie Gengo]

The people have spoken. We came out in droves against this toll road. Lets put these workers to work in eco jobs not destructive eco jobs.

If they choose to build it then there is something definitely rotten in the state of California and the people will be out once again to investigate.

[The TCA sucks!]

The toll road is illegal, plain and simple. It violates CA law. The Dept. of Commerce can't overturn the CA Coastal Commissions ruling just because they feel like it!

Besides, polls have shown that the majority of Californians don't want to see more of our tax dollars pissed away on another useless, financially-shaky toll highway that does nothing to ease traffic (and yes, despite the TCA's promise to the contrary, their roads don't pay for themselves. They've already requested more of our tax dollars to bail out their sinking ship. Their other disasterous toll highway nightmare, the 73, is losing money hand over fist!).

Not only do the toll roads do nothing to solve our traffic problems, this one would come at the expense of one of CA's most popular state parks. But those hucksters over at the TCA, along with their misguided cheerleading squad, keep promising that this toll road they've got planned will be something akin to the second coming, and that it won't turn out to be yet another ineffective transportation debacle like the other asphalt money pit they dumped on us here in OC (the 73). Yeah, right! We're not buying it...

[Todd]

As Ronald Reagan granted the people of California the San Onofre State Park did he not say that the greatest gift we can pass onto our decendents is the heritage of our land. Or at least something close to this. Once a toll road paves the park, we will NEVER EVER be able to recapture the pristine beauty and nature of San Onofre.

What can compare to the uspoiled coastal land? Newport, Huntington, Dana Point, Carlsbad, Oceanside? I have seen every beach south of LA and there are NO other beaches bordered by California wilderness. Other beaches are bordered by pavement and homes.

It is funny to here supporters claim that the toll roads will not harm the environment. Lets face it. When has more pavement and less nature EVER benefited the environment.

Also, more roads will invariably lead to more cars. This is not a solution to the problem.

[Paul Aguilar]

I was at the Hearing, I heard the proponents arguments.

A lone question came to mind: If this (toll) road was So vital, why wasn't it a publicly funded construction project?

[Jason]

The concept of putting a private (pay for use) road through a public space (CA state park) is ridiculous. Not to mention that is would also bisect the Donna O'Neill land conservancy, which was set aside to offset for loss of habitat & open space due to development - what a joke.

Then when you dig in and find that the major proponents have a development stake in the land surrounding the proposed toll road alignment, the politics become transparent.

If this were a freeway being laid down for all, most would probably tolerate this, but to destroy natural public places for private gain: that is a crime.

Deny this toll road.

[Cindy]

Thank you Sheldon, very good elaboration regarding the funding and bailout.

Travis is also right, the solution to the traffic issue is less sprawl. The problem is many of our government officials want to solve their budget issues by developing more property so they call collect more taxes. This is not the way to solve the California budget problem. It is not the way to "boost the economy". Green technologies, mass transit projects,etc. all create jobs the same as paving miles of concrete would. If our government wants something developed go rebuild a run down urban neighborhood that really needs it instead--rebuild those neighborhoods and put up more homes and condos or apartments instead. Don't create more urban sprawl and don't pave over our State Parks and open spaces.

Drew I think you are right, I've already heard of future "ideas" of development along that toll road all the way to the coast. TCA wants this...for their impact use fees of about $4k per residential home alone. Now don't we have a water crisis? We already don't have enough water, especially in Southern California. If they keep building every inch of open space we have left where are they going to get enough water to support these developments? This hurts the rest of us who already live here.

Last time I checked our government officials were really concerned about health problems and the associated costs...don't state parks and beaches provide excercise which promotes good health? Surfing, beach-going, camping, bike riding, hiking is much better for us and our children that sitting at home. But if big business and some of those in our government have their way we won't have this opportunity any longer right? They will keep going until they pave over every recreational spot we have left. Or we will have to travel a very long distance to find outdoor recreational spots that haven't been closed by "progress".

The logical reasons the proposed toll road is wrong are endless. The more you stop and consider it, the more reasons you can find why it is wrong. We need real solutions that don't wreck our environment or our health or our outdoor recreation, not false promises such as this "traffic relief" propaganda campaign.

Save San O!

[Mark Peltier]

Glad to see so many of my anti-toll road friends out there still ready to put this road to bed. Lots of great comments from many different angles. Just goes to show how complicated this issue is and it isn't about some surfers keeping Trestles beach to themselves.
Ironic, I was just filing some old papers today and I found part of the Tca's EIR report the states the best way to relieve traffic on the 5 is to fix the 5. Will the Toll road relieve traffic as advertised. I guess it comes down to your definition of relief, and which way you will be traveling. When I take some aspirin to "relieve" my head-ache I expect it to be gone. Not go from a level 8 to 7. There own EIR report says that even after all of the toll road and arterial improvements are made the I5 will still be congested. Which comes to the "Toll road Paradox". People won't pay for a toll road unless the alternative is congested, and if the toll road relieves the alternative's congestion no one will use the toll road.
If anyone wants to know if the toll road will work as far as traffic relief for the masses, one only has to look at the I5 at Oso pkwy in the morning hours. I5 congested. Arterial streets going away from toll road/ to the I5 congested. Toll road barren. That is why they are now forced to improve the I5/ Oso interchange, because the vast majority of people are using the I5 corridor not the toll road.
The toll road is an elitist road financed by the same crooks that gave you the Wall Street bailout.Those developer fees the Tca has been collecting are taxes on all the people along the corridor, whether they use the toll road or not. What happened to "We the people" not "We the more fortunate" If they are going to ruin a beautiful valley that was meant to be enjoyed by all citizens then at the very least have those same citizens be able to use the road.
Here is a crazy idea. Make all major highways in California toll roads. Everyone who registers their car receives a transponder . The tolls are a few cents to a few dollars. Fee for use. The more you use the road the more you pay. The gas taxes that are supposed to be used for building and maintaining roads are now diverted to subsidize clean cars.
For now improve I5, build "beltway", finish La Plata, find ways to motivate people out of their cars or more people into fewer cars.

[Kazu]

Our grassroots effort to squelch useless development of what little we have left of purity in California shall not be overcome by bureaucracy. I am proud of everyone of you who have joined the fight to save San O and Trestles.

[Verna Rollinger]

As long as this unacceptable alternative is on the table, we are unable to adress the problem in any other way. We must put an end to this toll road issue and look to alternatives that can address the problem!

[Karin Zirk]

This isn't just about transporation and surfing. It's about respecting First Nation people. Every promise the United States of America has made to tribes in this country has been broken. The toll road, would run adjacent to one of the remaining sacred and often used ceremonial sites. It's time we said enough and start honoring our committments, even when other people are inconvenienced. No one would expect the Vatican to put up with a toll road in the middle of vatican City.

[Joseph Hardin]

There are much better ways to solve traffic problems than building a toll road...

[Hawaiian style]

How strange. You can build a road anywhere there is land.

There is only one coastal zone. Once you build a road there its gone. Are we so wedded to our cars that we can't see this?

[Bjorn]

The thing I'm sick of hearing about is, that people in support of the toll road say that there already is I-5 and the railroad running through the park, why not build the toll road? Because if you have any knowlege of plans whatsoever, the toll road extension is planned to be built directly ON TOP OF San Mateo Creek, running parralell to it. Rather than 4 concrete pillars holding up the I-5 bridge OVER THE CREEK, and a 100 year train trestle that runs OVER THE CREEK. You don't have be a cal trans engineer to figure out the difference between OVER and ON TOP OF do you? When you build a freeway on top of a creek that is less than 2 miles from the ocean ANYWHERE, what do think is going to happen? When it rains like it did yesterday, where do think all run off from the toll would have gone? Right now, its all natural run off from the mountains. With a toll road, the run off would include, oil, grease, old tires, other car fluids, trash, trash, and more trash!

By the way, all of us against the toll road know all of you in support of it know all of this. We know you're not stupid. You're worse! You're knowingly supporting a project that has been proven to cause extensive environmental damage, ruin Native American sacred grounds, severly damage ocean water quality, and ruin the very best surf spot in Southern California! And for what!?
Just so you don't have to sit in traffic, in your big fat gas gussling SUV!!! For all of you in support of this project, I hope your kids become tree hugging hippies, or surfers, or both. At least then thay will have a conscience!!

For the rest of us, support the fight to Save San Onofre State Park, and Save Trestles!!!!

P.S. Boycott the TCA's Toll Roads!!! Can you really even afford to still drive on them right now? If enough people boycott those roads, even on select days, it might not be long until the TCA would be just an ugly thing of the past! Read all about how the TCA gets your money whether you use their roads or not at www.savetrestles.com.

[JImmy Peter]

The TCA and supporters do not seem to understand that the toll road will not relieve congestion. Like many institutions, the TCA has an orgainzational illness to self-perpetuate standard traffic patterns and avoid accountability necessary for positive growth with alternatives such as public and/or mass transportation. For example, build it and they will come...As opposed to alternative solutions. Solutions require a paradigmm shift in our approach.

A toll road does not provide the short-term relief or the long term solution for our traffic issues. In fact, not only does it not provide a congestion solution, it will aggravate the traffic and environmental challenges we face.

[Going to Wait Longer in Traffic]

The traffic mitigation argument is worse than laughable. The toll road is a development project. Take a look on Google Earth on the portion of Orange County between the end of the 241 and the I-5. It's pretty much the only place in the county left without cookie cutter subdivisions. A toll road would vastly increase the value of developing this land and all of the new developments would add 1000s of new cars to the roads.

The landowners have property rights but the merits of this project should be argued on what it is: a massive boon to development for inland OC. That should be the debate.

How dense should development in this area be and how does the county deal with the resulting side effects...more traffic, more demand for fire protection, runoff, sewage, etc. ?

[Sean]

California is known for its Freeways and transportation systems. The 405 and the 101 are the reason that millions of people have immigrated to CA in the past decades. Without the beauty of intricately interwoven concrete roads, the golden state would be nothing more than "the state next to Nevada." Since no one uses the State Parks they are a waste and we should pave them over with useful concrete that will increase our GDP and continue the beauty of Urban Sprawl. The myth that oil runoff from highways kills local fisheries is a myth. This will set the precedent for what I see as the upcoming pinnacle of our "progress," a freeway across Yosemite Valley from the top of Half Dome to the top of El Capitan. Progress is progress no matter what ramifications we have on the environment. Or is it?....

Are people in southern california really complaining about traffic. Is traffic a new phenomenom? Have we even attempted carpooling? I'll bet the next time you are stuck in traffic you will be hardpressed to find 20 cars with more 2 or more people in the vehicle. Let's change our habits (which is a free undertaking) before spending billions and ruining, what some people think, is the most beautiful natural area in southern california. Right?

[who do you trust?]

Surfrider says you don't need this traffic alternative to relieve traffic on the I-5. OCTA, Caltrans and Federal Highways say you do. Who do you trust to solve traffic congestion through this area?

As an aside, it is humorous that Surfrider is promoting this blog to create the illusion that vast amounts of people opposed completing this roadway, when in truth opponents to the 241 completion are but a tiny vocal minority.

[Jimthzz]

When the last bare ground in Southern California has been paved over for cars, the next fight will be about double-decking the roads, not about removing any.

The pavers will never learn a thing.

[The TCA sucks!]

Who do I trust? Hmmmm...

"Surfrider says you don't need this traffic alternative to relieve traffic on the I-5."

And this statement is backed-up by peer-reviewed traffic studies...much more trustworthy than the TCA's quack "science".

"OCTA...say[s] you do."

Actually, even OCTA admitted that, should the 241 extension be completed as planned, I-5 would STILL be mired in gridlock. Basically, the 241 would do little (if anything) to help ease this traffic mess. If anything the additional suburban sprawl that will follow hot on the heels of this pay-to-drive highway would increase traffic! So why does OCTA support a project that they themselves have admitted will be ineffective at best, you might ask? Well, when you realize that several of the OCTA bigwigs also happen to be bigwigs within the profit-hungry and increasingly desperate organization known as the TCA, it makes a little more sense. Conflict of interest, anyone?

So let’s see, on one side we have:

--Pretty much every environmental expert that isn’t on the TCA’s payroll
--The majority of CA residents (67-71% according to polls)
--The CA State Parks Foundation who says that, should the 241 extension be built, roughly 60% of the park would be shut down and abandoned including the more popular of the park’s two campgrounds (but hey, what does the CA State Parks Foundation know about state parks and campgrounds, anyhow? Jeez…)
--The wisdom of former CA governor Reagan who had the foresight to set this land aside forever as a state park for future generations to enjoy.
--Former President Nixon who, despite his major screw-ups, at least had the foresight to declare that, should this land ever be deemed in excess of the Navy’s needs (which may or may not ever happen, who knows?), that this land would immediately be deeded over to the state of CA for “state park purposes”. (That was "state park purposes"…NOT highway-for-profit purposes!)

And on the other side:
--The TCA, big land developers, and pretty much anyone who stands to make a profit from this asinine toll road scheme.

Who do I trust, indeed?!?

[Surfcitygal]

For those who are desperate for a toll road, widen the 5 with a Lexus Lane. Everyone would win except the TCA, which exists only by concocting ways to justify its own existence.

[Looking at numbers]

Toll roads are the least cost-effective way of increasing capacity, with their higher financing costs and large costs for administration. The current toll roads are a financial failure, desperately trying to roll their debt over and consolidate all the debt with new construction so that the San Joaquin (73) toll road doesn't go bankrupt. If the 241 South isn't built, the San Joaquin TCA will have to pay back 120 million to the FETCA, and the SJTCA will be bankrupt.

The financial shenanigans of these agencies have resulted in higher tolls and forced traffic back onto the freeways. So much for the lies about relieving congestion.

We should let these go belly-up and let OCTA or the state buy up the bonds for pennies on the dollar and turn these roads into freeways.

[Cindy]

Who do you trust, your claim this is just something "Surfrider says" or promotes is so wrong. This issue is not just something Surfrider opposes. It is something that all responsible citizens oppose. An east-west route that is falsely promoted as a solution to north-south traffic problem? Anyone with an IQ can see the trouble with that logic. In fact that is exactly what TCA counts on, a gullible public--the fact they spread so much false information hoping people like you will buy into it--this should offend you. The whole toll road thing needs to be squashed, abolished. Before all roads become pay to drive and then the majority of us won't be able to afford the prices--this scenario would add to the economy problem, this is an additional expense that most can't afford. If everyone had to add $150 to $200 hundred dollars to their expenses per month everything from the housing market to retail sales would suffer. Toll roads are not cheap to drive. This is already happening in other parts of the country and citizens in those states are really upset about it. The toll road idea was a bad one. And when you start talking about using our State Parks for toll roads instead its even worse, the two don't mix. If I wanted to camp next to a freeway I'd drive down the street and pitch a tent next to the 405. And if they start paving over every campground close by so I can't go camping with my kids for just a weekend...that just really ticks me off. I guess the kids can play video games instead right? Yeah, that's good for their health. Then you throw in all the other aspects of the San O issue such as the Sacred Site or 11 endangered species...so TCA is above the laws? And a lot of average everyday people from all over the country and even other countries feel the same way. So those who write these things saying the opposition to the toll road it is just an "environmentalist" or organized group such as Surfrider really don't get out from behind the keyboard much! Believe me, the vast majority of people who oppose this toll road is no illusion.