Fate of Trestles, toll road project may soon be known

A U.S. Department of Commerce decision is expected soon regarding a controversial toll road extension that would slice through a portion of San Onofre State Beach, jeopardizing a pristine watershed that is home to endangered species, and also jeopardizing the famous Trestles surf breaks.

In case you missed it, the L.A. Times devoted nearly a page in Monday's California edition outlining issues that have made the proposed project so contentious.

Personally, I despise the idea as much as I despise heavy traffic.

What the story glossed over were the pros and cons of developing state parks.

Outdoors enthusiasts ought to oppose any project that sacrifices even a portion of any state park. Parks ought to be considered sacred ground and protected against all infringements of civilization.

Isn't that the purpose behind them?

San Onofre receives 2.8 million visitors a year and is the fourth-most visited park in California. Reasons: proximity to ocean and wilderness, and aesthetics.

Those visitors would not likely welcome such an unsightly intrusion, which would run for about five miles and consume 320 acres of their beloved park.

San Onofre State Beach is bisected by San Mateo Creek, one of the last pristine watersheds in Southern California and home to endangered species of wildlife.

Groups such as the Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Wildcoast, Save San Onofre Coalition and California State Parks Foundation vehemently oppose the project for good reasons.

Even proponents of  the toll road project concede this habitat could be damaged.

As for waves at Lower Trestles, one of the world's premier point breaks and home to the only World Tour surfing event in the continental United States, they may not be ruined by the alteration of flow from the creek caused by construction.

Or they could be.

As for traffic, there are no assurances that travelers on Interstate 5 in south Orange County will even detect the slightest difference after completion of an alternative route that would dump motorists onto I-5 at Basilone Road south of San Clemente.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez has until Jan. 7 to decide whether to override the California Coastal Commission's rejection of the project last February.

Here's hoping he decides in favor of state parks.

-- Pete Thomas

Photos: Top, a railroad cuts through San Onofre State Beach. A toll road would do the same, perhaps jeopardizing important habitat, bottom, if the project gets a green light from the  U.S. Department of Commerce. Credit: Don Tormey / For The Times; Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Build the Trestle Tollway]

How ironic that the photo at the top of the page is of train tracks! Funny how the dozens and dozens of pillars on the beach for the train tracks didn't stop the waves from coming in, but somehow four pillars for the overpass of the 241 a half mile from the beach will end the surf as we know it.

Ever look up the definition of "Trestle"? It's a structure that allows vehicles to cross over a river (such as the train tracks in the aforementioned picture). Maybe we should call it the Trestle Tollway!

"The waves at Trestles may not be ruined... or they could be." Really? What are you basing that on? There is ZERO scientific evidence for that statement.

That's like me saying... "The sun might not rise in the west... or it might." EVERY scientific study WITHOUT EXCEPTION says that the waves will be completely unaffected by a road being built a half-mile away.

These scare tactics and fear mongering are outrageous and outlandish... even for the LA Times.

[Serge Dedina]

Placing a toll road through a state park is wrong. Thomas is dead-on accurate. The entire point of a protected area is to be protected. Why bother having any of California's treasures conserved inside public parks. There will always be a reason to develop a state or a national park. Our job as stewards of our natural resources is to make sure we leave our protected areas in great shape for future generations.
Serge Dedina
Executive Director
WiLDCOAST

[Jon K.]

Once a beach is ruined, it's ruined.

This toll road is more about making money for the proponents than clearing up traffic. That's how these things always are.

SAVE TRESTLES!

[jerry collamer]

Susannah Rosenblatt's "behind OC's toll road issues"
was accurate if not wholly formed. How could it be?
TCA's (OC's toll road purveyor) have a 25-year head
start on spinning-out TCA's toll road illusion / yarns.
Their big electric road signs warn us: take a toll road,
or our lives won't last as long. What TCA never reports:
they're broke (no question). Upside-down. Like housing
and our economy - BROKE.

Difference is: TCA ain't ever gonna recover.

Their "Star" toll road, the 73 thru Laguna, never has been
right-side-up, since day-1. Now TCA's 241, the supposed
healthy one is worse off than Laguna's 73. How you say,
"in the tank?" Yet, TCA is adding lanes (???) to both the
73 and the 241 (as toll traffic plummets), while hobbling
freeway and arterial improvements via Non-Compete
agreements. That TCA would pave thru a state park for
no good traffic reason, in a direction I-5 traffic doesn't want
to go, at $15 one-way - predicted by OCTA MIS-07 Study:
the least traveled pavement in South County by 2030,
makes TCA scream, "Fixing I-5 thru San Clemente takes
100's of homes!" What they don't report: OCTA (grand pooh
bah of OC transportation) recommends adding the
necessary lanes to I-5 thru SC utilizing "Context Sensitive
Engineering" aka no "Takings," erasing TCA's bogus 241
extension entirely.

Sad fact: majority of OC-electeds pray daily at TCA's alter
of "failed" toll roads, at our expense: the majority of OC
commuters who never drive toll roads; makes one wonder -
who is steering OC?

We all know the direction. The question is, why go there?
And or, when is 25-years of a failed transportation model,
enough? In 2008? 2009?, or 2030?