If OC wants a road wrote on Jan 28, 2008 11:17 PM:Let them use land from OC. I'm not usually on the side of the "save the bugs and birds" crowd, but in this case, it's a simple property issue. Orange County wants to avoid having to pay out lots of eminent domain money to its own citizens, so it's making a land grab for parkland in San Diego. We should do the same thing any homeowner would do to a neighbor who tried to build a path across their lawn, so as not to disturb their shed: tell them HELL NO! Take the 50 acres of land from homes in San Clemente, and pay the owners enough so they can buy in the subdivisions this road is built to service.

SDC Driver wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:25 AM:I live in San Diego County and would like to have that toll road to make my trip north easier. I do not care about bugs, birds, toads, and fish any more that they care about me. After all there are more extinct species than there are species now living, what's a few more bugs, birds, toads or fish missing from the habitat?

Lets call it.. wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:40 AM:The Orange County Toad Road. Just say No to Lexus Lanes and Beamer Barriers. If they want an express route to San Diego County, let them build it in their county.

Yokozuna wrote on Jan 29, 2008 4:05 AM:To SDC Driver: I agree about the north bound advantages to a certain extent. However, a large amount of the traffic would still use I-5 as a route to 73 and north. The south bound is my concern and I have never heard it addressed. The increase in automobiles from the merge point south could be a nightmare similar to the 805/I-5 northbound merge. I think the real agenda here is to lighten traffic through southern Orange County with little regard to traffic from San Clemente south.

Roberto1 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 4:52 AM:Of course there will be no environmental damage....in fact ask the proponents, it will make the environment better....with that said, I want my gasoline tax rebated since private roads owned by the state or anyone else is taxation without representation.

JSten wrote on Jan 29, 2008 5:20 AM:I don't know if I buy all the needs or benefits statements. Having traveled the I-5 a lot during the past few years, I don't see the need for a road to go north east from the I-5 corridor to connect with another toll road or two.

But I am concerned that these people who have spent millions on studies, cant get a simple number for impacted acreage straight. Hell, maybe the right number is zero.

JP wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:26 AM:Toll roads are sham. Why do we have to pay to drive on a road that our tax dollars built? This toll road is going to destroy half of a valuable state park that Ronald Reagan wanted preserved forever and it's going to make traffic on I-5 worse, not better. I guess the old Gipper is spinning is his grave.

NO TOLLROAD! wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:31 AM:Hmmm....budget problems? Shut down state parks due to fiscal worries. San Onofre closed, toll road open. Is there a conspiracy here? Keep this boondoggle from ever happening! And much of the whining could be eliminated if people chose to work closer to home! Arnold you're a traitor! Long live Trestles! Cowabunga!

Jon wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:35 AM:Why doesn't anybody talk about the impact of the Interstate Highway already running through this area? Did it kill Trestles surf bathymetry? Did it cause numerous extinctions? I am a surfer and I've read both sides arguements and I side with build the road. It will be needed. Honestly, the people who are surfers & environmentalists aren't being honest with the figures. They're just saying "Save Trestles" without any command of the facts.

Jon wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:36 AM:your tax dollars don't build toll roads. A private company does. Then they ask if you want to drive on them for a fee. Get it?

Vista Granny wrote on Jan 29, 2008 7:52 AM:It's an Orange County highway, build it in Orange County. It's obvious that the builders planned this from the git-go. They destroyed plenty of homes building the freeways, didn't they? No to detroying one acre of OUR state park.

Hey No Tollroad-- wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:04 AM:Recall the guvernator! His "budget" is all about his agenda -- to build this roa, campaign contributions, and finance religious and charter schools. R E C A L L him, give him a taste of his own medicine! NO TOLLROAD

To Enviromental cooks wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:18 AM:Don't you find it crazy that the tree huggers will cry foul if a mouse, toad or tiny bird is displaced but not a single one said anything about people's houses (at least 60) being bulldozed somewhere else for the freeway.Shows you what out of control mentallity of some of these environmentalists. Go sit in a tree in Berkley. Build the road.

Doomsday Kooks wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:18 AM:This will not destroy Trestles. It won't wipe out the mouse. It won't stop the flow of cobbles. A lot has been learned about how to build in sensitive habitats. And if it was so sensitive, the current construction (I-5, railroad trestle, etc) would have already destroyed it. Vista Granny and her ilk are making a stand at the wrong end of the problem. STOP OUT OF CONTROL DEVELOPMENT and in 20 or 30 or 40 years we won't have to be dealing with the problems that make the road necessary to start with.

Dumb wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:18 AM:This is not Orange County's road. It's for everyone traveling on it from SD/SF/LA/PHX/DENVER.....Build it and more!!!!

North County Resident and Commuter wrote on Jan 29, 2008 10:53 AM:I've sat in lots of traffic between here and Irvine, but I absolutely, 100% oppose the toll road. Why? Because in addition to the significant environmental consequences (and as someone who has studied ecology, there will be--anybody who claims otherwise is ignorant or disingenuous), I know that traffic will only get WORSE over time (ESPECIALLY before the merge with I5), not better! Who do you suppose is behind this effort? Well, let's see, could it be...developers, perhaps?

Rather than pay fair-market value for the land, the proponents of the toll road want to rob the California citizen and taxpayer of land that had been set aside for the purpose of a state park. I cannot believe that the proponents actually have the gall to advocate a plan that calls for building a toll road through a state park--especially one as unique as San Clamente. Come on! They should be laughed off the stage and pelted with rotten tomatoes if they ever try to return!

Seriously, though--even if you think that stealing public land from the taxpayer is okay, does anybody really still believe that road-building reduces congestion? If so, then look at the history of southern California (or any other urban area, for that matter). What happens when you build more roads? More development is put in, and the roads become more crowded than they were before. The development is approved because the infrastructure is there to support it. Get it? The developers wouldn't be able to build their projects otherwise, so by getting a toll road put in, they are the ones who actually benefit. The rest of us see some reduction in traffic for a while, until those new subdivisions come on line. Then it's as bad or worse as before. Anyone who has lived in North County for a number of years can attest to the substantial increase in traffic over the last 10 years.

Furthermore, to the person who says that "it's a toll road, built with private funds, so it's not an increase to your tax burden..." Wrong. Let's see...increased congestion on existing roads (for example, I5 both north and south) will bear a greater brunt of traffic, wear and tear. And, the costs for such projects are never neatly contained within its boundaries. Whether it's cleanup related to construction or increased trash that washes off the toll road to north San Diego county and the ocean, you can bet that taxpayers will be paying for a portion of this. It's naive to think otherwise.

Finally, to those who “don't care about birds and bugs,” etc., some food for thought. Why do so many people flock to California? Why do you suppose that California is one of the preeminent vacation destinations in the world? Umm, gee…maybe it’s because of the natural beauty. Still not convinced? Then answer this: why is coastal property so incredibly expensive? It's precisely because of the natural beauty of the coastline.

The natural beauty (including wildlife) is what makes California unique, and part of why our economy is one of the largest in the world. Keep trashing it, polluting it, and paving over it, and it won't be much different than Newark, New Jersey, Sioux City, Iowa, Houston, Texas, or countless other places that lack a natural landscape of any note (or have paved over much of it). In addition to tourism and real estate, you’re likely to find more blight, species extinction, and general “uglification” of the landscape. There are plenty of ugly parts of the U.S. What we have here on the coast of southern California is truly unique and beautiful, but so much of the natural landscape has already been lost. Isn’t it worth it to preserve what’s left?

P.S. to “Dumb”—contrary to your statement, the road does not “belong” to everyone, such as people traveling from places like Phoenix and Denver. They don’t have a say in it—unless they live in the area in and around the toll road.

Think Big Picture wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:23 AM:For those who believe that OC infrastructure should be built in OC because to do otherwise is somehow a violation of San Diego's rights are obviously ignoring the fact that 94% of your water travels through OC to get to you. How about we turn off your water, and you can keep our roads out? Seems like a lose lose situation. Why don't we concentrate on the fact that I5 corridor traffic is terrible during commute hours for those traveling in OC and for those San Diegians who commute from Oceanside north to OC.

roads and congestion wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:28 AM:If you believe that building wider or more roads does not relieve congestion, try explaining why traffic that otherwise moves at 40mph on a 5 lane freeway hits the LA County border, is reduced to 3 lanes and comes to a crawl.
More lanes equals less traffic congestion. To say otherwise ignores the history of the 5/405 interchange. For those of you who are new to the county, say moved here within the last 20 years, try reading some studies of the congestion at that intersection before and after the highway improvements.
Stop decieving yourself and others.

A shocker wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:37 AM:Wow, "North County Commuter" has posted one of the most intelligent, thoughtful arguments I've ever seen here, on ANY topic. Before reading it, I thought "what's the big deal? A bunch of burned-out surfers are upset about changes on their turf...who cares!" But the points about developers profiting from this toll road are very compelling. Once our coastline is compromised in the name of "progress", it's gone forever, and projects of this type only beget more crowding. Hopefully, "if you don't build it, they won't come" can hold true in this case.

Good Grief wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:08 PM:More typical short sighted thinking on part of the enviros again. You go after lawn mowers while cars and trucks sit idle on clogged "freeways" puttin out their tremendous exhaust.

Why don't I ever see you people where you could really do some good. A mega corporation wants to put the nations largest quarry right next door to the last wildlife refuge here in SoCal.

Get involved and make a real long term impact.

Good Grief wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:23 PM:Google Liberty Quarry, this site prevents links.

Get off your duffs and do something meaningful enviros. Big meeting this Friday at FPUD in Fallbrook at 7.

Oh Good Grief wrote on Jan 29, 2008 12:55 PM:"...the last wildlife sanctuary in SoCal." Man, we are in trouble! On the other hand, there must not be any fairy shrimp, gnatcatchers, or kangaroo rats on this land. Darn it! Can't help you, sorry. The upside to a quarry is that many years from now you could build a stadium there and invite Al Davis and the Raiders into town.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 29, 2008 1:07 PM:There are a lot of arguments here. I guess my bottom line is that allowing this to proceed would be setting a precedent for infringing on public park land. That, in itself, is absurd, and more than enough to say no. Long live the Trestle!

To Concerned 1 et al wrote on Jan 29, 2008 1:45 PM:You say long live the Trestle. A man made object for transportation.

Most interesting when you think about the opposition arguments.

To Think Big Picture - actually the aqueducts go thru Riverside County, no drinking water flows from OC to SD county.

And I agree Good Grief that there are much bigger environmental issues in SoCal being overlooked.

mark wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:07 PM:What completely escapes me is why the Surfriders would oppose an environmentally sound road like the proposed toll road. Don't they realize how much oil, brake dust and tire black wash from the 5 freeway into the Pacific Ocean after every rain? The 241 extension traps and filters these contaminants. Also, I have worked for the past 28 years near San Mateo Creek at a test facility along the last mile of the proposed route. I can assure everyone in California that the 241 extension won't harm the pocket mouse population in the least, there are thousands of the animals in the Orange County back country. The only contribution that a pocket mouse makes to the world is Hantavirus, and providing work for wildlife census takers!

Unbelievable wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:15 PM:At this point in Southern California, undeveloped coastal areas are irreplaceable and priceless. To pave what little remains is the most shortsighted error possible. Got to take a stand here, see you in Del Mar.

Ownership wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:34 PM:Just to set the record straight, the land is owned by the Marine Corps and leased to the State Park System, which will have to close several state parks in the coming years due to budget constraints. The Governer makes a good point. The state parks will receieve 100 million in mitigation for the toll road. Seems like a good deal?

andmond fixoby wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:39 PM:Build the road already!

Why are we even having this debate? A few bugs, worms, etc., compared with the economy of a region and ease of travel for millions.

Environmentalists who are moaning over the possibility of a new road are ignoring the pollution caused by thousands of cars stuck in traffic. Build the new road and everybody wins, including nature.

Josh wrote on Jan 29, 2008 2:57 PM:Public transit and smart growth are much better alternatives to destroying nature for our own selfish needs. If we focused on building livable cities instead of commuter-centric ones there would be far less impetus to pave over every dwindling remnant of open space. What gives us the right to disregard our effects on the ecosystems we inhabit?

RE: Unbelievable wrote on Jan 29, 2008 3:11 PM:Agree with your point! Except the proposed toll road is entirely east of the I-5!

RobertM wrote on Jan 29, 2008 8:10 PM:Study says toll road will damage environment. People are against damage to environment. New study says toll road will not damage environment. Problem is solved, people are satisfied.