janet wrote on Jan 29, 2008 11:13 PM:Regarding previous comments about the toll road--I don't expect a lot of you to care about critters or the environment. But you should care that bit by bit you are losing your access to the coast. A lot of you are saying "Oh, yes, it will make driving to/from Orange County and LA easier." Now think about that. How many people will decide they could live in north San Diego and compute to Orange County or LA if this happens? How many are thinking they'd make the trip more often if it weren't so awful? So it helps for a while and then they put in more dense development and people move farther away from their jobs or make more trips and bingo, new roads are jammed. When you consider a new job or moving to a new house, don't you compute the time to commute, not the distance? Those of you who believe this will help in the longterm can't count: 5, 8, 15, 163, 806, 52, 56, 125, 94, and lots of widening projects and still gridlock. Freeways feed development and development feeds (more) freeways.

Yokozuna wrote on Jan 30, 2008 5:56 AM:Thanks President Bush. I hope you get some of the save kudos from some you think you can't get anything right.

Sorry Janet wrote on Jan 30, 2008 7:44 AM:If it were up to you, we will still all be riding horse buggies on rutty dirt roads and think a trip to the closest store was like a vacation around the world. And there is absolutly no impact to coastal access with this project.

Using the arguement everyone who is against this there would be no train trestles there that you people rave about. CA economy is all about getting from point A to B as easily as possible. The generations from 1850 - 1950 built roads to make it all happen, why is our generation supposed be immune from providing our next generation with the ability to move about as they please? Take the ability to move around away, and what you have is an economy of the 1500's.

BTW - I use those trestles everyday, and I'm very happy that people 90 years ago built them over prestine coastal land and didn't decide to just let people walk.

O'side Res wrote on Jan 30, 2008 7:53 AM:We don't need it.

SDnativeGuy wrote on Jan 30, 2008 8:50 AM:San Diego is a rare metropolitan for California generally speaking. We have the best climate, lowest crime rate for a major city and lowest crime rated big city in California, and don't have the filthy vile smog filled polluted sky's as LA and OC which both areas are rat trap fast paced superficial platic people. Why attempt to create a toll project like that and turn SD into LA and OC's backyard. SD is to genuine to let see become part of the rest of the chaotic nest of the LA area. We don't need more traffic and smog in our beautiful city.

Typical Politition wrote on Jan 30, 2008 9:53 AM:I'll bet you Rep. Susan Davis, D-San Diego, hasn't surfed a day in her life, so how is she an expert on waves by saying "She reiterated concerns that the project would threaten wildlife clinging to life in a small remaining undeveloped section of the coast and dilute the world-class waves at Trestles Beach".The odds are she probably hasn't even been to the park either. The real question is who from the opposing groups contributed to her election?

John wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:14 AM:Hooray Susan Davis!!!! Boo Issa and Hunter. I wonder if either of those politicians ever surfed? I just can't see Issa in the tube - can you?

JR wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:21 AM:I live in Rancho Santa Margarita, a city in South Orange County that hosts the 241 toll road. I commute down to Escondido every tuesday and thursday and it takes longer to get out of South Orange County than it does to get from San Clemente to Escondido. This is unacceptable. If the 241 were connected to the I-5 Oso Parkway and Crown Valley would be so crowded and people heading south wouldn't have to sit in traffic in Mission Viejo for 20 minutes. You San Diego people should see Mission Viejo in the morning. There's hundreds of people including me coming from RSM who have to drive through crowded Mission Viejo just to get to the I-5. I know there are people out there who want to expand the 5 but that's not going to help. It's California. There will always be traffic on the 5. Get used to it. But we CAN relieve traffic on the streets in cities like Mission Viejo. I'm totally for the idea of expanding the 241. But why do the want to expand it into San Onofre??? How about just to the I-5 in between San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano???

michael a. wrote on Jan 30, 2008 10:26 AM:Real Estate Developers Finally Lose!

Thank you Congresswoman Davis for doing the right thing! Congressman Issa and Hunter are the real criminals in this debate. They are the ones who exempted the proposed Toll Roll from all environmental laws and regulations. And why do you think Congressman Hunter and Issa did that? M-O-N-E-Y.

Congressman Hunter and Issa exempted the Toll Road from all Laws in exchange for past, current, and future campaign donations from the Real Estate Lobby. The Real Estate Lobby really wants this road because it will open up lots of land for development. The toll road has NOTHING to do with easing traffic congestion.

...

Thea wrote on Jan 30, 2008 11:17 AM:Janet is right. Any one of you who is concerned with the amount of time it takes to get to Orange County and/or La la land. TAKE THE TRAIN! I have only been to the park a couple of times and I do not surf. Which as far as I'm concerned, is not a requirement to enjoy this beautiful park. And, as a native San Diegan, I am sick and tired of all the growth! San Diego's natural beauty is being depleted. The congested highways and the push to "IMPROVE" our quality of life! When will it end? When San Diego looks like LA? NO MORE!

Issa Definitely Surfs wrote on Jan 30, 2008 11:30 AM:I've surfed with him @ Tamarack. He's a Diver too.

to JR wrote on Jan 30, 2008 11:39 AM:Did it ever occur to you to work in your own area? Your car pollutes our air in San Diego county along with thousands of others who elect to take long commutes. We should not destroy our parkland for the likes of any of you.

Soifa wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:19 PM:I think OC can do whatever they want in their own county--so keep the road out of San Diego!! Why don't you find another route?

Michael wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:20 PM:Those that have the commute that JR has are the only ones the 241 will benefit. It won't benefit I-5, it doesn't reconnect with it later on. It doesn't benefit anyone else but those with too long a commute in the first place. Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner has great service from San Juan Capistrano and Irvine to serve those self serving people. Remember, this isn't a freeway for the greater good, just the good of a few. Sometimes that is appropriate. This time it is not. Why should San Diego County shoulder that burden? The park lands are just that - parks. If they (the TCA) want to pave over one of ours, then we should pick one of theirs. You can't compensate one for the loss of something you can't replace. Money doesn't solve this one.

Concerned-1 wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:22 PM:The whole hype about it ruining Sano and Trestles is blown out of proportion. It's not going to impact the waves at all, but it will make a major impact on the environment. No on the toll road for that reason. And, yes folks Take the Train!

John E wrote on Jan 30, 2008 1:46 PM:We long ago passed the point at which we can continue to pave out way out of congestion. Indeed, as others have written above, building new roads or widening existing roads induces additional demand for travel -- new roads and new lanes are therefore self-congesting. Sacrificing valuable public parkland is unacceptable.

How....? wrote on Jan 30, 2008 2:17 PM:How will this road decrease our access to the beach? Have any of you that are so against this actually looked at the maps of where it will be going? Now some of you are telling people where they can work and can't work! More roads means more traffic? What kind of logic is that. If you want to reduce traffic, then reduce the new developments, not the roads. It's all those housing developments that CAUSE the traffic, not the freeways. Some of us care about the creatures, but not blindly. And the fact is this road wouldn't greatly effect any of them. And how exactly will the waves be diluted? I agree, no one that knows anything about the surf would say something like this. This is just a bunch of wasted energy fighting a phantom problem.

Hey How? wrote on Jan 30, 2008 3:03 PM:more roads DO attract more traffic because they enable development in previously open space areas. If you can't get there, you won't build houses there, will you? Also, more concrete equals less dirt for water to runoff into the ocean which means more pollution in a place of practically undeveloped watershed, which has a direct impact on the wave quality. You say that this road won't effect the creatures much...well, if we take a little at a time eventually we take it all. I have looked at the maps and this road takes land from San Diego county and provides no benefit to its residents. Bad deal, no road! Thank you Susan Davis, now everbody show up in Del Mar on the 6th to prove we mean it!

Rich wrote on Jan 30, 2008 5:41 PM:Just goes to show how important party politics REALLY are...one group OWNS the committees because of majority, they slip in their big business & the-heck-with-the-environment legislation into a bill...they loose majority and the non-big-business & more-concerned-about-the-environment legislation gets slipped into a bill. Don't say party affiliation and voting doesn't matter!

Tanks wrote on Jan 31, 2008 5:54 PM:Bombs, helicopters, and jet aircraft are being used around that area all the time, but people are freaked out about cars?