Latest Headlines on OCRegister.com
[x] Close
Green OC ~ All things green in Orange County.

Toll-road builder willing to consider alternate routes, board says

January 8th, 2009, 3:56 pm · 11 Comments · posted by Pat Brennan, green living, environment editor

For the first time since the federal government’s rejection of the proposed Foothill South toll road, the tollway agency board indicated Thursday it would be open to discussing other possible toll road routes.

But officials with the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency said they’ve made no decision on whether to take the matter to court.

After a closed-door session in which the agency’s attorneys outlined legal options, board members spoke of their disappointment with last month’s decision by the U.S. Commerce Secretary. The secretary, Carlos M. Gutierrez, denied the tollway agency’s appeal of an earlier rejection of the road by the state Coastal Commission. (Disputed area shown at right.)

“I was outraged at the decision,” said board chairman Jerry Amante. But, he said, “we’ll consider our next steps in a thoughtful manner.”

The 16-mile Foothill South toll road, an extension of the 241 toll road,  would have cut through San Onofre State Beach park as well as sensitive habitat in southern Orange County. The proposal provoked a storm of opposition, especially from the Surfrider Foundation and other activist groups worried about possible effects on the famous Trestles surfing beach.

The tollway agency contended it would make up for any environmental damage by growing or preserving habitat elsewhere, and that there would be no effect on Trestles. They said the toll road was vital to relieve future traffic congestion.

But Amante and other board members seemed to strike a more conciliatory note Thursday than they did when the Commerce decision was announced.

“I was of a mind of saying, ‘Oh, I get it, we can’t go through a park,’” said Orange County Supervisor Bill Campbell, who is also a member of the tollway board and who favored the rejected route. “It’s not going to happen that way. We’ve got to find another way to do it.”

After the meeting, Amante said the board will send staff members and consultants into the community to talk to supporters and opponents about possible alternatives.

“We’re open to talking to them,” he said of Surfrider and other toll road opponents. “We’re now in a new reality.”

Mark Rauscher, assistant environmental director for the San Clemente-based Surfrider, said his group would welcome a discussion with the tollway agency on alternative routes.

“Obviously, we’re willing to sit down and talk to them,” he said. “But our ultimate goal is that this board needs to come out and say very plainly that a road will never be built through San Onofre State Beach.”

While board members did not endorse any alternative routes that have been proposed since the Commerce decision, and sounded a note of skepticism about several such proposals from outside the agency, they said they would “reach out” to all concerned, including opponents, to discuss other options.

Amante said the suggestions the agency has received so far, such as widening I-5, are those that it previously rejected after years of study because of too much environmental damage, or because homes and businesses would have to be destroyed.

“We’ll say, ‘Which more damaging alignment is the one you want?’” Amante said.

The Commerce decision precludes federal approval for the Foothill South route, although the tollway agency could make a legal challenge to the decision. Agency officials offered no indication Thursday of how they will decide that question, or when.

Several speakers expressed support for the agency during the public comment part of the meeting, some urging the board to press ahead with its fight for Foothill South.

Related posts:         

Recent posts:

  • Mystery illness sickens hundreds of West Coast pelicans
  • Clean construction vehicles pass soot test
  • EPA lists most-wanted environmental fugitives
  • Wyland takes climate change message to OC schools
  • Are your neighbors polluting? Call new toll-free hotline
  • The Bible goes green — and not everyone is happy about it
  • Yard wars: homeowner, city declare a truce
  • Yard wars: Naturalist threatened with jail or fine
  • Yard wars: Neighbors nettled by nature gone wild
  • Nuclear agency’s concerns increase over San Onofre plant
  • Feds uphold state decision: toll road near Trestles appears dead
  • Pollution-gobbling bacteria set loose in Seal Beach
  • Gas guzzlers gone for good? Yes, says OC ‘branding’ expert
  • Study: seals and sea lions chock full of toxic chemicals
  • Share this post:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Facebook
    • Google
    • Technorati
    • TwitThis
    ADVERTISEMENT

     11 Comments

    • Dina says:

      How about in another state?

    • Warren says:

      How about a light rail line to the metrolink station?

    • Steve says:

      How about free tickets on Amtrack to the border?

    • Put up or shut up says:

      The surfers who have opposed the project can now offer their options. They say they can widen the I-5 without taking 1,200 homes and businesses like Caltrans says will need to be done… Go for it!

      The Secretary of Commerce says we can just bulldoze Talega and connect to La Pata. Sounds good! We’ll let Mark Rauscher knock on those doors and explain to them that, yes they’ll lose their home, but they’ll be saving the habitat of the Pacific pocket mouse!

      Too bad the best alternative was denied due to politics. Now the choices are:

      1. Go through homes
      2. Go through the middle of Camp Pendleton
      3. Do nothing

      I’m glad TCA hasn’t taken litigation off the table!

    • Christine says:

      The Commerce decision was so disappointing. Traffic is getting worse every year.

    • algorithm says:

      Contrary to the TCA’s contention, the toll road is likely to create future traffic congestion, not relieve it. Look at I-270 outside Washington DC. Within eight years after it was widened to 12 lanes, congestion was as bad as before, with traffic exceeding levels projected for 2010. Want to see what relief looks like? Look at I-5 now. It was built to relieve congestion. Want to see what good the 241 will do? Look at traffic on I-5 NB thru Mission Viejo, just past the 73 toll road: Unrelieved congestion, as bad or worse than before the 73 was built. We need to acknowledge that the existing build-your-way-out-of-congestion approach is destined to fail again as it has in the past. We need a solution, not a new version of the same old mistake.

    • OhBoy says:

      The TCA wants the toll road, not because of congestion, but because they want the revenue. They WANT the 5 to be congested so they can collect tolls.

      The answer is NO!

    • Dina says:

      How about canceling the entire project?. Steve you crack me up.

    • VoiceofReason says:

      City and county planners did not do their job twenty or thirty years ago and now we have to live with the result of their kowtowing to developers. No amount of “paving over paradise” is going to solve the problem. So the best thing we can do is to preserve what little natural space we have left, sit in traffic, and think about what type of people we want planning our future.

    • Enlightenment says:

      How about dozing the thousands of new homes in that area!!! Housing did far more damage than all of those new homes!

      At a minimum, connect 241 to 74. Come on….this is an obvious one!

      Also need to turn 74 into a freeway!

    • DaveG says:

      Gee, what a thought. After spending untold millions, these geniouses have the presence of mind to now think about consulting others before making their plan to put this in the worst location possible. It’s gives you a real level of confidence in our public officials. Hey guys, nice to see you’re thinking about removing your blinders!