Spinning the Tollroad
by Dale Tyler

The old saw – “How can you tell if a politician is lying? See if his lips are moving.” – is always funny and most often true. Such is the case for Lance MacLean, a Mission Viejo city councilman and chairman of the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA). He recently wrote an article in which he claims many great benefits will be obtained by extending the 241 toll road south to I-5. It is too bad most of his so-called facts are, at best, half-truths. Specifically, the claims of traffic relief, creating an alternative to the I-5 in case of emergencies and environmental benefits are quite suspect.  He is also ignoring the real need, which is east-west connectors to the I-5 from southeastern Orange County.

The plan proposed by MacLean and the TCA is to extend the 241 from its current ending point near Oso Parkway to intersect the I-5 just north of the San Onfore nuclear power plant. If the proposed route is built, then there will be a connection from northern San Diego County to the CA91 adjacent to Riverside County. One has to ask, how many people want to get from Riverside County to San Diego County or visa-versa at peak rush-hour periods? Not very many, I suspect. The vast majority of traffic demand from south Orange County is to and from places served by the existing I-5 and I-405 freeways. Extending the 241 will do very little to relieve the congestion that already exists on the southern sections of the I-5, primarily because it does not go where most people want to drive.

A large new housing development is being planned on some of the land owned by Rancho Mission Viejo Companies. This area is near the existing CA-74 (Ortega Highway) route and is located 4 to 8 miles east of I-5. The 241 extension would pass near this development, but unless the residents want to drive 15 miles out of their way by going south on the 241 to the I-5 and then north on the I-5, they will have little use for the 241. Going north on the 241 will lead them to far-eastern Orange County destinations and then to CA-91. While there is a small amount of demand for this route from south OC, it is hardly enough to justify the extension of the 241. Thus, the 241 extension offers little or no congestion relief to the I-5.

Let's look at the claim that the extension of the 241 toll road would be an alternative to the I-5 in case of an emergency that caused the closure of I-5. If you have driven south on the I-5 to San Diego, you might have noticed that the I-5 is the only north-south road past San Clemente. This is because the Camp Pendleton Marine Base lies between San Clemente and San Diego. No public-access roads exist through the Marine Base except I-5. Further, if one speculates about large-scale emergencies such as earthquakes and other natural disasters, it is easy to see that if any section of the I-5 was to be closed, it is most likely that near San Onfore or further south where I-5 is very near the ocean (think tsunamis). Since the 241 is proposed to intersect the I-5 north of the critical area, it would be of little use to residents seeking to leave the area going to San Diego. It would be of more use for people fleeing northeast, but there are a multitude of other routes that direction. So, the claim by MacLean and the TCA that the 241 would be critical in an emergency is likely false.

Finally, the TCA and MacLean claim that the 241 would be sensitive to environmental concerns. Unfortunately for them, the locals know better. No matter what claims the TCA or MacLean makes, it is very difficult to believe their premise that the State Park and Trestles would be better off with the tollway extension than without the extension. “Mistakes” would be made, unplanned or unforeseen circumstances would require more grading or cause more runoff, and then profuse “apologies” would be offered by the TCA staff. However, the damage would be done and, once the road construction started, there would be no turning back, even if massive damage was the “unfortunate” result. I believe that the TCA and MacLean know that such damage is likely, and they are simply trying to mislead the public by pretending to be “concerned about the environment.”

In fact, the California Coastal Commission and the State Department of Parks both have gone on record as opposing the specific plan outlined by MacLean and the TCA, citing great damage to one of Southern California's premier parks and Trestles, a place that is known to surfers throughout the world. Also, the State of California has told the TCA that it must follow all of the rules that other private agencies must follow with respect to environmental issues – rules the TCA ignored in planning the 241 extension.

As mentioned above, the real need is to get residents of the new eastern and southern Orange County housing developments to the I-5 quickly and safely and then to expand the I-5, especially in southern Orange County. If the TCA really wanted to do something useful, it could connect the 241 to the I-5 at or near the CA73-I5 interchange. This would involve expanding the east-west capacity that would serve Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo and could actually reduce congestion on the I-5 by allowing a direct interchange to the CA73, which parallels the I-5 for those going to LA or coastal Orange County. Even better would be a free extension of the CA73 to Antonio Parkway and Ortega Highway.

So why would the TCA want to extend the 241 if it will not provide any real benefits to Orange County residents? One word. MONEY. If the TCA builds this extension, they are going to try and leverage the agreement that Caltrans foolishly signed in 1993, which forces Caltrans to discourage new freeways and roads or expansion of existing freeways and roads if that would reduce tollway revenues by making it easier for drivers to take free roads. Essentially, this agreement forces taxpayers to pay the TCA if we want to improve any road near the toll road. This is what happened with the CA91 toll lanes. Caltrans and OCTA were prohibited from expanding the free road capacity on CA-91 that ran next to the toll lanes. So, the free lanes became more and more congested until they were at a virtual standstill. Outraged motorists then demanded relief, and OCTA finally had to buy the toll lanes for $200 million. This gave the toll road investors a $100-million profit and is exactly what the TCA wants here. The TCA and MacLean want a similar setup so that the taxpayers will be forced to buy the 241 just to relieve intolerable congestion on the I-5. They will get rich on the backs of the rest of the county, and we will have to suffer congestion on the I-5 because they are simply greedy.

You can make a difference by letting Caltrans, the OCTA and your city council know that you oppose the 241 extension to San Onfore. We will be writing more on this matter in upcoming issues.