More Spin on the 241 Extension
by Dale Tyler

The flaks for the proposed 241 toll-road extension are getting into “fast spin” mode with the Coastal Commission decision on the future of the 241 coming soon. When we see quotes from the likes of Lance MacLean and Donna Varner praising the great works of the TCA and their wonderful humanitarian record, I expect the next paragraph to claim driving the toll road will cure cancer or feed the homeless. The problem is that all of the so-called “facts” presented by MacLean and Varner are biased to support the TCA's plans and contain very little real information

First, some real facts. The TCA is proposing to extend the 241 toll road from its current termination at Oso Parkway east of Mission Viejo to meet the I-5 at the far north end of Camp Pendleton, near San Onofre State Park. The TCA has an non-compete agreement with the Orange County Transportation Agency (OCTA) that will either prevent development of roads that would take traffic away from the toll road or force OCTA to pay TCA money to cover TCA “losses.” This agreement likely would affect increasing the number of lanes of the I-5.

It would be reasonable to ask if this is the best way to solve the transportation problems in south Orange County. I maintain that it is not, at least as currently planned. For the sake of discussion, let's divide the 241 extension into two parts, the first (north) part being the section from Oso to near Ortega (CA-74), and the second (south) part running south from Ortega to the I-5 near San Onofre State Beach. In order to serve the transportation needs of the new communities in southeastern Orange County like Lardra, Rancho Mission Viejo and the eastern parts of San Clemente, we need to consider where these people are likely to want to go when they leave their houses.

Let's consider a hypothetical resident of the yet-to-be-built Rancho Mission Viejo. Are they more likely to work in: a) Irvine and north, b) Riverside, or c) San Diego County? If you think that the answer is a, you would be right. These people will mostly want to get on I-5 going north. A few will want to go to Lake Forest or on to the CA-55. A much smaller number will want to go south to San Diego, because of the much greater distance required to get past Camp Pendleton. Yet, the TCA wants to build the south part of the 241 to the I-5, ignoring the fact that most drivers will want to go north, either on the I-5 or the 241.

The north section from CA-74 to Oso has a clear right-of-way and would be a useful addition to Orange County's transportation needs, along with the proposed Cow Camp Road extension that would intersect CA-74 and the 241 and carry traffic west to meet the I-5 at the I-5/CA73 junction south of Avery Parkway. The Cow Camp extension is what will really make the difference, as at present Ladera and Rancho Mission Viejo traffic will have to flow up Antonio to Crown Valley and then on to I-5, which is clearly unworkable. Or the traffic will flow on CA-74 to I-5, requiring massive widening, from four to six extra lanes and complete reconstruction of the interchange at CA-74/Ortega. One problem with the Cow Camp plan is the route it would take through south Ladera, but we will see if residents there are willing to take their fair share of the traffic, like they have forced residents of Mission Viejo to do for so long.

The traffic problems in eastern San Clemente are the same as for Rancho Mission Viejo. Most of these people want to go north, not south, and they need to get to the I-5. Widening of the east-west connector roads and improving interchanges will be the key in that area. Also, La Pata is planned to be extended to CA-74 north and could intersect with the Cow Camp Road and then route traffic to I-5 or 241 as an alternate route.

The south section of the 241 is the controversial part and will carry very little traffic. How many people will want to use the 241 to get from San Diego County to Riverside? If the real traffic need is for flow north, then why is the TCA proposing building the southern section of the 241 extension? The answer is simple: money and power. If the 241 does not connect to I-5, the TCA apparently believes that traffic and tolls will be much lower, despite common sense evidence to the contrary. The TCA staff members probably also think they gain more prestige by having a road that connects two other major highways, I-5 and CA-55. In fact, considering the extra costs of building the southern section that will get little use, they are probably endangering their bond holders by adding the southern section. One possible answer to this is the ability to force the I-5 to remain congested by invoking the non-compete agreement with OCTA. In this way, traffic on I-5 will be so bad that the TCA hopes people will bypass the I-5 and take their toll road instead. Once again, this shows the TCA staff and shills do not care about transportation, but merely about the profits from their toll road.

We don't need the 241 to be extended past CA-74. You can call the Coastal Commission at 562/590-5071 to express your concerns before the February 6 meetings. Tell them you support more highways, if they will really solve transportation problems, but that this one is not needed. You can also email the Mission Viejo City Council at cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org to tell them that Lance MacLean is not representing your views on this matter and for him to be removed as TCA representative for Mission Viejo.