AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor  (Read 19134 times)

sdmichael

Re: CA 241
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2014, 12:32:33 AM »

To be clear though, this "Tesoro Extension" won't connect to State 74 (Ortega Hwy). It will just go near it and only serve yet another development. There is also an extension of La Plata Ave to connect with Camino Las Ramblas as a partial measure to help traffic flow in that area.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 388
  • Last Login: May 25, 2019, 08:53:06 PM
Foothill Transportation Corridor (Toll Road) California state route 241?
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2016, 08:12:55 PM »

Foothill Transportation Corridor (Toll Road) California state route 241?

Does anyone know about the Foothill Transportation Corridor (Toll Road), California state route 241 extension to California state route 74, Ortega Highway?  Let alone connecting Interstate 5, San Diego Freeway (Old U.S. 101)?  What is stopping it from being connected to Interstate 5? 

Tressle Railroad Amtrak bridges?  The California Coastal Commission?


Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA


Mod Note: Scott, In addition to taking a look at www.cahighways.org, www.aaroads.com and other sources, it would be helpful if you search for past topics on our board. I have merged your thread with a preexisting thread on CA 241 that also had information on this subject. —Roadfro
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 09:03:01 AM by roadfro »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2348
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 08, 2019, 06:52:37 PM

I heard it was voted down in 2008. The California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 not to build the extension. There was opposition, environmental and national security issues as well. I don't expect 241 will ever go south of Oso Parkway.
Logged

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 388
  • Last Login: May 25, 2019, 08:53:06 PM

I assume NIMBY, not in your back yard for an tollway, exactly?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 374
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 59
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 07:44:44 PM
    • California Highways

As always, you should consult my pages. From http://www.cahighways.org/241-248.html

In December 2005, the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency released its final environmental impact report on the alignments. They chose a wilderness route for the Foothill South, which could be completed as early as 2010. The agency's chosen route, one of six possibilities outlined in May, traverse the habitat for at least 10 threatened or endangered species and cut a state park in half. The roadway would be raised on pillars near the coast and would be visible from the coastal side of San Onofre State Beach. Although toll-road officials say it would have no direct effect on surfing, species or habitat near the beach, activists say it would spoil coastal views and ruin the ambience of the state park's campground. A state parks commission recently called on state officials to fight the toll road. The toll-road board votes on the proposal Jan. 12, 2006. Then, the agency must gain permits from a variety of agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the state Department of Fish and Game, as well as the state Coastal Commission.

In late February 2006, the TCA selected the routing that traverses San Onofre State Beach. This created even more controversy, with bills being introduced in the state legislature to prohibit construction of toll roads in state parks. Specifically, in April 2007, AB 1457 (Huffman), which would ban a proposed toll road through San Onofre, was scheduled for a hearing before the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee, was put on a two-year track in order to provide time to grow support to get it through the Legislature. Supporters of the road include such groups as the Associated General Contractors of California, the Orange County Business Council, the Los Angeles-Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council and local elected officials.

There is some controversy on this routing. a coalition of environmental groups opposed to the project has released a pair of studies that question the accuracy of study. Several environmental groups have rallied to support the California Department of Parks in its opposition to the proposed route through two federally-owned parklands . Each possible route was judged by the number of homes and businesses to be seized by eminent domain. The also compared construction of the route to widening I-5.

In November 2006, the LA Times reported that new traffic studies contradict optimistic predictions that a proposed tollway through San Onofre State Beach would eliminate much of the congestion on I-5 in South Orange County. Most of I-5 in South Orange County will be "consistently congested" at rush hour by 2030 even if the controversial Foothill South toll road extension is built, according to the Orange County Transportation Authority's long-range transportation plan for 2006. The forecasts assume construction of the tollway, a carpool lane each way on the I-5 and some interchange improvements. If only the tollway is built, the study suggests, the situation will be even worse, with motorists on the interstate seeing "severely congested" conditions.

In May 2007, efforts to extend the route were dealt a setback when a congressional committee voted to eliminate legislation designed to expedite the highway’s construction--specifically, approved a defense bill amendment related to Route 241 that would overrule a 1999 decision by Congress that gave the Navy the power to grant tollway operators a 40-acre easement inside San Onofre (as the park is on leased land within USMC Pendleton). The amendment would also dismantle other federal legislation freeing Route 241 from regulations in the federal Transportation Act requiring road builders to exhaust all "feasible and prudent" alternatives before parkland can be used for a highway. During the summer this amendment stalled, but as of December 2007, it had passed all procedural challenges and made it into the defense authorization bill. Note that the project can't be built unless the state Coastal Commission grants a permit for its construction, and a commission staff report issued in September 2007 already has recommended that the permit be denied.

In February 2008, the California Coastal Commission denied the construction permit, and the OCTA began consideration of a new route.

In December 2008, the U.S. Commerce Department announced it would uphold the state Coastal Commission's rejection of the plan. Federal officials could only override the state's decision if the project had no alternatives or was necessary to national security, and the announcement said neither of those criteria was met. The California Coastal Commission rejected plans for the road earlier in 2008, saying that the six-lane road -- which would run from Rancho Santa Margarita to Basilone Road at Camp Pendleton -- violated the state's coastal management program. The toll road agency backing the plan "may pursue another route" consistent with coastal zone protections, according to the Commerce Department announcement.

In June 2009, it was reported that the toll road agency still wants to complete the connection to I-5, and is considering other routes. The agency has budgeted $11.9 million for "241 completion" in its fiscal year that begins July 1. The rejected route would have extended Route 241 by 16.9 miles, from its current terminus in the Rancho Santa Margarita area through San Onofre State Beach park to join I-5. Since the U.S. Commerce Department rejected the proposed route in December, the toll road agency's staff has reached out to supporters and opponents in dozens of meetings to see if agreement can be reached on an alternate route. While opponents say planners should look at options besides extending the toll road, the toll road agency feels a failure to extend Route 241 would force a "massive widening" of I-5 from the San Diego County line north to Laguna Hills.

In December 2009, San Clemente city council members said they expect to vote in January on a resolution opposing a toll road into San Clemente. This came about due to discussions that TCA had with federal officials about alternative routes that would cut through San Clemente. There are two potential routes of concern to the city: the Commerce Department's option, which would end at Avenida La Pata and Avenida Vista Hermosa, dumping traffic there, and a longer route that would connect with I-5 beside Avenida Pico. The TCA has declared the Commerce Department's option unfeasible, and with respect to alternative routes within Camp Pendleton, the Marines are on record as far back as 1990 stating that the route through the state park was the only one acceptable to the Marine Corps.

In May 2011, it was reported that TCA was attempting again to rally public opinion for construction of the route. The TCA is trying to re-establish a Route 241 proposal three years after the California Coastal Commission rejected a previous plan and the U.S. secretary of commerce rejected the TCA's appeal. TCA has run advertisements appealing for public support. The specifics of their alternate route have not been released.

In October 2011, the TCA voted to conduct a $3.9-million feasibility study for an addition that would run from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to the vicinity of Ortega Highway. If approved, construction could begin in early 2013. The study is expected to take a year, and will consider environmental effects, finances and engineering.

In November 2012, it was reported that the OCTA had approved more work on the extension of Route 241. Although there is still no movement regarding completing the extension to I-5, TCA is planning an addition that would bring the road's southern end to just north of Ortega Highway. The Tesoro extension is estimated to cost around $195 million, and TCA is working on attaining right-of-ways with Rancho Mission Viejo, which owns the land and is developing homes on the property. The project will go to a regional water board hearing in February 2013 and a community forum in March before a TCA board vote.

In April 2013, it was reported that due of the weakened financial condition of OCTA, a new study recommends that its leadership postpone a road project and stop borrowing money until state authorities can review the operation. In December 2012, SNR Denton, a Los Angeles law firm that helped stop the TCA from building a route through San Onofre State Park, disclosed documents that revealed a host of issues plaguing the agency. They included sagging ridership and revenue as well as mounting debts and declining ratings for bonds sold to investors. The institute’s report also coincides with plans by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission to assess the viability of a proposed refinancing of $2.4 billion in TCA bonds. The new study agrees with many of Denton’s findings, but it goes one step further in recommending that the TCA halt the refinancing and shelve a proposed tollway project in southern Orange County until the agency’s finances are vetted. Tollway officials said the issues raised by the new study are “old news regenerated by some of the same opposition groups” to TCA projects. They noted that the operation has a quarter million riders daily, earns about $200 million in annual revenue and has not missed a debt payment. The report states that to make its debt payments, the TCA has raised tolls so much that its debt per mile is now far higher than the national average for toll roads. The Foothill-Eastern’s is $64 million, while the San Joaquin’s is $136 million. The national average is $17.1 million, the study notes. Almost a quarter of the TCA’s total debt payments of more than $10 billion stem from capital appreciation bonds that delay principal and interest payments for years and can result in huge debt payments. As such, tolls for both corridors are now among the highest in the country, researchers said, causing many price-sensitive motorists to avoid them in favor of free public highways.
(Source: LA Times, 4/10/13)

In June 2013, it was reported that the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board declined to issue a discharge permit to the Transportation Corridor Agencies in Irvine, the operator of 51 miles of toll roads in Orange County. The TCA sought the permit for the planned Tesoro Extension that would lengthen the Foothill tollway 5.5 miles from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Cow Camp Road east of San Juan Capistrano. Board members who voted to deny the permit said the Tesoro Extension was not the project that should have been brought to them for a permit. They contended that the proposal was actually part of a broader TCA plan to lengthen the Foothill toll road 16 miles to I-5 around San Clemente.

In April 2014, it was reported that the TCA has announced that it has canceled environmental studies for a controversial extension project that was widely criticized and ultimately rejected by the California Coastal Commission in 2008. The Transportation Corridor Agencies rescinded two notices to proceed with federal environmental impact statements for the Foothill South extension, which would have connected the Route 241 tollway with the I-5 Freeway south of San Clemente.

In March 2015, it was reported that the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board declined to issue the waste discharge permit that was needed before construction can begin on the controversial extension project. It was the second time since June 2013 that the water board has rejected a discharge permit for the planned Tesoro Extension that would add 5.5 miles to the Foothill tollway by extending it from Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita to Cow Camp Road east of San Juan Capistrano. Citing substantial evidence, the board asserted that the Tesoro was actually part of a broader TCA plan to extend the Foothill tollway 16 miles to the 5 Freeway around San Clemente. As a result, the board concluded that potential effects on water quality of the proposed extension were not adequately addressed and unmitigated effects could occur if the Foothill tollway is eventually built.
(Source: LA Times, 3/17/2015)
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 388
  • Last Login: May 25, 2019, 08:53:06 PM

Then definitely it is the end of CA 241's southern extension, no plans further to extend it.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2348
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 08, 2019, 06:52:37 PM

That was also my perception.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2443
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:59 PM

It's a shame.  An extension to I-5 would have helped draw a lot of traffic off I-5 in southern OC.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 10:22:28 PM
    • AARoads
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2016, 11:07:38 AM »

Yesterday, the LA Times, OC Register, and San Clemente Times reported that the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) have reached a settlement agreement with the state of California, the California Parks and Recreation Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Save San Onofre Coalition regarding the proposed SR 241 extension to I-5 in San Onofre State Beach. TCA will no longer pursue the San Onofre extension and the shorter "Tesoro Extension." TCA instead will consider transportation alternatives that may include an alternative route that avoids sensitive environmental and historical areas. This comes eight years after the California Coastal Commission and US Department of Commerce had rejected the San Onofre State Beach route.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-tollway-lawsuits-20161109-story.html

Quote
The new agreement ends five lawsuits that targeted plans to lengthen the Foothill South toll road 16 miles to Interstate 5 in north San Diego County, using a portion of the state beach, which includes wildlife habitat, campgrounds, Indian sites and heavily used surf breaks, including Trestles. 

The settlement also requires the Transportation Corridor Agencies in Irvine to rescind approval of the proposed 5½-mile Tesoro Extension, which environmentalists called a possible attempt to resurrect the route through San Onofre.

http://www.sanclementetimes.com/settlement-reached-tca-ca-attorney-general-toll-road-stakeholders/

Quote
Traffic through South Orange County’s portion of Interstate 5 generally ranges from slow-moving flow to stagnant, particularly on weekends and major holidays from Camino De Estrella to Cristianitos Road. The toll roads options have been opposed by many environmental entities, including the Sierra Club and Save San Onofre Coalition.

The TCA’s Foothills/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency voted 10-2 to approve the agreement, with San Clemente City Councilwoman Kathy Ward and San Juan Capistrano Councilwoman Kerry Ferguson voting against it.

The agreement also stated TCA will abandon any plans following the “green alignment,” which would have gone through San Onofre State Beach, and the Tesoro Extension project.

In another article, TCA has been conducting workshops on potential alternative methods to provide South OC traffic congestion relief. Many of these will likely prove as controversial as the 241 extension proposals have been to date:

http://www.sanclementetimes.com/tca-unveils-proposals-toll-roads-traffic-alleviation-throughout-south-orange-county/

Quote
TCA recently hosted two meetings to hear public input about finding transportation alternatives to the I-5 and other existing transportation infrastructure. One such meeting took place Oct. 5 at St. Andrews by-the-Sea in San Clemente, where more than 200 people attended, according to TCA officials. The information from the meeting will be presented to a community task force on Oct. 19. Some of the ideas discussed included roads that would go through Cristianitos; a long road from Ortega Highway that would eventually connect to Avenida Pico; more lanes to the I-5 corridor in San Clemente; traffic light synchronization; more bike lanes; and increasing train frequency.

The planning, environmental studies and conception of any plan will take at least seven to 10 years, TCA officials said.

Meanwhile, another obstacle any plan must consider is the increasing number of families coming into Rancho Mission Viejo, which is still being filled and is planned to be built out in 10 to 20 years—the development area has about 14,000 homes. The subdivision is basically at the junction of Ortega Highway and the end of La Pata, and people at the Oct. 5 meeting said development there will affect traffic coming down through San Clemente.

The actual settlement agreement is available for review here: https://venturestrategic.app.box.com/s/4y30dwpto1proiw5j5yjgebfzt45397v/1/12019295780/100680277347/1

Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1808
  • Age: 64
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 01:52:23 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #34 on: November 11, 2016, 11:49:11 AM »

"This comes eight years after the California Coastal Commission and US Department of Commerce had rejected the San Onofre State Beach route."

8 years of litigation and bureaucratic wrangling.  At this rate by the time the Calfornication process is concluded for the 241. humans will be seeing that Earth-sized planet around Proxima Centauri in person. 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2016, 10:03:07 AM »

Yesterday, the LA Times, OC Register, and San Clemente Times reported that the Orange County Transportation Corridor Agencies (TCA) have reached a settlement agreement with the state of California, the California Parks and Recreation Commission, the Native American Heritage Commission, and the Save San Onofre Coalition regarding the proposed SR 241 extension to I-5 in San Onofre State Beach. TCA will no longer pursue the San Onofre extension and the shorter "Tesoro Extension." TCA instead will consider transportation alternatives that may include an alternative route that avoids sensitive environmental and historical areas. This comes eight years after the California Coastal Commission and US Department of Commerce had rejected the San Onofre State Beach route.

Thanks for the update.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2348
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 08, 2019, 06:52:37 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2016, 05:48:21 PM »

I have the feeling that, after all the proposals are studied and the impacts are assessed, in the end, nothing will be done.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1299
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 10:22:28 PM
    • AARoads
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2017, 12:20:21 AM »

News about the 241 extension, which local agencies especially in southern Orange County continue to discuss:

From May 19, 2017: http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/19/rancho-mission-viejo-opposes-current-241-toll-road-extension-concepts/

Quote
Developers of Rancho Mission Viejo announced this week that they cannot support any of the Transportation Corridor Agency’s current visions for extending the 241 Toll Road to I-5.

The ranch issued a statement Wednesday, May 17 in response to a mobility study that the TCA is undertaking to analyze 18 ideas for improving transportation in south Orange County.

Among those ideas are I-5 widenings, more railway capacity, new or expanded arterial roads and four potential routes for extending the 241 Toll Road from its present terminus at Oso Parkway to connect with the freeway.

Two of the toll routes envisioned would cut through San Clemente, one through San Juan Capistrano and one would cut between Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo to merge with I-5 and the 73 Toll Road near Mission Viejo’s border with San Juan. ...

The ranch is developing 14,000 homes on nearly 23,000 acres – 17,000 of those acres to be preserved as open space – east of San Juan Capistrano. As the TCA’s study moves forward, the ranch said it hopes “viable solutions to address increased South County mobility can be generated that do not have an impact on existing communities.” ...

The ranch, in its statement opposing the current 241 extension concepts, said it supported the TCA’s prior efforts to extend the tollway to I-5 south of San Clemente along a route that the ranch said would “have the least impact on existing homes and residents.” But the TCA recently abandoned that alignment in a lawsuit settlement that the toll agency reached with environmental groups that opposed that route.

The ranch said that for decades RMV has helped fund and construct important South County arterial roads like Marguerite, Antonio, Crown Valley and Oso Parkways, and the ranch is currently building Cow Camp Road and Los Patrones Parkway to serve ranch residents and regional needs.

Completion of a 241 Toll Road extension to I-5 “is not necessary for the further development of the Rancho Mission Viejo community,” the statement said.

From September 6, 2017: http://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/06/241-toll-road-extension-may-connect-to-i-5-alongside-high-school-san-clemente-mayor-says/

Quote
A toll road that the Transportation Corridor Agency is considering merging onto Interstate 5 near Avenida Pico would fly over a former Carrows Restaurant that borders San Clemente High School, San Clemente’s mayor said Tuesday, Sept. 5.

Mayor Kathy Ward, who represents the city on the TCA’s board of directors, said she was given a tour of potential south Orange County toll road routes that are part of a TCA mobility study. She said she was shocked to see how close an envisioned bridge onto I-5 would pass the high school.

Ward said she had thought, based on a decade-old TCA environmental study, that a potential 241 alignment would hug a hillside below St. Andrews Methodist Church and descend to I-5 at the Pico interchange.

“They will not connect to the Pico interchange, because they will harm the interchange,” Ward said at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. “They want to connect further south. That means it will connect much closer to the high school than even we anticipated. I was surprised at how close it goes to the football field. It would fly over Carrows, and there would be a post or a pole somewhere in the back in the Carrows/McDonald’s area, and it would cut very close to that open area next to the freeway, right next to the field.”

Mike Chesney, chief strategy officer for the TCA, said Wednesday, Sept. 6, that the environmental process will need to vet any alignments that might be proposed as a result of the mobility study. But at this point he said it appears the potential alignment shown to Mayor Ward could be designed without physical impacts to the high school. ...

San Clemente’s City Council has declared its opposition to any toll road slicing through the city. The city’s website states opposition to any toll road that would divide a community. The city and a homeowner association are suing the TCA, challenging a protective zone that was created in a lawsuit settlement the TCA reached in November with environmental groups. The city says the avoidance zone, designed to protect the area around Trestles Beach, cornered the TCA into trying to push the 241 through one established community or another in south Orange County to connect to I-5.

San Juan Capistrano is opposed to any extension of the 241 Toll Road through its borders. Councilman Brian Maryott told his City Council colleagues on Tuesday, Sept. 5, that he took the tour of potential 241 routes to I-5, including one that would cut through open hills in San Juan to connect with the freeway near the Beach Cities curve. ...

The Beltway option in the TCA’s mobility study would connect the 241 to the 73 along the border of San Juan and Mission Viejo.

Maryott said studies will determine which route, if any, is feasible. “I do think the San Juan Capistrano route may survive the first round of feasibility, so we will be hearing about it more,” he said. “However … if any ends up being deemed feasible to connect the toll road to the 5, I really don’t feel it will be that route … either the Beltway or the route through the hills. I am very, very confident that neither of those routes will survive through feasibility studies.” ...

Mark McGuire, a San Clemente attorney who has questioned the 241 dumping more traffic onto I-5 within established communities, told the City Council he was pleased to hear people in Ladera Ranch, Mission Viejo and San Juan Capistrano are advocating keeping Rancho Mission Viejo’s Los Patrones Parkway a free road.

Los Patrones is an arterial highway being built by the ranch development to link Oso Parkway and the 241 with Cow Camp Road, near Ortega Highway. McGuire said advocates want it to remain free and not be turned over to the TCA as an extension of the 241 Toll Road south of Oso.

“They have submitted their written testimony to the Board of Supervisors and to others,” McGuire said. “If we can keep the pressure on and keep Los Patrones free, we’re down the road to keeping the toll road from going one more inch.”

McGuire urged local officials to seek legislation to prevent toll revenue from being spent on 241 plans, instead of paying down the TCA’s debt so the 73 Toll Road can become a free road earlier than 2050 and the 241 can become a free road earlier than 2053.

There is an opposition webpage with a graphic of potential alignments:

https://notmytollroad.com/the-issue/



Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Bigmikelakers

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 226
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 02:53:37 AM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2017, 01:27:46 PM »

All those "potential" alignments seem to look dead on arrival to me. I'm just going by the map above. I didn't go on the actual site. I assume some if not all those alignments wouldn't actually be freeways per say but rather expressway type upgrades? Even that would be a problem to the NIMBY's though. Honestly, the path of least resistance other than swinging it down to Camp Pendelton would be to route it along San Juan Creek to meet with the 5 around San Juan Creek Rd.

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 478
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 03:49:37 AM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2017, 01:32:08 PM »

I'm sure there is a solution out there somewhere. It might not come in my lifetime or any of ours, but it's there. While I'm at it,in my novice year of high school speech and debate, I gave a speech as to why we should build the 241. I had a lot of fun doing it, and you can find it on YouTube.
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 478
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 03:49:37 AM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2017, 03:20:26 PM »

In addition, I thought of a solution. The Toll Roads and Caltrans could strike a deal with the Pentagon and run the 241 along the east side of Camp Pendleton, and then south into Oceanside, ending at I-5 near SR-76. This could also include a spur near Fallbrook to I-15. It's complex, and expensive, and there's the possibility of there being UXO along the route's intended path, but I'm sure they could all make it work.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2348
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: November 08, 2019, 06:52:37 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2017, 05:57:26 PM »

Those pushing for an CA-241 extension will, in all likelihood, have to give up on their extension plans, and accept the fact that CA-241 will never go any further south than Oso Parkway. There seems to be too much opposition for any extension plan to become a reality.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5133
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:44:45 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2017, 11:04:50 AM »

So far, these proposals have been or will be shot down:

We all know about I-710 through South Pasadena, but opposition to this is just as strong.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6093
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:55 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2017, 06:41:04 PM »

So far, these proposals have been or will be shot down:

We all know about I-710 through South Pasadena, but opposition to this is just as strong.

One would think that folding 241 back onto the 73 toll road, forming a loop around South County -- with a possible spur out to CA 74/Ortega Highway, might be a feasible concept that doesn't impinge upon either the San Juan or San Mateo creekbeds.  However, the local property developers, who are getting $1.5M+ per residence, have historically been quite reluctant to give up any available land for the toll road -- as well as having to price parcels adjacent to the facility somewhat lower because of the noise factor.  Coupled with the ever-diminishing amount of available land (because they're siting houses wherever they can), accessibility to and from toll roads is something that's well down their priority list of improvements to support; one of the longstanding selling points of South County "high-end" housing tracts is relative isolation from the main part of the county.  Since they're asking West L.A.-type prices for their residences, it appears the developers and the folks already ensconced there have acquired a comparably strong sense of NIMBYism, which translates into a rejection of regional accessways.   
Logged

Bigmikelakers

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 226
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 02:53:37 AM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2017, 12:06:38 AM »

One would think that folding 241 back onto the 73 toll road, forming a loop around South County -- with a possible spur out to CA 74/Ortega Highway, might be a feasible concept that doesn't impinge upon either the San Juan or San Mateo creekbeds.  However, the local property developers, who are getting $1.5M+ per residence, have historically been quite reluctant to give up any available land for the toll road -- as well as having to price parcels adjacent to the facility somewhat lower because of the noise factor.  Coupled with the ever-diminishing amount of available land (because they're siting houses wherever they can), accessibility to and from toll roads is something that's well down their priority list of improvements to support; one of the longstanding selling points of South County "high-end" housing tracts is relative isolation from the main part of the county.  Since they're asking West L.A.-type prices for their residences, it appears the developers and the folks already ensconced there have acquired a comparably strong sense of NIMBYism, which translates into a rejection of regional accessways.   

Oh yeah I thought of folding 241 to the 73 too but that idea will be dead on arrival too. Ladera and Mission would never want that. It would make sense though if the 241 is never able to be extended southward. Honestly, the only real solution that could possibly appease both sides is to use plan 8 off that "Say No" map and extend the 241 down to Antonio Pkwy/La Plata and make that more of a expressway style roadway since it practically is anyway with the high speed limits and small number of signals. Antonio probably has one of the highest speed limits and open drives I ever experienced on the coastal side of Southern California. That way it can be used as an alternate to the 5 because that drive coming back up to LA on weekends and holidays looks to be getting worse.

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: October 29, 2019, 12:22:24 PM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2017, 07:06:05 PM »

The route identified as #13, which parallels La Pata and then ducks across the landfill to pick up the 5 near Camino Capistrano, is the only remaining route connecting the 241 to the 5 that isn’t cost-prohibitive.  All of the other routes, with the exception of the original proposed route along San Juan Creek, require acquisitions of swaths of expensive homes.  The cost and the political capital to push that sort of eminent domain through would make the 710 fight look like a minor skirmish.

And I don’t expect the #13 route to have enough support to overcome the opposition to it that local homeowners will mount, either, even if that route doesn't require razing anything other than a trailer park.  People who bought $800,000 homes don't want a freeway behind them. 

The Toll Road Authority is also not a political juggernaut, and has spent most of the past decade shoring up its finances after folding the San Joaquin Hills bond debt into the Eastern bond debt.  It is in the black now, but still doesn't have the political capital to push anything through.  I agree with the sentiments on here that the current terminus at Oso is the most likely outcome.  Maybe the authority will negotiate a local extension and connection down to a portion of the Rancho Mission Viejo development, but that will be it.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 07:10:28 PM by Occidental Tourist »
Logged

theroadwayone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 478
  • Location: San Diego, California
  • Last Login: November 10, 2019, 03:49:37 AM
Re: CA 241 - Foothill Transportation Corridor
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2017, 01:31:23 PM »

Like I said, I don't know how it will get built, or where it will go, but I am sure they will find a way to do it. If it comes down to me taking a shovel and a pickaxe, while getting hooked up to IV's for water and Gatorade, and building it myself, so freaking be it.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.