Follow @PartyinOC on Twitter for a chance to have your tweet show up here.
Consultant says toll road won’t effect Trestles. Vote: Do you think it should be built?
July 31st, 2008, 7:55 am · 13 Comments · posted by Laylan Connelly, staff writer
A very interesting article by Reg reporter Pat Brennan this morning about a consultant that says building the Foothill South tollroad will have no effect whatever on surfing conditions at the famous Trestles beach.
The story says that claims by environmental activists were wrong, according to Richard Seymour, a research engineer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and an oceanographic consultant, who was paid $6,000 for the report.
“The reports commissioned by the Surfrider Foundation just contained a number of very, very serious erroneous assumptions – and incorrect theories, and incorrect interpretations of other documents,” Seymour said.
Much of the support for the Save Trestles campain came from surfers looking to protect the loved surf break.
What do you think?
More stories from the Beach Blog:
NSSA signs cable deal with Fox Sports
Fishermen catch 10-foot Mako shark, feed 500 people
Top Pro Surfers give back to the Groms
Miss that hurricane swell last week? Check out these photos (includes rare break “the Point”)
Body art at the U.S. Open of Surfing: Can you tell what is real?
13 Comments
-
-
-
BEACHAPEDIA - your guide to the coast
Local surfers recognized- Surfline wire news
I suppose the people who still believe a road a half-mile away will impact the surf break also believe the earth is really flat.
Scripps is one of the most credible scientific institutes in the world. This should put an emphatic end to the scare tactics used by Surfrider that this road could possible impact the surf break at Trestles.
This is just more proof that you cannot trust what emotional environmentalists think about a matter. How many times do they have to be wrong before we stop listening to them on stuff like this. The scientists should do the science and the surfers should just surf.
I am extremely concerned that there are so many people who don’t live anywhere around Orange or San Diego Counties trying to decide how we should live.
Last week’s truck crash and ensuing multi hour traffic jam are another reason to have alternative routes.
The environmental cost to the area for traffic sitting for hours is staggering, not to mention the economic impact to travelers and business affected. These same people want to widen the 5 freeway, causing more traffic on area surface roads, more noise and traffic pollution and removing lush vegetation along the sides of the road, business and homes.
The extension will provide for improved parkland along the way and make improvements to our entire area.
I am in favor of the 241 extention.
I am in agreement with the consultant’s assessment. As an Environmental Consultant myself, a resident of San Clemente for nearly 40 years, and a surfer who grew-up surfing Trestles in the early 1970’s, the toll road will have little or no affect on the surf or the beach. The water quality in San Mateo Creek has improved considerably since the 1970’s because of changes in the watershed management (primarily reduced agriculture, discharges from the Marine Corp’s operations, lead phase out from gasoline, and vehicle tire and maintenance improvements).
The Save Trestles group has advocated no toll road based on flawed “eco-science” and exaggerated hydrology and sediment transport studies. Of equal exaggeration are the State Park Foundations assertions that San Onofre State Park will be “cut in two” and destroyed by the toll road. Having stayed in the campground (San Mateo) on multiple occasions, it is far from pristine (due to freeway noise and vehicle lights) and generally is not a great location for a campground. It is far removed from what most of us who live in San Clemente would call “San Onofre” which is located south of Basilone Road.
All said, I am against the toll road but not for the same reasons as the “Save Trestles” group or the State Park Foundations lies about “destroying” San Onofre State Beach. I do not believe traffic on the I-5 will not be significantly reduced to any great degree by the construction of a “pay as you go” road. Our threat is more related to one of public safety due in part to the fact that we only have one primary route out of south Orange County. An alternative route from south Orange County is necessary and long overdue.
The real solution would be to eliminate the toll road plans and finish the extension of La Plata (from San Juan to San Clemente) and connect it to Christinitos Road. This would then be followed by making considerable improvements (two lanes in each direction within the existing road footprint) to Christinitos Road which should be directly linked to Interstate 5 Freeway.
The point is not whether the extension will affect the geography. It’s whether the people of south OC need an Orange Crush built at San Clemente. For those heading north on the 5 past Pendleton, a 241 extension could be a godsend. For those heading south, a 241 extension will only mean more cars merging onto the 5 past San Clemente. And anyone travelling on the 5 south knows how much of a nightmare that can be already.
Mark should check the roadmaps and see where the crash occurred last week as well as note that it was southbound traffic affected. The 241 extension would not ease last week’s truck crash, because it happened north of the crash. It would have doubled the traffic buildup because there would now be TWO major traffic sources backing up.
Until CALTRANS figures out a way to ease traffic on the 5 and the 15, putting more connections to either of them will do NOTHING to ease traffic heading south.
When a consultant is hired/paid by a party with an enormous financial interest in a particular outcome, can we trust that there is no bias in the resultant report? I would place much more weight in an opinion from a scientific party who was not being paid and was thus, completely impartial. This report was not compiled by Scripps, but by a hired individual who happens to have been a former employee.
I would also like to point out that in some respects, science has nothing to do with this issue. This area is one of a very few open spaces along the coast… a rare gem and remaining piece of what make so cal a unique, beautiful place to live. I am not anti development… but simply wish for sensible development. Please look at the proponents of this road and past practice… the motivation isn’t entirely in easing traffic but may have something to do w/ opening new areas now inaccessible for rapid development.
Thank you Richard. Well said. It is truly a rare gem of a place. I pray that San Onofre will be protected forever.
It looks to me that the 241 simply merges to the existing 5.
The damage to Testles was done by opening it to the public.
I surfed there for 15 Years and the beach was pristine, now it is truly trashed and the crowd in the water generally negative.
People who want to save Trestles are just afaid to share this area with other people who don’t live in the area. This roadway will have no effect on the surf conditions except for the increase in the number of people who would have access to this beach. No one has explained how or why the surf would be damaged from this roadway. It took 1000’s of years for this beach to form the way it did so I don’t see the Save Trestles group’s rationale of how it’s going to be affected by the roadway.
It’s nice to know that this group cares about the environment but they have to stop thinking with their hearts and listen to the actual science. Open your minds people.
Also, No one is going to believe any report written out there b/c “someone” got paid for the report. Well, who is going to write one of these reports for free??
OMG! This issue is about WAY more than the surf at Trestles!
It’s disturbing to me that anyone would be willing to trade one of California’s ultimate State Parks for another freeway. Actually, though, I’d like to point out again that it’s NOT A FREEWAY. It’s a privately funded TOLL road. And it isn’t being proposed to ease traffic. That part is a blatant lie.
This toll road project isn’t about easing the traffic situation on the 5. If you think it is, and you honestly think it will actually ease traffic, you’ve become a victim of a marketing plan $$$. A marketing plan that is NOT OUR FRIEND.
I want my kids and grandkids to have San Onofre State Beach & Trestles to enjoy, as we have it now. So do a lot of people, which is why it’s been specifically protected from developers and designated as a State Park. San Onofre is a treasure! It’s not just for surfers, it’s for everyone. Over 2.5 million visitors enjoyed it last year alone. The attraction, along with the surf, is the pristine “awesomeness” of a stretch of natural beach area in southern California that hasn’t been paved over and ruined by developers. You don’t have to be a surfer to appreciate that.
The small group of investors/developers $$$, many of whom do not even live in California, who are attempting to brain wash you into believing their proposed toll road will “help you”, could care less about the traffic situation, the surf, the beach, or our kids and grandkids future enjoyment of San Onofre. They are only concerned with the money $$$ they want to make by over-developing the inland foothill land that they bought. Period. If you don’t agree with that, you need to do some more reading. If any issue deserves some extra research, this is the one.
Did anyone even notice that the proposed toll road runs right through the middle of San Mateo Camp Ground? San Mateo is part of San Onofre State Park. Did you think to ask why? I’ll tell you why. Because it’s the cheapest place for the private investors/developers to build it. Period. The shortest distance, the least amount of bridges to build, the least amount of land to acquire. It’s all about $$$$$.
Do we want to let this small group of investors/developers pave over OUR state treasure so THEY can make a bunch of $$$ (and then move on to their next “project”)…?
And, yes, the toll road will RUIN the San Onofre/San Mateo/Trestles area. BIG TIME!
I commute North 5 days a week from San Clemente to Irvine.
The really bad spots of traffic start at the onramp of Oso. The city of Ladera starts entering the freeway from there. If the 241 would enable them to “live more” and take the toll road, why aren’t they using it now? And we all know the Irvine Traffic still sucks with the 73 in place. And the TCA keeps increasing the toll fees on us.
So what happens IF the 241 extension is completed? Do we think that’s all that is going to be built out there — a road? How about urban sprawl. It will bring in more traffic to jam what is already a bad situation, making San Clemente the new crush.
How anybody can fall for the TCA’s 241 extension marketing plan is beyond me. Are you all brain dead? You need to look at a map of Southern California.
First of all, even the TCA has given up on the “easing traffic” arguement - as far as the State goes. The TCA has moved on to a new tactic. Emercency Egress, which is just as laughable, but that’s another story.
It’s all to clear that the 241, which would go through the mountains and foothills between the far south end of Orange County and Corona (basically), can not possibly ease the traffic on the 5 that’s caused by merging lanes throughout OC.
Do you honestly think the people who live in Mission Viejo are going to take the 241 to Irvine & L.A.?
How many people who live in, or east of, Corona work near San Clemente?
How many people who live near of San Clemente work out in the Inland Empire?
Or anywhere in between?
The bulk of work traffic runs north on the 5 in the morning, through Orange County, toward the HUBS, like Irvine, Long Beach, L.A., then south in the afternoon.
The State of California shot down TCA’s proposal to “ease traffic” with a no contest vote. Why are you supporters still talking about the issue like it will solve your traffic related tempers?
Here’s why. TCA is spending a TON of money on “MARKETING”.
You’re being played. Why?
So that you’ll blindly support the toll road. Why?
So that the undeveloped hills, at the far southern edge of Orange County, upstream of San Onofre State Park, can be developed. And the developers need the toll road to get all the people from the newly developed areas down to the 5, where they will head north in the morning, just like everyone else.
Did I mention that the toll road overpass and connections to the 5 will mess up traffic like nobody’s business for about…..let’s see, how long does it take to build a freeway interchange? 2….3 years?
If you hate natural environments, and just want to see the last rare and natural coastal watershed & wetlands in Southern California ruined by development…..fine! Support the toll road.
However, if you support the toll road because you honestly believe that it will ease traffic on the 5……you’re living on Mars!
Please, look at map people! Use the grey matter!