241 Toll road completion will have no effect on Trestles

I would write moe on this but I’m on the way out the door to  work.

Trestles BeachAny thoughts?

Consultant: toll road completion will have no effect on Trestles
Scripps scientist calls activists’ assertions ‘bogus.’


Building the Foothill South toll road will have no effect whatever on surfing conditions at the famous Trestles beach, according a noted oceanographer, whose scathing criticism of assertions by environmental activists was released this week.

Richard Seymour, a research engineer at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and an oceanographic consultant, was hired by the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency to examine a series of studies of the road’s potential effects on surfing. The studies were conducted by the toll road agency and by the environmental group Surfrider Foundation.

Seymour, who was paid $6,000 for the review conducted in May, said he largely agreed with the toll road agency consultants who studied the matter – and found the Surfrider studies to be filled with scientific mistakes READ MORE.

  16 comments for “241 Toll road completion will have no effect on Trestles

  1. Republican dementia
    July 31, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Five years from now the need for this new toll road will appear as silly as all of the projections for a new international airport in Orange County. Remember when air travel was going to grow and grow and grow.? Actually demand has been flat and is now declining.

    Worldwide liquid fuel production is declining while worldwide demand and demand in producing countries has been rising. Couple this with a steady decline in the US Dollar, and we will see a vivid demonstration of what we learned in Economics 101. Prices will continue to rise, demand destruction will ensue.

    Fewer miles driven, fewer trips, less traffic, and absolutely no need for another major freeway project, much less a toll road.

  2. d'Anconia
    July 31, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Hey Republican dementia, how about you pick up a 10 year projection study from the OCTA and read it? Instead of trying to “guess” what’s going to happen in 5 years, why don’t you just ask transportation professionals who do this for a living?

    Your assertion that we will have less traffic in five years than we have now is nothing short of stupid and laughable.

  3. d'Anconia
    July 31, 2008 at 10:49 am


    “Any thoughts?”

    Absolutely. My thoughts are that hippie tree-huggers have known all along that they’re lying to their friends and family about this but they don’t care.

    This has never been about the environment. This has always been a coalition between liberal environmentalists who believe in NO growth, and territorial surfers who don’t want 909ers to crowd their wave during the weekends.

    The best aspect of all this is that once all is said and done, Loretta will still be on the hook for being the only OC legislator to oppose the toll-road. Oh and it will still be built too.

  4. Republican dementia
    July 31, 2008 at 10:54 am

    Hey d’Anconia,

    The 10 year projections from OCTA are based on cheap and unlimited oil.

    Why don’t you pick up a report like the one published by CIEP

    In every likely scenario, oil remains the dominant resource for meeting global demand in the next few decades because there are no real alternative transportation fuels currently available in large enough quantities to replace oil. A new supply/demand outlook of around 100-105 million b/d for 2030, most likely to be published by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in their next edition of the WEO in November (versus 116 million b/d in the WEO 2007), will have far-reaching implications. It basically means that world oil (and liquids) supply can grow at only half the rate in the next 22 years than earlier anticipated (circa 13-18 million b/d versus 29 million b/d).If correct, it implies that the world will have to go through a period of substantial demand destruction – in the order of a half to two thirds of today’s oil demand in the US, or up to 100% of the oil projected to be imported by China in 2030.

    Call me stupid and laughable, but you’re pathetically uninformed – probably comes from reading wingnut propaganda instead of actual real research by experts, but then the war on science is part of Republican dementia.

  5. Homewrecker
    July 31, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Just as the international airport was a ruse to stop jets from flying over the million-dollar homes in NB, the 241 extension is a ruse to bring tract housing to the last developable land in OC. They are similar because it is the special interests (read: NB “shadow government” powerbrokers) and the OC Supervisors who are beholden to them who are pushing for this. And D’anconia, if you think only “tree-hugging hippies” and surfers are against the tollroad then you are stuck in the 60s or are ignorant or both. Quit making your arguments on the basis of moth-eaten stereotypes and people might take you seriously.

  6. d'Anconia
    July 31, 2008 at 3:16 pm


    Yes, you are stupid and laughable.

    I ask you to look at what transportations experts say about the future of traffic (in which they all took account in consideration the price of oil by the way) and you point me to an excerpt of an article, published in a french website??

    But I’ll bite. Let’s say these guys are right and oil demand drops. Do you think that means less cars on the roads? You’re also sadly mistaken about that buddy.

    I’m done arguing with you though. I hate arguing with pathetically uninformed people.

  7. Personal Vehicle Lover
    July 31, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Personal Vehicles are here to stay. Whether they are powered by electricity, solar panels, wind, oil or garbage (Back to the Future anyone?), we will continue to need and use roads.

    Traffic is worse today than it was five years ago. Five years from now traffic will be worse than it is today.

    It is disappointing that opponents to this roadway use false scare tactics like the road will impact waves at a popular beach. I guess it is an effective tool to rally support, but when people find out the truth, it will inevitably backfire.

  8. Dan Chmielewski
    July 31, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    D’Anconia — please refrain from the name calling. Its a violation of the terms of service. Argue your side, as you do, but refrain from the name calling. Please.

  9. July 31, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    I wouldn’t ban D’anconia for name-calling–I’d do it ’cause he’s an insufferable, arrogant dope. Of course, I wouldn’t ban him for that, either–gives me a good laugh.

  10. Republican dementia
    July 31, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    Clingendael International Energy Program (CIEP) is a Dutch group, not French, (and there’s no Czechoslovakia anymore either). CIEP is especially important because it is endorsed by amongst others BP, Shell Netherlands, Total E&P Netherlands, three Dutch Ministries, Wintershall, Vopak Oil Europe Middle East and several Dutch energy companies.

    I’ve read OCTA’s long term forecast and don’t remember seeing anything in there about the sensitivity of trip generataion to fuel pricing, but demand destruction is real, and it’s happening right now to auto trips.

    Much of the long-term regional forecasting done in the last several years is falling apart as it hits high energy prices and the aftermath of the credit bubble. But don’t believe me. Go out and buy a bunch of hummers and houses in the Inland Empire.

  11. July 31, 2008 at 8:27 pm

    d’Anconia will be a little more famous in a couple of days. You heard it here first…

  12. Dan Chmielewski
    July 31, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    Gustavo — it takes a lot to get banned here; I just want D’An to mind his manners.

  13. d'Anconia
    August 1, 2008 at 4:01 pm


    I’ll be the first to admit that it was over the top to use the word stupid, and I apologize for that; but in my defense the word was used to describe his argument, not him as a person.

    Vern, if you can make me famous I’ll owe you one. 🙂

  14. Republican dementia
    August 2, 2008 at 7:30 am

    D’Anconia resorts to name-callaing, makes assertions based on “transportation experts” whose reports he’s never read and can’t cite, is apparently ignorant of the theories of price elasticity, hasn’t done any research into the worldwide supply and demand for liquid fuels, and is “done arguing” with me.

    Seems like he never really started.

  15. August 10, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    Guys, it’s over.

    A veto of the Coastal Commission’s decision would require demonstration of public NEED.

    Camp Pendleton said that while it’d be nice to have the improvements, it was NOT NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SECURITY.

    San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station has for years claimed no position on the toll road issue, saying adequate escape routes in case of emergency currently exist. So there’s no need there.

    As for traffic, well, any student of transportation can tell you that more roads leads to more cars, but toll roads are CLEARLY PROVEN to be TRAFFIC INCENTIVES as compared to regular roads.

    So there’s no way to demonstrate public need. At all. You’d look like an ass in court trying.

    Can’t wait to see that ass, Thornton.

    With humble respect,
    Alex Brant-Zawadzki

  16. Juaneño Truth
    September 15, 2008 at 8:24 am

    David Belardes, Who Has an Initial Agreement with TCA to Support Proposed Toll Road, Discovered to be a Non-Indian Falsely Claiming Juaneño Heritage

    TCA, the Transportation Corridor Agency, is currently in discussions with David Belardes, as a “representative” of the Juaneño Tribe, to drop opposition to the agency’s proposed toll road in exchange for a reported $350,000. But, it turns out that David Belardes is not a Native Juaneño or even Indian and is not an enrolled member of the Juaneño Tribe. Belardes’ Non-Indian ancestry was reported by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Federal Acknowledgement during the Tribe’s ongoing petition for federal recognition. Domingo Yorba, Belardes’ paternal great grandfather whom he based his ancestral claims on, was classified as a Non-Indian in the Department’s report, which is part of the public record (JBMI 84A Proposed Findings, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2007, pp. 247-252.). The genealogical and historical evidence demonstrates that both paternal great grandparents of David Belardes were in fact of Mexican and Spanish descent—not Juaneño or California Indian.

    As many Southern California residents know, in February 2008, the California Coastal Commission denied a proposal by the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) to extend the Foothill-South Toll Road through southern Orange County. Members of the Juaneño Tribe and other residents expressed concern that the proposed toll road could disturb sacred Juaneño ancestral sites. The TCA has since discussed a potential agreement for support of the proposed toll road with David Belardes, a San Juan Capistrano resident who falsely claims to represent the Juaneño Tribe.

Comments are closed.