California State Route 241

Infobox road
state=CA
type=SR
route=241
alternate_name=Foothill Toll Road,

---

length_mi=23
length_round=3
length_ref=
established= 1993
direction_a=South
terminus_a=Oso Parkway in Rancho Santa Margarita
junction=jct|state=CA|SR|133 in Irvine
jct|state=CA|SR|261 in Orange
direction_b=North
terminus_b=jct|state=CA|SR|91 in Yorba Linda
previous_type=SR
previous_route=238
next_type=SR
next_route=242

State Route 241 is a highway in Orange County, California, USA. For its entire run, Route 241 is a toll road. Its northern half is part of the Eastern Toll Road while its southern half is part of the Foothill Toll Road.

The highway currently runs from Rancho Santa Margarita to Yorba Linda. Route 241 connects with State Route 133, State Route 261, and State Route 91.

This route is part of the California Freeway and Expressway System [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257 CA Codes (shc:250-257)] ] .

Foothill Toll Road

The Foothill Toll Road (also called The Foothill Transportation Corridor) is a convert|12|mi|km|sing=on tollway in Orange County. Signed as State Route 241, it travels parallel to Interstate 5, connecting the Eastern Toll Road (at the State Route 133/State Route 241 interchange) outside of Irvine with Oso Parkway near Mission Viejo.

The toll road was constructed by the Transportation Corridor Agencies, also known as the TCA, and is owned by the state of California. Construction was financed with bonds, which are repaid with toll revenues. Taxpayers are not responsible for repaying any debt if toll revenues fall short. Fact|date=February 2008

Future aspirations: Foothill-South expansion

Foothill-South was planned as the last segment of the road, and the final piece in Orange County's planned convert|67|mi|km|sing=on network of public toll roads. It has been the subject of regional planning efforts for the more than 20 years.

The extension would provide an alternate route to Interstate 5 for those traveling from Riverside, Corona and southeast Orange County to points southward as well as those traveling from North San Diego County northward. Proponents of the project, including a coalition of chambers of commerce, argue it would provide greater access for communities such as Foothill Ranch, Rancho Santa Margarita, Las Flores, Coto de Caza, Wagon Wheel and the future Rancho Mission Viejo. The TCA Board of Directors, local elected officials who represent the areas adjacent to the toll road routes, certified the project's Environmental Impact Report in 2006.

The route was selected by a collaborative group that included the Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Fish & Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers and Caltrans.

Expansion Controversy

The route would extend the toll road to connect to Interstate 5 at the San Diego County line near San Onofre, where the TCA projects traffic to increase 60 percent by 2025. The final four miles (6 km) of the roadway would be located on Camp Pendleton Marine Base. The road would go through a section of the San Onofre State Park, which is leased from the United States Marine Corps. The Marine Corps reserved the right to grant easements for rights of way when the lease with the California Department of Parks and Recreation was signed in 1971.

On February 6, 2008, the California Coastal Commission voted 8-2 [http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tollroad7feb07,0,3701099.story Feb 07, 2008 "Panel rejects toll road through San Onofre State Beach", LA Times] ] to reject a convert|16|mi|km|sing=on southern segment of the 241, Foothill-South, which was planned for the Foothill Toll Road. The TCA appealed the Coastal Commission's decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

Environment

The extension is opposed by many conservationists, environmental groups, and residents of San Clemente. Former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed two lawsuits in 2006, one on behalf of the Native American Heritage Commission. A third lawsuit was filed by a coalition of such groups as Sierra Club, the Surfrider Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others. [http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/communities/danapoint/article_1405460.php January 3, 2007 "Student protests 241 expansion," Orange County Register] ]

One area of concern for those opposed is how well the project will avoid Native American sites in the area, such as the ancient Acjachemen village of Panhe. The TCA asserts it will avoid these sites, however this is disputed by opponents. The road as conceived would bridge over San Mateo Creek as the existing Interstate 5, old Highway 1 and train tracks currently do.

Opponents of the proposed extension are also concerned about possible damage to water quality, and the disruption of wave quality at Trestles, a world famous surfing spot. [http://www.sandiego.org/article_set/Visitors/5/27 San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau] ] In response, the TCA claims that mitigation techniques will eliminate any negative effect on water quaility, and that the proposed detention basins will in addition capture runoff from a two-mile (3 km) portion of the I-5 which is currently untreated. Studies have determined that there will be no effect on wave quality at Trestles. The independence of all these studies is in dispute. Who|date=February 2008

Traffic

The project's opponents also contend that the expansion would not provide significant rush-hour traffic relief as it does not connect the communities of southeast Orange County to any major job centers. In addition, opponents claim that the expansion would draw a portion of its traffic from the further-inland Interstate 15, which generally does not suffer from significant congestion. The Orange County Transportation Authority supports the Foothill-South project.Fact|date=June 2008

Another concern of the project's opponents is the non-compete clause which the TCA has signed with the California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans. The clause requires Caltrans to compensate the TCA for lost revenue caused by highway improvements which might compete with the tollways, thereby reducing toll revenue. The clause expires in 2020. Opponents of the expansion argue that the non-compete clause makes improvements to Interstate 5 highly unlikely until at least 2020. [http://www.surfrider.org/savetrestles/lies.asp#myth17] "Save Trestles, Fact and Fiction"] In response to this, the TCA claims that traffic removed from the I-5 by the addition of Foothill-South will reduce congestion on the I-5 without the need for additional upgrades. Additionally, the non-compete clause does not apply to any improvements which have already been specified by the OCTA in Measure M transportation funds.

The TCA estimates that by 2025, Foothill-South would carry 58,000 vehicles per day. [http://www.ftcsouth.com/home/pdf/TCA_Truth_Sheets.pdf] "TCA Truth Sheets"] This would represent about 13% of the estimated 460,000 cars per day on the I-5 by that time. [http://www.octa.net/ProjectsC.aspx] "San Diego Freeway (I-5) Improvements South of the El Toro Y", OCTA]

An alternate route for Foothill-South has been proposed by opponents of the San Onofre-bound extension. The "beltway" alternative would continue south past Oso Parkway as planned but would then turn westward north of Ortega Highway and continue between the communities of San Juan Capistrano and Ladera Ranch before meeting Interstate 5 and California State Route 73 in southwest Mission Viejo. Proponents claim that this alignment will connect residential areas in Southeast Orange County to job centers to the Northwest through Route 73, while also alleviating congestion on Interstate 5 from San Juan Capistrano to Irvine. However, proponents acknowledge that a widening of Interstate 5 south of the beltway interchange would be necessary to alleviate congestion south of Mission Viejo. [http://www.savetrestles.com/beltway.htm] "Connecting-up the 73 and 241 toll roads at I-5"]

As an alternative to Foothill-South, opponents generally argue that transportation dollars should be spent on a major upgrade to Interstate 5, and on improving mass transit in the area, such as the existing Metrolink line which terminates at Oceanside. Who|date=February 2008

Exit list

:"Note: Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured in 1964, based on the alignment as it existed at that time, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage."The entire route is in Orange County.

References

External links

* [http://www.thetollroads.com/ Transportation Corridor Agencies]
* [http://www.westcoastroads.com/california/ca-241.html California @ WestCoastRoads.com - State Route 241]
* [http://www.cahighways.org/241-248.html#241 California Highways: SR 241]

Foothill-South

* [http://www.ftcsouth.com/ Foothill-South official project web site]
* [http://www.savesanonofre.com/ Save California's Parks and Beaches - Save San Onfore]
* [http://www.relievetraffic.org Relieve Traffic local site]
* [http://www.savetrestles.org Save Trestles site]
* [http://www.savetrestles.com Save Trestles-Wild Heritage Planners]