Toll Road Defense Lacked Perspective

Martin A. Brower's argument (Letters, Sept. 19) in defense of the necessity of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (a.k.a. the toll road) lacked perspective. Because he was involved with the early discussions of the toll road and he feared that they would never become a reality does not demonstrate a need for the toll road.

Brower states that Orange County projections showed that its population and employment base would grow.

Should not a mass transit system, such as light rail, be planned instead of the four times more costly, five times less carrier efficient "development corridor"? Rail system construction is less capital intensive, more labor intensive and creates more jobs per unit of investment than road building.

Brower referred to the route as being painfully worked out over time, and to the size of the road not being wide enough. Wow.

The toll road would cut through three public parks. Planners could have avoided the parks but didn't, therefore by law the roads were ineligible for federal funds. Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Highway Act. Now the whole United States must abide by that law except Orange County.

As to the size of the road, the proposed bridge at Laguna Canyon Road is designed to reach a height of 800 hundred feet, and it would hold the potential to become 16 lanes wide.

Then Brower assures readers that from the design concepts which he has seen, the construction of the corridor will not damage the San Joaquin Hills. In conclusion, he states that people will pay the toll to drive the corridor on a Sunday as a joy ride. Sheer necessity?

The citizens of Orange County need a toll road like they need a hole in the head.


Laguna Beach

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World