Talk:California State Route 241

U.S. Roads: California Start‑class High‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Locations	California
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article has a junction list compliant with the Manual of Style on road junction lists.
	This article does not have a KML file. Please work with the Maps department to create and add a file for this article.

California: Southern California Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as High-importance).

NPOV

The part of this article discussing the extension of California State Route 241 is obviously an NPOV issue. The article conveys only the negative view point of this issue. The entire section is written in a very biased way, and the comment "For Southern Californias, it would be impossible to mitigate in any significant way the detremental effects of the toll road." is not true, as TCA has planned to build structures to mitigate the effects on wildlife and San Mateo Creek in particular. Theunknown42 21:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yet the TCA routinely seeks congressional handouts of taxpayer funds for purposes such as environmental studies." This is definitely a NPOV issue. Dasubergeek 22:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Does this page still need to be a stub? --Rschen7754 03:22, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Length reference

I don't see how the reference for the length has anything to do with the length. It is about bridges. —Kenyon (t·c) 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Would somebody please explain why the detailed additions I made to the Foothill-South expansion were removed? There is no reason for doing so. If nobody can offer a valid explanation I will re-add them.

What did they say? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got no response, so I have re-added those portions to the Foothill-South section, as well as generally cleaned up the article and added a large number of links. --dthx1138 (T C) 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Edits

This article keeps getting periodically edited to remove information which might reflect negatively on the Foothill-South expansion, and it needs to stop.

There is no reason to have removed information about the non-compete clause between TCA and CalTrans; the clause is not disputed by the TCA. Additionally, the last section will be reverted to the original title, "Expansion Controversy," and not simply "extension" as it is already in the "Foothill-South" section. Dthx1138 (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Dthx138[reply]

- Just to follow up, I have significantly cleaned up the "Expansion Controversy" section and have added many references. I will be very disappointed if this text were to mysteriously disappear again. Dthx1138 (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Dthx1138[reply]

- one more thing, I realize that the references may seem biased so far as they are mainly from anti-toll road sites. I will attempt to add references to the TCA's positions soon. Dthx1138 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)DTordini[reply]

I have noticed this too, I too have added important info that disappears. Like the fact that to So-Called State Park, is not really a State Park. This what happens when Liberals get to run everything in the state. They are all the same, Always trying to change the rules after the game has started.--Subman758 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where I should be making this comment, but i think at least 1 exit is missing from the exit list. There is a toll booth on Irvine Blvd exit off the 133N. I don't see that exit in the list. Hope this helps.