Metro Ready to Begin Next Phase in Controversial 710 Freeway Project

For years, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's efforts to construct a 6.2 mile freeway extension through South Pasadena, a project that is opposed by the Historic Highland Park Neighborhood Council, has been held up due to the lack of a valid environmental impact report. 

Last week, Doug Failing, Metro's Executive Director of Highway Project Delivery, said Metro was now ready to being another effort to secure such a report. 

Failing went before California Transportation Commission (CTC) on Thursday, May 11, to announce that Metro had completed an extensive round of scoping, during which community impact statements were gathered at a series of town hall style meetings.

The scoping meetings, titled "Going on the Record," were held in neighborhoods across the San Gabriel Valley and Northeast Los Angeles. One  was held in Highland Park at  on April 6, 2011. 

Failing told the CTC  that Metro would be sending out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to contractors this month, and would return to the commission in July to receive their blessing for their choice of contractor. 

Failing said that the parameters of the Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) studies would be informed by the feedback gathered during the scoping meetings. 

"The scoping meetings provided engaging and instructional dialog, and we maintained an open and transparent process," he said. 

However, local politicians who spoke during the public comment section of Thursday's meeting said that Failing and Metro were ignoring one major piece of community feedback regarding the EIR/EIS studies--that they were potentially a major waste of money. 

Donald Voss, of the La Cañada-Flintridge City Council, said during the public comment portion of Thursday's meeting that Metro was being financially irresponsible for embarking on a potentially costly EIR/EIS study before determining the true cost benefits of completing the SR-710 freeway extension. 

"The latest cost estimate of this project is in the area of  $5.6 billion. At what point does the cost outweigh the benefit. It seems like those determinations should be made before an EIR/EIS, which is estimated to cost between $60 million and $90 million," Voss said. 

Metro currently has $59 million in taxpayer-approved Measure R transportation funds dedicated to the EIR/EIS studies. 

Voss continued, pointing out that "if you expect this to be built through a public, private partnership, no private entity in the world would enter into an agreement without seeing a cost benefit analysis." 

Bill Hacket, a field representative for Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada-Flintride) read a statement on behalf of Portantino, in which the assemblyman deemed Metro's efforts to complete the EIR/EIS before a cost benefit analysis "inappropriate." 

"As I have maintained for years, it's impossible to make informed pubic policy decisions without knowing the most basic information--namely how much the project would cost," Hacket read. "It's inappropriate to spend the amount of money Caltrans and Metro continue to spend on the project without having any idea how much it would cost the taxpayers." 

In an e-mail to Highland Park-Mount Washington Patch, Metro Project Manager Michelle Smith said that the EIR/EIS would also study the potential cost benefits of the project. 

"The environmental review process is particularly suited for highly complex and politically sensitive projects such as the State Route 710 Gap," Smith wrote. "Therefore, Metro is confident that the concerns raised about the project during the [CTC meeting] will be addressed during the development of the Draft and Final EIS/EIR. Cost benefit analyses for a range of alternatives will be conducted as a part of this process."

Metro has for years attempted to earn a valid EIR/EIS for the 710 freeway extension project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Freeway and tunnel proponents consider "the gap" between the 210 freeway in Pasadena and the 710 Freeway in Alhambra a source of major traffic congestion in cities throughout Northeast Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley. 

It's opponents, though, have argued that the solution to the so-called gap would be worse than the problem, as they believe it would have irreversible environmental and health impacts on the surrounding communities. 

Thus far, the officials in charge of approving Metro's EIR/EIS studied have agreed. 

In 1999, a U.S. District judge issued an injunction prohibiting Metro from spending any public funds on the freeway project. That injunction essentially negated a decision made in 1998 by the Federal Highway Administration to approve Metro's EIS. 

In that 1999 ruling, U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson stated that Metro had not adequately considered multi-mode alternatives to the freeway. 

Since the time that the injunction was filed, the two agencies have shifted their focus to the construction of an underground tunnel. In 2006 and 2009, separate geo-technical studies showed it would be technically feasible to bore underground tunnels through any of five distinct zones beneath Northeast Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley. Zone two would place the tunnel directly below Highland Park and Mount Washington. 

Freeway opponents, including the No 710 Action Committee, have argued that though the two studies may have proven the tunnels technically feasible, they did not adequately address the environmental concerns that attend underground transportation routes.  

Among those environmental concerns is the potential for carbon emissions from the ventilation stacks the tunnels would require, opponents said. 

Metro's latest attempt at securing a valid EIR/EIS is guided by an amendment passed by the MTA board last spring requiring Metro to consider those "multi-mode" options during the EIS process. 

The amendment, which was proposed by MTA board member Richard Katz, calls for the scoping process to "include a full range of new, route-neutral transportation options, (which eventually will be included in a cost benefit analysis), alternative analyses, and all necessary environmental studies to allow policy makers, stakeholders and the public to make well-informed decisions about options to 1) improve mobility, safety and congestion, 2) address community concerns and 3) augment planning efforts."