.

710 Forum Draws Big Crowd

The consensus of the panel at Wednesday’s South Pasadena City Council meeting was no on the 710, yes on Measure J.

With an increasing number of cities and communities opposing closing the gap in the SR710 Freeway between California Boulevard in Pasadena and Valley Boulevard in El Sereno, the crowd of about 200 in the  South Pasadena High School auditorium on Wednesday evening leaned heavily against the extension. 

South Pasadena has been joined in its continuing battle to shut down the project by La Cañada Flintridge, unincorporated La Crescenta, Glendale, and Los Angeles communities El Sereno, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Mt. Washington and Tujunga.

Wednesday's forum was a called meeting of the South Pasadena City Council.  Moderator Philip Putnam, Mayor Pro Tempore of South Pasadena, said that though he wondered how Alhambra, San Marino, and Monterey Park can take a different position, the audience should be respectful of those who supported the extension, a suggestion that was followed for the most part. 

The 2 ½ hour meeting’s main focus was the proposed tunnel, and it’s disadvantages and benefits, but other methods of transportation were presented, including two options considered by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro), and Caltrans.

The five options currently under review, according to Metro official Frank Quon, P.E., are

  1. No build
  2. Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)
  3. Bus rapid transit with refinements
  4. Light rail rapid transit with refinements
  5. Freeway with a tunnel 

A hybrid of these is also being considered, Quon said, and studies and analyses are being done.

710 Opposition

Speakers opposed to the 710 extension cited concerns about increased pollution, especially near schools, and “induced congestion.”  

They favored a “multi-modal” regional solution that would rely on public transportation with increased rail and bus lines, more frequent service, affordability, and an emphasis on using electric vehicles. 

South Pasadena Mayor Michael Cacciotti expressed particular interest in safer routes for bicycles.  “Let’s get people out of cars and give them and option,” he said.

Induced congestion is the concept that a new freeway or lanes added to existing freeways will reduce congestion, but ultimately will increase the number of trips people take because traffic is less.  When congestion builds up again, the road is widened, and the cycle is repeated.  It is one of the primary reasons La Cañada Flintridge opposes the extension, because it will bring more travelers onto the portion of the 210 Freeway that cuts through that community.

The Argument for Closing the 710 Gap

SCAG Executive Director Hasan Ikharata spoke in favor of closing the 710 gap.  “The board, with no objection, adopted the plan with the 710 in it,” he said.  “We make no secret that we support the 710,” as well as air quality and the environment.  “Every study we did showed the importance of this project to the regional transportation system.  This project is a critical link.” 

He then chastised some of those present for misusing data from a study that was only a draft that was never completed.  Other speakers, notably Asm. Anthony Portantino, took him to task for that, saying that the study had been posted online. 

An area of controversy was how maintenance and operation of the tunnel would be funded.  Several speakers accused Metro, Caltrans, and SCAG of promoting the gap closure as a way to move goods out of the Port of Los Angeles and supporting the roadway with tolls on trucks, and then later saying that there would be no goods movement on the route. 

Ikharata replied that the 710 northbound was never envisioned to move goods, only the 710 southbound, but Portantino asserted that the three agencies had given opposite answers indifferent meetings.  Ara Najarian, a Glendale City Council member, said that truck tolls will have to cover tunnel operation, because foreign investors would manage the tunnel and they would collect the tolls. It would be a business deal.

The Measure J Sales Tax Extension

A member of the audience asked, “Should we support Measure J?”  (Measure J would continue the ½ cent sales tax on goods and services in Los Angeles County, and apply the funds to transportation.)  The question drew a flurry of loud “Noes” from the crowd, but panelists on both sides of the 710 issue expressed support for the measure.

Ikharata referred to earlier comments regarding deferred maintenance on roadways, and said, “We need to maintain our transportation system.  That maintenance is not going to be free.  All it does is keep up the system.”  Measure J also gives regional control rather than federal, he said.

Jeffrey Tumlin of Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates Transportation Planners, who earlier gave a lengthy presentation on the dynamics and philosophy of transportation and alternative methods to improve mobility and access, agreed with Ikharata.  “Because I like to build,” he stated.  “You just have to build the right solutions.  I support Measure J.”

Najarian said to “keep an open mind on Measure J.  The funds do not have to go to the tunnel.”  He noted that Mayor John Fasana of Duarte, who supports the 710 extension, insisted on an amendment that would allow funds to be moved from highway projects to transit projects. This would mean that if the extension is not built, the money allocated would not be lost but could be put toward other means of transportation.

“Don’t kill Measure J just because you don’t like the tunnel,” he said.

Home Ranger September 27, 2012 at 04:39 PM
"Ikharata replied that the 710 northbound was never envisioned to move goods, only the 710 southbound..." How insane do you have to be to believe that?
No710Anywhere September 27, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Please remember the fact that when the 710 south becomes a 14 lane nightmare, and if the tunnel is deemed "a feasible option" our way of life here in NELA is as good as over. How do you think most people will handle a $5+ toll into a tunnel? They will go around it through Figueroa and however else they can get through. Like the new air quality now that our Angeles Forest lungs are toasted the next 30 years? Add to that ultrafine particulates in your brain and through the placenta barrier, shortening your life span by 2 years and increasing your risks of cardiovascular disease. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we will be downwind from two huge smokestacks spewing out the tunnels witches brew...which will have trucks spilling onto the 134 and 210 all day every day the rest of your shortened life. Oh, and folks that live between the 10 and 60? Get prepared to lose your homes when that "project" comes your way. The officials have unlawfully segmented this project into three parts to feed us this poison slowly. Drink the kool-aid at your own risk.
No710Anywhere September 27, 2012 at 09:52 PM
Please also check out the SoPas Patch blog entitled SR710 Forum for a blow by blow of last night's meeting.
No710Anywhere September 27, 2012 at 09:55 PM
Update from SoPas Forum last night re SR710 at http://southpasadena.patch.com/blog_posts/south-pasadena-sr710-forum-september-26-2012
Richard Risemberg September 28, 2012 at 02:36 PM
The 710 was always meant as a port freight corridor, and still is. It is crowded with trucks constantly spewing diesel and crowding commuters. Better to move all those containers onto rail--preferably electrified rail. And there is a very strong proposal in play to build an underground robot rail shuttle from the ports to the big railyards in the Inland Empire. It would use standard large-diameter water pipes to house the tracks and producing NO local pollution or congestion. It would revolutionize transportation in the region, yet uses off-the-shelf technology built by local companies in new ways to do it. Oh, yeah, and private financing--no tax increases! It's called GRID, for "Green Rail, Intelligent Development." Check it out here: http://gridlogisticsinc.com
Sam Burgess September 30, 2012 at 10:00 PM
It has been 18+ months since I first spoke out about the GRID project. Back then I commented that the GRID was a "...political, economic and environmental disaster waiting to happen." The Grid "...takes a major transportation issue from the 710 corridor and transfers it to the San Gabriel River and surrounding communities." After reading Grid's most recent attempt to freshen up the lipstick on its pig, I am as firmly convinced as ever that my original comments were and remain valid. Let's see. At first this monstrosity was to be paid with federal/state (taxpayer) dollars. Now they have suddenly found a way to use a public-private partnership to pony up $20 BILLION (their figures) to build this project--all without telling you who or how. Has anyone noticed that the routes spoken of are in nice sounding but very vague terms. Specifically: How and where do they propose building this north from the ports, then east to the San Gabriel River (605 freeway), then north to the northern beginnings of the San Gabriel River be for turning east and to the desert--all without the destructive powers of eminent domain? And the San Gabriel River? Well, they say they can build it on the rivers levees--without touching the river itself. What they don't say is the plans also call for the rape of the river by developing it for commercial uses. It seems everytime a variation of the original proposal is served a new flavor of kool-aid is also served.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something