Interstate 710: A chance to close an L.A. freeway gap - L.A. Times Editorial
Larry Scholnick
getting a hard new look.
May 23, 2010
On Google Maps, it looks like a severed limb: Sticking out from the
intersection of Highway 134 and Interstate 210 in Pasadena is the
stump of a freeway heading south, coming to an abrupt end after about
half a mile at Del Mar Boulevard. There's a matching stub 4 1/2 miles
away, where the rest of Interstate 710 picks up at Valley Boulevard in
Alhambra and runs 23 miles to the port of Long Beach. Closing that gap
has been the subject of furious debate since the 1960s, an on-again,
off-again contest between homeowners and transportation planners that
is suddenly very much on again.
On Thursday, the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is
to consider whether to approve a study that would examine different
project alternatives and their environmental impacts. Los Angeles
County voters set the process in motion in 2008 when they approved
Measure R, which raised local sales taxes to pay for a variety of
transportation projects — including $780 million for a tunnel that
would close the 710 gap. Building the tunnel would actually cost quite
a bit more than that, but the local sales tax money provides an
impetus to seek additional funds elsewhere.
The Long Beach Freeway was never completed on its original above-
ground route because it was blocked by South Pasadena residents whose
homes stood in its path. They had good reason to object. A surface
route wouldn't just have destroyed hundreds of homes, many of them
historic; it would have split neighborhoods and harmed the quality of
life of thousands. Unable to win approval to go through South
Pasadena, planners are instead focused on boring under it.
A 2006 study showed it was feasible from a geological standpoint to
close the 710 gap via a tunnel. If the MTA board opts to proceed, the
agency would study a wide range of alternatives including tunnels,
improvement of surface streets or the originally planned surface
freeway. The latter option is unfeasible both politically and legally.
In 1999, a federal judge issued an injunction on freeway construction
because planners hadn't adequately studied alternatives or
environmental impacts, and in 2003, the Federal Highway Administration
withdrew an earlier agreement to fund the project.
Even the tunnel idea is controversial. Public opinion seems evenly
split, with residents of South Pasadena and many communities along the
210 Freeway generally against it while neighborhoods that bear the
brunt of the traffic problems caused by the existing gap tend to favor
it. The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments wants to see the
project move forward, but powerful local politicians such as Ara
Najarian, mayor of Glendale and chairman of the MTA board, oppose it.
The Times has long supported closing the 710 gap. Truckers and
commuters have waited many, many years for it to happen, and all
things being equal, we'd like to find a solution that turns the 710
from a freeway to nowhere into part of a functional traffic network.
Before we sign on to a tunnel under South Pasadena, however, we'd like
to see the results of the proposed study. Obviously, if there's some
insurmountable problem with the tunnel plan, or a less disruptive
alternative — or if it becomes clear that the damage that would be
done to the neighborhood far outweighs the benefits to freeway
travelers — we would have a hard time supporting the project.
Most of the objections we've heard so far are about traffic; residents
fear that if the 710 is completed, it will create congestion on the
210, especially as a result of increased truck traffic from the port
of Long Beach. But from a regional standpoint, this is not a terribly
persuasive argument against the project. The notion that completing a
freeway connection would increase traffic is a bit bizarre; what it
would do is redistribute traffic, ending bottlenecks in some places
and worsening them in others. But the overall effect should be reduced
congestion and less pollution from idling vehicles. We understand the
concerns on the part of local residents, but we are obliged to look at
the effect on the broader community as well.
There are other, more serious concerns still to be addressed, such as
how and where the exhaust from the underground tunnel would be vented
to the surface and whether that would be harmful to the health of
nearby residents. There's the question of whether the tunnel can be
constructed and operated without causing vibrations so severe that
they wreck the quality of life in the area. And then there's the very
important issue of cost. The 2006 tunneling study estimated it at $2.3
billion to $3.6 billion, but that was just an educated guess. Is the
public benefit from building the tunnel really worth the expense? And
where would the money come from?
The first question will be easier to answer when the costs and
benefits have been more closely studied. Transit planners are looking
to the private sector to help answer the second. The tunnel probably
would end up being a toll road, and a private operator might be
willing to put up money to build the tunnel in exchange for future
toll revenue. Alternatively, the tunnel might be financed using bond
revenue on top of the $780 million in Measure R funds, with tolls used
to pay off the bonds. Millions of taxpayer dollars already spent to
pursue the project could also be recovered, but only if lawmakers act.
The state owns more than 500 houses along the original planned route
of the 710, many of them seized under eminent domain. If a surface
route is officially scotched, they will no longer be needed, but under
current law the proceeds from selling them would go to the state's
highway fund. Because those houses were bought in order to close the
710 gap, money generated from selling them should go toward the tunnel
project — or if building the tunnel proves politically impossible, it
should go to another transportation project in the same area.
Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park) has introduced a bill that
would so designate the funds, and the Legislature should approve it.
Larry Scholnick
Najarian fights 710 idea
He will try in his MTA board role to help stop tunnel from moving
forward.
By Melanie Hicken
May 27, 2010
CITY HALL — Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian today will try to block a
proposed tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway from moving
into the environmental study phase.
The decades-long controversy surrounding the proposed "gap closure" of
the Foothill (210) and Long Beach (710) freeways was reinvigorated
last year when the California Department of Transportation and Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority released draft
results of a $6-million route feasibility study.
The report showed tunneling was feasible within five potential zones —
including connections to the 210 and Glendale (2) freeways — but it
did not address any environmental concerns, such as traffic and
pollution.
The MTA's Board of Directors — of which Najarian is chairman — today
will consider approving the more in-depth environmental studies needed
to move the proposal forward and will likely hear public comments on
both sides of the issue.
The motion for the studies was brought by Duarte City Councilman and
MTA Board member John Fasana, who has said the tunnel would create a
"vital connection" for San Gabriel Valley residents.
But Najarian said Fasana's motion was premature, and is instead
pushing an amendment that would first study all available solutions to
the traffic congestion, including a tunnel, light rail and freight
corridor improvements, and compare the cost benefits.
"I'm confident that when we look at all this additional information,
even the most biased person in favor of the tunnel will see, 'Hey, we
can solve these traffic issues at less cost much quicker with less
environmental impact than a tunnel,'" Najarian said.
It's the latest chapter in an ongoing fight between the San Gabriel
Valley communities, which have long pleaded for relief from traffic
congestion, and several foothill communities that say the connector
will add more polluting big rigs to local freeways.
The Glendale City Council last year voted to officially oppose the
tunnel. La Cañada Flintridge and South Pasadena have already committed
significant resources to the fight, filing a unsuccessful legal
challenge against the use of $780 million in earmarked Measure R funds
for tunnel studies or construction.
La Cañada Mayor Don Voss said he planned to speak in favor of
Najarian's motion at the MTA meeting. The mayors of Pasadena and South
Pasadena have also indicated support.
"So far, what's happened is that an option was selected — the tunnel —
and the process has been to back into the justification," he said.
"And that is backward."
Brent Jonas
My main question is how would the I-710 extension benefit truckers?
Most truckers heading for Sacramento are going to use I-5 (and not
I-210 West to Sylmar), and for those heading east, surely they would
choose CA 60 and I-10 before heading north to I-210. I suppose some
might choose I-210 to I-710, heading to the ports from the rail yards
in the Inland Empire (or truckers from points further east), but I
would think most would opt for other routes.
I'm still in the middle as to whether or not the extension should
happen.
I-210, by the way, is probably the worst congested east-to-west
freeway in the San Gabriel Valley (with seemingly no solutions in the
near or long-term future).
Larry Scholnick
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the last proposed surface routing Caltrans had planned to prohibit
trucks, so there clearly would have been no direct benefit to trucks.
jgar the jorrible
I suggest sitting on I-5 around, say, the 110, and contemplating
whether you would rather be anyplace else. Because you won't be doing
anything but sitting, most of the day.
>
> I'm still in the middle as to whether or not the extension should
> happen.
>
> I-210, by the way, is probably the worst congested east-to-west
> freeway in the San Gabriel Valley (with seemingly no solutions in the
> near or long-term future).
I don't take it enough to know. But looking at sigalert just now
(3:30PM), it looks true EB from where the 710 would meet, but not
towards the north. Of course, if the 710 went there it would probably
be true to the north.
It's all hopeless.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/27/rhetoric-heats-up-on-coronado-tunnel-issue/
Ralph Herman
(in article
<27929bed-e2d6-451d...@a27g2000prj.googlegroups.com>):
> On May 27, 1:30ï¿œpm, Brent Jonas <brentrjo...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 27, 1:07ï¿œpm, Larry Scholnick <larry_scholn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Related article from the Glendale [CA] News Press
>>
>>> Najarian fights 710 idea
>>
>>> He will try in his MTA board role to help stop tunnel from moving
>>> forward.
>>> By Melanie Hicken
>>
>>> May 27, 2010
>>
>>> CITY HALL ￜ Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian today will try to block a
>>> proposed tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway from moving
>>> into the environmental study phase.
>>
>>> The decades-long controversy surrounding the proposed "gap closure" of
>>> the Foothill (210) and Long Beach (710) freeways was reinvigorated
>>> last year when the California Department of Transportation and Los
>>> Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority released draft
>>> results of a $6-million route feasibility study.
>>
>>> The report showed tunneling was feasible within five potential zones ￜ
>>> including connections to the 210 and Glendale (2) freeways ￜ but it
>>> did not address any environmental concerns, such as traffic and
>>> pollution.
>>
>>> The MTA's Board of Directors ￜ of which Najarian is chairman ￜ today
>>> will consider approving the more in-depth environmental studies needed
>>> to move the proposal forward and will likely hear public comments on
>>> both sides of the issue.
>>
>>> The motion for the studies was brought by Duarte City Councilman and
>>> MTA Board member John Fasana, who has said the tunnel would create a
>>> "vital connection" for San Gabriel Valley residents.
>>
>>> But Najarian said Fasana's motion was premature, and is instead
>>> pushing an amendment that would first study all available solutions to
>>> the traffic congestion, including a tunnel, light rail and freight
>>> corridor improvements, and compare the cost benefits.
>>
>>> "I'm confident that when we look at all this additional information,
>>> even the most biased person in favor of the tunnel will see, 'Hey, we
>>> can solve these traffic issues at less cost much quicker with less
>>> environmental impact than a tunnel,'" Najarian said.
>>
>>> It's the latest chapter in an ongoing fight between the San Gabriel
>>> Valley communities, which have long pleaded for relief from traffic
>>> congestion, and several foothill communities that say the connector
>>> will add more polluting big rigs to local freeways.
>>
>>> The Glendale City Council last year voted to officially oppose the
>>> tunnel. La Caï¿œada Flintridge and South Pasadena have already committed
>>> significant resources to the fight, filing a unsuccessful legal
>>> challenge against the use of $780 million in earmarked Measure R funds
>>> for tunnel studies or construction.
>>
>>> La Caï¿œada Mayor Don Voss said he planned to speak in favor of
>>> Najarian's motion at the MTA meeting. The mayors of Pasadena and South
>>> Pasadena have also indicated support.
>>
>>> "So far, what's happened is that an option was selected ￜ the tunnel ￜ
>>> and the process has been to back into the justification," he said.
>>> "And that is backward."
>>
>> My main question is how would the I-710 extension benefit truckers?
>> Most truckers heading for Sacramento are going to use I-5 (and not
>> I-210 West to Sylmar), and for those heading east, surely they would
>> choose CA 60 and I-10 before heading north to I-210. ï¿œI suppose some
>> might choose I-210 to I-710, heading to the ports from the rail yards
>> in the Inland Empire (or truckers from points further east), but I
>> would think most would opt for other routes.
I-710 currently is one of the most heavily used truck routes in the nation,
and the missing gap would complete the link to the Newhall Pass (I-710 to
I-210 WEST/(NORTH).
I-5 goes through the East LA Interchange and the heavily congested stretch in
the San Fernando Valley. I-710/I-210 routing would provide relief to I-5
closer to downtown LA and Burbank. Currently, I-210 from Slymar (Newhall
Pass) to Pasadena capacity is underutilized, it is free flowing during rush
hours.
Port trucks would NOT use the missing gap to access I-210 EAST, that is a
indirect route.
Glendale is against I-710 because it would bring more traffic onto the I-210
corridor in North Glendale that was designed for additional traffic (NIMBY''s
expensive houses). La Canada-Flintridge has a fear this is the first step in
building a tunnel to the Antelope Valley. Everybody else around here is for
it (like Burbank. LA city and Alhambra), because it will take a lot of
traffic off local streets and I-5.
>>
>> I'm still in the middle as to whether or not the extension should
>> happen.
>>
>> I-210, by the way, is probably the worst congested east-to-west
>> freeway in the San Gabriel Valley (with seemingly no solutions in the
>> near or long-term future).
The section of I-210 between Pasadena and Sylmar is not heavily
trafficked... a lot of trucks currently use it to avoid the LA Basin and the
San Fernando Valley..
- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> In the last proposed surface routing Caltrans had planned to prohibit
> trucks, so there clearly would have been no direct benefit to trucks.
If it is made a tunnel and/or toll route, I would bet trucks will be
permitted (except for hazardous cargo). IMO, Caltrans make a mistake by
putting a truck prohibition as a possibility.
Ralph
Brent Jonas
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:32:22 -0700, Larry Scholnick wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 27, 1:30 pm, Brent Jonas <brentrjo...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On May 27, 1:07 pm, Larry Scholnick <larry_scholn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Related article from the Glendale [CA] News Press
>
> >>> Najarian fights 710 idea
>
> >>> He will try in his MTA board role to help stop tunnel from moving
> >>> forward.
> >>> By Melanie Hicken
>
> >>> May 27, 2010
>
> >>> proposed tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway from moving
> >>> into the environmental study phase.
>
> >>> The decades-long controversy surrounding the proposed "gap closure" of
> >>> the Foothill (210) and Long Beach (710) freeways was reinvigorated
> >>> last year when the California Department of Transportation and Los
> >>> Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority released draft
> >>> results of a $6-million route feasibility study.
>
> >>> including connections to the 210 and Glendale (2) freeways — but it
> >>> did not address any environmental concerns, such as traffic and
> >>> pollution.
>
> >>> will consider approving the more in-depth environmental studies needed
> >>> to move the proposal forward and will likely hear public comments on
> >>> both sides of the issue.
>
> >>> The motion for the studies was brought by Duarte City Councilman and
> >>> MTA Board member John Fasana, who has said the tunnel would create a
> >>> "vital connection" for San Gabriel Valley residents.
>
> >>> But Najarian said Fasana's motion was premature, and is instead
> >>> pushing an amendment that would first study all available solutions to
> >>> the traffic congestion, including a tunnel, light rail and freight
> >>> corridor improvements, and compare the cost benefits.
>
> >>> "I'm confident that when we look at all this additional information,
> >>> even the most biased person in favor of the tunnel will see, 'Hey, we
> >>> can solve these traffic issues at less cost much quicker with less
> >>> environmental impact than a tunnel,'" Najarian said.
>
> >>> It's the latest chapter in an ongoing fight between the San Gabriel
> >>> Valley communities, which have long pleaded for relief from traffic
> >>> congestion, and several foothill communities that say the connector
> >>> will add more polluting big rigs to local freeways.
>
> >>> The Glendale City Council last year voted to officially oppose the
> >>> significant resources to the fight, filing a unsuccessful legal
> >>> challenge against the use of $780 million in earmarked Measure R funds
> >>> for tunnel studies or construction.
>
> >>> Najarian's motion at the MTA meeting. The mayors of Pasadena and South
> >>> Pasadena have also indicated support.
>
> >>> and the process has been to back into the justification," he said.
> >>> "And that is backward."
>
> >> My main question is how would the I-710 extension benefit truckers?
> >> Most truckers heading for Sacramento are going to use I-5 (and not
> >> I-210 West to Sylmar), and for those heading east, surely they would
Correct, I was specifically discussing I-210 thru the San Gabriel
Valley, and not west of Pasadena. I use I-210 as a bypass of
congested I-5 during the few times that I drive thru the San Fernando
Valley during peak hours.
Ralph Herman
(in article <e8kvv5ldkpo738vrp...@4ax.com>):
> Last time on ca.driving, jgar the jorrible <joel-...@home.com> said:
>
>> It's all hopeless.
>
> That's really the bottom line. We lack both the political will and
> (especially now) the funding to build our way out of congestion, so
> there's not much point in closing this gap. It's not going to make ANY
> difference.
>
I would disagree with you Scott, completing I-710 would greatly reduce the
congestion in the East LA Interchange and on the I-5 corridor in the east San
Fernando Valley, and would certainly reduce the pass through traffic on the
local streets of Alhambra, Glendale and Burbank. The entire LA Freeway
System was designed with the assumption of I-710 (then CA 7) being completed.
The congestion we see today on I-5 is a direct result of the I-710 missing
link. I-210 between Sylmar and Pasadena can easily handle the traffic load
if I-710 is in service.
That all said, I doubt I-710 will be completed as a freeway. While I am
against the tunnel proposal (unless South Pasadena wants to pay for the
additional costs of building and operating a tunnel), I DO believe the
freeway must be below grade. This freeway has been studied to death, and I
believe the new study the MTA just commissioned yesterday is just another way
for the MTA to keep it from being built. IMO, they killed the freeway
yesterday.
Ralph
Larry Scholnick
> This freeway has been studied to death, and I
> believe the new study the MTA just commissioned yesterday is just another way
> for the MTA to keep it from being built. IMO, they killed the freeway
> yesterday.
>
> Ralph
How right you are - it has been studied for over 40 years! But that
doesn't stop today's politicians from ordering up a new study.
REPRINT from the L.A. Times:
MTA board approves new studies of 710 extension
The measure calls for the MTA to hire a consultant to explore options
for relieving congestion, improving safety and addressing community
concerns in building the link from Alhambra to Pasadena.
By Dan Weikel, Los Angeles Times
May 28, 2010
After repeated disruptions by protesters from the Bus Riders Union and
two arrests, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority board on Thursday unanimously approved a new round of
studies for the proposed 710 Freeway extension, including an analysis
of alternatives to a tunnel or highway.
The protest delayed the vote on the controversial issue for several
hours until transit police and Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies
cleared the MTA board room in downtown Los Angeles of dozens of
demonstrators who oppose a transit fare increase set to begin July 1.
The group demanded that directors hold further hearings on the fare
hike and take a vote on whether to rescind it. Demonstrators
effectively shut down the meeting and interrupted a hearing involving
the 710 before authorities ordered union members to clear the room.
Two protesters who refused to leave were removed by officers and cited
on misdemeanor charges of disrupting a public meeting. They were later
released, MTA officials said.
The study of the 710 extension is the latest development in a decades-
long controversy over whether the 4.5-mile freeway gap between
Pasadena and Alhambra should be closed with a tunnel, highway or some
other alternative.
The 710 now ends in Alhambra just north of the 10 Freeway. Planners
originally envisioned that the 710 would be extended through South
Pasadena and Pasadena to link up with the 210 Freeway, but the idea
has run into intense community and political opposition. There has
been some discussion about building a tunnel to complete the link, but
that too has become controversial.
"We need to look at all the alternatives, modes and routes," said
Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian, who chairs the MTA board and is an
opponent of a tunnel. "We want to make sure we are doing things the
right way."
The measure approved Thursday calls for the MTA to hire a consultant
to study the project and explore "a full range of options" to relieve
congestion, improve safety, address community concerns, and supplement
future planning efforts.
jgar the jorrible
> Last time on ca.driving, jgar the jorrible <joel-ga...@home.com> said:
>
> >It's all hopeless.
>
> That's really the bottom line. We lack both the political will and
> (especially now) the funding to build our way out of congestion, so
> there's not much point in closing this gap. It's not going to make ANY
> difference.
Well, I suppose there are degrees of hopelessness.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/28/six-lane-addition-proposed-to-ease-daily-i-5/
I think Ralph is right, at least to a point. I guess I'm somewhere
between you and him, I think it will make some difference, but the
queueing effects of choke points just move bottlenecks around less
than predictably. I see this all the time in the database performance
world - substitute faster processors, more I/O requests happen, i/o
queues build, slows everything down, people get mad... put more stuff
in memory, cpus saturate searching memory, everything slows, people
get mad... Make carpool lanes on I-5 in SD, more traffic hits San
Clemente, Tustin in a smaller timeframe...
Queueing theory - hard like math, only gets people more pissed off.
Autoweek (I think) had an article about how people in China bought
more cars than people in the US last year. It mentioned people are
seen sitting by the side of the road in their Lambos waiting for the
roads to clear.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
I know! Let's screw up morale, and then do more stuff to make it
worse! http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/may/24/metrolink-says-engineers-tampering-with-cameras/