710 - Long Beach Freeway Gap

[andy3175]

More public meetings are coming on the 710 EIR. I found the last part of this article to be a fairly decent summary of where we are currently.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20150406/two-additional-meetings-added-for-710-freeway-extension-report

The EIR/EIS looks at different ways to extend the 710 about 4.5 miles from where it ends at Valley Boulevard to connect with the 210 Freeway in Pasadena: a no-build option; a traffic management system that would upgrade streets and sync traffic signals at local intersections to move traffic more quickly; a dedicated busway with high-frequency service and few stops; a 7.5-mile light-rail line that would stretch from East Los Angeles to Pasadena; a 6.3-mile freeway tunnel, of which 4.2 miles would be completely underground.

Construction would take five years for the tunnel, six years for the light-rail system, the report estimates.

Currently, $780 million has been put aside for the 710 Freeway gap project from Measure R, a 2008 half-cent sales tax passed by voters.

On March 6, the 26,625-page draft EIR/EIS concluded that constructing a 6.3-mile freeway tunnel "would have the largest increase in freeway and arterial performance" of any alternative, but carries the highest price tag. At a price of $3.1 billion to $5.65 billion, the tunnel would cost more than a proposed light-rail line, estimated at $2.4 billion. Some argue the real cost a tunnel will end up closer to $10 billion. A tunnel would need private funding and would function as a toll road.

[Sonic99]

They scaled back the design. The original plan was to have the freeway super-elevated with long curving ramps to enter and exit the freeway. The final design ended up being mostly below-grade except near the stack interchange with I-17.

Yeah the original design was absurd. No wonder everyone opposed it! I think by the early 80's (disclaimer: I was born in November of 1985) traffic started getting pretty bad and the need for a freeway became pretty apparent. I would also guess that ADOT came up with the eventually-built plan of a tunnel with a part on top, and also a mass-transit station built into it to get people to relent.

https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/papago.html

[Bickendan]

Those heliocoils...

[DeaconG]

Those heliocoils...

An elevated turbine interchange?

[ARMOURERERIC]

IIRC, 2 of them only 14 blocks apart.

[bing101]

Well I thought South Pasadena have had abandoned houses for some time.  I know the trucking industry wants the CA-710 and I-710 gap closed so the trucks can drive through I-210 straight to CA-710 and I-710 without facing delays on the East LA interchange and the 405 freeway to Long Beach.

[fungus]

At one of the public forums on the project tunnel supporter and MTA Board member John Fasana said he would lean towards the one tunnel, no trucks option just to get something through and as a compromise to the no freeway people. I think a one tunnel, no trucks, HOT/congestion priced option would be financially feasible and alleviate existing traffic issues without inducing too much traffic.

[andy3175]

Caltrans is now developing a process for selling houses located along the 710 freeway corridor now that the surface freeway option is no longer viable. A public meeting is scheduled this evening.

http://www.pasadenanow.com/main/caltrans-holds-hearing-monday-on-selling-surplus-pasadena-homes-in-710-corridor/#.VTW-nyFVhBc

Caltrans will host a public meeting Monday to get input on how it should go about selling surplus homes along the 710 Freeway corridor in Pasadena and South Pasadena, focusing on a new set of proposed regulations after the public reacted critically to its earlier guidelines.

The input will be used to finalize regulations governing the sale of 460 properties related to SR 710 projects in Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno. These will be offered for sale in phases according to when they are declared surplus and consistent with state law.

53 local properties will be sold in the first phase of sales — nine homes in Pasadena, 38 in South Pasadena and six in Los Angeles.

Caltrans withdrew its original set of May 30, 2014 proposed surplus home sales regulations after the public reacted critically. The new regulations being discussed Monday are a draft set resubmitted for public scrutiny.

[flowmotion]

At one of the public forums on the project tunnel supporter and MTA Board member John Fasana said he would lean towards the one tunnel, no trucks option just to get something through and as a compromise to the no freeway people. I think a one tunnel, no trucks, HOT/congestion priced option would be financially feasible and alleviate existing traffic issues without inducing too much traffic.

Interesting, I thought one of the major rationales for this project was truck traffic from the port area.

[TheStranger]

Interesting, I thought one of the major rationales for this project was truck traffic from the port area.

I wonder if diverting enough of the commute/bypass car traffic along 210/710 will be helpful enough for the trucks that currently must go through the East Los Angeles Interchange.

[andy3175]

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/massive-freeway-tunnel-los-angeles-710-freeway

The 710 runs 23 miles north-south through the heart of the Los Angeles Basin, roughly paralleling the path of the Los Angeles River, from the port city of Long Beach to the inner suburb of Alhambra. There, the freeway abruptly stops, just past its interchange with the 10 Freeway, as if swallowed by a tar pit. Four-and-a-half miles to the north, the 210 freeway runs perpendicular to the 710's logical route, and heads eastward to connect Los Angeles County to the Inland Empire.

"The area is widely considered to have an incomplete transportation infrastructure," says Metro spokesperson Paul Gonzales. "This has persisted for about five decades."

A plan is now afoot to close the gap. In March, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), released an environmental impact report detailing alternatives for closing the gap. After years of bickering and speculation, the EIR was mandated by 2008's Measure R, a successful ballot measure that earmarked $780 million for the 710 corridor.

Of the report's five options – from a legally required "no-build" alternative to a light-rail line to a busway – the one that has arguably received the most popular support involves a freeway-sized tunnel running uninterrupted for 4.9 miles under South Pasadena at depths of over 100 feet. The largest version of the tunnel would feature two tubes, each with two levels of roadway.

It would, supporters say, mark the end of the freeway-building era.

The dual-tunnel version of the project would, according to the EIR, have the greatest impacts on travel times. It would reduce daily rush hour traffic by 7,000 vehicle hours, or 2.5 percent less than current levels in the 710 corridor.

These potential benefits, say supporters, justify the expense of an estimated $5.6 billion tunnel. It is expected that some of the expense would be covered by tolls. But, while the tunnel would prevent the destruction of houses and other disruptions on the surface, civic leaders in and around South Pasadena remain firmly opposed. They say that a tunnel presents a whole new set of hazards, financial and otherwise.

Glendale City Council Member Ara Najarian, who also sits on Metro's 14-member board, says he fears the true cost of a tunnel could be more like $14 billion. And he said that the tunnel's impact on surface street traffic would be negligible.

South Pasadena Mayor Marina Khubesrian is the co-founder of the 5 Cities Alliance, which opposes the tunnel (that alliance is countered by the 710 Coalition, a group of surrounding cities that feel pinched by the gap). Khubesrian and other tunnel opponents have invoked such costly debacles as Boston's Big Dig, which went over $10 billion over-budget, and Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel, which grappled with a halted boring machine.

"We are concerned that (Metro and Caltrans) are still looking at a freeway as a solution in this day and age," says Khubesrian. "We see that as a backward investment rather than investing in the future of transportation with greener technologies."

Earlier this month, Pasadena City Council voted to oppose the tunnel and expressed support for a multimodal, public-transit-oriented plan.

Opponents taking the regional view are also encouraging Metro, which has ultimate say over the project, to consider the mass-transit alternatives and to encourage the completion of the Alameda Corridor East – an extension of a successful below-grade rail line from the ports – to handle cargo.

[Bickendan]

And [Ara Najarian] said that the tunnel's impact on surface street traffic would be negligible.

If the tunnel is running uninterrupted for 4.9 miles from Valley Blvd to present CA 710, well, duh, it won't impact surface street traffic much. It can't because it won't have interchanges; it's relieving I-5 instead. Way to miss the point, Councilor.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe there will be no interchanges between the two portals since the fight for this freeway connection has gone on for decades, and it seems only Alhambra wants the extension built.

[Bickendan]

I'd suspect Long Beach and Los Angeles want it as well.

[The Ghostbuster]

Long Beach, maybe. Los Angeles, maybe not.

In September 2012, the Los Angeles city council voted to opposed any extension option -- surface or tunnel.
Source: http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#710

[andy3175]

With the draft EIR, more articles coming out about 710. Here's the link to the draft EIR: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis/

And now some articles, some of which appear slanted ...

http://www.pasadenanow.com/main/wpra-finds-caltrans-sr-710-draft-eir-to-be-grossly-inadequate/#.VdayZvlVhBc

The California Department of Transportation's SR-710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) misrepresents data in favor of the tunnel alternative and fails to address substantial environmental and community impacts, a Pasadena residents group said Friday.

These and other findings were delivered to Caltrans this week as part of the West Pasadena Residents' Association's formal comments on the DEIR. The comments have also been published online at www.wpra.net.

These experts found inadequacies in almost all of the DEIR's sections, including growth, tunnel boring machine failure, land use, community impacts, traffic, transportation, air quality, noise, hydrology, water quality, geology, energy, and more.

The team found that, from its inception, the SR-710 Study environmental process has been improperly conducted in a manner to justify and sustain a decision already made: the freeway tunnel as the preferred alternative.

Caltrans and Metro's bias in favor of the tunnel continues in the DEIR with "the selection of the Study Area boundaries and alternatives, the bundling of options, the deferral or complete failure to address large environmental impacts for the tunnel alternative, data averaging, and the selective presentation and manipulation of data,"  Baum and WPRA vice president and 710 Team lead Sarah Gavit wrote in a letter to Caltrans.

The SR-710 Analysis of the Alternatives is also grossly deficient, the group said. For example, the SR-710 Study fails to consider a multimodal alternative, despite numerous community inputs to do so during the scoping process. This is egregious particularly in light of the 1999 injunction prohibiting a 710 surface freeway extension due to Caltrans' failure to consider a multimodal low build alternative. Remnants of historic 710 extension aspirations, these transportation and safety nightmares have divided and plagued these communities for more than a half century. Moreover, the Draft EIR/EIS proposes several tunnel alternative options that are not credible. This includes the "˜no truck' option, which is not enforceable either in the near term or future, and the single-bore tunnel option, which is not reasonable because it exceeds margins of safety and passes unacceptable fire and accident risks onto tunnel users.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150813/aqmd-710-freeway-tunnel-would-raise-cancer-risk-to-unacceptable-levels

In a detailed critique, the South Coast Air Quality Management District said the draft environmental impact report for the proposed 710 Freeway extension failed to estimate emissions of carbon monoxide and airborne particulates and that the tunnel project would raise the cancer risk to unacceptable levels.

The eight-page letter from Ian MacMillan, the anti-smog district's planning and rules manager, says the lack of basic air quality analysis renders the draft EIR useless to the agency or those deciding on a tunnel or other transit options.

No analysis of a localized impact, also known as a hot spots study, was ever done, MacMillan wrote. For example, if the 4.5-mile gap from Alhambra to Pasadena is built underground as a tunnel, the study needed to determine the concentrations of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide at portals and near ventilation stacks.

The letter points out that Caltrans is aware of hot spots studies since it is common practice among many government agencies and was conducted for the I-710 Corridor project EIR, just south of the 710 North extension project.

South Pasadena Councilwoman Marina Khubesrian said the district letter reaches many of the same conclusions as South Pasadena and other cities opposed to the freeway tunnel. She wants to see the air quality analysis revised.

"It would be the height of arrogance to not take the concerns of the AQMD seriously,"  she said.

Letter from AQMD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274519944/August-5-Letter-from-the-South-Coast-Air-Quality-Management-District
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2015/08/14/44122/another-bump-in-the-road-report-says-710-eir-doesn/

[kendancy66]

If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time.  And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians

[MaxConcrete]

It seems very likely that the opposition will file another lawsuit against the project if/when a Record of Decision approving the tunnel is issued.

That could delay the project, depending on whether an injunction is issued to stop pre-construction activity, and also depending on when the funding would be available. In a best case scenario for a lawsuit, no injunction is issued and the lawsuit is dismissed before the earliest date construction could begin.

But it does seem like judges in the previous lawsuits have been very sympathetic to the opposition, ruling in favor of the opposition. If the opposition can convince a judge that the process was rigged in favor of the tunnel, then the whole environmental process could be declared invalid. And who knows if the project could survive another ruling against it.

I've always had a special interest in this project because on my first road trip ever as a 19-year-old in 1986, we camped in the Angeles National Forest in Altadena, just north of Loma Alta road. It was a nice campground, free and in a very scenic setting, although it did lack showers. Between 5 and 10 years ago (I don't remember exactly when I visited) the campsite was still there, although it could have been hit with wildfire since then. We stayed for about 10 days, and every day when we drove into L.A. or O.C. we had to deal with the lack of the freeway section, either taking the Pasadena Freeway into downtown or driving on the surface streets between I-210 and I-10. In fact, I still have vivid memories of driving on those surface streets, and of course you can never forget the Pasadena Freeway. I you asked me in 1986 if nothing would be changed in 29 years, I would have said "no way"....but we all know the rest of the story.
 

[Henry]

If it were up to me, I'd drop the plans immediately, because as much as I'd like to see I-710 completed in my lifetime, it seems less and less likely that it actually will. Just remake the disconnected northern section into a surface boulevard (a la CA 480/Embarcadero in San Francisco) and get it over with.

[TheStranger]

If it were up to me, I'd drop the plans immediately, because as much as I'd like to see I-710 completed in my lifetime, it seems less and less likely that it actually will. Just remake the disconnected northern section into a surface boulevard (a la CA 480/Embarcadero in San Francisco) and get it over with.

Due to South Pasadena's opposition to any above-ground construction (and any construction at all) I don't think ANY surface road is going to happen on that route, period - which is why the tunnel option has been floated at all, despite its expense.  (Embarcadero as a surface street existed both before and during the time 480 was present on SF's downtown waterfront.)

[The Ghostbuster]

It appears that even the tunnel proposal is likely to be canceled. What is the solution, then? Do nothing?

[iBallasticwolf2]

It appears that even the tunnel proposal is likely to be canceled. What's is the solution, then? Do nothing?

The NIMBYS favorite option is no-build. So yes, do nothing.

[kkt]

710 and the Embarcadero Freeway aren't really comparable.  The Embarcadero Freeway (as built) was never more than a glorified off-ramp, a way to exit north of Market St. and save a mile on city streets.  710 would be a significant through route if completed.  Would Pasadena kick in a sizable portion of the extra cost of a tunnel compared to a surface freeway?

[hm insulators]

If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time.  And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians

Many years ago, my mother came up with this idea: Make every resident of South Pasadena have special license plates on their cars to indicate where they live, then prohibit these people by law from using any freeway in southern California, forcing them to use surface streets (with their signals, pedestrians, cyclists and other traffic-slowing entities) entirely. Period.

[mrsman]

If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time.  And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians

Many years ago, my mother came up with this idea: Make every resident of South Pasadena have special license plates on their cars to indicate where they live, then prohibit these people by law from using any freeway in southern California, forcing them to use surface streets (with their signals, pedestrians, cyclists and other traffic-slowing entities) entirely. Period.

I agree with this suggestion. 

To have an effective transportation system, everyone must be on board for the pros and the cons.  SPas people have no right to prohibit the freeway in their midst and then use other freeways.  Especially, since the current iteration of a tunnel wouln't even result in the loss of anyone's home.