.

SR-710 North Extension - A History

Sign the Petition at no710.com
http://no710.com/index.html

In 1958, a Master Plan of Freeways was adopted by the State of California. The Long Beach Freeway was outlined in that plan. In 1964, a 23-mile portion of the freeway was constructed, now called Interstate 710 (I-710). It runs from Ocean Boulevard west of downtown Long Beach and northward to Valley Boulevard in El Sereno (City of Los Angeles), near the Alhambra border. The unfinished corridor now called the State Route 710 (SR-710), was not built at that time but it was planned for the near future. 

 

1960 - 2000

In the 1960s, in preparation for eventual excavation of the new SR-710 section, 500 houses were purchased to clear a surface route. They were located in El Sereno (220), South Pasadena (112), Pasadena (143) and Alhambra (25). At the time, it was estimated that a total of 976 houses would be needed for the project. The 500 houses are still owned by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) today. Some have been rented back to residents on a month to month basis for decades. Some are vacant. Most are in disrepair.

 

Over the course of the next forty years, the SR-710 portion of the freeway was not completed, largely due to intense community opposition and judicial injunctions which are still in place. Many freeway “gaps” remain in the region’s original master plan as only 60% of the projects have ever been finished. One example is the SR-2 Freeway that terminates on the south at Glendale Boulevard near downtown Los Angeles, instead of connecting with the I-405 through Beverly Hills as planned.

 

First Decade of 2000s

Between 2003 and 2009, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA or Metro) began to look at whether it was feasible to construct a bored tunnel rather than a surface route to extend the SR-710 Freeway and connect it to the I-210. Ultimately, five zones were examined through boring, seismic reflection, and surface wave testing in a geotechnical feasibility study. Upon completion of the study in the fall of 2009, Caltrans reported that it is “technically feasible” to construct a tunnel in any of the five zones which roughly spanned from the I-5 & SR-2 interchange to the I-210 & I-605 interchange. They added that no single route had been chosen. However, based on geologic and financial considerations and actions by the MTA Board and staff, many community members speculated that Zone 3, the original Meridian route through El Sereno, South Pasadena, and Pasadena would be chosen. The final geotechnical report presented in March 2010, indicated that no conditions exist that would stop, prohibit, or otherwise preclude tunneling through any of the five zones, even though seismic faults and contaminants exist throughout. With no accurate project definitions (need & purpose), no true feasibility studies, no examination of alternative transportation modes, or cost-benefit analyses conducted, the project was pushed forward through to the Scoping and environmental analysis stages.

 

Tunnel Description

The tunnel would be comprised of two 57-foot deep bored holes, approximately 150 feet underground and would require 200-foot wide concrete portals for entrances, exits, toll plazas and ramps. The bored tunnels themselves would measure 4.9 miles in length and would be the longest road tunnels ever built in the U.S.  The portal ends would have about a half a mile of "cut & cover" excavation where the dirt is removed then filled back in. The total project is currently designed to be 6.3 miles in length. (4.9 bores + .7 cut & cover + .7 other)  Ventilation towers and other structures may need to be built at surface level along the route to vent concentrated exhaust or it may just be blown out of the ends and/or vented further down the road.

 

The plan is to build the south portal in the City of El Sereno, north of Valley Boulevard and CSULA where hundreds of Caltrans-owned homes would be destroyed. The north portal will surface at Del Mar Blvd in Pasadena, right next to Huntington Memorial Hospital and schools. On the north end, the tunnel will only be accessible by the I-210 and SR-134 freeways and will not serve the community of Pasadena. On the south end, drivers must already be driving on the I-710 in order to access the tunnel. There will be no ramps at the portal ends or at any point along the 4.9 mile route.

 

Tunnel Cost Makes the Tolls Exorbitant

The cost of the project has been estimated by various sources to range from $1 billion and $14 billion and is expected be funded through a public-private partnership (PPP) and $780 million in Measure R funds. MTA is currently using the figure of $5.425 billion in their projections. It is predicted that the tunnel toll would be between $5 and $15 to use each way—a prohibitive expense for most commuters but not necessarily for trucking companies who could pass the cost on to consumers through increased prices. The resulting jobs created by the expansion, would be primarily for expert tunnel builders from outside the State or Country, less so for local citizens. 

 

A Toll Tunnel Increases Congestion

Building a new tolled roadway will not relieve congestion problems in the region and could actually exacerbate current conditions. Commuters will, almost certainly, continue to use local surface roads to avoid paying tunnel tolls. An analysis by the City of La Cañada Flintridge of three separate highway studies indicates that traffic will increase by 25% and the tunnel will open with a Level of Service classification of “F”, meaning failure or gridlock. Metro’s own forecasts project an increase by over 40% of vehicles on local streets.  Clearly, this massive development would present issues of enormous costs, health consequences due to poor air quality, traffic congestion, noise, and 10 years of disruption due to construction as well as introduce risk from earthquake, fire, flood, and terrorist attacks in the tunnel. Quality of life would change dramatically for all the communities surrounding this area, especially the small towns that would be in the crosshairs of “big city” developers who want to bring “progress” to the area.

 

Who is For and Who Opposes?

Completion of the SR-710 Extension is being moved forward by Caltrans, MTA, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the Cities of Alhambra, El Monte, Duarte and more. It is opposed by the Cities of South Pasadena, Sierra Madre, Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge and by countless community groups in Pasadena, El Sereno, Hermon, Mt. Washington, Glassell Park, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, La Crescenta, and Sunland-Tujunga. In addition, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution against portal construction in Zones 1 & 2, reflecting its opposition to building the tunnel within the boundary of the City of Los Angeles.  Metro and Caltrans have disregarded this resolution in their current plan.

 

Who Benefits?

The SR-710 Extension, whether by surface route or tunnel, will primarily benefit freight-transport vehicles that cross through these communities. Per a report conducted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), there are currently 34,000 vehicles that leave the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach every day; 70% are trucks carrying cargo to locations outside the City. By 2020, it is estimated that the number will climb to 92,000 or more.  Forty percent of those trucks could choose to take the new tunnel but considerably more would if the Ports remained open 24 hours a day. By 2030, shipment by containers is expected to triple and miles driven by trucks will almost double from the year 2005 levels.

 

Alternatives

Traffic congestion is a problem in Los Angeles County but there are many other alternatives to building more freeways. One potential 21st century solution being successfully implemented throughout the United States is the development of intermodal-distribution logistic centers. These “inland ports” use rail lines to move goods from sea ports to outlying areas where the cargo is then loaded on trucks for distribution across the country. This would dramatically reduce the number of container trucks on our local streets and highways. And—for the same price as building large tunnels, the State can do 1,000 neighborhood upgrades at $5 million each, with much shorter timelines. Updating the existing transportation system through “multi-mode, low build” projects, will create jobs for local workers and reduce long-term disruption in our communities. It’s the smarter, more responsible way to go.

 

Please join us and say NO to the extension of the 710 Freeway. NO ONE’S back yard!

 

Compiled by Susan Bolan, La Crescenta and Jan SooHoo, La Cañada Flintridge

Members of the No 710 Action Committee, no710extension@aol.com Updated 1-9-14



This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

William (Praxis) January 15, 2014 at 09:53 PM
I feel that this entire fight has been an example of "not in my back yard" obstructionist behavior, and it has been very detrimental to the traffic situation in that area for decades now. Completion of the 710 gap is sorely needed. Let's get this done, before it gets any more expensive to accomplish. The tunnel idea is a reasonable compromise, in my view. Don't let this advocacy group's scare tactics carry the day.
TT January 16, 2014 at 10:42 AM
Homogenizing is a point that no one has mentioned. The more difficult it is to travel to a community, the longer that community will remain "different" than say South Central. Let's get with the 21st century, and diversify these communities with an express lane to them. That will bring change very quickly.
Home Ranger January 16, 2014 at 11:20 AM
The 710 expansion will destroy the communities of La Canada Flintridge, Glendale, La Crescenta, and Tujunga. As someone how moved to LCF after living alng the I-5 corridor in Atwater Village, I can attest to issues of having a major trucking corridor exist within a community: Noise, traffic, congestion, pollution, and changes to the social fabric of the community. SoCal does not need to become a giant, paved expanse of blight. Let's leave this last remaining corner of sanity alone. There are other cheaper, and more reasonable solutions beyond paving our way to industrialized homogeneity.
nonoise January 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM
Home Ranger is correct. The 710 expansion will destroy many communities. That is why it has been fought against for so many years. All the communities mentioned are some of the best and highest quality of life communities to live in. We can not allow that to be destroyed. No noise. No church noise. No church amplified sound systems. No freeway noise. Freeways have sound walls to protect us against noise. Churches need sound walls too and/or soundproofing.
Home Ranger January 21, 2014 at 12:12 PM
Freeway sound walls are somewhat effective; certainly better than nothing. But they do not block low frequencies, nor do they block pollution and traffic congestion, or crime. If 710 ever does make its connection to the 210, there needs to be a serious discussion on implanting effective noise, traffic, crime, and pollution countervailing measures.
nonoise January 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM
Home Ranger if you care about noise call Father Marco Oritz at Divine Saviour Catholic church, 90065 at 323-222-9181 and ask him to turn off his noisy amplified sound system!! Qualify of life means no noise. Quality of life = No Noise.
Home Ranger January 21, 2014 at 12:38 PM
I'm sorry that you have a noisy neighbor, nonoise. You are in Cypress Park, near the 5 and 110. Gilbert Cedillo is your city councilman. I would call him and complain, and get your neighbors to complain.
nonoise January 21, 2014 at 01:11 PM
Neighbors are all catholic. They do not give a hoot. No one should be "above the law".
TT January 22, 2014 at 10:54 AM
@nonnoise, once the extension is complete, and the express lane to La Canada is in place, many of your neighbors will be busy diversifying La Canada. So don't worry. Your problem today is temporary.
nonoise January 22, 2014 at 01:52 PM
TT. none of the neighbors could afford to live in La Canada. And La Canada would now allow their bad behavior.
nonoise January 22, 2014 at 01:54 PM
Maybe when the 710 comes in there will no longer be a "Cypress Park". The freeway will knock down all the homes. If that is the case I am all for the 710.
TT January 22, 2014 at 02:14 PM
@nonoise, that's funny. Thanks for the laugh!
nonoise January 22, 2014 at 02:19 PM
Bring in a freeway. That is one way to get rid of bad neighbors.
CV Gal January 25, 2014 at 10:48 PM
TT - This project has absolutely nothing to do with cultural diversity. It will affect the entire northeast region regardless of any particular demographic. However, a case CAN be made for environmental justice in many of the affected towns. An example is El Sereno, a culturally diverse town within the City of Los Angeles. It stands to lose the most of any of the cities, if the SR-710 tunnel is built. There are around 220 homes in El Sereno currently owned by Caltrans along the Meridian route. Most, if not all, will be taken to build the tunnel. Those that remain, will endure 10 years of construction dust, truckloads of dirt, vibration, and settling. Once the tunnel is built, the concentrated exhaust will be vented into their neighborhood, near Cal State LA. Add to that, the I-710 expansion project that is scheduled to add between 10 and 14 lanes to the southern portion. When entering the SR-710 tunnel, the 10+ lanes will need to squeeze down to 2 to 4 lanes, depending if the project is one or two tunnels. A traffic nightmare. And add to that, the 35% of the vehicles that are projected to jump off the freeway to avoid the tolls. Where do you think all those cars and trucks will go? That’s right; the local streets of El Sereno. How does the tunnel help them? I am fighting this project to keep the quality of life in my own neighborhood but I am especially fighting this project for El Sereno. I have met many residents there that will lose their homes and many more that will see their neighborhoods destroyed. It’s just not right. - Editor
nonoise January 26, 2014 at 12:11 AM
The same thing for Northeast like Cypress Park.
William (Praxis) January 26, 2014 at 06:09 AM
The people living in those CalTrans-owned homes along the original 710 planned route have known all along that their residence was subject to termination should the land be needed for resumption of work related to the project. As for the traffic flow concerns, there's no reason to definitely conclude (by any stretch) that that is how how it would play out. There are a lot of variables at play there; and frankly, it sounds like more of the same, tired scare tactics. What we DO know is that the current situation (created by the 35+ year obstructionist/alarmist efforts by the "No 710" folks) is definitely a traffic nightmare -- and that's directly due to the way the project was left unfinished.
Home Ranger January 26, 2014 at 01:38 PM
I can't figure out why some Southern Californians are so in love with cement, pollution, and gridlock that they actively fight to spread it to areas where the residents are fighting to keep it out. I I think creating more heavy use traffic corridors through residential areas is perverse and should be avoided, not created. I lived in the middle of the war zone along the I-5 in Los Angeles for 12 years, and moved here to get me and my wife and kids away from that depressing and unhealthy environment. Getting big rigs around L.A. should not be a priority over people's quality of life. If you are not happy where you are, don't impose your problems on others. There are other, better solutions.
CV Gal January 26, 2014 at 02:00 PM
I absolutely agree with Home Ranger. Good points. We could have an endless debate on the ethics of evicting the original homeowners along the Meridian route, the marketing schemes by Caltrans to get those properties filled, and the horrendous treatment of the tenants for the last fifty years. I could write a whole column on just that. But let's address these so called, "scare tactics." If you dissected as many reports as I have, you should be scared too. Any logical person can understand that when the number of vehicles are projected by Metro/Caltrans to increase by 4 times, the result will be more traffic, not less. And thus, further logic follows that air quality would be worse, not better. There are a number of scenarios that could play out but the one that is being marketed to investors right now, the tunnel, would be the most detrimental to the region. There ARE better solutions. - Editor
nonoise January 26, 2014 at 02:13 PM
W, there is no traffic nightmere that requires a 710 extension.
TT January 28, 2014 at 11:11 AM
@CV Gal, you make some very valid points, and I agree with you. However, just because there is no intent to manipulate the face of La Canada (for example), doesn't mean that there won't be a major change. When you combine section 8 vouchers with an express lane to your beautiful neighborhood, your neighborhood will not be beautiful for long. I know we both oppose the extension, so I'm not arguing. I'm just presenting another major issue.

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
See more »