Sunday, September 2, 2012
I am asking everyone to post a comment to Yes 710 - Syd Mead of Pasadena.
http://discussions.pasadenasun.com/20/pasadenasun/pas-0902-the-tunnel-is-the-only-sensible-solution/10?page=2
New Comments Below:
Abira Ali at 9:35 PM September 2, 2012
Stop710 at 7:33 PM September 2, 2012
Re-posting link:
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/
- Stop710 at 6:41 PM September 2, 2012The State of California requires compliance with AB 32, which means mandatory reduction of greenhouse gasses in the state. To meet this standard, it is absolutely necessary to cut transportation and cargo emissions, the largest single source of carbon exhaust in the state via the Ports. This makes rail almost mandatory, because trucks use three times the amount of fuel that rail does. Combine that with the fact that trains carry 4.5 times the volume of cargo per unit than trucks, you see that it's on the order of 13 times more GHG emissions to truck cargo rather than use rail.
http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/projects-and-partnerships/fuel-efficiency/L. Barlow
rtdbum at 6:34 PM September 2, 2012 I don't think people in Alhambra support the expansion of 710 because they want a quicker access to our beautiful Old Town for a nice tour. I think they want to dump what they don't want to our city instead. I don't understand why Mr. Mead think this is a good idea.
havuk88 at 4:38 PM September 2, 2012 Claiming the 710 Tunnel is the only sensible solution to alleviate frieght traffic seems disingenuous when offered by futurist. Any futurist worth his salt would know that the possible solutions for any problem are endless. Why then, are we considering old, extremely costly solutions when we could set the standard with new, environmentally sound, forward-thinking solutions that represent the 21st Century?
Why does the only sensible solution involve destroying historic homes, tree lined streets, a newly restored OLd Town, and an unprecentented influx of deisel traffic into a peaceful community? This, Mr. Mead is not sensible, it is senseless.
Trusting a corrupt government agency, to manage millions of dollars to build an 8 lane freight carrying freeway through one of the last remaining historical neighborhoods in our state, is sensless. If maintaining our past is part of creating a successful future, then we are failing miserably.
The best that Pasadena can do now, is to come together and protect our last remaining resources, before yet another "vitally necessary" Cal Trans or Metro problem be layed at our feet.
We need to take a strong and clear NO BUILD, NO 710 position before it is too late.
KimMad at 3:52 PM September 2, 2012 I find it ironinc that the visionary artist who created the dark and depressing 2019 LA of Blade Runner in an advocate for creating such a future in our own neighborhood. There is nothing sensible about a tunnel to join outdated freeways to more outdated freeways. It is clear that upgrading the heavy rail lines and continuing the progress along the Alameda corridor is far more feasible at this point. Rail terminals outside of Long Beach should be stages in Santa Clarita so that trucks can then service the Northwest Los Angeles Basin. A terminal in the eastern area between Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino would serve the East and the already existing freeways would continue to serve downtown La and the central city areas. This type of planning or similar plans are cleaner choice for a city that is considered the most polluted city in the United States as well as safer, less expensive and far less destructive to existing communities. It is very worth while to look at the NATIONAL GATEWAY plan for the East coast. When completed this plan replaces truck traffic with clean trains that reduces road repairs by 3 billion per year. Light rail as well as bus lines must be vastly improved. These are sensible solutions.Cal Trans should look towards the clear utopian cities that Syd has also painted instead of the lung-choking Blade Runner Los Angeles.
amylola92 at 3:31 PM September 2, 2012 The ONLY sensible option is the no-build option. Other commentors have listed the myriad of reasons why the tunnel should not be built. I don't need to repeat them. But they are all excellent reasons for NOT building a tunnel.
janrik91105 at 3:16 PM September 2, 2012 Mr. Mead, no disrespect but are you another paid lobbyist? I can't think of another reason why you'd support the destruction of our city.
How can you think that having thousands of big rigs emerging into old town Pasadena would be a good thing?
How can you think that stacks spewing cancer causing diesel exhaust into your air 24/7 would be good for you, your children or grandchildren?
Do you really think that investing billions of taxpayer dollars into a project that will only benefit private millionaire investors is our money well spent? The projected tolls of $10 a trip for cars would only benefit the investors, no one but the big rigs will be using the tunnel.
Don't you enjoy living in Pasadena where it is so easy to get around? Oh, unless you want to use the 210 which is a nightmare after 1:30 p.m. but it would be infinitely worse if the 710 extension is built.
No, the real solution to moving Chinese goods along is on rail. The rail alternatives reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce wear and tear and cost of upkeep of our existing roadways, move goods faster and cheaper, have less negative impact on the air and noise pollution, cost far less to build, and would make the roads safer for us by reducing the number of hazardous big rigs on it.
All affected neighborhoods will stand united against antiquated "solutions" and support 21st century alternatives.
GK1111 at 3:03 PM September 2, 2012 There is nothing sensible about the tunnel. The economics make zero sense. The environmental, air quality, historic preservation, environmental justice (El Sereno) and safety costs are sky high. There has not been a full cost accounting given to communities of Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno who are being asked to pay. Nor are most residents to the east of Pasadena and El Sereno (Alhambra listen up) aware that they will be directly in the path of 2 ventilation shafts that will release all of emissions from the 4.5 mile tunnel. Traffic from the port is expected to increase 2/3rds with the Panama Canal's expansion so the air quality issues these communities face now are only going to worsen in severity.
The toll tunnel will cost anywhere from $5-$15 one-way depending on vehicle type (car, truck, peak, non-peak). Seattle's own "Big Dig West" has shown that people won't pay more than $4 one-way to drive in a tunnel. They willl continue to use surface streets. Economics dictate usage. The projected tunnel costs of $5- $14 billion vary wildy. Keeping the tolls under $4 will be impossible. There are California toll roads that sit empty for this very reason. The private investors and contractors made their money. The taxpayers were left holding the bag for an empty road that no one uses. This tunnel will have the same fate, only this time the costs will be even higher.
johnrdale at 2:52 PM September 2, 2012 There are many ways to spend $4.5 Billion and almost any other alternative is far more cost effective than a freeway tunnel that will funnel even more traffic onto the overburdened #134 / 210 corridor. Substantial funds could be diverted to improving the highly successful Gold Line to make it safer, more efficient and less disruptive to all that surface traffic in and around Pasadena, South Pasadena and Highland Park. A few hundred million dollars cut out of the Gold Line led to many compromises in the past but the system is still basically sound and effective and should be enhanced. There are many better and cheaper ways of reducing traffic congestion if the MTA was to take those options seriously instead of manipulating the public outreach process to lead to their preferred freeway solution. Some of the greatest western cities of the world abandoned the notion of freeways decades ago and they still seem to be thriving. A notable example is Toronto, that stopped their inner city freeway project in the 1970's and have been successfully expanding their subway and streetcar and light rail lines ever since. Let's move from the 20th century to the 21st now! If you are the Syd Mead I know about, you are supposed to be a FUTURIST!
John Dale, FAIA
Paula Shatsky at 2:48 PM September 2, 2012The tunnel is a fiscal, environmental, logistical, geological, sociological, anthropological disaster. have I left out any o g I c a l s?
The only reason this is being shoved down our throats is "the pact with the devil" ( so to speak) we have made with international interests who want to buy us off by infusing money into the California economy. The city of Pasadena will be forever divided and destroyed by this behemoth. People will die inside the tunnel without adequate fire rescue. The city is already sorely lacking in this area. Wait until we have a really big disaster like a large quake and see what I mean.
Vote no on J. Fight the 710 with every fiber of your being as many of us have already committed to doing.
Paula
Pasadena
rickrise at 2:40 PM September 2, 2012 There are plenty of alternative solutions to the tunnel, including many that add no rdoad traffic--as shown by Metro's own mentio of a "multi-modal" solution.
Cargo can be carried, faster, more cleanly, and cheaper with an electric rail solution in much smaller tunnels such as GRID ( http://gridlogisticsinc.com ), and expansions of light rail networks can make freeways obsolete and free people from being their own unpaid chauffeurs in the multi-billion-dollar subsidzed land grabs we have been pounding our communities with for seventy years.
I live in Highland Park, I work in North West Pasadena, this is a nice place to live and we don’t need a tunnel or a Freeway. I shop and hang out in South Pasadena. South Pasadena is a rare gem of a city and this tunnel would decimate it, what are these planners thinking? If you want to learn how to design a neighborhood go and study South Pasadena, don't run an 8 lane tunnel through it!
The 710 tunnel or freeway would be a historic mistake and misuse of funding. To create and build a functional livable future, for our children, the NO BUILD option for the SR710 is the only answer. We can improve our public transportation with the funding from measure R. We can work for more livable neighborhoods that require less driving and more walking.