To consolidate, disseminate, and gather information concerning the 710 expansion into our San Rafael neighborhood and into our surrounding neighborhoods. If you have an item that you would like posted on this blog, please e-mail the item to Peggy Drouet at pdrouet@earthlink.net

Friday, February 15, 2013

More Comments on SR-710 North Study: what's on the table and what's off the table-8


 richard schumacher on said:
I’m a former and, I hope, a future Pasadena resident. From a few thousand miles away the tunnel option looks like the best solution to a very old problem. It’s the equivalent of the Regional Connector for highway traffic. If it’s tolled, all the better: those who want to can continue to take the long way ’round, or the slow way on surface streets, and they’ll have a bit less competition from those who use the tunnel.
To Richard Schumacher: If you are thousands of miles away, then I would imagine you are kind of out of the loop at the moment. Sure, it might look good on the surface (no pun intended), but there are some pretty ugly things lurking. Since you are miles away and it appears you value your Pasadena quality of life, go visit no710.com for some eye-opening issues.

  1. The one issue with the transit alternatives is that they seem ham handed and disconnected. The train alternative, because it is all grade separated, is ridiculously gold plated, and has track connections with absolutely nothing else… although I did suggest that if this is the case, to evaluate automated rail transit technology with shorter cars which might cut back on the cost and right of way take. The BRT alternative forces existing passengers on the 762 to transfer in East LA, for marginal benefit. The bus only lanes could be implemented right now for little more than striping and concrete pads. Ultimately the BRT and LRT just seem there to check boxes and do not perceived to be developed to the same detail that the tunnel is.
  2. Wow, there are so many mis-statements on this piece that it is hard to know where to begin. I think it is interesting to note that Caltrans & Metro were willing to dump the Avenue 64 alternatives within months of creating them due to fierce public opposition but are still advocating the tunnel after 60 years of protest. Let’s be clear here; the stated Purpose and Need cites traffic congestion and everyone can agree we have that. But historical data and public statements by transportation officials, paint a much different picture. It’s all about goods movement. We know it, they know it, we have proof at no710.com. Those who oppose the tunnel are interested in ANY alternative rather that the worse most expensive one. Let’s do TSM/TDM and be done! Light rail, busways, sure! The problem with the public component part of this process is that we never got the opportunity to sit down and discuss the narrowing of options. They put the rail and bus options in the wrong place. And Steve, your comment above that you don’t have any designs yet? What? The final Alternative Analysis report has pretty specific designs on all the options. I would just say, if you are new to this project, DO YOUR HOMEWORK and learn all you can. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.