(Mod: The good folks at the No 710 Action Committee sent me the
following information sheet. It is a great reminder of just how strong
the arguments against the project really are.)
Things You Should Know About the Proposed 710 Freeway Extension
The
LA Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) plans to build two 4.5 mile-long tunnels that will extend the
710 Freeway into the heart of
Pasadena.
The tunnels would bring as many as 180,000 trucks and cars through
Pasadena each day, producing unacceptable levels of traffic, noise and
pollution, destroying the quality of life in our neighborhoods and city.
The
710 Freeway would connect Pasadena neighborhoods directly to the
Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach and hundreds of factories, warehouses, and other industrial complexes.
Metro
says the 710 Freeway will “complete the natural goods movement
corridor” between these industrial areas and destinations north and east
of Los Angeles, bringing to Pasadena an endless stream of trucks,
pollution, and noise.
The tunnels would not reduce congestion, but instead would simply move it to
Pasadena.
- The tunnels would divert existing traffic from the
5,
10, and
605 Freeways onto the
210 and
134 Freeways. They also would encourage more driving and longer commutes, thus further burdening the 210 and 134 Freeways.
- Past predictions of less congestion have been wrong. Although
Metro and
Caltrans said it would ease congestion, when they extended the
210 Freeway east into
San Bernardino County, it made congestion in
Pasadena far worse, turning the 210 into a parking lot. Extending the
710 Freeway will make matters worse.
The tunnels would increase traffic on our City streets and make it harder to get around Pasadena.
- The tunnel would close the
Del Mar and
California entrances and exits on the current
710 stub. This means that traffic exiting the
210 and
134 Freeways for
Old Pasadena,
Huntington Hospital, and the
110 Freeway would be forced onto surface streets, including
Lake,
Los Robles,
Fair Oaks,
Orange Grove, and
Avenue 64. Businesses will suffer, and a new wave of “cut through” traffic will invade our neighborhoods.
- The first places where 710 tunnel traffic could exit the freeway would be at
Lake Ave.,
Mountain Ave., and
San Rafael Ave. This will result in significant traffic increases at and near those exits.
The tunnels will increase Pasadena's air pollution.
Metro admits
that the tunnels will increase pollution. They will vent all of the
tunnels’ pollution at the ends, so concentrated pollution from 4.5 miles
of tunnel would be expelled into
Pasadena through exhaust portals erected next to
Huntington Hospital and schools. Increased traffic on the
210 and
134 Freeways will increase pollution throughout Pasadena.
The
tunnels may be dangerous to build and operate. The tunnels would cross
four known earthquake faults and punch through two major aquifers. They
would be accessible only at either end, with no intermediate entrances
or exits. It is unclear how injured or handicapped persons would be able
to exit the tunnels in case of an accident, fire, or tunnel collapse.
Tunnel
construction would bring a decade of disruption and bad health impacts.
Construction of the tunnels would take anywhere from 9 to12 years. There
will be NO reimbursement to businesses due to loss of trade.
- Construction would require closing
Del Mar Blvd.,
Green St.,
Colorado Blvd., and
Union St. where they cross the freeway to allow bridges to be rebuilt, thus isolating much of west
Pasadena for years. The
Rose Parade could not use its traditional route with portions of Colorado Blvd. closed.
- Construction
will require removal of 200 million cubic feet of dirt, filling 450,000
truckloads. That means 128 truckloads of dirt transported through our
area every single day, 7 days a week, for 10 years.
- Construction
will be very noisy and dusty for those living, working, residing in the
hospital, or going to school near the construction site or along the
routes taken by trucks full of excavated dirt.
The
tunnel project will be extremely expensive. Official estimates of the
cost range from $1 billion to $14 billion (more recent estimates around
$5-6 billion). Part of these costs may be recouped through tolls of up
to $20 per trip, with the rest being paid by taxpayers. Other toll roads
in
Southern California have gone bankrupt or have needed public bailouts.
What should be done instead of the tunnels?
- For
moving people: Light rail and bus improvements can be achieved for a
small fraction of the cost and negative impacts of the tunnels. In fact,
Metro could complete every transit alternative that it is
considering in far less time and for far less money than the tunnels
will cost. Cut through traffic can be significantly improved by removing
the
Alhambra 710 stub.
- For
moving cargo: Long-haul trucks do not belong on our urban freeways and
neighborhood streets. Instead of bringing more trucks into Pasadena,
Metro should increase the efficiency of the Alameda Corridor and
complete the Alameda Corridor East and other port and rail projects.
For
those who say it will never happen. Metro has completed 3 of the 4 steps
toward building a new tunnel; all that remains is the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR).
Contacts / Information:
•
www.no710.com - No 710 Action Committee website
•
unitedagainst710@gmail.com - Request to be added to this email distribution that will alert you of upcoming meetings and news announcements.
•
No 710 Freeway Tunnel - Facebook
•
Stop the 710 - Yahoo
(Mod: Here is an interesting article that comes from a blog run by people in the San Rafael area opposed to the 710 Tunnel (click here).
The search for the larger geopolitical reasons for building something
so counter to the interests of those live live here is an interesting
one. After all, Metro's arguments for why it must be built often make
little sense. The "it will reduce air pollution" fib being but one)
How Will the Nafta Superhighway Affect the Long Beach/LA Ports?
We in the affected
710 Tunnel area have been continuously told that we must
Beat the Canal--that
is, the Panama Canal expansion, which will, when completed, allow
bigger ships to transit it. We have been told that if the
Long Beach/LA ports do not themselves expand their capacity, which they are doing, we will lose much port cargo from Asia, especially from
China and
Japan, to U.S. East Coast ports. We have been told that the
South 710 Corridor Project,
increasing the number of lanes on the South 710, is necessary to handle
all the anticipated additional truck traffic from the ports due to the
ports' expansion.
A collorally to this, even though
Metro denies it, is that the
710 Tunnel is necessary to accommodate the increase in truck traffic from the ports to the 210 and the 5.
But an interesting thing has happened. A
Tolled Single Bore Tunnel has been recently added to the
SR 710 EIR/EIS Study. Now the
Metro
staff has stated that dual tunnels may provide too much capacity. Why
is this change of heart? What happened to all those great estimates of
vehicle traffic that will use the dual tunnels? More or less, though
Metro will probably deny this, there may not be as many trucks in the
future that will use the tunnel, as there may not be as much port
traffic requiring trucks.
The reason for this is that
Burlington Northern, now owned by
Warren Buffett, will increase the capacity on his railroad for container cargo. His route out of
Los Angeles
is already at capacity. Each of his trains carries about 100 containers
at a time and run about every 15 minutes. There is no way that his
trains can carry more cargo. Whether his trains are loaded at a new
Long Beach railyard or at the
Hobart railyard makes no difference in the capacity of his trains.
Metro's change of heart could be simply what we in the affected
710 area has not heard much about or really anything about: the
Nafta Superhighway. This has been an on-again, off-again idea which is now on-again.
The cargo ships from
Asia will not be going to
East Coast and
Gulf ports, but to one or more ports in
Mexico, probably to the P
ort of Lazaro Cardenas on the Pacific Coast.
Port of Lazaro Cardenas
"The Port of Los Angeles, the country’s busiest container port, faces an
uncertain future. A $5.25-billion project will make the Panama Canal
wider and deeper, allowing ships from China to bypass West Coast ports
for deepwater ports on the US Gulf Coast and East Coast. Experts suggest
that as much as a quarter of the approximately 60 million tons of cargo
– nearly 8 million TEU’s in 2011 – Los Angeles and neighboring Long
Beach handles each year could be diverted, shrinking both the size and
importance of the terminals. But the canal is not the port’s only
competition.
Early last month APM Terminals, the ports arm of Danish oil and shipping
group A.P. Moller-Maersk, signed a 32-year concession contract with the
Port of Lazaro Cardenas (APILAC) for the design, financing,
construction, operation, and maintenance of a new specialized container
terminal at the port.
APM Terminals will start construction on Mexico’s new super port by
September of this year. The first phase will be completed in 2015,
costing over USD 300 million. The terminal will undergo a phased
expansion in accordance with provisions stipulated in the concession
agreement. The entire project will require an investment of over USD 900
million." http://gcaptain.com/mexicos-900-million-mega-container/
(September 5, 2012)
Punta Colonet
The other port that is in contention to be "Super Port" is Punta Colonet, Mexico, on the Baja Peninsula.
"PUNTA COLONET, MEXICO — Mexico's government is preparing to open
bidding on the largest infrastructure project in the nation's history, a
$4-billion seaport that could transform this farming village into a
cargo hub to rival the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
If completed as planned by 2014, the port would be the linchpin of a new
shipping route linking the Pacific Ocean to America's heartland.
Vessels bearing shipping containers from Asia would offload them here on
Mexico's Baja peninsula, about 150 miles south of Tijuana, where they
would be whisked over newly constructed rail lines to the United States.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/25/business/fi-mexport25 (March
25, 2008)
"The port at Punta Colonet, when completed, is expected to rival the
biggest West Coast ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, both heavily
congested now.
Bringing goods into a Mexican port would mean lower costs for foreign
shippers because of cheaper labor and less restrictive environmental
regulations.
