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

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Why The Rules Of The Road Aren’t Enough To Prevent People From Dying


By Anna Maria Barry-Jester, January 15, 2015

On a foggy morning last February, Jelani Irving rode his bike in the darkness just before sunrise. He was returning to his home in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights neighborhood after finishing a shift driving a taxi, a job he’d started two weeks earlier.

According to police and family accounts, Irving crossed Eastern Parkway, a busy thoroughfare, and rode down Washington Avenue, along the eastern side of the Brooklyn Museum. A car driving under the 30 mph speed limit approached from the other direction as Irving veered left onto a cross street. But the car was turning right onto that street. Irving was in its path. The two roads meet at an obtuse angle, which allows motorists to turn without slowing down; the car and bike collided. An ambulance whisked Irving, 22, to Kings County Hospital Center, but he died four days later.

The death was ruled an accident, and there’s no evidence anybody broke the law. But does that mean we should view this tragedy as unavoidable?

How speed limits are set

In 2013, 32,719 people died in motor vehicle crashes in the United States, and 2.3 million were injured, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Those numbers were down from the previous year, but motor vehicle crashes remain a leading cause of death, and speed is a leading cause of accidents. The NHTSA estimates a $277 billion annual price tag1 for those accidents, with an additional $594 billion for “harm from the loss of life and the pain and decreased quality of life due to injuries.”

Given the social and economic toll of speeding, one might assume that we set speed limits with careful calculations aimed at maximizing safety. But that’s not exactly how it works, and a history of questionable applications of data is partly to blame.

Here’s how speed limits are established in most states, according to Federal Highway Administration research: Traffic engineers conduct a study to measure the average speed motor vehicles move along a road. The speed limit is then set at the 85th percentile. From then on, 85 percent of drivers would be traveling under the speed limit and 15 percent would be breaking the law. Sometimes other factors2 are taken into consideration, but in most places, speed limits are largely determined by the speed most people feel safe traveling. Some states, including Louisiana and Michigan, go so far as to call limits determined by this method “rational speed limits,” stating that achieving compliance is possible only if the speed limits are reasonable.

Drivers travel at the speed a road allows, and speed limits are set accordingly. So, what determines how fast people can drive and still feel safe?

Roads are planned according to a concept known as design speed, basically the speed vehicles are expected to travel.3 Engineers often apply the 85th percentile rule to a similar road to arrive at the design speed for the proposed road. It might make sense, then, that the design speed would become the speed limit. However, in practice, the design speed is often used to determine the minimum speed of safe travel on a road.

Confused? So was I. Norman Garrick, a professor of engineering at the University of Connecticut, explained how this works using the example of a commercial office building.

“The engineer will usually calculate the load a beam must bear and then design it to hold some percentage of higher load, for safety. When building roads, the 85th percentile calculates the speed the engineers hope or intend people will travel, but then it’s used to design a road to meet that speed at a minimum, with a factor of safety allowing for faster travel,” he told me.

In other words, by adding additional “safety” to the road, it is designed to make people comfortable going faster than the engineers’ intended speed. This is known as the interpreted design speed (the speed people actually feel safe traveling), which is often significantly higher than the intended design speed. Think of a subdivision with wide, flat roads. The speed limit may be 25 mph, but you feel utterly comfortable doing 40.

The 85th percentile idea grew out of research that is now a half-century old. Several people I spoke with traced it to a 1964 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce.4 The main finding of the study was that when a car travels at a vastly different speed from the average speed of all traffic (whether faster or slower), there is an increased risk that the driver will be involved in an accident.

There are lots of problems with the study and its applications. It was conducted 50 years ago, when the size and distribution of cars and trucks on the road were very different from today.5 The study included crashes only on two- and four-lane rural highways, where the risk of head-on collisions is much higher than it is on divided interstates. Many of the “speed variations” were related to slowing down in congestion or at intersections, situations that are unavoidable. But perhaps most notably, the study did not include anything related to pedestrians or cyclists, who share the road space with cars in most urban and suburban environments. Without a 2,000-pound vehicle for protection, they are also more likely to experience serious injury, even at slow speeds.

Death on the highways

In a study of how impact speed affects a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death, Brian C. Tefft of the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that above 15 mph, relatively small changes in vehicle speed lead to large increases in risk of death. Tefft calculated that the risk of death for a pedestrian is 10 percent with an impact speed of 23 mph but rises to 25 percent at 32 mph. The limit is 30 or 35 mph in many cities, so 32 is not an uncommon speed.

But the majority of motor-vehicle-related deaths involve vehicle passengers. There’s evidence that speed limits have an effect on that number as well. From 1974 to 1995, a federal law called the National Maximum Speed Law restricted speeds to 55 mph on all interstate highways (though an act in 1987 raised the limit to 65), with the intention of reducing fuel consumption after a 1973 oil embargo. When that law was removed in 1995, every state raised its speed limits. A study published in 2009 in the American Journal of Public Health researched the effects of the changes and found a 3.2 percent increase in road fatalities attributable to the raised speed limits. The researchers calculated that the speed increases led to 12,545 deaths over the 10-year period they studied.

The birth of jaywalking

It turns out, we weren’t always obsessed with speed in the United States. When cars were first becoming popular at the beginning of the 20th century, terms like “road hog” and “joy rider” were called out at “speeding” vehicles, which in urban areas tended to mean they were going faster than 10 mph. In his book “Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City,” Peter Norton, a professor of history at the University of Virginia, argues that in the early 20th century, people thought we needed to keep roads safe from cars, not for cars. City speed limits were set below 20 mph until automakers and industry groups realized that such low limits were going to hurt sales. To change public opinion, campaigns were started to criminalize pedestrians in the road (“jaywalking”) and to shift the blame for accidents from cars to “reckless drivers.” By 1930, city speed limits were just about what they are today.

There’s evidence from Europe that high speeds in the United States over the past century have caused many deaths. The Netherlands and Sweden have overhauled the design of their roads and cities, resulting in enormous declines in motor vehicle fatalities. In urban areas, curbs are removed, giving the perception of shared space (though cyclists, pedestrians and cars are still separated), which encourages drivers to slow down. And in most of Europe, driving lanes are much narrower, which also fosters slower travel.6 In Sweden, a program called Vision Zero treats all traffic fatalities as preventable, and this idea has recently crossed the ocean to U.S. cities.

Soon after New York Mayor Bill de Blasio took office in 2014, he announced an initiative to end motor vehicle deaths, using Vision Zero as the guide. The first order of business was to lower the default speed limit.

First, state law had to be changed. Since 1964, the law had required default speed limits to be at least 30 mph throughout the state. By November of last year, that was lowered to 25 mph for New York City. The speed limit reduction was the most public of Vision Zero’s initial changes, but to date, 29 of its 63 initiatives have been implemented. Preliminary data suggests the program may be paying off: 2014 saw the lowest number of pedestrian deaths since the city started keeping records in 1910. New York also had a decline in overall motor vehicle deaths from previous years. But with 134 pedestrian deaths and 250 overall, the city is a long way from zero.

Data released Tuesday by the New York City Department of Transportation also showed that controversial speed cameras near schools may be working to slow traffic at the 19 sites where they have been placed since September7. Overall, there was a decline of 58.7 percent in the number of daily speeders found on these cameras (which ticket only at speeds of 10 mph above the posted speed limit), with individual cameras’ declines ranging from 21 to 75 percent. This suggests the mere presence of the camera can help reduce speeds.

Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a group that advocates for pedestrians, cyclists and public transit in New York City, noted a culture of acceptance that some people will die in accidents if we live with cars. But he thinks design, laws and education can change that.

“We can analyze the causal factors and control for them. We can mitigate those factors. We know that human beings are going to make mistakes, but we can design the system so that those mistakes won’t be fatal,” White said.

It’s impossible to know whether a different road design or a lower speed limit could have saved Jelani Irving’s life. But White argues that the goal of zero traffic fatalities is achievable.

“It’s completely unacceptable for someone to die in a plane crash or an elevator,” he said. “We should expect the same of cars.”

The city’s deputy commissioner for transportation planning and management, Ryan Russo, said that in a dense urban environment like New York, improving safety doesn’t necessarily increase travel time from A to B. And while the speed limit change was an important symbolic first step, and a meaningful one for safety, the city is only a year into the program.

“The speed limit change was important functionally for those streets,” Russo told me, “but also for starting conversations, getting media coverage and discussion, and to get Vision Zero off to a strong start.”

Cheap gas may not lead to drop in transit ridership, experts say


By Laura J. Nelson, January 20, 2015

Transit ridership

 Riders prepare to board the Metro Red Line at the Metro Center Station at 7th and Figueroa streets.The effect of cheap gas on transit hasn’t been studied rigorously.

Since the start of the summer, gasoline prices in Los Angeles County have tumbled 40%, from more than $4 to $2.52, sparking gleeful social media posts and long lines at the cheapest gas stations.

But the enthusiasm is tempered with concern from local transit officials, who say cheap gasoline takes away a key incentive to ride the bus or train in a region where commuting is still overwhelmingly done by car. And in fact, for every month that gas prices declined in 2014, so did the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's ridership figures. In the second half of the year, the number of riders systemwide fell by 4% compared with 2013.

But, experts say, don't be fooled: Although there appears to be a connection, correlation is not causation.

It's well documented that transit ridership gets a bump when gas prices soar. If prices at the pump increase by 100%, people drive about 10% less, said Marlon Boarnet, a USC urban planning professor. Some of that decrease in driving leads to higher transit use, but many trips can be done on foot or in a carpool. Other trips can be eliminated.

The effect of cheap gas on transit hasn't been studied as rigorously. Experts say that's because gasoline prices crater so rarely that there aren't many opportunities to dig into the data — and because economists know what to expect.

"Falling gas prices don't lead to much of a decrease in ridership, if any," Boarnet said. "You're looking at zero to two percentage points change, at most."

In Los Angeles, cheap gas alone doesn't make driving affordable for low-income residents, Metro's main customer base. Four in five passengers don't have access to a private vehicle, and more than half of riders live below the federal poverty threshold: $11,670 for one person and $23,850 for a family of four.

"Taking transit versus driving here basically depends on whether you're rich or you're poor," said Jan K. Brueckner, a UC Irvine professor who studies urban economics. "The margin of transit riders affected by lower gas prices is very narrow."

Purchasing, insuring and repairing cars costs far more than filling the tank. Of the estimated $8,835 that the average Los Angeles household spent on transportation in 2012, just 7% went to transit fares and taxis, while 33% went toward gas and 60% toward other vehicle expenses, according to the most recent data available from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If a slim margin of discretionary transit users shift back to their cars, the overall effect on Metro ridership should be minimal. That separates Los Angeles from other major U.S. cities, where subway cars and buses often show a broad cross-section of income and race.

"If you're looking at Chicago, New York or Washington, D.C., this would be a different question," Brueckner said.
At a gas station in Inglewood on Friday, Vanessa Bustillos filled up her Toyota Tundra pickup in preparation for a drive to Northern California for the long weekend. At $65 for a full tank, she paid $20 less than she would have six months ago. "I would have driven anyway," she said. "But it's nice to save some money."

The biggest influence on transit ridership is the health of the economy, experts say. During the Great Recession, as income levels dropped and household budgets tightened, transit ridership hit record highs across the United States. Some of the strongest ridership months in 2008 and 2009 corresponded with low fuel prices.

Metro officials note, with some concern, that as the economy rebounds, more households are buying new cars. In the first 11 months of 2014, Southland residents registered 8% more new cars than in 2013, according to the most recent data from L.A. Times/cars.com.

Any minor shifts in ridership due to lower gas prices won't appear in Metro's ridership figure for several more months, spokesman Marc Littman said, because the agency's ridership estimates are based on a six-month average of data samples taken across all lines in the system.

"When gas prices spike, we don't see ridership gains until several months later," Littman said. "It takes a while for this stuff to percolate through."

It's more likely, experts said, that the fare increase in September led to a temporary drop in ridership while passengers adjusted to higher costs.

This also was the first year that Metro's ridership figures included several months of data from stations where turnstiles are now locked. For a year, ending in June, the agency locked fare gates at 40 of the system's 80 rail stations in an attempt to make it more difficult for riders to board without paying. Analysts say that could lead to fewer people boarding as well.

"You can't pinpoint which single factor causes ridership to decrease," said Dan Nguyen, Metro's deputy executive officer for service performance and scheduling. "But we do need to make an effort to attract new riders and retain the riders we have."

Dudes, you're driving too much: U.S. men drive 63% more than women, on average


By Michael Graham Richard, January 19, 2015


U.S. vehicles traveled 2,988,777,000,000 miles last year

It looks like the generation that is coming of age in the 2000s is less interested in cars than their elders, which might mean that we have finally reached 'peak car' (or maybe it's a temporary plateau, time will tell). This is quite clear on this graph produced by the Federal Reserve of St-Louis:

Federal Reserve of St-Louis/Screen capture

But even with that pause in the increase of total vehicle-miles driven in the US, the average number of miles driven per driver remains high at 13,476, according to the Federal Highway Administration. More worrying is that U.S. men are doing more than their share of driving, raking up more than 60% more miles per year on average than U.S. women:

U.S. DOT/Screen capture

As you can see above, the age group that drives the most are men between 35 and 55 years of age, while women over 65 only average 4,700 miles/year (which is less than half the distance driven by men aged 65+).

The latest numbers from the Fed, from October 2014, show that the U.S. vehicle fleet has driven 2,988,777,000,000 miles in the past 12 months. Many of those were no doubt useful and necessary (especially for people who live outside of urban areas), but a huge amount could probably easily be eliminated without affecting anyone's quality of life; in fact, it would probably improve the quality of life of almost everybody. Nobody dreams of spending hours sitting in traffic every day, breathing polluted air and spending their hard-earned money on a vehicle that is burning money and depreciating fast.

While more of the burden of driving less falls on men simply because they drive more, everyone should take a look at their driving and see if they can improve things. Combining trips is a good way to reduce unnecessary back and forth driving; walking, biking, carpooling, or taking transit to commute instead of driving alone is a no-brainer; living closer to the things you need (work, play, family, stores) can dramatically cut your driving and the time you waste in sitting in your car; and if all else is impossible for whatever reason, definitely get the greenest vehicle that meets your needs. Today for many people, this might be an electric car or plug-in hybrid. If you can't reduce the number of miles as much as you'd like, at least you can reduce the negative impact of each of those miles.

The Week in Livable Streets Events


By Damien Newton, January 20, 2015

There’s been a lot of excitement over Seleta Reynolds since she assumed the head spot at LADOT. If you haven’t had a chance to hear her in person, there’s a chance this Thursday night when Reynolds speaks in Tarzana. Listen and be prepared to applaud profusely. There’s also an exciting joint MCM-LACBC program on Saturday to engage more women in bicycle advocacy.
  • Right Now - State agencies are seeking input on one more program that will receive funds from California’s cap-and-trade system. Guidelines for the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program [PDF] were released in December. Two public workshops will be held, one in Los Angeles is being held right now and the other is in Sacramento tomorrow. Read more at Melanie Curry’s story from last week.
  • Thursday – Because Metro Board scheduling is designed to make things as confusing as possible, the Board meeting will be held next week, even though committee meetings were last week. The agenda should be posted soon, and will be found here.
  • Thursday - Councilmember Bob Blumenfield and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) invite you to meet General Manager Seleta Reynolds at a transportation town hall in the West Valley. LADOT would like to share the Great Streets for Los Angeles Strategic Plan and hear from residents directly on key transportation issues affecting the West Valley. Get more details, here.
  • Thursday – Metro will offer presentations on the plans for affordable housing projects at Cesar Chavez/Soto and 1st/Soto in Boyle Heights and gather community feedback on those and the plans for the Mariachi Plaza site. The meeting will be held at Puente Learning Center, 501 S. Boyle Avenue, from 6:30 – 8 p.m. For details on where things stand with the projects now, see Sahra’s write-up here.
  • Saturday - The Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC) and Multicultural Communities for Mobility (MCM) are partnering on a women-led series of bike rides and workshops starting this Sat., Jan 24th, and continuing on through April. These workshops are designed to encourage women to build their networks and grow their capacity for transforming their communities through active transportation, namely biking. Get more details, here.
  • Saturday - Metro sponsors Bikesan@s del Valle’s and C.I.C.L.E.’s (Cyclists Inciting Change thru LIVE Exchange) Love Your Neighborhood ride. The ride will start from Lake View Terrace Library near Hansen Dam and will visit community murals and Pacoima City Hall. Details at Facebook event page.
  • Saturday – Years of work by the Neighborhood Land Trust will come to fruition this Saturday morning with the opening of the pocket park at the intersection of Avalon and Gage (6301 Avalon Bl.) in South L.A. Food and festivities begin at 10 a.m. and run through noon. See photos and plans of the park as it was under construction here.

Guest Editorial: Perhaps Seattle Should Find a Plan B for the Downtown Tunnel Project


By Thom Neff, January 20, 2015

Titled, Another Side of Bertha, this photo was taken in May of 2013. Later that year, after digging just 1,000 feet, Bertha stopped working. More than a year later, the machine still hasnt been fixed.
Washington State Department of Transportation. 
 Another Side of Bertha," this photo was taken in May of 2013 as the machine was being prepared to "begin her tunneling journey." Later that year, after digging just 1,000 feet, Bertha stopped working. More than a year later, the machine still hasn't been fixed.
In May of 2010, Mayor Mike McGinn and the Seattle Department of Transportation hired me to do an independent risk assessment for the city’s proposed deep-bore tunnel project. One of the reasons I was hired was that Mayor McGinn was very concerned about potential cost overruns, because he feared the City of Seattle and its residents would have to bear the costs if this state megaproject went over budget. My report, submitted in July of 2010, is a matter of public record, and gave a number of reasons for uncertainty regarding the proposed tunnel. I suggested, among other things, that the schedule and budget mentioned in 2010 were unlikely to prove realistic. In the years since, I have followed project developments via my numerous contacts in Seattle and in the infrastructure industry. Clearly, the citizens of the State of Washington, and in particular the citizens of Seattle, are now experiencing a drama that is playing out in a way most did not expect. 
When I think about those average citizens, I imagine them looking at the near-14-year history of this project and wondering, “How did we arrive at this point?” The fact is, the history involved many intelligent, well-meaning people: members of agencies, engineering firms, individual experts, panels of experts. Well-meaning people can differ in their opinions and come to different conclusions when presented with the same data and evidence. Certainly there have been a lot of different opinions offered over the life of this project. The evidence today, however, is clear: The SR-99 Deep Tunnel Project is in trouble.

December 6, 2013—the day Bertha shut down after digging only 1,000 feet or so—is now receding in the rearview mirror, and the many project players are reacting in a variety of ways. There have been countless meetings, numerous statements and theories advanced as to what happened, projections offered on how long it will take to fix, suggestions posited on when tunneling will resume, proposals for who will pay for potential additional costs. In the interim, Bertha has only moved a few feet, and there is a major rescue operation under way to make very significant repairs to the tunnel-boring machine. The design and construction of a rescue shaft has been ongoing throughout 2014, and the repair scheme involves lowering the groundwater in the area surrounding Bertha’s current location, near Pioneer Square. That, in turn, has raised some recent issues with viaduct settlements, and settlement and cracking of adjacent buildings and infrastructure.

These developments are under study by WSDOT, SDOT, and Seattle Tunnel Partners, and could result in a temporary stoppage of the dewatering and excavation, for public safety reasons. The two main issues regarding the settlements are: (1) public safety for users of the elevated viaduct and occupants of the nearby buildings, and (2) cracking and structural damage to nearby buildings, utilities, and other infrastructure. The planned March 2015 tunnel-boring machine restart has been moved to April 2015, and a new tentative opening date for the tunnel has now been set for August 2017. The rescue operation itself is a significant construction project, and was not part of the original SR-99 project design. Some have suggested that this requires a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, but this issue was initially rejected.

If we were to create a full list of things we know about this difficult situation (starting from January 2001, when the Nisqually earthquake caused worrisome damage to the viaduct), it would be quite long. But the list of things we do not know is much shorter, and gives pause to any prudent observer who might be wondering how things are going to eventually turn out. These unknowns would include:

1. Can Bertha actually be repaired, and how long will it take?

2. Can Bertha, in her retooled state, actually complete the tunnel?

3. What will be the actual completion date of the project?

4. What will be the eventual total cost of the project?

5. Where will the funds come from, if eventually approved claims and change requests/orders exceed the current budget (including approved contingency funds)?

6. If SR-99, as currently designed, proves impossible to complete, for any number of reasons, is there a Plan B?

Without answers to these six points, there is considerable uncertainty going forward. Many eyes in the global tunneling industry are focused on Seattle because success of SR-99 will be a positive boost to large-tunnel credibility. Risk analysis and probability theory, along with other analytical schemes, have contributed significantly to the current state of SR-99. WSDOT’s Cost Estimation Validation Process (CEVP), which employs probability theory, was extensively used to justify the approach to, and eventual approval of, SR-99. So a prudent person might think that having a Plan B in place would be a reasonable idea. Such efforts may be under way, but little has been publicly noted regarding “options.” Perhaps looking at this situation a bit differently could be constructive.

Game Theory offers a different approach. It would term this situation a “dilemma”—i.e., a situation wherein unpleasant or undesirable choices must be made, to avoid the worst outcome. The current situation is not good, but it could get worse. The worst outcome would be two completed tunnel portals, with the ancillary approach systems in place, and no tunnel. In these complex dilemmas, involved players must make choices, knowing that others are also making choices, and the outcome will be determined in some prescribed manner by all the choices made. Game Theory searches for an optimum solution given the history, values, and philosophy of the participants. It will not find the “best” solution for an individual participant, but can avoid the worst outcome for all the participants. In many of these complex conflicts, the best that can be hoped for is to avoid the worst. It appears that a fair number of Washington’s citizens feel angry at the current situation, even suggesting that abandoning the project might be a viable option. There is evidence, however, that the majority are willing to wait until April 2015 (or whenever Bertha is “repaired”) and see if the project will then move smoothly toward completion. Given the project history to date, including the unprecedented 15-month (minimum, predicted) delay after completing just 10 percent of the tunnel, such an outcome might be considered by some as unlikely.

A prudent person might also think it is time to have a “truly” independent entity review the details of the current dilemma, and work with the involved parties to move forward in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner, with the aim being to avoid the worst outcome. Perhaps the elected officials (Governor Jay Inslee, Mayor Ed Murray, the city council, and others) who are charged with protecting citizens and taxpayers from financial, administrative, and technical adversity might look into an optimum resolution of the current problem, a Plan B. Just in case.

Mayor Murray, to his credit, has recently addressed this issue of a Plan B. He has said that it’s too early to consider a Plan B, and Bertha “can’t fail.” Criteria to suggest “failure” do differ among educated, well-meaning people. By my personal criteria, Bertha has already failed. Bertha has only moved a few feet since December 6, 2013, and we do not really know when she will begin moving again. In my experience, ANY realistic risk management approach to a serious project ALWAYS has a Plan B in hand. This situation reminds me of Mike Tyson’s famous quote, when told that his next opponent has a “plan” to beat him. Mike would reply, “everyone has a plan, until someone hits them in the mouth.” Bertha has hit WSDOT in the mouth.

Holden requests Public Comment Period Extension for SR-710 DEIR

Alhambrans Against the 710 Tunnels need help

From Sylvia Plummer, January 20, 2015

Mark your calendar for Saturday, January 31, 2015  at 10am

Here's a copy of their letter with all the details:

On  Sat. January 31 @ 10am, Responsible Alhambrans Against the 710 will be canvassing in the Emery Park tract of Alhambra. The aim is to 

- inform the neighbors about what “Closing the Gap” will really do

- counteract the mis-information put out by the City of Alhambra about the tunnel and about their claim that there is a majority of Emery Park residents that are for this project

- let residents know about our group and about where they can get more information about the tunnel-- information that the City of Alhambra does not want them to know. 

Mark your calendars — we need to cover all of Emery Park, and we can only do it if we have numbers.  We will meet at 10 am for brunch then walk from  11am- 2pm. Come for as long as you can.

Please RSVP by  Mon. Jan. 26 to:   melmiamich@yahoo.com  so we know how many will be there. Feel free to bring friends and family to be canvassing buddies. 

For exact meeting address, please email   melmiamich@yahoo.com

Thank you! 
Responsible Alhambrans Against the 710

How Can You Help Stop the SR-710 Tunnels?

From Sylvia Plummer, January 20, 2015

In last weeks email you learned about West Pasadena Residents' Association's (WPRA) effort to convince Metro and Caltrans of their proposed folly.

How can you help?

If you are unable to volunteer your services, consider a donations to fight the SR-710.  
Checks can be made out to WPRA,  include a note that says the money is to be used for Neighborhood Protection
All donations are tax deductible. 
The WPRA address is:
WEST PASADENA RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION, Post Office Box 50252, Pasadena, CA 91115-0252
The WPRA website does have an online donation page, however, it really doesn’t clearly indicate how people can donate to the 710 cause. So for now it would be best to mail a check.