Purpose

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

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Two public hearings added for SR-710 North Study

http://thesource.metro.net/2015/04/02/two-public-hearings-added-for-sr-710-north-study/

By Steve Hymon, April 2, 2015

There are now four public meetings scheduled to solicit public comment on the SR-710 North draft environmental document released last month. The first meeting is Saturday, April 11. Details on the meetings are in this news release from Caltrans and Metro:

Caltrans and Metro Add Two More Public Hearings for Community Feedback to Draft Environmental Document on SR-710

(April 2, 2015) The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today announced the addition of two more public hearings to offer community feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for SR-710.

Additional public hearings have been scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2015, at the La Cañada High School auditorium, 4463 Oak Grove Drive, La Cañada-Flintridge, Calif. 91011 with map viewing 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. and public hearing from 6 p.m.  to 9 p.m. and Thursday, May 7, 2015, at the Los Angeles Christian Presbyterian Church, 2241 N. Eastern Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif. 90032 with map viewing 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. and public hearing from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

The added meetings provide four opportunities to comment on the draft environmental document. The first two meetings are scheduled on Saturday, April 11, 2015 at the Rosco C. Ingalls Auditorium at East Los Angeles College with map viewing 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. and public hearing 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. and Tuesday, April 14, 2015, at the Pasadena Convention Center with map viewing 5 p.m. to 6 p.m., and public hearing 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. A 120-day public comment period began March 6 and ends July 6, 2015.

Caltrans and Metro are under a mandate from two million Los Angeles County voters that passed Measure R in 2008 to study a 100 square mile region affected by congestion and pollution caused by incomplete transportation infrastructure between the end of the I-710 freeway in El Sereno and the I-210 Freeway in Pasadena.

The Draft EIR/EIS proposes five alternatives regarding a 4.5 mile gap separating the freeways.
•No Build option that would leave conditions as they are

•A traffic management system to upgrade and synchronize signals and improvements to local street intersections to more quickly move traffic that exits the dead end freeway
•A rapid bus line featuring high frequency service with minimal stops and potentially a dedicated bus lane
•Light rail to carry passengers between East Los Angeles and Pasadena
•A freeway tunnel that would extend the SR-710

No decisions have been made on any proposed alternative in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Members of the public are encouraged to attend the public hearings and read the document at http://goo.gl/84KSgF Public comment can be made on the link provided.

The full document can be viewed by appointment at the Caltrans District Office at 100 South Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 and at the Metro library, 1 Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles, Calif. 90012. Copies are also available at public libraries listed here: http://www.metro.net/projects/sr-710-conversations/

An EIR is required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and an EIS fulfills requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The laws require government agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects. Information from public comments will be weighed before preparing the final environmental document.

Altogether, approximately 26 detailed technical studies are included in the Draft EIR/EIS.
Through the process of compiling the Draft EIR/EIS, Metro and Caltrans conducted 92 community meetings, participated in six city-sponsored community forums and held over 200 briefings with community stakeholders.

Controversial ads to appear on SEPTA buses

http://www.metro-magazine.com/management-operations/news/293837/controversial-ads-to-appear-on-septa-buses?ref=Express-Thursday-NEW-20150402&utm_campaign=Express-Thursday-NEW-20150402&utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Enewsletter

April 2, 2015



 GK tramrunner29



A federal court judge presiding over a dispute between the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and a group seeking to purchase advertising space on SEPTA vehicles has ruled the agency must accept the ads, even if they contain messages that may be disparaging to riders and agency employees.

After careful consideration, SEPTA has decided not to appeal this ruling. The agency’s policy was revised in October 2014 to allow SEPTA to reject these types of ads without violating the First Amendment. However, this policy change was made after the American Freedom Defense Initiative's (AFDI) initial request to purchase advertising space and is not applicable in the matter.

Consequently, AFDI has executed a contact with SEPTA's advertising management agency, Titan, to purchase advertising space on the side panel of 84 SEPTA buses. The ads will contain what some may view as anti-Muslim messages. These vehicles will be placed in normal inventory rotation throughout the SEPTA service area. The ads will begin appearing on vehicles during the first week of April for a four-week period.

"We understand that our decision to not file an appeal will be disappointing to those who will be forced to view the disparaging ads," said SEPTA GM Joseph M. Casey. "We are aware that the presence of the ads could anger the public, but caution that attempts to vandalize the ads or deface SEPTA vehicles will not be tolerated."

SEPTA has apologized to its riders and urged them to comment or voice their concerns by completing a SEPTA Customer Service comment form.

Metrolink PSAs To Hit SoCal Theaters Amid Concerns Films Glamorize Dangers Of Moving Trains

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2015/03/31/metrolink-psas-to-hit-socal-theaters-amid-concerns-films-glamorize-dangers-of-moving-trains/

March 31, 2015

See website for a video.


 LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — The Hollywood blockbuster “Insurgent” is receiving some backlash from Metrolink, which claims the film and others like it glamorize the dangers of moving trains.

The rail service in response says it’s created its own public service announcements, which Metrolink plans to show in Southern California movie theaters beginning this summer.

“There are young people who see these portrayals in the entertainment industry, and they try to emulate it,” said Scott Johnson, a Metrolink spokesman.

According to Metrolink, a person or vehicle is hit by a train every three hours in the United States.
In January, George Gregory “Greg” Plitt Jr., a reality television star, was killed by a train in Burbank during a film shoot on the tracks.

Metrolink says Plitt did not have a permit to be there.

Since his death, the rail system says Hollywood has become more aware of the dangers around train tracks, but the focus is now on moviegoers who officials hope will not try to mimic movie scenes.
“We want to make certain people understand doing that in real life can kill you,” Johnson said.

Just hours ago, Metrolink officials said a woman was hurt after getting hit by a train in Baldwin Park. It’s unclear why she was standing on the tracks, but officials said it’s another example of why people need to be careful.

SR-710 ANNOUNCEMENT: PUBLIC INPUT NEEDED


Reflections on the Alaskan Way mega-drive

http://www.tunneltalk.com/Discussion-Forum-31Mar2015-Lok-Home-of-Robbins-on-the-Seattle-SR99-TBM-problems.php

By Lok Home, March 31, 2015

In the week that the 2,000 tonne cutterhead and drive unit was lifted to the surface, Lok Home, President of The Robbins Company, provides a personal commentary on the project as it has unfolded to date. 
 
Seattle is the founding city of The Robbins Company, and a place where I lived for nearly 15 years. I remember commuting on the SR99 viaduct highway while working at Robbins early in my career. The new SR99 Viaduct Replacement Tunnel Project is therefore of great personal interest to me.

The industry is all too familiar with Seattle’s SR99 Tunnel and its TBM Big Bertha. Much has been written with regards to the 17.5m diameter TBM needing repairs after about 300m of boring.

TBM Bertha’s giant cutterhead and drive unit on the repair platform (31 March, 4.30pm)
TBM Bertha’s giant cutterhead and drive unit on the repair platform (31 March, 4.30pm)

TBM tendering

Robbins was a relatively new entry into the EPB/soft ground tunneling business when tenders were called for the SR99 project in 2011, and we made a concerted effort to get the order for this particular TBM. We teamed up with Japanese TBM manufacturer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) to get the order. Robbins has had an association with MHI for more than 20 years, and there are jointly designed machines operating around the world on projects in India, China, the USA, and in more countries besides. MHI has built more than 1,000 EPB machines, and, in my opinion, the Japanese TBM manufacturers are further advanced in EPB technology than their European and American counterparts.

During the process of trying to win this order we learned a lot about the geology, as well as the contractors’ TBM specification requirements. The main contractor, Dragados [in JV with Tutor Perini] is very well experienced in soft ground tunneling technology, and it developed a high-level specification for the machine. All of the prospective TBM suppliers were required to quote and, if successful, supply to this standard. We eventually stepped out of the tendering process as the lower prices and greater assumption of contract risk offered by our competitors made the TBM supply on this occasion an impractical business option for us.
Timelapse video of the cutterhead/drive unit lift (30 March):
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL-G6oTKDIg

Tough tunneling

The current situation at the SR99 project is more positive than the media tends to paint it. The project design consultant performed a commendable job when laying out the tunnel route by building in a contingency plan. Boring through glacial till, even with modern TBMs, is never an easy task, as previous projects like the Brightwater Conveyance Tunnels have taught the city of Seattle. This is doubly so along the Seattle waterfront, which includes man-made fill, utilities, and buried refuse. In such ground, TBMs can encounter rapidly changing geology; pockets of groundwater; abrasive soil; and man-made objects such as unmapped disused pipes; foundation piles; and more.

Aware of the problems that can develop while using an EPBM in glacial till under a city with a lot of backfill, the SR99 designer wisely developed a contingency plan. The strategy, in addition to pre-planned safe havens, involved a ‘shake down’ stretch of tunnel running under no buildings. If problems did occur, repairs to the TBM could be made by sinking a surface access shaft at this location. Unfortunately the need for that repair event occurred shortly after the machine commenced excavation.

The reasons for the failure of the cutterhead seals, and, potentially, the cutterhead main bearing, are yet to be determined. I doubt there will be any signs of failure of the main bearing when the crews get a chance to inspect it. However, all parties involved are wisely taking precautions and installing a new main bearing in addition to the seals.
Alignment of the mega-diameter TBM drive under Seattle:
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfwnkEbc4Q

Bertha’s lessons

Seattle Tunnel Partners and WSDOT have in place a panel of experts to advise them on the highly technical details of the TBM design. I personally know several of these experts and they are well qualified to recommend and supervise the necessary repairs and procedures to get the TBM into a condition where it is able to finish this tunnel.

Having been in the TBM supply business for quite a few years, I unfortunately have to admit having been in a similar (fortunately not as well-published!) situation as the TBM supplier, and on more than one occasion. This situation, involving significant TBM problems at the beginning of a TBM drive, can result from many different factors and is not unique to the SR99 project. In fact, Robbins recently had a similar situation (admittedly on a smaller scale in terms of both public and financial impact) on a project in Turkey known as the Kargi HEPP. Despite extensive pre-planning, unexpected ground was encountered, which resulted in several in-tunnel stops and machine modifications in the first few hundred meters of the tunnel.

10m diameter Robbins machine suffered problems at Kargi
10m diameter Robbins machine suffered problems at Kargi
What happens in these situations is that you pull in the best minds with the most experience and immediately analyze the problem. The ultimate fix often ends up as a multi-level solution. You must ensure you have the problem under control, plus, take additional measures to monitor the vulnerable components and operating procedures. At Kargi, this process resulted in the remainder of the project being finished without significant TBM problems. Without a doubt a similar process is going on at SR99 with Hitachi Zosen engineers, the contractor’s specialists, and the city’s board of experts.
Being one who is keenly interested in this project, I believe that this TBM will soon be back to boring with a new completion date, which will be fulfilled. I am optimistic that this project will one day be seen as a positive in the tunneling industry, and one during which many lessons will have been learned and many advancements made. Such advancements will be put to use in Seattle and in other cities that will benefit greatly from the excavation of more underground infrastructure.

This article first appeared as a blog, The Light at the End of the Tunnel: The Positive Side of Seattle’s SR99 Project on the Robbins website

References

In effort to better manage its lots, Metro circulates new parking ordinance

http://thesource.metro.net/2015/04/01/in-effort-to-better-manage-its-lots-metro-circulates-new-parking-ordinance/

By Steve Hymon, April 1, 2015


 The parking lot for the Green Line's Norwalk Station has 1,792 spaces -- and all of them are filled on most weekdays. Photo by Steve Hymon/Metro.


 The parking lot for the Green Line’s Norwalk Station has 1,792 spaces — and all of them are filled on most weekdays. Photo by Steve Hymon/Metro.


 
Why? The CVC doesn’t provide Metro much flexibility in writing rules that are particular to the parking lots and garages at its stations. In turn, that makes enforcement of the rules that do exist somewhat difficultparticularly enforcement of non-transit riders parking at Metro stations parking facilities.

Thus, the draft parking ordinance posted above (it’s in Appendix A) accompanied by a Metro staff report. In the coming weeks, the ordinance will be circulated to the public for review. After any necessary changes are made, it will be sent to the agency’s Board of Directors for their approval.

If you read the ordinance, you’ll notice that a lot of attention is given to the issue of parking fees. While all non-reserved daily spaces at Metro parking lots are currently free, the ordinance provides guidelines on how the agency may impose more parking fees in the future — should it so desire.

Fees may also help manage demand for parking at some of the most notoriously difficult parking lots in the Metro system in the same way that parking meters and garages with variable pricing helps balance supply and demand. Fees may also be a source of funding expanded parking at the most impacted stations, as well as helping restrict non-transit use at some lots and making lots safer.

A decision to charge for all parking would ultimately up to the agency’s Board of DirectorsThe parking ordinance and fee resolution is currently being circulated for review and will be considered by the Board in their April round of meetings.

As part of the ordinance, there’s a Board resolution to establish daily and monthly fees for preferred parking at some stations (Appendix B on the above document). The fees are typically $4 for daily preferred parking and between $20 and $59 for monthly spots, depending on the station location. This represents no change to the existing fees.

What do you think of parking at Metro stations? Is it necessary? Or a necessary evil? Should parking fees be commonplace? Or would that (pun intended) drive away would-be riders? Comment please.

Where the transit-build costs are unbelievable

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/03/8564884/where-transit-build-costs-are-unbelievable

By Dana Rubinstein, March 31, 2015




 where-transit-build-costs-are-unbelievable

 Michael Horodniceanu leads a tour of the ongoing Second Avenue construction.


It’s not often that a New York agency is accused of overestimating the cost of a major, multi-billion-dollar transportation project.

That’s what happened in March, when an advocate suggested the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had conspired to inflate the projected cost of a new midtown bus terminal in order to kill it.

More frequently, the agencies are criticized, with justification, for low-balling the costs and timelines of major projects, which almost invariably come in late and overbudget. In New York, this problem is chronic—and almost comically severe.

One example that is topical, and will remain so for years to come, is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s estimate, back in 2000, that a new Long Island Rail Road station beneath Grand Central Terminal would cost $4.3 billion, rather than the more than $10 billion it is expected to cost by the time it’s complete, sometime in the 2020s.

When, seven years late, the M.T.A. finally got around to completing the Fulton Center transit hub in lower Manhattan, it cost almost 100 percent more than anticipated, kind of like the Port Authority’s transit hub at the World Trade Center.

And just this year, Governor Andrew Cuomo—who had made a great issue of the cost overruns at the World Trade Center site—announced a plan to build a new, $450 million train to LaGuardia Airport. Skeptics of the price tag were quickly vindicated when, less than two weeks later, the Cuomo-appointed head of the M.T.A. put the cost at up to $1 billion.

The M.T.A. chairman, Tom Prendergast, hastily walked back his politically inconvenient estimate. But if anything, his estimate was an overoptimistic one, too: A Bloomberg-commissioned study, based on a longer (or perhaps more accurate) measurement of the same route put the cost of a similar proposal at $1.5 to $1.9 billion.

Cuomo spokeswoman Beth DeFalco said, “Gov. Cuomo has made the holistic redesign of both airports a priority and is committed to finding the most cost-effective way of constructing an Air Train.”

Nicole Gelinas, a transportation-finance expert at the Manhattan Institute, said, “We really have no idea how much this is going to cost.”

The same could be said of nearly any major project in this part of the country. All that is certain is that New York’s transportation agencies—and the political leaders who control them—have a problem with estimates, and that New York’s projects appear to be more expensive than comparable ones elsewhere in the modern world.

All of which makes it that much harder for the M.T.A. to raise money for the infrastructure that planners believe the region needs.

“We’ve got to be able to say with a straight face that ‘Hey, we want to build more subway lines,’” said Richard Barone, director of transportation programs for the Regional Plan Association. “And people say, ‘Yeah, OK, for more than $1 billion a mile—good luck with that.’”

This is not a new problem, even if it has seemed particularly acute in the past decade or two as the M.T.A. has resumed building what are known, in the infrastructure world, as megaprojects. And it is not unique to New York, though the tradition is particularly strong here.

That tradition was cemented, if not invented, by master builder (and chronic underestimator) Robert Moses.

“Year after year, the Board [of Estimate] would allocate new funds—and then would learn that still more were needed,” wrote Robert Caro in The Power Broker. “Marine Park in Brooklyn could be completed for $6,000,000, he assured the Board. When $6,000,000 had been spent on the park, Moses informed the Board that an additional $6,000,000 would be necessary. And when that was spent, the park would still be far from completed. He deceived the Board constantly.”

That legacy appears to be alive and well.

“When are they going to open the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway?” said City College civil engineering professor Robert Paaswell. “The date’s put off. East Side Access, the date’s put off. The opening of the 11th Avenue subway on the 7 line? That’s put off.”

A widely cited Danish study from 2002 found that, worldwide, “[u]nderestimation of costs at the time of decision to build is the rule rather than the exception for transportation infrastructure projects.”
That’s at least in part because “the targets for budget and time are politically motivated,” said Juliette Michaelson, vice president for strategy at the Regional Plan Association. “They’re not really based on what things cost for real.”

Transit historian Peter Derrick, who is working on a book on the M.T.A.’s contemporary rebuilding efforts, said, “It’s the normal thing for transit people to low-ball the cost of things to get them approved in the first place.”

One major motivation for this habit, the world over, is simple enough. That 2002 Danish study, by Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm and Soren Buhl, put it this way: “[D]eliberate cost underestimation is lying, and we arrive at one of the most basic explanations of lying, and of cost underestimation, that exists: Lying pays off, or at least economic agents believe it does.”

When it comes to megaprojects in New York, lowballing is only half the problem.

At $1.4 billion, Fulton Center “avoided becoming the most expensive subway station on earth only because the World Trade Center PATH station next door took that crown,” wrote Stephen Smith on the urbanism-focused website Next City. “The 7 train extension won’t become the world’s most expensive subway on a per-mile basis only because that honor belongs to the Second Avenue subway.”

It is a sign of how ordinary cost overruns have become in New York that such boondoggles receive relatively little attention.

The only New York politician in recent memory who’s attempted to grapple with the issue is New York City comptroller Scott Stringer, who noted in a speech back in 2011, when he was running for mayor, “The first phase of the Second Avenue subway is costing $2.7 billion per mile of new tunnel.

The extension of the 7 line from Times Square to the Javits Center is costing $2.1 billion per mile.”
He contrasted that with the construction of the Jubilee line extension of the London Underground, which he said cost $700 million per mile.

“We cannot build a 21st-century city and compete globally if we continue to spend five, even seven times as much on construction projects as compared to our competitors,” he said.

How New York City’s megaprojects compare in cost to those in similarly developed countries around the world is a question that is, somehow, very rarely studied.

Stringer’s spokesman said the comptroller relied for his numbers, in part, on a mathematician named Alon Levy, who’s now completing his post-doc at the Royal Institute of Technology, and who notes, in his blog Pedestrian Observations, that, mass transit is a “side interest” for him and “entirely unrelated to my work.”

The experts at the Regional Plan Association, who are looking into the problem of megaproject cost overruns as part of their latest survey of regional infrastructure, directed Capital to a blog post by Levy, too.

The post, from 2011, reported that the Toei Oedo Line in Japan cost $560 million per mile. The Berlin U55 cost $400 million per mile. The Paris Metro Line 14 cost $368 million per mile.
New York’s construction costs blew all of that away, the study found.

The Second Avenue Subway is coming in at $2.7 billion per mile. The 7 train extension to the far West Side? $2.1 billion per mile.

David Schleicher, an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law, has analyzed Levy’s numbers and says that his analysis basically confirms Levy’s.

Barone, of Regional Plan Association, said, “The question is always why, why, why is it so expensive?” said Barone.

The answer always seems to come back to a limited universe of issues, in varying combination: labor costs, work rules, managerial incompetence, the spaghetti of infrastructure tangled beneath Manhattan’s streets, a political firmament without incentive to tackle hard issues.

Maybe, suggested Gelinas, the M.T.A. is just trying to do too much all at once.

“If the choice is doing a lot of things not very well or nothing at all, then what do you pick?” she asked.

There have, in fact, been some in-house efforts to examine the issue, though none that anyone seems to find particularly useful.

In 2008, the M.T.A. released the report from a “blue ribbon” panel on the topic of unwieldy megaprojects. Then it appointed a traffic engineer named Michael Horodniceanu to run those projects and “implement the ideas the panel generated.”

Seven years later, all of the M.T.A’s megaprojects are still late, and nearly all are hundreds of millions over budget.

Cuomo appointed a “reinvention commission” to tackle the problem, too. It came up with recommendations, like creating a “center of excellence” to reform procurement procedures.
Asked which of these recommendations the M.T.A. has implemented, agency spokesman Adam Lisberg said, "We have used design-build processes for billions of dollars’ worth of procurements, we solicit input from the contractor community during the design of complex projects before locking them down, we do formal risk assessments of all large procurements, and we develop mitigation strategies to manage that risk."

“It is time to recognize that the delivery model for big projects is broken and fiddling on the margins will not build the kind of projects the region needs,” said Chris Ward, the former Port Authority executive director and former East Side Access contractor, who Cuomo publicly chastised for cost overruns before replacing him at the head of the authority.

New York City in the early 21st century looks very different from New York City in the early 20th century, when much of its transportation system was built.

More people live in the outer boroughs, and more people work there, too, but the options available for traveling between boroughs other than Manhattan are limited.

New York’s main bus terminal is a tear-down.

In the next 20 years, one or perhaps both of the two tubes connecting Midtown to New Jersey may have to be closed for repairs.

At the same time, the region invests billions of dollars in projects that planners believe were prioritized for political reasons. That Long Island Rail Road terminal beneath Grand Central will serve some 160,000 people a day, while the bus terminal serves more than 230,000. The temporary PATH station at the World Trade Center now serves 44,000 passengers a day, while Penn Station serves 600,000.

When those politicized projects go wildly overbudget it gives that much more license to politicians to be miserly about transportation funding.

Last year, after the M.T.A. approved a $32 billion capital plan with a $15 billion hole, Cuomo—who effectively controls the authority—called it “bloated,” even though the vast majority of it would go toward expenses like new subway cars, new buses, new rail and new signals to replace deteriorating old versions of each.

The governor is uneven at best as a champion of the transit system he oversees, and he had every political motivation in the world to reprise his tough-on-spending routine. Yet no one affiliated with the system was in a particularly good position to complain.

“Success requires bringing these projects in on time and within budget,” said that 2008 Blue Ribbon Panel report. “The public focuses on the transportation community and draws conclusions, deserved or undeserved, about MTA’s competence based on their perception of project success. Public trust and confidence in the transportation sector as a whole often lies in the balance.”

Pasadena SR-710 Working Group

From Sylvia Plummer, April 2, 2015

The Pasadena Working Group has sent its recommendations to Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard and City Manager Michael J. Beck regarding the Metro/Caltrans State Route 710 North Study. The Working Group’s report will be discussed at the Pasadena City Council meeting April 13, 2015 at the Pasadena Convention Center, 300 E. Green Street, beginning at 6:30 p.m.


Here is a link to the group's Report and Letter which have been added to the City of Pasadena's
SR710 site:


http://cityofpasadena.net/SR710/

SR-710 April Events

From Sylvia Plummer, April 2, 2015

Mark your calendars.  Below is a calendar of three events taking place this month.  
 
If your schedule can only fit in one meeting:   You are needed at the Pasadena City Council meeting on Monday April 13th @ 6:30pm.  There will be plenty of speakers, we need an audience to support the No 710 Tunnel side as well as the Pasadena SR-710 Working Group (more information provided under item 2 below).
 
The City of Pasadena has an announcement postcard for the two meetings in Pasadena.  The attached postcard has been prepared by the Public Information Office and distributed to Pasadena Council members and Pasadena Public Libraries.

SR-710 Public Hearings:  It is not necessary to be there the entire time.  You can stop by and take a look at the maps and ask the SR-710 Engineers questions.  



SR-710 Upcoming Events

Mark your calendar


Host:                                                   Date                               Time                      Location


Public Hearing #1 on SR710 Draft EIR

CalTrans                                          Saturday, April 11, 2015           10 am – 4 pm         East Los Angeles College
                                                                                                                                     Rosco Ingalls Auditorium
Map Viewing 10 am – 11 am                                                                              1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez
Public Hearing 11 am – 4 pm                                                                           Monterey Park, CA  91754

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pasadena City Council Meeting

Vote will be taken on a Resolution to oppose SR-710 Tunnels,
And Pasadena’s local Alternative preference

Everyone is invited             Monday, April 13, 2015               6:30 pm                Pasadena Convention Center
                                                                                                                         Ballroom
                                                                                                                         300 E. Green Street
                                                                                                                         Pasadena, 91101

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Hearing #2 on SR710 Draft EIR

CalTrans                                          Tuesday, April 14, 2015           5 pm – 9 pm           Pasadena Convention Center
                                                                                                                                     Ballroom
Map Viewing 5 pm – 6 pm                                                                                 300 E. Green Street
Public Hearing 6 pm – 9 pm                                                                             Pasadena, 91101

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now Accepting Public Comment for the SR-710 Draft EIR/EIS:

The public is highly encouraged to submit written or electronic comments prior to July 6, 2015


The Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the SR-710 North Study was released on March 6, 2015 by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

 

For information on how to comment go to:  no710.com



Sign the No 710 Tunnel Petition:

Go to no710.com and click on the yellow button “Sign the Petition” located on the left hand sign of the home page.  All you need is an email address to sign the petition.