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

Sunday, May 10, 2015

San Gabriel Valley to get $3.3 billion for transportation if new tax measures are passed

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150510/san-gabriel-valley-to-get-33-billion-for-transportation-if-new-tax-measures-are-passed

By Steve Scauzillo, May 10, 2015

 

 Metro Gold Line’s 10th Anniversary Event, July 26, 2013 at the Metro Gold Line Del Mar Station in Pasadena.


In a quest to divide $3.3 billion in future transportation improvement dollars, San Gabriel Valley cities are slipping into a battle pitting the haves in the north against the have-nots in the south.

The influential San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments has listed $1.02 billion for extension of the Gold Line light-rail in the foothills from the Azusa/Glendora border to Claremont in the north, while the Gold Line Eastside extension, in the south, would get $246 million.

Even though the preliminary rail formula goes before the regional agency’s governing board May 21, the staff proposal drew fire last week from transportation committee member and South El Monte City Councilman Joe Gonzales, who heads up a coalition of southern cities supporting the 6.9-mile rail extension from Atlantic/Pomona boulevards to South El Monte that parallels the 60 Freeway.

“I don’t think the $246 million is enough,” Gonzales objected. “The foothill cities are getting $1 billion. Where is the equity as compared to the south San Gabriel Valley cities?”

Other members were cautious not to enter a north-south fray, saying the 31 cities representing nearly 2 million residents must stand together or risk losing future transit funds.

“We need to demonstrate we are united. I don’t want to get into this south verses north,” said transportation vice-chairman and Claremont City Councilman Sam Pedroza.

The argument exposed an embarrassing history that the regional agency doesn’t want to repeat.
After Los Angeles County voters passed Measure R in 2008 by 67.22 percent, the one-half cent sales tax unleashed $40 billion in revenue through 2039. The measure was opposed by the SGVCOG.

Now, with nearly all that money allocated for five ongoing rail projects and various highway projects, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) has teamed up with the state Legislature to create Measure R-2, a second one-half cent sales tax for transportation projects. Sen. Kevin DeLeon’s Senate Bill 767 is making its way through Sacramento and if approved, will arrive on the November 2016 ballot in time for the presidential election.

Measure J, a 30-year extension of R, was tried in November 2012 but failed to gain the required two-thirds vote by less than one percentage point after both pro and con discussions — often heated — at the SGVCOG because it would not have funded the Foothill Gold Line’s Azusa-to-Claremont extension.

Some, including Gonzales, point to a propensity of “no” votes from more affluent, foothill communities as part of the reason for J’s narrow defeat, while “transit-dependent” voters in lower-income southern cities voted in favor because they are more likely to ride public transit than drive private automobiles. He said the same thing can happen in 2016 if San Gabriel Valley rail and freeway projects are not equitably funded.

“One segment (of the San Gabriel Valley) can torpedo this measure,” he said.

The COG’s Mark Christoffels, who worked with the city managers committee to create a transit spending matrix, said Measure R set aside $1.2 billion for a Gold Line Eastside extension so that’s why the staff report only recommends adding $246 million from Measure R-2.

But Metro’s board complicated matters by approving a study of both the SR-60 route and the Washington Boulevard route to Whittier. If both Eastside extensions were built, it could raise the cost to $5 billion, according to Metro.

Metro is proposing to divide Measure R-2 funds for new rail projects as follows: 19 percent for central Los Angeles; 7.7 percent for the Arroyo-Verdugo area (Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank); 19.8 percent for the Gateway Cities; 1.4 percent for Las Virgenes/Malibu; 9.4 percent for North county; 14.85 percent for the San Fernando Valley; 10.62 percent for the South Bay cities; 13 percent for the westside and 16.2 percent for the San Gabriel Valley.

The San Gabriel Valley would receive $2.3 billion from Measure R-2, and $1 billion from another measure that would extend existing Measure R another 18 years. Besides rail projects, future R-2 funds would add $690 million for improving freeway interchanges at: 57/60, 605/10, 605/60 and the 71 Freeway. No specific funding was allocated for the 710 freeway extension, Christoffels said.

Polling by Metro found three-quarters would vote for R-2. Those polled preferred a ballot measure with clear language. They characterized a measure that says it will “augment and extend” a tax as “intentionally deceptive.”

Focus groups described the county’s public transportation system as “incomplete.” The majority focused on rail service, saying they’ve heard a lot of talk about adding rail lines but not enough action.

Michael Cano, a SGVCOG member who represents county Supervisor Mike Antonovich, said the San Gabriel Valley list of projects and priorities is far more thought out than those in other regions, including the San Fernando Valley and South Bay.

If the Azusa-to-Claremont extension gets funded, the project could break ground in 2017, wrote Pedroza in a letter to the Foothill Gold Line Phase 2 Joint Powers Authority board.

Joe Cano Video: Highlights SR710 DEIR Meeting 5/7/2015 Pt.3

Pasadena Star News: Has The Fix Been In On The 710 Tunnel All Along?

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com/2015/05/pasadena-star-news-has-fix-been-in-on.html

May 10, 2015

-
There is a heavily used bureaucratic term that reveals more than intended. It is called "The Process," and for many who have chosen to spend unremarkable lives working in the vast cloaca maxima of government in Los Angeles County, it has a near religious significance.

"The Process," in case you are not aware, is a procedure where new ideas and projects are nurtured from infancy and eventually brought into being. All of which sounds fairly benign.

However, it also has the unfortunate effect of dominating the debate on an issue as important as, say, the 710 Tunnel. Certain things can only be spoken about at certain times, and only by certain personages during The Process, and then only in properly recognized forums fronted by appropriate officials.

It is something that works quite well for bureaucrats paid to work with this stuff on a full-time basis. If this is about all you do with your work-a-day hours, you to can become a master of The Process. You need to be. It is a vital part of your ability to control events and agendas.

But what about the inevitable irate citizens who are not enamored with the idea of vast quantities of toxic truck traffic rumbling up the 710 Corridor from L.A.'s ports and into their slice of the SGV dream?

They might get together and head over to one of those coma-inducing Caltrans/Metro meetings and give them a piece of their minds. Only to be informed that, due to The Process, this would not be the appropriate time to discuss such matters. Would they please come back in 18 months?

This serves to stifle all real time debate, which is the point. The Process does have its Dickensian aspects.

According to the 710 "Bridge The Gap" Process many different options are being explored. In addition to that tunnel, Caltrans/Metro claims it is also studying a light-rail line, expanded bus service, improvements to local streets, bicycle transit and even walking.

All of which sounds nicer than merely funneling lethal and cancerous 710 truck traffic out onto an already paralyzed 210 Freeway.

But are they seriously looking at those options? I doubt it. Rather this is all "Process" designed to give an appearance that other options are being considered, but are not really.

So why have county bureaucrats lavished so much attention upon a tunnel few want, and the taxpayers can ill afford? Geopolitical and international economic politics. Leavened by all that American debt, much of it held in China.

According to a 2005 SCAG memo to its Plans Programs Technical Advisory Committee, written by regional planner Nancy Pfeffer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was "criticized by government and business leaders in Asia for allowing congestion at the San Pedro Bay Ports to impede the flow of goods from Asia to U.S. markets. On his return he tasked BT&H Sec'y Sunne Wright McPeak with developing a strategy on this issue."

When you are a foreign economic superpower holding a few trillion dollars in American debt, you will be heard in the corridors of government. Both here and Washington. And one thing upsetting to China is that huge bottleneck at L.A.'s ports. They want their products on big box retail shelves tout suite, and the "710 Gap" is an unhappy impediment to speed and efficiency.

So yes, the fix is in on the 710 Tunnel. All that other stuff was made up so that you'd feel your opinions were taken seriously.

They were not. The Process has other goals.

(Mod: This is my latest "every other Sunday" column in the Pasadena Star News.)