http://www.planningreport.com/2015/09/16/beyond-710-coalition-adamantly-opposes-tunnel-alternative
Closing the 710 freeway gap has been under consideration for
half a century, with no shortage of opinions on the matter. Caltrans and
Metro recently completed a draft EIR/EIS examining five options to
alleviate traffic congestion around the gap. Here, leaders of the Beyond
the 710 Coalition—Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian and South Pasadena City Councilmember Marina Khubesrian—explain to TPR their opposition and why the proposed tunnel alternative would be detrimental to communities in the area. They are joined by Paul Moore, a Nelson\Nygaard consultant to the coalition
The comment period on Caltrans’ Draft EIR/EIS for the 710
extension project ended August 5, with 2,500 letters submitted.
Summarize Beyond the 710’s objections to the tunnel option.
Ara Najarian: We feel that the mere idea of a five-mile tunnel
is so absurd, impractical, and infeasible that the County of Los
Angeles, taxpayers, and commuters shouldn’t be wasting our collective
time studying it anymore. We need to move beyond the tunnel, toward a
transportation system that is complete, ecologically sensitive, able to
grow, and affordable, and that will work for the community.
The cost of the tunnel is an insurmountable challenge that is going
to drain hundreds of millions of dollars during the process of
determining it’s too expensive—due to the consultants, engineers, and
lobbyists who are so locked into the idea that they are not using clear
judgment.
The funding is a fiasco. The Metro Board said it would use the same
per-mile standard for the 710 tunnel estimate as was used for the
Seattle Alaskan Way estimate. Not only did they cut our estimate in half
compared to the Seattle Alaskan Way tunnel, but the Seattle Alaskan Way
tunnel is also mired in controversy: The drilling machine broke down
after only a few hundred yards of boring.
We’ve always said that this is a bad idea for air quality. Recently,
the AQMD stated that this tunnel would exceed the acceptable cancer risk
levels by almost 15 times. What legislator, councilmember, board
member, or agency would vote for a project like that?
To summarize: It’s an impractical concept, it’s grossly infeasible
economically, and it’s grossly dangerous in terms of the cancer risk.
Marina Khubesrian: As a councilmember of South Pasadena, a
city that has been fighting this freeway for decades, I’m glad to see a
growing coalition of cities and agencies working towards a real
solution. It’s been an honor to serve as co-chair of the Beyond the 710
Coalition with Mayor Najarian, and I commend him for his leadership on
this issue as a sitting Metro Board member.
There are glaring problems with the proposed tunnel project. First,
the tunnel is not financially feasible. The estimated cost for the
proposed dual-bore tunnel, at $5.6 billion, is comparable to what was
supposed to be the cost of widening the Panama Canal, which was a
project of global significance. That project’s final cost was closer to
$12 billion. Large-scale mega-projects like this tunnel run over budget
90 percent of the time. Even as a P3, it will drain funding from many
other projects in the region and become a huge liability for the region
and the state.
The tunnel would travel under the cities of Los Angeles, South
Pasadena, and Pasadena—not Alhambra. Alhambra and other city
representatives who think the tunnel should be built as an alternative
to a surface route are living in the past and working off a 1950s
freeway-era plan to build a freeway from the ports to Pasadena to
facilitate goods movement.
Now, proponents of the tunnel say that the tunnel would not have
trucks in it—only cars. That’s misleading, because the funding for a
project like this, without trucks to pay the large tolls, would not make
sense.
On the other hand, having it serve as a goods-movement route would
bring an additional 50,000 diesel-spewing trucks to and from the ports
per day into this highly dense urban area that already suffers from some
of the worst air quality in the nation. They call the area along the
I-710 the “cancer corridor.” To bring additional trucks and freeway
capacity to the communities along the I-710, SR-710, 210 and beyond is
not an acceptable solution. Additional concerns are the concentration of
pollutants at the tunnel portals—considered hotspots—which would
certainly increase cancer risk, in particular for children. As a
physician, I am very concerned about the health impacts of additional
freeway capacity expansion on the communities in East LA, the foothills,
and the region in general.
The Beyond the 710 initiative proposes a multi-pronged approach for
urban mobility and smart, sustainable growth that is consistent with
state and federal goals for reducing GHG emissions, as well as those of
the City of Los Angeles, which recently adopted its vision and framework
for its future of transportation with Mobility 2035.
We would like to get past the 710 freeway debate and move forward to
bring sound solutions incorporating what we’ve learned and what studies
support to the San Gabriel Valley region, East LA, and the Arroyo
Verdugo Cities. Connected Cities and Communities was formed to do just
that—bringing together cities and agencies including the National Trust
for Historic Preservation, and the National Resources Defense Council.
We retained the services of transportation consultants from the
Nelson\Nygaard group and an economic development consultant from the
Maxima Group to look at traffic patterns and assess the true needs of
the subregion prior to proposing transportation solutions that would
solve the problems and enhance the benefits to the impacted communities,
including Alhambra, El Sereno, and Pasadena—communities that have been
hurt by the current configuration of the freeway stubs. We knew there
had to be a better way.
We got back a sound, reasoned diagnosis of the problems in this
region and a wise, practical package of multi-modal solutions. These
solutions have the potential to mitigate traffic while boosting the
economic and health benefits to the neighborhoods and communities
currently negatively impacted by the freeway stubs.
In the northern part of the corridor, they call the freeway stub
south of the 210 the “ditch.” This is highly prized real estate land
that has sat idle for decades, on-hold for a freeway. Pasadena residents
working together with city staff, councilmembers, and consultants have
come up with Connecting Pasadena—a plan to repurpose that land, redesign
it, and connect it back to the community. They have identified huge
benefits to the economy of that community, as well as improved mobility
not just for cars, but also for people on foot and on bikes.
Paul, Nelson\Nygaard has proposed a $705-million multimodal solution for the corridor. Could you summarize that plan?
Paul Moore: The plan looks at a wide variety of concerns in
the San Gabriel Valley and tries to address them with a wide variety of
ideas.
Metro and Caltrans’ EIR disproved the notion that a silver bullet idea like a tunnel exists and would solve all the problems.
We’ve suggested a combination of transit solutions: extension of the
Gold Line; a north-south surface transit route similar to the current
762 Metro Rapid, but faster, better, and more connected; funding and
implementation projects for the San Gabriel Valley Bike Plan; and making
walking a safe option.
We’ve looked at “travel demand management.” Discounted or free
transit passes for university students in the corridor would actually
eliminate more driving trips than the tunnel would even carry.
There are lots of smarter ways to spend dollars to accomplish the
region’s goals better and more sustainably—dealing with the challenges
people are actually facing instead of speeding up traffic for a few
people who are willing to pay for the privilege.
Mayor
Najarian, you are not only a Glendale elected official, but also serve
on the Metro Board. What are some of the challenges of securing a
coalition for good regional solutions with local impacts? The desire for
a goods-movement solution that would mitigate impacts from the harbor
instigated the 710 saga. That effort is now being transposed into a
local impacts narrative. Have you found a way to balance that local
impact/regional benefit dichotomy?
Ara Najarian: Metro had been notorious for going in several
different directions at once, without a cohesive voice at its board
meetings or as we requested state and federal funding. Every member
pulled for his or her own parochial projects.
When I became chair of Metro in 2010, I worked hard to bring those
different parties and interests together. I sat down with each board
member and helped them understand that, as long as we kept pulling only
for our own project or our particular corner of the county, we would
never get anywhere. We were going to be surpassed by New York, Chicago,
Dallas, and Tampa in terms of funding. That message sunk in.
During my tenure, we passed a unanimous long-range transportation
plan. It had never been done before. The minute that passed, Washington
and Sacramento started to listen to us. We started receiving billions of
dollars in support for the projects, many of which were regional. We
tasted the success of thinking regionally and enjoyed the funding that a
unified Metro Board shares.
With this particular project, the devil is in the details. There was
support for solving the transportation problem in this corridor. It got
sticky when Metro refused to look at any other reasonable alternative
besides a freeway. When the courts blocked the surface freeway in the
early 2000s, instead of looking for a holistic, active-streets approach,
Metro said: Since we can’t do it on the surface, let’s just dig it
under the ground. They were misled by an ultra-low estimate put forth by
our former CEO—a billion dollars. The engineering-industrial complex
sunk their teeth into this, since they are looking for a
full-employment, stock-raising project that would build a legacy for
their companies, stockholders, and CEOs for decades to come.
How might the regional needs of the goods movement and logistics industry benefit from the solution your coalition is advancing?
Paul Moore: The answer is to take the freight coming off the
ships off of the highways. Devote the resources exclusively to rail
transport of those shipments to an inland port—be it Palmdale,
Lancaster, or in the eastern San Gabriel Valley. If they remove trucks
going longer hauls from the highways, the cost of transportation will
drop and the freeways will clear up incredibly.
Don’t forget that during the 1984 Olympics, the freeways were in
great shape. It was a miracle, some say. That wasn’t a 20-, 30-, or
40-percent reduction in trips on those freeways. It was a
less-than-10-percent reduction that opened up the capacity.
We can do the same thing for goods movement. Get those containers on
rail, ship them on the Alameda Corridor east, and get them to those
inland distribution points.
Marina Khubesrian: In the current SR-710 EIR, there’s actually
no effort to address the very important question you put forward: goods
movement. The Purpose and Need section completely excludes mention of
this need. Even proponents of the tunnel oppose the inclusion of trucks
in the tunnels. We need to address goods movement. We need to come up
with sustainable alternatives that take some of the burden off our
existing freeways.
If we were to go back to the drawing board today, we would not
propose a freeway through densely populated urban areas to address goods
movement. So why are we talking about a tunnel that’s going to exclude
trucks and cost upwards of ten billion dollars?
This project, beyond doing nothing for goods movement, bikes, trucks,
or people on foot, does very little for cars. Currently, about 84
percent of the traffic coming off that south stub at the Alhambra/LA
border is local, not cut-through, traffic. They’re going to places
between that stub and the 210, and so would not use a toll tunnel.
The benefits to cars are very minimal and temporary. Given what we
know about induced demand, the benefits would be gone within a year of
building, if that.
Additionally, EPA, in its comment letter, states concerns about the
impacts of five to 10 years of tunnel construction on the traffic and
air quality near construction sites.
Paul, in your view, are proponents of the 710 extension truly all foolish, naïve, and stuck in the 1940s?
Paul Moore: The results of the EIR suggest that they’re not
getting the kind of results they seem to be advocating for and
espousing. If what they want is traffic-congestion relief, the EIR
showed very little of that. If what they want is an easier, more
equitable way for all citizens to get around, that’s going to be hard to
do with an expensive, tolled tunnel. If what they want is better
transit access, that will be completely ignored and all of the resources
will be sucked up by this project.
To me, spending all of the money on something that doesn’t solve your stated problems would be, by definition, pretty foolish.
There’s been discussion of a schism in the San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments caused by the 710 issue, with the possibility of a
new group forming. Can you talk about the politics of this battle?
Marina Khubesrian: The San Gabriel Valley COG has historically
been in support of completing the freeway—even as a surface route,
which is off the table now. More recently, the majority of members have
supported a freeway tunnel alternative. However, there is a growing
number of municipal agencies and their representatives who understand
the political implications of supporting a tunnel project with huge
financial and environmental burdens on the subregion.
In June, at a meeting of the SGVCOG governing board, 16 out of 34
members voted to support the tunnel alternative. Seven members opposed
the motion. This vote was taken before a critical analysis of the DEIR,
before an opportunity for Paul to present the Beyond the 710 initiative,
and before the cost-benefit analysis was released. Thus, it was
premature and not founded in fact. After a two-hour debate in which many
of us asked the COG not to take a position on a preferred alternative
because it would be divisive given the strong opposition of several of
its members who consider the tunnel to be an existential threat to their
cities, the majority present took a position anyway. As a result,
several member cities are looking into forming a separate COG through
the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion.
The Arroyo Verdugo Subregion Steering Committee, which I currently
chair, represents the interests of the cities of La Cañada, Burbank,
Glendale, Pasadena, and South Pasadena, which have directed staff to
look into options for further formalizing the Committee such as a joint
powers agreement or a COG. The cities represented by the subregion have
exercised the option to request that Metro allocate future Measure R2
funds, which are allocated to individual cities on a per-capita formula,
through the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion. We are looking into what it would
take for further collaboration on transportation and other issues,
either through a JPA or a COG.
I believe that the SGVCOG and Metro transportation leadership
understands that if tunnel funding were included in Measure R2, it would
significantly jeopardize the measure. We believe that’s what happened,
at least in part, with Measure J in the past. According to Alhambra
Councilwoman Barbara Messina, Mayor Garcetti asked the pro-710 coalition
not to push for the funding in the tax Measure. The tunnel is no longer
on the San Gabriel Valley COG submission of projects to Metro for R2
funding. The monies have been transferred to light-rail projects. We do
think that’s a step in the right direction.
However, we need to go further. Anytime there’s been a poll after a
debate—through KPCC or NPR—the public voted 10 to 1 for non-tunnel
alternatives. When people are informed about the potential liability of
the tunnel on many levels, they realize that it doesn’t make sense. Yet
the tunnel is still being studied and considered by various agencies.
The public will need to see continued Metro leadership on this issue and
we will continue to hold leadership accountable. The EIR process was,
and still can be, an opportunity to truly engage the impacted
communities and cities and give policymakers a modernday, multi-mode
alternative that we can all get behind. Our coalition, Connected Cities
and Communities, has spent our own resources to do just that, and we
have asked CalTrans and Metro to reject the tunnel alternative and
formally study the Beyond The 710 proposal.
From the lessons you’ve learned about the 710, how would you
suggest that our region of 18 million people address situations that
involve regional and local trade-offs going forward?
Ara Najarian: First, any decision, discussion, or analysis on a
proposed project has to be made with clear, cool heads, with all the
facts on the table and all stakeholders present. I contrast that to the
710 issue, where much of the decision-making has been done at cocktail
parties. One or two mayors of other cities who are full-steam-ahead on
the tunnel disregard the facts, coerce, cajole, and convince neighboring
cities to join their group. The process has to be open and
transparent.
Second, communities most affected can’t just be one more vote in the
decision-making process. They have to have a weighted and seriously
accentuated voice. For example, the cities of Glendale, Burbank, and
Pasadena have given the City of Burbank veto power on any significant
changes to the Bob Hope airport. That requires coalition-building, and a
fair and objective process in reaching a decision—rather than saying:
“All in favor say ‘aye.’ Sorry, Burbank, you lose this round. We
outnumber you.”
The stakes are much higher for cities and communities where projects
are located. Decision-making cannot be based on a one-city-one-vote
process, which the San Gabriel Valley COG is instituting.
In a year and a half, what will we be reading about regarding the 710 that’s different from today?
Ara Najarian: I think you’re going to read the obituary of the
710 tunnel, and about a new dawn for transportation in this region that
we can all be proud of. We are going to be proving, even to nay-sayers
who want the tunnel, that this is a win-win for everyone in the region.
Photo: Mayor Ara Najarian speaks on behalf of Beyond the 710 in May (beyondthe710.org).
