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
The No 710 Freeway Fighters will be marching on July 4th
at the Festival of Balloons Parade in South Pasadena. You are
invited to come and march with us. Bring your family and friends
too! We need everyone to show up.
Meet us at 10:00am at the corner of Hope Street and
Meridian, in South Pasadena.
Wear your No710 t-shirts, or a red shirt or a white shirt,
We will also have No710 t-shirts available for $8.
There will be a party following the parade. Click on the pdf below.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority CEO Phillip
Washington talks to the media about an expenditure plan for a possible
November ballot measure Friday during a press conference at Metro
headquarters in Los Angeles.
State. Sen. President pro Tempore Kevin de Leon will convene a
legislative hearing in Los Angeles on June 24 to analyze Metro’s
schedule of $120 billion future highway and rail and projects for
“fairness and equity.”
Lawmakers at the hearing will try to
determine if Metro, which wants to move forward with several Los Angeles
and Westside projects that have upcoming start dates, unfairly moved
projects in minority communities to the back of the line.
Some of
these communities in the southeastern and eastern parts of the county
will have to wait decades for the projects they prefer.
De Leon, D-Los Angeles, along with Sen. Jim Beall, D-Campbell,
have set a hearing to “allow time to reflect on whether or not the
expenditure plan is meeting the transportation needs of the residents
throughout the county,” de Leon wrote in a letter dated June 16 to Mark
Ridley-Thomas, chair of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), and CEO Phil Washington.
The two
lawmakers want Metro to postpone Thursday’s board vote on the project
plan and attached a ballot measure that will raise capital via a
permanent, half-cent sales tax. The measure, nicknamed Measure R-2, is a
follow-up to 2008’s Measure R, which will raise $40 billion and pay for
the Gold Line Foothill Extension and the Expo Line Phase II to
Santa Monica.
Measure R-2 would be placed before county voters in November upon
approval of Metro and the county Board of Supervisors. It requires a
two-thirds vote to pass.
“Our board chair, Mark Ridley-Thomas, is
taking it into consideration now,” said Pauletta Tonilas, chief
communication officer for Metro. “There is no change in our plan at this
point.”
Local mayors and community groups have sent letters to
Beall, chairman of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, and
de Leon arguing that projects closer to L.A. have been given priority
over the rest of the county. Some of these projects have start dates 18
to 25 years after work is started on projects in the L.A. area.
For example, the light-rail/people mover connector to LAX and the
third-phase extension of the Purple Line subway, which will run under
Wilshire Boulevard to Westwood, will get their start in 2018.
Improvements to the Orange Line dedicated busway in the San Fernando
Valley would break ground in 2019, and the tunnel under the
Sepulveda Pass for a roadway or light-rail project would start in 2024.
The
next phase of the 5 Freeway widening from the 605 Freeway to the
710 Freeway would not start under the revised plan until 2036, a full
16 years after the $2 billion widening underway since 2010 from the
Orange County line to Valley View Avenue is completed.
“The northern segment should be built in a reasonable time frame. It
is a highway of national significance,” said Yvette Kirrin, executive
director of the I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority that
includes the cities of Commerce, Downey, La Mirada, Santa Fe Springs and
Norwalk.
The authority voted 4-0 Thursday to oppose the future
county measure unless it is amended to reflect the importance of the 5
Freeway widening project.
Originally billed as one project, it was
split in two, Kirrin said, exacerbating the delays. Having one
completed segment with 10 lanes in each direction slamming against the
unimproved, 6-mile portion of the old freeway will create more problems.
“You will have a bottleneck that starts immediately north; all you’ve
done is create a $2 billion parking lot,” she said.
She said meetings with Metro CEO Washington on the need for
finishing the freeway’s widening from eight to 10 lanes — five lanes in
each direction — through Commerce to the 710 Freeway juncture were
fruitless.
“There’s not an understanding of the significance of
this freeway, of goods movement and that it is in a hotbed of
disadvantaged communities that need jobs,” she said. Kirrin implied that
because Washington is from Colorado, he didn’t understand the needs of
these communities.
Under the first traffic improvement plan, Metro
listed the northerly segment of the 5 Freeway widening as beginning in
2041. The revised plan released last week shaves five years off the
startup date, Tonilas confirmed.
“Again, everything can’t be done in the first 15 years,” she said.
The
scheduling of projects is based on the progress of environmental
approvals, the expense, when the money becomes available and on equity,
she said.
“Some folks are more happy about this plan than they
thought they’d be. When we hear there’s a little bit of grumbling, that
is equity,” she said.
There will be no November special election to repeal Measure A after
an hour-long Pasadena City Council public discussion resulted in the
matter being tabled for another time, as yet unscheduled, effectively
ending the idea.
The outcome was a blow to Mayor Terry Tornek, who wrote the
recommendation for the proposed special election, which would have
overturned the 2001 measure that supported plans to close the 710
Freeway gap via a surface route.
According to Tornek, the city’s “hands would be tied” and Pasadena
would be unable to take any action against the proposed 710 tunnel
project while Measure A was still in effect.
Councilmember Steve Madison disagreed. Madison, a longtime opponent
of the 710 extension plan, pointed out that the Southern California
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) does not currently have
the funds to complete such a project. In addition, Madison added, the
upcoming R-2 Measure, which would make permanent a half-cent sales tax
for transportation projects, does not include the 710 tunnel project.
Councilmember Victor Gordo explained that even though $800 million
has already been budgeted for the 710 tunnel project, the project is
estimated to cost $5-6 billion.
“Metro would have to look for money to finish this,” he said. Gordo
recommended that the council schedule a special election once Metro
makes a formal move forward to attempt to complete the project. He also
suggested a community education campaign to inform the community about
the project, instead of an election in November.
“It would be dangerous to place this on the ballot,” Gordo added. “This is all academic without a move by Metro.”
But Mayor Tornek countered, “What good is an education campaign without a campaign? I want to be out front on this.”
“At this point, will people even care?,” asked Councilmember Andy
Wilson, who echoed Gordo’s feelings about the matter being ‘academic.’
“I think we should do it,” said Wilson, meaning to oppose the project,
“but I want to get a win.”
Council member Margaret McAustin admitted, “This is a different
electorate now, than the one who voted for this measure.” She questioned
whether an education campaign is something that the city could even
spend money on.
City Attorney Michele Bagneris told the council that any education
campaign would have to be ‘even-handed and informational’ and that the
city ‘could not take sides,’” at which point Masuda joked, “I want a
campaign, but not a balanced one.”
Council member requested that the council ask Metro CEO and Pasadena
resident Phil Washington to come before the council and explain Metro’s
goals for the 710 project. Kennedy concluded, “I just don’t see the
urgency here yet.”
Madison also explained that Metro “took the 710 project off the table
with regard to R-2, because they didn’t want to face all the politics
that would create.” He added, “ I learned as a young lawyer not to
snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and I don’t want us to do that
here.”
Council member Tyron Hampton, siding with the Mayor, continued to
insist that “voices should be heard,” in asking for the November vote.
Hampton, however, also sought reassurance from City Attorney Bagneris
that the council could still oppose the 710 Tunnel project on
environmental grounds at some later date.
In the end, only Hampton and Mayor Tornek voted for the special
election, and the item was voted down, 6-2. The council will now embark
on more discussion and the creation of a “long-term strategy.”
Metro’s newly revised November sales tax expenditure plan
flew through two board committees this week with virtually no
discussion. The proposal was approved unanimously by both the Planning
and Programming Committee and the Executive Management Committee. The
plan now goes to the full board for approval at this month’s meeting on
Thursday, June 23.
Last week, Metro announced
the newest version of its spending plan. What had been a fifty-year
sales tax has been modified to an indefinite “no sunset” sales tax. This
allows for numerous large highway and transit projects to accelerated.
In the course of the two committee meetings, Metro directors Mike
Bonin, Sheila Kuehl, James Butts, Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker, Hilda Solis,
Mark Ridley-Thomas, John Fasana, Mike Antonovich, Eric Garcetti, and
Paul Krekorian all voted to support the plan. County Supervisor Kuehl
joked that there was an informal agreement among directors not to get
into conflicts trying to “take a little from them and give it to us.”
The only hint of board dissent came from Inglewood Mayor James Butts.
Butts stated that he was in “complete support” but reiterated past
concerns that later-year Measure R projects will not be completed in the
time frame approved in that 2008 ballot measure. This issue was
addressed in a strongly worded Metro staff report
written in response to a request by directors Butts, Don Knabe, and
Diane DuBois that all Measure R highway and transit projects be
accelerated before any new projects enter the queue. Metro staff
rejected the proposal, deeming it “an unsurmountable [sic] level of
risk” and predicting that “[a]ttempting the aggressive borrowing to
close these gaps would impact our transit operations so severely that
even extensive service cuts would not close the gaps.” The staff report
concludes that “[s]uch a programmatic outcome is untenable and not
recommended.”
Even with barely a hint of dissent among the Metro board, there was
still a great deal of public testimony pressing for changes to the
expenditure plan. These included:
Livability, equity, walking, and bicycling advocates continue to
press for more dedicated funds for walking and bicycling. A position
paper [PDF]
spearheaded by Investing in Place and the L.A. County Bicycle Coalition
criticizes the plan for lacking commitment to complete streets,
including basic sidewalk repair. The paper also criticizes the lack of
an active transportation plan for the Gateway Cities, and urges a
greater percentage for active transportation in later unprogrammed
years.
Environmentalists, including the EnviroMetro Coalition, criticized
sprawl-inducing highway projects in the plan, especially the High Desert
Corridor – a new freeway planned for largely undeveloped portions of
the Antelope Valley.
Some San Fernando Valley interests, including State Senator
Bob Hertzberg, made a last minute push for Metro to fund a Bus Rapid
Transit line for Cal State Northridge. Boardmember and San Fernando
Valley Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Krekorian, who frequently
pushes for a fair share for the San Fernando Valley, characterized the
revised expenditure plan as good for the Valley. Krekorian cited
accelerated Orange Line improvements and increased Metrolink and local
return funding as all being positive for the Valley.
Additional testimony urged greater funding for seniors and students,
safe routes to schools, widening the 5 Freeway, and connecting the
Red/Purple line with the Arts District.
The committees’ approval included $10.9 million to fund
“election-related and public information costs.” Just to put the measure
on the ballot will cost $8.4 million. On top of that, Metro will spend
$2.5 million to educate the public about the measure.
Board of Education Member Torres ‘convinced’ by public speakers to change his vote
By Eddie Rivera, June 17, 2016
Pasadena Unified Board Member Lawrence Torres listens to testimony.
Joining the battle against the 710 Freeway tunnel extension, the
Pasadena Unified School District Board of Education last night voted to
direct Lawrence Torres, its representative to the 5-Star Education
Coalition an amalgam of local school districts — to vote in favor of a
Coalition resolution formally opposing the plan to build a 4.5 mile
tunnel from Alhambra to Pasadena.
In February, the Coalition, consisting of representatives from
Pasadena Unified, South Pasadena Unified, Glendale Unified, Burbank
Unified, and La Cañada Unified, drafted a joint resolution opposing the
tunnel extension of State Route 710 North.
Former La Cañada School District Board Member Andrew Blumeneld addresses the board during the June 16, 2016 meeting.
When Pasadena Unified, blocked by the single vote of Board Member
Larry Torres, failed to support the anti-tunnel resolution, the entire
Coalition was thwarted and unable to formally adopt the resolution.
Pasadena Unified Board member Scott Phelps asked the Board to
reconsider the issue Thursday after he noted that “the residents in my
trustee area are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea” of a tunnel
extension.
Second time around, Torres changed his mind.
“As our district’s representative I had felt that the school board
had stepped outside its governmental role, and I had voted for us to
abstain,” said Torres, of his previous vote on the resolution back in
March. “Too often, school districts are called upon to cure all of
society’s ills and I don’t know that that is our role. And that was my
question, as to whether that was our purview.”
“But the speakers tonight,” Torres continued, in a revealing moment, “have changed my mind on this.”
Torres reflected, “I try the best that I can to be a good leader, and
be a good listener and try to take in facts as best I can, as I think
most of us do. But until this meeting, I was not prepared to say that
this was within our governance. I think that the speakers, especially my
good friend (school board member) Jon Primuth from South Pasadena, who
spoke so eloquently, made a convincing case for me, so I would also vote
to confirm this resolution.”
Local residents, who represented neighborhoods, community
organizations, and school districts, as well as doctors and
environmentalists, all presented arguments opposing the 710 tunnel,
calling it among other things, “a pollution hot spot.”
“This is a child-related issue,” said Jan Soo Hoo, of La Cañada
Flintridge, who said that she has fought against the project for more
than six years.
Referring to the school board’s position, that it was “unsure if the
issue was us,” Soo Hoo said, “If not you, then who is responsible for
helping protect Pasadena’s school children from the negative impacts of
the SR 710 tunnel? Oppose this project that will increase air pollution
in Pasadena and imperil the health and academic performance of
Pasadena’s schoolchildren.”
Former school board president and current board member Elizabeth
Pomeroy, agreed, saying, “This is an education issue. We should oppose
this.”
Said Primuth, who Torres singled out for his comments, “The solution
to pollution is dilution, but this is the opposite. We ask that you join
South Pasadena in opposing this pollution hot spot that will be
concentrated in our two cities.”
The Coalition represents 70,000 K-12 students in those five school districts.
The Coalition’s draft resolution takes issue with METRO’s Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 710 tunnel extension, saying
“The 5SC finds that the DEIR does not adequately address the potential
health impact on our students and staff whose daily school and work
environment would be impacted because of our schools’ proximity to a
route proposed in the study for State Route 710.”
The 5SC also did not agree with METRO’s findings that the building of
a tunnel to extend State Route 710 will not bring additional traffic to
the area.
Despite their rejection of Tornek’s recommendation, it was clear that council opposes the 710 Tunnel Project.
At their regular meeting on Monday, June 13, the Pasadena City
Council chose not to move forward with a recommendation proposed by
Mayor Terry Tornek.
Item 16 on the agenda would have directed “the city attorney to
prepare the necessary resolutions calling a Special Election on Nov. 8,
2016 to repeal Measure A, and any related documents in connection
therewith.”
Measure A, which was passed in 2000 with 9,654 votes in favor (58
percent), formally aligned city interests with the completion of a “710
Freeway extension.” Sixteen years later, the people of Pasadena and its
mayor are clearly on the other side of the fence on the matter.
Tornek’s efforts were meant to protect the city from any future
advances made by Metro to build a tunnel that would complete the 710
Freeway.
For years, the City of Pasadena has wrestled with the idea of
connecting the I-10 Freeway, which ends in Alhambra, to the I-210
Freeway, which ends a block from Huntington Hospital at the intersection
of St. John Avenue and West California Boulevard.
Theoretically, the idea of linking these two major arteries, which
shuttle thousands of LA commuters back-and-forth every single day, seems
practical. Yet, when you actually take out a map and begin drawing
lines, it soon becomes clear that this connection is seemingly
impossible without disrupting the essence and integrity of several
Pasadena (and some Northeast Los Angeles) neighborhoods.
According to city staff’s report, this subject’s origins trace back
to 1998, when “the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) approved a plan
to complete the 710 Freeway between the I-10 Freeway in Alhambra and the
I-210 Freeway in Pasadena.” This initial thrust failed when it was shut
down by a federal judge, in response to overwhelming residential
outcry.
A couple years later, the Pasadena City Council switched sides and
joined the residents, when they “adopted Resolution No. 7865, reversing
prior city support for the 710 Freeway extension and resolving that ‘the
City of Pasadena opposes the completion of construction of the 710
Freeway through Pasadena,’” according to staff’s report.
In response to council’s stance, proponents of the 710 Freeway
extension circulated a petition, which received enough signatures to
make the ballot and eventually came to be known as Measure A, which the
mayor is anxious to repeal.
Despite the victory at the polls, public opinion swayed and the
freeway extension continued to be highly controversial. In 2003, similar
to council, the FHA, too, changed sides and “suspended its support of
the plan and ordered state officials to conduct a new environmental
impact study of the project.”
Five years later, in November 2008, voters approved Measure R, which
granted Metro a wealth of funds to support transportation projects. As a
result, talks concerning the 710 Freeway Extension began to boil, yet
again.
In 2012, Metro presented the city council with several new
alternative ways to connect the 210 and 710 Freeways. Alternatives
included an “Arterial Road along Avenue 64,” a “Highway along Huntington
Drive/Fair Oaks Avenue,” and a “Freeway Tunnel.”
Council rejected these propositions, “citing ‘detrimental impacts to
the City of Pasadena, its residents, historical residential
neighborhoods, schools, business, families, and children,’” according to
city staff’s report.
Metro chose to disregard council’s decision and, a few weeks later,
they included the tunnel alternative in a project list submitted for an
Environmental Impact Report.
According to staff’s report and Tornek, it is anticipated that Metro
will re-double their efforts following this upcoming November’s
elections, when they expect Measure R2, a long-term transportation tax,
to pass: “It appears that as soon as the Measure R2 is resolved, efforts
to move the 710 project ahead will be resumed with some vigor. Both the
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments and the incoming Metro Chair
are strong proponents of the project.”
In order to counter any potential future advances, the mayor added
Item 16 to the night’s agenda, “My concern is that because of Measure A,
Pasadena will be unable to allocate adequate resources to defeat that
proposal,” he said. “We will be severely disadvantaged and if we do have
to move to a ballot decision, it will be too late … This project poses
such a threat to our city, that we cannot be caught with one hand behind
our back, which I believe we have now.”
Tornek’s pre-emptive strike is supported by legal advice the city
received in 2012 from Frederic Woocher, of the law firm Strumwasser
& Woocher, an expert in California Election law. According to
staff’s report, Woocher advised, “that the text of Measure A prohibits
the city from taking a position against completion of any freeway
proposals that would connect the I-10 and I-210 Freeways … Woocher
concluded that if the city council wished to take a position or to
advocate against any of the proposals for extending the 710 Freeway,
such as the proposed Freeway Tunnel alternative, it should submit a
ballot measure to the voters to amend or repeal Measure A.”
Not all council members were on board with Tornek’s rationale.
Council Member Steve Madison was particularly vocal, “I was perplexed by
this initiative … this is very risky and it’s unnecessary.”
Madison
reminded everyone that the city already technically opposes a “Tunnel
Alternative,” citing a council decision from April 13, 2015. He added,
“There is no enthusiasm at Metro for this project … I don’t see any
imminent threat that is precipitating this action now.”
Council Member Victor Gordo was also hesitant, saying that he was
“not comfortable with the level or risk that a November ballot presents …
it is risky to go forward in November without understanding legal
implications, the electorate, or even what we are up against, in terms
of a counter-campaign.”
Council Members John Kennedy and Margaret McAustin argued in favor of
letting the people decide, but they too were not comfortable with
moving for a November election, without more legal briefings. Council
Member Tyrone Hampton and Tornek were the only two in favor of approving
the item.
Ultimately, Tornek deferred action on Item 16. There will be a closed
session next Monday, June 17, where council will be brought up to speed
on the legal details of the case. The item will be re-agendized and a
conclusion will be made during a future open session, to be determined.
Despite this result, there was a clear consensus amongst the council
that the tunnel project is not right for the city. But, for council, a
November election (although still not entirely out of the question) is
just too close for comfort, without further deliberation.
The Pasadena Star News has an article up today that talks about what has become a very close race for the 5th District Los Angeles County Supervisor seat.
With tens of thousands of ballots still to be counted, it is anybody's
guess who the second candidate on November's ballot will be. Needless to
say, The Tattler has an opinion about who it definitely should
not be, and I am going to share that with you. Why else would I be doing
this? First check out what the PSN is laying down. (link):
Horrible Huff
Second place in LA County supervisor 5th District race too close to call: The close race between a businessman and a state senator to appear on a November runoff ballot for a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors got a little closer Friday, but is still far from being decided. Unofficial results from Tuesday’s election initially showed entrepreneur Darrell Park finishing second in the race to replace Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, with Sen. Bob Huff, R-San Dimas, trailing him by about 400 votes. But with thousands of ballots still remaining to be counted, it remained too close to determine if Park or Huff would make it to the November ballot to square off with Antonovich chief of staff Kathryn Barger, who finished first on Tuesday’s ballot. Updated results released today showed Huff narrowing the gap in the Fifth District race, now trailing Park by just 280 votes. More than a half-million provisional and vote-by-mail ballots from
across the county still need to be counted. About one-fifth of those are
believed to be from the Fifth District.
Here is how one observer puts what is at stake. "Bob Huff is a businessman and politician. At one point he was the California State Senate Minority Leader and Senate Republican Leader from January 5, 2012 until to August 27, 2015. He is now seeking to take over all of termed-out Supervisor Michael Antonovich's shady deals. This includes the 710 Tunnel. Bob Huff is a carpetbagger candidate who moved in the spring of 2015 from Diamond Bar to San Dimas, putting him just inside the boundary for LA's 5th Supervisorial District."
The 710 Coalition, a Metro-Caltrans front organization designed to create the illusion that there is actual populist support for the 710 Tunnel, posted the following letter from Bob Huff to SCAG premier Hasan Ikhrata on its Facebook page last January (link). It is a very strange document written in support of the tunnel.
I thought I would pull a paragraph out of this troubling document because in my opinion it truly is horrifying.
"The freeway tunnel, if constructed, would also significantly improve
air quality and reduce health risks for the majority of the study area.
Lower income communities near the freeway are far more negatively
impacted by poor air quality than those in more affluent areas to the
north. The SR 710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report shows
that cities south of the freeway have existing cancer risk levels 20% to
over 60% higher than their neighbors to the north."
Did you catch that? BobHuff is actually discussing 710 Freeway cancer concerns like it's a civil rights issue. Rather than dealing with this as the regional health crisis that it is, Huff instead appears to be advocating for a kind of cancer equality for the areas both north and south of the proposed tunnel.
Huff's apparent solution being to spread that cancer risk by funneling massive amounts of diesel truck Los Angeles port traffic north. This would be accomplished by running it through a tunnel built underneath Pasadena and out into the "more affluent" San Gabriel Valley.
In other words, this guy wants to kill us in the name of a more democratic cancer equality. A kind of "cancer class warfare" as it were.
While I'm not completely certain, it could be this guy is dangerously nuts. Pray that he loses.
Comrade Hasan Ikhrata
It really is no wonder than Horrible Huff's letter was penned to SCAG supremo Hasan Ikhrata. Here is a brief refresher course about what this fellow means in our part of the world (link).
Suddenly Cancer Class Warfare takes on a whole new perspective.
A revised spending plan [pdf]
for a potential November sales tax ballot measure was released Friday
by Metro and would accelerate more projects, allow more transit projects
to become rail, include more overall projects and increase funding that
goes to local cities and unincorporated areas for their own
transportation improvements.
The potential ballot measure — now called the Los Angeles County
Traffic Improvement Plan — would ask voters to consider a new half-cent
sales tax in Los Angeles County and continuation of the existing Measure
R half-cent sales tax in perpetuity or until voters decide to end the
taxes. The idea is to create a sustained funding stream for mobility
projects crucial to the region’s mobility, economy and quality of life.
The new plan is in response to the vast amount of feedback heard from
the public and elected officials, cities and stakeholders on the draft
spending plan for the 40-year ballot measure plan that was released in
March. The most frequently heard sentiment: people wanted more from the
spending plan.
The Metro Board of Directors is scheduled at its June 23 meeting to
consider whether to put the ballot measure before voters. The revised
plan includes a full list of programs and projects, including funding
amounts and target groundbreaking and completion dates.
The revised plan would:
•Accelerate nine projects, including improvements
for the Orange Line, both phases of a potential light rail line between
downtown Los Angeles and Artesia, the widening of the 5 freeway between
the 605 and the 710, a northern extension of the Crenshaw/LAX Line, the
Green Line extension to Torrance, the Green Line extension to the
Norwalk Metrolink station, road improvements in the Malibu/Las Virgenes
area and a potential bus rapid transit or light rail line on Lincoln
Boulevard.
•Increase funding to upgrade projects. Under the new plan, the Eastside Gold Line Extension could be built to both
South El Monte and Whittier, the Vermont Corridor project could
potentially be a subway, a Lincoln Boulevard transit project could be
light rail and the North Hollywood-to-Pasadena transit project could
also be light rail.
•Increase money directly returned to cities and unincorporated areas
from 16 percent to 17 percent from 2018 until 2040 when the amount is
raised to 20 percent. Also, the amount of funding that would go to
Metrolink would increase by one percent in 2040 and thereafter.
Some important background: Metro has been reaching
out to communities three years now to identify critical transportation
needs. What the agency has found – without
exception – is that needs are vastly larger than available funding. The
new sales tax increase proposal is a direct response to that.
The revised plan reflects the reality that building,
maintaining and operating roads and transit safely are needs with
no end. We’ve seen the most vivid example this year in Washington D.C.
where rail commuters are facing massive delays and service closures
because of emergency repairs.
Metro never wants to be put in that position. Thus, the
revised spending plan includes ongoing dedicated funding for State of
Good Repair projects.
As Metro CEO Phil Washington has also said, sustained
funding will enable the agency to optimize opportunities to leverage
other funding and remain flexible enough to embrace future technology
and innovation. Washington also says that a sustained
investment will enable Metro to provide higher-frequency and more
convenient transit service with greater local and regional connectivity —
and that will help grow ridership.
The initial spending plan released in March was followed
by 12 community meetings and 14 Telephone Town Halls organized by Metro;
agency staff also attended and/or spoke at 84 other meetings with
cities and stakeholders. In response to the initial plan, Metro received
1,567 written comments and 91 letters from elected officials, cities
and other stakeholders.
Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek has placed a recommendation on Monday’s
City Council agenda for the City to hold a special election to repeal
Measure A, the 2001 initiative ordinance which promotes completion of
the 710 Freeway.
Measure A positioned the City as being squarely in favor of
completing the “missing link” gap in the 710 Freeway connecting its
current terminus at Valley Boulevard in Alhambra with the 210 Foothill
Freeway in Pasadena, even though in recent years the Council has gone on
record as being in opposition to the 710 tunnel proposal.
At the May 17 Council meeting, Tornek said that “after the November
elections the City is going to get ambushed and we will be confronted
with a full court press to build [the 710 tunnel]. We have got to be
prepared to prevent that from happening.”
“So,” he continued then, firing a shot across the bow of the 21
cities in favor of the project, “In order for us to be ready when this
hits the fan after November… we must repeal Measure A … because Measure A
restricts our ability to actively oppose the completion of the freeway.
And that measure can only be repealed by a vote of the people.”
A legal opinion by Pasadena City Attorney Michele Bagneris holds that
Measure A precludes the City from taking any action against the 710
tunnel project. No monies may be raised or spent in opposition to the
710 tunnel by the City unless Measure A is repealed, the opinion
concluded.
Yesterday, Tornek said he is hopeful the Council will vote in favor of holding the special election.
“I don’t handicap these things,” he said Thursday when asked if he
felt optimistic about passage of the recommendation. “I have not polled
the Councilmembers individually, as that would be a violation of the
Brown Act [Legislation which prevents legislators from discussion of
official business outside of a formal scheduled meeting].”
“The Council is unanimous in its opposition to the 710 Tunnel,” added
Tornek “so the only question is their reaction to actually placing this
on the ballot. I don’t anticipate any resistance to it, but you never
know.”
“There are tremendous forces gathering to try and push this through,”
Tornek said, “and we have a five-city coalition to object to it, but
Pasadena is sort of participating in that process with one hand tied
behind its back because of Measure A.”
Tornek is concerned that the predicted successful passage of R-2, an
extension of a previous and expiring sale tax measure, would trigger a
major offensive by pro-tunnel forces. R-2 would raise over $120 billion
to fund Metro’s transit projects and initial polling indicates 68% of
Los Angeles County voters support the idea. With a huge warchest, Metro
and other cities, such as Los Angeles, will push even harder to complete
the 710 tunnel project, Tornek reasons.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) approved a plan to complete
the 710 Freeway between the 1-10 Freeway in Alhambra and the 1-210
Freeway in Pasadena back in 1998.
Work stalled when a federal judge issued an injunction as residents
fought to halt the project, citing negative impacts of the planned
freeway route that passed through residential areas in South Pasadena
and Pasadena.
The Pasadena City Council adopted Resolution No. 7865 in April 2000,
reversing prior City support for the 710 Freeway extension. An
initiative petition was then circulated by proponents supporting the 710
Freeway extension. Measure A was submitted to the voters in March 2001,
and was overwhelmingly approved with a 58% majority.
The FHA then suspended its support of the plan in 2003, and directed
state officials to conduct a new environmental impact study of the
project. Five years later, voters approved Measure R, providing the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) with new
funds for transportation projects, and new interest in the 710 Freeway
project.
A series of plans to close the 710 gap were created in 2012, but
eventually Metro settled on a five-mile tunnel from the 710’s terminus
in Alhambra to the 210 Freeway near California Avenue.
The City Council voted to formally oppose the Tunnel plan in April of
2013, and offered a package of alternatives to Metro developed by a
citizen committee.
Wrote Mayor Tornek in his report to the council, “In light of the
magnitude of the project and impact this will have on Pasadena and
quality of life issues, the City Council must reinsert the City’s voice
and legal standing to express opposition. The only way to accomplish
this goal is to submit a ballot measure and repeal Measure A by a vote
of the people.”
“Pursuit of this effort is consistent with the City Council’s goals
to increase conservation and sustainability; improve mobility and
accessibility throughout the City; support. and promote the quality of
life and the local economy; and ensure public safety.”
LAS VEGAS — XpressWest, the private U.S. firm proposing to build a
high-speed rail link between Las Vegas and Los Angeles, terminated a
joint venture with Chinese companies less than nine months after the
deal was announced, citing delays faced by its partner, Business Insider reported.
Las
Vegas-based XpressWest said the decision to end the relationship
stemmed from problems with "timely performance" and challenges that the
Chinese companies, grouped under a consortium called China Railway
International (CRI), faced "obtaining required authority to proceed with
required development activities," the report said.
The announcement is a blow to China, which has built the world's
largest high-speed rail network in less than a decade. The XpressWest
project was seen as a foothold into a burgeoning U.S. high-speed rail
market and an opportunity to showcase China's technology, according to Business Insider. For the full story, click here.
Read the full press release below: XPRESSWEST to Continue Development of Nevada – California
Interstate High-Speed Passenger Rail System Without Assistance from
China Railway International U.S.A., Co., Ltd
XpressWest has terminated its joint venture activities with CRI regarding high-speed passenger rail.
In
September 2015, XpressWest and CRI commenced joint venture activities
intended to advance the substantial work already completed by
XpressWest. After an exhaustive process, XpressWest selected CRI to
assist develop, finance, build and potentially operate the XpressWest
rail project connecting Las Vegas, Nevada to Los Angeles, California
(the “Southwest Rail Network”), with stations in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Victorville, California, and Palmdale, California, and service
throughout Los Angeles.
The decision to terminate the relationship was based primarily upon
difficulties associated with timely performance and CRI’s challenges in
obtaining required authority to proceed with required development
activities.
“The team at XpressWest is optimistic CRI and its
affiliates will one-day succeed in establishing a viable presence in the
United States rail market, however, our ambitions outpace CRI’s ability
to move the project forward timely and efficiently. XpressWest is
undeterred by this development and remains dedicated to completing its
high-speed passenger rail project. XpressWest will now aggressively
pursue other available development partnerships and options expected to
result in a more efficient and cost-effective project implementation
experience,” said Tony Marnell, CEO of XpressWest.
XpressWest is
eagerly anticipating the completion of the final environmental work
required for the development of the line connecting the project to Los
Angeles through Victorville and Palmdale, California. The environmental
approvals for the Victorville-Palmdale segment are expected no later
than September 2016. Additionally, XpressWest, the High Desert Corridor
Joint Power Authority, California High Speed Rail Authority,
San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority are also expecting the completion of the
jointly-funded Southwest Rail Network ridership study no later than
August 2016. The ridership study is a prerequisite for a variety of
regulatory and financing activities.
XpressWest is dedicated to completing all necessary activities to complete its high-speed passenger rail project.
“Our
biggest challenge continues to be the Federal Government’s requirement
that high-speed trains must be manufactured in the United States. As
everyone knows, there are no high-speed trains manufactured in the
United States. This inflexible requirement has been a fundamental
barrier to financing high-speed rail in our County. For the past 10
years, we have patiently waited for policy makers to recognize
high-speed rail in the United States is a new enterprise and that
allowing trains from countries with decades of safe high-speed rail
experience is needed to connect the Southwest region and start this new
industry. After the environmental work connecting Palmdale to
Victorville is completed, we intend to renew our request for support
from the Federal Railroad Administration and are hopeful policy makers
in Washington D.C. will allow the Federal Railroad Administration to
adopt a more flexible and realistic approach to support highspeed rail.
The bottom line is XpressWest is ready to go and we are excited to bring
true high-speed rail to our Country. The real question is: do those in
Washington D.C. have the courage and vision to proceed or is our
leadership going to force projects throughout the United States to seek
financial support for infrastructure in our Country from foreign
governments?”
In 2008, Metro's Measure R ballot initiative got just above the
two-thirds support it needed from voters to institute a half-cent sales
tax increase that would pay for future projects. Many of those projects
have now been completed, and, fresh off the unveiling of its new Expo Line Extension to Santa Monica, Metro will be asking voters for another sales tax bump this November.f. In advance of the election, Metro released a "quality of life" report Tuesday (via the Source) that shows how Measure R has affected the lives of Angelenos—with the help of pretty charts and data tables, of course.
Not surprisingly, the report is filled with some pretty flattering
statistics (rider satisfaction is up five percent!), along with a few
data points that seem hard to link solely to Metro (clean buses alone
probably don't account for an 8 percent drop in LA County CO2
emissions). There's also a somewhat silly section that argues "riding
Metro is quicker than driving during worst case peak period conditions."
Of course, the time estimates only include the duration of the ride
plus a few minutes of wait time, so that's probably only true if you
live at a train station.
Graphics via The Source
Fortunately, one very significant result of Measure R is that nearly a
quarter of LA County residents now live close to a rail, express bus,
or Metrolink stop. The 31 new stations added since 2008 have the
potential to serve just under a half million customers. The transit
agency is offering new options to plenty of commuters in these areas,
with 40 percent of LA jobs now accessible to Metro stations.
Metro also acknowledges that ridership has dipped on both trains and
buses over the past few years, though the agency is quick to point out
that this seems to be part of a national trend. Another intriguing
statistic: since 2008, riders report feeling more safe on buses and at
bus stops, but less safe on trains and at train stations. It's not clear
what's driving this disparity, but it's certainly something Metro will
want to address as rail ridership increases and bus ridership goes down.
Metro environmental data
By The Editorial Board, The Daily Breeze, June 2, 2016
A file photo shows the opening of of the Expo Line rail extension to
Santa Monica last month. The Metro board is considering a proposal
similar to Measure R, which helped fund the rail line.
In the next few weeks, the board that runs mass transportation in Los
Angeles County is expected to give voters the list of proposed new
transit projects to approve or reject in a November ballot measure.
If it’s not careful, the board will also give voters something else — a good reason to distrust the whole, $120 billion plan.
Persuading
Southern Californians to raise sales taxes to pay for infrastructure
improvements is no sure thing under any circumstances. It’s especially
hard when a measure needs two-thirds approval to pass, as this
initiative to extend the Measure R tax hikes would. Measure R barely
cleared the 66.7 percent threshold in 2008, and the followup Measure J
fell short in 2012.
Selling taxpayers would be even harder if they couldn’t be sure exactly what they’d be getting for their money.
The
original Measure R included guarantees that the listed transportation
projects wouldn’t be whimsically changed by the board after the
initiative was approved. No money would be siphoned off by the federal
or state government or for non-transit spending.
But as the L.A.
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority prepares to unveil the new
initiative colloquially called Measure R2, the Metro board hasn’t
indicated it will include such lock-in language.
This alone raises fear of a bait-and-switch, fear that voters
could OK an official list of projects in November and then see Metro
make changes.
The fear is heightened by something that’s happening
separately in Sacramento. Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Cerritos, unhappy that a
first draft of R2 didn’t give his district a major transit project for
at least another two decades, wants to overhaul the Los Angeles-centric
Metro board by increasing representation for other cities.
The possibility of a measure without guarantees combined with a Metro board with shifting priorities is worrisome.
The editorial board spoke with state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van
Nuys, and Richard Katz, the former assemblyman and Metro board member,
who are among the politicians fighting for the San Fernando Valley to
get its fair share of new transit projects. They said that even if the
project list does right by their part of the county, a lack of
guarantees would make them hesitant to support R2.
“I think it
makes it hard to campaign for the measure if you can’t look a voter in
the eye and say, ‘The list is the list,’” Katz said.
If Metro wants voters’ support, it needs to ensure they know what they’d get for their money.
Candidates, Elected Officials and
Community Leaders
Who Oppose
the SR-710 Extension
Eric Garcetti
Stephen Del Guercio
Mike Gatto
Jimmy Gomez
Gil Gonzalez
Bob Joe
Marina Khubesrian
Carol Liu
Steve Madison
Diana Mahmud
Ara Najarian
Laura Olhasso
Anthony Portantino
Adam Schiff
Richard Schneider
Dave Spence
Don Voss
Voting Info
for Upcoming Primary Election
June 7th, 2016
Candidates Positions on the SR-710 Extension
Candidates Who are Against
the 710 Extension/Tunnel
United States Representative
Jack Orswell - Candidate 27th Congressional District Adam B. Schiff - Congressman Incumbent and Candidate 28th Congressional District
State Senator
Anthony J Portantino - Candidate State Senate District 25
Member of the State Assembly
Alan S Reynolds - City Commissioner, Candidate Assemblymember 41st District Laura Friedman - Glendale City Councilmember, Candidate Assemblymember 43Rd District Jimmy Gomez - Candidate Assemblymember 51st District
County Supervisor
Ara J Najarian - Glendale City Councilmember, Candidate Los Angeles County Supervisor 5th District
Candidates Who WANT the SR-710 Extension/Tunnel
United States Representative
Judy Chu - Congresswoman Incumbent and Candidate 27th Congressional District Xavier Becerra - Candidate U.S. Representative 34th District
State Senator
Michael D. Antonovich - Candidate for State Senate District 25
Member of the State Assembly
Chris Holden - Incumbent, Candidate for Assemblymember 41st District Ed Chau - Candidate for Assemblymember 49Th District
County Supervisor
Bob Huff - Candidate Los Angeles County Supervisor 5th District
This website is designed to provide information
and documentation regarding the 710 tunnel project.
Mod: I have often believed that the Pasadena Weekly can be
bought. Out of all our fine local publications (a few of whom often
claim to have more influence than they actually do), the PW is on the top of my list to potential pay-to-play papers. If you have any doubts about this, click here for a quick refresher on last year's Tyron Hampton/Andre' Coleman
controversies. And I have to tell you, their election endorsements this
week smell awfully fishy to me. I mean, how can you endorse both Bernie Sanders and Michael Antonovich in the same breath?
Not that the Sage of Burlington is a known 710 Tunnel supporter mind you (at least not to me), but everybody local they endorsed for next Tuesday's California primary just happens to be. Check out this noisome bunch (link):
It just seems like too much of a coincidence. Support for the hole from
hell is the only thing all four of these shopworn political perennials
have in common. So what gives?
Speaking of the 710 Tunnel ...
The real City of Pasadena is taking its opposition to the Alhambra Abattoir to next fall's ballot, and that really is a marvelous thing to see. Check out this Pasadena Star News editorial.
For the rest of this important editorial click here.
Highway projects and programs include sound walls
throughout the county, added capacity for Interstate 5,
Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations in the San Gabriel
Valley and environmental, planning and
engineering studies on the I-605 Hot Spots, the SR-710 North Study, the SR-710 South project and SR-138
capacity enhancements."
We
encourage
you to
attend June
13 Pasadena
City Council meeting
At the
meeting, the
city council
will discuss
Mayor Terry
Tornek'sproposalto
place an
initiative on
the November
ballot to
repeal Measure
A. Passed in
2001 by
Pasadena
voters,
Measure A
directed the
city to
support the
"completion
of the 710
extension."
At the WPRA's
annual meeting
on May 18,
Mayor Tornek
called for the
repeal of
Measure A so
that the city
can oppose the
710 tunnel
without
reservation.
The meeting
will be held
at 6:30
p.m. on Monday,
June
13,
in the City
Council
Chambers at
City Hall, 100
N. Garfield Ave.
