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 710 Freeway looking north from Hellman Ave. towards Valley Blvd, where the freeway ends.
The 710 Freeway extension is heading back to court.
Two months after the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted against building a tunnel
from the freeway’s terminus near Alhambra to the 210 and 134 freeways
interchange in Pasadena, the city of Rosemead filed a lawsuit asking the
court to throw out that decision.
Rosemead is suing Metro in Los
Angeles Superior Court, saying the board’s vote was premature and
violated state environmental laws.
“We want the MTA’s May 25
decision to be vacated, to have that undone,” said Dennis Ehling,
attorney with Blank Rome LLP , a Los Angeles-based firm hired by the
city.
The complaint alleges that Metro’s board should have waited until
the final environmental study was certified by its partner, Caltrans,
which isn’t expected until early next year. The lawsuit calls the action
“a clear breach” of the environmental review process begun by Caltrans and Metro in March 2015.
Metro spokeswoman Kim Upton said the transportation agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The
legal challenge comes as somewhat of a surprise, since the Metro board
vote portended the end of any freeway extension after nearly 60 years of
debate from city halls, which included a 1999 federal court decision
won by South Pasadena scuttling a surface route.
Metro’s board rejected the 6.3 mile tunnel option, which would
cost between $3 billion and $5.3 billion, saying the agency does not
have the funds.
Instead, it chose as a “preferred local
alternative” — a range of roadway improvements and other traffic
management fixes along the 4.1-mile gap.
For those projects, the
board allocated $105 million, taken from then $780 million pot intended
for an “I-710 North Gap Closure (Tunnel) project” through Measure R, the
half-cent transportation sales tax passed by voters in 2016.
Other projects also would be considered by Metro, including a new
north-south roadway and improved freeway off-ramps at the 110. Metro
could also include a new busway system. Cities were rushing to present
projects to the Metro board as early as next month.
In a
statement, Rosemead said it obtained an agreement with Metro not to move
ahead on any projects nor spend any Measure R money for at least 55
days from July 20, so the court can consider its claim. Upton would not
comment and did not confirm the existence of such an agreement.
“I am somewhat puzzled by the stance Rosemead is taking, given
that they are not all that impacted,” said South Pasadena City
Councilwoman Marina Khubesrian on Monday.
Rosemead’s complaint
says even though the city is located several miles east of the 710
corridor, its streets are affected when cars are forced off the freeway
at Valley Boulevard, creating a traffic glut.
Rosemead Boulevard, the nearest north-south thoroughfare, takes on a lot of this added traffic, according to the complaint.
The meeting was described as a first step in a collaborative
effort to spend Measure R money to fix traffic snarls in affected
cities.
Ehling said the city is not asking the court to choose the
tunnel but to choose an option that closes the 710 Freeway gap. He said
the Metro board ignored two staff reports saying the tunnel was the
best option for improving traffic flow.
The city hopes the court will force L.A. Metro to review other alternatives, especially the tunnel option.
“Rosemead and other cities in the neighborhood believe the tunnel is the preferred alternative,” Ehling said. “We believe the clear intent of voters was to close the gap and relieve the traffic problems.”
Khubesrian said she’s not sure what a court can do in this instance.
“The court can’t force Metro to fund a project when there is not funding,” she said.
The complaint has not yet been assigned to a courtroom, but Ehling believes a hearing is forthcoming.
Joe Cano: "Please note due to the overwhelming amount of participants at this
meeting it was unavoidable the side camera used for the comments section
kept getting bumped by people from time to time. Also, some folks kept
leaning on the intercom phone behind me. It was a war zone alright."
The Metro Board of Directors approved a motion today by a 12 to
0 vote that calls for Metro to fund local road improvements to address
traffic congestion caused by the 4.5-mile gap in the 710 freeway between
Alhambra and Pasadena. Many Board Members said they hoped to do
something immediate rather than wait years for a freeway tunnel that may
never have enough funding and/or political support to be built.
Among those improvements that can now be funded: traffic signal
upgrades and synchronization, local street and intersection
improvements, improved connections to existing bus service and the
promotion of rideshare in the area.
The motion approved by the Board today is the latest development in
the decades-long saga involving the freeway gap. The 710 opened to
Valley Boulevard in Alhambra in 1965 but a planned extension north to a
junction with the 134 and 210 freeways in Pasadena has since met near
constant funding and legal challenges. Over the years, there has been
widespread agreement the gap increases traffic on local roads but
considerable disagreement over what should be done about it.
“I’ve thought the tunnel was the best approach, but I’ve also come to
the realization that it’s un-fundable and if it happened it was many,
many years away,” said Board Chair and Duarte Mayor Pro Tem John Fasana,
adding that the tunnel would not confer immediate benefits to residents
and businesses impacted by the gap.
In 2011, and with $780 million in new funding from the Measure R
sales tax (approved by L.A. County voters in 2008), Caltrans and Metro
essentially started from scratch with a new environmental study to
identify a project to tackle and help relieve traffic caused by the
gap. The project’s environmental study
looked at five alternatives: the legally-required no build option, a
freeway tunnel, light rail, bus rapid transit and the “Transportation
System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM)”
alternative — which is now the Metro Board’s official ‘locally preferred
alternative’ for the project.
The new study found a freeway tunnel would meet the project purpose and need, and offer the most mobility improvements (see this project status update and the project’s performance evaluation matrix below). But the Metro Board was faced with this dilemma: there was only $780 million
in funding available for a tunnel expected to cost much more. And with
more legal challenges to a tunnel likely on the horizon, prospects were
very dim for finding other funding sources.
Under the motion approved by the Board,
$105 million from Measure R would be used for local road projects
described above. The remaining funds from Measure R could be used for new mobility improvement projects.
Under the motion approved by the Board, $105 million from Measure R
would be used for local road projects described above. The remaining
funds from Measure R could be used for projects including — but not
limited to — sound walls, transit and rail capital improvements,
bikeways, pedestrian improvements, signal synchronization, left turn
signals, major street resurfacing and reconstruction. Those projects
would be located in Alhambra, La Canada-Flintridge, Pasadena, South
Pasadena and the 90032 zip code, which includes parts of the city of L.A.
Other funds would also be available to Metro’s Central Subregion —
i.e. unincorporated East Los Angeles, El Sereno and the city of L.A. —
would be prioritized for ‘multi-modal and safety enhancements’ that are
within the project’s study area.
Public testimony continued for well over an hour. There was
considerable support for the Board’s action with many speakers heaping
scorn on a prospective tunnel while saying it was time to move on to
other options.
The project’s final environmental study is scheduled to be completed
later this year. Even if Caltrans selects the freeway tunnel as the
preferred alternative, the motion approved by the Metro Board would
prevent funding a tunnel with Measure R funds — the only money currently
available for a tunnel.
Board votes unanimously to end the tunnel project and distribute allocated funds to the affected communities
LOS ANGELES—In a historic vote today, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board ended the 50-year debate over the SR-710 “connector” in the San Gabriel Valley. The unanimous vote is a major step forward that will finally allow the communities in the western San Gabriel Valley to pursue strategic, sustainable, multi-modal projects that will enhance mobility for the region, while removing the potential of exorbitant costs and destructive effects of a 5.4-mile, 60-foot wide tunnel proposal.
The leaders of the Connected Cities and Communities (C3) coalition praised the vote as a forward-thinking and cost-effective solution for the region’s transportation needs. The C3 coalition brought together the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, La Cañada-Flintridge, South Pasadena and Sierra Madre, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the No 710 Action Committee as partners who share a vision of better transportation solutions.
“Today’s Metro Board decision is a vote for healthy communities, fiscal responsibility and a 21st century approach to transportation in Los Angeles County. The time has come for us to move beyond this outdated project," said Ara Najarian, the chair of the C3, and a member of the Metro Board of Directors and a Glendale City Councilman. “I applaud the leadership of Metro Board chair John Fasana, who recognized that the tunnel was not viable, and the millions of dollars designated for the project should be put to better use.”
The tunnel project has been under environmental review since 2011. While the Metro Board received a staff report recommending the tunnel, the Board acknowledged that the contentious multibillion dollar project lacked a viable financing plan and they wisely chose to redirect the funds toward a package of new local transportation fixes.
“After years of requesting bettermobility for the region, the residents of South Pasadena and our C3 coalition partners are relieved to know that the SR-710 tunnel is now highly unlikely,” said Marina Khubesrian,M.D., vice chair of the C3 and amember of the South Pasadena City Council. “We look forward to working with all of the corridor cities to develop projects that will be better for their communities, relieve traffic and provide more options for people to travel to their homes, jobs, schools, and doctors’ appointments.”
“Cities are only effective when they work for everyone,” said Stephanie K. Meeks, president and CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “Since naming the historic neighborhoods along the 710 to our annual list of America’s 11 Most Endangered Historic Places, we have advocated for a solution that addresses the growing region’s need for equitable transportation while preserving its unique history. As such, we are pleased that today’s Metro Board decision will enhance the character and identity thatmakes these diverse communities thrive.”
According toMetro staff, approximately $730 million remains in the SR-710 fund appropriated in Measure R. Today’s vote devoted $105 million of that fund to implement the Transportation System Management and Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) list of projects already identified in the Environmental Impact Report. The remainder of the money will be made available for new projects in the corridor communities, which will be developed collaboratively with Metro.
“Taking the divisive tunnel project off the table heralds a new era of cooperation among San Gabriel Valley cities, to the benefit of everyone,” said Terry Tornek, the mayor of the city of Pasadena. “The vision of leaders such as Supervisor Katherine Barger and John Fasana will allow our cities to work together in pursuit of smartermobility improvements, such as those outlined in the Beyond the 710 Plan."
# # #
About the Connected Cities and Communities (C3) Cities, organizations and individuals that make up C3 have come together to find the best way to relieve traffic, connect communities, promote smart growth, and help people get to their jobs, schools, shopping, and recreation. C3 is about connecting communities, increasing everyone’s quality of life, and putting scarce transportation dollars to their best use. This ever-growing coalition is comprised of the Cities of Glendale, La Cañada Flintridge, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, South Pasadena, plus the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and No 710 Action Committee.
The 710 tunnel
appears to be dead at last! This morning the LA Metro Board
voted unanimously to drop its support for the 710 Freeway
tunnel, and to allocate hundreds of millions of dollars that
had been earmarked for the tunnel to local transportation
alternatives instead.
So many persons in my
Council District, Pasadena, South Pasadena, La Canada, Glendale
and beyond, including my office, have worked together tirelessly
for literally decades to put an end to the 710 extension. The
surface route was eliminated a few years ago, and the tunnel was
the last gasp for the 710; and now that's been eliminated
too!
I could not possibly name everyone to whom gratitude is
owed, but many thanks to everyone who supported my motions in
2000 and 2012 (making the official position of the City of
Pasadena to oppose the 710), to those who participated in and
attended the several 710 forums we held over the years, to the
dedicated freeway fighters in Pasadena and our region, and very
special thanks to the Metro Boardmembers for making this
historic decision, especially LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and County
Supervisor Kathryn Barger. It has been a long but important
and worthwhile fight and in the end we have prevailed. I'm
sure we will organize a celebration in the near future, as we
look forward to reclaim the freeway "stub" and
reintegrate it and the CalTrans homes back into our West
Pasadena neighborhoods.
The agency will focus on small infrastructure improvements instead.
By Elijah Chiland, May 25, 2017
Originally planned to link up with the 210, the freeway currently lets riders off just north of Interstate 10.
The Metro Board of Directors closed out another chapter
in the long saga of the never-finished 710 freeway Thursday, nixing a
plan to extend the route north via an underground tunnel.
In a unanimous vote, the board approved a motion submitted last week
by chairman John Fasana calling on the agency to pursue an alternative
to the tunnel that focuses instead on smaller infrastructure
improvements in the area.
Fasana previously supported building the tunnel, but said
Thursday it was simply too costly for Metro to finance. In the works
for well over a decade, the project, Fasana suggested, needed a
resolution. “I think we’ve reached a point where a decision needs to be
made,” he said.
Original plans for the route had it stretching between
Long Beach and the 210 freeway, rather than abruptly ending just north
of Interstate 10 at Valley Boulevard, as it does today.
Other possible alternatives to the tunnel included a
light rail line and a rapid bus system, but those projects would have
also commanded relatively high price tags.
Instead, Metro will pursue bringing smaller changes to
the communities the tunnel would have linked. Those include more
frequent bus service, widening certain streets, and better traffic
signal synchronization.
The infrastructure improvements will be paid for with $780 million in funding set aside for the 710 project through Measure R.
Fasana’s original motion called for the bulk of those
funds to go toward “mobility improvement projects” in the San Gabriel
Valley, but was later amended to include communities like El Sereno and
unincorporated East LA that have been affected by the project.
As board members at the meeting expressed their support
for the proposal, it became clear that the vote was in part a referendum
on the future of transportation in Los Angeles.
Director and Glendale Mayor Ara Najarian called the
tunnel “outdated,” while Mayor Eric Garcetti said that freeway projects
like this one were no longer a viable solution to LA’s traffic woes.
Fasana agreed, suggesting Metro will have its work cut
out for it going forward. “The highway system we have today is what
we’ll have 100 years from now,” he said. “We have to live with the
[system] we have.”
The LA City Council voted to support a bill prohibiting the constructions of a 710 Freeway tunnel to Pasadena.
May 24, 2017
LOS ANGELES, CA — The Los Angeles City Council threw its support
Wednesday behind legislation that would prohibit the construction of a
tunnel to extend the Long Beach (710) Freeway and establish a link
between Alhambra and Pasadena.
The bill would create the I-710 Gap Corridor Transit Zone Advisory
Committee, which would review a wide range of mass transit options for
the 6.2- mile gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, which currently are
linked only by surface streets, and recommend solutions that do not
include a tunnel or a surface freeway.
The panel would include representatives from the cities of Alhambra,
Los Angeles, Pasadena and South Pasadena, along with Caltrans, the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and select members of the
California Legislature.
Councilman Gil Cedillo, who represents communities in northeast L.A.
near the 710 gap, was the lone dissenter to the resolution supporting
the bill by Assemblyman Chris Holden, D-Pasadena.
Cedillo expressed support for a tunnel.
"We should move away from the kind of hysteria that gets engendered
by this discussion and move into a dispassionate discussion about the
benefits of a tunnel and how it accomplishes the goals of all of those
communities impacted," Cedillo said.
Councilman Jose Huizar, who also represents communities in northeast
L.A. near the 710 gap, voiced support for the resolution and said Mayor
Eric Garcetti and county Supervisor Hilda Solis are opposed to the
tunnel.
"All of us agree that it's time to get away from this boondoggle of a
project that's going to cost billions of dollars but not ease much
traffic ... that those dollars instead be used for a more efficient way,
a more 21st century way, in planning for transportation," Huizar said.
The possibility of a 710 Freeway extension has been on the table for
decades, but has been thwarted by generations of opposition from some of
the communities in its path, including South Pasadena.
Caltrans began in the 1950s and 1960s buying empty lots, houses and
apartments along the planned route of the 710 Freeway extension between
Pasadena and Alhambra. Last year, Caltrans began the process of selling
off the houses and apartments as part of its shift toward a tunnel or
other options.
The
latest and most significant development occurred at a meeting of
Metro’s Ad Hoc Congestion, Highway and Roads Committee meeting
last Wednesday. At that meeting, the decision was made to
forward to the entire Metro Board a motion to recommend the
Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand
Management alternative as the locally-preferred alternative –
NOT THE TUNNEL IN EITHER CONFIGURATION (SINGLE- OR DUAL-BORE).
This recommendation was made even though the SR 710 North Study
staff reported to Metro that the Single-Bore Tunnel alternative
offered the best performance and financial return (a flawed
conclusion). As you will read in the motion, the Committee has
come to the realization that the tunnel is not fundable. We
know for a fact that no private partners have come forward with
interest in financing and building the tunnel – an indication
that the project does not “pencil out” and represents too great
a financial risk. The motion also addresses the disposition of
the remainder of the original $780 million from 2008’s Measure
R. This portion of the motion has been somewhat controversial,
and we may see modifications of the original motion, or even
introduction of an alternate motion on Thursday.
We believe the Board is poised to act favorably on the
committee’s recommendation. You can view the Board Meeting
agenda at: http://metro.legistar1.com/metro/meetings/2017/5/1210_A_Board_of_Directors_-_Regular_Board_Meeting_17-05-25_Agenda.pdf.
The action is item 29 on the agenda, and the text of the
original motion is included as item 29.1.
3. Call to Action: Metro Board of
Directors to act on committee’s recommendation this
Thursday, May 25th. We need people to
attend what may be an historic decision!
9
am
One Gateway Plaza METRO Board
Room - 3rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012
This is a VERY important meeting because the METRO
Board will be discussing and voting on a Motion, which, if
passed, will be another MAJOR step forward in killing the
710 Freeway Tunnel.
We
need you there!!
Speakers will probably be limited to a 1 minute
presentation so if you choose to speak, it is wise to have
prepared a statement ahead of time. It is not necessary for
all of us to speak but we do need a real show of support for ending the tunnel.We
want to continue to demonstrate our commitment to opposing
the tunnel and our support for a motion to remove the tunnel
by having a large number of the engaged public at the
meeting. Even if you don’t speak, those who do will be
able to point to our group as supporters of their
statements. Optics play an important role.
So – please come and bring your friends and neighbors!
4. Message from State Senator Anthony Portantino
Dear Freeway Fighters and Interested 710 Friends, What an exciting series of events. Clearly, the motion being contemplated for action Thursday of this week by MTA is a very positive step forward for the Metro Board and our communities impacted by the threat of the 710 tunnel. Designating the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative and recommending expenditure of the Measure R dollars on local projects rather than the tunnel is an effective way of bringing the 710 tunnel saga to a close. Is it the perfect solution? Perhaps not. But is it an appropriate solution for the many of us who have opposed the above‐ and below‐grade 710 freeway proposals for five decades? I would say a resounding YES! Recognition by the MTA Board that the tunnel does not enjoy broad local support and is not economically feasible is a giant leap forward from the time proponents were exhibiting optimism about breaking ground in 2015, curtailing studies to predetermine outcomes and fighting the release of the cost benefit analysis. And, for those who were hoping the final EIR would include the tunnel as the preferred solution the proposed motion is a significant disappointment. The many activists and community leaders who championed the NO 710 FREEWAY/TUNNEL cause are to be commended. Those folks who ensured the failure of Measure J, which included money for the tunnel and the subsequent success of Measure M, which did not, deserve a healthy pat on the back. Metro, though long struggling with this project and still containing Board Members who have sought the completion of the tunnel, is also to be commended for putting personal feelings aside for a practical and just conclusion. And, those communities that have long felt that their unique local transportation needs would benefit from the tunnel should be appreciated for working with Metro leaders on setting aside their decades’ long passion on the hope that local mitigating measures funded by Measure R can bring relief to their communities. In short, there is much for everyone to be cautious about as the detente solution is finally discussed and passed this week. But, I believe that folks should feel comfortable supporting the motion being contemplated by MTA this Thursday. Here are two reasons why: First it is a good‐faith effort to end this situation in a manner that makes it clear the 710 tunnel is not the preferred alternative. And second, it is also important to remember that Caltrans will make the final determination and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. I have been in almost daily contact with the Department of Transportation for the past six months and I anticipate a positive conclusion. I also want to reassure everyone who has trusted my efforts to fight the tunnel, and before that the freeway, that I am committed to protecting local interests and the right outcome. Although I have not been touting these months‐long efforts in the news or endeavoring to make splashy headlines, I have been intimately involved with helping to bring this issue to its rightful conclusion. I will continue to lead that effort as your State Senator and two‐decade compatriot in this effort. Last week, I held a town hall with 710 tenants and Caltrans to help facilitate the sale of the Caltrans owned houses; while simultaneously my legislation to ensure the low‐income tax benefits for the Caltrans tenants is on its way to becoming state law. This necessary tax fix has complete support of the County Assessor and of Caltrans. So, in conclusion, I’m optimistic that the rightful outcome is at hand and steadfast in my resolve to ensure its happens. Respectfully, Anthony J. Portantino State Senator, 25th SD
A
motion that would
support one of the
five alternatives for
the 710 North project
-- to improve local
roads -- as the
project's 'locally
preferred alternative'
was approved on a 3 to
2 vote Wednesday by
the Metro Board of
Director's Ad Hoc
Congestion, Highways
and
Roads Committee.
The
alternative's official
name is
"Transportation
System
Management/Transportation
Demand
Management"
(TSM/TDM) and
includes traffic
signal upgrades and
synchronization, local
street and
intersection
improvements, improved
connections to
existing bus
service and the
promotion of rideshare
in the area around the
gap in the 710 between
Alhambra and Pasadena.
These are the kind of
projects that Metro
staff have said could
provide immediate
travel benefits.
The
motion is posted
above. Something worth
highlighting: the
motion calls for
spending $105 million
on the TSM/TDM
alternative and using
the remaining project
funds -- potentially
hundreds of millions
of dollars -- for new
mobility projects in
the San Gabriel Valley
area. Please see the
motion for
details.
In
committee, the 'yes'
votes were from Board
Members John
Fasana, Kathryn Barger
and Ara Najarian and
the 'no' votes were
from Jacquelyn
Dupont-Walker and
Janice Hahn. The full
Board will consider
the item at their
meeting next Thursday
(May 25) at 9 a.m. The
public can listen and
watch Board meetings
online.
The
project's
final environmental
study is due to be
released by the end of
this year. The five
project alternatives
studied include a
freeway tunnel, light
rail, bus rapid
transit, TSM/TDM
improvements and the
no-build option. Here
is is the
project
homepage, which
includes much more
background about the
project.
Board Chair John Fasana wants smaller street improvements instead
By Eljiah Chilan, May 18, 2017
In a blow to advocates of a 710 freeway tunnel, a Metro committee yesterday approved a motion
calling on the agency’s Board of Directors to support an alternative to
the project that would facilitate street improvements and better
connections to public transit in the area, rather than building the
multi-billion tunnel.
The Metro Board’s Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads
Committee approved the motion, introduced by Board Chair John Fasana, in
a contentious 3-2 vote, as The Source reports. It will be considered by the full Board at its next meeting on Thursday, May 25.
The question of how to compensate for a never-built
extension of the 710 freeway has been debated for years. In 2013, a
Metro study presented five options for closing the gap between the freeway’s current terminus just above the 10 freeway to the 210 in Pasadena.
Only one of those plans—the tunnel—would create a new
path for drivers. The others, which include a light rail system and a
rapid bus line, are focused on expanding options for commuters in the
area.
Fasana’s motion favors the so-called “Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management”
alternative, which focuses on smaller-scale improvements that could
help relieve congestion in the area. Those include more frequent bus
service, widening certain streets, and better traffic signal
synchronization.
Fasana notes in the motion that the agency lacks the
money needed to construct the tunnel (costs are projected to be over $3
billion), while light rail and rapid bus options “may not produce the
expected traffic impact mitigation.”
When LA County voters approved Measure R
in 2008, $780 million was set aside for the 710 project. Fasana’s
motion calls for $105 million of those funds to be dedicated to the
TSM/TDM plan, while the remaining money would be used for “mobility
improvement projects” in the San Gabriel Valley.
This isn’t the only threat to the tunnel’s possible
construction. In February, Assemblymember Chris Holden, D-Pasadena,
announced a bill that would effectively prohibit building the costly
project.
Assemblyman Chris Holden, whose 41st District represents South
Pasadena, continues to make efforts to kill the proposed 710 tunnel.
Holden invited a group of No 710 activists to a meeting at the
Pasadena Women’s City Club last week to discuss his proposed Assembly
Bill 287. The bill would remove the segment of 710 Freeway from Route 10
to the 210 from the state Streets and Highway Code. It also declares
that the department shall not implement a 710 freeway tunnel or surface
freeway between 10 and 210.
In addition, it creates a committee to study the 710 North Project
area for solutions to congestion and adverse environmental conditions.
His bill came before the Transportation Committee of the state
Assembly on Monday, but did not receive enough votes to move it on to
the Appropriations Committee. The bill received two positives votes and 1
vote against it. It needs eight votes in support to get it out of
committee. South Pasadena City Manager Sergio Gonzalez said the bill
will most-likely go back to the Transportation Committee next Monday for
reconsideration.
Holden said he will continue to work to get the votes. He has also
been speaking to L.A. County Supervisors and Metro Board members seeking
their support. Metro Board members in May are scheduled meeting to
oppose, support, or take no position on the proposed bill. “He feels
that these entities do not favor the creation of the tunnel,” explained
Bill Sherman, a South Pasadena resident and longtime freeway fighter.
“He feels that Caltrans senior leadership does not favor the tunnel. His
bill attempts to align this local issue with state mandates for
decreasing greenhouse gasses and combating climate change.”
Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek, in Sacramento on Monday, stressed that
the momentum is against tunnel construction and asked 710 Freeway
opponents to keep the pressure on to stop it.
Holden requested the help of those in Sacramento to contact state
Assembly Transportation Committee members and encourage them to support
SB 287. He was joined on stage by Tornek, South Pasadena Council member
Marina Khubesrian and a representative from the Natural Resources
Defense Council when he made his presentation to the Transportation
Committee seeking their support for the bill he authored.
Khubesrian spoke on Monday at the request of Holden and represented
not only the City of South Pasadena but also a group calling itself
“Connected Cities and Communities,”including, the cities of Pasadena,
South Pasadena, Glendale, La Canada, Sierra Madre and the Natural
Resources Defense Council and National Trust for Historic Preservation.
“We look forward to working with Assemblymember Holden and all our
representatives in Sacramento and on the Metro Board to redirect
resources and efforts away from a car tunnel and toward finding a viable
21st Century proven solutions to the real problems of bottlenecks and
poor transit access for the communities in our region,” said Khubesrian.
Holden and a coalition of city councilmembers, community leaders, and
non-profit organizations gathered outside Mission Street Metro Station
in February to announce the introduction of AB 287, which the lawmaker
says finds a solution to the 710 corridor gap between the I-10 and I-210
freeways and prohibits the construction of a freeway tunnel.
Traffic moves through the rain along
interstate 5 in Encinitas, California December 3, 2014. Nearly
two-thirds of Americans would support roadway user fees to help fix the
country's crumbling transportation infrastructure, according to a survey
to be published on April 28, 2016 that was seen by Reuters.
Labor unions from across California are advocating for the
construction of a massive tunnel to close a six-mile gap between the 10
and the 210 freeways in Pasadena, Calif.
Proponents of the tunnel, who say it is the most feasible solution to
major traffic congestion, can count on the support of 16 labor
unions, who joined a coalition in support of the project.
State Assemblyman Chris Holden introduced a bill that would kill the
tunnel idea in February, saying that the, “710 tunnel project is a
misguided and obsolete solution.”
The project would extend the 710 Freeway
from Valley Boulevard under El Sereno, a mostly Latino neighborhood of
Los Angeles, and pass under South Pasadena and into Pasadena, where the
4.5-mile tunnel would connect above-ground at the 210/134 freeway
interchange near the Pasadena convention center.
South Pasadena has made it onto the front page of a leading national
business newspaper. The controversy about the proposed State Route-710
(SR-710) freeway north extension was featured on page 1 of the Wall
Street Journal (WSJ) Feb. 13.
Joanne Nuckols, a prominent South Pasadena anti-SR-710 activist, was
also quoted and pictured in the article. In the print article “Speed
Limits Await Infrastructure Spree,” writer David Harrison describes how
environmental reviews and lawsuits have delayed construction projects
nationwide.
The online version of the article is titled “Speed Limits on Trump’s
Infrastructure Drive: Federal Laws, Rare Species and Nimbys.”
“Environmental regulations and neighborhood opposition routinely bog
down projects,” its writer states, “and will likely constrain the
[Trump] administration’s plan to spend $1 trillion” on infrastructure.
Harrison includes as his first example the SR-710 north extension.
“The project remains under review,” he says, 60 years after it was
proposed.
He describes major infrastructure work in Georgia, Maryland and other
states that had also been delayed. Former presidents George W. Bush and
Barack Obama faced such delays in completing needed improvements, the
writer says. He indicates President Donald Trump will likely encounter
the same obstacles.
“The article is a bit misleading,” said City Manager Sergio Gonzalez,
“stating that the SR-710 extension has been prevented due to a NIMBY
[not in my back yard] stance by our city.”
“The freeway extension above ground or as a tunnel would not do
anything to fix the congestion issues between the 10 and 210 freeways,”
he said. Nuckols said she was interviewed for the article in October
2016.
However, its publication was then postponed. She said a few weeks ago
Harrison contacted her for an update and to arrange for photographs.
Nuckols appears in a picture accompanying the article. She is shown
seated on the front porch of her 1909 Craftsman home. Prominently
featured next to her is an American flag, which hangs from her porch
roof. A small sign displaying the No-710 symbol can be seen on a window
behind her.
Harrison describes Nuckols as a “board member of a local preservation
group [South Pasadena Preservation Foundation] who has been fighting
the road for 30 years.”
A second photograph shows the traffic-congested SR-710 near Alhambra. No other photos appear in the story.
Several paragraphs address the SR-710. The writer says opponents
reject the current tunnel proposal alternative. This, he says, is due to
concerns about weakening the ground under the city’s historic Craftsman
homes. He cites Nuckols as saying, “This is something that can never be
built.”
Harrison ends with a statement made by Barbara Messina, an Alhambra councilmember. She has long supported the project.
Referring to Nuckols, Messina is quoted as saying, “God forbid we had
people like that when we had our major infrastructure projects done. We
would never have gotten anything done.”
In response, Nuckols told the South Pasadena Review, “Thankfully we
had those environmental laws. That was what saved South Pasadena and was
the foundation of the legal case that we won.”
Reactions to Assemblymember Chris Holden’s announcement he has
introduced a bill in Sacramento to prohibit construction of a tunnel to
complete the 710 Freeway gap between the I-10 and I-210 freeways in
Pasadena range from glowing support to outrage.
The 710 Coalition, a grouping of cities, school districts, businesses
and individuals that support the tunnel alternative, called Holden’s
proposal an “audacious maneuver by 710 tunnel opponents to thwart years
of progress toward completion of the freeway.
”
Pasadena officials, on the other hand, enthusiastically supported Holden’s legislation.
“This is really exciting for our community,” District 6 Councilmember
Steve Madison said. “Chris’s proposal is to have a committee appointed
to study approaches to certain regional transportation needs, including
the 710 corridor, but it would prohibit the study of the 710 tunnel. It
would put an end to the tunnel, for sure.”
Mayor Tornek agreed.
“The great value of what Chris is proposing is he’s not just saying
no; he’s suggesting a method to study alternatives in a way that should
be productive and allow our people to really start to move towards
something other than an early 20th century solution,” Tornek said. “The
tunnel project just doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny at all. They’ve
already spent $30 million on the EIR (environmental impact report), and
that’s money that could have been put towards actual solutions.”
With the tunnel alternative possibly on the way out, Tornek said
Pasadena officials would continue to meet with Metro, Caltrans, and all
the other stakeholders as well as the community, and cooperate in the
search for a better solution.
Former Pasadena Mayor Bill Bogaard said Holden’s bill is a great step in a battle that’s been going on for more than 40 years.
“Chris has come around to a very strong position of opposition based
on the facts,” Bogaard said. “The information that is now available
indicates that this project, at a cost of five to $10 billion, simply
does not make traffic improvements of the kind that this region needs.
It’s great to have someone of Chris’ stature and standing to take this
position.”
Bogaard also expects there will be continuing discussions among
people who still think that building a tunnel has a role to play in the
interconnection project.
“But when the facts are known – the environmental facts, the
financial facts, the absolute need for other improvement in
transportation in this region – the answer will be clear: the tunnel has
no role in the future of Southern California,” Bogaard said.
Pasadena City Councilmember Steve Madison said he believes the Holden bill could “finally kill this 710 tunnel.”
The 710 Coalition, which includes the cities of Alhambra, Monterey
Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino, said Holden’s proposal would
disregard years of money and effort invested into the SR-710
interconnection project. Sixteen other Southern California cities
support the Coalition.
“Hundreds of project related meetings and hearings have occurred over
the last five years,” a 710 Coalition statement said. “To disrupt the
process is unconscionable and disrespectful to all involved. The tunnel
is the best way to close the gap – it provides reductions in traffic and
the biggest job boost to the local and regional economy.”
Holden filed the bill in the light of a landmark climate legislation
mandating the rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the state.
“It is clear that the State Route 710 tunnel project is a misguided
and obsolete solution,” Holden said. “The tunnel option puts billions of
taxpayer dollars on the line with no hard evidence pointing to traffic
relief for the San Gabriel Valley. The freeway tunnel may have been a
viable option 50 years ago but it is not in today’s or tomorrow’s
reality.”
Holden stressed that there is now a real opportunity to set a precedent for what transportation should be in California.
“Our state led the way by building one of the most advanced freeway
systems in America,” Holden said. “We should lead the way now by taking a
21st century approach to addressing our transportation needs.”
In a dramatic development in the 50 year-old battle over the
extension of the 710 Freeway and the construction of a tunnel to fill
the corridor gap between the I-10 and I-210 Freeways, State
Assemblymember Chris Holden has introduced a bill which, if passed, will
completely remove the possibility of a tunnel to extend the freeway.
“In light of California’s landmark climate legislation that mandates
the rapid reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that
the State Route 710 tunnel project is a misguided and obsolete
solution,” said Holden at a press conference this morning at the South
Pasadena Metro Station.
Joining Holden in announcing the bill—AB 287—were Pasadena Mayor
Terry Tornek, and Councilmembers Andy Wilson and Steve Madison. along
with leaders from a number of San Gabriel valley cities, including South
Pasadena and Sierra Madre.
The bill would establish the I-710 Gap Corridor Transit Study Zone
Advisory Committee, with representatives from Pasadena, South Pasadena,
Alhambra, Los Angeles, Caltrans and Metro. The committee would also
include legislators representing the 710 Corridor Gap Communities.
Said Holden, “This committee will be tasked with recommending the
most appropriate and feasible solution for the 710 Corridor gap that
effects the San Gabriel Valley. The committee will review a wide range
of traffic calming, green space and mass transit options for the 6.2
mile gap and recommend a viable community supported solution that
creates jobs for the San Gabriel Valley.”
The bill specifically prohibits the State Department of Transportation from building the 710 Tunnel.
Speaking to the cost of the proposed tunnel, Holden said,
“Constructing a tunnel could cost up to a billion dollars per mile.
Compare that to the recent extensions of the Gold Line which cost less
than a billion dollars for 20 miles.”
“It’s really important that (Assemblymember Holden) has added his
powerful voice to the rising chorus of voices that continue to object to
trying to impose this early 20th-Century solution to this 21st Century
problem,” said Mayor Tornek. “The important thing is that it’s not
enough to just say ‘no’ to something, you have to say, ‘What do we do?,’
and his bill contemplates taking a look at the alternatives, and simply
objecting to something we are not even considering anymore.”
“It’s nice that people like Chris are finally waking up to this
problem,” said Jim Miller of the No 710 Action Committee. Asked what the
bill would mean to the work that his committee has done, Miller said,
“After fifty years, it may be over.”
Thinking beyond the 710 issue, and discussing the larger
transportation issues in the San Gabriel Valley, Holden also suggested
extending the Metro light rail system to create a loop that connects
cities beyond the San Gabriel Valley, into communities like Downey and
Whittier.
Added Holden, who cautiously anticipated swift movement of his bill,
“Before any final recommendations are made, we have the opportunity to
set a precedent for what transportation can be in California. Our state
led the way by building one of the most advanced freeway systems in
America, and we should lead the way now by taking a 21st Century
approach to addressing our transportation needs.”
Communities across North America are facing a watershed moment in the
history of our transportation infrastructure. With cities, citizens, and
transportation officials all looking for alternatives to costly highway
repair and expansion, these ten campaigns offer a roadmap to better
health, equity, opportunity, and connectivity in every neighborhood,
while reversing decades of decline and disinvestment.
Freeways
Without Futures 2017 brings together decades of lessons, resources,
strategies, and sweat equity into a comprehensive look at the current
state of urban highway removal. This report sets out to empower local
highway teardown advocates, political leaders, and forward-thinking
engineers working in their communities to forge ahead.
Above all, these ten highways are opportunities for progress. Each
one presents the chance to remove a blight from the physical, economic,
and environmental health of urban communities. Their intended benefits
have not justified the tragic consequences, but converting these
highways into human-scaled streets offers a chance to begin repairing
the damage. From Buffalo to San Francisco, these are the freeways
without futures.
When the Scajaquada Expressway was built along New
York State Route 198 in Buffalo, it bisected and severed Delaware Park—a
masterpiece designed by the celebrated urbanist Frederick Law Olmsted.
In May 2015, the decades-long safety consequences of that decision
reached a breaking point when a sedan traveling on the expressway jumped
a barrier, veered into Delaware Park, killed a three-year-old boy, and
severely injured his five-year-old sister.
Constructed in the early 1960s, the 3.6-mile four-lane highway
carries between 37,600 and 65,000 vehicles per day between Interstate
190 and State Route 33, another expressway. In addition to cutting
through Delaware Park, the Scajaquada runs alongside the 10,000-student
campus of Buffalo State, approximately two miles north of downtown.
For decades, community members have demanded that the expressway be
redesigned as a parkway to cut noise, pollution, and dangerous
high-speed traffic—and to reconnect Delaware Park to adjacent
neighborhoods. Now, the project has support of Governor Andrew Cuomo,
the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT), and local
Buffalo stakeholders.
In 2005, the City of Buffalo and NYSDOT conducted a study known as
the Expanded Project Proposal (EPP) to explore ways to redesign the
Scajaquada and alleviate negative impacts on the community. With
significant public input, the EPP established a preferred design that
reduced vehicular speed to 30 miles per hour, improved the aesthetic of
the thoroughfare, and incorporated pedestrian crossings and bicycle
lanes. Photo
/ NYSDOT rendering of intersection at Parkside Avenue, criticized
locally for being a danger to pedestrians. Credit / NYSDOT
Photo, top / The Scajaquada Expressway, 2013. Credit / Mike Puma, Buffalo Rising
In the summer of 2015, following the tragic crash, NYSDOT made swift
short-term improvements, decreasing posted speeds from 50 to 30 mph, and
reducing all 12-foot lanes to 11 feet. Later, the DOT installed
raised-table pedestrian crosswalks, new, sturdier guard railings, and
additional safety improvements.
In April of 2016, Cuomo dedicated $30 million in state funding for
the conversion of Scajaquada Expressway into a low-speed urban
boulevard. At the time, Cuomo told the Buffalo News: “In the mid-’50s,
we had a better idea and it turned out not to be a better idea, which
was to move vehicles in and out of Buffalo faster by building a highway.
This was not just in Buffalo; this was all over the United States. Most
places have reversed their mistakes, and that’s what we are going to be
doing here.”
For the project, NYSDOT estimated a total construction cost of $115
million. Alternatives are being evaluated, and the Scajaquada Corridor
Coalition, a group of local stakeholders, continues to push for more
people-oriented design. “At no additional cost, the community’s
Scajaquada Boulevard vision could cement our city’s renaissance if
vehicle traffic is not the sole consideration of its design; instead,
people are,” says the coalition. Construction is expected to begin
Winter of 2017/2018 and completed Fall 2018.
Interstate 345
Dallas, Texas
For two generations, I-345 has been a fact of life in
Dallas, Texas. Running almost two miles along its elevated course, the
freeway cuts off downtown from the adjacent historic Deep Ellum
neighborhood, a major 20th-century jazz and blues hotspot. Now,
surrounded by vacant lots, empty streets, and disinvestment, the highway
is nearing the end of its original design life.
In Dallas, a firmly auto-oriented Sunbelt city, few dared to imagine
downtown without this concrete behemoth carrying roaring motor vehicles
above—until an audacious group of local activists began to run the
numbers. Calling themselves A New Dallas, and led by locals Patrick
Kennedy and Brandon Hancock, they made a compelling case for demolishing
I-345 and reuniting downtown Dallas with Deep Ellum. Here is what they
found, according to D Magazine:
“Blowing up I-345 would free up 245 acres for development that could
bring in another 27,540 downtown residents and, based on
developable-square-footage estimates, more than 22,550 jobs. … And those
estimates are conservative. It would restitch the grid, reconnect Deep
Ellum and East Dallas to downtown, and allow the active development
happening farther up Central Expressway to move south. … What happens
then? Within 15 years, as much as $4 billion in new investment and more
than $100 million in yearly property tax revenue.”
In Dallas, a pro-growth city, those numbers attracted significant
attention. But, critics asked, what would happen to the cars and trucks?
Luckily, a significant portion of I-345 includes regional traffic,
which could shift to other options like Loop 12, Interstate 635, and
Highway 190. Meanwhile, some local traffic might shift to walking or
other modes—and the rest could be handled by the city’s grid, which has
excess capacity. Photo / Removed elevated highway and opened-up land between downtown and Deep Ellum Credit / CityMAP Dallas, TxDOT
Photo, top / I-345 today. Credit / Scott Womack
In the time since I-345 was built, the city has changed profoundly.
Downtown Dallas has roared back to life since 2000, adding over 8,000
residents. Deep Ellum and nearby neighborhoods like it are also gaining
residents—especially in the newly transit-connected Uptown and Oak Cliff
areas. In this new urban environment, A New Dallas’s ideas garnered
media attention, causing the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
to abandon the nine options to rebuild the highway that they had
originally presented.
Most recently, the nonprofit A New Dallas has spawned the political
action committee Coalition for A New Dallas, dedicated to revitalizing
Dallas and electing, educating, and empowering elected officials. This
extraordinarily diverse group, which unites grassroots activists with
the local business community, has successfully persuaded TxDOT to launch
CityMAP, a feasibility study of three options for I-345—including
removal, a below-grade option, and a modified version that simply
removes exit ramps.
This document is the first of its kind to study the economic and
quality-of-life impacts outside of the corridor boundaries. The report
indicates that, thanks to the tireless effort of local activists and
stakeholders, TxDOT is seriously considering a highway teardown for
I-345 to make way for walkable development—a hugely forward-thinking
step toward a high-performing urban transportation system.
Interstate 70
Denver, Colorado
For over half a century, urban highways in North
America have disproportionately impacted minority communities. Running
through historic neighborhoods, they have severed connectivity,
demolished homes and businesses, and left blight in their wake. In
Denver, the construction of Interstate 70 inflicted its ill effects on
three urban neighborhoods: Elyria, Swansea, and Globeville.
In those historic minority communities, residents were cut off from
opportunity, access, and needed services. Now, like many mid-20th
Century highways, I-70 in Denver is reaching the end of its life
cycle—and one viaduct along its route needs major repairs.
Instead, however, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
has announced a $1.2 billion plan to tear down the viaduct, bury part of
the highway, add four more lanes, and expand toll lanes, shoulders, and
service roads. Along the way, the plan would require the state to
acquire and demolish 80 residences and 17 businesses—including the
neighborhood’s only source to purchase food.
Now, a group called Unite North Metro Denver has a better proposal:
Reroute interstate traffic to the north, and redesign I-70 as a bike-
and pedestrian-friendly boulevard. Such a plan would cut noise and air
pollution while bringing new investment opportunity to neglected
neighborhoods.
Furthermore, the boulevard would cost less, open up
developable land, and reunite areas that have been blighted by the
highway.
As the debate over I-70 has grown, national and state groups have
taken notice. Environmentalist leader the Sierra Club has filed a
lawsuit against EPA over the proposed widening. Meanwhile, a recent
report by Colorado Public Interest Research Group advises against the
expansion. The report estimates $58 million in taxpayer dollars will be
wasted on a project that encourages more driving and doesn’t include
expansion of mass transit. Photo,
above / Cut and cap plan, latest rendering. Credit / CDOT / Photo,
bottom / Tree-lined boulevard concept. Credit / Unite North Metro Denver
Photo, top / I-70 today. Credit / CDOT
Under CDOT’s proposal, burying part of the expanded I-70 would
involve digging below the water table and into polluted soils. A partial
800-foot grass cover is proposed, which will be isolated between two
large frontage roads, creating an isolated “recreation island”
inaccessible by pedestrians or bicycle. Moreover, the data used to
justify the project is more than a decade old and ignores trends of
lower-than-expected motor vehicle use.
“Instead of a grade-separated, widened superhighway, dedicated to
cars and trucks,” the United North Metro Denver imagines, “a tree-lined,
pedestrian-friendly boulevard emerges. Long-broken bicycle pathways are
re-established.” Roundabouts could replace interchanges, freeing up
land for development, tax revenue, and potential affordable housing. The
traditional grid is reestablished, healing the long-separated
neighborhoods.
Designed through a contextual and community-driven process, the new
boulevard would open up and connect several neighborhoods and
districts—including the National Western Complex, a set of historic
venues associated with the National Western Stock Show and other events.
Denver citizens recently voted to fund a restoration of the complex.
One city Councilman, Rafael Espinoza, has publicly embraced this
planning approach. “For me, it’s not a matter of opinion — there’s hard
science behind this,” he told The Colorado Independent. “Other
communities have gotten wise to the fact that you get overall better
communities by removing [large central highways], not expanding them.
Rather than improving the quality of life in the core, we go to the
status quo of displacing people and expanding urban sprawl.”
Interstate 375
Detroit, Michigan
In Detroit, Michigan, a city built largely by and for
the automobile industry, demolishing a highway seems as far from likely
as anywhere. Now, however, the removal of the mile-long downtown
freeway spur called Interstate 375 has emerged as a possible project—and
a potential major breakthrough for the city’s urban renaissance.
Constructed in 1959, the four-lane below-ground spur that makes up
Interstate 375 is a concrete barrier between Detroit’s Riverfront,
Greektown, Eastern Market, and Stadium districts. To local residents,
its legacy is tied to the failed urban renewal efforts that destroyed
many of Detroit’s African-American neighborhoods—including several, like
Black Bottom, legendary for their culture and nightlife.
In the 1940s and 50s, notes the Detroit Free Press, “The Black Bottom
district…housed the city’s African-American entrepreneurial class, with
dozens of thriving Black-owned businesses and the Paradise Valley
entertainment zone, where Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald and Count
Basie performed.” When I-375 was constructed, its designers plowed
through the commercial heart of communities like Black Bottom and
Lafayette Park—and the creation of public housing projects to the north
leveled the rest.
Today, Detroit faces many challenges, including maintaining its
outsize infrastructure burden despite a shrinking population. Annual
daily trips on I-375 have decreased to approximately 80,000 vehicles at
its north end and only 15,000 vehicles at the south, according to
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT). Photo,
above / East Edge Boulevard alternative. Credit / Future 375 Photo,
bottom / East Edge Boulevard alternative cross-section. Credit / Future
375
Photo, top / I-375 today. Credit / Detroit Free Press
An Environmental Impact Statement was written to expand the highway
in the early 2000s, but a lack of funding and changing conditions in the
city delayed the project. When downtown strongly recovered this decade,
advocates pointed to the removal of I-375 as a potential catalyst for
revitalization. Replacing I-375 with a boulevard could open up about 12
acres for redevelopment, said MDOT director Kirk Steudle. “This is a
significant piece of downtown Detroit,” he said.
In 2014, a coalition including MDOT, Detroit Riverfront Conservancy,
and the Detroit Downtown Development Authority began studying options
for the I-375 corridor. A report with six alternatives was released in
2016—including an option for rebuilding the highway ($60-70 million),
replacing the highway with a multimodal boulevard ($40-50 million), and
replacing it with a sunken greenway ($40-50 million).
“Scenarios retaining the freeway would operate below capacity, but
existing operational issues would persist,” the study concluded, and
“Freeway removal scenarios increase travel time, but acceptable
operations could be achieved.”
The report left the door open to a secondary study of Jefferson
Street, an equally important thoroughfare that is impacted by I-375. A
careful analysis of Jefferson Street is needed if freeway demolition is
to succeed. At 7-9 lanes across and carrying 29,000 cars per day,
crossing Jefferson is jarring. It used to be one of Detroit’s great
urban streets.
Though the lack of consensus and funding questions have put a final
I-375 recommendation on hold, the City of Detroit remains open to the
idea of removing the highway. All six alternatives are on the
table—including a boulevard that would better connect the rapidly
redeveloping east riverfront district—and as the reemergence of downtown
Detroit continues, the fate of Interstate 375 will only become more and
more crucial.
Interstate 980
Oakland, California
In the city of San Francisco, two of North America’s
most successful freeway removals have yielded celebrated results: the
Embarcadero and Octavia Boulevards. Now, just across the bay, the City
of Oakland is considering replacing an underutilized below-grade section
of Interstate 980 with a surface boulevard that would reconnect West
Oakland to Downtown.
The project, which has gained widespread support in recent months,
would reuse the freeway space for major regional rail service running
under a surface boulevard.
While the idea of removing I-980 has been discussed since its
completion in the mid-80s, the current leading design concept came from a
citizen-led campaign called ConnectOAKLAND, started in 2014 to advocate
for the removal of the freeway and the reconnection of the street grid.
ConnectOAKLAND’s vision would create or re-open 21 new city
blocks—totaling approximately 17 new acres of high-value, publicly
controlled land.
“With imaginative engineering and design, [I-980] could be replaced
by a boulevard lined with housing at all price levels, reknitting the
urban landscape,” wrote John King of the San Francisco Chronicle, in a
major review of the concept last year. Photo / Rendering of I-980 as a multi-way boulevard. Credit / Dover, Kohl & Partners
Photo, top / I-980 today. Credit / ConnectOAKLAND
ConnectOAKLAND’s vision has gained support with community leaders and
in City Hall, including from Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf. “Our I-980 is a
cautionary tale,” says Schaaf. “It was proposed as a part of a plan to
build another Bay Bridge and a shopping mall—but this broken promise
leaves us with a scar across our city that separates our residents from
opportunity. In its place, we want to reknit our community, building
infrastructure that creates local economic opportunity, reconnects
neighborhoods, and helps connect the region.”
The freeway is now an underused remnant connecting CA-24 and I-580 to
I-880. While it carries only 73,000 cars a day and no freight traffic,
it cuts an enormous 18-lane swath through the center of Oakland and
isolates the West Oakland neighborhood. The design of the freeway was
typical of large scale 20th century infrastructure projects, which
disproportionately affected low-income communities of color in a quest
to improve commutes for affluent white suburbs.
A new design for this corridor could help repair the wounds of past
decisions. “We believe the I-980 project must focus on equity,
integration and investment in the community,” says campaign founder
Chris Sensenig. “ConnectOAKLAND will continue to work with the City of
Oakland to make sure the proper mechanisms are in place to improve the
quality of life in the neighboring communities and limit displacement.”
The City of Oakland included the I-980 corridor multi-way boulevard
into the Draft Downtown Specific Plan, and is now seeking funding for
community outreach, project planning, and engineering studies. The
Mayor’s Policy Director for Transportation and Infrastructure, Matt
Nichols, has been actively engaging key agencies, including Caltrans,
the state’s DOT, as well as HUD and FHWA, affordable housing lenders,
and social equity institutions such as PolicyLink.
“While still in the early stages,” says Nichols, “the I-980
transformation could provide not only a ‘highway-to-boulevard’ repair of
our urban fabric, but also a showcase for how social equity-led design
could be profoundly transformative for Oakland and the region.”
Route 710
Pasadena, California
Five mayors in the region have common sense: Why
spend $6 billion for a tunnel and freeway across Pasadena, South
Pasadena, Alhambra, and Los Angeles that citizens have been fighting for
more than a half century? Why not use a grid of streets—the tool of a
traditional city—to distribute the traffic, contributing to quality of
life and land values?
The north State Route 710 tunnel, one of three alternatives proposed
by California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and LA County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and supported by
lobbyists, would likely induce more traffic—yet it seems to have grown a
life of its own.
In 1964 the State of California seized a half-mile swath of
Pasadena’s most valuable land, demolishing hundreds of houses to extend
the 710 Freeway to the 110 and the 134 and 210 freeways. The stub now
interrupts the street grid of neighborhoods to the east and west and
separates desirable Old Pasadena from key schools, civic assets, and
businesses. A similar stub was built in Alhambra and Los Angeles at the
southern end. Photo / Rendering of 710 stub removal with new development. Credit / Moule & Polyzoides
Photo, top / Route 710 stub today.
The Connecting Pasadena Project (CPP) is a community-based initiative
that aims to reclaim this land for mixed-use and diverse housing. Two
public workshops have generated a detailed vision based on five
principal ideas: “1) Fill the freeway stub with parking and other
service uses; 2) Convert the freeway into a multi-way boulevard as it
enters the city; 3) Create a new network of blocks, streets and open
spaces to stitch together the disconnected sides of the city; 4) Use the
reclaimed land for new infill development; and 5) Regulate development
in a form that is sensitive to the surrounding context.”
A five-city coalition—Glendale, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, South
Pasadena, and La Cañada Flintridge—has been fighting a variety of
completion schemes for decades. CPP’s proactive 710 Reclaim plan
illustrates the manifold benefits of abandoning the Caltrans/Metro
completion plan. The state-owned land between California Boulevard and
the 210 Freeway represents nearly 2.5 million square feet of potential
development, according to the Pasadena Star-News. A property with 50
developable acres does not exist anywhere else in Pasadena and would be
hard to find in Los Angeles County, the paper reports.
Caltrans/Metro is currently completing their Environmental Impact
Report, including proposals for both regional surface transportation
alternatives such as Bus Rapid Transit and light rail as well as an
abandonment/development option. Three years ago, Governor Jerry Brown
signed a bill effectively killing the surface option for north 710. This
left the tunnel on the table as the only freeway alternative. “Except
for profiting large engineering firms, the freeway provides no benefit,”
says Ian Lockwood, an engineer who helped design the CPP alternative.
“Even Caltrans’ traffic models show that the proposed freeway just
rearranges the congestion while solving nothing.”
“It’s time for this governor, a distinguished environmentalist and
urbanist, to put a final end to this disastrous boondoggle and heal the
wounds inflicted by an unnecessary urban freeway,” says Stefanos
Polyzoides, an architect and urbanist who led Pasadena meetings and
developed the alternative land-use proposal.
Inner Loop
Rochester, New York
First completed in 1965, the Inner Loop of Rochester,
New York was designed to wrap like a noose around downtown. Combined
with the rolling demolition of urban renewal, the Inner Loop served to
lure and siphon residents out of the city center—and Rochester’s
downtown population plummeted. “We built an evacuation route,” jokes
Rochester City Engineer James McIntosh. “It worked. Everybody
evacuated.”
In the past decade, however, downtown Rochester has staged a dramatic
comeback. Business and retail activity has returned to the city, and
its downtown population is expected to rise more than 400% by 2020. The
partial removal of the Inner Loop, a groundbreaking project currently in
its finishing stages, has helped drive that renaissance.
With community support and funding assistance via a USDOT TIGER
grant, a one-mile segment of the Inner Loop is being filled in and
restored as a walkable, multimodal at-grade boulevard surrounded by
mixed-use development. While the original highway boasted twelve travel
lanes despite only carrying 6,000 vehicles per day, the replacement
boulevard design will require only three lanes of space—plus on-street
parking, sidewalks, and green space. Photo / Inner Loop during consturuction, circa 2015. Credit / Stantec
Photo, top / Inner Loop, prior to being filled-in. Credit / Stratus Imaging
While other cities have removed elevated and surface highways,
Rochester may be the first to fill in a below-grade highway, according
to The New York Times. As part of the Inner Loop conversion project,
north-south streets are being reconnected for two-way traffic for the
first time in more than 50 years. In effect, the project has reopened
downtown for residents of Rochester’s neighborhoods.
Thanks to the project, six acres of government-owned land, and more
private land, is available for redevelopment. Every parcel has a
developer on board, with a mix of residential, retail, commercial, and
civic uses planned. One large residential project has already completed
its first phase, featuring 70 new market-rate apartments, and additional
for-sale townhouses and affordable apartments are planned.
“We had a moat that separated the East Side neighborhood from
downtown,” Rochester Mayor Lovely Warren told The New York Times.
“Filling in the Inner Loop gives people the ability to more easily get
around. It gives us more space to develop. Before this, businesses had
to stop development. They had nowhere to go because of that highway.”
Now, the City of Rochester wants to fill in the northern section of
the Inner Loop, which carries just 20,000-25,000 vehicles a day, and
replacing it with a surface street—reconnecting the entire east and
north side of downtown to nearby neighborhoods. Studies have shown that
the majority of the traffic can absorb into the downtown street grid,
which is well-equipped to handle the load.
Beyond even that section, the remaining Inner Loop continues to pose
physical barriers between the downtown and adjacent neighborhoods, and
much of the land on the corridor is vacant with an opportunity for
development. The Inner Loop transformation may continue to drive
Rochester’s growth in the future—revitalizing neighborhoods, bringing
businesses, and adding jobs.
Interstate 280
San Francisco, California
When the City of San Francisco chose to demolish
rather than rebuild two earthquake-damaged freeways in 1989, it began a
historic natural experiment in urban planning. Ultimately, that example
would prove to the world that removing in-city highways could boost
quality of life, economic development, and housing affordability.
Now, the City is looking toward its first fully voluntary freeway
removal: 1.2-mile spur of I-280, north of 16th Street, which currently
links US 101 to Mission Bay.
Just as the property tax base rose and thousands of units of
affordable housing were added after the Embarcadero and Central Freeway
came down, removing the I-280 Spur would open new opportunities for
market-rate and affordable development in the city’s urban core.
The removal of the I-280 Spur and its replacement with a surface
boulevard has been endorsed by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and studied by
Bay Area nonprofit SPUR. In December 2012, a report by the City of San
Francisco Planning Department compared the direct costs and benefits of
replacing the 280 with a modern highway versus converting it to an urban
boulevard alongside the redevelopment of the 4th/King Railyards.
Crucially for San Francisco, this project could reconnect severed
neighborhoods like Mission Bay, Potero Hill, and SoMa. Once-undesirable
land would be opened up to new housing and commercial development. In
the face of the Bay Area’s housing crisis, this development could copy
the highly successful Market & Octavia Area Plan—using diverse
housing types and mixed-use buildings to fit into the established
character of the neighborhood. Photo / Drawing showing I-280 converted to an urban boulevard. Credit / SPUR
Photo, top / I-280 Spur today. Credit / Jessica Christian, SF Examiner
Moreover, the removal of the spur could serve as a catalyst for
transformative projects such as the forthcoming Transbay Transit
Center—scheduled to be completed late 2017—and a possible high-speed
rail station where I-280 currently terminates. The freeway removal
project, with its considerable political will and likely high return on
investment, is a critical first step. The Railyard Alternatives and
I-280 Boulevard Feasibility Study is currently underway to examine this
removal.
A new neighborhood at the 4th and King Street railyards is one of
many opportunities offered by the removal of the I-280 spur. “Together,
these facilities consume more than 30 acres (about 1.3 million square
feet) and represent antiquated uses in high value area,” wrote Gillian
Gillett, the city’s transportation director, in a memo to Caltrain,
which runs a commuter rail line on the San Francisco peninsula. “These
sites also become the catalyst for the next round of center city job
creation.”
She adds: “The region is in a position to undertake a series of major
transportation moves to unify the high speed rail project, through the
early investment in Caltrain electrification. It would be a mistake to
move forward with electrification without also planning for transit
oriented land use changes, such as an entire new neighborhood at 4th and
King, that could produce significant ridership, create hundreds of
millions of dollars of joint land use development opportunities and even
more dynamic neighborhoods centered around the Caltrain stations.”
Interstate 81
Syracuse, New York
For over 50 years, the elevated 1.4-mile stretch of
Interstate 81 known as The Viaduct has cut like a knife through the
heart of Syracuse, New York. For the urban neighborhoods in its path,
I-81 has had the same effect as most urban interstates: it destroyed a
historic African-American community, disrupted the flow of city streets,
and paved over countless historic homes and sites.
Historically, The Viaduct’s construction forced the displacement of
nearly 1,300 residents from the 15th Ward as it severed downtown
Syracuse from University Hill and the Near Eastside. It created acres of
abandoned property and vacant lots in what had been some of the densest
parts of the city. As the path of displaced residents sparked white
flight in other neighborhoods, the interstate’s effects rippled out
across the city.
Now, Syracuse faces a unique opportunity to replace the elevated
viaduct with a boulevard designed to reconnect the city and reverse its
urban decline. Recent studies have shown that current thru-traffic could
be rerouted to I-481, avoiding a crush of congestion while reopening
the city grid to local residents. Today, that common-sense proposal has
the support of the mayor, governor, and city council.
With The Viaduct nearing the end of its design life, two options
remain for the New York State Department of Transportation: Rebuild the
elevated freeway, or replace it with a surface boulevard. Compared to
rebuilding, teardown would save $400 million, preserve 24 buildings, and
open up the downtown to more economic development. Photo / Rendering showing the development possbibilities of a removed I-81. Credit / ReThink81
Photo, top / I-81 today. Credit / Ryan Delaney, WRVO News
A proposed third option, involving a $2 billion highway tunnel across
the city, has failed repeated technical evaluations and enjoys little
support among the public. Despite this, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo
recently directed the state DOT to revisit this and other alternatives
for I-81, which could spell disaster for Syracuse.
“ReThink81, a coalition of planners, residents and other local
stakeholders based in Syracuse, found that replacing I-81 with a
boulevard would open up at least seven acres of land for potential
development with almost $140 million in market value and $5.3 million in
annual taxes,” according to the Tri-State Transportation Campaign. “In
contrast, rebuilding The Viaduct ultimately could cause Syracuse to lose
$85 million between increased taxes, significant takings of private
land and buildings and depressed property values—as well as a reduction
of more than $3.2 million in yearly tax receipts.”
Currently, NYSDOT is drafting an environmental impact statement
identifying the preferred alternative, which is expected to be made
public in early 2017.
Taking down The Viaduct “could be a transformative project that
really jump-starts the entire region,” said New York Governor Andrew
Cuomo in an August 2016 speech. “I-81 did a lot of damage — a classic
planning blunder. ‘Let’s build a road and bisect an entire community.
That’s an idea, yeah, let me write it down.’”
Route 29
Trenton, New Jersey
For Trenton, New Jersey, only one thing stands in the
way of connecting the downtown core to the scenic Delaware River
waterfront: Route 29, an underutilized four-lane highway carrying
through-traffic at high speeds. Calls for the removal of Route 29, which
has severed connectivity and destroyed residential communities, date
back to the 1988 Capitol City Renaissance plan.
By the mid-2000s, the City and the New Jersey Department of
Transportation had studied a boulevard replacement idea extensively, and
momentum was growing.
That period was key to creating a workable plan, says Ian Lockwood,
an engineer with Toole Design Group who consulted on the project.
“Working with Gary Toth and the NJDOT was a joy. They funded the
development of an updated plan and saw the benefits of replacing the
highway with a boulevard, connected network of streets, and a parkway.”
Then the 2008 recession hit, developer interest dried up, and the
campaign languished. Now, the concept is taking hold again—and it
deserves implementation. A surface boulevard replacement for Route 29
could lay the groundwork for a vibrant, connected new waterfront
neighborhood, all while allowing for environmental restoration and
innovative stormwater management.
In the 1950s, the northern section of Route 29 was converted to a
limited-access, four-lane highway along the Delaware River, speeding
traffic from the expanding suburban fringe through downtown Trenton
directly to state facilities near the waterfront. The highway’s
construction eclipsed a small riverfront street in the downtown,
replaced a working canal adjacent to downtown, and destroyed the
city-owned Stacy Park. The roadway sits almost exclusively on a 100-year
flood plain. Photo / Illustration depicting Route 29 replaced with an urban boulevard and new mixed-use district. Credit / City of Trenton
Photo, top / Route 29 today. Credit / Famartin
In 2005, the “Boulevard Study” showed that a surface street,
intersected with the city grid, would improve access to the river and
reclaim 18 acres of prime developable real estate. Pulling the boulevard
alignment away from the river’s edge and partially rerouting it through
adjacent surface parking lots was explored, and this eventually became
the preferred alternative due to ease and lower costs of construction,
better views of the capital buildings, and more developable land closer
to the river. That plan includes a connected park system, a route to
extend the River Line Light Rail, and a trail network.
In July 2016, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission
(DVRPC) issued a $100,000 grant to Trenton’s Downtown Trenton Waterfront
Reclamation Redevelopment Project. According to NJ.com, “Route 29 could
be rebuilt as an urban boulevard and surface parking lots will be
replaced by pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development. Funding will be
used to identify studies, review FEMA regulations, and develop a market
analysis and promotional materials for the project.”
The Waterfront Reclamation project is the cornerstone of a
revitalization effort that, according to one estimate, could contribute
$2.25 billion to the city’s economy while improving access to the river,
bicycle and pedestrian connections, vehicular circulation, and traffic
safety. Environmental benefits include the daylighting and restoration
of the Assunpink Creek and better stormwater management to reduce the
serious flooding problems in the area.
Graduated Campaigns
These campaigns represent the second generation of
urban highway removal: projects where authorities have committed to
removal. For some, funding sources and start dates may be
still-undetermined.
Sheridan Expressway
Bronx, New York
In March of 2016, the Sheridan Expressway Removal project was granted
a $97 million boost in New York State’s budget, a major win for the
more than two decades of advocacy led by the Southern Bronx River
Watershed Alliance. For the first time, the state has agreed to fund the
project, with plans to convert the expressway to a surface boulevard.
The actual plan for the project remains in production by NYSDOT, and the
timeline for the implementation of that plan is still unclear.
Route 59 / Innerbelt
Akron, Ohio
The City of Akron, OH is in the middle of a multi-year process to
decommission the Innerbelt highway that looms over the city’s downtown.
The traffic counts are severely low. Under the decommissioning plan, the
side roads that line the highway will become neighborhood connectors.
Over 30 acres will open up for possible redevelopment uses like new
housing, business districts, green space, trails, and civic buildings.
However, the City of Akron in uncertain of what comes next with the
decommissioned road.
Bonaventure Expressway
Montreal, Quebec
Montreal began ripping down the Bonaventure Expressway in July 2016,
50 years after the 11 lane roadway was built. The promise to replace the
highway received wide support, including the blessing of Montreal Mayor
Denis Coderre. The highway will be replaced with two urban boulevards,
at an expected cost of $142 million. The project is expected to be
finished September 2017.
Robert Moses Parkway
Niagara Falls, New York
For decades, the Robert Moses Parkway has cut off Niagara Falls from
its scenic gorge. Thankfully, the State of New York has promised $42
million to remove two miles of the highway, opening up 140 feet of park
space. This is “the largest expansion of green space since the Niagara
Reservation was designed in 1885,” The Buffalo News reports. The removal
plan will re-establish waterfront access for the city and increase
parks, trails, and ecotourism. The project will result in the removal of
the elevated embankment to at-grade, opening views and access to the
Upper Niagara River.
McGrath Highway
Somerville, Massachusettes
The City of Somerville has asserted itself as a desirable destination
for tech companies, green businesses, and maker spaces. LivableStreets
Alliance, a local advocacy group, has worked with a coalition of
neighborhood groups, advocacy organizations, and elected officials to
reknit East and West Somerville back together by “grounding” the McGrath
Highway that cuts through town. After years of public engagement and
study, MassDOT agreed. The DOT has committed to replacing the highway
with a surface boulevard, slated for construction in 2026-2029.
