The City of South Pasadena has issued a press release regarding the FHWA
decision, which can be read at http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/departments/transportation/Trans_FHA-710Fwy.htm.
The statement emphasises a fact that traditional news agencies have overlooked:
that the city will continue to work with Caltrans, local agencies and nearby
cities in building transportation improvements "supported by all".
The Los Angeles Times has an article about the FHWA decision at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-freeway31dec31,1,4198936.story,
which confirms that Caltrans plans on going ahead with the multi-million dollar
environmental impact study, citing regional transportation needs. The study is
expected to take from three to five years. Despite Caltrans' assurances, South
Pasadena officials are confident that the cash-strapped agency will ultimately
drop the project. An FHWA official stated that the agency's decision should not
be taken as sign that the agency wants the project killed, but rather that the
agency will take a neutral stance until a new environmental impact study is
completed.
The Pasadena Star-News has an article about the FHWA decision at
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~22097~1862096,00.html,
but its tone is decidedly darker yet more comprehensive than previous articles by
the AP and SFGate. It emphasizes the fact that the decision is merely a
suspension of support and funding pending a further environmental impact study,
in light of recent developments since the last EIR, such as the Gold Line,
increased air quality standards, etc. It also reports that though South Pasadena
officials and spokespeople are "elated", others in nearby Pasadena are
cautious, saying that the project is not dead and has "many lives". An Alhambra
spokesman further spun the story by stating that this decision would actually
"break the logjam" of current litigation that has held the project in limbo for
years, and make it easier for Caltrans to secure federal funding for
the project. Caltrans has already requested $44 million for a new environmental
impact study, but acknowledged that a tight budget makes getting funding an
extremely difficult, if not unlikely, proposition.
The MTA has refused to join a coalition of 10 east San Gabriel Valley cities to extend the
Gold Line from its current terminus at Madre Street in east Pasadena out to Montclair.
Those who want the line to continue eastward are not blaming the MTA, but are rather blaming
Pasadena City Councilman Paul Little, calling him the major roadblock to completing the
project. Little is the swing vote on the powerful five-member Blue Line Construction Authority,
which controls the second phase of the Gold Line, and has thus far not been helpful, say
his opponents, but has rather wielded his considerable power to block further Gold Line construction.
Preliminary studies are underway to examine the feasibility of constructing a 1/4-mile connector
road between the 710 Freeway stub at Valley Blvd. and Mission Road in Alhambra, just over the railroad
tracks, which would take northbound traffic off of Valley and relieve the persistent jam at its
intersection with Fremont. The estimated $9 million cost of the project would come from federal funds
specifically set aside for 710 corridor traffic mitigation. If approved, construction would begin in
2005. The only opponents to the project appear to be pro-710 extension forces, who say that the perceived
need for the longer 710 extension would possibly be negated by the short bypass.
Caltrans has agreed to cap rent increases to five percent on 40 percent of its properties
along the route of the proposed 710 extension project. The state agency had made noises about
vast increases in rent prior to this decision, which prompted action by its angry tenants, who
exposed many of Caltrans' slumlord-like tactics in failing to properly maintain its properties.
Caltrans sought the increase to make up for its own misspending of prior improvement funding
project funds, which saw the agency through less than half of its planned maintenance projects
on all affected properties along the route.
Some South Pasadena residents who live close to the Gold Line's rails are up in arms over the
noise produced by the trains, which blow their horns as they pass through at-grade intersections,
as well as crossing gates which "ding" loudly as they are activated by oncoming trains. The City
of South Pasadena has passed a "no noise/no speed" ordinance which states that train operators
may not blow their horns as they pass through at-grade crossings, and they must slow to 20 mph or
less as they do so as well. Signs have been posted stating so along the route as it winds through
South Pasadena. However, the rail authority is not bound by local laws, and may well disregard the
South Pasadena ordinance without fear of reprisal. City officials are seeking voluntary cooperation
with the metro authority to allow nearby residents to sleep in peace.
The City of South Pasadena will issue free special parking permits to residents in the metro "zone",
as long as said residents come down to the police department headquarters and show proof of residence
and apply for a special permit. Parking in the "zone" is restricted to three hours, and it will be
strictly enforced. Without a permit, residents who park on the street in front of or near their home
will be ticketed. Residents may apply for and receive up to three passes for vehicles registered to
their address, as well as three guest passes. So residents, please be sure to apply for your special permit
today.
Saturday, July 26 is the date of the opening of the Pasadena Gold Line metro rail project.
Metro officials said that passengers may ride free of charge for the two opening days, Saturday
and Sunday. On Monday, July 28, it will cost $1.35 to ride the rail. There are 196 daily runs
slated, from 4 a.m. to 2 a.m. between Pasadena's Sierra Madre Villa station to the Los Angeles terminus at
Union Station, with trains running every 10 minutes during morning and evening rush hours.
2nd Quarter, 2003:
Residents who live near the lower portion of the 710 freeway, running from the intersection
with the Golden State (5) freeway down into Long Beach, are awaiting news about a freeway
widening project planned by Caltrans. If the project receives its asked-for $400 million in
federal funding this fall, it is likely that many homes along the route will be lost as
Caltrans razes them to make way for the widening project.
1st Quarter, 2003:
The 710 Freeway Fighters welcomes Caltrans Tenants Association
as yet another organization dedicated to seeing that the unwanted 710 Freeway extension is never built. The
group is also trying to gain fair and ethical treatment from their state landlords, who are on record as
having long neglected their properties, to the detriment of the tenants themselves and to their
neighborhoods.
Pasadena Assemblywoman Carol Liu, Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) CEO Roger Snoble, and Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) Executive Director Mark Pisano pitched their controversial
tunneling plan for building the 710 Freeway extension through South Pasadena, to a decidedly cool reception
at South Pasadena's transportation commission meeting on Jan. 15, 2003. Their plan, which has been presented by
others in the past but was nixed for the cost and technological constraints, calls for an underground
tunnel to be built from the Alhambra/South Pasadena border near Huntington Drive, to the current northern
terminus of the 210 Freeway at California Blvd. in Pasadena. According to the trio, the tunnels (one for each
direction) would be six lanes wide and about 150 feet below ground. They cited experts who suggested that the
cost would be $1.1 billion, the same as for the "cut-n-cover" plan recently adopted by Caltrans. However, other
studies have shown that the true costs could be up to three times that figure. They also said that advanced
technology would allow builders to create the tunnel with little surface disruption. The City of South Pasadena
agreed "not to oppose" a feasibility study, while the audience voiced many valid concerns about the plan. There
were some questions as well, concerning off-ramps, the true cost, and the possibility of disturbing unknown
earthquake faults. Some residents of El Sereno showed up too, asking why they were not officially invited to
the meeting even though construction of the tunnel would affect them as well.
