Friday, January 4, 2013

Metro's 710 Tunnel Disinformation "Process"

Mayor Messina?
(Mod: Recently I received a rather revealing packet of information from the No on 710 folks - click here - detailing how key spokespersons for Metro have been deliberately deceiving the public on one of the biggest concerns involved in the 710 Tunnel debate, that being the truck traffic issue. Anyone with any critical abilities whatsoever knows that this tunnel is being built to accommodate high volume of truck traffic heading inland from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. And Metro has acknowledged this to be true, as you will see below. And yet, and at pretty much the same time, when speaking with the public, Metro often says exactly the opposite, that the 710 Tunnel has little to do with diesel truck traffic. As is widely understood, the effect of so much diesel truck movement through the 210 corridor would be ecologically devastating to our region. The health issues alone would seem to rule out any serious consideration of this destructive project. That Metro and its chattering mouthpieces are deliberately lying about this issue, even after having said quite the opposite elsewhere, clearly shows the reckless contempt they have for the people of the San Gabriel Valley area. Today's post has been broken into 2 parts. First where Metro says the 710 Tunnel is being built for port truck traffic, and then where they deny it.)

Statements where Metro and it's allies admit the 710 Tunnel is to accommodate truck traffic:

1) Metro News Release, March 21, 2011, "Metro's Highway Program Shifts into High Gear with 18 New Projects Worth Nearly $1.4 billion Set to Break Ground in 2011"

While this year's 18 projects and the I-405 are designed primarily to give people a better commute, three other high-profile projects in various planning stages but not yet scheduled, address the demands of commerce -- specifically goods movement from the twin ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the two busiest ports in the country, and goods movement from California's Central Valley, America's bread basket.

The I-710 south from the Pomona Freeway (SR-60) to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will involve a freeway widening and possibly a separate freight corridor that could be tolled.

The 710 north gap closure between the I-10 and the I-210 would complete the natural goods corridor that was begun several decades ago. Metro has been holding a series of conversations and outreach with the community, in an effort to collect ideas on best options.

A third, the High Desert Corridor, will be a brand new 63-mile east-west freeway between SR-14 in Los Angeles County and SR-18 in San Bernardino County. It would create a shortcut for goods movement from the Central Valley to the rest of the United States and trim back goods congestion through the L.A. basin.

Like infrastructure investment, goods movement investment is an investment in our future, Failing said.

2) Everything Long Beach, March 24 2011, “Metro’s Freeway Projects Mean Better Transportation For Everyone” by Editor (click here):

The I-710 south from the Pomona Freeway (SR-60) to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will involve a freeway widening and possibly a separate freight corridor that could be tolled.

The 710 north gap closure between the I-10 and the I-210 would complete the natural goods corridor that was begun several decades ago. Metro has been holding a series of conversations and outreach with the community, in an effort to collect ideas on best options.

Like infrastructure investment, goods movement investment is an investment in our future, Failing said.
“What made America great was the building of the system that allowed us to take products to market. America has lost jobs overseas. Even though American workers are still the most productive on the planet, we are not as competitive because we can’t move  goods within our own country. We need to continue to make these investments so that we can have a healthy economy and we can continue to attract the kinds of jobs that are going to be necessary for us to maintain the standard of living we have.”

3) Mobility 21, September 6, 2011, 10th Annual Southern California Transportation Summit, Transportation NEXT: New Era, New Vision, New Realities: Mind the Gap: What Gap Closures Mean for the Effectiveness of Southern California's Goods Movement System

4) I-710 Missing Link Truck Study Traffic Analysis for the Arroyo Verdugo Subregion With and Without the I-710 Gap Closure Preliminary Draft Final Report, July 21, 2009:

Submitted by Iteris In Association with the KOA Corporation, May 2009, Submitted to Southern California Association of Governments

Note - Study was done to look at the effect the I-710 “gap closure” would have on the roadway system of the communities surrounding the project.  In it, it states that the “gap closure” Truck lanes would allow trucks to bypass the downtown area for trips “to and from the Central Valley and Northern California areas” and increase traffic to the area. Truck traffic would also increase east of the 710 through Pasadena, the study found. The study was never "finalized" by SCAG.

This Study was commissioned by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to further examine the potential vehicle and truck impacts on the surrounding freeway and roadway network if a tunnel was constructed between the existing northerly terminus of the SR-710 Freeway in Alhambra and the I-210/SR-134 freeway interchange in Pasadena. SCAG has emphasized that this study is technical and comparative in nature and is not meant as a recommendation either for or against a freeway tunnel.

5) SR-710 Tunnel Financial Feasibility Assessment SCAG RTP 2008 final RTP reports Finance Appendix F, PDF pg 4:

... In the opening year, the “average” user would pay $5.64 to use the tunnel. Trucks would pay an average of $15.23. The flat rate is assumed to be $7.00. See tables 1, 2, and 3 of Exhibit 1 Traffic & Revenue.

PDF pg 5 please see section 2.7: Passenger and Commercial Tolling: It has been assumed that all vehicles, both passenger and commercial, will be tolled without restrictions. Trucks would be permitted to use the tunnel, except for those carrying hazardous materials, at all times. A correction factor for vehicles carrying hazardous materials has been taken into consideration in this report. Due to the importance of truck traffic on the SR-710 and to provide another east-bound connection for freight, it is critical to allow truck traffic in the tunnel.

6) Goods Movement Task Force Of The Southern California Association Of Governments, Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m., February 20, 2008, Minutes
Pg 9 PDF (Pg 6 of the Doc) (Update on) 5.2  Missing Link Truck Study (click here):

Mr. Viggen Davidian, Iteris, Inc., began by giving an update on the progress of the project, noting it was 50% complete and on-schedule to be finished by the June 30, 2008. Mr. Davidian began by describing the I-710 gap and the potential for the construction of a tunnel to close the gap between the I-710 freeway and the I-210 freeway based on previous study. He emphasized that the purpose of the study was to evaluate the full effects of the connection and its various options, specifically in relation to truck impacts.

7) Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2007, “State's future may be paved with fees”, Evan Halper (click here):

Under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been pushing for the state to start shifting the cost -- and some control -- of road building to the private sector, lawmakers last May authorized government agencies to build four demonstration projects in partnership with investment banks, shipping companies and other businesses.…

Moving goods
The Legislature has yet to sign off on what roads would be built under the arrangement, but has stipulated that they must serve the movement of goods. The California Department of Transportation is already suggesting a toll road for trucks that would go from the Port of Long Beach to the Inland Empire, and a toll road for cars and trucks at the Mexican border near San Diego that would have its own border crossing...State and local transportation planners have joined with the governor's office to lobby lawmakers for authority to broker more deals with private companies.  "This should only be a beginning," Mark Pisano, executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, said of the projects approved in May. At a recent legislative hearing, Pisano told lawmakers that his organization wants to work with private companies to build a controversial 8-mile tunnel that would link the 710 Freeway to Pasadena, a project estimated to cost at least $2 billion. Federal transportation officials are cheering these planners on.

8) USC Financial Charette (a.k.a., “SR-710 Missing Link Truck Study (Preliminary Draft Final Report)”, December 5, 2007 and January,18, 2008 PDF Pg 1-2

The importance of the 710/210 tunnel connector is recognized by federal, state and regional transportation traffic engineers and planners, and it is a priority project for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The tunnel would serve to connect two major interstate freeways, closing a critical 4.5 mile gap in the regional highway system. Interstate 710 or the “Long Beach Freeway” is a major goods-movement corridor and an important north-south route extending from the City of Long Beach area in the South, through Los Angeles, and ending just north of Interstate 10 in Alhambra. The tunnel would continue the route as originally provided for in California Freeway and Expressway System plans dating back to the 1950s. It would descend in Alhambra, continue underground beneath the city of South Pasadena, and emerge in Pasadena to connect to Interstate 210, …

PURPOSE
...Local opposition to the construction of this segment of freeway delayed the project for approximately four decades, with protests and lawsuits by community groups and property owners in Alhambra, San Marino, Pasadena and La Canada/Flintridge, but the most vocal and aggressive opposition from activists and officials located in the City of South Pasadena…

PDF Pg 3
...In addition, this critical segment of highway would dramatically reduce travel times and distances for one of the most important regional goods-movement corridors, and the value of its added efficiency means that it would generate reliable traffic and toll revenue… A major collaborative effort to move the project forward was spearheaded and funded by the MTA… The planning charrette opened with overviews from public officials of the history of the project and the status of engineering plans and cost estimates. It also featured the assessments and estimates of several leading legal firms, contractors, and financiers that have direct experience with similar projects around the world…The afternoon featured a lengthy informal discussion of the pragmatic steps still required to bring this project to fruition, including the role of private sector parties, the projected costs and variations on financial agreements, the relevant political circumstances in California, and the legislative and legal steps that are necessary to getting construction underway.The meeting opened with introductions, and a statement from California State Assemblyman Mike Eng, representing district 49 including much of the San Gabriel Valley including Alhambra and San Marino.  Assemblyman Eng offered his support for legislative action. Tracy Arnold, Director for Jobs and Economic

PDF pg 4
Growth of the Office of the Governor, expressed support for the project and stressed Governor Schwarzenegger’s commitment to leveraging public money through private sector partnerships. Dan Farkas, representing California State Senator Gil Cedillo, confirmed their interest in seeing construction underway, and Senator Cedillo’s willingness to sponsor needed legislation. Senator Cedillo represents Senate District 22, including much of Los Angeles as well as South Pasadena, Alhambra, and San Marino. ... Robert Huddy of the Southern California Association of Governments began discussion with an overview of the history of the project. Mr. Huddy is a senior transportation manager who has been involved with the 710 connector project as a representative of SCAG for nearly two decades...The historical overview presented by Mr. Huddy was followed with data on current traffic estimates and cost estimates. Traffic estimates indicate that the tunnel would immediately attract significant traffic between the port area and Los Angeles heading toward major national distribution centers in San Bernardino County.  It would alleviate traffic congestion for commuters and trucks on surrounding freeways, in particular Interstate 5, Interstate 10, and Highway 101 and also eliminate the current bottleneck whereI-710 currently ends in South Pasadena. The MTA was represented at the meeting by Linda Hui, Transportation Planning Manager of the San Gabriel Valley Area Team, and Caltrans District 7 was represented by senior engineer Abdi Saghafi, route 710 corridor manager, both of whom contributed informal assessments of current prospects and progress. ...Michael Liikala, representing ACS-Dragados, followed with a detailed presentation on major engineering aspects of the tunnel project.

9) SCAG memo February 17, 2005 To: Plans Programs Technical Advisory Committee, From: Nancy Pfeffer, Senior Regional Planner, RE: Goods Movement White Paper for Secretary of Business, Transportation & Housing In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger was “criticized by government and business leaders in Asia for allowing congestion at the San Pedro Bay Ports to impede the flow of goods from Asia to U.S. markets. On his return he tasked BT&H Secretary, Sunne Wright McPeak with developing a strategy on this issue.” (Mod: remember our claim of a few weeks back that the 710 Tunnel was really all about pressure from Asia?)

Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan, Technical Appendix E Goods Movement, May 2001 - Freight Issues, Implications and Options in the Moving Forward Document (Doc E-28-E-29/PDF pg 30-31) (click here):

f) The I-710 Gap Closure Issue: Environmental and construction impacts on the City of South Pasadena are at the core of an on-going debate on whether to close the gap in Interstate 710. Even if the gap is closed, trucks are banned from using it.

Implications and Options: The 710 Freeway gap closure project as presently conceived would divert commuter traffic moving from the I-10, SR-60, I-5, and I-710 freeways to Pasadena, which would provide some alleviation of congestion impacting truck traffic using the 5 Freeway on the segment between the 710 Freeway and the 110 Pasadena Freeway. However, it would not permit trucks to directly access the 210 Freeway from the 710 Freeway. A potential solution is to modify the Interstate 710 gap closure project with the construction of four bored tunnels under South Pasadena to avoid neighborhood disruption/damage. Trucks would be allowed to use the I-710 project thus modified, so that direct 710-210 truck movements are possible, permitting trucks to bypass downtown Los Angeles and reducing the load on the 5 Freeway and others. 

A toll on cars and trucks would be used to pay for the additional cost of the bored tunnels above and beyond the expenditures for the cut-and-cover underground roadway through South Pasadena that Caltrans has indicated it can fund.

In discussion in the Committee, it was noted that this solution would require further study, as questions of underground fault lines, the water table, etc. would need to be investigated before the feasibility and costs of bored tunnels in this location could be determined. If truck lanes are implemented on the 710 Freeway from the San Pedro Bay Ports to downtown Los Angeles, such truck lanes would logically be extended northward to use any such bored tunnels as might be incorporated into the gap closure project--allowing easy access from the 710 Freeway to the 210 Freeway. It was further noted that diversion of commuter traffic to a 710 bored tunnel gap closure project would also have some benefits for truck traffic using the 5 Freeway.

Finally, it was suggested that other freeway gap closure projects, such as the 30 Freeway between the San Gabriel Valley and San Bernardino, would also provide major goods movement benefits, and may also warrant endorsement by the Goods Movement Committee.

Official statements pretending the studies previously presented and statements above don't exist:

1) Pasadena Star News, “Alhambra hosts 710 forum to `get the correct information out there’” By Lauren Gold, SGVN Posted: November 23, 2012 08:28:21 PM PST (click here):

Alhambra Mayor Barbara Messina said she asked Ikhrata and Failing to come to the meeting to dispel what she says are rumors and misinformation surrounding the project. Freeway fighters have expressed concern that Metro is not seriously considering options other than the freeway tunnel, which they fear will be a source of truck congestion and air pollution in the cities that line the route.

"My whole purpose was to get correct information out there, everything that I've been hearing like `oh, we are going to have all this pollution' ... but that's not true. ... And the cost, its not going to be as high as $20 billion as people say," Messina said. "I just think they don't want to hear the truth, they talk amongst themselves and this is what they tell other people ... so it's time to get the correct information out there now."

(Mod: It should be noted that Barbara Messina was a die hard supporter of Nick Conway at COG.)

2) Letter from Doug Failing, Metro Executive Director, November 19, 2012
Dear ___
Thank you for your recent letter addressed to my attention regarding the State Route 710 Study currently underway. Your interest in this important regional transportation issue is appreciated and I welcome this opportunity to provide you with Metro's perspective on this matter.

Your primary concern is in regards to statements that may have been attributed to me, presented in an article that ran in the publication "Everything Long Beach", asserting that the State Route 710 freeway tunnel option is being planned as a goods movement corridor for trucks. Please be advised that.while this may be the interpretation of the author of the article, that statement should not be attributed to me as the State Route 710 is not a goods movement corridor.

The objective of the State Route 710 Study is to examine a range of alternative concepts in order to find solutions to traffic congestion in the West San Gabriel Valley area and to promote a more efficient operation of our regional freeway system. The voters of Los Angeles County passed Measure R in November 2008 by a two-thirds majority to approve a half-cent sales tax increase to fund transportation improvement projects in our county. Measure R specifically allocates $780 million to the State Route 710 corridor. In June 2010. the Metro Board of Directors authorized staff to pursue a robust public Outreach effort in pursuit of multi-modal solutions to congestion in the State Route 710 Corridor, leading to the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report I Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS).

Five alternatives will be carried forward for more detailed analysis in the DEIS/DEIR. These alternatives are:
1. No-Build
2. Transportation System Management f Transportation Demand
Management
3. Bus Rapid Transit with refinements
4. Light Rail Transit with refinements
5. Freeway Tunnel with refinements
Page 2
None of these alternatives are being developed as a goods movement alternative. At this time, we are just beginning the environmental process and no decision has been made on a preferred alternative.
Sincerely,
Douglas R Failing, P.E.
Executive Director, Highway Program
cc: All Metro Board Members
Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, SCAG

3) Pasadena Star News, “SCAG official says 710 tunnel will be hard to beat” By Lauren Gold, SGVN Updated: November 15, 2012 09:27:02 PM PST (click here):

At the meeting, which was attended by the group of city officials asked to provide guidance throughout the study, Metro officials also discussed how goods movement plays into the freeway extension.
Freeway fighters have expressed concern that the tunnel would become a goods movement route for trucks from the ports, spewing added diesel pollution into the San Gabriel Valley.

Consultant Steve Greene said that a freeway tunnel would not likely be a popular route for trucks out of the ports, as those trucks would continue to take the 710 to the 10 or the 60 Freeway. "We are not saying trucks will never use this tunnel, but the point we're making is that that facility is not on the path that port trucks in particular are taking," Greene said.

Consultant Loren Bloomberg said trucks going to the local grocery stores or shopping malls would use the tunnel instead of taking the local streets. Given this data on truck movements, Bloomberg stressed that the 710 extension is focused on moving people, not trucks. "Goods movement from the ports is not a driver for our study need, we are not seeing an influence there, we've been saying this consistently," Bloomberg said.

4) KPCC interview with Doug Failing  (Metro's Executive Director, Highway Programs) August 7, 2012 (click here):

.. Doug Failing: “I’ve never to my knowledge ever said that this 710, this gap, would have anything to do with with truck traffic, fact is I’ve always, ah, said that, ah, I most of the traffic come out of the ports LA Long Beach are either headed towards the East West corridors so they’re out on the 60 they’re out on the 10 and I’ve never seen 710 as as a freight corridor, and I’ve said that quite often.”.....

The above quote by Doug Failing appears to contradict what was reported not only in the Everything Long Beach article (Metro’s Freeway Projects Mean Better Transportation For Everyone by Editor March 24, 2011), but also the Metro News release March 21, 2011, "Metro's Highway Program Shifts into High Gear with 18 New Projects Worth Nearly $1.4 billion Set to Break Ground in 2011”

5) SR-710 Tunnel Technical Study, La CaƱada Flintridge Community Meeting Summary May 26, 2009 pg 4

Comment from Metro: You are going to have to be able to radiate movement of goods into your community. Distribution of goods will involve at least one truck movement. We actually looked at the possibility of not including trucks in the tunnel. I can’t say that we will say there will be no trucks. Perhaps we may exclude trucks over a certain size. I think some of us may be confused about the number of trucks that will be using the route.

6) Bob Huddy, a representative of SCAG who has been involved with the 710 connector project for nearly two decades contradicts himself regarding traffic and air pollution: Pasadena Sun, December 11, 2012 6:27 am, "Pasadena hammers 710 tunnel, stops short of opposing it" by Joe Piasecki (click here):

"...Bob Huddy, a former senior planner with the Southern California Association of Governments who once also headed the Pasadena Transportation Advisory Commission, said the tunnel would decrease air pollution caused by existing commuter traffic on city streets. Huddy accused opponents of cherry-picking data to support their own views."

However, in 2007 in the Financial Charette listed as # 8 in the first section above. Huddy claimed "Traffic estimates indicate that the tunnel would immediately attract significant traffic between the port area and Los Angeles heading toward major national distribution centers in San Bernardino County."
These quotes show Huddy is clearly the "cherry picker" of "data". It is this very data from studies about trucks, added congestion and pollution, which Huddy was a part of gathering, that he is now in the process of denying.

(Mod: It seems obvious that the folks quoted above will say anything to get the 710 Tunnel built. No matter how contradictory or untrue. Given their inability to speak the truth on this issue of truck traffic, they really are not to be believed in anything they have to say. How can they be?)

Listed below are upcoming "open house" meetings being held by Metro to further their on-going "Tunnel-Truck Traffic 710 Denial Process." Let me know which one you want to go to.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013 
6 pm - 8 pm    
Maranatha High School
169 S. Saint John Avenue,  Pasadena

Thursday, January 24, 2013    
6 pm - 8 pm      
San Marino Community Church
1750 Virginia Road, San Marino

Saturday, January 26, 2013      
9 am – 11 am    
Cal State Los Angeles
Golden Eagle Building – Ballroom
5151 State University Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90032      

http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

64 comments:

  1. It still astonishes me how much people in government lie. You'd think that our paying their salaries would make them feel obliged to tell the truth sometimes. But not too many of them do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All the lies in the world are going to make this 710 extension happen. And we pay for it. Just another sad state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. China wants it, Washington DC wants it. Probably in a loan document somewhere. Gotta keep the economic imperialist power happy. I guess that just makes us inconvenient. I am happy with the role.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The American patriotism slant in the propaganda? How dare they.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! Particularly when they are selling us out to China. Can we call it "economic treason" yet?

      Delete
  5. Vintage SCAG:
    "SCAG has emphasized that this study is technical and comparative in nature and is not meant as a recommendation either for or against a freeway tunnel."
    Right, so we'll get the information, look at it, and then form no opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't really understand why China is so going-Ho on having California build this tunnel. The entire economy of California and the rest of the United States is going to collapse in the near future and we won't be able to buy anything from anybody and China won't need to send us all of the trinkets we currently buy from them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That China can make demands on the United States government that harm American citizens is bad. That the United States government pushes hard to make these demands happen despite the wishes of American citizens is horrifying.

      Delete
    2. China can call the shots now,they own us.China has been financing our debt for decades.They want some return on their investment!

      Delete
    3. I think we should tell them we're broke, we can't pay our bond debt, and too bad, we are going to start manufacturing our own widgets and flip-flops.

      Delete
  7. Hasan Ikhrata: "Fuggedaboutit why doncha?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We need to tell Russia same message, we're broke, can't pay our debt or continue to finance your building your oil fields...take a hike.

      Delete
  8. Local opposition delayed the project for four decades.
    And still have to fight?
    Yep.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just look at Sierra Madre. The fight against bad government is endless.

      Delete
    2. That's right, but when are the residents who vote going to learn to stop electing idiots and criminals.

      Delete
    3. But they're such nice idiots and criminals.

      Delete
    4. Charming scum.

      Delete
    5. we elect them because "they love Sierra Madre".

      Delete
  9. When Schwarzenegger was taken to task by the Asian leaders, what did he do? Say "Oh ok, I'm sorry?" Better to show them what he learned pumping iron.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arnold is a man of many contradictions. Takes steroids, preaches to kids about clean physical health. Wants to be known of the hero of the green movement, then flies around the world on a greenhouse gas rich private jet so he can make speeches about it to people just as phony as himself. Acts like a tough guy, then kowtows to hostile foreign economic powers and runs roughshod over his own people to make their demands happen.

      Maybe the worst governor this state has ever had.

      Delete
    2. Arnold's contradiction is no different than anyone complaining about potential 710 pollution but though driving their own car on the freeways.

      Delete
    3. Ah, the ego of a naracissist is a wonder to behold!

      Delete
    4. 8:19 - so you are saying it is politically correct to allow all of that 710 "corridor of diesel death" traffic onto the 210 because otherwise we would be all torn with guilt over owning cars?

      Delete
    5. 8:19's remark is the "in for a penny, in for a pound" approach. If we contribute to pollution, let's make sure maximum pollution from all sources is provided for.

      Delete
  10. This is all Nixon's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Messina gave an interview some years ago - maybe 8 or 9 - reported in the San Marino Tribune, saying that why should just her area suffer from the ill health consequences of too much traffic, that it was time for other areas to suffer the consequences too. Those were not the words but the meaning was exactly the same. She knows very, very well what the pollution does.
    She is a fitting hand maiden to Nick Conway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The Tattler is for the first time in my memory on the wrong side of an issue. The 710 needs to go under South Pasadena. Try driving from downtown LA to Pasadena on Freemont Avenue. Barbara Messina is a blowhard, and we all know about Conway. The voters of Pasadena voted to support the freeway and the Pasadena City Council is ignoring the vote of the people.

    The elitists of La Canada Flintridge and South Pasadena (ironically connected to Conway) are the only ones fighting the tunnel, They are going to lose. As to truch traffic, it goes down the 60 freeway in the lower part of the valley. It makes no sense for a truck to take the 210 unless it is bypassing LA and that is what goes on today. It will have little effect on the 210 in Sierra Madre. Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know which is worse, being patronized or being regurgitated the "no trucks" lie.

      Delete
    2. They are going to lose, huh?
      Gotta magic source of information about the future?

      Delete
    3. Elitists?
      People who want to protect the health of their communities?
      Shame on them.

      Delete
    4. Haven't you heard? Breathing foul air makes you more "real."

      Delete
    5. I detect some diguised bigotry in 9:14's post. Dirty air is something we are expected to assume is for poor minority populations? Is that what is being said here? The 710 corridor, one of the foulest in America, is how things need to be for those cities? How about we shut the damn 710 down altogether and give those cities what the really deserve, which is breathable air?? I think everyone deserves to be "elite."

      Delete
    6. Oh, I know! We make the 710 cars only! Certainly Metro would have no complaints about that. After all, aren't they going to make the tunnel cars only?

      Delete
    7. 9:14's opinion reminds me of how misogynists perceive rape.

      Delete
    8. Foul air that causes cancer is democratic. Metro is calling for full misery equality.

      Delete
    9. Doug Failing to tell the truth.

      Delete
  13. You were not being patronized. The 210 was built as a bypass route intended to go from the 15 in Devore to the 5 at Newhall. A truck leaving the port on the 710 goes up the 5 to go north and out the 60 to go East. It makes no sense to go up the 710 to the 210 because they are equally congested and it simply adds many miles to a trip.

    Look at the freeway system on a map. The 710 looks like a congested artery on a heart. The opening of the freeway will stop tons of pollution and make life easier fot thousands of commuters every day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're really no better than Barbara Messina. The truck traffic doesn't count? The 210 is a nightmare already without dumping a ton of port traffic on there. That is the issue, and you are not telling the truth. maybe the Mod should out you in the article.

      Delete
    2. 9:35 sounds like a Messina troll.

      Delete
    3. Or a consultant.

      Delete
    4. Consultants smell bad. Like unwashed polyester.

      Delete
    5. If all the trucks from the harbor use the 5 and the 60 where do all the trucks come from that clog up the 210 each and every day? someone needs to enlighten these truck drivers that they need to change routes!

      Delete
  14. I just want to know how to stop this thing. We don't want it, we don't need it. End of story. Transfer truck cargo onto rail lines instead of driving cheap consumer crap in inefficient and polluting trucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defeating Measure J was a start. Starve the beast.

      Delete
    2. Vote no all taxes. They just use the money for things we don't want.

      Delete
  15. You don't have to believe anything annybody says. Just travel the 10 East from DT LA and you will see what is going to happen to all the Cities on the 210 for a mile on each side of the 210 Parking Lot. It is all going to be Diesel Fumes 24/7.

    Why we don't use all this energy and money to build a truck railway from the two ports to San Bernadino or better yet East of the Cajon Pass and unload the trailers there for points East? It is the same Government fumbling that sends billions of cubic ft. of water down the San Gabriel, Los Angeles and many other Rivers to the Pacific Ocean which ends up polluting the Beaches, Dah how bout Dams and Resevoirs with beautiful lakes all over the LA Basin?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Alameda Corridor and Alameda Corridor East, look it up, great projects!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you say. Explain the truck traffic.

      Delete
    2. 3:45, those are rail projects, don't be lazy.

      Delete
    3. Perhaps you believe it is a big secret, but for the big people it is as plain as the frown on your face. So please, explain all the trucks. If these rail lines are as wonderful as you claim, why the 10s of thousands of trucks that pour out of the ports every day?

      Delete
    4. I made the comments this morning which got all your panties in a wad. The trucks which roam all of our local freeways are distributing the 30 percent of the port traffic that goesto local business. The majority of the port traffic goes east to Ontario warehouses or distribution centers across the country. Most goes up the 710 to the 60 and then east. Very little goes north. The Alameda Corrider and Alameda Corrider East help move a lot of it by rail east. Go take a look at Google earth at the harbor. Follow the rail lines and actually look at the trucks on the 710 and 60 freeway. You can see it.

      The foothill railroad line (where the gold line is being put) in the middle of the 210 was abandoned because of the lack of freight that moved on it. Stuff just does not get shipped that way. As to diesel fumes, forget that argument. The liberals are going to require CNG or LPG pretty soon.

      The City of South Pasadena, Cacciotti, and Nick Conway's best friend Dave Spence from La Canada are leading the charge to stall this project.

      i am not a consultant, nor do I have any iron in this fire. I just think the Long Beach freeway should be finished.


      Delete
    5. You're kidding, right?

      Delete
    6. I do not believe that you do not have an iron in the fire.
      In fact, your comments here, and the manner in which they have been made, repeatedly, are evidence to the contrary.

      Delete
    7. 7:17 is Barbara Messina. The panties comment gave her away.

      Delete
    8. Out of curiosity 7:17, why do you want the tunnel finished? The rail canard is an utter failure since it has done little to curtail truck traffic. To say no truck traffic will come here when the tunnel is clearly being designed by height and width to handle trucks is either the claim of a fool or Just a flat out lie. And the thousands of trucks out of the ports that the tunnel will dump on the 210 will only degrade the environment of the San Gabriel Valley and kill a few thousand people every year from various lung ailments and cancer. So what is your deal? You hate people or something? Neighbors kill your dog?

      Delete
  17. 7:17, how many websites are you posting on -

    ReplyDelete
  18. 7:17....see what happens to people who speak the truth on this blog? Keep it real friend, finish the connection once for all!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup. And those who get called out on their BS whine.

      Delete
    2. The "Build the Tunnel Kleenex Brigade."

      Delete
  19. 6:43, take off the filters, Brother, or Sister.
    Try and look at the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Until you've heard Metro reps actually discuss this issue, you can't appreciate the many discrepancies in Metro's communication about the purpose of the 710 tunnel. They all say something different, and when challenged resort to scripted nonsense. Metro continually denies the plain fact that truck traffic from the ports WILL use the 710 tunnel. Metro claims no decision has been made, but in fact the decision has been made by SCAG, Barbara Messina and John Fasana, and they along with Metro, will tell any lie to get it pushed through. Why they are not considering using rail to move goods from the Ports is still a subject of great mystery, as is all things Metro. Another issue is the toll, and who will pay it. No one at Metro wants to talk about that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is no doubt that there are many forces trying to get the 710 Tunnel built. Failing, Ikhrata, Fasana, Messina, Huddy and far more than you can imagine. There is so much evidence that it is being built as a freight corridor; this article outlines just a portion of it. High traffic, high tolls, and Level of Service F projected on the 210 from opening day forward. It's in their own reports. The surrounding areas will be jammed, including Fremont when people leap off the freeway to avoid the tolls. Be careful what you wish for, Barbara Messina. And speaking of trolls, uh, I mean tolls, how many of you supporters are going to pay up to $20 one-way, just to go 4.5 miles? I don't think so. And yes, Virginia, trucks will choose to use it whether for local or long haul. Forty % of US goods come into the LA/LB ports, 70 % continue on to somewhere else, mostly by truck. They already use the 210 as an east-west corridor and this gap closure will allow them to bypass downtown and go directly up the middle. Metro is doing outreach to investors right now using the assumption that the tunnel will be built. This particular presentation to the International Chinese Transportation Professional Association http://www.ictpa-scc.org/files/1_MetroP3.pdf outlines the plan to financially bundle the SR-710 with the I-710 and the High Desert Corridor. It also includes tolling on the I-405, Sepulveda Pass and on the I-5 between the SR-14 and Parker Road which is being advertised as well. Welcome to the "new normal" per Metro. Local taxes and Highway Tolling in LA County!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Two important very pro-freeway names have not been mentioned. Assemblyman Chris Holden and Congresswoman Judy Chu.

    Chris Holden, one of the authors of Pasadena's infamous Measure A, a measure officially placing Pasadena in support of the 710 extension, has for well over 20 years been an outspoken advocate of extending the 710. Oh, wait! It seems that in early 2011 when he made the decision to run for State Assembly his position changed to one of lets wait for the Environmental Impact Report.

    Judy Chu (along with her husband, Assemblyman Mike Eng) has through-out her career been a strong supporter of the 710 extension. Now she simply blows off the controversy by stating something to the effect we should wait for the EIR. (Does that sound familiar?)

    Both now, unfortunately, represent the entire San Gabriel Valley.

    I challenge the Tattler to attempt to get a comment from our two "representatives".

    ReplyDelete