Streetsblog Los Angeles

I’m sad to report that a generic timeline has replaced the board game of transportation history I admired during the first series of 710 conversations outreach meetings. With the stakes raised by CalTran’s release of a notice of scoping/initiation of studies for the SR-710 Gap Closure Project (which we’ll be calling the SR-710 California’s Big Dig from now on,) perhaps it is appropriate that the game is over.

I attended a March 3^rd meeting in Alhambra to hear about the environmental impact review process. The mood there seemed more serious as well. After the briefing, which provided basic information about scoping for the CEQA/NEPA process for ‘the project,’ a series of attendees asked a variation on the same question: What is the project?

CalTrans and Metro presumably want to and (plan to) drill tunnels between the northern end of the 710 freeway and the 210 freeway. But they haven’t told participants in their 710 conversation process that they want to and (plan to) do this, and would we please provide input on what environmental impacts to study and what alternatives to consider?

Click on the image to read the full scoping announcement.

What they have now officially announced, halfway through the Conversation meeting series, is that:

“The proposed project, depending on the results of a thorough environmental analysis of all possible transportation improvements, may include, but not be limited to: surface and subsurface highway/freeway construction, heavy rail and bus/ light rail systems, local street upgrades, traffic management systems and a no build alternative. There currently is a gap in the I-710 corridor, for a distance of approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km) which extends between Valley Boulevard to the south and Del Mar to the north. As originally identified in the April 13, 1998 Record of Decision for the Meridian Variation alignment, this gap contributes to congestion on local streets and regional freeway system. The objective of this project is to relieve congestion and improve mobility within the project area.”

It still doesn’t define the project. The recent notice of intent for environmental review of another Measure R project, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, wasn’t coy in stating that “[t]he proposed project is an extension of the existing Metro Gold Line light rail transit line, from Azusa to Montclair.” Read more…

 Loading ...

Last week’s poll asking you to vote on what name L.A. Streetsblog will use to describe the 710 Extension Project was easily Streetsblog’s most popular poll to date, with 252 total votes.  Two project names got sixty votes each to move on to this final poll.  One week from today, either Art Dean’s “Golden Freight Freeway” or Joanne Nuckols’ “SR-710, L.A.’s Big Dig” will become the official name that Streetsblog uses to describe the project from here on out.

The 710 Extension has been a hot topic this week.  Yesterday at the Metro Board Meeting, staff presented an estimate on how much the project would cost if the agency decides to move forward with a tunnel alternative.  The cost?  $2.81 billion.

That number is less than 20% of the cost of the infamous “Big Dig,” despite the Dig actually being a smaller project by length.  Not surprisingly, Glendale Mayor and Metro Board Member Ara Najarian took exception.  In a spirited back and forth with Board Chair Don Knabe, Najarian questioned the ethics of senior Metro Staff Art Leahy and Richard Moliere for signing the document.

The methodology for coming up with the $2.81 billion number was somewhat convoluted.  Read more…

It seems suggestive that Metro and Caltran’s just launched SR-710 Conversations public outreach process features a timeline of transportation milestones printed as a board game. It remains to be seen whether it will be a game that the public plays: a creative rethinking of mobility needs in the San Gabriel Valley and Northeast Los Angeles, or a game that plays the public: going through the motions of input on environmental studies for  a 710 ‘gap closure’ tunnel that agencies intend to pursue regardless of any alternative proposals.

Photo: Mark Vallianatos

Metro is holding three sets of pubic meetings. The first, scheduled for the rest of February, is advertised as opportunity to converse on transportation concerns and suggestions. A second set of meetings during early March will provide information on CEQA and NEPA. The third set of meetings in late March will be the opportunity to provide input on scoping for environmental review of the project. (A schedule is available at http://www.metro.net/projects/sr-710-conversations/ – click the upcoming meetings tab.)

I attended the first meeting Tuesday night in San Gabriel. Present were a mix of agency staff and consultants, veterans of the no on 710 campaign, and interested members of the public. I appreciate that Spanish and Chinese translators were present to lead break out groups, but the absence of attendees needing translation implies that outreach in immigrant communities should be stepped up.

Metro officials and public outreach consultants pitched the process as a ‘fresh start’ on a proposed freeway extension project that, according to the handy timeline included in the info packet, has been planned to link Long Beach and Pasadena since 1933.  Attendees were divided into three breakout groups to discuss and report back on commons (what we like about our communities), concerns (about transportation in neighborhoods and the region), and considerations (ideas to improve transportation). Read more…

As long time Streetsblog readers are well aware, our editorial team believes that language matters.  It’s why there’s a slew of stories arguing that using the word “accident” as a synonym for “crash” is both incorrect and insidious.  Last week, a reader pointed out to me that Metro, in both press materials and on The Source, continually refer to the I-710 Extension project as the “I-710 Gap Project.”

A “gap” is something that needs to be filled.  It’s a nuisance.  A problem.  By referring to the project as a “gap” project, you’re already pointing the debate towards, “what is the best way to fill it.”

Well, if proponents of the project can have their own language for the program, so can Streetsblog.  On Friday I sent out an email to opponents of extending the 710 freeway so it connects to the 210 through either above ground highway expansion or a tunnel, asking them to name the project.  If you have a better name than any of the people I reached out to, leave it in the comments section.  On Friday, we’ll have a poll asking readers to choose their favorite name for the I 710 project, and Streetsblog will use that name in our coverage for the rest of the debate.

Glendale Mayor, and former Metro Board Chair Ara Najaraian was the first person to respond, simply emailing “The 710 (money)PIT.”  In a similar vein, La Crescenta resident Susan Bolen noted that if the final project is indeed a tunnel project it would be between .9 miles and 1.9 miles longer than Boston’s disastrous Big Dig when she proposed the Even Bigger Dig.  She later noted the dangerous conditions that can be created if there’s ever a fire in a tunnel and went for the much less subtle, Tunnel from Hell. Read more…

In 1980, when the HOV system looked as it did on the left, 15% of commuters in Los Angeles County carpooled. The blue lines on the right are the current HOV system, but barely 11% carpool today. Image: Metro 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan

Los Angeles County has one of the most extensive and far-reaching carpool lane networks in the country.  And it’s still growing.  Between 1997 and 2010, the County added 244 lane miles of HOV lanes bringing the total system to 513 lane miles.  Pretty much every highway expansion project in the county is an HOV project as the greenwashing the claim that these projects take cars off the road tends to blunt criticism.

Today, that construction trend continues.  The largest stimulus project, both in scope of project and cost to taxpayers, in the country is the I-405 widening project, which is heralded by Metro as a chance to connect several of its other carpool projects.  It’s going to be worth it, they assure the public, especially those that have to deal with the construction impacts in their daily lives.

Metro is pretty proud of it’s carpool expansion.  They have an entire webpage dedicated to explaining the history of the Southern California’s carpools, and proudly boast

Today, the Los Angeles County HOV system is carrying more people than any other HOV system in the United States, and is one of the few HOV systems in the country that has been able to sustain a growth in carpools.

There’s just one rub.  After the billions of dollars spent building and converting carpool lanes, including those funds being sunk into projects such as the 405 widening right now, that statement is false.  Read more…

The Orange Line is the proposed light rail line to be built instead of the 710 Connector Project. The other lines are the same color as their name. Image by Carlos Vazquez

The never-ending debate over whether or not to “complete” SR-710 so that it connects with the 210 provides a  great opportunity to create a sustainable option for the 710 Tunnel.  Instead of a tunnel designed to move trucks and cars, we need to create a light rail alternative that connects the region’s biggest job centers with the poorest, transit dependent communities.  Yes, let’s build a light rail alternative between Long Beach and Pasadena!

This public transportation line will connect Pasadena, Alhambra, Monterey Park, East Los Angeles, City of Commerce, Maywood, Bell, South Gate, and Long Beach. This is a much needed North-South connector that can rival the Long Beach Blue line, one on the heaviest used light rail lines in the nation. This rail line will connect the Blue Line, Green Line, and East Los Angeles and Pasadena Gold Lines.  Moving around the region via transit would be much easier and more people would be attracted to our transit system. Read more…

Streetsblog Capitol Hill caught up with Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) yesterday after the T&I Committee meeting wrapped up. He’s the only new Republican on the committee who’s not also a new member of Congress. He followed his father, also named Duncan Hunter, into the seat in 2008. Hunter is on the Republican Study Committee that recently pushed for cutting $100 billion from the federal budget. New to transportation and infrastructure issues, Hunter has mainly focused on military matters and immigration.

Photo from Duncan Hunter's Congressional website

Streetsblog: You’ve recently joined the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. What are your priorities for the committee in this session?

Hunter: Southern California is pretty easy. In the past there was only one Republican Californian on Transportation – Gary Miller – and he’s Orange County. There’s now three: Jeff Denham from north California and myself in south California. We all have different needs; water’s one of them. I asked to be on the Water Subcommittee and I am. We have a lot of military bases too, we have desalinization issues we’re working with, all of us having water shortages.

And I kind of like the fact, frankly – it sounds kind of corny – but the constitution talks about having a military and being able to pay for your postal roads. It’s one thing Congress does and it’s nice to be able to do something constitutional here. It’s actually backed up and actually it’s in the constitution. I like that.

SB: Are you interested in looking for ways of getting people out of their cars and into other modes of transportation?

DH: Sure – where it’s feasible. In San Diego, it’s not feasible. San Diego’s one of those places where a lot of people live who work in the more expensive places in Southern California and they can’t afford to live there. They have to drive in – and in my district, everybody works everywhere. So no, it’s not one of my priorities at all to get people out of their cars. I like my car.

Read more…

Since 1947, American highways have run up a deficit bigger than $600 billion, in 2005 dollars. Source: U.S. PIRG

You’ve heard it a thousand times from the highway lobby: Roads pay for themselves through “user fees” — a.k.a. gas taxes and tolls — whereas transit is a drain on the taxpayer. They use this argument to push for new roads, instead of transit, as fiscally prudent investments.

The myth of the self-financed road meets its match today in the form of a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group: “Do Roads Pay For Themselves?” The answer is a resounding “no.” All told, the authors calculate that road construction has sucked $600 billion out of America’s public purse since the dawn of the interstate system.

The Myth of the User Fee

First, let’s dispense with the idea that the gas tax – the primary source of financing for federal transportation projects – is a user fee.

“If you go to a state park and pay the fee to get in there, that’s a user fee,” report author Dan Smith, U.S. PIRG’s transportation associate, told Streetsblog. “If you’re driving down the road and you have to pay the toll for driving on that specific road, that’s a user fee.”

But people also pay gas taxes to fill up their lawnmowers. And those lawnmowers don’t usually end up on the highway. Just because you fill your tank doesn’t mean you ever drive on the roads funded by the gas tax you pay.

The Catch-22

Then there’s the huge contradiction underpinning the core arguments for highway expansion. Do new roads cut congestion, or do they “pay for themselves”? Highway lobbyists try to have it both ways, but the truth is that neither of these propositions hold water.

Read more…

Three years of construction.  Massive Delays. Circuitous detours. A $277 million price tag.

For a full list of the delays caused by this project, visit LA_Now

Unfortunately, arguments about sprawl and damage to the environment haven’t proven to be winners when convincing the larger public that massive highway widening projects are hurting, not helping congestion.  However, a shift in how these widening projects are covered, with a sharp focus on the impact the construction will have on traffic congestion in the short-term, provides the argument that opponents of highway widenings need.

“This project will make congestion worse over time.”

Just look at recent coverage in the Los Angeles Times of the $227 million project in Orange County known as the West County Connector. That project purports to “create a seamless link between carpool lanes and ease rush-hour bottlenecks on the 405, 22 and 605 freeways.”  But the cost of the project is a lot higher for the hapless commuters that presently use this stretch of interstate.  The Bottleneck Blog outlines the seven road closures, spread out over three years, that will be inflicted on drivers.  The headline for the story?  “Big disruptions ahead for key L.A.-Orange County freeway interchange.”

Once the disruptive construction phase is finished, how long with the benefits hold out? The theory of induced demand, that is demonstrated daily on L.A. County freeways, is that newly constructed traffic lanes will be filled by new traffic in a couple of years.  There are so many people that don’t drive because of congestion, that relieving that congestion induces more driving and leads to new lanes being filled more quickly than we can build them.  When construction will create delay for years, as it will for this project, one really has to question whether the project would be worth it if it were free. Read more…

This isn't the first time Board Member Najarian has tried to hold up the 710 Tunnel Project. This photo is from a LA_Now article on an attempt from last May.

For a full sized copy of the route map, click here

Now that the full agenda for this week’s meeting of the Metro Board Meeting is finally online, we can focus on issues beyond the Wilshire Bus Only Lanes.

Another highlight of the meeting is an attempt by Glendale Mayor and Metro Board Member Ara Najarian to slow down the momentum that the I-710 Tunnel Project has had since the passage of Measure R. The proposed “gap closure” of the 710 and the 210 freeways would cost somewhere between $1 billion and $11.4 billion depending what estimate you believe.

Najarian’s ask, that the Board require a cost estimate for the tunnel before tens of millions of dollars are spent on environmental studies, is reasonable; but may not get a sympathetic hearing from the Board.  Even the “No on 710″ coalition understands that so far, only L.A. City Councilman Jose Huizar has supported the resolution in public.  That means they need at least five more votes to have a majority on the thirteen person Board.

Giving more momentum to the opponents of the tunnel was a new ranking of infrastructure projects that listed the I-710 expansion project as one of the most wasteful in the country.  “Green Scissors” ranking pulled no punches while calling for the road to be removed from the national network so no federal dollars are wasted on the tunnel.

Federal taxpayers should not be asked to pay for a project with a flawed EIS, nationwide opposition and a $10 billion shortfall in the local transportation funding agency. At $311 million per mile, this project is more expensive per mile than most urban freeways and the Los Angeles subway system.

The “No on 710″ coalition is also sending letters to Board Members asking for support for Najarian’s motion, and they have different letters for different Board Members.  For example, Mayor Villaraigosa will be reminded that: Read more…