Nat Read, Chair of the 710 Freeway Coalition, published this celebratory piece in the Pasadena Star-News, congratulating the MTA for authorizing a multi-million dollar EIR of the 710 Tunnel Proposal.
Read states that building the tunnel will leave communities above ground “intact.” How can the largest tunnel ever constructed be carved out underneath San Gabriel communities without any impact? Where will all the dirt and rock go? What about necessary vents and side nodes? Where will the construction equipment be located? Even if the tunnel could be built with no impact, how will these communities fare if (when?) there is a major crash involving toxic materials inside it?
Read also states that the project “will reduce congestion more than will any other highway project in the county,” and “will benefit the environment by reducing air pollution and use of fossil fuels.” Freeway projects in Southern California don’t reduce congestion; they make it easier for more cars to get on the road. A light-rail freight transport alternative would do far more to reduce congestion, air pollution, and use of fossil fuels than Read’s exorbitantly expensive short stretch of underground freeway.
California taxpayers should not be asked to fund this project when low-cost, low-impact, 21st-century solutions must be out there. Comments to Read’s editorial echo these points:
Look for alternatives:
What impact will the exhaust fumes have on the surrounding homes and communities? Dig a little deeper and you will see that this project is far from perfect and will lead to problems similar to that of the “big dig” and will not solve traffic problems. Have we seen freeways extensions and additional lanes reduce traffic? That is like trying to cure obesity by adding more belt loops. You need to address the problems and increase light rail, bus lines, etc. This is a dangerous and costly project and will lead to unforseen problems in the future.
Inteurbans:
Shame on the MTA for spending billions dollars on this misguided project that needs to be stopped now and laid to rest before any more money is spent. Do we want another Boston Big Dig boondoggle that went way over budget and is costing millions annually just to keep it open?
Is this a 1960 solution to a 2010 problem? Building or even widening freeways do little to help congestion they only help the construction companies that design and build them. Is this really going to reduce congestion or just move it around? The wading of the 22, the 5 and some interchanges in Orange County at many billions of dollars did little to help with congestion. Within weeks of the completion of the projects traffic was back to its pre -improvement state. Will the 710 tunnel be any different? Even if it is built will it help?
lets be real:
What this does do is make it easier to drive from some Points A to some Points B. Mobility is generally a good thing. However, people move about based on how easy and expensive a trip is. Making automobile trips easier increases the number of automobile trips. There are real economic benefits to this new travel, but claiming that driving more is good for the environment undermines any credibility the author might have had.
Can we do a real analysis of opportunity costs for these billions of dollars?
Dean Serwin:
This tunnel (which looks to be potentially the largest ever undertaken) will simply concentrate emissions into vented plumes poisoning the community. The currently estimated 6 year construction time will hugely disrupt the local community, including nearby schools.