Ara Najarian began his new MTA Board term by getting unanimous support (including from Duarte Mayor John Fasana) for his motion asking for a clear answer as to which agency, Metro or Caltrans, has the authority to select and fund an SR-710 study alternative. Caltrans officials had asserted it had final authority, but Metro is conducting the alternatives study. Communities near the alignment of a proposed 710 freeway tunnel responded with alarm about lack of accountability in the decision making process.
Anthony Portantino, former 44th District representative, attended the meeting and spoke in favor of the motion, saying it was scary that significant taxpayer dollars are being spent to move a $15-20 billion dollar project forward without a clear understanding of who would make the final decision.
After the meeting, Najarian posted on Facebook:
“The success of my motion restores some faith in the MTA Board in that they/we do have some common sense. Supervisor Antonovich also realizes the confusion that exists in the decision making process for the tunnel and supported the motion. And guess what? John Fasana seconded the motion! We all just want to know who has jurisdiction on this project.”
In a followup to Najarian’s motion, Metro Highway Director Doug Failing’s Memo to the Board concludes: “The ultimate decision to fund an alternative included in the final environmental document rests with the Metro Board.”
One day earlier, South Pasadena, Pasadena, and La Canada Flintridge Technical Advisory Committee members voiced strong objections when the SR-710 technical team presented a new set of “refinement” options for the freeway tunnel alternative. These ranged from an un-tolled dual-bore tunnel, to a tolled single-bore or dual-bore tunnel, to a tolled single- or dual-bore tunnel with bus express lane, with the further variation that all of these options could be proposed with or without truck traffic allowed! La Canada Flintridge representative Ann Wilson pointed out that a smaller tunnel is actually a different alternative, as it provides a lower level of service and different effects on traffic congestion and project costs. The question of whether Metro or Caltrans has authority to prohibit truck traffic was not directly answered.
The additional freeway tunnel proposals show that questions about
- truck traffic,
- which parties besides the trucking industry will be willing to pay tolls, and
- how many travelers and buses would use a tunnel that has no intermediate exits
are still unanswered!
More dissatisfaction surfaced when questions about tunnel impacts on local traffic and existing on/off ramps were raised. In communities around the south portal of the tunnel, vehicles will have to drive east or west on surface streets to Interstate 10 access ramps, and then transition north to the 710 if they want to use the tunnel. At the north portal, the St. John Street access ramps to the 134/210 will be eliminated and street traffic in the vicinity of Huntington Hospital will be affected. Emergency response time impacts and increased congestion on surface streets in the area surrounding the 210/134 interchange are big concerns if a tunnel proposal goes forward. Metro’s original F7 dual-bore tunnel freeway alternative and portal locations are laid out in this pdf (from which the map above is taken).
Other alternative refinements presented at this week’s meeting sounded much more attractive.
- The TSM/TDM option includes improvements to at least 28 intersections in the study area.
- The Bus Rapid Transit alternative is conceived of as “rail-like” service which will incorporate a high-tech fare collection system, ITS transit signal priority, dedicated bus lanes where possible (some on-street parking would have to be removed for these), and improved stations and stops to attract riders; it would run from Whittier Blvd in the south to Colorado Blvd in the North.
- The LRT alternative includes a stop at CSULA and a tunnel under Fremont Avenue; it would end under the Filmore Gold Line Station (one Technical Advisory Committee member suggested that the rail line continue all the way to the 210 and be combined with a new park and ride facility).
Update from the official recap of Metro Board decisions. Najarian’s motion passed with this additional amendment:
AMENDMENT:
Is there an MOU for the $4 million dollar contract MTA executed for the
EIR?
Based on Measure R funds expended for the EIR consultant and the
awarding of the contract by the MTA, I would like to direct the county
counsel to research liability issues.
I THEREFORE AMEND the motion and direct County Counsel to return
to the full board in July with answers to:
A. are MTA and Caltrans required by statute to have a fully-executed
MOU regarding the funds expended on the EIR;
B. are MTA and Caltrans co-leads on the project as MTA and Caltrans
are on the I-710 south project; and
C. or by funding the contract for the EIR, is MTA the lead agency and
therefore vulnerable to any future litigation.
Good job reporting on this issue, Elise. The roles of Metro and Caltrans on the SR-710 project must be clarified. Thank goodness we have Ara Najarian and Anthony Portantino on the right side, keeping them honest. Or at least trying…
It is not lost on the the No On 710 Groups that representatives from the cities of Alhambra & San Marino never ask questi0ns, never have any input at all the TAC meetings. It is well known that along with Monterey Park, Alhambra & San Marino are in collusion with Metro & Caltrans to push the 710 extension through other people’s neighborhoods.
Pingback: Answer to Najarian’s MTA Motion Only in Closed Memo: Two Media Outlets Demand Release