U.S. Agency Suspends Its Support Of 710 Freeway Extension

By David Czamanske

     In an unexpected development just before Christmas, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) suspended its support of the controversial 710 Freeway extension through Pasadena, South Pasadena, and El Sereno. In a December 17 letter to the director of the California Department of Transportation, FHWA’s California Division Administrator Gary Hamby stated that because of changed conditions since the project was approved in April 1998, a Supplemental Environ-mental Impact Statement (SEIS) and a new Record of Decision would be required before it could proceed as a federal-aid highway project.
     Hamby cited several key concerns, including: more historical buildings requiring impact analysis; changes in applicable air quality regulations; opening of the Gold Line, which has diverted commuters from the freeway corridor; the Alameda Corridor freight train route, which has diverted trucks from the corridor; and failure of the state to make interim traffic improvements in the corridor required by the 1998 federal approval. Hamby’s action, resulting from reevaluation of the project by FHWA and Caltrans, was in response to complex environmental litigation involving the project’s proponents–mainly the City of Alhambra–and opponents.
     The proposed 6.2-mile freeway extension, from its terminus at Valley Boulevard in Alhambra to a stub south of the 210 Freeway in Pasadena, was first planned in 1949. It has been held up by extensive litigation initiated by the City of South Pasadena in 1973. The Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club has consistently opposed the project and, along with other environmental and historic preservation organizations, has been a co-plaintiff in the long litigation.

The Sierra Club opposes the plan because of these harmful environmental impacts:

• Destruction of over 1,000 residences, including numerous historic houses, and 7,000 mature trees that are an integral part of thriving moderate- and low-income neighborhoods.

• Traffic gridlock that would materialize from the day the proposed freeway extension opened, according to documents prepared by Caltrans.

• Increased air pollution near the freeway corridor because of freeway gridlock, according to the federal EPA.

     Because of the project’s major adverse environ-mental impacts, its questionable benefits, high cost, lack of political support, and continuing legal obstacles, the prospects of state and federal funding for the project are remote. The required further environmental study would take three to five years, and cost Caltrans millions of dollars that will be difficult to obtain in the state’s current financial crisis.

Why the Sierra Club opposes the 710 Freeway Extension

     The Sierra Club has strongly opposed the proposed 710 Freeway extension since 1972. The Club opposes the freeway extension because it would destroy 1,000 residences and 7,000 mature trees in historic neighborhoods in Pasadena, South Pasadena, and El Sereno, and because it would result in increased traffic congestion and air pollution throughout the freeway corridor. According to the project’s environmental impact documents, the extension would generate 109,000 vehicular trips per day, resulting in freeway gridlock and significant increases in air pollution, especially at and near the 710-134-210 freeway interchange in western Pasadena.
     The Sierra Club joined as a co-plaintiff in litigation filed in 1972 by the City of South Pasadena challenging the adequacy of the project’s environmental documentation. This litigation successfully forestalled freeway construction for 26 years.
     The Clinton Administration finally signed a Record of Decision in 1998 approving the freeway extension over objections of the President’s Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation. However the City of South Pasadena, again joined by the Sierra Club and several historic preservation and environmental protection organizations, filed new litigation challenging the project’s revised environmental documents. Federal Judge Dean Pregerson has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and has issued a preliminary injunction preventing any work on the project.

The 710 Freeway extension would not improve traffic flow in Pasadena

     Supporters of the freeway extension argue that the 710 Freeway extension would take 100,000 vehicles per day out of Pasadena neighborhoods. If only this were true! In actuality the freeway extension would function as a vehicular magnet from the day it opened; a significant portion of the 100,000 additional vehicle trips each day would be attracted from the Golden State (I-5) and San Gabriel River Freeways (I-605), which are clogged during rush hours. This additional traffic, much of it long-distance truck that will increase as the Port of Long Beach is expanded, would create gridlock throughout rush hours and beyond, similar to existing gridlock on the Golden State Freeway, the Harbor Freeway, and the San Diego Freeway.
     Faced with this gridlock, many drivers would leave the freeway in frustration, bleeding traffic onto surface streets that traditionally have been used for local traffic. Additional population growth forecast for the region would worsen the congestion.

Funds are not available for the 710 Freeway extension, but are available for traffic mitigation

     The estimated cost of constructing the 4.5-mile extension is currently $1.4 billion. The project ranks very low on priority lists of the California and federal departments of transportation, and neither department has been allocated project funding. Recognizing that it would be at least a decade or more before project funding might be available, the 1998 Record of Decision specified that in the meantime federal funds would be made available to mitigate current traffic congestion.
      Former Representative James Rogan inserted provisions in Congressional appropriation acts in both 1999 and 2000 preventing the Federal Highway Administration from expending any funds on 710 Freeway planning or design. He also secured $46 million in federal traffic mitigation funds, in accord with the 1998 Record of Decision, for the cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Alhambra to improve surface street transportation in the 710 Freeway corridor.

Over 1,000 residences, 7,000 mature trees in historic neighborhoods would be destroyed by the 710 Freeway extension

     Over 1,000 residences and 7,000 mature trees would be destroyed by the 710 Freeway Extension. These include scores of historic Victorian and Craftsman homes in Pasadena’s neighborhoods, and hundreds more in South Pasadena’s middle income and El Sereno’s modest neighborhoods. Of the project’s estimated $1.4 billion cost, over $200 million would be spent purchasing and bulldozing these homes and mature trees! An estimated 5,000 residents would be displaced; many would likely move to newly built houses on the edges of the Los Angeles metropolitan area, thereby creating additional freeway traffic throughout the regional transportation network.

Local political leaders and grassroots organizations oppose the 710 Freeway extension

     Strong opposition by local legislators to the 710 Freeway extension can be expected to continue. Both Representative Adam Schiff, then a State Senator, and State Senator Jack Scott, then an Assemblyman, worked actively in Sacramento to oppose the project and see that It received no funding. Newly elected Assemblywoman Carol Liu was instrumental, while she was on the LaCanada Flintridge City Council, in persuading that city to go on record in opposition. Meanwhile, grassroots opposition to the freeway extension continues to grow. In response to the placement of Measure A on the Pasadena ballot by supporters of the freeway extension, residents of west Pasadena and other neighborhoods interested in promoting improved traffic management without disruption of neighborhood values formed a citizens group, Neighbors for Better Transportation, to support Measure C and oppose Measure A.
     Other local and national groups opposed to the freeway extension include Singer Park Neighborhood Association, Pasadena Heritage, Westridge School, South Pasadena Preservation Foundation, El Sereno Neighborhood Action Committee, Highland Park Heritage Trust, Los Angeles Conservancy, California Preservation Foundation, Coalition for Clean Air, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.