ah, that 710 gap
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — The Pasadena Star News today has an article about the MTA studying the possibility of a tunnel to complete the 710. When I first started working up here at JPL two years ago I was confused by the short little dead-end spur of the 210 that I would get onto off of California. I later read that this spur had been intended to connect to the 710 (and occasionally the 110), but that connector had been blocked by the fact that it went through South Pasadena. From the article:
MTA officials came to West Covina City Hall to brief the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments' transportation committee on the tunneling proposal. SGVCOG, a 30-city organization, almost unanimously supports closing the 710 gap.
The city of South Pasadena, however, has battled the freeway project since 1964. The 710 Freeway goes as far north as Valley Boulevard, on the Alhambra-El Sereno border.
I know I've written before about the fuss South Pasadena people have made over the Gold Line, but I can't seem to find where at the moment (perhaps it's in my soon to be resolved June - October blackhole). A website called 710gap.com is a little less diplomatic on its "Truth" page.
This Website is intended to address the war of misinformation, distortion and outright false claims made by a small but intensely committed group of 710 Freeway opponents. This group composed primarily of South Pasadena residents, operates from the premise that their South Pasadena's interests outweigh staggering impacts, traffic congestion and pollution that their City forces upon residents of other Southern California cities. In essence, their message is that it is OK to subject others to vehicles and air pollution because "our community" is a "more special place" than all others.
My basic take is that something has to be done, and South Pasadena needs to get with the program and work on an amenable solution instead of taking a complete blocking stance. Just understand that this project at some point is going to happen, and it's a lot more likely to be pallatable to you if you're a part of the solution rather than continuing to be the problem.
Joe P on November 30, 2007, at 03:20PM – #1
The original design of the 710 Freeway extended it through Alhambra, San Marino and central Pasadena. Guess what, that plan didn’t last for long. When the original plans were negotiated for the southern portion of the 710, South Pasadena was not allowed to participate and was told that when the discussions began for the northern part they would be included. But when the northern negotiations started, South Pasadena was told that the southern route had already determined where the northern route would go. Although the 710 straddles city borders for most of its length it was decided to place the northern end through the center of South Pasadena, the smallest, and thus least powerful, city in the affected area. There was an early realization by the designers that the destruction of such a high percentage of that small cities homes would have such a negative impact on the tax base that South Pasadena would not be able to continue as a fully incorporated city. A plan was drawn up to divide South Pasadena between Los Angeles, Alhambra and Pasadena.
Throughout the Sixties and Seventies South Pasadena tried different approaches to a compromise but no other city would consider an alternate route. So, in the Seventies South Pasadena paid for the design and feasibility study of a western route that straddled the border with Los Angeles and utilized a high percentage of property which at the time was undeveloped. Because some of that property was owned by major donors to members of the Los Angeles City Council, that westerly route proposal was immediately killed.
At that time South Pasadena realized that compromise was futile and adopted a “no freeway” policy. Probably, if South Pasadena just said no from the beginning, some other solution would have been reached decades ago. Even now the tunnel proposal being discussed follows the same route as the surface freeway, despite the fact that the funding measure contained a requirement that the study be “route neutral”.
So in South Pasadena the issue isn’t “should we suck it up and let a freeway through our town“, it is “will we survive as an independent city or will we be carved up and tossed to the wolves.”