SR-710 Study wraps up latest round of community meetings to review alternatives under consideration

The SR-710 study meeting last week in Pasadena. Photo by Daniel McGuire/Metro.

Metro and Caltrans last week completed a round of seven “Open Houses” that were held in May as part of the ongoing Alternatives Analysis for the SR-710 study, which seeks to find ways to improve traffic in the area of the gap in the 710 between Alhambra and Pasadena.

The meetings were held in the communities of El Sereno, Eagle Rock, La Canada Flintridge, El Monte, South Pasadena, Alhambra and Pasadena with nearly 400 people attending.

The Open Houses were designed as a “learning environment” in which participants can learn about the project at their own pace. To learn more about the study, please see the SR-710 page on metro.net. Online comments can be submitted through the project’s Twitter account (@SR710Study), though the project’s Facebook page or by phone at 855-477-7100.

Here are the various alternatives that are under study (and here’s direct link to the pdf):

Sr710 Open House Alternative Concepts

5 replies

  1. I’m glad to see light rail included amongst the options, although the no build option is also interesting.

    Usually “no build” is the NIMBY option, but here it seems to be presented differently. All of those other lines on the map are a reminder that even if the NIMBYs say no to everything, there will still be a lot of construction — just not right there.

    The “no build” option would actually be better than the highway one.

  2. I’m no fan of building highways but this is one place that really cries out for it. The 710 connection alternatives F-6 and F-7 are the freeway equivalents of the Regional Connector. It’s a key piece missing from the beginning that would make the whole system work better.

  3. This massive tunnel – how will we pay for its maintenance?

    The new growth it will create on the periphery of Los Angeles County (likely outside of the boundaries of LA County itself) – will this new growth pay for this tunnel AND for maintenance on the infrastructure where the growth occurs?

    Doesn’t this whole thing read as a massive doubling down on an investment in car infrastructure that is literally driving us off a financial cliff? The unfunded maintenance on the roads and bridges in the City of Los Angeles alone is in the billions. For a project like this, how can we justify this massive outlay of borrowed cash when the roads we’ve already got as falling into shambles?

    I understand the cars = good 1950’s mentality, but this isn’t the time for tragi-comic hail mary passes. We need to re-orient ourselves for a future that is less capital intensive.

  4. @Josef Bray-Ali: The tunnel would also serve trucks too. This would help with trucks heading from the ports to the high desert. This would allow trucks to by-pass the East LA interchange on the way out to Bakersfield, etc. It would also give a redundancy to the 605 and 15 coridors for trucks going north toward the 15/40 interchange. It is not all about cars.