Upcoming scoping meetings for I-10 ExpressLanes Extension project

Metro and Caltrans are working on plans to convert the HOV lanes on the 10 freeway to ExpressLanes from the 605 freeway to the San Bernardino County Line. 

The alternatives to be studied include, but are not limited to:

•No build, i.e. leave the HOV lanes as they are. 

•Converting the existing HOV lane to a High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane, also known as an ExpressLane

•Converting the existing HOV lane to an ExpressLane, and adding an additional ExpressLane/HOT lane in each direction

•Maintain the existing HOV lane and add a second HOV lane in each direction.  

The project’s purpose is to improve the movement of people and goods, improve safety, enhance mobility and regional connectivity along the 10 freeway. In particular, the project aims to accomplish the following objectives:

•Improve traffic flow and relieve congestion by increasing trip reliability and maximizing the vehicle and person throughput.  

•Improve travel times and experiences by incorporating active traffic management and intelligent transportation system strategies.  

•Promote equitable and sustainable multi-modal travel options, and address climate change by improving livability, enhancing safety, and minimizing project impacts.  

•Close the gap between existing and planned priced managed lanes/high- occupancy toll lanes to provide interregional continuity and consistency in alignment with Metro’s Countywide ExpressLanes Strategic Plan. 

•Address degraded travel speeds on certain HOV lanes along the corridor. 

The project area includes the cities of El Monte, Industry, Baldwin Park, Covina, West Covina, San Dimas, Walnut, Pomona, Claremont, Montclair as well as unincorporated Los Angeles County including the communities of Bassett, Valinda, Industry, Avocado Heights and South San Jose Hills. Public outreach for the project will extend beyond the I-10 corridor to reach adjacent neighborhoods, job centers, transit hubs and other major corridors, including along the I-605, SR-57 and SR-71.

Caltrans has begun the development of The Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for the project. The EIR/EA will be prepared per the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQA/NEPA) requirements. Caltrans is the NEPA/CEQA lead agency for this effort.

The project’s official Notice of Preparation and other project materials are available for public review on the project website. The project team will be initiating the scoping period for public comment starting April 25, 2022, through June 10, 2022, in conformance with CEQA and NEPA. Comments may be submitted during the public scoping period via mail, email, the project website comment form, or the project hotline.

The project team will be hosting a series of public scoping meetings regarding the I-10 ExpressLanes Extension project. The purpose of the public scoping meetings is to obtain public and agency feedback on the project’s purpose and need, range of proposed alternatives, and critical issues to be studied in the EIR/EA.

Scoping Meetings:

Virtual public scoping meetings will be held online on:

Wednesday, May 4th, Noon to 2 p.m.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86814917912?pwd=OWxLSXFJNzUyeFFwZkVZZVMvMjc2QT09

Webinar ID: 868 1491 7912

Passcode: 832917

Call-In Number: 312-626-6799

Thursday, May 5th, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82471593922?pwd=Q1laYm0xTWEyNVVyY2l0VHhTRHZUQT09

Webinar ID: 824 7159 3922

Passcode: 673355

Call-In Number: 312-626-6799

Saturday, May 7th, 10 a.m. to Noon.

Please click the link below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89181446937?pwd=S3lBT1dqcU1xR3M4TFAzVXRTMUZJZz09

Webinar ID: 891 8144 6937

Passcode: 986142

Call-In Number: 312-626-6799

7 replies

  1. The four alternatives are not alternatives at all, particularly the last two that add new lanes. There is only one solution specifically within the purview of Metro that will achieve the goals, it is not a new idea, and its benefits are well-known and published. Not surprisingly, it is the one not mentioned as an alternative (see the end of my post).

    Why is it that anyone is still even considering widening as an alternative, in light of numerous theoretical studies and real-life experiences here and abroad that prove that widening has never succeeded in accomplishing the stated goals?

    The project’s purpose is to improve the movement of people and goods, improve safety, enhance mobility and regional connectivity along the 10 freeway. In particular, the project aims to accomplish the following objectives:

    None of the alternatives will improve traffic flow or relieve congestion. Tolls are regressive fees that place a disproportionate burden for the cost of maintaining highways or recovering the cost of widening on lower income workers.

    Trip trip reliability may increase for those able to pay, this is a horrendous and irresponsible inequity. None of the options “promote equitable and sustainable multi-modal travel options” nor do they “address climate change by improving livability, enhancing safety, and minimizing project impacts.”

    The only practical solution that addresses all the stated goals including equity and climate change is to convert existing HOV lanes to bus only lanes, using double-length buses to form an effective and low cost alternative. If Metro has the funds for widening, it makes far more sense to implement the bus only lanes because the funds will not only provide for the implementation of the bus-only lanes but also for the construction of park-and-ride at major hubs and the purchase and operation of shuttle buses at those hubs.

  2. This is the same sector of the 10 Freeway currently under reconstruction. And like many of the other failed MTA freeway projects we see upgrades constructed only to be demolished a year or two later in order to implement their newest fiasco. What I find interesting is the 101, Hollywood Freeway only gets new landscaping but never any improvements. The freeway is exactly as constructed over seventy years ago. In addition, the much needed, previously approved and paid for, 2 Freeway was abandoned by Governor Jerry Brown during his first reign with no alternative ever offered. It’s not as if it’s not needed. Just observe the grid lock between the 101 Freeway and the entrance to the two along Glendale/ Alvarado Blvds. Hell, with the MTA’s love for tunneling few businesses or homes would be affected. But I guess us city folk don’t deserve relief, we can see who are lining the pockets of our politicians.

  3. Improving Metrolink San Bernardino Line service should have been an alternative. It only runs about every 20 minutes peak and 60 minutes off peak.

  4. we don’t need more pay-to-play lanes that go mostly unused. we need real relief for general motorists.

  5. I’m fine with the project as long as it does not result in a widening of the freeways footprint. No more freeway widening in urban areas. Focus on transit.

  6. This is ridiculous, just spent 2 years rebuilding and partially widening this freeway segment.
    Convert the carpool lane to toll if you must, but no more widening freeways !