Freeway: Link to Community Disaster

Being polished these days in preparation for its release by Caltrans is the long-awaited environmental impact statement for the proposed 6.2-mile section of the Long Beach (710) Freeway that would slice through the communities of South Pasadena and El Sereno.

The statement, in the form a thick, dry report that has been in preparation for years, examines about 20 routes the section could take. It was scheduled to be released and receive federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval last month, according to an internal Caltrans memo labeled “Director’s Hot List.”

Memos and reports concerning the controversial link in the freeway tend to find their way into the hands of opponents of the estimated $1-billion project, thanks to a few Caltrans employees who consider it a bureaucratic boondoggle.

“Maybe the link made sense in 1953, when it was first proposed, but not now,” said an employee who traded candor for anonymity. “But it is difficult telling that to your boss and the governor, who are committed to the project for their own personal and political reasons.”

The “Hot List” memo outlines a scenario that has the state Transportation Commission holding a public hearing in September, then in a “special” meeting adopting “the route and the environmental findings,” followed by the distribution of the statement to the public in November.

“Following 30-day review period and resolution of any substantive comments, the FHWA Regional Administrator approves Route 710 project by issuing a Record of Decision (ROD)” in December, concludes the memo.

Don’t bet on it.

If ever there was a freeway project that should not be approved it is the 710 link, whatever twisted alternative route comes out of the private planning sessions being held by Caltrans at the behest of a host of special interests in preparation of the public hearings. This includes an ardent trucking industry and the Automobile Club of Southern California, concerned about growing gridlock.

Beyond the perceived need for the freeway that is spurring its approval within the halls of government is the promise of an ambitious construction program whetting the appetites of politicos and their contributors, and the nefarious drive of some bureaucrats to justify their own existence. A few have made lifetime careers out of the 710 link.

Meanwhile, arguments against the link keep mounting. Earlier this month the National Trust for Historic Preservation listed South Pasadena as one of 11 endangered historic places nationwide.

The Washington-based group noted that whatever route is chosen, a minimum of five historic districts and 70 historic structures would be destroyed, including such gems as the ornate 1887 Queen Anne-styled Wynyate House and numerous Craftsmen bungalows distinctive to Southern California.

But more than the historic districts and structures that lend South Pasadena a sense of time and place, hundreds of other houses also would be destroyed. Depending on what route is taken, an estimated 600 in South Pasadena, 700 in El Sereno and 200 in Pasadena would be lost.

Most are modest, well-maintained houses edged by flowers and lawns along tree-shaded streets that read middle class, pleasant and proud, looking like a scene out of the play “Our Town.”

To even consider demolishing these houses and forcing their estimated 6,000 residents to relocate during the present housing and community crises gripping Los Angeles is madness, pure and simple. The effect on lives, families, friends, local schools and businesses, and community spirit, would be devastating.

In South Pasadena, if any one of a number of proposed routes is built, an estimated 10% of the city’s land would be consumed and 6% of the city’s population displaced, to say nothing of the effect a proposed five-level interchange would have on neighboring Pasadena.

“For a city to qualify for federal disaster aid only 5% has to be affected. But the disaster has to be a natural one, not man-made, like a freeway,” observes AlvaLee Arnold, who has served as the city’s mayor twice.

Others, such as Mary Ann Parada, compare the effect of the project, if built, to the city having a nuclear device dropped on it.

“We’re talking here, in addition to the loss of houses, 7,000 trees being destroyed, schools being vacated, businesses being disrupted and the air being even more polluted, to a point where you can kiss the city goodby,” said Parada, of the Citizens United to Save South Pasadena. “And all so some trucks and cars can cut their commuting time by a few minutes.”

Actually, if the 710 project linking the Long Beach, Pasadena and Foothill freeways is built, traffic in the region will not be appreciably eased.

In fact, studies by the Southern California Assn. of Governments have shown that the freeways, once connected, will just attract more traffic; traffic being like water, flowing downhill along the easiest route until that route fills up to once again flow over into bordering communities.

Building more freeways through cities in this stage of the region’s development is akin to giving into the demands of terrorists. You never win, while the situation tends to get worse.

What needs to be explored are such alternatives as incentives for car and van pooling, light rail and how the existing highways and streets can be better utilized by making them one way or eliminating left-turn lanes, restricting parking, timing stoplights and generally finessing traffic through communities without having to destroy them.

It is time to bury such dinosaurs as the 710 link, deep and forever, and to look to more imaginative, and humane ways of transportation.