Save South Pasadena From a Killer Flood--of Commuters : Freeway: Extending the 710 would be as bad as any natural disaster; there are alternatives.

Imagine if water coursing down from the San Gabriel Mountains jumped the banks of the Arroyo Seco to cut a horrendous swath through the historic heart of South Pasadena, sweeping a thousand homes and businesses and disrupting tens of thousands of lives--just as the Mississippi is doing these days in Iowa and Missouri.

No doubt such a disaster would be splashed across the front pages and lead the “live action” reports on the evening news, followed a few days later by a tour of the ravaged area by concerned officials and the announcement of emergency assistance and plans for long-term relief.

Happily, there is no threat that the Arroyo Seco will flood as the Mississippi now is, certainly not now in the dry season or in the once-in-50 years rains that the riverbed’s man-made banks were designed to contain.

But as for the damage, that is exactly what the construction of the proposed 6.2-mile extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway in South Pasadena would do. Included in the debris would be about 40 historic structures, among them some of Southern California’s most hallowed homes, and thousands of mature trees. And that is based on the report released this week by a committee convened by Caltrans to study alternatives to lessen the environmental and social impact of the proposed freeway.

It is no wonder that two of the 13 committee members, one representing South Pasadena and another from the Sierra Club, quit in protest.

As being pushed by Caltrans and the Wilson Administration, the freeway link in the latest configuration would consume nearly 8% of the city’s land and displace an estimated 14%--about 3,500 persons--of the city’s population of 24,000. For a city to qualify for federal disaster aid, only 5% have to be affected.

What in some way makes the completion of the freeway worse than a natural disaster, such as a flood, is that it is a rationalized act of man--indeed, made by some of the very people who under other circumstances would be falling over themselves before the cameras to aid the city if it had been hit with a monster flood.

One wonders how many of those making the decision ever toured South Pasadena, looked at the mostly modest, well-maintained houses on tree-shaded streets that would be destroyed, and thought about the effect on lives, families, friends, schools, businesses and community spirit. To consciously do such damage to a viable municipality, especially in this day and age of housing shortages and waning neighborhood identity, has to be madness.

And such destruction for what? To shave a few minutes off the commuting time of cars and trucks by at long last linking the Long Beach, Pasadena and Foothill freeways?

That is a dream. According to studies by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, once the freeways are connected, more traffic will be generated, and in a short time commuting in the area will be as slow as ever, if not slower. Traffic, like water, follows the most accommodating route until it fills up, backs up and spills over.

To be sure, there is a traffic problem in South Pasadena and environs. However, a much less severe and more imaginative course of action would be to attempt to finesse the traffic through the city by select street improvements, such as one-way avenues, restricted parking and timed spotlights, edged by creative landscaping to veil the sound and unsightliness.

These improvements are known in city and transportation planning circles as the “low-build” alternative to freeways. Certainly, it would be low-cost, particularly when compared with the estimated $630-million price tag of an eight-lane link. And it would be much, much more neighborhood-friendly.

Important as the proponents of the freeway link say it is to facilitate transportation for an economically attractive Southern California, so is maintaining and, hopefully, improving, the region’s quality of life. As we learned elsewhere in another time and place, you don’t destroy a town in order to save it.