Findings from those studies would play an important part in answering decades-long questions about how the tunnel would affect traffic patterns, pollution and other environmental factors.
“That’s really the next logical phase,” Land said.
But tunnel opponents argue there are better ways to address what they contend is largely a commercial freight issue. More investment in rail lines to transport goods up and down the county, along with additions to the Metro Gold line, would be more effective, they say.
Ann Wilson, senior management analyst for the city of La Cañada Flintridge, noted that previous studies have shown that 75% of affected city streets would remain gridlocked even after a 710 tunnel was built.
“We imagine there’s got to be maybe some combination of projects that would be better than this,” she said. “This is not an effective alternative.”
Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge) said moving to the environmental study process would be a misuse of millions in taxpayer dollars. He also criticized the technical study for lacking important details on how and why tunneling is feasible, including costs and construction methods.
“They made promises to the region that they would not move to the environmental phase and spend significant resources on the project until they determined it to be feasible,” he said. “They have not shown that the project itself makes sense.”
As La Cañada and South Pasadena are in court fighting the use of Measure R funds for tunnel studies or construction, the Glendale City Council will soon consider joining the legal fight, Najarian said.
