Adding a Freeway will ONLY Increase Traffic

2035_AM_Peak_Period_Change_in_Congestion_Build_v_No_Build.png

2035_PM_Peak_Period_Change_in_Congestion_Build_v_No_Build.png

  • Regional traffic is not improved as a result of the tunnel; rather, it adds up to 500,000 more miles traveled each day
  • Traffic is merely shifted around from various freeway segments (such as I‐605 and SR ‐2) to others (I ‐5, I‐10, I‐210, and I‐710)
  • Some of the freeway segments that see increased congestion, such as I‐5, are those that are already operating at stressed levels during peak periods
  • Traffic gets significantly worse on various connecting freeways as a result of the tunnel, in part by inducing extra driving
  • Generally, it has been shown that a one‐to‐one relationship exists between road capacity and vehicle travel. In other words, if capacity is increased by 10%, the amount of driving also increases by 10%
  • The tunnel makes arterial traffic worse along certain streets in Alhambra and Rosemead
  • Tunnel results in increased congestion in certain areas and decreased intersection performance in parts of Alhambra, Rosemead, San Marino, Pasadena, and South Pasadena
  • EIR doesn’t allow comprehensive analysis of real solutions to the SGV’s transportation needs, particularly for transit
  • Project’s Purpose and Need statement focuses only on north‐ south travel
  • Corridor of focus stretches only from the 10/710 to the 210/134 interchanges
  • East‐west options are ignored
  • Overall, project’s Purpose and Need is flawed: the study area faces an east‐west transportation problem, not a north ‐south one. An east‐west transportation project would likely have a greater congestion relief benefit for the project area cites, rather than a singular north‐south one
  • The EIR violates Assembly Bill 32 and Caltrans’ own 2015-2020 plan of reduced CO2 emissions
  • We must DEMAND better from SCAG and Metro