.

City Council, Residents Discuss Traffic Issues With Antonovich

At a public meeting Wednesday morning, the San Marino City Council and residents brought concerns such as Los Robles traffic before Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich and his staff.

and Los Robles Avenue traffic were among the top issues discussed at a at last Wednesday morning.

The breakfast meeting was open to the public and a handful of residents showed up--mostly Los Robles Avenue residents who urged Antonovich to consider ways to discourage so many cars from traveling on their street.

Until the 710 freeway is extended through the surrounding areas, residents are concerned about the heavy traffic down the street and how it affects their safety and home values.

"I'm desperately worried about being an alternate route for traffic," said Judy O' Keefe, who has lived on Los Robles and Winthrop for 43 years. "I don't want to lose the classification of being a residential street." 

Another Los Robles resident mentioned a car-counting study she had performed by Wiltech Engineering that found that over 18,000 cars travel down Los Robles every day, about 5,000 more cars than the population of San Marino.

"Eighteen-thousand cars on a street is unacceptable," said the resident, who did not want her name published. "It's done nothing but go up. It's funneling all the people from Alhambra."

The Wiltech study differs from a City of San Marino study conducted the week of January 23 that found about 14,000 cars per day travel down Los Robles.

Possible Traffic Solutions

Los Robles residents shared possible ways to decrease Los Robles traffic flow, such as having drivers travel on Fair Oaks Avenue or Garfield Avenue, allowing left turns at the Huntington Drive and Atlantic Boulevard intersection and putting stop signs or speed bumps on Los Robles.

San Marino Vice Mayor Richard Ward said that the long-term Los Robles traffic solution is completion of the 710 freeway.

"The 710 [freeway extension] is years away," resident Stephanie Johnson later said. "What can be done now? It's very dangerous. ... Flow can be controlled by signal timing in Alhambra. Some solutions are outside the City."

Los Angeles County employees at Wednesday's meeting said it is "very difficult to restrict traffic from moving on the street" and the County can't mandate Alhambra to do something, but San Marino City Manager Matt Ballantyne said the City is in talks with Alhambra.

"We have to study 710 alternatives environmentally but can't study everything," said Michael Cano, Deputy Supervisor of Transportation, Infrastructure and Freight Policy for Los Angeles County.

Residents also made mention of a letter that San Marino City Manager Matt Ballantyne had sent to Antonovich's office about the issue.

Check back on Patch for more about the City's letter to Antonovich and stances on Los Robles traffic.

Do you think Los Robles in San Marino has too much traffic? What do you think would help ease traffic on Los Robles?

Fred Hampton May 22, 2012 at 05:23 AM
Constructing the 710 today is meant to be more of a way by which Supervisor Antonovich can at last fulfill his promise to his high desert base to direct inbound container cargo from the twin Ports of LA/LB to the high desert. Truck cargo which currently travels east on either the 60 and 10 freeways or north on the 5 at the moment would automatically have a new freeway option to move cargo north... Toll roads would then be put in place to offset the costs, generate revenue and silence skeptics. So called traffic using the Tunnel would be comprised of container hauling trucks, not the already existing traffic we see on surface streets today. That traffic will still be there in a few years.. speed bumps, left turn signs and law enforcement issuing citations in tow. Constructing the tunnel will also require ventilation shafts, towers and emergency exits. These will bring with them the same noxious air that is responsible for the well documented 'cancer cluster' communities located along the southern portion of the 710 in the Harbor Gateway Communities of Carson, Wilmington, Compton, Long Beach etc.... I would strongly encourage any one reading this to spend an hour standing above the 710 on any pedestrian overpass in the aforementioned cities and then after having done that ask yourself, is providing large retailers such as Target or Wal-Mart the ability to move cheap imported goods from ship to shelf worth my left lung?
reality check May 28, 2012 at 01:08 AM
Metro is not being honest at these meetings. The 710 Freeway is being built for use by the LA/LB ports for "GOODS MOVEMENT". http://www.everythinglongbeach.com/metro-transportation-projects-2011/ In this article, Doug Failing FROM METRO gave information to the reporter explaining that while 18 projects” in the works “are designed primarily to give people a better commute” – 3 other projects; the I-710 south, 710 NORTH gap closure, the High Desert Corridor are intended to “ADDRESS THE DEMANDS OF COMMERCE — specifically goods movement” The 3% figure (lie) they are giving us now is based on the trucks currently using the route (because there is no freeway past Valley Blvd.) After the ports expand, quadrupling DAILY TRUCK TRIPS to 140,000... it wont be a measly 3% using their “specifically goods movement” corridor. Also, is everyone aware that the tunnel will have no on or off ramps? It’s obviously not intended for local traffic congestion relief (another aspect Metro doesn’t advertise). It will be Tolled: http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/transportation/PDFs/2008%20Draft%20RTP%20Tunnel%20Financial%20Assessment.pdf Pg 4 “Trucks would pay an average of $15.23”-… this is how they recoup the cost. Unless it's used as a trucking corridor they wont be able to conclude a Public Private Partnership deal. Tolling is how they recoup the cost. Unless it's used as a trucking corridor they wont be able to conclude a Public Private Partnership deal.
reality check May 28, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Part 2 Quote from Metro regarding increased truck traffic from the ports: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/images/final-2009-LRTP.pdf page Sec1:42 5th paragraph "This trade activity, in turn, will result in DAILY PORT-generated TRUCK traffic increasing from 60,000 in 2005 to 140,000 truck trips PER DAY by 2030 despite significant efforts by the Ports to increase on-dock rail capacity and usage." http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/images/2009_lrtp_techdoc.pdf PG 18 "Currently, goods movement-related traffic is growing at a faster rate than that of automobiles. DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC on I-710 ALONE is expected to increase from 38,000 to _approximately 90,000 trucks A DAY by the year 2035."
reality check May 28, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Part 3 The 710 Tunnel will be a tolled freeway. http://www.ci.south-pasadena.ca.us/transportation/PDFs/2008%20Draft%20RTP%20Tunnel%20Financial%20Assessment.pdf Pg 4 “Trucks would pay an average of $15.23”-… this is how they recoup the cost. Unless it's used as a trucking corridor they wont be able to conclude a Public Private Partnership deal. Tolled freeway costs can skyrocket: http://news.yahoo.com/states-looking-tolls-pay-highways-161604357.html;_ylc=X3oDMTNuNGRpcmEyBF9TAzIxNDYwMjEzNzMEYWN0A21haWxfY2IEY3QDYQRpbnRsA3VzBGxhbmcDZW4tVVMEcGtnAzg1ZGFmYWVmLTc1MDMtMzc2My1hYjQzLThhMjVlZjA3N2M2NARzZWMDbWl0X3NoYXJlBHNsawNtYWlsBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3 5th to last paragraph: “Some tolling agencies could also use "a dose of sunshine," Baxandall said. Because many are quasi-governmental, public disclosure, open meeting and other transparency rules don't always apply, he said. As a result, they frequently operate out of public sight, creating opportunities for corruption or manipulation by industry, he said.” 3rd to last paragraph: “The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey recently raised cash fares on six Interstate bridges and tunnels to $12 for CARS. By 2015, it will cost a five-axle TRUCK paying cash $105 to cross between New York and New Jersey, three times as much as for any other bridge or tunnel in the country, according to the American Trucking Association.”
reality check May 28, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Having attended the outreach meetings that Metro has been hosting about the EIR we have learned that they are not looking at the alternatives as they have promised. The EIR is a joke. What is taking place right now appears fraudulent. And political proponents are either asleep at the switch or in on the deal. Here are 3 alternatives that the ports could use instead of killing our area with CARGO TRUCK induced CONGESTION and pollution: 1) the GRID - a sorting and zero-emission container supply chain http://planetforward.org/idea/the-grid-project-green-rail-intelligent-development/ 2) CargoWay - flexible (CNG/electric) trams that travel on both roads and rail lines. http://www.megarail.com/pdf/CRLBLA-7a.pdf 3) Freight Shuttle – Electric powered transporters over elevated guideways. http://www.freightshuttle.com/

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »