1. Expertise SR 710 North Study An Evaluation of the DEIR/EIS Presentation to the City of San Gabriel City Council February 2, 2016 Leland C Dolley, Special Counselor to the City of Alhambra, SR710N Gap Closure Leedolley1@verizon.net 310-977-7704

2. Data Source of Transportation Review All information in the slides is based on the data and references in the DEIR/EIS documents.

3. Study Area & Alternatives DEIR/EIS Study Area boundaries: – I-210 to the north – I-10 / SR 60 to the south – I-5 / SR 2 to the west – I-605 to the east DEIR/EIS prepared a No Build Alternative, which serves as a baseline for comparison of the following Build Alternatives: – TSM/TDM: Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management – BRT: Bus Rapid Transit – LRT: Light Rail Transit – Tunnel: Dual Bore Tunnel with Tolls

4. How do the alternatives compare? Derived from data in SR710 North Study, Transportation Technical Report (Caltrans & Metro, November 2014) The Tunnel appears to provide the greatest magnitude of positive improvement to regional mobility and congestion relief. PURPOSE AND NEEDSNo BuildTunnelTSM/TDMBRTLRT 1. Improve the efficiency of the existing regional freeway and arterial systems (i.e., How much is the time spent on the road reduced?) 12,107,000 Vehicle Hours Traveled 6.78 M Hours Saved Annually 261,000 Hours Saved Annually 1.04 M Hours Saved Annually 2.87 M More Hours Annually 2. Increase in regional transit ridership(i.e., Are people more likely to use public transit in the region?) New Transit Trips +1,800 to +5,000 over other alternatives 3. Increase in study area transit ridership (i.e., Are people more likely to use public transit in the study area?) 4.2% Transit Mode Share +0.1% over other alternatives +0.1% over other alternatives 4. Reduce congestion on local arterials adversely affected due to accommodating regional traffic volumes(i.e., Is there less cut- through traffic?) 13.7% PM Arterial Cut Through Traffic 57,600 vpd off arterials 6,500 more vpd on arterials 5,800 more vpd on arterials 3,900 more vpd on arterials 5. Increase capacity; Increase north-south mobility (i.e., Does this move more people?) 3,210,000 Daily Person Trips Across Screenline 22.97 M Annual Person Trips 2.09 M Annual Person Trips 3.92 M Annual Person Trips 3.39 M Annual Person Trips 6. Reduce regional congestion (i.e., Will this reduce peak hour trips by at least 2.5 minutes?) % Peak Hour Trips ≥ 2.5 minutes faster than No Build 234,000 vpd w time savings 70,400 vpd w time savings

5. What happens on the arterials? Only the Tunnel moves more arterial traffic to the freeway. The arterial streets aren’t pretending to be freeways. Commuters are less likely to cut-through through the community. Based on data from SR710 North Study, Transportation Technical Report (Caltrans & Metro, November 2014)

6. 2035 Auto ADT – Tunnel vs TSM/TDM Based on data from SR710 North Study, Air Quality Assessment Report (Caltrans & Metro, January 2015)

7. 2035 Truck ADT – Tunnel vs TSM/TDM Based on data from SR710 North Study, Air Quality Assessment Report (Caltrans & Metro, January 2015)

8. Data Source of Air Quality Review All information in the slides is based on the data and references in the DEIR/EIS documents.

9. DEIR Air Quality and Health Risk Assessments meet or exceed Caltrans (Lead Agency) standard requirements SR710 “Health Risk Gap” *Dual-Bore Tolled Freeway Tunnel Alternative (HRA Figure 3-8) Health risk will be reduced in the future for all alternatives (Tunnel* reductions from 15 to 350 in a million, as shown above) Only the Freeway Tunnel* enhances those reductions in South Stub cities (high existing air toxic cancer risk) by further reducing risk 10 to 50 in a million (from No-Build) AQMD MATES IV: 2012 Cancer Risk per Million Tunnel* vs 2012 Cancer Risk per Million (Darker = less risk) 280 460 560 630 460 380 500 410 510 570 Air Quality / Health Risk Summary 10 to 50 in a million lower than No-Build for Tunnel* Only

10. *Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative compared to No-Build Percentage reductions based only on reduced vehicle miles travelled; greater reductions expected from mobility improvements Air Quality / Health Risk Summary Local Streets: Only the Freeway Tunnel* further reduces local street emissions (by reducing vehicle miles and hours travelled), including – Pasadena (-9%) – South Pasadena (-12%) – San Gabriel (- 7%) – Alhambra (-14%) Only the Freeway Tunnel* further reduces local street truck emissions (including air toxic DPM) in heavily impacted Alhambra (-17%) Metro, Stakeholder meeting #16

11. The Tunnel* reduces pollution by scrubbing / filtering all particulate matter (not just exhaust) from all trucks and cars in the tunnel by 80% or more The Tunnel* reduces emissions on congested open-air freeways by reducing vehicle miles and hours travelled on them Advanced mobile source emission reduction technology can only be used in Tunnel Alternative *Dual-Bore Freeway Tunnel Alternative compared to the No-Build Air Quality / Health Risk Summary Exhaust vents modeled in AQ/HR analyses

12. The Tunnel results in the greatest magnitude of positive change to congestion relief and regional mobility over the other alternatives: – 6.78 Million hours of travel time saved annually – A 10% reduction in daily travel time of at least 2.5 minutes (234,000 vpd) – A 43% reduction in daily arterial cut through traffic (57,000 vpd) – 22.97 Million annual person trips The Tunnel moves regional arterial traffic back onto the freeways, where it was originally designed to go – Arterials throughout the study area benefit. Only the Tunnel reduces emissions in historically impacted “SR710 Health Gap” areas – Local street emissions ↓: example, 7% to 14% or more lower from Pasadena through Alhambra – Freeway emissions ↓: in Tunnel (controlled) and open roadway (fewer trip miles / greater mobility) – Heath risk ↓ everywhere: Cleaner cars/trucks AND an additional 10 to 50 in a million cancer risk reduction for SR 710 terminus communities Summary