Barbara Messina Contradicts Herself – not telling the whole story?

As you will understand from reading the Metro news release below, building the 710 goods movement toll tunnel will shift truck traffic to the 210 via the 710. This action moves part of the burden from the 605, 5, 10, and 60 to us. Our No 710 position is not to increase and shift the cargo traffic burden, but to actually relieve traffic on freeways, by supporting the creation of electric heavy rail projects to transport goods.
These sources below are just a small sample illustrating why …the City Council of Alhambra is intentionally misleading their constituents about the impacts from the 710 toll tunnel on their community. The Alhambra CC and the other promoters are hiding the forces behind the 710 tunnel extension because they don’t want the voters/citizens to find out that Measure R funds, which was promoted to voters as providing financing for public transit is really about building a 710 freight truck tunnel corridor for goods entering though the Ports (not commuters/not better alternatives). The Ports hope to triple in size(1) and dump the excess truck traffic onto freeways through-out the whole region.
(1) (Triple in size and container movement maps/diagrams including map on page 13 showing the 710 to the 210 as a planned strategic dedicated truck corridor lane(s) reaching the 15 and going north) SCAG source: http://narc.org/uploads/Annie%20Nam_Financing.pdf
Metro news release(2) – the 710 extension purpose is goods movement, not relieving commuter traffic:
Here is a document (link) from Metro stating clearly that the purpose of the 710 extension is for goods movement not commuter traffic:
“While this year’s 18 projects and the I-405 are designed primarily to give people a better commutethree other high-profile projects in various planning stages but not yet scheduled, address the demands of commerce — specifically goods movement from the twin ports of L.A. and Long Beach, the two busiest ports in the country, and goods movement from California’s Central Valley, America’s bread basket.
The I-710 south from the Pomona Freeway (SR-60) to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach will involve a freeway widening and possibly a separate freight corridor that could be tolled.
The 710 north gap closure between the I-10 and the I-210 would complete the natural goods corridor that was begun several decades ago. Metro has been holding a series of conversations and outreach with the community, in an effort to collect ideas on best options.
A third, the High Desert Corridor, will be a brand new 63-mile east-west freeway between SR-14 in Los Angeles County and SR-18 in San Bernardino County. It would create a shortcut for goods movement from the Central Valley to the rest of the United States and trim back goods congestion through the L.A. basin. 
Like infrastructure investment, goods movement investment is an investment in our future, Failing said.”
Councilmember Messina is running for re-election this year after 20 long years on the City Council of Alhambra … [but what is Barbara Messina’s] stance on whether she wants freight trucks using the 710 tunnel???
Councilmember Messina told some of her constituents at last year’s “710 Day in Alhambra” event (7/10/2013) that this tunnel will relieve local traffic and there is a strong possibility of no trucks allowed in the 710 tunnel extension, as though it’s not a regional issue involving the ports and cargo movement. When questioned further by a No710 member about her “No Trucks” statement she walked-back her statement, and said regarding trucks in the tunnel: “we’re not telling people anything right now” and then claimed what she is telling people is that “it’s a possibility, Okay”… “it’s a strong possibility (there would be no trucks)”  (3)
Attached is the recording of her statement (hard to hear with the volume of music at the “710 Day in Alhambra” event)
(3)
If the tunnel is not intended for trucks, then why is Barbara Messina and the “710 Coalition” (who they belong to and work closely with), soliciting resolutions in favor of extending the 710 tunnel from cities that are located way over by the 605 freeway(4) which is heavily used by goods movement trucks?
These are the cities listed on their website:
La Verne – east of the 605!
Pomona – mostly east of the 57!!!
Pico Rivera – by the 605, south of the 60 – closer to the 5  
West Covina  east of the 605!
South El Monte – by the 605
Diamond Bar – mostly east of the 57!!!
Temple City
Barbara Messina, on 10/1/13, three months after  the “710 Day in Alhambra” event (out of earshot of her constituents) contradicts her “strong possibility” no trucks statement, and is recorded at a Long Beach City Council meeting promoting the tunnel as not a local issue, but as a regional transportation project intended for goods movement:
This is a video recording of Barbara Messina at the Long Beach City Council meeting trying to get them to renew their 1992 resolution in-support of the completion of the 710 freeway (now tunnel) to close the gap and promoting the tunnel as a goods movement corridor.(5) The measure was defeated.
Link to view the meeting and quotes:
(5)
At 1:34 – 4:16 Barbara Messina speaks.
At 2:10-3min into 10/1/13 LBCC video, Barbara Messina states that this is a regional issue, and represents the 710 freeway tunnel version of the Gap closure as a freight corridor (at exactly 2:29 you’ll find the phrase “…and I know how important moving goods from the port is for the 710 and the region”.
Obviously quite a different statement than what Messina has been telling her constituents.
– C. Kramer

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s