Caltrans ended 60 years of fighting over a north 710 Freeway extension by choosing local road improvements over a 6.3-mile tunnel, an historic decision announced Wednesday by the governor’s transportation secretary.

Standing among the native plants of a community garden in west Pasadena once designated for freeway lanes, Secretary of Transportation Brian Annis said the extension of the Long Beach Freeway will never get built.

“Caltrans’ action today, as the environmental lead (on the project) is to adopt the locally preferred alternative. A final decision has been made,” said Annis, who flew from Sacramento to make the announcement alongside lawmakers, locally elected officials and activists in favor of the go-small, non-freeway approach.

The state highway agency agreed with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which had voted to kill the freeway extension in May 2017 and move ahead with alternative transportation projects such as street widenings, a train overpass in Pasadena, traffic signal synchronization and removal of the freeway stub at Valley Boulevard near Alhambra.

“This is the finish line,” announced state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada Flintridge, who negotiated an end to the freeway alternative with Caltrans after LA Metro said it could not fund the tunnel, estimated to cost $3 billion-$7 billion.

Saying goodbye

On Monday, Portantino will introduce a bill that will remove the proposed north-south freeway extension once planned from the 10 Freeway/Valley Boulevard terminus to the 210/134 freeways through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena from the California Streets and Highways Code.

“Today we say goodbye to the 710 tunnel and turn on the light to local 710 solutions,” he added.

Many 710 Freeway activists had expected Caltrans to follow LA Metro’s lead and saw this action as the final nail in the 710 Freeway coffin.

Some from the No 710 Action Committee became concerned when it took 1 1/2 years and had asked Caltrans to remove all reference to a freeway extension from the EIR.

While Caltrans refused, it did decide to sign off on the Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM/TDM) local alternative.

Both sides agreed not to bring any lawsuits.

Caltrans’ decision to sign off and certify the project’s 9.000-page Environmental Impact Report after selecting the locally preferred road and transit alternative was posted on its website at 10 a.m. Wednesday. It will become part of the state record in about a month, Annis said.

“It is an exciting moment in time. Now we can move forward with some real solutions,” said Caltrans District 7 Director John Bulinski.

Legal fights

The proposed project generated some of the most protracted legal fights in the history of Caltrans, as well as deep divisions between neighboring cities for decades.

Locally, cities of Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino favored the freeway tunnel, while Pasadena, South Pasadena, La Canada Flintridge, Glendale, Sierra Madre and parts of Los Angeles opposed.

After the extension was proposed sometime during the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower, the small city of South Pasadena passed a resolution in opposition in 1947. In the 1960s, Caltrans bought properties in El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena to build a surface freeway after the 710 opened from Long Beach to Los Angeles.

In 1973 and again in 1999, opponents and the city of South Pasadena were granted an injunction to stop the extension. In 2003-2004, the Federal Highway Administration rescinded its approval of the extension. Later, Caltrans and LA Metro proposed building a dual-bore tunnel without exits to take cars under the residential communities.

It would have been the longest tunnel in the United States.

During the circulation of the EIR since March 2015, a LA Metro study team said the tunnel was considered the best option for relieving traffic congestion.

But Metro officials said the tunnel was not feasible because it did not have the money to build it, resulting in LA Metro pulling the plug on the tunnel.

Political defeat?

Alhambra City Councilwoman Barbara Messina, known for her perseverance in support of the freeway tunnel, said the tunnel was defeated by politics and not sound science.

Messina called the TDM/TSM alternatives “a Band-Aid” that will not do much to relieve congestion on Alhambra streets.

“The region is the biggest loser. The problems will get worse,” she said during a phone interview.

Jeff Maloney, Alhambra mayor, said he and others in town were disappointed but were working on local traffic-relief projects.

Alhambra wants to re-direct traffic from Valley Boulevard onto the 10 Freeway, with the option of a road into Cal State Los Angeles in Monterey Park and a 50-acre regional park.

“We recognize this is the way forward now in the post-tunnel era,” Maloney said.

Pasadena Mayor Terry Tornek said the decades of fighting over a freeway extension — both on the surface and then as a tunnel — blocked any real traffic improvements.

About $730 million is available for local projects from 2008’s Measure R that was earmarked for the 710 Freeway north extension.

The cities and LA Metro are working on divvying up that money for local projects, signaling a new chapter in the 710 north that has left “stubs” or “ditches” in Pasadena and near Alhambra.

“We are getting to the next round of squabbling — how the money will be spent,” he said. “But the projects will deliver significant transportation and environmental benefits.”