Why so many beltways? (Los Angeles)

[ColossalBlocks]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

[silverback1065]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Because 5million+ people live there and you need multiple bypasses to effectively move traffic.

[Max Rockatansky]

It would be impossible to get around otherwise.  Way too many people trying to get all over the place.  Things are worse now than ever with the outward growth to San Bernardino and Riverside.  If you ever in L.A. I would suggest checking out the Petersen Museum, they have a whole section dedicated to freeways and had bad the grid lock used to be.

[DTComposer]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Aside from the answers given above, I'm also unclear what you mean by beltways. If you're using the standard definition (as in a ring road), I would say that the L.A. region only has two that halfway function in that capacity: I-405 and SR-210/I-210 - and only in the sense that they allow drivers to bypass downtown L.A. But both those routes go through heavily developed areas for most of their routings, so they don't really avoid much congestion.

If you're simply asking why L.A. has so many freeways, than I echo the above: 10 million people in L.A. County, 3 million in Orange County, 4 million in the Inland Empire. I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

[english si]

I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

It does exist.. I've not seen "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana" and "Riverside-San Bernardino" merged, but the former performs the worst on this measure (with the exception of San Jose, PR) by a fair margin.

Now, sure, the eastern parts - especially if we start counting miles of desert in the metro area - might reduce that, but I'll say it again: The Los Angeles area has the least freeway per capita in the US.

[Rothman]

If you ever in L.A. I would suggest checking out the Petersen Museum, they have a whole section dedicated to freeways and had bad the grid lock used to be.

Used to be?  Doesn't LAX traffic still rank as the worst city traffic in the country?

[Max Rockatansky]

If you ever in L.A. I would suggest checking out the Petersen Museum, they have a whole section dedicated to freeways and had bad the grid lock used to be.

Used to be?  Doesn't LAX traffic still rank as the worst city traffic in the country?

You have to see the pictures of downtown Los Angeles they have before the Arroyo Seco Parkway was built for complete context, hard to believe that it was such an issue back the 1920s.

[emory]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Aside from the answers given above, I'm also unclear what you mean by beltways. If you're using the standard definition (as in a ring road), I would say that the L.A. region only has two that halfway function in that capacity: I-405 and SR-210/I-210 - and only in the sense that they allow drivers to bypass downtown L.A. But both those routes go through heavily developed areas for most of their routings, so they don't really avoid much congestion.

If you're simply asking why L.A. has so many freeways, than I echo the above: 10 million people in L.A. County, 3 million in Orange County, 4 million in the Inland Empire. I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

And yet there were supposed to be even MORE freeways than there are now!

[Max Rockatansky]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Aside from the answers given above, I'm also unclear what you mean by beltways. If you're using the standard definition (as in a ring road), I would say that the L.A. region only has two that halfway function in that capacity: I-405 and SR-210/I-210 - and only in the sense that they allow drivers to bypass downtown L.A. But both those routes go through heavily developed areas for most of their routings, so they don't really avoid much congestion.

If you're simply asking why L.A. has so many freeways, than I echo the above: 10 million people in L.A. County, 3 million in Orange County, 4 million in the Inland Empire. I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

And yet there were supposed to be even MORE freeways than there are now!

Wasn't there even some semi-crazed plan to make Angeles Crest an expressway or freeway even?

[coatimundi]

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Aside from the answers given above, I'm also unclear what you mean by beltways. If you're using the standard definition (as in a ring road), I would say that the L.A. region only has two that halfway function in that capacity: I-405 and SR-210/I-210 - and only in the sense that they allow drivers to bypass downtown L.A. But both those routes go through heavily developed areas for most of their routings, so they don't really avoid much congestion.

If you're simply asking why L.A. has so many freeways, than I echo the above: 10 million people in L.A. County, 3 million in Orange County, 4 million in the Inland Empire. I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

And yet there were supposed to be even MORE freeways than there are now!

Wasn't there even some semi-crazed plan to make Angeles Crest an expressway or freeway even?

It was originally in the freeway system, so I would guess so.
There was, at one time, plans for an offshore freeway on a causeway west of Santa Monica that would serve some housing developments on "reclaimed" land. That would have created more of a true beltway.
I went to the exhibit in LA when it was out. There was some pretty batshit crazy ideas for the area in the middle part of the last century.
http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/08/02/santa-monicas-that-werent/

[sparker]

LA metro doesn't have an actual "beltway" in common terms, largely because of topography (ocean on one side, mountain range topping out at 10K' on the other).  Possibly the 210/605/405 combination (with the little jog on I-5 at Sylmar) might fit a basic definition -- or, taking it out a bit farther, 210/57/22/405 (clockwise).  However, those routes hardly qualify as a more efficient way to accommodate through traffic in the metro area with their own high congestion levels -- largely due to their "double duty" as both peripheral routes and linear facilities connecting employment with housing -- particularly as (relatively) affordable housing has itself shifted farther and farther outward. 

Even the old "Metropolitan Bypass" concept of yore (essentially utilizing CA 138 out in the high desert, tracing the north side of the San Gabriel Mountains) would be functionally obsolete today, as it would deposit traffic on the south side of Cajon Pass -- right into "Inland Empire" commute patterns -- and would be affected near its western portion by Palmdale/Lancaster commute needs (if it had been constructed as originally planned, I for one have no doubt that -- if planning/zoning restrictions were not applied -- there would be housing tracts extending out to near Gorman!).

It may seem ludicrous, but in reality it could be that the closest thing to a "belt" route -- and it's more of an extended arc -- would be 62/247/15/58 (counterclockwise, through Yucca Valley, Barstow, and Mojave).  Hey, I've even used that combination to get around LA Metro at times -- joined by more than a few truckers with the same notion!         

[Max Rockatansky]

It may seem ludicrous, but in reality it could be that the closest thing to a "belt" route -- and it's more of an extended arc -- would be 62/247/15/58 (counterclockwise, through Yucca Valley, Barstow, and Mojave).  Hey, I've even used that combination to get around LA Metro at times -- joined by more than a few truckers with the same notion!         

That's essentially my bypass route of Metro L.A., San Bernardino, and Riverside also.    It's only going to ever so slightly easier with the Hinkley Bypass being finished up...Kramer Junction can't come fast enough.  Even CA 18 is a godsend compared to slogging through the city to head east.

I noticed how many beltways the LA Metro area has, why?

Aside from the answers given above, I'm also unclear what you mean by beltways. If you're using the standard definition (as in a ring road), I would say that the L.A. region only has two that halfway function in that capacity: I-405 and SR-210/I-210 - and only in the sense that they allow drivers to bypass downtown L.A. But both those routes go through heavily developed areas for most of their routings, so they don't really avoid much congestion.

If you're simply asking why L.A. has so many freeways, than I echo the above: 10 million people in L.A. County, 3 million in Orange County, 4 million in the Inland Empire. I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

And yet there were supposed to be even MORE freeways than there are now!

Wasn't there even some semi-crazed plan to make Angeles Crest an expressway or freeway even?

It was originally in the freeway system, so I would guess so.
There was, at one time, plans for an offshore freeway on a causeway west of Santa Monica that would serve some housing developments on "reclaimed" land. That would have created more of a true beltway.
I went to the exhibit in LA when it was out. There was some pretty batshit crazy ideas for the area in the middle part of the last century.
http://la.streetsblog.org/2013/08/02/santa-monicas-that-werent/

It's no wonder the Division of Highways got neutered when it did...it wasn't just the Los Angeles area where roads like that were drafted into concept.  Some of those Trans Sierra Highway ideas were nutty.  The design of US 101, CA 99, CA 58, and US 395 just to name a few wouldn't have likely anywhere else but pre-1970s California.

[Duke87]

I'm sure this statistic exists somewhere, but I'd guess that the five-county region doesn't have that many more lane-miles per person than other major metro areas.

It does exist.. I've not seen "Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana" and "Riverside-San Bernardino" merged, but the former performs the worst on this measure (with the exception of San Jose, PR) by a fair margin.

Now, sure, the eastern parts - especially if we start counting miles of desert in the metro area - might reduce that, but I'll say it again: The Los Angeles area has the least freeway per capita in the US.

Eh, how so? I downloaded the excel version of the data at the link you provided, divided freeway lane miles by population, and sorted descending. The result of that is as follows (numbers are lane miles per thousand people):


LA is towards the bottom but not last.

[Plutonic Panda]

I guess I'm crazy, but I would have liked for this to have been built.

[silverback1065]

CA 87 was basically this up in the bay area. Chicago needs more highways, LA just really needs to finish 710 imo

[sparker]

I guess I'm crazy, but I would have liked for this to have been built.

CA 87 was basically this up in the bay area. Chicago needs more highways, LA just really needs to finish 710 imo

The original plans for CA 61 called for a similar proposal off the Berkeley shoreline, parallel to the I-80/Eastshore freeway, and crossing the Bay Bridge approach just east of the toll plaza.  While the proposal was still under consideration (minus any formal route adoption), the Alameda NAS was still active; the plan was to snake 61 around the east end of the facility without taking too many properties in the city of Alameda.  Fortunately, the plan was later scrapped -- likely for more reasons than can be quickly cited. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow. I didn't realize the highway plans were so ambitious. Did NYC and other major cities at that time have such plans as well?

[coatimundi]

Wow. I didn't realize the highway plans were so ambitious. Did NYC and other major cities at that time have such plans as well?

Most major cities have unbuilt freeways. New York had Robert Moses, who was able to push through a lot of his freeway plans, ruining many neighborhoods throughout that city, particularly in the Bronx. Chicago itself had at least one and there are several in the Chicago suburbs. San Francisco famously had a pretty extensive network planned before it was mostly all killed by neighborhood opposition. As many freeways as Houston has now, there are a couple that were never built and others that were long-delayed. Even Tucson and Bakersfield have cancelled freeways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts_in_the_United_States

[Rothman]

Made me think of the Rye-Oyster Bay bridge idea that always never seems to fully die.  In fact, I believe money's been devoted to yet another study for a Long Island Sound crossing.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[The Ghostbuster]

From what I've read, this time the Rye-Oyster Bay connection is planned to be built as a tunnel. I would hold my breath on it being constructed, though.

[NE2]

I would hold my breath on it being constructed, though.

I hope you do. Then you'll stop with the inane posts.

[coatimundi]

I would hold my breath on it being constructed, though.

I hope you do. Then you'll stop with the inane posts.

Aww. They just wanted to talk about a Long Island bridge in a post about Los Angeles freeways...

And just in case you didn't get that, Ghostbuster: the phrase is "I wouldn't hold my breath," advising the person not to die in their waiting.

[Avalanchez71]

That reclaimed thing is already in play in Dubai.  That is just crazy thinking right there.  I bet they used the word "modern".  That was a big buzz word with those 1950s-1970s plans.  They loved to use the word modern when it was anything but that.

[Bobby5280]

Metro Los Angeles has no beltways. It has a somewhat adequate number of super highways, but none are beltways. To me a beltway is something like I-495 wrapping entirely around Washington, DC or I-285 around Atlanta. Houston could fit the definition of having a "lot" of beltways (I-610, Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway which is in progress). Dallas-Fort Worth could end up in the same category if some of the plans there are realized.

[silverback1065]

Metro Los Angeles has no beltways. It has a somewhat adequate number of super highways, but none are beltways. To me a beltway is something like I-495 wrapping entirely around Washington, DC or I-285 around Atlanta. Houston could fit the definition of having a "lot" of beltways (I-610, Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway which is in progress). Dallas-Fort Worth could end up in the same category if some of the plans there are realized.

You're describing a full beltway, LA has a series of partial beltways