710 - Long Beach Freeway Gap

[The Ghostbuster]

For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.

[silverback1065]

For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.

This is what i was referring to: https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/17/elon-musk-might-start-a-literal-boring-company-to-tunnel-under-traffic/

[andy3175]

For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.

I do. In addition to what Silverback linked, Elon Musk's frustration with 405 traffic was mentioned in multiple news outlets back in 2013 (so this news is somewhat dated):

http://la.curbed.com/2013/3/19/10262376/east-hollywood-target-sprouting-teslas-elon-musk-doubledeck-405

SANTA MONICA: KCRW' s architecture and design-themed DnA show is moving from a monthly show to a weekly podcast--host Frances Anderton hosted an event for the relaunch at the Promenade's Tesla store, featuring a talk with the electric car company's co-founder Elon Musk. The 41-year-old entrepreneur, who also co-founded Paypal and launched SpaceX, which builds rockets for NASA, discussed how design could help LA. The car-lover thinks we should double-deck the 405 with metal materials to alleviate traffic and pay more attention to freeway aesthetics. Musk is also dubious about the speed and cost of the state's high-speed rail system (disgruntled murmurings from the crowd were audible).

http://la.curbed.com/2013/4/25/10250088/elon-musk-didnt-exactly-give-50k-to-speed-up-405-widening

We already knew Tesla and Paypal cofounder Elon Musk has ideas for the 405 (double-deck it, make it pretty), but the Bel Air resident is so over the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project (it's that widening that caused Carmageddon and The Rampture) that he's given $50,000 to speed up work, according to the LA Times--well, sort of. "That'll cover about a half-inch of pavement," LAT business columnist Michael Hiltzik tweeted today about Musk's pledge, and Metro's Dave Sotero has no record of money coming from Musk, adding that it's highly unusual, and likely not allowed, for a private individual to donate money to a public works project (so Eli Broad won't be funding an extension of the Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood). Turns out that Musk actually gave that money to Angelenos Against Gridlock, a group that advocates to speed up infrastructure projects. David Murphy of AAG tells us the donation will go toward "outreach."

Ghostbuster, please back up your statements with facts.

[The Ghostbuster]

It looks like I stand corrected about my statement. I had thought Elon Musk was more interested in electric cars, hyperloops, and going to Mars, than doing anything to improve the road system. Of course, I'm not a regular follower of his achievements.

[Plutonic Panda]

They will release new information soon and have recommended the single bore tunnel option although they clearly state no funding is indentified.

http://mailchi.mp/metro/sr-710-north-study-update-march-1274053?e=%5BUNIQID%5D

[The Ghostbuster]

It's good that they stuck with the road tunnel option. Where the funding to possibly build it will come from is anyone's guess.

[silverback1065]

maybe the boring company will do it

[Bickendan]

Only if they get bored.

[Henry]

Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job!

And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.

[sparker]

Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job!

And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.

It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes.  If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill.  For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics.  At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced.  This is a project that will never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!

[SeriesE]

Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job!

And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.

It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes.  If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill.  For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics.  At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced.  This is a project that will never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!

Were there any alternatives that goes east of South Pasadena city limits?

[sparker]

Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job!

And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.

It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes.  If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill.  For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics.  At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced.  This is a project that will never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!

Were there any alternatives that goes east of South Pasadena city limits?

That would be San Marino -- the Beverly Hills of the San Gabriel Valley (regardless of what Sierra Madre thinks!).  If you think South Pasadena has NIMBY's, just try suggesting rerouting anything through San Marino.  Their naysayers have (a) political clout (b) money to spare (c) little patience for anything that would disturb their bucolic lifestyle!  Any agency suggesting such a thing would get a call from someone's attorney in very short order.  In sum -- not a chance in hell!

[mrsman]

I say that as a compromise, the freeway from Long Beach should be extended to Huntington Drive and the freeway from the 134//210 interchange should be extended in some way to the Arroyo Seco Parkway without passing a traffic signal.  The extension to Huntington Drive will give 710 traffic more options to dissipate.  Huntington is a wider street and provides direct access to more streets that lead to Pasadena like Fair Oaks. 

The 110 connection to 134/210 will finally resolve a major connection problem for the northern San Gabriel Valley to the rest of the LA Basin:

As you all know, currently there is no direct connection , from the US 101 Hollywood Freeway in Hollywood, to the 134/210 freeway from Burbank to Duarte without using some type of surface street connection, or significant backtracking.    If I wanted to make a trip from Hollywood to Arcadia, I would have to do one of the following:  1) US 101 freeway to Studio City then use a surface street to make the missing connection to the 134 (Vineland, Lankershim, Barham or Caughenga ); 2) US 101 South to Alvarado to connect US 101 to CA-2 to the 134; 3) US 101 to CA-110 to Pasadena, but then surface streets in Pasadena (Arroyo Parkway and Marengo) to make the 110 to 210 connection; or 4) US 101 south to I-10 east to 710 north and deal with the 710 gap (or use another major surface street to connect 10 to 210 like Rosemead or Santa Anita).  So a connection of CA-110 to the 210/134 interchange completes #3 and provides a freeway to freeway connection from Hollywood and Downtown to Pasadena and all the SG Valley cities east of Pasadena all the way to the 605.  While not as great as a full gap closure of the 710, it could be a big help to a lot of traffic.

[compdude787]

Is CA 110 capable of handling the amount of traffic that would come from I-210 and CA 134? With only 6 lanes total (which is relatively few for a freeway in LA), it would seem quite inadequate.

[Occidental Tourist]

Is CA 110 capable of handling the amount of traffic that would come from I-210 and CA 134? With only 6 lanes total (which is relatively few for a freeway in LA), it would seem quite inadequate.

Not only could the 110 not handle the extra vehicle traffic, but truck traffic isn't even allowed on it.  Plus, to get from the 210 to the 110, you'd have to tunnel anyway because that cooridor is all historic and expensive homes sitting above the Arroyo Seco.  And NIMBYs already killed the idea of an interchange between the 710 tunnel extension and the 110, so a 110 interchange to a northern 210 connection would likely fare as poorly even if it was a connection to an underground routing.

Plus, the stated purpose of the 710 extension is to allow commercial and auto traffic going north-south through the Basin a bypass around Downtown.  Obviously, having a bypass that can't handle truck traffic and which dumps traffic directly back into the congested 5 near Downtown doesn't accomplish that purpose.

[silverback1065]

does anyone think this will be built?

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm for this and want to see it built so bad, but I will say I will be very surprised if it does get built.

[Plutonic Panda]

Fucking nimbys.... the tunnel is dead.

[andy3175]

Here's what I found:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements

A committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.

The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.

Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.

[andy3175]

The LA Times also has a map and graphic of the tunnel proposal at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-710-tunnel-20170518-htmlstory.html.

[english si]

It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's)

The original Trader Joe's is three-fourths of a mile north of South Pasadena. The Pasadena Freeway makes it to Pasadena.

The divide on the other city of the city is interesting - all of a sudden the "build I-710" banners appear when you leave the city limits.

[Plutonic Panda]

Here's what I found:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements

A committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.

The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.

Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.

I read that article. Does this mean the tunnel is dead for good?

Edit: upon reading the LA times article, I found that the Metro Board will have to accept the recommendation and they may not do that. so it isn't officially dead, yet.

[andy3175]

Here's what I found:

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements

A committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.

The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.

Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.

I read that article. Does this mean the tunnel is dead for good?

Edit: upon reading the LA times article, I found that the Metro Board will have to accept the recommendation and they may not do that. so it isn't officially dead, yet.

Yup, I think we're still waiting for a final answer on the 710 gap. It's possible too that they may place the project into dormant status, so the project could come back at some point in the future. I guess we'll see.

[Plutonic Panda]

I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.

[sparker]

I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.

Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason.  As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not.  Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents.  Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!