Caltrans studying ways to improve safety along Arroyo Seco Pkwy

[mrsman]

^^^^ I was just on that freeway tonight going about 90 and I was passed by three people in the middle lane.

anyhow most people on this road probably average around 65-70 in free flowing conditions. Majority of the time in flowing with traffic in the fast lane and it's going 75-80. But by all means let's take a lane from a freeway in a horribly congested metro because it isn't as congested as other freeways here.

I'm completely against removing lanes as I find that to be asinine and I'm messaging caltrans repeatedly about the issue. But make no mistake, those who want that to happen will likely get their wish. Caltrans and metro have been making idiotic moves lately and it is no surprise they will probably reducing capacity on this road.

The idea isn't to take away a lane for the sake of taking away a lane - it is for the sake of a safety issue that is absolutely present along the on-ramps.

Given that the 110 does not go directly to the 210 or 134, its demand is naturally limited to the capacity of the surface streets in Pasadena that it feeds into (primarily Arroyo Parkway and Glenarm, and to a secondary extent Fair Oaks and Orange Grove). 

At the present day parkway, going south, 2 lanes of surface Arroyo Parkway (3 lanes during rush hour when parking is prohibited), become 3 lanes at the Glenarm signal.  Traffic from eastbound Glenarm provides a brief 4th lane that quickly exits and then the 3 lane parkway narrow to 2 after the (State St) Fair Oaks exit.  The parkway is currently 2 lanes southbound (with an accel/decel lane formed with the Fair Oaks onramp and the Orange Grove offramp).  Only once past Orange Grove does the onramp become the third permanent lane.  For southbound, the idea would be to not let the new lane from Orange Grove become a regular third lane, but have it exit at York.  The entrance from York to merge in to the 2 lanes.  The entrance from Ave 64 to exit at Ave 60; the entrance from Ave 60 to exit at Via Marisol, the entrance at Via Marisol to exit at Ave 52; the entrance at Ave 52 to exit at Ave 43.  The entrance from Ave 43 can become the new third lane towards i-5 and into Downtown.  This would narrow the current freeway for about 3.5 miles.  But in real effect, a lane isn't simply forced to end, it is never given the chance to become a full lane in the first place until Ave 43.  Given traffic patterns, I don't believe this would have much effect as the real backups occur where I-5 traffic towards Downtown is added into this freeway at Elysian Park, not in the section through Montecito Heights and Highland Park.

And for northbound, I would say the same thing.   The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north.  Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move.  It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes.  The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.

[sparker]

And for northbound, I would say the same thing.   The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north.  Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move.  It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes.  The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.

Reducing the Arroyo Seco to a general 2+2 is not a bad idea; the outer/3rd lane might be configured as a "slip lane" between the various RIRO-type exits.  Also, dedicating 2 lanes to the NB 110>NB I-5 movement also deserves merit -- but I would split Lane #2 (the rightmost of the two exiting to I-5) so that it continues on -- but only to the left North Figueroa/Avenue 26 exit.  That would give folks who don't have the opportunity, due to traffic, to move 2 lanes to the right to stay on 110 the chance to do so with only a single lane shift; at that point they could complete the move onto the leftmost lane of the two remaining for the 110 mainline after a large portion of the aggregate flow has left.   As one who has traveled on that road numerous times, providing some margin for error -- particularly within the often claustrophobic atmosphere of the tunnels that can actually frighten some drivers (I've also been a passenger in that situation) -- is highly advisable.  But the short continuation lane needs to be clearly marked -- from at least the beginning of Tunnel #4 -- with the heavier/double dashed lines used to delineate exit-only lanes. 

[mrsman]

And for northbound, I would say the same thing.   The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north.  Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move.  It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes.  The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.

Reducing the Arroyo Seco to a general 2+2 is not a bad idea; the outer/3rd lane might be configured as a "slip lane" between the various RIRO-type exits.  Also, dedicating 2 lanes to the NB 110>NB I-5 movement also deserves merit -- but I would split Lane #2 (the rightmost of the two exiting to I-5) so that it continues on -- but only to the left North Figueroa/Avenue 26 exit.  That would give folks who don't have the opportunity, due to traffic, to move 2 lanes to the right to stay on 110 the chance to do so with only a single lane shift; at that point they could complete the move onto the leftmost lane of the two remaining for the 110 mainline after a large portion of the aggregate flow has left.   As one who has traveled on that road numerous times, providing some margin for error -- particularly within the often claustrophobic atmosphere of the tunnels that can actually frighten some drivers (I've also been a passenger in that situation) -- is highly advisable.  But the short continuation lane needs to be clearly marked -- from at least the beginning of Tunnel #4 -- with the heavier/double dashed lines used to delineate exit-only lanes.

I find your suggestion acceptable.  #1 lane to I-5 north.  #2 lane to I-5 north or to Figueroa.*  The right two lanes of 110 will take the bulk of the traffic heading to Pasadena.  Forcing the left lane off at Figueroa, will allow for an easier merge coming in from San Fernando Road, and a much easier merge for the significant traffic coming in from I-5/Ave 26.  The I-5/Ave 26 traffic will have an entire lane (the right lane of the 110) to itself, until forced to exit at Ave 43.  (I beleive it would be beneficial to do this to the I-5/110 interchange even if the third lane does not become a forced exit at Ave 43, since it will make it easier for I-5 traffic to merge in.  So the adjustment should be done, even if the third lane continues into So Pas.)

A key for all of this is appropriate signage.  The tunnels make it difficult, but so long as people have adequate warning of what lane they need to be in, it should be alright.

*Currently, the #1 lane is for I-5 and the #2 lane is for 110 north.  During rush hours, #2 lane is an option lane, controlled with electronic signs, for either I-5 or 110.  Even if this plan to use the 3rd lane for accel/decel does not go through, I believe it would be wise to allow #2 lane traffic to access I-5 at all times.  The movment of 110 to I-5 is a really significant movement and really needs 2 lanes.

And given current backups, Pasadena bound traffic largely confines itself anyway to the right two lanes of 110 through the tunnels.  The left lane is for I-5.  The #2 lane is also for I-5 (and before the option lane, was the lane for last minute change into the left lane) and/or Figueroa. 

[Plutonic Panda]

I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.

I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.

[sparker]

I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.

I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.

When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery).  As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.

I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.

When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery).  As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena.

Given that capacity has shifted to the Glendale Freeway really any aspirations for expansion on the Arroyo Seco should be superseded by preserving it.  The value in the Arroyo Seco is in it's historic value rather than it's long outdated usefulness.  I'm not a huge fan of reducing lanes in favor of "safety"  but at least that would be somewhat in line with historic preservation than expansion.  L.A. needs another megalithic freeway connector but the Arroyo Seco no matter what is done won't be it...and the one that should have been is effectively legislatively dead.  I guess in that sense if someone were to try to commute on the Arroyo Seco you should be prepared to drive it like a road from a different time period...because it is. 

[sparker]

I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.

I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.

When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery).  As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena.

Given that capacity has shifted to the Glendale Freeway really any aspirations for expansion on the Arroyo Seco should be superseded by preserving it.  The value in the Arroyo Seco is in it's historic value rather than it's long outdated usefulness.  I'm not a huge fan of reducing lanes in favor of "safety"  but at least that would be somewhat in line with historic preservation than expansion.  L.A. needs another megalithic freeway connector but the Arroyo Seco no matter what is done won't be it...and the one that should have been is effectively legislatively dead.  I guess in that sense if someone were to try to commute on the Arroyo Seco you should be prepared to drive it like a road from a different time period...because it is. 

Originally the Ramona Parkway, which eventually expanded into the San Bernardino Freeway, was planned along another creekbed -- albeit alongside the main Pacific Electric line east from downtown -- to be much the same physical configuration as the Arroyo Seco.  Much of the western end, from the L.A. River out to Alhambra -- retained its narrow, limited line-of-sight characteristics until well after the I-5/Golden State and Long Beach (SSR 15/CA 7, I-710) freeways intersected its alignment.  It wasn't until the huge influx of traffic from those feeders overwhelmed the original facility that it was expanded out to its 10-12 lane current width.  Remember, while it did host the US 60/70/99 "triumvirate" along most of the older section, those routes exited onto Garvey Avenue into Monterey Park until the late '50's.  Fortunately (at least for the sake of road expansion) when the PE line ceased its passenger service circa '62-'63, a good deal of adjacent ROW became available, which was ideal for expansion of what was by then I-10.  Even the section of US 101 under the Boyle Heights bluffs had similar characteristics to the Arroyo Seco, but without the sharp turns (albeit with really short on & off ramps, since upgraded or, in some cases, removed).  Narrow ROW's with now-substandard egress & access points were S.O.P. for construction throughout the '40's; it wasn't until the Harbor and Hollywood freeways were constructed in the early '50's that what are now considered minimum freeway standards were deployed; even the Santa Ana Freeway didn't expand out until it left L.A. city limits (at the Indiana St. interchange) until rebuilt in the mid-'60's after the ELA interchange was constructed.     

[Plutonic Panda]

Any update on this project? I'm perfectly fine with the freeway staying as is lol but I'm curious if any decision has been made.