Top 100 Congested Metro areas

[TheStranger]

Regarding the I-710 gap, a few thoughts:

*  I was under the impression that Caltrans had already acquired most of the houses that would need to be demolished in order to build the length of freeway required to close the gap.  Thus, most of those likely to be displaced by the freeway would be renters, not homeowners.  Renters do have interests that need to be considered, but in general they know up front that they have neither equity nor security of tenure in the properties they inhabit, and this is the tradeoff for not having to carry a mortgage or accept responsibility for upkeep and repairs.

*  Caltrans has been criticized by the BSA on a number of occasions for failing to keep the 710 corridor properties in good repair.

*  The main obstacle is that South Pasadena will not sign a freeway agreement.  Caltrans has had since 1982, continuously except for a brief period in the early 1990's, the legal authority to build the freeway without a freeway agreement with South Pasadena.  It is my intuition that Caltrans did not seek this authority and regards the exercise of it as a major poison pill, and that South Pasadena has been exploiting this for years (decades?) to obstruct the freeway by refusing to sign a freeway agreement.

I think South Pasadena also happens to have enough financial clout to attempt the obstruction - EVEN considering how much of those properties are owned by CalTrans!

Something almost similar happened with the completion of the Route 15 (future I-15) gap between I-8 and I-805 in San Diego, except that was ultimately filled in (via cut-and-cover) about 5 years ago.

*  Since the southern stub of I-710 is a good bit east of the northern stub of I-710, the surface street routings between the two are far from obvious to stranger drivers, including so-called "local stranger" drivers who do not have commutes in the I-710 corridor.

I agree with that - I almost think that signing Fremont Avenue/Pasadena Avenue as a temporary segment of "State Route 710" would help, except that the communities along the path (again, South Pasadena) would likely object.  But when it is the most direct route to Pasadena from points south, people are still going to try to find a way to get there, freeway or otherwise...

*  Personally I think the I-710 gap should be closed, but not because this would reduce congestion overall.  It is my belief that the elasticity of traffic volume with respect to available roadspace is so high in the Los Angeles basin generally that the gap closure would rapidly become as congested as any other freeway in LA.  Rather, it should be built to improve access to the freeway network in the areas through which it would pass, and also to supply added redundancy for I-5 and other north-south freeways.  It is unrealistic to remove congestion altogether from LA freeways, but maintaining and improving journey time reliability is certainly a reasonable goal.

While there are those who believe in "induced demand" - I don't think that'd be a factor here, as the area is so built up already that the main improvement would be in removing congestion on existing corridors and on the surface streets between Alhambra/Monterey Park and Pasadena, even if 710 itself in South Pasadena becomes heavily used and congested itself.  (Probably a similar effect to when I-105 was opened)

*  I am very skeptical of the tunnel plan.  Caltrans has said that sale of the properties already acquired for the surface routing would suffice to pay the state share of the tunnel's construction costs, but this claim was made before the real-estate bust, and I am not aware that it has been affirmed since.  Moreover, I think Caltrans underestimates the cost of a tunnel facility having the lane count originally projected for the surface routing.  On the other hand, I think the cost of the tunnel and the likely proceeds of the house sales are at least within the same order of magnitude.  My suspicion is that the tunnel plan is part of a Caltrans gambit to get South Pasadena to relax its opposition to a freeway agreement, and that Caltrans envisions a series of landscaped deck lids rather than a long bored tunnel along the lines of A86 Versailles.

Considering the precedent of Route 15, I wouldn't be surprised if CalTrans ultimately went cut-and-cover here too, if only for the obvious financial advantages to straight up tunnel-boring.

*  Has anyone given any thought to the fact that the I-710 gap closure will cross the Arroyo Seco Parkway (SR 110) corridor and what connections, if any, should be provided to it?  The Arroyo Seco these days is more a historic resource than a transportation corridor, so I think it would be perfectly acceptable for I-710 to pass under it without any connections, but I can see the roadgeeks of the future yammering about the I-710/SR 110 "missing ramps."

I recall that 4-5 years ago, Caltrans already decided not to build any connections between 110 and 710 (in an effort to try to find a compromise with South Pasadena) - the tight curve at the northern terminus of the Pasadena Freeway in any case would be a bit of an obstacle to incorporate, too. (An exit ramp at that bend was closed years ago for safety reasons, IIRC.)

[Chris]

While there are those who believe in "induced demand" - I don't think that'd be a factor here, as the area is so built up already that the main improvement would be in removing congestion on existing corridors and on the surface streets between Alhambra/Monterey Park and Pasadena, even if 710 itself in South Pasadena becomes heavily used and congested itself.  (Probably a similar effect to when I-105 was opened)

Induced demand consists of several factors. Although some environmentalists try to make you believe any highway construction is useless, and we'd all be better off with horse-drawn carriages and dirt tracks, there are several factors; most importantly; time and location.

The time factor is significant. The freeways in greater Los Angeles are extremely saturated, people commute 1 or maybe even two hours one way. Some have the ability to change their work schedule so they can avoid most of the congestion. While this works for a while, LA's freeway system hasn't been upgraded in 4 decades while population boomed, resulting in extremely long rush hours. If you widen a road, or construct a new one, people try to get back on the roads on a more reasonable hour. There are many people who leave home between 5 and 6 am, just to avoid the brunt of the congestion. If new capacity is added, they may travel at more convenient hours.

The location factor is also important. In I-710's issue, people now use the Foothill and Glendale Freeways to get around Pasadena, or maybe use I-605 and the San Bernardino Freeway. Another issue is rat-running, people who use back roads or surface streets to bridge the gap. Those will use the new connection.

So, I think, just like Mr. Winkler, that it won't solve all traffic problems, but significantly eases the burden on commuters (= tax payers) traveling around eastern Los Angeles and Pasadena. That way, an investment like this still makes sense, even if it will be congested. Traffic delays go down, lost hours reduce and emissions reduce due to less congestion and less mileage.

[TheStranger]

The location factor is also important. In I-710's issue, people now use the Foothill and Glendale Freeways to get around Pasadena, or maybe use I-605 and the San Bernardino Freeway. Another issue is rat-running, people who use back roads or surface streets to bridge the gap. Those will use the new connection.

So, I think, just like Mr. Winkler, that it won't solve all traffic problems, but significantly eases the burden on commuters (= tax payers) traveling around eastern Los Angeles and Pasadena. That way, an investment like this still makes sense, even if it will be congested. Traffic delays go down, lost hours reduce and emissions reduce due to less congestion and less mileage.

I wonder if there are any congestion studies in the area, particularly with regards to 605 between 5 and 210 (the nearest north-south corridor that Orange County and southeastern Los Angeles County residents can use to make it to Pasadena without using surface streets).  If I'm not mistaken, in contrast, the Glendale Freeway is not one of the busier links in the system...at least, judging from what Wikipedia says.

Also, how much of the long-distance truck traffic going north-south that has to use 5 (or 101/170) to reach the railyards and Harbor areas would now start using 210-710 as a bypass?  That's another set of potential users for the new link.

[deathtopumpkins]

dtp: Calling someone a "horrible person" for being enthusiastic about freeway construction on a road forum is a bit hyperbolic.

Yeah, sorry, that probably was a bit harsh. I just read his post and that was one of my first reactions. I meant it a tad lighter than it was taken though.

[3467]

Induced demand has been the issue in Chicago along with NIMBY. It was a false argument in the old crosstown expressway battle in Chicago. The Cicaho DOT has in fact revived a mini Crosstown plan on railroad ROW.

In the suburbs the argument is more cogent but poor planing caused the loss of the fox valley expressway. For a long time the demand was not there-then by the time it was no ROW had been banked and the project was not buildable. This has happened now to I-355 in Will Conty

Now it is the Prairie Parkway and the Illinana . Will County 2030 plan has the vision to call for banking the ROW. Perhaps we can call a truce -Hold off on the road but bank the land so the option remains and make it clear this is ROW here for a future tolway/freeway