AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: What about a tunnel from the end of Glendale Freeway to Interstate 110?  (Read 2010 times)

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 370
  • Last Login: September 07, 2017, 09:05:51 PM

I have read some proposal to build a tunnel connecting the end of the Glendale Freeway CA 2, with a tunnel to Interstate 110, Harbor Freeway.  Any comments or news about that plan?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Logged

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: September 03, 2017, 11:23:10 PM

I haven't heard of any such plan, probably because it's ridiculous.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2477
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: September 09, 2017, 03:22:09 PM

I have never heard of this. Can you produce a source? It sounds more like fiction, and something that will never happen.
Logged
US Highways: 1 / 2 / 6 / 12 / 14 / 16 / 18 / 20 / 26 / 30 / 50 / 64 / 66 / 84 / 85 / 87 / 91 / 93 / 95 / 97 / 99 / 101 / 189 / 191 / 201 / 285 / 287 / 385 / 395
Interstate Highways: 5 / 10 / 15 / 17 / 25 / 40 / 45 / 70 / 80 / 84 / 89 / 90 / 93 / 95

ACSCmapcollector

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 370
  • Last Login: September 07, 2017, 09:05:51 PM

I will not be able to search for that, it has been a short time ago this Spring of 2016.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 10:00:48 PM

I haven't heard of any such plan, probably because it's ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? It would significantly help with reducing traffic congestion.
Logged

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 865
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: September 18, 2017, 07:52:56 PM

Have you priced real estate?  Have you heard of the dirt people?
Logged

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: September 03, 2017, 11:23:10 PM

I haven't heard of any such plan, probably because it's ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? It would significantly help with reducing traffic congestion.

One, I don't see any reasonable routing for it. Besides, the original freeway was planned to go to the 101 then west, not further south.

Two, it would actually cause more congestion at the already miserable section of the 110 that goes through downtown L.A.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 10:00:48 PM

Have you priced real estate?  Have you heard of the dirt people?
Yeah, I live out here. Real estate is expensive, but alas, it's an excuse, none the less. I believe with the right planning it can be done. There also has to be the will to want to do it and not let a select group of people that would ultimately come into opposition of this stop it. That being said, there are many other things I'd like to see such as 6 lanes of elevated express lanes decked over the 101, a 4 lane tolled tunnel from Beverly Hills to the Valley, etc. other things that probably won't happen.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 10:00:48 PM

I haven't heard of any such plan, probably because it's ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous? It would significantly help with reducing traffic congestion.

One, I don't see any reasonable routing for it. Besides, the original freeway was planned to go to the 101 then west, not further south.

Two, it would actually cause more congestion at the already miserable section of the 110 that goes through downtown L.A.
Those are good points, however, that section of 110 needs to have the capacity greatly increased.
Logged

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: September 03, 2017, 11:23:10 PM

Those are good points, however, that section of 110 needs to have the capacity greatly increased.

Increasing the capacity of almost any freeway in L.A. is a lost cause at this point. It would be smarter to invest in ways of getting more cars off the roads during commute hours. Leave the freeways to the thousands of extra trucks and delivery vehicles that our online shopping obsession has created a need for.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 10:00:48 PM

Those are good points, however, that section of 110 needs to have the capacity greatly increased.

Increasing the capacity of almost any freeway in L.A. is a lost cause at this point. It would be smarter to invest in ways of getting more cars off the roads during commute hours. Leave the freeways to the thousands of extra trucks and delivery vehicles that our online shopping obsession has created a need for.
I can see both sides to it, but frankly, Los Angeles is a car dominant city as most American Cities are anyways, and investing in rail seems to be more of a lost cause to me than widening freeways more due to the way development is in SoCal. Mass transit is good for cities like NYC but for a city as spread out as Los Angeles, cars are fine. I think if they would take the route Dallas has and offered more tolled options and less capital due up front with the companies financing the projects, they could create a variable elevated tolled network with adding 3 tolled lanes each way, an additional general purpose lane each way, and additional HOV lane each way, combined with bridging the freeway gaps, offering new truck routes like what they plan on doing with the 710, fixing the interchange deficiencies, and expanding the subways or any other grade separated rail where applicable, Los Angeles's traffic problems could be solved. It would require billions, but that is up to the people of SoCal to decide if they want to fix it or not. Simply expanding mass transit isn't going to do anything.

I love MagLev, but the operating costs would likely be too high for the density, so intercity HSR between San Fran, Vegas, SD, Ventura, and San Bernardino would also help with commuting. Freeways such as the 405 could be widened to 8 general purpose lanes each way and would with 2 HOV lanes each way and 6 tolled lanes each way, I promise you that the traffic issues would become no existent on that highway.

Simply put, it doesn't have to be one or the other. But spending 120 billion in a mega region over 50 years is nothing. I don't know what else can be done. Something very ambitious, but the issue can be solved. I think it's just a collaboration on all parts.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2016, 09:40:18 PM by Plutonic Panda »
Logged

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 06:02:43 PM
    • California Highways

I monitor all news articles on highways, and monitor the minutes of the CTC. I have seen no such proposal, even as a pipe dream, in all the years I have been monitoring.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Roadrunner75

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 891
  • Age: 42
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: September 17, 2017, 12:30:51 AM

A quick Google search finds a number of articles discussing exactly what the OP mentioned, from a proposal for highway projects by the Reason Foundation (so also, yes, probably not gonna happen).  Here's a couple of them:

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20151117/glendale-to-palmdale-and-710-to-210-tunnels-in-reason-foundation-traffic-plan

http://la.curbed.com/2015/11/17/9899244/reason-libertarian-los-angeles-traffic-tunnels

I remember reading about this awhile back too - might have even been discussed here at the time.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: September 23, 2017, 10:00:48 PM
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3540
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 09:36:34 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway

Unless you confused it with the I-710 proposal, I don't see how that would be done.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 172
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 06:02:43 PM
    • California Highways

A quick Google search finds a number of articles discussing exactly what the OP mentioned, from a proposal for highway projects by the Reason Foundation (so also, yes, probably not gonna happen).  Here's a couple of them:

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20151117/glendale-to-palmdale-and-710-to-210-tunnels-in-reason-foundation-traffic-plan

http://la.curbed.com/2015/11/17/9899244/reason-libertarian-los-angeles-traffic-tunnels

Thanks. I had forgotten the LA Curbed article, because it was so outlandish that it would never happen (and thus didn't go onto my pages -- I focus on facts, not blue sky proposals). That plan is long dead, although you will still hear about some aspects of it that were stolen from elsewhere -- in particular, the 710 completion tunnel, the tunnel under the Sepulveda pass, and a possible Glendale to Palmdale tunnel. The latter two are more on the order of rail tunnels, but I have seen some auto tunnels discussed.

But the OP's original question: End of Glendale Freeway to the 110? That'll never happen, especially if you are familiar with the area involved. You would be tunneling under an area where the utility relocation would be horrendous (due to most being over 100 years old and unmapped), the presence of the original subway tunnels (as well as the existing Red Line tunnels if you parallel the 110 to avoid downtown), and the biggest obstacle of all (and this is also what may doom an auto version under the Sepulveda pass): there is absolutely no space to make the reconnection to the 110 -- either near the 4 level interchange or near the 110/I-10 interchange.

But thanks for reminding me of the Reason Foundation's silly ideas.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

djsekani

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Southern California
  • Last Login: September 03, 2017, 11:23:10 PM

So this wasn't an official proposal, just something dreamed up by an unimaginative think tank. No wonder I've never heard of any of this.

Their solution for everything seems to be tolled tunnels everywhere, that's gonna go over well. Besides, with the exception the 710 and the Irvine-Corona tunnels, most of these will likely cause more congestion than they'd alleviate. Thankfully the 91 express lanes extension is currently being built, but I doubt this organization needs to be taking credit for it.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1545
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:39 AM

A quick Google search finds a number of articles discussing exactly what the OP mentioned, from a proposal for highway projects by the Reason Foundation (so also, yes, probably not gonna happen).  Here's a couple of them:

http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20151117/glendale-to-palmdale-and-710-to-210-tunnels-in-reason-foundation-traffic-plan

http://la.curbed.com/2015/11/17/9899244/reason-libertarian-los-angeles-traffic-tunnels

Thanks. I had forgotten the LA Curbed article, because it was so outlandish that it would never happen (and thus didn't go onto my pages -- I focus on facts, not blue sky proposals). That plan is long dead, although you will still hear about some aspects of it that were stolen from elsewhere -- in particular, the 710 completion tunnel, the tunnel under the Sepulveda pass, and a possible Glendale to Palmdale tunnel. The latter two are more on the order of rail tunnels, but I have seen some auto tunnels discussed.

But the OP's original question: End of Glendale Freeway to the 110? That'll never happen, especially if you are familiar with the area involved. You would be tunneling under an area where the utility relocation would be horrendous (due to most being over 100 years old and unmapped), the presence of the original subway tunnels (as well as the existing Red Line tunnels if you parallel the 110 to avoid downtown), and the biggest obstacle of all (and this is also what may doom an auto version under the Sepulveda pass): there is absolutely no space to make the reconnection to the 110 -- either near the 4 level interchange or near the 110/I-10 interchange.

But thanks for reminding me of the Reason Foundation's silly ideas.

True.  It will never happen.  But largely because the BH freeway wasn't completed, the Glendale Freeway serves as a radial route through to Downtown LA.  Since the Glendale Freeway tends to be less congested than most of the other nearby freeways - if you at all come from that direction, it is great to take the 2 freeway to Glendale Blvd and then continue towards Downtown.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2334
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:45:06 AM

The stub end of the CA 2 freeway SW of I-5 follows the original alignment of the Pacific Electric Glendale line, which segued onto Glendale Blvd., following it to 2nd Street, where it went underground to a terminus under an office building on Olive Street in downtown LA (the building's elevator went to the "sub-basement" where the trolley line terminated and served as the egress).  My mother took me on it many times on downtown shopping trips as a very young kid.  The line was out of service by 1957 and severed when the I-5 and CA 2 freeways were built circa 1960-61. 

Obviously the tunnel concept is absurd -- it would have to tunnel under either (a) Echo Lake, (b) Dodger Stadium, or (c) the new Belmont high-school/continuation school/vo-tech complex just west of 110 and Temple St.   Never happen, folks!  It's highly unlikely that the ironically-named Reason Foundation's conceptualizations will ever find a receptive audience within urban planning circles (not that they seek out such an audience). 
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.