Topic: Interstate 710 extension (Read 7010 times)

Interstate Trav · « **on:** February 22, 2011, 11:22:56 PM »

I was wondering what are your thougts on this subject? Do you think that Caltrans should be able to do it, or do you agree with South Pasadena?

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2011, 11:25:18 PM »

I-710 would be the only bypass of the East LA interchange - the merits of it outweigh the objections that South Pasadena may raise.

it needs to be built.

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2011, 12:32:40 AM »

Crazy Nimbys. Imagine how many freeways we would have had if it wasn't for them. Beverly Hills Freeway, Laurel Canyon Freeway, Pacific Coast Freeway, and countless others could have helped so much in terms of traffic relief in Los Angeles. The people in South Pasadena were ok with a tunnel back in the 1990s I believe then when Caltrans begin to study the tunnel, they were against it. Like AgentSteel said, this freeway needs to be built. Its a huge gap in our freeway network here.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2011, 07:59:47 AM »

don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2011, 10:55:38 AM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 07:59:47 AM

don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!

The 19? Lakewood Bl was supposed to be a freeway? I can see the 138 happening since its still pretty open up there. They could easily bypass the developed portions of Lancaster/Palmadale. Has that project been cancelled?

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2011, 11:14:32 AM »

see here for some great planned freeway maps:

http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html

TheStranger · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2011, 01:26:24 PM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 07:59:47 AM

don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!

164/19 would have probably made the 710 gap less critical than it has become...while the 170 extension would have not only provided better access to LAX from the Valley, but also relieved the 101/405 mess!

Interstate Trav · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2011, 03:40:21 PM »

Quote from: Bigmikelakers on February 23, 2011, 12:32:40 AM

Crazy Nimbys. Imagine how many freeways we would have had if it wasn't for them. Beverly Hills Freeway, Laurel Canyon Freeway, Pacific Coast Freeway, and countless others could have helped so much in terms of traffic relief in Los Angeles. The people in South Pasadena were ok with a tunnel back in the 1990s I believe then when Caltrans begin to study the tunnel, they were against it. Like AgentSteel said, this freeway needs to be built. Its a huge gap in our freeway network here.

So true, imagine if even just the Beverly Hills and Laurel Canyon Freeways were added. Would make a huge difference.

Quillz · « **Reply #8 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:21:46 PM »

The only freeway I'm glad was never actually built was the I-480 that was supposed to create a freeway-to-freeway connection in San Francisco. While that would have been convenient, it would have been at the huge cost of the city's charm, taking away many scenic views of the bay.

But in the case of I-710, there is no reason this freeway shouldn't be built.

Quillz · « **Reply #9 on:** February 23, 2011, 09:29:57 PM »

Also, taking a look at some of those old maps is interesting, especially how "parkway" was being used in place of numbered freeways.

What I found most interesting was the "Whitnall Parkway" that would have been a diagonal through the Valley. Today, there is a short stretch of road known as the "Whitnall Hwy," which I imagine was intended to be part of the freeway. I always wondered why such a short road was called a "highway," and now I know.

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #10 on:** February 24, 2011, 01:44:09 AM »

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 11:14:32 AM

see here for some great planned freeway maps:

http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html

Is the Temescal Pkwy pretty much CA 71 and I-15 south of Corona today?

Interstate Trav · « **Reply #11 on:** February 24, 2011, 12:05:23 PM »

Quote from: Bigmikelakers on February 24, 2011, 01:44:09 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 11:14:32 AM
see here for some great planned freeway maps:

http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html

Is the Temescal Pkwy pretty much CA 71 and I-15 south of Corona today?

Pretty much. But my guess is back then it was just going to be route 71 since the 15 originally stopped in San Bernardino, and even before it got route to its current alignment it was on the now 215.

andy3175 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:51:58 PM »

I did find some additional, recent information on the 710 tunnel (including costs and geotechnical overview):

Metro Meeting Minutes and Staff Report:
http://www.metro.net/about/meetings/board/rbm-0224-2011/agenda/
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/02_February/20110224RBMItem2.pdf

Another page that follows LA transportation issues is la.streetsblog.org. It is generally opinionated but might give a feeling of reasons why some are opposed to the tunnel, for right or wrong:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/02/25/name-the-sr-710-extension-moves-to-the-final-page-but-how-much-will-it-cost/

Andy

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2011, 02:02:29 PM »

Would there be a toll for the tunnel extension?

Steve · « **Reply #14 on:** February 28, 2011, 09:45:19 PM »

Don't think it was ever discussed with a toll. That would be an intriguing way to finance it, but it would have to be all-electronic given no room for tollbooths.

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #15 on:** May 24, 2011, 07:32:15 PM »

Has rerouting the 110 to meet up with the 210/134 interchange ever been considered? Caltrans owns the properties along Pasadena Ave up to the existing stub so 110 could be rerouted northward at Fremont Ave. Do you guys think that would make sense?

TheStranger · « **Reply #16 on:** May 24, 2011, 07:38:29 PM »

Quote from: Bigmikelakers on May 24, 2011, 07:32:15 PM

Has rerouting the 110 to meet up with the 210/134 interchange ever been considered?

I don't think so - I know that with the current 710 plans, a proposed 110/710 interchange was nixed, so this likely would not be feasible for the same reason that that junction will not exist.

Steve · « **Reply #17 on:** May 24, 2011, 08:38:45 PM »

It would not really be feasible to lift CA 110 out of the trench and get it up Pasadena Ave. You'd have to dig out a considerable amount of Pasadena to curve it northward into that corridor.

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #18 on:** May 24, 2011, 08:51:52 PM »

Quote from: Steve on May 24, 2011, 08:38:45 PM

It would not really be feasible to lift CA 110 out of the trench and get it up Pasadena Ave. You'd have to dig out a considerable amount of Pasadena to curve it northward into that corridor.

Yeah, thats a good point. I didn't think about that.

hm insulators · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2011, 04:31:10 PM »

Besides, that poor little Pasadena Freeway/Arroyo Seco Parkway (or whatever it is they're calling it) couldn't handle the extra traffic. It was never designed to handle anywhere near the traffic it has to deal with now in the first place.

Bigmikelakers · « **Reply #20 on:** June 18, 2011, 12:44:37 AM »

According to Metro, the extension is in the early planning stages thanks to the measure R funds.

http://www.metro.net/interactives/measurer_projectmap/

Theres a few projects that I haven't heard before. But, I was surprised that theres no plan to redesign the 10/605 interchange.

HighwayMaster · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2011, 01:01:59 PM »

If the 710 can't be finished, improvements to Fremont Avenue should be made so it could handle the through traffic from the 10 to the 210.

cpzilliacus · « **Reply #22 on:** August 29, 2012, 08:27:08 AM »

[it seemed appropriate to bump the thread, since the other threads about the proposed I-710 extension were not directly related to this]

L.A. Times: L.A. opposes 710 Freeway extension above ground or by tunnel

Quote

The L.A. City Council unanimously votes to oppose the options presented by the MTA. It joins South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge and Glendale.

Quote

The Los Angeles City Council unanimously adopted a resolution Tuesday that joined a chorus of voices opposing plans to extend the 710 Freeway north either above ground or by tunnel.

Quote

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Thursday narrowed the 12 possible options down to five and decided to cease exploration of any above-ground extension. But a tunnel connecting the 710 Freeway to the 210 Freeway is still on the table.

Quote

MTA officials have said they do not prefer a single option, but foes believe the tunnel is the favored option because it provides a route for trucks from the Port of Los Angeles to move cargo inland.

myosh_tino · « **Reply #23 on:** August 29, 2012, 01:55:49 PM »

Since no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra, I'm thinking they should just forget about the I-710 extension but they should also close and demolish the two freeway stubs north of I-10 and south of I-210/CA-134 and use the extension money for a new I-210/CA-134 interchange where I-210 traffic doesn't have to "exit" the freeway to stay on I-210.

Closing the stub north of I-10 will force freeway traffic onto I-10 instead of Valley Blvd thus keeping it out of Alhambra.

agentsteel53 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 29, 2012, 02:23:53 PM »

Quote from: myosh_tino on August 29, 2012, 01:55:49 PM

no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra

not correct. just about anyone who studies the traffic patterns wants it.

it is useful for local traffic, to actually get to Pasadena from the south, and critical for through traffic - as an alternate to the East LA Interchange.

News:

Author Topic: Interstate 710 extension (Read 7010 times)