I wonder about the so called bottlenecks of the Interstate 210 Foothill Freeway/Interstate 5 Golden State Freeway NORTH, or SOUTH, (Old U.S. 6 & 99) to California state route 14, Antelope Valley Freeway, if the patterns consist of where their destination is at? For the city of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles?
Mod Notes:
Original thread title "Merging of I-210 Foothill Freeway traffic to I-5 Golden State Freeway or using C". Changed by request, for better clarity.
ACSCmapcollector: PLEASE check your thread titles–if they cut off like this, you need to make them shorter. Also, if you're asking a question or looking for commentary on something, you need to make your statements more coherent–this statement isn't clear what you're saying/asking, and you'll get much better replies if other forum members don't have to interpret what you're saying/asking.
–Roadfro
Another well-formed question...
I think you're asking "Are Santa Clarita and Los Angeles drivers mostly responsible for the traffic typical of the section of I-5 between I-210 and SR 14?"
I would say that the answer is yes and no. Santa Clarita has quite a large population, most of whom work outside of the city. I-5 is really the only choice they have to reach other destinations unless, by chance, they work in the Antelope Valley. But most of Santa Clarita is closer to I-5 than it is to SR 14, so it's not likely that most of that large population would utilize SR 14 as a commuting route.
The jams that are typical of that section of roadway though seem to be due to the proximity of the the two junctions, coupled with the already heavy thru traffic headed down the Grapevine. Traffic coming off of I-210 is not likely to want to exit at SR 14, while traffic destined for SR 14 will likely be on I-5 northbound. 210 comes into the right but SR 14 also exits at the right.
I think one easy solution to this: force SR 14 traffic to use the truck bypass. Obviously that wasn't its intention, but I think the backups are from the weaving, and that would partially fix the weaving. The problem there is that then SR 14 drivers are stuck on the truck bypass, which would cause its own issues.
There is also a grade and Magic Mountain traffic. Newhall Pass has been a "chokepoint" since Day 1. It was in the days of wagons, where so much traffic was passing through they paved the roadway in the 1860's. It was during poppy season in the 1920's. It has and always will be a problem point. Some work has been done, though nothing short of widening I-5 to 6-8 lanes NB would correct this... and even then that would have to extend to at least State 126 West.
Also remember that I-5 is a MAJOR Interstate and intrastate route. It also carries more trucks than most other routes. Regardless of the truck bypass (old US 99 freeway), they still merge near the top of Weldon Summit. All of these conspire to create traffic.
ACSCmapcollector,
Can you please change the title of this thread? When I read the title, I was scratching my head wondering just how you merged road-related issues on the I-5/I-210 merge with computer programming using the "C" programming language. If you won't (or can't) change it, roadfro, can you modify it please? Thanks.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 02:16:25 AM
wondering just how you merged road-related issues on the I-5/I-210 merge with computer programming using the "C" programming language
He used C++. The title just got cut off.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 27, 2016, 02:46:33 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 02:16:25 AM
wondering just how you merged road-related issues on the I-5/I-210 merge with computer programming using the "C" programming language
He used C++. The title just got cut off.
Are you sure it wasn't C#? :-D
Getting back on topic... The way I see it, you have 2 major freeways intersecting with the granddaddy of them all within 2 miles. Combined with the usual through traffic (cars and trucks) and a pretty big theme park would almost guarantee some sort of congestion on I-5.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on August 26, 2016, 10:48:34 PM
I wonder about the so called bottlenecks of the Interstate 210 Foothill Freeway/Interstate 5 Golden State Freeway NORTH, or SOUTH, (Old U.S. 6 & 99) to California state route 14, Antelope Valley Freeway, if the patterns consist of where their destination is at? For the city of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles, CA
Mod Notes:
Original thread title "Merging of I-210 Foothill Freeway traffic to I-5 Golden State Freeway or using C". Changed by request, for better clarity.
ACSCmapcollector: PLEASE check your thread titles–if they cut off like this, you need to make them shorter. Also, if you're asking a question or looking for commentary on something, you need to make your statements more coherent–this statement isn't clear what you're saying/asking, and you'll get much better replies if other forum members don't have to interpret what you're saying/asking.
–Roadfro
The next time I will do that, Roadfro from now on, thank you for advising me that will help greatly to get my point across.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: August 28, 2016, 12:50:24 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 02:16:25 AM
ACSCmapcollector,
Can you please change the title of this thread? When I read the title, I was scratching my head wondering just how you merged road-related issues on the I-5/I-210 merge with computer programming using the "C" programming language. If you won't (or can't) change it, roadfro, can you modify it please? Thanks.
I already did this, referred as: The next time I will do that, Roadfro from now on, thank you for advising me that will help greatly to get my point across.
Removed double quote. Merged with previous post. –Roadfro
PS: While I'm modifying the post anyway... ACSC,
you didn't change anything–
I changed the thread title. You didn't really need to make a double post to reiterate the previous post...
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 01:26:44 PM
Getting back on topic... The way I see it, you have 2 major freeways intersecting with the granddaddy of them all within 2 miles. Combined with the usual through traffic (cars and trucks) and a pretty big theme park would almost guarantee some sort of congestion on I-5.
On top of that, there are zero alternate routes to that interchange for those heading from the Antelope Valley into Los Angeles; the proposed tunnel through the Angeles Forest (along the unbuilt Route 249 corridor) has been floated a few times as one way to create a parallel alternative, but has never gone beyond the planning stage.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 27, 2016, 03:21:08 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2016, 01:26:44 PM
Getting back on topic... The way I see it, you have 2 major freeways intersecting with the granddaddy of them all within 2 miles. Combined with the usual through traffic (cars and trucks) and a pretty big theme park would almost guarantee some sort of congestion on I-5.
On top of that, there are zero alternate routes to that interchange for those heading from the Antelope Valley into Los Angeles; the proposed tunnel through the Angeles Forest (along the unbuilt Route 249 corridor) has been floated a few times as one way to create a parallel alternative, but has never gone beyond the planning stage.
Not quite "zero". First alternate is old US 6 and US 99 (Sierra Highway and The Old Road / San Fernando Road) as well as Foothill Blvd. East, there is Little Tujunga Canyon Road / Sand Canyon Road, Big Tujunga Canyon / Angeles Forest Highway, and Angeles Crest Highway / Angeles Forest Highway. All serve as alternates to Newhall Pass for those destined for points east of Santa Clarita. To the west... not as much. The Santa Susana Mountains are a barrier, only crossed by two roads near each other (State 23 at Grimes Canyon and Balcom Canyon Road).
There's a reason that even air currents find it difficult to depart from the L.A. basin (hence the recurring smog) -- there really is no natural exit to the north! Newhall Pass is the closest thing to a "gap" -- but the old Southern Pacific railroad had the only really efficient way to tackle the issue: put a long tunnel underneath it, which was done by the 1880's! So far, everything that's been built above it has been essentially a series of "stop-gap" measures stacked one on top of another (and interrupted by periodic earthquake destruction) until the present configuration was reached. Trying to squeeze three distinct approach routes from the south and two from the north into a 2-mile stretch of roadway confined by a 500-yard-wide canyon is asking engineers to do the next-to-impossible.
The decision to use the old 1955 "Golden State" alignment as a "dedicated" truck route (despite its physical shortcomings) was, IMO, a wise one. The only thing that needs to be done to "finish off" the facility is to eliminate the weaving on the main I-5 lanes between I-210 and CA 14 (the I-405 split/merge is far enough south that NB patterns have assimilated well prior to the problem area). When the "split" facility was in the design process in the '60's, I'll wager that no one thought that the Santa Clarita area would be built out to the extent that it has -- or that Palmdale/Lancaster would be a viable destination with over 400K residents.
I'm equally sure that the present configuration is hardly the last -- the canyon will see more gouging and maybe even tunneling to eventually eliminate or at least ameliorate the 210 to 14 weaving problem -- most likely with direct connection lanes between the two I-5 "feeders" that don't require use of the mainline I-5.
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2016, 01:21:27 AM
There's a reason that even air currents find it difficult to depart from the L.A. basin (hence the recurring smog) -- there really is no natural exit to the north! Newhall Pass is the closest thing to a "gap" -- but the old Southern Pacific railroad had the only really efficient way to tackle the issue: put a long tunnel underneath it, which was done by the 1880's! So far, everything that's been built above it has been essentially a series of "stop-gap" measures stacked one on top of another (and interrupted by periodic earthquake destruction) until the present configuration was reached. Trying to squeeze three distinct approach routes from the south and two from the north into a 2-mile stretch of roadway confined by a 500-yard-wide canyon is asking engineers to do the next-to-impossible.
The decision to use the old 1955 "Golden State" alignment as a "dedicated" truck route (despite its physical shortcomings) was, IMO, a wise one. The only thing that needs to be done to "finish off" the facility is to eliminate the weaving on the main I-5 lanes between I-210 and CA 14 (the I-405 split/merge is far enough south that NB patterns have assimilated well prior to the problem area). When the "split" facility was in the design process in the '60's, I'll wager that no one thought that the Santa Clarita area would be built out to the extent that it has -- or that Palmdale/Lancaster would be a viable destination with over 400K residents.
I'm equally sure that the present configuration is hardly the last -- the canyon will see more gouging and maybe even tunneling to eventually eliminate or at least ameliorate the 210 to 14 weaving problem -- most likely with direct connection lanes between the two I-5 "feeders" that don't require use of the mainline I-5.
Santa Clarita was planned to have the development it does today, as well as the Antelope Valley, as far back as the mid 1960's, hence all the planned State Highways in both areas. A small correction about the tunnel - it was completed July 14, 1876, not 1880's.
What weaving are you speaking between the 210 and 14 on I-5? Trucks have their own lanes and always on the right. Traffic from I-210 can easily stay in the right lanes to get onto State 14 or even take the truck lanes to get to I-5 NB. SB traffic only has a little merging from State 14, but even then you can take the truck bypass to avoid most of it. HOV now has a direct connection for NB 5 to NB 14 and SB 14 to SB 5. Any weaving problem as it stands can be solved without much work aside from maybe a bridge or two, neither of which are that needed.
Quote from: sdmichael on August 28, 2016, 01:56:01 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2016, 01:21:27 AM
There's a reason that even air currents find it difficult to depart from the L.A. basin (hence the recurring smog) -- there really is no natural exit to the north! Newhall Pass is the closest thing to a "gap" -- but the old Southern Pacific railroad had the only really efficient way to tackle the issue: put a long tunnel underneath it, which was done by the 1880's! So far, everything that's been built above it has been essentially a series of "stop-gap" measures stacked one on top of another (and interrupted by periodic earthquake destruction) until the present configuration was reached. Trying to squeeze three distinct approach routes from the south and two from the north into a 2-mile stretch of roadway confined by a 500-yard-wide canyon is asking engineers to do the next-to-impossible.
The decision to use the old 1955 "Golden State" alignment as a "dedicated" truck route (despite its physical shortcomings) was, IMO, a wise one. The only thing that needs to be done to "finish off" the facility is to eliminate the weaving on the main I-5 lanes between I-210 and CA 14 (the I-405 split/merge is far enough south that NB patterns have assimilated well prior to the problem area). When the "split" facility was in the design process in the '60's, I'll wager that no one thought that the Santa Clarita area would be built out to the extent that it has -- or that Palmdale/Lancaster would be a viable destination with over 400K residents.
I'm equally sure that the present configuration is hardly the last -- the canyon will see more gouging and maybe even tunneling to eventually eliminate or at least ameliorate the 210 to 14 weaving problem -- most likely with direct connection lanes between the two I-5 "feeders" that don't require use of the mainline I-5.
Santa Clarita was planned to have the development it does today, as well as the Antelope Valley, as far back as the mid 1960's, hence all the planned State Highways in both areas. A small correction about the tunnel - it was completed July 14, 1876, not 1880's.
What weaving are you speaking between the 210 and 14 on I-5? Trucks have their own lanes and always on the right. Traffic from I-210 can easily stay in the right lanes to get onto State 14 or even take the truck lanes to get to I-5 NB. SB traffic only has a little merging from State 14, but even then you can take the truck bypass to avoid most of it. HOV now has a direct connection for NB 5 to NB 14 and SB 14 to SB 5. Any weaving problem as it stands can be solved without much work aside from maybe a bridge or two, neither of which are that needed.
When I was in college (this was late '60's) at UCR, I took a number of land-use classes as part of my geography curriculum; one particularly discussed development north of L.A. Although Santa Clarita as an "omnibus" jurisdictional entity had yet to happen (there were still several incorporated towns in the valley, mainly Newhall and Valencia, both of which, along with unincorporated Saugus, later became Santa Clarita), the 50-year population predictions (which would have addressed 2017 projections) showed the aggregate valley with a maximum population of 90K -- but today's 2015 figure is well over twice that! Similarly, both Palmdale & Lancaster projections "maxed out" at about 75-80K each; the combined population of those two now incorporated cities is about 310-315K -- and that doesn't include the approximately 35K in unincorporated areas around the cities' perimeters. Granted, part of the projection was predicated on the fact that most L.A. County suburbs seemed to "plateau" between 55K and 75K; it was assumed that such a figure was, by default, a "natural" or even optimal maximum for effective provision of city services (schools, utilities, recreation, etc.). Frankly, no one back then (my professors included!) expected the massive explosion of housing in the region -- and the Division of Highways had the same information we did, which is why CA 14 was originally built as a simple 2 + 2 facility north of Newhall -- it was considered to be more of a semi-rural interregional route than a primarily commuter facility. Development of the region was expected -- just not to the levels currently seen. As an aside, the consensus back then was that Ventura County was likely to bear the brunt of overdevelopment because of its proximity to the coast as well as a generally milder climate -- and that CA 118 would be inundated with massive housing tracts all the way out to Saticoy and on to Ventura itself -- but the current status only validates that concept as far west as Moorpark on 118; past there, housing tracts are sporadic until the Saticoy area, which marks the general eastern developmental limit of Ventura. Along US 101 -- that's another story altogether!
The weaving problem -- at least in my own experience -- doesn't occur with traffic from 210 to 14 and vice-versa, it is with NB 5 traffic weaving through incoming 210 traffic to get to the 14 exit, with a similar situation for SB 5, but in reverse order. Granted, locals who know the "system" can use the truck route to avoid the issue -- but the fact that it is labeled "TRUCK ROUTE" can and often does deter commuter use; some drivers (and I know plenty of these) tend to take such signage as prohibitive (even though "Cars OK" disclaimers may be added in some instances). But in the long run you're probably correct; a couple of strategically placed bridges/flyovers would likely ameliorate the problem.
Regarding the RR tunnel: I knew the Tehachapi Loop was completed in 1876; I was unsure as to just when the Newhall tunnel was completed; hence the "hedge" of "by the 1880's" rather than "during the 1880's". Used to be married to a lawyer, so the use of disclaimer language in order to avoid blatant falsehood has been known to crop up in my statements -- force of habit!
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2016, 05:11:22 AM
The weaving problem -- at least in my own experience -- doesn't occur with traffic from 210 to 14 and vice-versa, it is with NB 5 traffic weaving through incoming 210 traffic to get to the 14 exit, with a similar situation for SB 5, but in reverse order. Granted, locals who know the "system" can use the truck route to avoid the issue -- but the fact that it is labeled "TRUCK ROUTE" can and often does deter commuter use; some drivers (and I know plenty of these) tend to take such signage as prohibitive (even though "Cars OK" disclaimers may be added in some instances). But in the long run you're probably correct; a couple of strategically placed bridges/flyovers would likely ameliorate the problem.
This is exactly what I was trying to convey in my post, and probably do so as elegantly. The truck bypass could essentially function as a collector road for 14-bound traffic. Cut off the ramp in the 5 mainlanes. I don't think this is the best solution, but I also think it would be better than what's happening now.
I mean, anytime you have multiple lanes merging into multiple lanes, you're going to have weaving and backups because of what I call (and it may not be a novel idea) "weaving psychology". I'll spare the explanation, but I think a good way to prevent weaving during merges is to block off the ability to weave; put in barriers, make drivers use the run lanes, and make those trying to pass the others in front who have slowed too much for the curve/merge sit and enjoy the extra 3 seconds of their drive.
The other issue with traffic at this location... isn't weaving. It is the volume of traffic heading up a steep grade with less lanes than needed at peak times. Widening I-5 a lane or two may help, at least temporarily. I've gone through there more times than I can ever count at pretty much every time of day. The grade is most of the issue, not weaving. At most, SB 14 to SB 5 has some issues... but that isn't the usual backup problem.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 28, 2016, 03:51:46 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 28, 2016, 05:11:22 AM
The weaving problem -- at least in my own experience -- doesn't occur with traffic from 210 to 14 and vice-versa, it is with NB 5 traffic weaving through incoming 210 traffic to get to the 14 exit, with a similar situation for SB 5, but in reverse order. Granted, locals who know the "system" can use the truck route to avoid the issue -- but the fact that it is labeled "TRUCK ROUTE" can and often does deter commuter use; some drivers (and I know plenty of these) tend to take such signage as prohibitive (even though "Cars OK" disclaimers may be added in some instances). But in the long run you're probably correct; a couple of strategically placed bridges/flyovers would likely ameliorate the problem.
This is exactly what I was trying to convey in my post, and probably do so as elegantly. The truck bypass could essentially function as a collector road for 14-bound traffic. Cut off the ramp in the 5 mainlanes. I don't think this is the best solution, but I also think it would be better than what's happening now.
I mean, anytime you have multiple lanes merging into multiple lanes, you're going to have weaving and backups because of what I call (and it may not be a novel idea) "weaving psychology". I'll spare the explanation, but I think a good way to prevent weaving during merges is to block off the ability to weave; put in barriers, make drivers use the run lanes, and make those trying to pass the others in front who have slowed too much for the curve/merge sit and enjoy the extra 3 seconds of their drive.
I've always thought the truck lanes were more desinged to address weaving issues than grade issues. Specifically with the truck lanes at the 5/405 interchange. If you're on 5 north and want to exit in Sylmar, take the truck lanes otherwise you;ll have to weave through too many I-405 drivers to get to the exit. Plus, trucks are strongly discouraged from using the left lanes on CA freeways, so the truck lanes will always make sure that you stay to the right.
I agree that the truck lanes should be labeled Auto-Truck lanes so that cars know they can use them. Similar to what we have at the NJ turnpike.
Quote from: mrsman on August 29, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
Plus, trucks are strongly discouraged from using the left lanes on CA freeways, so the truck lanes will always make sure that you stay to the right.
Not entirely correct.
In California, trucks are confined to the two right lanes of any freeway unless there are signs indicating that trucks can use other lanes (hence the "TRUCKS OK" plaques found on some overhead guide signs). Only in the case where there are two lanes in each direction are trucks allowed to use the left lane and that's only to pass another slow-moving vehicle.
Quote from: mrsman on August 29, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
I agree that the truck lanes should be labeled Auto-Truck lanes so that cars know they can use them. Similar to what we have at the NJ turnpike.
Actually, that's a very good idea. Sign the car-only "main" lanes prohibitively as "NO TRUCKS", and sign the truck lanes also open to auto traffic as "CARS AND TRUCKS" rather than as primarily truck lanes with a "CARS OK" disclaimer. At least you might ameliorate the problem without additional construction; fully solving it might require a set of southbound bypass lanes (or a flyover) around the CA 14 interchange for traffic intended for I-210, depositing that traffic on the outside lanes at or beyond the SB CA 14 merge point. Northbound, the situation would be reversed; bypass/flyover lanes exiting before the I-210 interchange would re-merge on the right past the merge of WB I-210 traffic to I-5 NB. Using the truck lanes (which are effectively the old Golden State freeway alignment from the mid-50's) would also function as a bypass -- except that primarily truck facility has a limited capacity; it was never intended to carry the level of commuter traffic that exists today; it would have to be expanded -- likely by carving out more of the canyon -- to function as a primary I-5 to CA 14 (and vice-versa) transition facility. IMHO, bypass/flyover additions to the main auto lanes would be a more appropriate -- and effectively permanent -- solution.
Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2016, 02:27:10 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 29, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
I agree that the truck lanes should be labeled Auto-Truck lanes so that cars know they can use them. Similar to what we have at the NJ turnpike.
Actually, that's a very good idea. Sign the car-only "main" lanes prohibitively as "NO TRUCKS", and sign the truck lanes also open to auto traffic as "CARS AND TRUCKS" rather than as primarily truck lanes with a "CARS OK" disclaimer. At least you might ameliorate the problem without additional construction; fully solving it might require a set of southbound bypass lanes (or a flyover) around the CA 14 interchange for traffic intended for I-210, depositing that traffic on the outside lanes at or beyond the SB CA 14 merge point. Northbound, the situation would be reversed; bypass/flyover lanes exiting before the I-210 interchange would re-merge on the right past the merge of WB I-210 traffic to I-5 NB. Using the truck lanes (which are effectively the old Golden State freeway alignment from the mid-50's) would also function as a bypass -- except that primarily truck facility has a limited capacity; it was never intended to carry the level of commuter traffic that exists today; it would have to be expanded -- likely by carving out more of the canyon -- to function as a primary I-5 to CA 14 (and vice-versa) transition facility. IMHO, bypass/flyover additions to the main auto lanes would be a more appropriate -- and effectively permanent -- solution.
A flyover for what? There already is a connection from the truck lanes SB to I-210, even a connection to those lanes from State 14 SB. Widening the truck lanes wouldn't require that much "carving of the canyon" either except at one location, which would also require Foothill Blvd to be relocated (again). However, doing so wouldn't really improve traffic that much simply because of the heavy (far more than most other roadways) truck traffic and the steep grades over Newhall Pass (State 14) and Weldon Summit (I-5).
Quote from: sdmichael on August 30, 2016, 11:50:35 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 30, 2016, 02:27:10 AM
Quote from: mrsman on August 29, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
I agree that the truck lanes should be labeled Auto-Truck lanes so that cars know they can use them. Similar to what we have at the NJ turnpike.
Actually, that's a very good idea. Sign the car-only "main" lanes prohibitively as "NO TRUCKS", and sign the truck lanes also open to auto traffic as "CARS AND TRUCKS" rather than as primarily truck lanes with a "CARS OK" disclaimer. At least you might ameliorate the problem without additional construction; fully solving it might require a set of southbound bypass lanes (or a flyover) around the CA 14 interchange for traffic intended for I-210, depositing that traffic on the outside lanes at or beyond the SB CA 14 merge point. Northbound, the situation would be reversed; bypass/flyover lanes exiting before the I-210 interchange would re-merge on the right past the merge of WB I-210 traffic to I-5 NB. Using the truck lanes (which are effectively the old Golden State freeway alignment from the mid-50's) would also function as a bypass -- except that primarily truck facility has a limited capacity; it was never intended to carry the level of commuter traffic that exists today; it would have to be expanded -- likely by carving out more of the canyon -- to function as a primary I-5 to CA 14 (and vice-versa) transition facility. IMHO, bypass/flyover additions to the main auto lanes would be a more appropriate -- and effectively permanent -- solution.
A flyover for what? There already is a connection from the truck lanes SB to I-210, even a connection to those lanes from State 14 SB. Widening the truck lanes wouldn't require that much "carving of the canyon" either except at one location, which would also require Foothill Blvd to be relocated (again). However, doing so wouldn't really improve traffic that much simply because of the heavy (far more than most other roadways) truck traffic and the steep grades over Newhall Pass (State 14) and Weldon Summit (I-5).
The die was cast for this section of road when the plans were finalized in the mid-60's; placing the auto lanes on the west side of the canyon and the truck lanes on the right (on the existing facility) left limited options for overall configuration, given the topology of the immediate area. IMHO, the basic problem lies in the fact, despite the truck lanes being a de facto connector, that there are two separate but adjacent major interchanges (5/210 and 5/14) functioning independently. My concept (and I'll concede that any "flyovers" would be a temporal "Band-Aid") would be to completely reconfigure the freeway through the area, diverging both I-210 and CA 14 traffic from the I-5 mainline at the same point both NB and SB. Whether a rebuilt set of truck lanes is or is not part of the process (Michael is correct about the gradient issue, so some sort of truck separation would likely need to be retained), the fact is that despite incremental modification on a regular basis, the facility as it is today is inadequate -- and becoming more so over time -- for the mixture of commuter and interregional traffic that it carries. Circa 1967, no one expected over a half-million residents "north of the hill" and didn't plan for such -- and, despite the best efforts of transit planners, there's only so many commuters that can be packed on Metrorail over a single-track line! Eventually this section of I-5 will need a complete overhaul; it would be better if that occurred before inflation drives costs up much higher than they are today!
So... you think it is simply not wide enough? Doesn't have enough connectors (despite all directions pretty much accounted for)? That gradient accounts for the bulk of the traffic jam, more than you'd think. Slow truck traffic merging near the top of both grades is the major culprit. Cars do use the truck lanes quite a bit. The sheer volume of truck traffic is the biggest issue, hence the separation through the pass. Heavy truck / commercial traffic has been a problem for well over 100 years there and it isn't going away anytime soon. You speak of additional flyovers despite no need for them (all connections are again accounted for). There is also a separated roadway connecting I-210 and State 14 that bypasses mainline I-5 in both directions. There are also seismic issues in the pass that are difficult at best to deal with.
Yes, there are more people than was planned for initially, though the roadways were built for a larger capacity (I-5 as eight lanes, State 14 as eight, then six lanes through Santa Clarita). Caltrans has done a pretty good job through the pass so far. The only thing that may help would be to widen the NB truck lanes to four lanes instead of the two-three that exist today to accommodate increased auto usage of the lanes. Funny thing though... this perceived need for a connection from the 210 to 14 doesn't really play out much during peak hours. Most of the traffic is going to I-5 NB, not 14. Even that traffic tends to clear between Calgrove Blvd and Lyons Ave.
I lived there, dealt with it many times. Watched it many times. Studied it all in depth. Just not sure what you seem to want through there is really warranted considering the costs and what short-term benefit may be achieved.
If the truck lanes could be widened to 4+4 and clearly marked for both auto & truck use, then that would likely be enough to do the trick. Although I'd ideally like to see a complete rebuild in the manner I previously suggested, that probably isn't in the cards -- not only for fiscal reasons, but also because it would cause severe interruption of traffic flow during the revamping process -- not a pretty picture in this "gauntlet" situation.
Quote from: sdmichael on August 30, 2016, 06:52:44 PM
Yes, there are more people than was planned for initially, though the roadways were built for a larger capacity (I-5 as eight lanes, State 14 as eight, then six lanes through Santa Clarita). Caltrans has done a pretty good job through the pass so far. The only thing that may help would be to widen the NB truck lanes to four lanes instead of the two-three that exist today to accommodate increased auto usage of the lanes. Funny thing though... this perceived need for a connection from the 210 to 14 doesn't really play out much during peak hours. Most of the traffic is going to I-5 NB, not 14. Even that traffic tends to clear between Calgrove Blvd and Lyons Ave.
I lived there, dealt with it many times. Watched it many times. Studied it all in depth. Just not sure what you seem to want through there is really warranted considering the costs and what short-term benefit may be achieved.
There are three southland freeways that head into the general direction of the pass (I-405, I-5, and I-210) and two freeways that leave to the north (I-5 and CA-14). It makes sense that most of I-210 traffic does not go to CA-14 as at some point traffic coming to the east would have to backtrack to a significant degree to use CA-14 to head to the Antelope Valley. While the roads through the forest are somewhat twisty, for some trips they may be shorter (Pearlblossom to Pasadena via Angeles Forest Hwy, instead of the freeways for instance.)
I would presume that traffic from I-5 and I-405 would more evenly split between I-5 and CA-14. Most commuter traffic would head over to Lancaster and Palmdale, but I-5 would have course take the majority of out of town traffic as it is the main way to Bakersfield, SF Bay, and Sacramento. And because all of these freeways come together in a relatively short distance there certainly is a lot of weaving that takes place. The weaving is greatly mitigated by having the truck lanes bypassing part of the traffic.
Having 2nd thoughts about 4+4 for auto/truck lane expansion; I'd still retain 4 lanes NB (uphill) but would say that 3 SB (downhill) would be adequate; that would save several feet of mountain cut -- but maybe not the northern reach of Foothill Blvd., at least north of the Balboa Blvd. overcrossing. That would leave San Fernando Road as the sole surface alternative (it may need widening or at least restriping!).
If the idea is to mitigate the effect of two separate close interchanges and weaving, couldn't that be accomplished in large measure by confining all movements to and from the 210 to only the truck lanes?
You could widen the northbound truck lanes to three lanes and make them a combined truck climbing lane and distributor lane for 210 traffic. You could leave the current two southbound truck lanes as is but make them solely collector lanes for all traffic going to the 210 from both the 5 and 14.
You'd likely have to create a single lane bridge starting at the southbound 5 exit to the 14 north. That new truck bypass lane would use the southbound exit to the 14 as a starting point for routing southbound 5 truck traffic over the San Fernando Road exit and to the right of the traffic coming in from the 14. That truck lane would rejoin the rightmost lanes of the 5 just south of where the southbound 14 joins the 5 south mainline.
So then southbound 5 traffic is only dealing with merging 14 traffic and trucks are still confined to the far right of those downgrade lanes. And northbound mainline traffic is only dealing with upcoming 14 split and the later merging truck traffic from the right.
And you'd block off 5 south mainline access to the 210 ramp, only allowing access to the 210 from the former southbound truck lane.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 01, 2016, 12:11:51 AM
If the idea is to mitigate the effect of two separate close interchanges and weaving, couldn't that be accomplished in large measure by confining all movements to and from the 210 to only the truck lanes?
You could widen the northbound truck lanes to three lanes and make them a combined truck climbing lane and distributor lane for 210 traffic. You could leave the current two southbound truck lanes as is but make them solely collector lanes for all traffic going to the 210 from both the 5 and 14.
And this is, again, what I was talking about, but for 210 instead of 14. The roadway is already there; it just needs to be improved and widened.
I like the NJ Turnpike-style "CARS/TRUCKS/BUSES" lane designation idea. And it seems stupid, but some people just need it. I got behind someone on Vasco Road, when I was there a couple of weeks ago, hanging out in the left lane, and I think it was because she had seen the "Truck Lane" sign when the right lane appeared and thought it was a special lane for trucks. She also had Oregon plates, which I bet is part of it...
Please -- somebody with a decent CAD program should pull a "redesigning interchanges" on this I-5 section (I have a rudimentary program, but it's dedicated to circuit boards only!) to elucidate what we've all been discussing -- including the possibility of an expanded role for the "auto/truck" lanes. Even if it has to be done in Fictional, it probably would be a useful exercise.
As an aside, Vasco Road, even with the improvements, is still a major PITA. I use it about twice a month -- and always time it so I'm in the contraflow direction (NB mornings, SB evenings). My GF and I were looking at a house in Discovery Bay a few years back (she has close relatives in Stockton), but the realities of the commute soured us on that idea in short order.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 01, 2016, 02:00:55 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 01, 2016, 12:11:51 AM
If the idea is to mitigate the effect of two separate close interchanges and weaving, couldn't that be accomplished in large measure by confining all movements to and from the 210 to only the truck lanes?
You could widen the northbound truck lanes to three lanes and make them a combined truck climbing lane and distributor lane for 210 traffic. You could leave the current two southbound truck lanes as is but make them solely collector lanes for all traffic going to the 210 from both the 5 and 14.
And this is, again, what I was talking about, but for 210 instead of 14. The roadway is already there; it just needs to be improved and widened.
I like the NJ Turnpike-style "CARS/TRUCKS/BUSES" lane designation idea. And it seems stupid, but some people just need it. I got behind someone on Vasco Road, when I was there a couple of weeks ago, hanging out in the left lane, and I think it was because she had seen the "Truck Lane" sign when the right lane appeared and thought it was a special lane for trucks. She also had Oregon plates, which I bet is part of it...
And an interesting tidbit for those who are unfamiliar, the relevant NJ Tpke section is 3-3-3-3. So within either the NB or SB section there are 3 lanes for autos only and 3 lanes for cars/buses/trucks (generally the outer lanes). And within the 3 lane section for cars/buses/trucks there is a restriction against trucks on the leftmost lane. There is also for part of the section a 4th lane that is HOV during rush hours.
Now with this section of I-5, the HOV lane is part of the cars lanes. So I'm guessing that buses may use the car lanes as well. So the relevant signage should read: Cars/Buses Only vs. Cars/Buses/Trucks
Quote from: mrsman on September 02, 2016, 04:09:02 PM
Now with this section of I-5, the HOV lane is part of the cars lanes. So I'm guessing that buses may use the car lanes as well. So the relevant signage should read: Cars/Buses Only vs. Cars/Buses/Trucks
That's simply too wordy.
I think the current setup works just fine. The only vehicles that have to leave the main lanes are trucks hence the "TRUCK ROUTE" signage. There only thing I would change is removing "AUTOS" from the signage for the main lanes.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 02, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 02, 2016, 04:09:02 PM
Now with this section of I-5, the HOV lane is part of the cars lanes. So I'm guessing that buses may use the car lanes as well. So the relevant signage should read: Cars/Buses Only vs. Cars/Buses/Trucks
That's simply too wordy.
I think the current setup works just fine. The only vehicles that have to leave the main lanes are trucks hence the "TRUCK ROUTE" signage. There only thing I would change is removing "AUTOS" from the signage for the main lanes.
Signage-wise, the only thing really needed on the BGS over the main/auto lanes is a substantial prohibitive black-on-white "NO TRUCKS" sign section. Over the truck/auto lanes, a black & white "TRUCKS/AUTOS" sign should similarly be placed. I would also bolster the concept by placing roadside black & white signs reading "TRUCK ROUTE", with an arrow directing truck traffic toward the semi-dedicated lanes.
Regarding buses -- about a decade ago I took a trip from L.A. to the Bay Area using the Amtrak "San Joaquin" line (basically on a whim). This included a dedicated bus trip from L.A. Union Station to Bakersfield; the bus remained on the main auto lanes over the I-5 section under discussion here rather than using the truck bypass. Whether the driver was trained/directed to do that isn't known to me; the reverse trip a few days later did use the truck lanes -- but that bus diverged onto I-210, whereas the NB bus was on I-5 all the way from downtown L.A. I'm not aware of whether the drivers for the public bus system in L.A. heading to/from Santa Clarita use one or the other set of lanes --or whether they have a choice in the matter, possibly dependent upon the ad hoc traffic situation. Come to think of it, local buses may well just use San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway rather than the freeway. If anyone out there has maps of the bus routes through Newhall Pass, it might shed some light as to what's going on here!
There are no local buses in that area. Even there were, there would be no point to taking the freeway, mainline or otherwise. There are some commuter routes (Santa Clarita Transit and Antelope Valley Transit) that pass through. Which lanes they take may simply be based upon traffic conditions at that time. Buses themselves are not required to take truck lanes. They can even take the HOV lanes if desired. Given the sheer volume of truck traffic along that freeway, mixing too many autos into the truck lanes would also be a bad idea. Locals already know how to get through if they want to. Not sure your point here.
The NJ Turnpike has a lot more buses on it than does I-5, so it's more necessary there to explicitly restrict buses. I agree that the few buses per day (Amtrak shuttle, Greyhound, Bolt, Megabus, etc.) aren't going to cause much of an issue for traffic, but it's just a matter of vehicle classifications. It clears up the question about where buses fit in.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 03, 2016, 12:20:15 PM
There are no local buses in that area. Even there were, there would be no point to taking the freeway, mainline or otherwise. There are some commuter routes (Santa Clarita Transit and Antelope Valley Transit) that pass through. Which lanes they take may simply be based upon traffic conditions at that time. Buses themselves are not required to take truck lanes. They can even take the HOV lanes if desired. Given the sheer volume of truck traffic along that freeway, mixing too many autos into the truck lanes would also be a bad idea. Locals already know how to get through if they want to. Not sure your point here.
My point was to respond to a previous post regarding the addition of the word "BUSES" to the restrictive/advisory signage on the various BGS's on this section -- that any bus usage, including the commuter lines mentioned (the ones I referred to in my post -- my mistake if the term "local" was misconstrued), would likely utilize the path of least resistance in any case, be it either main or truck lanes -- or even the parallel surface streets -- in order to best maintain their various schedules. Specific signage references to buses are, IMO, neither necessary nor productive.
My original thoughts regarding revamping of this section of I-5 were partially due to the limited capacity of the truck/auto lanes, based as they are on the original narrow routing through the canyon. Like you, I'm concerned with dumping too much general traffic onto these lanes, considering the sheer amount of truck traffic plus the gradients involved. Using these truck lanes as a virtual bypass to obviate weaving issues on the main lines (I acknowledge we may differ as to the extent and effect of such weaving) is simply a very weak Band-aid on the main problem -- too many vehicles, of all types, funneled into one facility rendered complex by its topographical nature. I was just looking for a relatively straightforward way to redirect some specific traffic patterns -- mostly commuter -- in such a way as to avoid a complete tear-down and rebuild of the whole 210-14 segment.
Weaving... where? Show us where this "weaving" is an issue and causes massive backups? Look at the traffic patterns (You don't live anywhere near there so you wouldn't necessarily know or understand them) and you'll see the bulk of it is northbound merging on I-5 at the north end of the truck route combined with the steep grade/slow trucks. There may be a small, yes, small, amount of "weaving" but no more than most other freeway interchanges deal with. Southbound traffic sucks during peak as there is simply too much of it. No amount of extra ramps will help that fact.
Even Caltrans isn't looking into this... as there isn't enough reason to. I just don't get why you think this interchange is such a problem. I've managed to get through it without much fuss... much as the hundreds of thousands of others have done for the past 40+ years.
I'm Glendale born & bred, and lived in the L.A. area, from Manhattan Beach to Hesperia, for 39 of my 66 years. The weaving issue to which I refer is primarily on SB 5 at the point where 3 lanes of CA 14 traffic are added to the right. Except during the middle of the night, I've always experienced issues with getting over to the I-210 exit, having to "weave" through traffic over a short stretch of road to do so. My observation is that the merging CA 14 traffic has displayed a consistent tendency to speed up once they hit the 6-lane-wide road segment south of there, making the rightward shift necessary to access the 210 exit, a little over a mile to the south, difficult, harrowing, dangerous, or any other negative adjective that may apply. I have always thought that some way of getting over to the right side of the oncoming lanes from 14 would be a good idea; while the truck lanes may work, they're usually (gasp!) full of trucks, which poses its own set of issues.
I will concede that the NB situation is somewhat less problematic, probably because of the reduced speeds due to the uphill gradient. I've usually been able to get to the CA 14 exit (hey, it uses half of the available auto-only lanes!) from NB I-5 without serious issue -- unless I am also driving a slow/loaded vehicle (the times that occurred I used the truck lanes). And there is less traffic merging from 210 than there is from 14 in the other direction. So -- bottom line -- southbound is, by a matter of degrees, more problematic than northbound -- I'd still like to see a auto-only bypass lane SB around the 5/14 interchange to deposit 210-bound traffic on the right side of the roadway; NB is less of an issue and, at least for the present, not presenting a compelling case for modification -- you are basically correct on that aspect of the issue.
I do realize that my assessment is anecdotal, based on driving this segment countless times -- likely in the mid-hundreds! -- and bolstered by constant complaining from my Tujunga-based cousin, who works in the industrial area north of Magic Mountain and who uses the road five days a week (it's a consistent topic of conversation with her semi-monthly phone calls!). If any data is available on the traffic patterns here -- either confirming my observations or not -- I'd sure like to see it!
Then talk to Caltrans District 7. I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. Anything else would be pointless. Just remember, spending millions of dollars on a ramp to save moving over a lane or two might not be worth the effort.
Use this link too:
Caltrans Traffic Concern http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html (http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html)
Quote from: sdmichael on September 03, 2016, 02:50:41 PM
Then talk to Caltrans District 7. I'm sure they'd love to hear about it. Anything else would be pointless. Just remember, spending millions of dollars on a ramp to save moving over a lane or two might not be worth the effort.
Use this link too:
Caltrans Traffic Concern http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html (http://www.dot.ca.gov/paffairs/pioform.html)
Thanks for the direct link. I'll probably talk to them just to ascertain whether others have expressed concern with the issue. If not, I'll probably end my discussion of this issue -- and tell my cousin to either use the truck lanes or be extra cautious -- or both, for good measure!
The important lessons to be learned are these:
If you travel along a route and it has "perpetual" problems - learn more about your local geography and you just might find a better route - instead of just complaining about the "only" way to go. There are almost always alternative routes.
If you think you have a better idea for transportation problems, contact the proper agency and get involved. None of this gets done without it.
I've been reading through this discussion looking for useful information to gleen for my pages (with attribution of course -- you'll see a bunch in the next update). One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is historical. I've heard -- but never seen confirmed -- that there is some grading still visible in the 5/14 transition SB that was in preparation for the 14 to continue to the S, over the hill, and down Reseda. It's basically just a bit of widening to the W of the flyover; I forget whether this was more visible from the SB 14 or the SB 5.
I'd be curious to find out if it is true. In any case, any anticipatory construction could have further complicated these interchanges.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 06, 2016, 08:52:41 PM
I've been reading through this discussion looking for useful information to gleen for my pages (with attribution of course -- you'll see a bunch in the next update). One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is historical. I've heard -- but never seen confirmed -- that there is some grading still visible in the 5/14 transition SB that was in preparation for the 14 to continue to the S, over the hill, and down Reseda. It's basically just a bit of widening to the W of the flyover; I forget whether this was more visible from the SB 14 or the SB 5.
I'd be curious to find out if it is true. In any case, any anticipatory construction could have further complicated these interchanges.
There is some grading as well as some concrete (though no longer really visible as a "stub") from that planned extension. I saw a photo of a model of that interchange somewhere in CHPW. I am looking for it. I also have both sets of plans for the freeway interchange, one before the quake and one after the quake. Pre-quake plans do show the routing of the unbuilt ramps for 14 South (which would have had the control city of "Beach Cities"). Once I find the photo of the interchange model, it will be added to my site as a separate page, similar to some of the other interchange pages I have done in the past. Perhaps this is the impetus for me to "ramp up" my search.
EDIT: The photo of the 5/14 Interchange model was not in CHPW, but in a 1984 AASHTO book.
When you add it, please let me know so I can update my pages to point to it.
I'm mostly finished with the Antelope Valley / Golden State Freeway Interchange page. I plan to add more diagrams, when possible. Here is the link: http://socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/golden_antelope_interchange/ (http://socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/golden_antelope_interchange/)
Quote from: sdmichael on September 06, 2016, 09:39:07 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 06, 2016, 08:52:41 PM
I've been reading through this discussion looking for useful information to gleen for my pages (with attribution of course -- you'll see a bunch in the next update). One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is historical. I've heard -- but never seen confirmed -- that there is some grading still visible in the 5/14 transition SB that was in preparation for the 14 to continue to the S, over the hill, and down Reseda. It's basically just a bit of widening to the W of the flyover; I forget whether this was more visible from the SB 14 or the SB 5.
I'd be curious to find out if it is true. In any case, any anticipatory construction could have further complicated these interchanges.
There is some grading as well as some concrete (though no longer really visible as a "stub") from that planned extension. I saw a photo of a model of that interchange somewhere in CHPW. I am looking for it. I also have both sets of plans for the freeway interchange, one before the quake and one after the quake. Pre-quake plans do show the routing of the unbuilt ramps for 14 South (which would have had the control city of "Beach Cities"). Once I find the photo of the interchange model, it will be added to my site as a separate page, similar to some of the other interchange pages I have done in the past. Perhaps this is the impetus for me to "ramp up" my search.
EDIT: The photo of the 5/14 Interchange model was not in CHPW, but in a 1984 AASHTO book.
Beach Cities?? So now there are two different Beach Cities in CA that don't necessarily meet up. The proposed 14 extension would've hit the coastline in Pacific Palisades. And of course the 91 from the Inland Empire points to Beach Cities, but whether it points to the the OC beach cities (like Newport Beach) or the South Bay beach cities (like Redondo Beach) is of course a subject of debate. (And we debated it here, of course). But what sense would it be to label Pacific Palisades / Santa Monica as Beach Cities as well? The destinations are simply too far apart.
I'm guessing that perhaps it would be Santa Monica for the 14 and perhaps 405's destination would change from Santa Monica to something else. (Maybe Long Beach or maybe LA Airport [which has been added to many signs]).
Quote from: mrsman on September 09, 2016, 12:22:52 AM
Beach Cities?? So now there are two different Beach Cities in CA that don't necessarily meet up. The proposed 14 extension would've hit the coastline in Pacific Palisades. And of course the 91 from the Inland Empire points to Beach Cities, but whether it points to the the OC beach cities (like Newport Beach) or the South Bay beach cities (like Redondo Beach) is of course a subject of debate. (And we debated it here, of course). But what sense would it be to label Pacific Palisades / Santa Monica as Beach Cities as well? The destinations are simply too far apart.
I'm guessing that perhaps it would be Santa Monica for the 14 and perhaps 405's destination would change from Santa Monica to something else. (Maybe Long Beach or maybe LA Airport [which has been added to many signs]).
Considering the publicity given the area via films, TV shows, and an ongoing reputation as a desirable destination, I would surmise "Malibu" might have been the eventual control city on SB CA 14 signage. While the route would have intersected PCH/CA 1 somewhere around the western end of Sunset Blvd., the town limits of Malibu itself start a little west of Topanga Cyn. (CA 27), about a mile and a half west of the potential CA 14 junction point -- close enough for control purposes.
Quote from: sparker on September 09, 2016, 05:36:47 AM
Quote from: mrsman on September 09, 2016, 12:22:52 AM
Beach Cities?? So now there are two different Beach Cities in CA that don't necessarily meet up. The proposed 14 extension would've hit the coastline in Pacific Palisades. And of course the 91 from the Inland Empire points to Beach Cities, but whether it points to the the OC beach cities (like Newport Beach) or the South Bay beach cities (like Redondo Beach) is of course a subject of debate. (And we debated it here, of course). But what sense would it be to label Pacific Palisades / Santa Monica as Beach Cities as well? The destinations are simply too far apart.
I'm guessing that perhaps it would be Santa Monica for the 14 and perhaps 405's destination would change from Santa Monica to something else. (Maybe Long Beach or maybe LA Airport [which has been added to many signs]).
Considering the publicity given the area via films, TV shows, and an ongoing reputation as a desirable destination, I would surmise "Malibu" might have been the eventual control city on SB CA 14 signage. While the route would have intersected PCH/CA 1 somewhere around the western end of Sunset Blvd., the town limits of Malibu itself start a little west of Topanga Cyn. (CA 27), about a mile and a half west of the potential CA 14 junction point -- close enough for control purposes.
Malibu would have been a better destination for the Whitnall Freeway (Route 64), as I think that was destined for Malibu Canyon/Las Virgenes after it turned away from the E-W along Chase (for those that don't realize, it was meant to start at the 170/5 interchange, explaining the extra land there originally). Route 14 was originally intended to end at Temescal and PCH. One of the things that helped to kill it was the construction of my high school back in '61 - Palisades High School at Temescal and Sunset (I'm class of '77). I wonder if there is any remaining evidence for Route 64, or models of the 170/5 interchange showing it as 170/5/64?
As a valley resident now, one can just imagine how different the valley would be had 14 and 64 been constructed.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 09, 2016, 12:02:13 PMMalibu would have been a better destination for the Whitnall Freeway (Route 64), as I think that was destined for Malibu Canyon/Las Virgenes after it turned away from the E-W along Chase (for those that don't realize, it was meant to start at the 170/5 interchange, explaining the extra land there originally). Route 14 was originally intended to end at Temescal and PCH. One of the things that helped to kill it was the construction of my high school back in '61 - Palisades High School at Temescal and Sunset (I'm class of '77). I wonder if there is any remaining evidence for Route 64, or models of the 170/5 interchange showing it as 170/5/64?
As a valley resident now, one can just imagine how different the valley would be had 14 and 64 been constructed.
I've gone through the r/w maps for District 7 and have not found any reference to the unconstructed sections of Routes 14 or 64. The original plans for the 5/170 interchange (which at the time was US 6) also don't give any indication of a potential extra freeway.
However, the model I found a photo of showing the "full interchange" at 5/14 does have a survey map below it. I will work to track that down next time I go to Caltrans, which may be as soon as the next few weeks if I can make it.
Depending on what I find, I may work that data into another page or so.
Quote from: sdmichael link=topic=18690.msg2173595#msg2173595As a valley resident now, one can just imagine how different the valley would be had 14 and 64 been constructed.
Imagine how much worse traffic would be along the Santa Monica portion of PCH with 14 and 64 acting as alternate routes from the Valley into the Westside. They likely would have had to build the PCH causeway just for the capacity.
There are good arguments to be made for turning PCH into a freeway even with today's traffic patterns. True, there is not much room for an interstate quality road, but at least some interchanges should be considered to replace some of the many lights between Santa Monica and Oxnard.