What Will Become of Orange County's Toll Roads

[jdbx]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ.  Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...

What does something like that cost to purchase?  What does the install look like on the vehicle?

I should have clarified, they are on the roof of my house.  I would say ⅓ of the homes in my neighborhood have solar on the roof.  With the high cost of electricity in CA (25-50¢ per killowatt/hour), solar makes a lot of sense.  I only paid about $2.70/kw installed, and that was before the 30% federal tax credit.  My panels will have paid for themselves within about 5 years.  I didn't put them on because I'm a hippie, I did it because I'm cheap and I *hate* our electric utility PG&E.

As for the car, it's the same story... charger installed in the garage cost about $600, since I was already wired for 220.  Full tank every morning with power from the roof.  That beats paying $3.50/gallon no matter how you slice it.  I'm cheap.  If it benefits the environment, that's great, but the green that I care about is what's in my wallet.

I am aware that in other parts of the country people are paying 10¢ kw/h for electricity and $2.50 or less/gallon for gas, so the economics are a lot different.

[mrsman]

Unfortunately the time to change the control city on the 710 is now as most of the signs are being replaced.  But on the new signs they are continuing to use Pasadena.  Even the new signs at the 47/103/710 interchange and on the new Gerald Desmond Bridge, most of which are not replacements of old signs but are newly designed signs, go out of their way to list Pasadena as the control city.  I'm not sure how Caltrans, Metro, the Port of LB, or whomever is responsible for the construction of the bridge and the new roadways thinks having Pasadena as a control city on signs for commercial drivers leaving the port is helpful.  They would have been better off leaving a control city off those signs altogether.

It's a bit of a chicken/egg problem.  Certainly it would be better to redo all of the signs for LA instead of Pasadena.  But if you only have the means to do some of the signs, does it make sense to have some signs with a control city of LA and others with a control city of Pasadena?  When most of the signs have changed to LA, then certainly it makes sense for new sections (like by the GD bridge) should have LA signage, but if the majority of signs say "Pasadena" is it better to be right or consistent?

All in all, I think I do agree with you, even if you will have a period with lots of Pasadena and LA signs on 710 north - START NOW changing them to LA.  In a few years, they will be the majority and they will clearly indicate that the 710 will never hit Pasadena.

There are some other roadways with duelling controls.  Over the same stretch of road, two separate controls are listed - depending upon the age of the sign.  E.g. US 101 north of Downtown LA has older signs for Hollywood and newer signs for Ventura.  US 50 east of Sacramento mostly is signed for Placerville, but there are some signs for South Lake Tahoe, especially near I-5.  And I-210 west of Pasadena for a long time has had a control of San Fernando, but D7 decided to change many of the signs to Sacramento instead.  (There are still plenty of San Fernando signs out there.)

[fungus]

The other thing is that there's one control city on the I-10 big green sign to divert drivers on I-710 north to use I-10 east, and then one side sign prior to the Rosemead Blvd exit to use SR-19 as the preferred route into Pasadena.  While San Marino is exceedingly paranoid about people passing through their city to the extent of posting ridiculously misleading signs to use Sierra Madre Bl instead of Los Robles to get to Pasadena (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1062534,-118.1347837,3a,75y,25.83h,95.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSMizz_4OtDxrrPKCRKT_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), there needs to be some signage from I-710 at Valley Bl to get to Pasadena, probably by using Valley, Fremont, Huntington, and Fair Oaks. Hopefully now that everyone has agreed that the 710 is not continuing north of Valley Bl, those signs can be installed.

[mrsman]

The other thing is that there's one control city on the I-10 big green sign to divert drivers on I-710 north to use I-10 east, and then one side sign prior to the Rosemead Blvd exit to use SR-19 as the preferred route into Pasadena.  While San Marino is exceedingly paranoid about people passing through their city to the extent of posting ridiculously misleading signs to use Sierra Madre Bl instead of Los Robles to get to Pasadena (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1062534,-118.1347837,3a,75y,25.83h,95.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSMizz_4OtDxrrPKCRKT_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), there needs to be some signage from I-710 at Valley Bl to get to Pasadena, probably by using Valley, Fremont, Huntington, and Fair Oaks. Hopefully now that everyone has agreed that the 710 is not continuing north of Valley Bl, those signs can be installed.

Here is the sign at 710/10

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0603107,-118.1647591,3a,75y,10.2h,106.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYMjS5YR-_Nft4wjapUghQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Basically directing traffic wanting I-5 (presumably I-5 north) to go west on 10 to hit 5.  For trucks, this may be a reasonable way of allowing traffic from the ports to go into Northern California, as the ramp from 710 to 5 north is on the left and trucks are discouraged from using that ramp.  Trucks must use 60 or 10 to reach 5.

To reach Pasadena, you correctly noted that Caltrans is directing traffic way out of the way in order to put traffic on the highest quality street.  Rosemead is signed as CA-19.  (Is it still maintained by Caltrans, I ca neever keep track?)  By going this way, you consistently have multiple lanes of traffic on the divided surface street, but if your destination is in Central Pasadena you are needlessly adding miles to your trip by following these signs.

It seems like the anti-710 extension cities are having their cake and eating it too.  They fought the freeway, yet they are not willing to shoulder the traffic that their actions have caused.  They are happy to direct traffic away from their localities.  Nobody is willing to actually help the traffic reach where they are going.

So here's the deal:

If you are coming north on the 710 from Long Beach, here are the best ways of getting to your destination:

If you wanted to reach 210 west or 134 west, then assuming the freeways are moving well, make your way to 5 north.  You can use the left lane ramp to 5 (except trucks), or if you miss it take 60 west or 10 west to 5.  5 will likely be your most direct path to your destination in the northwest, but CA-2 is a great option that can connect you to 210 or 134.

If you want 210 east, depending on how far east you are going, you should take 10 as far east as you can bear.  10 is a lot busier than 210, so it seems that they are recommending traffic to take 10 to Rosemead to then reach 210, but if you can use the 605 as your connector, even better.  Of course, 57, 15, and 215 also make the connection even further east.  The locals strongly prefer that you not take any surface streets before Rosemead, but they can't really stop you.  (There may be truck restictions on some of those roads, however.)

If you actually want Pasadena, you need to ignore all of the signs and thread your own way.  With the lack of freeway, no option is good.  THe most popular is 710-Valley-Fremont, but it's crowded.  Taking 10 east to Fremont, Atlantic, Garfield, etc. will also lead you to being mired in heavy surface traffic.

And given the politics involved, they will never sign one of the above surfact streets, because then all  of the traffic will follow that.

Another option for Pasadena, is going west, and going to 5 north to 110 north.  This is no panacea either.  YOu will be going out of your way.  You will be driving on a very curvy substandard 110 to Pasadana.  Trucks are absolutely prohibited from this routing.  And unlike going east, one can see that there is no decent arterial west of the 710 to directly connect I-10 to Pasadena because of the hills.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Neither South Pasadena nor its neighbor to the east, San Marino, really want N-S traffic to and from I-10 to Pasadena passing through their jurisdictions.  And yes, there are numerous truck restrictions that impinge upon commercial traversal of those towns.  But if surface streets aren't problematic and you have anything short of a bobtail, there's a simple routing (its S>N, so simply reverse it for the opposite direction):

Use the I-710 stub to its north end at Valley Blvd.  Turn east to Fremont Ave.  Turn north to Huntington Drive.  Turn east (only a couple of blocks) to Fair Oaks.  Turn north on Fair Oaks; it'll pass right through South Pasadena into downtown Pasadena -- actually ending up in the touristy "Old Town" area.  By the way, you'll pass by the first Trader Joe's retail outlet on Fair Oaks just south of the CA 110 undercrossing (before they were sold to a holding company, TJ's was HQ'd in South Pas).   

If you don't want to get off the freeway, from the south (on 5 or 710) simply stay on or segue onto NB I-5 to CA 2, then take it to CA 134 and head east for about 7 miles into central Pasadena.   

Yeah, a completed 710 would have made things simpler and infinitely more direct.  But it ain't happening, folks.  One of the arguments raised by the City of South Pasadena against any 710 extension regardless of format was that most of its peak-hour traffic would have turned eastward on I-210, adding to the congestion misery that has been that freeway's bete noir since shortly after its opening in the mid-70's.  That, added to the general increasing negativity toward urban freeways that has enveloped both local MPO's and even Caltrans drove multiple nails into the 710 extension coffin.  Also, the fact that the most direct route via Fremont and Fair Oaks described above passes through no less than 4 separate municipal jurisdictions works against continuous and effective "To Pasadena" or "To I-710" signage -- especially since there's no existing single through arterial.  For all intents and purposes, a recognized direct route just doesn't exist, except for locals and others who "know the territory".   

[mrsman]

Bringing together  all of the above Pasadena discussion, I guess it is fair to ask:

If Caltrans re-signed all of the controls on the 710, south of the 5, from Pasadena to Los Angeles (and put in either Alhambra or Valley Blvd north of the 5), would there now be the "need" to have any further Pasadena signage on this corridor? 

(I believe the need to sign for Pasadena would no longer be "necessary".  The local cities have never adequately taken on the responsibility to sign traffic appropriately here anyway.)

And if that were done, and we got rid of the Pasadena control heading to 10 east at the 10/710 interchange and the control for Pasadena at I-10's Rosemead exit would that have any effect on traffic patterns?  I.e. If there is no longer any mention of Pasadena, would any traffic from 710 still try to make their way along the surface streets to get to Pasadena and/or the 210?

(I believe that the traffic patterns won't change.  This is already ingrained in too many people to drive along these streets to make the connection.)

I think it would also be nice to see supplemental signage for all the freeway routings that sparker had suggested.  So on I-710 north approaching I-5, and CA-60, and I-10, have supplemental signs saying "Pasadena use 5 north to 110 or 2" and other similar signs at all the junction points.

------

In a similar vein, there is also the issue of how the city of Los Angeles signs for traffic from westbound I-10 (coming out of Downtown LA) trying to reach Century City.  The city's favored way would be 10 east to 405 north to Santa Monica Blvd, but given the heavy traffic and the backtracking they know that few would do that.  The more direct route would be to take 10 to National Blvd and then head straight from the exit on Manning with a right turn onto Motor.  This would put traffic on a residential street through a wealthy neighborhood.  They certainly don't want that and there are many bumps and other traffic calming obstructions along the way to discourage that routing.  So the city established two other routings along the surface streets: 1) I-10 to Robertson to Pico to Ave of the Stars OR 2) I-10 to Overland to Pico to Ave of the Stars.

[sparker]

Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

*

[GaryA]

Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

[skluth]

Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.

[sparker]

Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60.  That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials.  Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.

Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.

I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.

In full agreement that the local jurisdictions (Rosemead, Temple City, Pasadena) should maintain CA 19 signage over Rosemead Blvd, since it's the most efficient route toward Pasadena from I-10.  San Gabriel Blvd., a mile or so west and parallel to Rosemead, is a useful alternative except for the fact that it goes through San Marino and is something of a speed trap there -- but at least it puts one a bit closer to central Pasadena.  Nevertheless, there is a paucity of signed state routes between I-10 and the CA/I-210/CA 134 E-W "continuum" through the foothill communities; D7 has been eager to shed CA 39 in the Covina/Azusa "flatlands" for the last decade, so besides the I-605 and CA 57 freeways, there's just not that much in the way of signed connectors.  And since D8 and Upland decided to "86" CA 83 along Euclid, it's just gotten worse in that regard.  It's as if Caltrans has stated in blanket fashion that "we're no longer going to expedite through traffic along urban/suburban/exurban arterials; we're leaving it up to the individual jurisdictions to decide whether they want to do so on their own!" 

I fully expect D7, D12, and D8 to all but eliminate surface connectors from the state system within the next decade or two, given their proclivities to date.  A few might remain, like CA 1 along Rice Avenue in Ventura County and PCH along the Malibu/Dume coast -- even CA 27 may stick around, if the city and/or county of L.A. declines to accept maintenance (the same goes for CA 23 between CA 1 and US 101).  The routes in Ventura County's farm/rural areas will also likely survive (maybe not CA 34) to serve the agricultural zones, as well as the routes out in the desert, but that's about it -- the L.A. basin will be toast!  Ironically, I remember 1965-69, when just about everything that was owned/maintained by Caltrans received signage -- urban, rural, and in between.  Perhaps what's happening today is just a manifestation of signing by maintained facility rather than actual utility as a connector; Caltrans has so much on their plate currently that they're simply "cleaning up" by scraping the detritus off that plate!

[Plutonic Panda]

Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.

Upon checking their website they updated their 241-91 express lane connector so they're still chugging along and moving forward with projects. I just think they could be doing more. They need to completely reconstruct the 241 from the 133 to I-5. Preferably the 133 would be made as much of a freeway as possible to Laguna Beach. The obvious part is the 405 to El Toro with a full stack at the 73.

Other than various studies and projects along the 73 I don't know much other work planned.

[pderocco]

^^^

Having trouble deciphering that. 241 doesn't go to Laguna Beach, or to I-5.

[Occidental Tourist]

Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.

For decades there have been pavement undulations in the section of the 241 between the 133 interchange and Santiago Canyon Road. 

As for the agency's finances, the TCA's finances are terrible. It has refinanced bond debt and been doing the equivalent of interest-only type payments on the outstanding debt for years.  Part of the reason for these decisions is due to overly-rosy traffic projections from the start. Part is due to higher initial capital costs from building the roads than was originally estimated. And part is due to a "kick the can down the road"  mentality that has stretched paying off the bond obligations from their original 2023 retirement date to sometime in 2050. Critics of the TCA (and a grand jury investigation) claimed that some of the refinancing was done to justify extending the life of the TCA itself.

But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads.  TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt. 

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^

Having trouble deciphering that. 241 doesn't go to Laguna Beach, or to I-5.

Sorry the 241 goes to the 133 which goes to Laguna Beach. That is the route that I took. California Route 133 is in decent enough condition. I just wish it were more controlled access further south I understand it can't be that way all the way to PCH. But the condition of the 241 to the California State Route 133 junction is really bad.

[Plutonic Panda]

Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.

For decades there have been pavement undulations in the section of the 241 between the 133 interchange and Santiago Canyon Road. 

As for the agency's finances, the TCA's finances are terrible. It has refinanced bond debt and been doing the equivalent of interest-only type payments on the outstanding debt for years.  Part of the reason for these decisions is due to overly-rosy traffic projections from the start. Part is due to higher initial capital costs from building the roads than was originally estimated. And part is due to a "kick the can down the road"  mentality that has stretched paying off the bond obligations from their original 2023 retirement date to sometime in 2050. Critics of the TCA (and a grand jury investigation) claimed that some of the refinancing was done to justify extending the life of the TCA itself.

But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads.  TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.

interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.

[Rothman]

But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads.  TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.

Not the smartest arrangement.  I think that would allow a lot of Robert Moses-esque accounting: TCA skimming off the top before handing maintenance funds over to CalTrans.

[kernals12]

On the one hand, tolls are incredibly expensive to collect and on the other hand, they discourage people from using the safest and most efficient roads we have. Who's to say if they're good or bad?

[vdeane]

But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads.  TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.

Not the smartest arrangement.  I think that would allow a lot of Robert Moses-esque accounting: TCA skimming off the top before handing maintenance funds over to CalTrans.

That's a good question: do the tolls on these roads pay for the maintenance CalTrans does, or does CalTrans?  The latter would seem like a good setup for avoiding the "bonds are paid off, time to make the road free, but how do we pay for the maintenance?" problem that resulted in northeast toll roads remaining toll roads forever.

[pderocco]

interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.

I don't know the rates on the route 2xx roads, but I always thought 73 was bizarrely expensive, even in the middle of the night. I drive 125 and I-15 express pretty often, and they're reasonable. 73 always seems to be deserted once evening rush is over, but if they only charged a buck at that time, I think it would have an order of magnitude more cars on it, and they'd make more money.

[Plutonic Panda]

interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.

I don't know the rates on the route 2xx roads, but I always thought 73 was bizarrely expensive, even in the middle of the night. I drive 125 and I-15 express pretty often, and they're reasonable. 73 always seems to be deserted once evening rush is over, but if they only charged a buck at that time, I think it would have an order of magnitude more cars on it, and they'd make more money.

IMO the 73 is one of the most beautiful roads in the state. Coming over the hill heading north seeing the Orange County sprawl with the mountains in the background is breathtaking.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405.  The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions.  Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility.  Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405.  The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions.  Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility.  Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.

It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper"  ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.

[Max Rockatansky]

I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405.  The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions.  Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility.  Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.

It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper"  ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.

That was always my assumption.  All the same, pricing certain people out of a corridor doesn't exactly make it viable a fully functional transportation piece.  What that more optimal toll rate is I don't know, I just know it's not the current one.

[RZF]

I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405.  The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions.  Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility.  Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.

It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper"  ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.

That was always my assumption.  All the same, pricing certain people out of a corridor doesn't exactly make it viable a fully functional transportation piece.  What that more optimal toll rate is I don't know, I just know it's not the current one.

My assumption is that they know that out-of-area drivers (particularly those from western LA County and coastal points north) are using I-405 to get to I-5 to get to San Diego. And there are lots of those drivers. Every time I drive to San Diego, Apple Maps gives me the option to stay on I-405 or take CA-73 to get to I-5. The difference between the two is inconsequential (matter of a minute or two + 2 fewer miles), but CA-73 is the "faster" route. So they might be taking advantage of drivers who just turn Siri on and let her do her thing.

[kphoger]

My assumption is that they know that out-of-area drivers (particularly those from western LA County and coastal points north) are using I-405 to get to I-5 to get to San Diego. And there are lots of those drivers. Every time I drive to San Diego, Apple Maps gives me the option to stay on I-405 or take CA-73 to get to I-5. The difference between the two is inconsequential (matter of a minute or two + 2 fewer miles), but CA-73 is the "faster" route. So they might be taking advantage of drivers who just turn Siri on and let her do her thing.

Were the toll rates set during the era of ubiquitous sat-nav-guided driving?