What about a tunnel from the end of Glendale Freeway to Interstate 110?

[Plutonic Panda]

If they can't build a tunnel connecting 710 with Interstate 210, what makes you think they would build a tunnel anywhere else in the region?

They can but they caved to pressure from a small group and likely interests from radical anti car type groups.

And pretty much everyone living in the path of the proposed freeway (I have friends who number in that bunch!).  South Pasadena barely tolerated the incursion of the Arroyo Seco Parkway back in 1939; I-710 (and CA 7 before that) was simply a bridge (or tunnel!) too far.  And now that the Gold Line LR serves their downtown (along the old BNSF main line), they're more than content to serve as the "poster child" for cities resisting freeway development in favor of transit.

Come on man. Yes some people will have to loose their homes. I'm advocating for the tunnel option, so I'm not sure how many. I am willing to eat a hat if its 1/8 of the amount of daily traffic that tunnel will see.

That is traffic taken away from city roads, nearby freeways, and it is modern infrastructure that's shows these companies that seem to be leaving CA monthly that we are serious about this.

I support completing the Beverly Hills Freeway and many others that would require the removal of homes and businesses. Cities don't need to stagnant because people are worried about loosing homes. Move and move on. I've had family impacted by it. They felt good knowing they were contributing to the greater good. I always get asked how I would feel if my home was targeted and this is honestly how I feel; I would be honored.

[djsekani]

If they can't build a tunnel connecting 710 with Interstate 210, what makes you think they would build a tunnel anywhere else in the region?

They can but they caved to pressure from a small group and likely interests from radical anti car type groups.

And pretty much everyone living in the path of the proposed freeway (I have friends who number in that bunch!).  South Pasadena barely tolerated the incursion of the Arroyo Seco Parkway back in 1939; I-710 (and CA 7 before that) was simply a bridge (or tunnel!) too far.  And now that the Gold Line LR serves their downtown (along the old BNSF main line), they're more than content to serve as the "poster child" for cities resisting freeway development in favor of transit.

Come on man. Yes some people will have to loose their homes. I'm advocating for the tunnel option, so I'm not sure how many. I am willing to eat a hat if its 1/8 of the amount of daily traffic that tunnel will see.

That is traffic taken away from city roads, nearby freeways, and it is modern infrastructure that's shows these companies that seem to be leaving CA monthly that we are serious about this.

I support completing the Beverly Hills Freeway and many others that would require the removal of homes and businesses. Cities don't need to stagnant because people are worried about loosing homes. Move and move on. I've had family impacted by it. They felt good knowing they were contributing to the greater good. I always get asked how I would feel if my home was targeted and this is honestly how I feel; I would be honored.

Fifty years ago I'd be with you (and I'm one of the few who think the opposition to the 710 tunnel was absurd), but today the path of the Beverly Hills Freeway would obliterate half of a downtown area along with tons of very dense and valuable real estate. That's more than just a few homes and businesses.

Beverly Hills is a weird case anyway. Despite having three of the region's most congested east-west arterials going through their city, namely Wilshire, Santa Monica, and Olympic, residents don't seem to care at all about doing anything to improve that situation.

[Plutonic Panda]

If they can't build a tunnel connecting 710 with Interstate 210, what makes you think they would build a tunnel anywhere else in the region?

They can but they caved to pressure from a small group and likely interests from radical anti car type groups.

And pretty much everyone living in the path of the proposed freeway (I have friends who number in that bunch!).  South Pasadena barely tolerated the incursion of the Arroyo Seco Parkway back in 1939; I-710 (and CA 7 before that) was simply a bridge (or tunnel!) too far.  And now that the Gold Line LR serves their downtown (along the old BNSF main line), they're more than content to serve as the "poster child" for cities resisting freeway development in favor of transit.

Come on man. Yes some people will have to loose their homes. I'm advocating for the tunnel option, so I'm not sure how many. I am willing to eat a hat if its 1/8 of the amount of daily traffic that tunnel will see.

That is traffic taken away from city roads, nearby freeways, and it is modern infrastructure that's shows these companies that seem to be leaving CA monthly that we are serious about this.

I support completing the Beverly Hills Freeway and many others that would require the removal of homes and businesses. Cities don't need to stagnant because people are worried about loosing homes. Move and move on. I've had family impacted by it. They felt good knowing they were contributing to the greater good. I always get asked how I would feel if my home was targeted and this is honestly how I feel; I would be honored.

Fifty years ago I'd be with you (and I'm one of the few who think the opposition to the 710 tunnel was absurd), but today the path of the Beverly Hills Freeway would obliterate half of a downtown area along with tons of very dense and valuable real estate. That's more than just a few homes and businesses.

Beverly Hills is a weird case anyway. Despite having three of the region's most congested east-west arterials going through their city, namely Wilshire, Santa Monica, and Olympic, residents don't seem to care at all about doing anything to improve that situation.

The ship has certainly sailed for a surface option. I'd be in favor of tolled tunnel and I bet you could get some more support if you committed to a joint project with heavy subterranean rail. The Westside desperately needs traffic relief improvements and mass transit alone won't cut it.

There would still have to be properties taken at the portal locations and at the 101 and 405 where the major interchanges would be. There are plenty of old buildings that aren't in that great of shape at the 101 that can be torn down for land. Good places along the 405 to place such an interchange as well. It would cost a shit ton and politically in the current climate would be killed before it was even conceived. But it would do wonders to help with traffic.