Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kendancy66]

I take every opportunity to drive the I-710 detour from Alhambra to Pasadena or vice versa.  I make sure that I drive especially slow through South Pasadena and hold up as many of their drivers as I can.  If I was in charge, Caltrans would never sell the right of way land, and I would tear down the houses and plant trees until they could build the freeway as originally intended.   They also need to do something with I-210 East where cars are forced to exit to stay on I-210 past the I-710, CA-134 interchange.  It causes a lot of backups.

[sdmichael]

I tend to take the 134 to the 2 in order to avoid the backup. I had also thought that a small gap decrease would have helped with the freeway ending at Huntington instead of Valley.

[mapman1071]

Set up a route via Surface Streets in the gap and sign as CA 710?

[MaxConcrete]

I don't see any way the tunnel option can be financially feasible, unless a huge funding gift comes from the State of California or federal funding. The documents referenced in a previous post report that  "Included in the Measure R plan is the commitment of $780 million to improve the connection between the SR 710 and I-210 freeways.", but this is a small fraction of the cost.

As a rough estimate, each mile of the double-decked toll tunnel (two lanes on each level, as depicted on one of the online documents) will cost around $1 billion. I base that number on a report for an in-progress study of a Houston project where the tunnel cost was estimated to be $700 million/mile and the Alaskan Way project, which is $3.2 billion for a single, two-mile-long double deck tunnel (plus other work including a 1-mile surface freeway, etc). Granted, I don't know how the geology compares at the three locations, but $1 billion per mile per bore is a reasonable number.

So this project is 3 miles long times two bores, around $6 billion. If projects like the Bay Bridge and High Speed Rail are any indication, the cost is likely to be even higher. Tolls wouldn't even come close to paying interest on a $5 billion bond (5% interest = $250 million, 150k vehicles/day * $3 toll = $164 million).

So I'm wondering, have any cost estimates for the tunnel been prepared?

For comparison, I'm thinking a surface option in a trench could probably be done for $500 million/mile. Maybe Socal locals could provide a better estimate of the surface option.

[TheStranger]

So this project is 3 miles long times two bores, around $6 billion. If projects like the Bay Bridge and High Speed Rail are any indication, the cost is likely to be even higher. Tolls wouldn't even come close to paying interest on a $5 billion bond (5% interest = $250 million, 150k vehicles/day * $3 toll = $164 million).

I honestly could imagine the toll to be higher, on par with the Bay Area bridges (the cheapest now of which is the Bay Bridge at off-peak hours, at $4; the rest are either $5 all the time, or the ever-increasing Golden Gate Bridge which I think is going to $7 soon). 

The surface option at this point will likely remain a non-starter because of South Pasadena's decades-old recalcitrance. 

[emory]

Set up a route via Surface Streets in the gap and sign as CA 710?

The cities who control those roads wouldn't go along with that.

[MaxConcrete]

I honestly could imagine the toll to be higher, on par with the Bay Area bridges (the cheapest now of which is the Bay Bridge at off-peak hours, at $4; the rest are either $5 all the time, or the ever-increasing Golden Gate Bridge which I think is going to $7 soon). 

The Bay Area bridges are tolled in one direction only. So a $7 toll is equivalent to $3.50 if both directions are tolled.

A $3 toll for a 3-mile highway segment is $1 per mile - very high. I don't know if traffic would reach 150k vehicles per day at that punishing toll rate.

[TheStranger]

A $3 toll for a 3-mile highway segment is $1 per mile - very high. I don't know if traffic would reach 150k vehicles per day at that punishing toll rate.

Comparison point:

Route 73 in Orange County, if you pass through without exiting, is approximately (average) $5.50 toll in each direction.  17 miles long, but very similar function to the 710 gap (73 bypasses the El Toro Y; the future 710 would bypass the East Los Angeles Interchange and to some extent the Four-Level and San Bernardino Split). 

Traffic IS significant enough - even on weekends - at the East Los Angeles Interchange and the slot portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (the US 101 segment) that north-south through travel probably would have plenty of incentive to take the 210/710 bypass even with a toll.

[ARMOURERERIC]

If you were to toll it in one direction, which would it be?

[andy3175]

So I'm wondering, have any cost estimates for the tunnel been prepared?

Great question ... and one for which I've not seen a definitive answer. According to the 710 tunnel fact sheet (http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/fact_sheets/sr_710_north_fwy_tunnel_alt_fact_sheet.pdf), the tunnel would actually  be two separate tubes that would be double decked, two lanes wide. Here are some more specifics:

In the initial concept calls for two-level twin bored freeway tunnels, with 4 lanes in each direction, to connect the existing southern stub of State Route 710 in Alhambra, north of Interstate 10, to the existing northern stub of Interstate Route 710, south of the Interstate 210/State Route 134 interchange in Pasadena. A two-level single bore tunnel variation of this alternative, with 2 lanes in each direction, will also be studied. ...

The freeway tunnel alignment is approximately 6.3 miles long, with a bored tunnel (4.2 miles), cut-and-cover tunnel (0.7 miles), and at-grade (1.4 miles) segments. The bored tunnel would have an outside diameter of about 59 feet and would have approximately 100 to 150 feet of cover above the tunnels.

After finding the above document, I found an announcement indicating that the environmental document would be ready for public review in February 2015 for a 90-day comment period (longer than the typical 45-day period): http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/sr_710_north_study_update_press_release.pdf.

[andy3175]

There is also a study variant to have the 710 tunnel to consist of only one bore rather than two:

http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/2013_0524_SR710_infoupdate.pdf

[DTComposer]

According to the 710 tunnel fact sheet (http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/fact_sheets/sr_710_north_fwy_tunnel_alt_fact_sheet.pdf), the tunnel would actually  be two separate tubes that would be double decked, two lanes wide. Here are some more specifics:

In the initial concept calls for two-level twin bored freeway tunnels, with 4 lanes in each direction, to connect the existing southern stub of State Route 710 in Alhambra, north of Interstate 10, to the existing northern stub of Interstate Route 710, south of the Interstate 210/State Route 134 interchange in Pasadena. A two-level single bore tunnel variation of this alternative, with 2 lanes in each direction, will also be studied. ...

The freeway tunnel alignment is approximately 6.3 miles long, with a bored tunnel (4.2 miles), cut-and-cover tunnel (0.7 miles), and at-grade (1.4 miles) segments. The bored tunnel would have an outside diameter of about 59 feet and would have approximately 100 to 150 feet of cover above the tunnels.

Based on the wording above and the signage on the map in that document, has it been determined that the tunnel extension would not be Interstate-standard and would therefore have to be signed as CA-710 north of I-10 (the same way we we have I-110 and SR-110)?

[TheStranger]

Based on the wording above and the signage on the map in that document, has it been determined that the tunnel extension would not be Interstate-standard and would therefore have to be signed as CA-710 north of I-10 (the same way we we have I-110 and SR-110)?

I wonder if it depends on WHICH tunnel plan is built.  The two-bore, 4-lanes-in-each-direction format seems like it could be Interstate standard, but the single-bore two-lanes-in-each-direction version doesn't.  (Also, the latter would alleviate the East Los Angeles Interchange much, much less).

While the single-bore version would offer much less capacity than the eight-lane iteration, would a high enough toll be useful in managing traffic load along fewer lanes?  (in effect, taking what made the 125 tollway in Chula Vista lightly trafficked, but using that to prevent a small 710 tunnel from being overloaded)

[hm insulators]

   They also need to do something with I-210 East where cars are forced to exit to stay on I-210 past the I-710, CA-134 interchange.  It causes a lot of backups.

I think it was designed that way because Caltrans planned on the 710 being the more heavily-traveled freeway when the interchange was designed and built in the 1960s and '70s. Who would've guessed that South Pasadena would still be fighting the 710 fifty-plus years later?

What California needs is politicians willing to stand up to South Pasadena and say, "This freeway is going through, like it or not!"

[bing101]

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/20140708/caltrans-to-place-homes-in-the-path-of-710-freeway-up-for-sale

Here is an update for I-710 stub.

[Interstate Trav]

It seems like they use the Tunnel option to say it might get built but financially I highly doubt it.  I can't believe one small city blocked a freeway.  They should sign the surface streets as Temp 710.

[Duke87]

So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.

[MaxConcrete]

So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.

I'm wondering if an alignment entirely to the west of South Pasadena was ever considered. Starting on the north end of the corridor at CA 134, and west bypass would follow the Arroyo Seco ditch to CA 110 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway), then head southwestward along the Arroyo Seco parkway to Avenue 64 then go due south just west of the South Pasadena city limit to near Collins Avenue @Pullman (or possibly further south to avoid a park), where it could angle back southeastward to the existing freeway stub. This alignment is about 5.4 miles and is a noticeable but tolerable detour.

I don't know what kind of environmental obstacles may be in that path but the amount of property displacement looks comparable or even less than the path through South Pasadena.

[sdmichael]

Going along the Arroyo Seco would be a non-starter. Real estate costs are also higher along most of that corridor. The logistics of putting a freeway-freeway interchange at the 134 at that location, with two large arch bridges, would be a bit much as well.

[roadfro]

I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?

True, it doesn't really provide a north—south corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210. The obvious drawback is that it couldn't be upgraded to Interstate and likely federal funding might not come into play. But depending on where Caltrans has already purchased right of way, maybe this would be an easier connection to make...?

[TheStranger]

I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?

True, it doesn't really provide a north–south corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210. The obvious drawback is that it couldn't be upgraded to Interstate and likely federal funding might not come into play. But depending on where Caltrans has already purchased right of way, maybe this would be an easier connection to make...?

I don't think so - while not specifically the concept of only connecting 110 to the stub, the planned interchange of 110 and 710 was eliminated a few years back as part of a CalTrans attempt to mitigate as much right of way usage as possible for whatever ends up getting built in the area.

[DTComposer]

I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?

True, it doesn't really provide a north—south corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210.

I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).

[TheStranger]

I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).

The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway.  (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)

[DTComposer]

I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).

The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway.  (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, the surface street portion of CA-2 (Alvarado Street/Glendale Boulevard) is usually a mess, but the Glendale Freeway itself is usually in good shape (I'm driving from Long Beach to Glendale and/or Pasadena on a regular basis, and often during the afternoon commute).

[TheStranger]

I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).

The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway.  (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, the surface street portion of CA-2 (Alvarado Street/Glendale Boulevard) is usually a mess, but the Glendale Freeway itself is usually in good shape (I'm driving from Long Beach to Glendale and/or Pasadena on a regular basis, and often during the afternoon commute).

It's hard to tell from just traffic stats alone, but how does the section of the Glendale Freeway between 5 and 134 compare with 110 north of 5?