Print

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

[mrsman]

I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big  "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system. 

If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605).  To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave.  In short, a breezewood is necessary. 

So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets. 

* This wasn't a hypothetical for me.  I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland.  My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita.  The question is how to get between the two points?  Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita.  It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.

[DTComposer]

I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big  "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system. 

If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605).  To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave.  In short, a breezewood is necessary. 

So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets. 

* This wasn't a hypothetical for me.  I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland.  My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita.  The question is how to get between the two points?  Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita.  It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.

These gaps are annoying. However, look at it this way: from Hollywood, you have 4, maybe 5 miles of "non-freeway" driving (in quotes because you could make US-101 part of this route) before you get to the freeway (CA-2, CA-134 or I-5), then it's all freeway to Santa Anita.

There are many, many places in the L.A. area (and other cities, I'm sure) that have comparable distances to get to a freeway: Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula; Chatsworth; La Habra; and many other trips that don't have a logical freeway route: LAX to Hollywood; Downtown Long Beach to Huntington Beach; Glendale to Beverly Hills.

So, not to belittle your situation - it's probably more frustrating, since your gaps are just portions of freeways waiting to be completed, as opposed to many of the above examples, who were supposed to be served by freeways that never got off the drawing board - but there are many thousands of people who have similar non-freeway drives as part of their regular travels.

[mrsman]

I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big  "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system. 

If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605).  To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave.  In short, a breezewood is necessary. 

So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets. 

* This wasn't a hypothetical for me.  I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland.  My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita.  The question is how to get between the two points?  Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita.  It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.

These gaps are annoying. However, look at it this way: from Hollywood, you have 4, maybe 5 miles of "non-freeway" driving (in quotes because you could make US-101 part of this route) before you get to the freeway (CA-2, CA-134 or I-5), then it's all freeway to Santa Anita.

There are many, many places in the L.A. area (and other cities, I'm sure) that have comparable distances to get to a freeway: Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula; Chatsworth; La Habra; and many other trips that don't have a logical freeway route: LAX to Hollywood; Downtown Long Beach to Huntington Beach; Glendale to Beverly Hills.

So, not to belittle your situation - it's probably more frustrating, since your gaps are just portions of freeways waiting to be completed, as opposed to many of the above examples, who were supposed to be served by freeways that never got off the drawing board - but there are many thousands of people who have similar non-freeway drives as part of their regular travels.

True, that there are quite a few trips like that with many miles without a good freeway.  LAX to Hollywood was a frequent one for me as I used to work in El Segundo, so my route was generally: La Brea - Redondo - Venice - Fairfax - La Cienega - to the 405 Freeway to El Segundo Blvd.  A portion of La Cienega is expressway (mini-freeway) but it was a long way to go regardless.

The more annoying part of the Arcadia to Hollywood drive is that the gap is in the middle.  There are definitely many people who live far from the freeway system and need to drive a good distance just to reach the first freeway entrance.  But a comprehensive system should be able to get from one point on the system to another point on the system without leaving the system.

Heck, I have it worse now that I live in the DC area.  There is no direct freeway from my area into Downtown DC.  While I take Metro to work, it would be nice to have an all-freeway route into Downtown for traveling with the family on weekends when there is little traffic.  A trip that could take 15 minutes, takes nearly an hour because of all of the traffic lights that I face.

[hm insulators]

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.

That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.

[Occidental Tourist]

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.

That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.

I say split the difference:  Tunnel the north 710 stub to the 110 and make it Autos only.  Build and tunnel the south 710 stub to Huntington Drive.  Then widen the 2 and the 5 between the 134 and the E LA Interchange and build a truck bypass interchange from the 5 to the 60.

[mrsman]

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.

That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.

I say split the difference:  Tunnel the north 710 stub to the 110 and make it Autos only.  Build and tunnel the south 710 stub to Huntington Drive.  Then widen the 2 and the 5 between the 134 and the E LA Interchange and build a truck bypass interchange from the 5 to the 60.

Some good ideas.  I've never understood why Caltrans did not extend the 710 to Huntington.  Huntington is much wider than Valley so it could much easier absorb the traffic.  Caltrans owned the right of way along the El Sereno / Alhambra border and the houses that were there were vacant, but not yet demolished.  The freeway would not have hit South Pasadena, and by extending to Huntington there would be a lot less impact on Alhambra from traffic on surface streets.  Plus, Fair Oaks, a major street into Pasadena, ends at Huntington, so there would be no need for traffic to make turns onto Fremont.

[andy3175]

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.

That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.

The main reason why 110 and 710 were not considered for a connection is likely because of the restriction on commercial vehicles on 110 north of 101. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-110.htm, which states:

Special Route Restriction History - Route 110

LOCATION

The Pasadena Freeway, also known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway, is an 8.2-mile stretch of Route 110 between Route 101 (PM 23.73) and Glenarm St. in Pasadena (PM 31.91) in Los Angeles County.

RESTRICTION

"No commercial vehicles over 6,000 pounds, including buses unless authorized by the PUC."

EXEMPTIONS

This restriction shall not apply to the following:

Passenger stages: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 35701(a) states that local ordinances may establish a maximum vehicle weight, but not with respect to a vehicle subject to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 1031 to 1036. These are passenger stages, which are defined in the PUC Sections 225 and 226. To travel on 110, the passenger stages must be certified by the PUC with approved routing that includes the Pasadena Freeway. However, the Pasadena Freeway would probably not be approved as there are convenient detours.

Pickups or deliveries: CVC Section 35703 states that commercial vehicles may make pickups or deliveries on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.

Public utilities: CVC Section 35704 states that vehicles owned by a public utility on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.

[mrsman]

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.

That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.

The main reason why 110 and 710 were not considered for a connection is likely because of the restriction on commercial vehicles on 110 north of 101. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-110.htm, which states:

Special Route Restriction History - Route 110

LOCATION

The Pasadena Freeway, also known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway, is an 8.2-mile stretch of Route 110 between Route 101 (PM 23.73) and Glenarm St. in Pasadena (PM 31.91) in Los Angeles County.

RESTRICTION

"No commercial vehicles over 6,000 pounds, including buses unless authorized by the PUC."

EXEMPTIONS

This restriction shall not apply to the following:

Passenger stages: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 35701(a) states that local ordinances may establish a maximum vehicle weight, but not with respect to a vehicle subject to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 1031 to 1036. These are passenger stages, which are defined in the PUC Sections 225 and 226. To travel on 110, the passenger stages must be certified by the PUC with approved routing that includes the Pasadena Freeway. However, the Pasadena Freeway would probably not be approved as there are convenient detours.

Pickups or deliveries: CVC Section 35703 states that commercial vehicles may make pickups or deliveries on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.

Public utilities: CVC Section 35704 states that vehicles owned by a public utility on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.

You're right.  As originally envisioned the 710 gap was to be used to allow for a truck bypass around Downtown LA.  Trucks from Long Beach Harbor can continue onto the 210 freeway.

This was one reason why La Canada Flintridge joined South Pasadena in opposing the project.  Even though the proposed freeway does not pass near La Canada, they felt that more trucks would now use the 210 (through La Canada) to avoid the traffic on the 5.

Yet, as stated earlier, it would be nice to have any connection directly to the 210 in this area, for the automobiles at least.

[bing101]

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/03/06/50226/busway-option-to-close-710-freeway-gap-would-cost/


Here we go again

[nexus73]

Build the tunnel and send the bill to the NIMBY cities.  Traffic must flow!  They held things up so long that the cost went from the millions to the billions so they should be the ones to pay the piper.

Rick

[ARMOURERERIC]

It's to the point where I wonder if it would have been cheaper to just buy the ENTIRE city of South Pasadena?

[MaxConcrete]

The online EIS is huge and super-detailed, including the tunnel technical study. It was surely a massive effort preparing the report.

The bottom line is
"The total estimated cost of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is approximately $5,650 million for the dual bore design variation and $3,150 million for the single bore design variation."

"The dual bore tunnel design variation is approximately 6.3 miles long, with approximately 4.2 miles of bored tunnel, 0.7 mile of cut and cover tunnel, and 1.4 miles of at-grade segments."

Last summer I speculated that the cost for the twin bore would be around $6 billion https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365.25. I think the $5.65 billion estimate is quite reasonable considering that there is 4.9 miles of tunnel. I'm not in a position to say if it seems low, but if the $5.65 billion number does in fact hold steady without escalation, then maybe the project can be done. But it will take some serious political will to come up with the money.
 

[roadfro]

^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...

[MaxConcrete]

^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...

It is correct as-is. Those are commas, not decimal points. I copied those sentences directly from the online EIS, which specified the cost as $5,650 million rather than $5.65 billion.

[roadfro]

^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...

It is correct as-is. Those are commas, not decimal points. I copied those sentences directly from the online EIS, which specified the cost as $5,650 million rather than $5.65 billion.

I stand corrected. Didn't see that before. (I am not a fan of that style of notation for this very reason )   

[Desert Man]

Build the tunnel and send the bill to the NIMBY cities.  Traffic must flow!  They held things up so long that the cost went from the millions to the billions so they should be the ones to pay the piper.

Rick

Would it be a 3-mile tunnel??? WOW...what a project to do. I don't believe South Pasadena wants it and the 110 stops being a freeway in the southwest section of nearby Pasadena. What's interesting about the 110 (the Arroyo Seco from Pasadena to downtown L.A.) is believed to be the world's first modern freeway outside of Germany's autobahn project, that section of the 110 was completed around 1940.

[NE2]

What's interesting about the 110 (the Arroyo Seco from Pasadena to downtown L.A.) is believed to be the world's first modern freeway outside of Germany's autobahn project

No it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_A9_%28Italy%29

PS: NYC had a bunch of freeways before LA.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?

[Henry]

Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?

Due to the potential high costs, I would be totally shocked if it ever got built, but it would be a welcome addition to the freeway.

[707]

Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?

Due to the potential high costs, I would be totally shocked if it ever got built, but it would be a welcome addition to the freeway.

In that case, Los Angeles should just do what Phoenix did with the I-10 Papago Freeway and build I-710 over South Pasadena whether they like it or not. If they don't like it, too bad for them. It needs to happen.

[The Ghostbuster]

707, to do that was precisely the reason the freeway revolts occurred. While I agree South Pasadena shouldn't have held up the process, just plowing them over is not the solution. Building the tunnel was and is the only way to complete the link.

[kkt]

In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects.  You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.

[707]

In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects.  You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.

So how did ADOT finally build I-10 through Phoenix after 30 years of being pushed down? Did the city relent?

[kkt]

In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects.  You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.

So how did ADOT finally build I-10 through Phoenix after 30 years of being pushed down? Did the city relent?

I'd be interested if anyone knows the answer.

[dfwmapper]

They scaled back the design. The original plan was to have the freeway super-elevated with long curving ramps to enter and exit the freeway. The final design ended up being mostly below-grade except near the stack interchange with I-17.