710 - Long Beach Freeway Gap

[Sykotyk]

With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html

...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways,"  said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore."  ...
...

Well, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.

[sparker]

With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html

...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways,"  said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore."  ...
...

Well, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.

Pure political posturing.  Garcetti hasn't decided if he's going to run for the Senate (if Feinstein retires) or challenge Gavin Newsom for governor.  He's shoring up the urban-left of the party in advance of whatever he has in mind.  Of course, he's got Villaraigosa to contend with regarding just who can be the most urban-conscious of L.A. recent mayors.  This is one of those instances that makes me glad I'm an independent!

P.S.: the next time he has to go out to the far reaches of the Valley for a fund-raiser, let's see if his entourage uses surface streets!

[cahwyguy]

Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker?  Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!

I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5

[sparker]

Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker?  Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!

I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5

Any actual construction time frame attached to that?  It'll be interesting to see if that ends up indeed being the last new (or, in this case, semi-new) freeway built in L.A. County (save the high desert) for the foreseeable future.

[cahwyguy]

Take a look at the agenda item background: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/0317/77_2.5t2a.pdf

[nexus73]

Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker?  Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!

I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5

Thank you Cahwyguy! 

Rick

[Bobby5280]

Will you see more construction? Quite possibly. There are roads that are dying for the addition of a lane or safety improvements -- US 101 and Route 110 being prime examples. You may see something there. You may see attempts to get a full HOV lane down I-5. The big issue is right of way, and often there isn't any space to do more.

But this isn't an issue you can blame on progressives and urbanist. It is an issue you can blame on a city where land has become far too valuable for concrete, and issue you can blame on realizations that there are better and smarter ways to do things.

I think major coastal cities like Los Angeles and New York have greater problems looming. One of the key visions of the New Urbanist theme is many people walking or riding bicycles to work, or at most taking a short ride on a light rail train. This vision falls apart with the extreme high cost of living in these city cores.

Extremes of income inequality will at some point make these high priced cores non-functional. It seems like developers only think of these city cores in terms of high income residents they can attract to luxury condos and apartments. These trendy areas with all their shops, restaurants and outlets of entertainment all need lots of service industry workers. How many of these workers can afford to live anywhere near their work place? Just how far is a service worker willing to commute everyday to an arguably dead end job with crappy pay? At some point the service worker is going to realize he'll never get ahead by losing so much of his income and free time to his commute. He'll find a job closer to home, hours away from that swanky city core. And then more will follow his example.

Urbanists' interests of "increasing density" are pretty useless if affordability is not included in the equation. Affordability is not on the radar now. Until then the freeways, rail lines and bus systems will continue to need costly upgrades as sprawl continues.

If a freeway gets clogged shortly after it was widened, then it needs more lanes. It needed more to begin with. They should run scenarios for how many people might switch their commutes with newly added lanes and if they find that it might be just as congested due to that, than they should add even more lanes. You can't sit there and tell me that if you widened the 405 to a 100 lanes they would fill up. The Kilpatrick turnpike in OKC had a lane added over 5 years ago to make it 3 lanes each way and it is nowhere close to becoming congested.

I'm not sure if the Kilpatrick Turnpike is the best example to use. In this case it was easy for OTA to add an additional lane since the turnpike was built on a pretty wide ROW. It will cost OTA a good bit for bridge modifications, but they have enough room to make the Kilpatrick 8 lanes wide if that needed to happen. The really bad thing with the Kilpatrick is failure on the part of the OTA, state government and city governments in Mustang and Yukon to properly plan the Southern half of the Kilpatrick. Good ole boy network bull crap got in the way of acquiring or at least protecting the ROW so the Kilpatrick could loop down to Norman as originally intended. They just let developers build all over the necessary ROW. The situation is just disgusting to me considering the giant sized highway projects underway nearby in Texas. At least the folks in Texas know how to acquire and preserve highway ROW for future building.

IMHO, the Southern extension of the Kilpatrick is every bit as screwed up as the I-710 tunnel in L.A. The meager extension now proposed, winding its curvy way to Airport Road, will provide little regional traffic relief of I-35 and I-40. Most drivers will merely shunpike that thing.

I expected this would ultimately happen. I have a feeling the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel will likely be the last road tunnel ever built in the United States.

Just because L.A. doesn't want to build 710 as a tunnel, no one will ever build a tunnel again?  That seems, um, a little arrogant.  I'm sure there are cities which would like to move their viaducts through the city underground, or rivers or lakes that need a way to cross and a tunnel works out the best.

It's all about cost. And building tunnels in the United States costs an extreme fortune now. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is only 2 lanes in each direction for 2 miles. Cost is over $3.2 billion, not counting demolition of the old viaduct and other street & interchange improvements. In New York City current day cost estimates for the 8.5 mile long 2nd Avenue Subway project is $17 billion. But those costs are certain to rise as the later phases are built. The first 2 miles currently in progress is costing $4.45 billion.

I don't know how China is managing it, but they're building all sorts of road and rail tunnels. And that's on top of all the other big infrastructure projects they're building.

Well, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.

Like Sparker said, that probably is political posturing. Unfortunately it feeds into the New Urbanist fantasy that everybody can afford to live within walking or bicycling distance to their workplace, coffee shop, grocery store, etc. They're not in touch with the fact most Americans have to use cars to get from place to place. There's no other practical choice.

[sparker]

Take a look at the agenda item background: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/0317/77_2.5t2a.pdf

"Future consideration of funding" -- can it get more vague than that?  Since the $395K is simply for the study regarding just what the finished "product" will look like, one can surmise that actual construction remains several years away.  The sole saving grace is that considering the attitudes surrounding L.A. area transportation, the project is still on the agenda. 

[cahwyguy]

Generally, things are approved for future consideration of funding, then when the funds become available, the project starts. There are also numerous phases for the projects, from environmental, to plans and engineering, to construction. The key phrase here is: "The Department is ready to proceed with this project and is requesting an allocation at this time.". Yes, this is the allocation for the plans. They've got to do that first before they can turn the shovels. Note when the future consideration of funding was: "Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-02-48; October 2002". So this project was first approved in 2002, now they've got the funds to start the actual work. Environmental is done: see "CEQA - ND, 5/31/2013 -Revalidation". CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act, ND = Negative Declaration (no environmental impact) -- that was in 2013.  If you do a search on TCRP Project 50, you'll find this, which explains the Tier 2 aspect: http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2016Agenda/2016-06/019_4.14.pdf . You could likely do more search to see when construction was scheduled.

[silverback1065]

http://trib.al/V1tTaD1

Nexus 6P


Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again

[compdude787]

http://trib.al/V1tTaD1

Nexus 6P


Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again

Oh jeez. So pretty much every project to increase highway capacity/ build new freeways is labeled "wasteful." But public transit, which serves far less commuters than roads do, isn't? Sigh... 

[sparker]

http://trib.al/V1tTaD1

Nexus 6P


Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again

Oh jeez. So pretty much every project to increase highway capacity/ build new freeways is labeled "wasteful." But public transit, which serves far less commuters than roads do, isn't? Sigh... 

I've had a 20+ year ongoing war of words with Mr. Eric Jaffe (who makes his living writing for Atlantic Cities) regarding just how portable the New York notion of living actually is (small flat w/limited space, only buying the food you need for one day at a local store, relatively few physical possessions [particularly automotive!], and other similar examples of deliberately bounded rationality).  He thinks it's simply a matter of choice; I'd add circumstance to that.  Given the likelihood that even if someone like Jaffe's making 150K+ a year as a senior writer, he's probably spending a big chunk of that on his living situation (apparently he lives at or near the north tip of Manhattan).  But one of the things I've always found questionable about writers who denigrate mobility and attempts to enhance such via new or expanded facilities is that almost to a person they display little curiosity about those persons (and the regions in which they reside) and why it is they resist the siren call of urban citizenry.  Mr. Jaffe has on more than one occasion opined that he couldn't imagine living anywhere except in New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco -- all cities with longstanding saturation-level transit facilities (all right, maybe not the Sunset district of SF!).  And in reply I've suggested more than once that he spend a few months living among the rest of us not ensconced in urbanity; he has politely (to his credit) declined.  If one thinks the country as a whole is divided, from all appearances and evidence the gap between the deliberately (and often vehemently) carless and those of us who value our ability to move around as needed to live our lives (even though some of us would prefer to have fossil fuels fuck off & die [again]!) is even greater.   

[hm insulators]

I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.

Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason.  As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not.  Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents.  Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!   

I was raised in La Canada Flintridge.

I can remember back in my high school days (mid-'60's) the controversy regarding the I-210 segment through La Canada/Flintridge; it almost took on the proportions of a genuine "freeway revolt".  Activists from that region (generally high-income then as now) were even suggesting that 210 be rerouted south along the CA 2 alignment to CA 134 and use that routing to access Pasadena -- eliminating the whole segment east of Montrose and north of central Pasadena.  That almost happened -- but 210 was instead reconfigured to the format existing today, including the massive cut & cover "tunnel" under Foothill Blvd. just east of the CA 2 interchange -- with the portion east of there sunk below ground level until it reached the original Foothill Freeway (ex-CA 118) alignment across Arroyo Seco.  That seemed to placate the local naysayers enough to get the freeway pushed through by the mid-70's.

I remember the freeway being built.

[The Ghostbuster]

Let me respond to kkt, who believed my post about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel being the last road tunnel ever built in the United States to be arrogant. I thought there might be some merit to my comment. The Big Dig and the aforementioned SR 99 tunnel have been plagued with problems. The ceiling in one of the tunnels in Boston collapsed, and the Bertha tunnel-boring machine had to be stopped and restarted. Both projects were fraught with problems, and I figured the cancelation of the 710 tunnel, and other canceled tunnels was not only due to the cost, nor widespread NIMBYism as is the case of 710, but also to avoid all of the problems the Big Dig and Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnels have wrought. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly supportive of building road tunnels in the United States, like those that have been built overseas. I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.

[Rothman]

I am unaware of continued issues with the Big Dig, other than the roof panel that fell off due to contractor malpractice years ago.  If anything comparing the open space now to the dark shadow of the Central Artery would lead people to conclude it was worth it.

[MaxConcrete]

I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.

The Interstate 635 managed lanes project in Dallas were slated to use twin bored tunnels for a two-mile section of the project. My understanding was that the engineering was substantially or fully complete.

But in the late 2000s it was designated as a public-private toll project, and a cost analysis was done which determined that tunnels were cost-infeasible. I don't recall any mention of risks (Dallas' chalk-limestone is ideal for tunneling), but the long-term cost of maintaining a firefighting and emergency response team was cited as a factor. So the project was redesigned to be in a partially-open trench with main lanes overhanging the trench.

Of course, the design used on I-635 was not a possible option for  I-710.

Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.

http://dfwfreeways.com/i635/roadside-lbj-express

[ilpt4u]

Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.

Not sure how you define "urban," but the recently completed East End/Lewis and Clark Ohio River Toll Bridge and approach freeway on the Lousiville Outer Beltway/I-265, uses a new tunnel between the bridge and the previous end of the Freeway in KY, and this was built very recently...

Granted, its not the Downtown area of one of the top 10 cities in the country, but it is a pretty new Freeway tunnel (twin 2-lane tubes), in at least a Suburban area of the Louisville Metro area

[AsphaltPlanet]

The 265 Tunnels are comparatively pretty short.  Certainly not comparable to what would be needed to connect the discontinuous segments of the 710 Freeway.

A better example of a new urban tunnel would be the 99 Freeway tunnel in Seattle.

[Plutonic Panda]

I hope what everyone saying about tunnels not happening isn't true. I love tunnels.

[MaxConcrete]

Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.

Actually, I forgot to consider the possibility of tunnels underneath deck parks, like the Klyde Warren Park on top of Spur 366 in downtown Dallas. There is another deck park planned for IH-35E south of downtown, and plans for the $7 billion Interstate 45 project in Houston have two deck parks, one very long. I think there are plans in the works in Denver on I-70.

Putting a deck or "cap" over a trenched freeway is far less complex and risky than bored tunneling (e.g. Seattle SR 99) or a project like the Big Dig. So we'll probably see more tunnels in association with deck parks on top of freeways.

[kkt]

Tunnels are expensive projects and will certainly be rare, but they do sometimes solve problems nothing else can.  For instance, need to cross a navigable waterway with an airport nearby.  The minimum bridge clearance is too high to fit under the maximum height for the aircraft.

[sparker]

Let me respond to kkt, who believed my post about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel being the last road tunnel ever built in the United States to be arrogant. I thought there might be some merit to my comment. The Big Dig and the aforementioned SR 99 tunnel have been plagued with problems. The ceiling in one of the tunnels in Boston collapsed, and the Bertha tunnel-boring machine had to be stopped and restarted. Both projects were fraught with problems, and I figured the cancelation of the 710 tunnel, and other canceled tunnels was not only due to the cost, nor widespread NIMBYism as is the case of 710, but also to avoid all of the problems the Big Dig and Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnels have wrought. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly supportive of building road tunnels in the United States, like those that have been built overseas. I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.

Tunnels are expensive projects and will certainly be rare, but they do sometimes solve problems nothing else can.  For instance, need to cross a navigable waterway with an airport nearby.  The minimum bridge clearance is too high to fit under the maximum height for the aircraft.

In the case of 710, the tunnel was simply a means to circumnavigate a longstanding political issue.  The backers likely saw the Boston Big Dig as an example of a sociopolitically-motivated project that, despite the seeming endless onset of problems and the corresponding bad press, was eventually completed -- and that a similar scenario was doable in metro LA.  But they were 15-20 years too late; by the time the project was proposed, urban political sentiment was already lined up in opposition to virtually any new freeway facility -- and what support there was, largely from the city of Alhambra, was simply not enough to carry the regional day. 

It's likely that road tunnels -- urban or rural -- that actually are seen as solving an otherwise unresolvable topographic issue such as a ridge standing in the way of a facility with broad developmental support -- will still be considered to be viable solutions, except for those who categorically oppose any new road construction (such as the various "PIRG's" strewn across the country).  However, because of the costs involved, they'll likely remain the methodology of last choice.     

[cahwyguy]

It's likely that road tunnels -- urban or rural -- that actually are seen as solving an otherwise unresolvable topographic issue such as a ridge standing in the way of a facility with broad developmental support -- will still be considered to be viable solutions, except for those who categorically oppose any new road construction (such as the various "PIRG's" strewn across the country).  However, because of the costs involved, they'll likely remain the methodology of last choice. 

And, in California at least, you'll see long tunnels still predominately used for transit, not roads, because a simple picture of a tunnel, jam packed during rush hour due to an accident in the middle of the tunnel, when a significant earthquake hits. Trains and such aren't subject to such blockages, and so the odds of a given train in a given tunnel is low, whereas the odds of significant traffic is high. I just don't think you'll be seeing really long tunnels on roads (which, of course, could bring the question of what the longest tunnel is on the California state highway system? My page at http://www.cahighways.org/stats1.html lists all of the tunnels on the state highway system. Lengths aren't given, but I don't think that any of them are that long. I did find this on the Devils Slide tunnels on Route 1: "The Devil's Slide tunnels, as they are usually called, are the second and third longest road tunnels in California at 4,149 ft (1,265 m) northbound, and 4,008 ft (1,222 m) southbound." Those are under a mile.  The longest tunnel isn't technically on the state highway system: "At 4,233 feet (1,290 m) long Wawona Tunnel is the longest highway tunnel in California.". That's on Route 41, but within Yosemite so its National Park property. Again -- under a mile.

How long were the 710 tunnels going to be? I've seen numbers like 4.9 miles. That's a big difference. A road tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass? Again, multiple miles. We're not going to see road tunnels that long. Bridges, yes. Tunnels, no.

[kkt]

You can carry quite a large number of passengers in a 2-track train or rapid transit tunnel.  It's a very unusual situation where a railroad has enough traffic to justify more than a two-track tunnel.  BART under the Bay maybe someday, but the 2-track stations under Market Street are a bigger bottleneck than the Transbay Tube.

The Devil's Slide tunnel is 4,149 feet (wikipedia under Wawona Tunnel footnote 4)
The Caldecott bore 3 is the longest bore, at 3,771 feet (Wikipedia)
Collier Tunnel 1,886.2 ft (bridgehunter.com)

Washington has an old railroad tunnel that's over 5 miles.  Of course that was built by imported Chinese labor under slave-labor conditions.  It's a park now, you can strap on headlamps and walk through.  Very wet, dripping all the way.

[silverback1065]

having just returned from LA on vacation, I think 710 would be wonderful, you can bypass downtown completely, which would help a lot.  After driving in that city, I'll never complain about traffic again at home (Indianapolis)