I-405 widening in Orange County has started

[MarkF]

I-405 in from CA73 to I-605 is being widened. It will add a general purpose lane and a carpool/toll in each direction.

http://www.octa.net/Projects-and-Programs/Under-Construction/I-405-Improvement-Project/?frm=7135

So far landscaping has been removed, and there has been some re-striping work to move the lanes toward the shoulder, where K rail has been set up.  Signs are up warning of potential ramp closures through 2023.  Here's a sort of "before" video I shot southbound on 6/17:

https://youtu.be/mM6fg5MvvPM

The video includes a project south of there to widen I-405 from CA55 to Jeffrey Rd in Irvine.  I haven't found any info on that project.

[Henry]

About damn time! Those freeways are so long overdue for widening projects.

[sparker]

I would imagine numerous overcrossing bridges will need replacement; that segment of freeway is now a bit over 50 years old (built 1966-68), and most of the overcrossings -- particularly those at interchanges -- featured multiple supported spans, including outside ones for C/D lanes.  It's also likely that some C/D arrangements won't survive the widening process.  If anyone can procure reasonably detailed plans for this project, it'd sure be nice to see them attached to this thread!

[davewiecking]

I would imagine numerous overcrossing bridges will need replacement; that segment of freeway is now a bit over 50 years old (built 1966-68), and most of the overcrossings -- particularly those at interchanges -- featured multiple supported spans, including outside ones for C/D lanes.  It's also likely that some C/D arrangements won't survive the widening process.  If anyone can procure reasonably detailed plans for this project, it'd sure be nice to see them attached to this thread!

Follow the link in the OP, then follow the "Documents" header. "Bridge Construction Map" link shows the 18 bridges to be replaced, in addition to others that will be rebuilt in some fashion. Somewhere else on the site is a chart showing the sequencing of the bridgework. The "Final EIR/EIS Documents" link leads to the table of contents and appendices of the EIS; Appendix P seems to include the reasonably detailed plans you seek.

[sparker]

I would imagine numerous overcrossing bridges will need replacement; that segment of freeway is now a bit over 50 years old (built 1966-68), and most of the overcrossings -- particularly those at interchanges -- featured multiple supported spans, including outside ones for C/D lanes.  It's also likely that some C/D arrangements won't survive the widening process.  If anyone can procure reasonably detailed plans for this project, it'd sure be nice to see them attached to this thread!

Follow the link in the OP, then follow the "Documents" header. "Bridge Construction Map" link shows the 18 bridges to be replaced, in addition to others that will be rebuilt in some fashion. Somewhere else on the site is a chart showing the sequencing of the bridgework. The "Final EIR/EIS Documents" link leads to the table of contents and appendices of the EIS; Appendix P seems to include the reasonably detailed plans you seek.

Thanks for the legwork!  Downloaded it, looked at a few pages; will peruse thoroughly when I have several hours free to do so.  BIG file; didn't realize there were several iterations of the plan.  But then, it's a really BIG project! 

[jeffe]

Thanks for the legwork!  Downloaded it, looked at a few pages; will peruse thoroughly when I have several hours free to do so.  BIG file; didn't realize there were several iterations of the plan.  But then, it's a really BIG project!

Yes, thank you for finding those plans!  This is a design/build project so the plans weren't posted on the Caltrans website.

The plans show three different alternatives and I believe that P3 is the option they are going with.  As MarkF noted, one HOT and mixed flow lane will be added. Only P3 shows this, which results in 2 HOT lanes and 5 mixed flow lanes in each direction at the narrowest parts of the corridor.

P3 also adds a direct HOT connector between 405 and CA-73.

The video includes a project south of there to widen I-405 from CA55 to Jeffrey Rd in Irvine.  I haven't found any info on that project.

The plans for that project are available here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/des/oe/NDA-test.php?id=12-0M3504

This project will add a lane to Southbound 405 from Culver Drive to just past Jeffrey Road.  Right now there is a double exit only lane at Culver Drive.  One of the exit only lanes will be converted into an optional lane and extended to Jeffrey Road.  The project will also replace the K-rail in the median with a permanent type 60 concrete barrier.  It is currently 75% complete.

Thank you for posting that video MarkF!

[Plutonic Panda]

I really wish they could widen the entire corridor from this project up to the 101 to have minimum of 2 HOT lanes and 5-6 GP lanes in each direction. Would help a lot and completely alleviate the chronic congestion.

[pderocco]

I really wish they could widen the entire corridor from this project up to the 101 to have minimum of 2 HOT lanes and 5-6 GP lanes in each direction. Would help a lot and completely alleviate the chronic congestion.

I wish they'd abolish the HOT lanes. I think they cause more congestion during rush hour than they alleviate, because they don't actually cause a significant number of people to carpool.

[Plutonic Panda]

I really wish they could widen the entire corridor from this project up to the 101 to have minimum of 2 HOT lanes and 5-6 GP lanes in each direction. Would help a lot and completely alleviate the chronic congestion.

I wish they'd abolish the HOT lanes. I think they cause more congestion during rush hour than they alleviate, because they don't actually cause a significant number of people to carpool.

I only really support HOT lanes as long as for each lane is added two GP lanes are added, but I'll take what I can get for this project. The 405 needs every new lane it can get.

[sparker]

The property acquisition costs for a general widening as far north as the 405/101 interchange would alone be quite prohibitive, particularly in the area around LAX, where there are already multiple interwoven C/D lanes from Rosecrans Blvd. all the way up to the La Cienega curve.  And double-decking would be a nonstarter in that area for obvious LAX-related reasons.  Another factor not often discussed is the fact that west of Hawthorne Blvd. the area is under the parvenu of the state Coastal Commission, which would have to sign off on any and all expansion efforts (and did so for the "405 fix" in west L.A. over the last few years).  With all the flack taken about that project, there might be reluctance on the part of any state agencies and/or the local MPO to follow up with another capacity expansion soon after the previous one was completed.  IMO, it'll be several years after the completion of the OC segment before anything to the north is given consideration -- and don't doubt that the OC project will be looked at closely regarding cost overruns and other unforeseen issues that may crop up during its tenure -- and that may affect future plans.  Also, D12 OC projects end at the San Gabriel River; north (west) of there, it's D7's territory -- and after the previous 405 fix, their attention is presently elsewhere (primarily I-5 southeast of downtown and the ongoing I-710 series of crises).  Within L.A. County, don't expect any more substantial 405-related activity for at least a decade or two.   

[Plutonic Panda]

The property acquisition costs for a general widening as far north as the 405/101 interchange would alone be quite prohibitive, particularly in the area around LAX, where there are already multiple interwoven C/D lanes from Rosecrans Blvd. all the way up to the La Cienega curve.  And double-decking would be a nonstarter in that area for obvious LAX-related reasons.  Another factor not often discussed is the fact that west of Hawthorne Blvd. the area is under the parvenu of the state Coastal Commission, which would have to sign off on any and all expansion efforts (and did so for the "405 fix" in west L.A. over the last few years).  With all the flack taken about that project, there might be reluctance on the part of any state agencies and/or the local MPO to follow up with another capacity expansion soon after the previous one was completed.  IMO, it'll be several years after the completion of the OC segment before anything to the north is given consideration -- and don't doubt that the OC project will be looked at closely regarding cost overruns and other unforeseen issues that may crop up during its tenure -- and that may affect future plans.  Also, D12 OC projects end at the San Gabriel River; north (west) of there, it's D7's territory -- and after the previous 405 fix, their attention is presently elsewhere (primarily I-5 southeast of downtown and the ongoing I-710 series of crises).  Within L.A. County, don't expect any more substantial 405-related activity for at least a decade or two.   

They could go elevated like the 110? Maybe they'd run into NIMBY issues at that point.

[sparker]

The property acquisition costs for a general widening as far north as the 405/101 interchange would alone be quite prohibitive, particularly in the area around LAX, where there are already multiple interwoven C/D lanes from Rosecrans Blvd. all the way up to the La Cienega curve.  And double-decking would be a nonstarter in that area for obvious LAX-related reasons.  Another factor not often discussed is the fact that west of Hawthorne Blvd. the area is under the parvenu of the state Coastal Commission, which would have to sign off on any and all expansion efforts (and did so for the "405 fix" in west L.A. over the last few years).  With all the flack taken about that project, there might be reluctance on the part of any state agencies and/or the local MPO to follow up with another capacity expansion soon after the previous one was completed.  IMO, it'll be several years after the completion of the OC segment before anything to the north is given consideration -- and don't doubt that the OC project will be looked at closely regarding cost overruns and other unforeseen issues that may crop up during its tenure -- and that may affect future plans.  Also, D12 OC projects end at the San Gabriel River; north (west) of there, it's D7's territory -- and after the previous 405 fix, their attention is presently elsewhere (primarily I-5 southeast of downtown and the ongoing I-710 series of crises).  Within L.A. County, don't expect any more substantial 405-related activity for at least a decade or two.   

They could go elevated like the 110? Maybe they'd run into NIMBY issues at that point.

The one place where they could certainly not go elevated -- even for express lanes only -- would be around LAX; 405 crosses the approach to the south runways less than a mile east of those runways, and elevated structures are not allowed in that vicinity.  Remember also that there's a 2nd (albeit private/general aviation) airfield just east of 405 and south of 105 (Hawthorne Airport); they actually moved 105, looping it to the north of Imperial Highway at Hawthorne Blvd., in the late '80's so the raised portions of the freeway wouldn't interfere with the runway approaches there.  The fact that there's a tunnel connecting WB I-105 with SB I-405 rather than the usual flyover attests to the local set of priorities.  This part of L.A. has been and is "aerospace central"; pretty much anything on the ground plays second fiddle to the process of getting aircraft up & down.  In fact, Hawthorne Airport used to be known as Northrop Field, as that aircraft company utilized it as a test facility for several decades. 

Now -- everywhere else on I-405 NIMBY issues likely would dominate the debate, particularly if an "eyesore" like elevated lanes were to be planned for other freeway segments.   

[Bickendan]

I suspect any expansion around LAX would have to be under the mainlines, and that's probably a financial non-starter.

[jeffe]

I suspect any expansion around LAX would have to be under the mainlines, and that's probably a financial non-starter.

If you look at the satellite map of 405 where it is closest to the LAX runways, you can see that there is 30 feet of right of way on the east side of the freeway past the sound wall.  On the west side of the freeway there is 30 feet of right of way in some areas, but the other parts have two warehouses and a parking lot up against the freeway shoulder.

This section of 405 has 10 lanes each way including the collector/distributor lanes.  Using that 30 feet and narrowing the shoulders would allow for the addition of of 4 lanes; 1 HOV and 1 GP lane in both directions.

If the two warehouses were acquired it would allow for at least another 100 feet of right of way.

As for constructing an elevated structure, there are 40 foot streetlights in this section of roadway.  An overpass would probably have a road deck 20 feet above the current roadway, which would allow for a 20 foot envelope to stay below the current 40 foot incursion into the runway approach.  However, it would probably be less expensive to purchase and demolish the two warehouses if extra right of way is needed.

[nexus73]

I suspect any expansion around LAX would have to be under the mainlines, and that's probably a financial non-starter.

If you look at the satellite map of 405 where it is closest to the LAX runways, you can see that there is 30 feet of right of way on the east side of the freeway past the sound wall.  On the west side of the freeway there is 30 feet of right of way in some areas, but the other parts have two warehouses and a parking lot up against the freeway shoulder.

This section of 405 has 10 lanes each way including the collector/distributor lanes.  Using that 30 feet and narrowing the shoulders would allow for the addition of of 4 lanes; 1 HOV and 1 GP lane in both directions.

If the two warehouses were acquired it would allow for at least another 100 feet of right of way.

As for constructing an elevated structure, there are 40 foot streetlights in this section of roadway.  An overpass would probably have a road deck 20 feet above the current roadway, which would allow for a 20 foot envelope to stay below the current 40 foot incursion into the runway approach.  However, it would probably be less expensive to purchase and demolish the two warehouses if extra right of way is needed.

When 10 lanes are not enough, adding 2 more would just attract more traffic to an already jammed freeway IMO.  Why not look at building a series of parallel routes, utilizing freeway, expressway and superboulevard designs to offer more paths of flow and more lanes in the process?  Spice the mix with light rail and more buses including bus-only lanes.  Think "capillaries" instead of main arteries and veins to let the blood, er, vehicles flow!

Rick

[sparker]

One of the issues surrounding I-405 in general is -- and always has been -- where it's located.  If an observer simply looked at it on a map, with its two termini at its parent at more or less opposite ends of the greater L.A. metro area, they see "bypass".  But 405 has never been that -- it's an interregional connector, a road to the airport(s), the only reasonably direct freeway between the San Fernando Valley and LAX, a truck route to the ports (710's not the only one of those)......and so on and so forth.  It's the Swiss Army Knife of urban interstates -- an artery that connects more traffic generators and attractors than any other in the L.A. area.  The very fact that L.A. metro has a "center" in name only -- with several of that core's rival civic centers (Westwood, Long Beach, Torrance, etc.) arrayed along 405 -- merely adds to the burden that the so-called "San Diego Freeway" must carry.  The problem is that it must fulfill essentially all of its various long-distance and local roles simultaneously and, these days, almost 24/7!  It certainly can't be described as a poster child for the concept of "induced demand"; except for the relatively sparse (at the time) areas around Carson and the southern reaches of Orange County, its construction over 13 years ('56-'69) tore through already burgeoning territory, replete with housing, commercial centers, and public institutions.  It rapidly became the virtual "main street" of every area it traversed the moment each section opened to traffic.  If any facility could be described as "born to be congested", it'd be I-405.  It could be widened so it extended a half-mile across -- but new lanes would be packed as soon as they were available.  There's really no "fix" for this corridor -- like the fictional Jessica Rabbit might say:  "I'm not bad -- I was just drawn this way!" 

[pderocco]

The property acquisition costs for a general widening as far north as the 405/101 interchange would alone be quite prohibitive, particularly in the area around LAX, where there are already multiple interwoven C/D lanes from Rosecrans Blvd. all the way up to the La Cienega curve. 

From Howard Hughes Pkwy to US-101, the work over the last decade has widened it enough. It's at least 11 lanes total. To improve I-405 going over the hill, they'd really need to widen US-101 and redesign its interchange with I-405. The backup from that along NB I-405 still causes a mess, even though the offramp is 3/4 miles long.

But south of Howard Hughes could use another couple of lanes, or even just wider lanes. They're only 11ft, instead of the 12ft further north. That makes drivers nervous, and triggers the slowdown at a lower traffic density.

[MarkF]

Here's a video from the 405 construction zone I shot last week (1/20/19):
https://youtu.be/8stuYKO7Hi0

A couple of overpasses are down, some in the process of being taken down, and work along the shoulders.

[Beltway]

One of the issues surrounding I-405 in general is -- and always has been -- where it's located.  If an observer simply looked at it on a map, with its two termini at its parent at more or less opposite ends of the greater L.A. metro area, they see "bypass".  But 405 has never been that -- it's an interregional connector, a road to the airport(s), the only reasonably direct freeway between the San Fernando Valley and LAX, a truck route to the ports (710's not the only one of those)......and so on and so forth. 

Looking at a map of the area around 1960, it looked like it had been conceived as a I-5 bypass of the L.A. urban area.  At least originally when I-405 was authorized in 1956.

[sparker]

One of the issues surrounding I-405 in general is -- and always has been -- where it's located.  If an observer simply looked at it on a map, with its two termini at its parent at more or less opposite ends of the greater L.A. metro area, they see "bypass".  But 405 has never been that -- it's an interregional connector, a road to the airport(s), the only reasonably direct freeway between the San Fernando Valley and LAX, a truck route to the ports (710's not the only one of those)......and so on and so forth. 

Looking at a map of the area around 1960, it looked like it had been conceived as a I-5 bypass of the L.A. urban area.  At least originally when I-405 was authorized in 1956.

The initial construction on I-405 actually started shortly before the Interstate era as a freeway upgrade to then SSR 7 (LRN 158) between Culver City and the Santa Monica Mountains; that segment opened to traffic at the end of 1957 with SSR 7 signage; that was replaced by that summer with I-405 signage.  But by that time the only sections of the proposed route in L.A. County that were not already seeing large-scale development were the section over the Santa Monica mountains (a situation remedied by today) and the segment between the Long Beach (current I-710) and Harbor (again, now I-110) freeways, which was in the '50's largely occupied as "tank farms" by several oil companies (Getty Oil owned a large portion of what is now the city of Carson).  Otherwise, by 1955 the sections from Gardena north to West L.A. were occupied by housing -- although since that alignment had been adopted by '56, only a few early tracts in Lawndale and Torrance had to be razed to accommodate the freeway; a ROW had been reserved for the remainder.  The same applied to North Long Beach, but as an older residential area, more developed property had to be obtained for the freeway.  Only in Fountain Valley within O.C., and what is now Irvine southeast of CA 55, was there considerable open/undeveloped land (the latter owned by the Irvine Company, a family business).  I-405 was always considered an "alternative" rather than a classic "bypass" by the Division of Highways and later Caltrans, as it served one of the major California cities (Long Beach) as well as several other coastal regional centers (Torrance, Redondo Beach) from which I-5 remained at a distance. 

It's classic and typical L.A. -- initial looks can be quite deceiving!