Cancellation of the Beverly Hills Freeway-Glendale Freeway, CA 2?

[ACSCmapcollector]

Does anyone know about the cancellation of the Beverly Hills Freeway-Glendale Freeway, California state route 2 from Glendale Blvd, California state route 2 to Interstate 405, (old California state route 7, before the 1964 Grand California Renumbering?) to the San Diego Freeway?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[cahwyguy]

Now, I could just reply "yes", and leave it at that.

But I'm sure you know what I'm going to say: http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html#002 . It's all there. Also look at https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/why-isnt-there-a-freeway-to-beverly-hills .

[Plutonic Panda]

I really wish they would have gone through with it. I know, I know, if there are any new urbanist on this board, they are going to hate me. WeHo, among many other districts that have thrived on the Santa Monica, but this would have alleviated a lot of traffic that currently exists on the 10.

[hm insulators]

And of course Beverly Hills was following in the footsteps of South Pasadena, which to this day has managed to quash the 710.

[sdmichael]

There is also this:

http://www.socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/beverly-hills-freeway/

[Quillz]

As soon as I read "Beverly Hills," I thought "NIMBYs must have killed it."

[compdude787]

Now, I could just reply "yes", and leave it at that.

But I'm sure you know what I'm going to say: http://www.cahighways.org/001-008.html#002 . It's all there. Also look at https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/why-isnt-there-a-freeway-to-beverly-hills .

Some of the pictures in that second article show that the freeway would run in a cut-and-cover tunnel with parking lots and whatnot on top. I'm surprised that even with the freeway being covered up, there was still considerable opposition to it. I would have thought that by making it out of sight and out of mind that people would have had more support for such a freeway.

[Avalanchez71]

Why ruin valuable real estate?  Why displace folks like that?

[compdude787]

Why ruin valuable real estate?  Why displace folks like that?

Good point. It definitely won't happen because of that. But frankly putting it underground and in a tunnel does make it less of a scar in the neighborhood and people would not hear so much noise from it.

[cahwyguy]

But frankly putting it underground and in a tunnel does make it less of a scar in the neighborhood and people would not hear so much noise from it.

Many people seem to believe that putting a road in a tunnel makes it disappear or is easy. Here are some reasons why that might not be so:

Construction requires support and access from above. Construction workers are not always going to go to a far end of a tunnel, so at minimum there are going to need to be regular shafts, that will later serve as ventilation shaft or emergency access ports.

If you are connecting the tunnel to above ground services (rails or roads), there need to be space for that connection, plus space for the entry and exit inclines. That can often be difficult in urban areas (for example, where the tunnel might connect with the 405).

There will need to be occasional on-ramps and off-ramps if the road will be useful. Those take land and right of way.

There needs to be plans for emergencies, such as car fires or earthquake exits.

Depending on the depth, there could be significant cost in utility relocation -- think electrical, pipelines, water lines, sewage lines, and existing basements and rail lines.

Tunnel construction and traffic will create vibrations on the surface, which might not have been anticiapted in building plans.

The area of construction is the same area through which the purple line will transit. Planning for that line has shown numerous fault lines and gas and oil pockets.

In short, construction of long highway tunnels -- be it a Route 2 completion, Route 710 completion, tunneling Route 405 under the Sepulveda Pass -- are not easy or inexpensive endeavors.

[bing101]

Why ruin valuable real estate?  Why displace folks like that?

Good point. It definitely won't happen because of that. But frankly putting it underground and in a tunnel does make it less of a scar in the neighborhood and people would not hear so much noise from it.

Putting a freeway underground? Not so much because 1 people would be against that because of Earthquake reasons.  The fear that people will be buried in a quake would cause opposition to an underground freeway.

[compdude787]

Why ruin valuable real estate?  Why displace folks like that?

Good point. It definitely won't happen because of that. But frankly putting it underground and in a tunnel does make it less of a scar in the neighborhood and people would not hear so much noise from it.

Putting a freeway underground? Not so much because 1 people would be against that because of Earthquake reasons.  The fear that people will be buried in a quake would cause opposition to an underground freeway.

True. I don't really live down there so that's not something that occurred to me. 

[djsekani]

Why ruin valuable real estate?  Why displace folks like that?

Good point. It definitely won't happen because of that. But frankly putting it underground and in a tunnel does make it less of a scar in the neighborhood and people would not hear so much noise from it.

Putting a freeway underground? Not so much because 1 people would be against that because of Earthquake reasons.  The fear that people will be buried in a quake would cause opposition to an underground freeway.

The tunnels can be built to be reasonably quake-proof; the subway tunnels in L.A. are proof enough of that.

[Avalanchez71]

How can you insure that they would be earthquake proof?

[cahwyguy]

How can you insure that they would be earthquake proof?

Building codes. Modeling. The same way you ensure that skyscrapers are reasonably resistant. Note that "earthquake proof" is a misnomer, however, and the term isn't used. The issue isn't total risk avoidance, but risk reduction. So your models might be based on what is expected in the area -- say a 7.0 or 8.0 from a particular fault. Something larger, or with a different motion, might create a problem. As I recall, that's what happened in the Marina district and down by Santa Monica, where there was more liquifaction that expected. But in general, tunnels are often safer EQ wise as they go through much more stable rock than that surface material. Of course, this all goes to pot when there is an underground fire or such that weakens the internal supporting rebar (such as the truck fire many years ago in the tunnel on I-5 in Santa Clarita, or the truck fire on I-580).