KNX-1070: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/05/metro-debuts-new-express-lanes-on-110-freeway/)
QuoteDrivers on a busy stretch of the 110 Freeway will soon be able to cruise right on out of the congestion — for a price.
QuoteStarting this weekend, Metro is debuting new express lanes that drivers can use after paying for a transponder.
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
TOLLROADSnews: Los Angeles to open I-110 METRO EXPRESSLANES Saturday Nov 10, dynamic pricing tested Monday (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/6263)
QuoteLos Angeles Metro and Caltrans open the first of two major toll express lanes facilities this coming Saturday November 10. Their first big trial with variable tolls managing traffic will be in the Monday rush hour Nov 12. That's the express lanes on the I-110 Harbor Freeway which heads due south out of downtown LA to the junction with the I-405 in Torrance. Their brand-name is Metro ExpressLanes.
QuoteThe I-110 ExpressLanes' twin, the I-10 ExpressLanes on the I-10 San Bernardino Freeway head due east out of downtown LA, and is due to begin with tolls "early 2013."
QuoteThe two projects are in key commuter corridors and involve conversion of HOV (high occupancy vehicle or carpool/transit) lanes to HOT lanes (high occupancy or toll.) Cost of the project is put at $230m, mostly paid for with a federal grant under the FHWA's Value Pricing Program.
put some in on 405 and now we're talking.
Virginia is in the process of building HOV/Toll lanes in the Northern Virginia part of the Commonwealth, and new lanes will open later this month (November 2012) on I-495 (Capital Beltway) in Fairfax County. Details in this thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7481.0
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 06, 2012, 09:38:31 AM
put some in on 405 and now we're talking.
Wonder if the narrow width of most of the existing HOV lanes on I-405 in Los Angeles and Orange Counties might be inhibiting such a conversion?
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.
The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (http://www.octa.net/) (OCTA)). If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are
entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.
My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (
not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.
Tell that to the
Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim! :-D
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.
The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (http://www.octa.net/) (OCTA)). If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.
My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.
It doesn't bother me. Just don't tell me I'm part of the Inland empire or River-tucky :biggrin:
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.
The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (http://www.octa.net/) (OCTA)). If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.
My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.
I found it very interesting that OCTA's proposal to put HOT lanes in on I-405 was completely shot down by its board. The proposal was based on the premise that the 91 Express Lanes are considered very successful, and since that project has such a high level of support, they apparently thought that support would carry over to the 405 corridor. They were wrong. They're two totally different markets, and the cities and residents along I-405 weren't going for the concept, for a variety of reasons.
These projects in Los Angeles will have their own challenges, primarily with the requirement that all users must now carry FasTrak, including carpoolers.
I also heard that there is a USC game at the Coliseum on the 10th, so the tolling system on I-110 will get its first workout on its first day. They wanted to open on a Saturday of a 3-day weekend in order to make sure that all the bugs were worked out before the regular commute started, but they didn't pay attention to the football schedule, and by the time they realized there was a game that day, it was too late to change the opening date (would have required Metro board action).
Quote from: jrouse on November 08, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 07, 2012, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on November 07, 2012, 11:02:34 AM
QuoteIt's a one-year experiment that's the first time L.A. County drivers have the option of paying for a quicker commute.
Is it just me or is this a very misleading statement? When I first read it I immediately thought "but what about the 91?" only to realize after some Google Maps-ing that technically the portion of 91 with the express lanes is in Orange and Riverside counties.
The Ca. 91 Express Lanes are definitely in Orange County (and they are run by the Orange County Transportation Authority (http://www.octa.net/) (OCTA)). If memory serves me correctly (and it has been a few years since I was out that way), they are entirely in Orange County, though many of the signs leading up to the east entrance (for westbound Ca. 91 traffic) are in Riverside County.
My impression from speaking with a few people that live in Orange County (not a statistically valid sample) is that they do not want to be considered residents of Los Angeles, even though they are in the same metropolitan area.
I found it very interesting that OCTA's proposal to put HOT lanes in on I-405 was completely shot down by its board. The proposal was based on the premise that the 91 Express Lanes are considered very successful, and since that project has such a high level of support, they apparently thought that support would carry over to the 405 corridor. They were wrong. They're two totally different markets, and the cities and residents along I-405 weren't going for the concept, for a variety of reasons.
Your comment about the different travel markets makes sense. I-405 (San Diego Freeway) is about as close as Los Angeles and Orange Counties get to having a "beltway," and the trips on it would seem to be circumferential in nature, but the trips on Ca. 91 are radial. Also, getting from Riverside County to Orange County, or vice versa, is pretty difficult without Ca. 91. But there are alternatives to nearly all of I-405 (and in Orange County, the Ca. 73 toll road is one of those alternatives).
Quote from: jrouse on November 08, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
These projects in Los Angeles will have their own challenges, primarily with the requirement that all users must now carry FasTrak, including carpoolers.
There is a similar requirement for the new toll lanes on I-495 in Fairfax County, Virginia. Though thanks to Va. 267 (Dulles Toll Road) and toll roads to the north in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey and New York, I think the "natural" E-ZPass penetration rate is already pretty high. But it will be interesting to see if the operator of the 495 lanes ends up hitting a lot of vehicles with an "administrative fee" for not having a transponder.
Quote from: jrouse on November 08, 2012, 10:53:03 AM
I also heard that there is a USC game at the Coliseum on the 10th, so the tolling system on I-110 will get its first workout on its first day. They wanted to open on a Saturday of a 3-day weekend in order to make sure that all the bugs were worked out before the regular commute started, but they didn't pay attention to the football schedule, and by the time they realized there was a game that day, it was too late to change the opening date (would have required Metro board action).
Well, I suppose we will find out how well it works, won't we?
In my opinion, I-110 (Harbor Freeway) was always a good candiate for HOV/Toll lanes. Most of the corridor has decent separation from the non-HOV lanes (including the very cool viaduct at the north end).
I'm a little surprised that this topic isn't generating as much conversation as the posts about the new 495 Express Lanes. Maybe because that's due to the scarcity of roadgeeks here on the west coast.
It's been a week now, and I haven't received any phone calls about this project since it opened, much to my surprise. I did receive several calls from members of the public about the project in the last couple of weeks. I spoke with the acting deputy for traffic operations in District 7 this week and he told me that the majority of the complaints are being e-mailed directly to the Caltrans director, who is sending them back to the district for response. Apparently the biggest controversy is related to the requirement that all users, including HOV, must carry a transponder. The concern is that this hurts the casual carpooler, because it requires opening up an account, and paying a $3/month maintenance fee (the fee is not in effect yet, but it will take effect when the companion Express Lanes on I-10 open up next spring).
Interestingly, the requirement that all users carry a transponder appears to violate state law. If you follow the chain of enabling legislation for these HOT lanes, there is a requirement that HOVs have unrestricted access to the lanes at all times when they are operating as HOT lanes. Our Bay Area district (District 4) team caught onto this when their MPO, MTC, started talking about requiring carpoolers to carry a transponder on their planned Express Lanes. We talked to an attorney in our Legal division about it, and he said it's pretty clear that we can't require carpoolers to carry a transponder on these facilities, as it restricts access. (The legislation was modeled after the I-15 Express Lanes in San Diego, where carpoolers don't need a transponder). We have talked to LA Metro about this statutory requirement, and they are aware of it, but they also point out that they are a one-year demonstration project, and that we should consider the carpool tag as one of the things that is being demonstrated. My personal opinion (I am not speaking for my employer here) is that there may be some major fallout from this requirement, especially if people start putting two and two together and challenging it in court.
Finally, a personal observation. I was down in southern California this weekend for a whirlwind trip to Disneyland, and we flew over the lanes as we approached LAX. They appeared pretty empty, while it looked like there was a small backup on the northbound general purpose lanes. We took the SuperShuttle from LAX to our hotel, and we took I-105 east, so I saw the toll rates signs for the northbound Express Lanes. As I recall, it was $1.50 to 39th Street and $1.70 to Adams Blvd.
(For those who just have to ask, the reason why we flew into LAX versus SNA was because the schedules were better; the fares were the same).
So the I-110 express lanes are a one year project????
I can't believe LA Metro would be willing to spend all that money setting up tolling equipment, installing signs, etc just for a one year "trial".
And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee. Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 19, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
So the I-110 express lanes are a one year project????
Yes, it is a one-year demonstration. Obviously they hope it will become permanent.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 19, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
I can't believe LA Metro would be willing to spend all that money setting up tolling equipment, installing signs, etc just for a one year "trial".
Actually, most of the funding came from the federal Congestion Relief Demonstration Program, which was a successor to the Urban Partnership Agreement program. Metro used some matching funds, but federal transportation dollars paid for most of it.
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 19, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee. Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.
I always tell people to get their transponder through BATA for precisely that reason. Trouble is, though, BATA is not issuing the switchable transponders, which are needed for the toll-free passage. Only OCTA, TCA, and LA Metro are issuing them.
Quote from: jrouse on November 19, 2012, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on November 19, 2012, 03:52:39 PM
And I agree with you that forcing all users including carpoolers to have a transponder is a terrible idea especially if there's a $3/month maintenance fee. Thank god the BATA (Bay Area Toll Authority) doesn't charge such a fee.
I always tell people to get their transponder through BATA for precisely that reason. Trouble is, though, BATA is not issuing the switchable transponders, which are needed for the toll-free passage. Only OCTA, TCA, and LA Metro are issuing them.
If I recall correctly, the BATA may charge a fee if a "significant" amount of toll activity occurs outside of the S.F. Bay Area.
QuoteFasTrak customers should open their account with the toll facility of primary usage. Customers may be charged a service maintenance fee if it is determined that the majority of their toll activity occurs at another facility.
While most of my usage has been in the Bay Area, I have used my transponder on the CA-73 toll road and the CA-91 Express Lanes.
We were recently contacted by Metro regarding a need they identified for additional signing on the I-110 Express Lanes. They have had a major problem with violations (12,000 in the first 2 weeks), so they wanted to get some guidance from us on how to convey the message that everyone needs FasTrak.
I worked with some of our people from District 4 to get a copy of plans for the signs they installed when they started tolling HOVs at the Bay Area toll bridges. I shared that with Metro as well as some examples of signing from the I-85 Express Lane in Atlanta and the I-495 Express Lane in Virginia. I also began to realize that Metro has another issue on the I-110 project, and that is the fact that carpools who want the toll-free passage can only get it with the switchable FasTrak tag, not the traditional, "legacy" FasTrak tags that have been issued in California for many years now. I noted this when I sent them that material.
On November 29 & 30 I had an opportunity to travel to DC on some business, and in the course of riding SuperShuttle to and from Dulles Airport I had the chance to see the signing for the I-495 Express Lanes and to travel next to them for a short segment.
When I came back from my trip, I sent a followup email to my contacts at Metro letting them know of my observations. It was at that point that the media had been told of the 12,000 violations in 2 weeks, and it was getting some attention. I had also had an opportunity to look at comments on the Metro Express Lanes Facebook page, and I could see from the posts on there that there was a lot of confusion. This time around, I placed some emphasis on some other things that I thought they could fix. This included the information on their pricing signs. They had a message on their signs, "HOV 2+ No Toll". I told them that per the MUTCD, they should not be displaying this message on those signs, since they are requiring everybody to carry a tag, and the pricing signs shown in the MUTCD for those types of facilities eliminate that message. I also again emphasized the need to distinguish the switchable FasTrak tag from the legacy FasTrak tag, perhaps following the I-495 model of "EZPass Flex", and calling it "FasTrak Flex".
To their credit, Metro listened to some of what I had to say, and as of yesterday morning, they are now displaying a different message on their pricing sign, "HOV 2+ $0 w/FasTrak". This doesn't complete address my concerns regarding the need to distinguish the switchable tag from the legacy tag, but I see it as a step in the right direction, and I hope it won't complicate matters too much. Unfortunately, their pricing signs cannot accommodate the term "switchable" or anything like that.
Obviously the "FasTrak Flex" concept is something that is going to require a much larger marketing and outreach effort and I don't know what their position is on that, although from what I'm hearing from them, they do know that is an issue. I suggested rolling that new marketing concept out when they open the I-10 Express Lane next spring. We'll see what they do.
(Interestingly, I also had a look at the Transportation Corridor Agencies' Facebook page when I was looking at the Metro Facebook page. TCA operates the toll roads in Orange County. They had a post on their page indicating that people needed FasTrak to use the I-110 Express Lane in Los Angeles, and that HOVs with FasTrak got toll free passage. It was misleading, and I posted a comment on that post stating that it was misleading, because only the switchable tag could be used for toll-free passage. They deleted my comment, and I put it back in. They wound up deleting the post altogether. What was really sad is that TCA is planning to issue those same switchable tags!)
In the meantime, in addition to the changes on the pricing signs, they are moving forward with plans to install more signs on the median barriers indicating that all users must have FasTrak. They have also extended the grace period for people who violate. It was supposed to be 30 days; now it will go through the end of the year.
Some articles on the high violation rates:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/lanes-379128-metro-angeles.html
http://zev.lacounty.gov/news/thousands-hit-with-toll-lane-citations
Quote from: jrouse on December 10, 2012, 02:15:41 PM
We were recently contacted by Metro regarding a need they identified for additional signing on the I-110 Express Lanes. They have had a major problem with violations (12,000 in the first 2 weeks), so they wanted to get some guidance from us on how to convey the message that everyone needs FasTrak.
If you need more images of signs on the I-495 Express Lanes or Maryland's Route 200 (ICC), let me know.
I now realize why camera toll enforcement wasn't used on the I-680 Express Lane in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. It would have necessitated the use of switchable transponders because carpoolers still get to use the lane for free. It would have also required ALL users to get FasTrak.
Unfortunately, I don't see a real clear solution. Toll enforcement on the I-680 Express Lane is done by the CHP observing whether an express lane user...
1. Is a solo driver and has a valid transponder (green indicator light at the tolling point)
2. Is a carpooler (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes 2 or more in vehicle)
3. Is a cheater (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes only 1 occupant)
Since the CHP is not on scene 100% of the time, it's unknown how extensive the cheating is. :-/
Quote from: myosh_tino on December 11, 2012, 02:02:12 AM
I now realize why camera toll enforcement wasn't used on the I-680 Express Lane in Alameda and Santa Clara counties. It would have necessitated the use of switchable transponders because carpoolers still get to use the lane for free. It would have also required ALL users to get FasTrak.
Unfortunately, I don't see a real clear solution. Toll enforcement on the I-680 Express Lane is done by the CHP observing whether an express lane user...
1. Is a solo driver and has a valid transponder (green indicator light at the tolling point)
2. Is a carpooler (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes 2 or more in vehicle)
3. Is a cheater (amber indicator light at the tolling point but CHP observes only 1 occupant)
Since the CHP is not on scene 100% of the time, it's unknown how extensive the cheating is. :-/
You are absolutely correct.
MTC is currently developing a series of Express Lane projects, and one of them (I-880) will tie in with the SR-237 Express Lane. MTC is looking to require switchable tags (a statutory change is needed for this, see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8029.msg185480#msg185480). This will require VTA, the operator of the 237 project, to change their operational policies in order to ensure a seamless system. Eventually, the I-680 project will connect to future projects to the north, and the operational policies on that project will also have to be revisited.
To be quite honest, I'm surprised that MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) didn't require the use of a switchable transponder going all of the way back to when FasTrak was first implemented on the area's toll bridges. A switchable transponder would have made sense since the toll bridges allowed carpools to cross (at that time) for free. Didn't Gary Richards of the San Jose Mercury News (Mr. Roadshow) field complaints on this issue?
If a carpooler had a transponder in the car and was going to use the carpool lane, he/she would have had to put the transponder in its mylar bag to keep from getting changed a toll. This was a major inconvenience in my opinion but was made moot when carpoolers were charged a discounted toll ($2.50) to cross. However, the Express Lane on I-680 would have reopened this issue.
Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 23, 2018, 04:32:11 PM
Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.
They were supposed to eventually (http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/hov/dual_hub_hov_transitway.pdf) connect to the El Monte Busway in some manner, I haven't seen any design specs on how that would look. There was also a plan (http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/24/local/me-downtown24) to connect the two busways via HOV lanes on surface streets, but that faced heavy opposition from downtown urbanists.
Quote from: djsekani on July 06, 2018, 05:20:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 23, 2018, 04:32:11 PM
Are there any solid plans to extend the express lanes on the 110 through downtown? They have left the end of the 110 express lanes before you get to the 10 unfinished but they still stick out like they intend on extending them someday.
They were supposed to eventually (http://libraryarchives.metro.net/DPGTL/hov/dual_hub_hov_transitway.pdf) connect to the El Monte Busway in some manner, I haven't seen any design specs on how that would look. There was also a plan (http://articles.latimes.com/2002/oct/24/local/me-downtown24) to connect the two busways via HOV lanes on surface streets, but that faced heavy opposition from downtown urbanists.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing that. Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2018, 11:37:09 PM
Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. :rolleyes:
The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.
Quote from: djsekani on July 11, 2018, 12:45:21 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2018, 11:37:09 PM
Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. :rolleyes:
The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.
The only way to deploy express lanes on the Hollywood Freeway portion of US 101 would be on some sort of T-bar similar to that built over I-110 -- but that would likely arouse Hollywood-area NIMBY ire regarding the visual aspects of such a concept. The fact that back in 1953 they accepted the above-ground viaduct over Gower rather than the trench that characterizes the facility north of Melrose is itself a wonder. Some local factions have wanted to place a lid on 101 for some time now; so far, funding to do so has yet to be identified. And while about 60% of the traffic heading north over Cahuenga Pass does segue with US 101 onto the Ventura Freeway, it's likely that express lanes over that pass would instead continue north on CA 170 and exit in North Hollywood in order to access the transit terminal at Lankershim and Chandler, where the LR temporarily ends and the busway to the West Valley commences -- although there are apparently plans in the works to continue the LR over, ironically, the old Pacific Electric ROW out Chandler and up Van Nuys Blvd. to Parthenia -- and then west to Sepulveda Blvd. IMHO, that extension was always a natural pathway across the central part of the Valley that had been at least partially preserved by the retention of the curving street configuration that originally held the PE trackage until the early 50's -- this was a line primarily served by PE's famous "Big Red Cars" -- heavyweight interurban self-propelled passenger cars also found on the Long Beach/Newport Beach seafront line as well as the outflung line to San Bernardino and Redlands. Looks like now the Valley branch of the Red Line will eventually be duplicating the surface run out to Sepulveda after emerging from the tunnel in North Hollywood.
As much of the transportation network in this part of greater L.A. is geared toward mass transit rather than roadway expansion (although express lanes
would provide some benefit), it's likely that Caltrans will defer to that prioritization and concentrate on helping to expand the rail/bus network rather than provide additional freeway-based facilities. As discussed elsewhere, the I-5 expansion heading north out of Orange County will end at I-710 rather than actually enter L.A. proper as a "tip of the hat" to the present local sentiments.
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2018, 03:57:08 AM
Quote from: djsekani on July 11, 2018, 12:45:21 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2018, 11:37:09 PM
Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isn't happening. :rolleyes:
The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.
The only way to deploy express lanes on the Hollywood Freeway portion of US 101 would be on some sort of T-bar similar to that built over I-110 -- but that would likely arouse Hollywood-area NIMBY ire regarding the visual aspects of such a concept. The fact that back in 1953 they accepted the above-ground viaduct over Gower rather than the trench that characterizes the facility north of Melrose is itself a wonder. Some local factions have wanted to place a lid on 101 for some time now; so far, funding to do so has yet to be identified. And while about 60% of the traffic heading north over Cahuenga Pass does segue with US 101 onto the Ventura Freeway, it's likely that express lanes over that pass would instead continue north on CA 170 and exit in North Hollywood in order to access the transit terminal at Lankershim and Chandler, where the LR temporarily ends and the busway to the West Valley commences -- although there are apparently plans in the works to continue the LR over, ironically, the old Pacific Electric ROW out Chandler and up Van Nuys Blvd. to Parthenia -- and then west to Sepulveda Blvd. IMHO, that extension was always a natural pathway across the central part of the Valley that had been at least partially preserved by the retention of the curving street configuration that originally held the PE trackage until the early 50's -- this was a line primarily served by PE's famous "Big Red Cars" -- heavyweight interurban self-propelled passenger cars also found on the Long Beach/Newport Beach seafront line as well as the outflung line to San Bernardino and Redlands. Looks like now the Valley branch of the Red Line will eventually be duplicating the surface run out to Sepulveda after emerging from the tunnel in North Hollywood.
As much of the transportation network in this part of greater L.A. is geared toward mass transit rather than roadway expansion (although express lanes would provide some benefit), it's likely that Caltrans will defer to that prioritization and concentrate on helping to expand the rail/bus network rather than provide additional freeway-based facilities. As discussed elsewhere, the I-5 expansion heading north out of Orange County will end at I-710 rather than actually enter L.A. proper as a "tip of the hat" to the present local sentiments.
Which is exactly what should be built and following the 101 at least to the 405 and tying into planned express lanes there which should also continue north to I-5 and tie into express lanes that should be built there. I'll shut up before I start talking about my proposed 605 tunnel to Palmdale.
But regardless of how difficult and costly it would be to build an elevated T structure that would ideally carry 3 lanes of traffic each way but at the least two each way, that thing would return a profit so quick I bet it could pay for a new subway within a decade LOL! I am not sure if I have ever seen a freeway that is essentially stop and go from 7am to 12am! It's almost always like that around SR-2 all the way to the 110. Even if they just started the express lanes to somehow tie in with Highland with the ramps that allow of North Bound entry and exit, they would kill it!
Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak. Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel. Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began. Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's. Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14. Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2018, 02:38:44 AM
Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak. Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel. Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began. Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's. Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14. Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!
Wow! Never knew that was actually proposed. Man that would have been cool if they had built that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 12, 2018, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2018, 02:38:44 AM
Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak. Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel. Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began. Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's. Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14. Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!
Wow! Never knew that was actually proposed. Man that would have been cool if they had built that.
Route 249!
https://cahighways.org/249-256.html
Here's a planning map of it from that site:
(https://cahighways.org/images/249-ells-tunnel.jpg)
I remember the "Ells" tunnel proposal, circa 1965-66 or so; it was intended to connect the upper reaches of the Arroyo Seco gorge at its south end (as pictured in the map above) with, again, the upper reaches of another mountain watershed, the Big Tujunga Canyon area (which drained the southwest portion of the national forest). Essentially the freeway, alternately dubbed CA 2 along its southern reaches or even CA 122 (the portion extending out into the desert) would stay on the surface (ridge or cliffside) until that became impractical, then tunnel to the next feasible surface segment, repeating until the range was surmounted. In most maps I've seen, the portion of CA 249 (this map looks like it was lifted from a Thomas Bros. regional atlas from that timeframe -- the style and font of the CA state shields give it away; this is definitely not a Division of Highways product!) connecting (after the interchange with the tunnel-laden corridor) to Angeles Crest Highway/CA 2 was designated as CA 196. CA 249 essentially followed the Angeles Forest Highway from CA 2 west of Mt. Wilson north to CA 14 near Vincent. The corridor with the Ells and other tunnels would have likely, if completed as planned, been part of CA 122, which descended to the desert between Palmdale and Pearblossom, crossed CA 138, and struck out NE into the desert, skirting the SE corner of Edwards AFB and terminating at CA 58 west of Hinkley. While the map above shows the 122 corridor as serving SE Palmdale by tracing Pearblossom Highway west of CA 138, the Division/Caltrans documents invariably show it several miles east of there. It was intended that after going through the first couple of tunnels, Palmdale-bound traffic would segue onto CA 249 at the mountaintop interchange, while traffic ostensibly heading for Barstow and points beyond would remain on the diagonal desert corridor. The concept here was simple -- central L.A. to Barstow via the most direct feasible route.
At some point surveyors and engineers had to get out into the field to get the "lay of the land", so to speak. I was born & raised in that neck of the woods -- and believe me, the San Gabriels make it exceptionally tough on anything with wheels getting from one side to another -- steep canyons on the south side all the way to the ridge point (averaging about 7500-8000') and, on the north side, a very rapid dropoff from that ridgeline down a couple thousand feet, and then a combination of rockpiles, sand dunes, and flash-flood-prone gorges down to the high desert floor (the saving grace being that while the rise from the south footing to the ridge averaged about 6000' or more, the north side was about half that simply because the high desert floor sat between 3000' and 4000' above sea level). But the entire mountain range is dominated by rocky outcroppings -- difficult for building conventional roads, much less 6/8-lane freeways. Let's just say that any surveyor or engineer coming back from the mountains not disabused of the notion that deploying massive facilities across or through them would be anything but a nightmare was only fooling themselves.
Eventually (early '80's on) a simplified freeway arrangement was proposed: one freeway (2 & 249) from the La Canada area north to CA 14 near the Pearblossom Highway interchange and another (122) from that same point on CA 14 diagonally across the desert; the CA 196 connection to Angeles Crest Highway bit the dust Only one other corridor was retained: an eastern extension of CA 118 up Big Tujunga Canyon to provide access to and from the San Fernando Valley. Like the first iterations, those were simply lines on a map; not one foot of San Gabriel Mountain freeway has ever been formally adopted much less considered for funding. And with the push to curtail urban sprawl, it's likely these routes will remain unbuilt.
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2018, 06:25:23 PM
I remember the "Ells" tunnel proposal, circa 1965-66 or so; it was intended to connect the upper reaches of the Arroyo Seco gorge at its south end (as pictured in the map above) with, again, the upper reaches of another mountain watershed, the Big Tujunga Canyon area (which drained the southwest portion of the national forest). Essentially the freeway, alternately dubbed CA 2 along its southern reaches or even CA 122 (the portion extending out into the desert) would stay on the surface (ridge or cliffside) until that became impractical, then tunnel to the next feasible surface segment, repeating until the range was surmounted. In most maps I've seen, the portion of CA 249 (this map looks like it was lifted from a Thomas Bros. regional atlas from that timeframe -- the style and font of the CA state shields give it away; this is definitely not a Division of Highways product!) connecting (after the interchange with the tunnel-laden corridor) to Angeles Crest Highway/CA 2 was designated as CA 196. CA 249 essentially followed the Angeles Forest Highway from CA 2 west of Mt. Wilson north to CA 14 near Vincent. The corridor with the Ells and other tunnels would have likely, if completed as planned, been part of CA 122, which descended to the desert between Palmdale and Pearblossom, crossed CA 138, and struck out NE into the desert, skirting the SE corner of Edwards AFB and terminating at CA 58 west of Hinkley. While the map above shows the 122 corridor as serving SE Palmdale by tracing Pearblossom Highway west of CA 138, the Division/Caltrans documents invariably show it several miles east of there. It was intended that after going through the first couple of tunnels, Palmdale-bound traffic would segue onto CA 249 at the mountaintop interchange, while traffic ostensibly heading for Barstow and points beyond would remain on the diagonal desert corridor. The concept here was simple -- central L.A. to Barstow via the most direct feasible route.
At some point surveyors and engineers had to get out into the field to get the "lay of the land", so to speak. I was born & raised in that neck of the woods -- and believe me, the San Gabriels make it exceptionally tough on anything with wheels getting from one side to another -- steep canyons on the south side all the way to the ridge point (averaging about 7500-8000') and, on the north side, a very rapid dropoff from that ridgeline down a couple thousand feet, and then a combination of rockpiles, sand dunes, and flash-flood-prone gorges down to the high desert floor (the saving grace being that while the rise from the south footing to the ridge averaged about 6000' or more, the north side was about half that simply because the high desert floor sat between 3000' and 4000' above sea level). But the entire mountain range is dominated by rocky outcroppings -- difficult for building conventional roads, much less 6/8-lane freeways. Let's just say that any surveyor or engineer coming back from the mountains not disabused of the notion that deploying massive facilities across or through them would be anything but a nightmare was only fooling themselves.
Eventually (early '80's on) a simplified freeway arrangement was proposed: one freeway (2 & 249) from the La Canada area north to CA 14 near the Pearblossom Highway interchange and another (122) from that same point on CA 14 diagonally across the desert; the CA 196 connection to Angeles Crest Highway bit the dust Only one other corridor was retained: an eastern extension of CA 118 up Big Tujunga Canyon to provide access to and from the San Fernando Valley. Like the first iterations, those were simply lines on a map; not one foot of San Gabriel Mountain freeway has ever been formally adopted much less considered for funding. And with the push to curtail urban sprawl, it's likely these routes will remain unbuilt.
All true.
But if such a line actually got built, it would transform the CA-2 Glendale Freeway from being the "forgotten freeway" (almost always congestion free, even at rush hour) to the busiest freeway in the area to provide a direct shortcut from AV to DTLA.
(Or it could also get more traffic if they ever revived the Bev Hills Fwy, which also would never ever happen.)
I really wish the politics would change and they'd build these freeways. Such a shame. :/