Caltrans studying ways to improve safety along Arroyo Seco Pkwy

[mrsman]

Lower speed limits and fewer traffic lanes are on the table for L.A.'s oldest freeway

5 alternatives will be studied to improve safety along a stretch of the Arroyo Seco Parkway

Caltrans has begun studying several ways to improve safety along a nearly 5-mile stretch of the narrow and winding Arroyo Seco Parkway (110 Freeway), including lowering the speed limit to 45 miles per hour and reducing the parkway to two lanes in each direction.

The five alternatives -- which also includes keeping things as they are -- are focused on making it safer to get off and on the nearly 80-year-old freeway, which is notorious for its extremely short onramps and offramps.

https://www.theeastsiderla.com/news/transportation_and_traffic/lower-speed-limits-and-fewer-traffic-lanes-are-on-the/article_a32d2b22-d89b-11e9-8b7e-4308efe1f68a.html

[mrsman]

In my opinion, the third alternative in the article, the conversion into acceleration/deceleration/auxiliary lane seems to be the best option. 

The real danger on this road is the difficulty to merge in and out.  If the right lane were to become an exit lane, it would make this much easier.  To allow this to happen, the 4 northbound lanes coming out of the tunnel should be modified to force the left two lanes towards I-5 north (or the Figueroa Street exit) and only have 2 lanes continue north on the 110.  Traffic from I-5 north to 110 north can form the accel-decel lane and be forced to exit at Ave 43.

[Max Rockatansky]

Really at this point there hasn't a ton of utility in the Arroyo Seco Parkway for decades.  I'd say leave it as is and continue to shift it's focus towards being a historic parkway rather than major urban freeway.  Granted not having a completed I-710 really doesn't help with that kind of mindset.

[mrsman]

I think Caltrans is trying to address a real current safety concern.  When I lived in CA, I felt fortunate that I had no real reason to ever enter the Pkwy at any of these entrances that were controlled by a stop sign.  It is really dangerous to get up to speed with so little room.

In the NYC area, there are a bunch of isolated dangerous entrances as well.  I remember that if I knew of a troublesome entrance, I could avoid it and enter the highway at a  much more conventional and safe entrance. 

Here's an example at Union Turnpike onramp onto the Grand Central westbound.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7168851,-73.8285106,3a,75y,217.59h,92.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTvTZ61SpgcIzgmfB3-uPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

A short detour to Jewel Ave, will lead to this onramp.  Much better:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7281569,-73.8385857,3a,75y,309.41h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sotzNb5whw7d2AAyd1hpYPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192


Avoiding bad entrances is a lot harder to do along the 110, as it seems that every entrance between I-5 and Orange Grove is similarly deficient. 

[The Ghostbuster]

Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?

[SeriesE]

Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?

That's what I thought too. Just look at the very old signs and sign gentries along the route!

I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future they decide to convert interchanges to intersections and put traffic lights along the route. Probably cheaper maintenance wise.

[jeffe]

Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?

That's what I thought too. Just look at the very old signs and sign gentries along the route!

I always wondered what a historical designation really meant, and found this:

Myth #1:"If a property gets designated as a historic landmark, it's protected
forever and can never be demolished."

Fact: Landmark designation ensures a more thorough review of demolition proposals,
but it does not prohibit demolition outright. In the City of Los Angeles, designation as a
City historic landmark (Historic-Cultural Monument) allows the City's Cultural Heritage
Commission to object to the issuance of a demolition permit, but only for 180 days.

As for the Parkway, changes have been made, but more care is given to the design of the changes.  For instance, additional lighting was added but it used teardrop shaped fixtures on decorative poles.  The metal median barrier was replaced with a concrete barrier stamped with Craftsman style elements.

It seems like the historic designation means that an overall plan has been developed for the corridor and all of the changes are designed to fit into that plan. 

[stevashe]

I like the idea of alternative 2 and 3, but I'm not sure a fancy new sign system would fit very well given the historic parkway designation. I also feel just dropping the 3rd lane for an auxiliary lane should be sufficient as I'd guess it's probably not being used by much through traffic anyway. I'd also be for dropping the speed limit in theory but given this is California I'm not sure it'd have much of an effect.

[Plutonic Panda]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day. Every single one of these options will make driving worse on this road and cause more traffic. Reducing the speed limit will do nothing as no one abides by the current limit. I will be heavily involved in trying to protest any of these attempted changes.

[sprjus4]

As bad and infamous the traffic is in the Los Angeles metro, and they want to -remove- a lane on a major freeway?

I say add acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, and auxiliary lanes where needed, but as new construction off to the side, not eliminating the right lane and using it as one.

I agree improvements are needed, but the last thing needed is to remove a lane.

[sparker]

As bad and infamous the traffic is in the Los Angeles metro, and they want to -remove- a lane on a major freeway?

I say add acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, and auxiliary lanes where needed, but as new construction off to the side, not eliminating the right lane and using it as one.

I agree improvements are needed, but the last thing needed is to remove a lane.

Constructing a new lane on this particular parkway would require extensive taking of old-stock housing along the northwest side and the Arroyo Seco "linear park" on the southeast -- the former would likely draw substantial opposition from both localized NIMBY factions, with "piling on" by the L.A. city council, the parks department, and other affected parties.  Many of the RIRO access points are from local streets; very few through arteries cross the freeway and adjoining channelized waterway; when they do they're usually from high bridges (e.g. York Boulevard and the LR line up on the old Santa Fe trestle).  Closing off some of the more egregious and dangerous (blind approach) RIRO's might not be such a bad idea, despite the pissing and moaning from the yups who are buying up the Highland Park housing stock right & left (idea: let 'em take the Gold Line LR!).  But any sideways expansion of the CA 110 ROW is likely DOA!

[Techknow]

I haven't been on CA-110, the closest highway I have been on would have to be CA-17 from CA-9 to Scotts Valley, a 12 to 13 mile stretch of 4-lane expressway with windy turns and at-grade intersections with rural roads through the Santa Cruz mountains. There are at least a couple nicknames for these curves, on Wikipedia there is the "Valley Surprise" and the "Big Moody Curve". I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic. I think a few of the interchanges on CA-110 should go, particularly the one on Avenue 43. There's an advisory sign for 5 MPH on a 55 MPH road. On GSV one can see at least one left exit to a street that is now barred off (why it was built I probably will not understand).

[jeffe]

I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic.

The long term plan for the Santa Cruz County portion of CA-17 is to eliminate all cross traffic by building three interchanges with frontage roads.  The remaining driveways would be converted to a right-in, right-out configuration.

[sparker]

I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic.

The long term plan for the Santa Cruz County portion of CA-17 is to eliminate all cross traffic by building three interchanges with frontage roads.  The remaining driveways would be converted to a right-in, right-out configuration.

The Santa Cruz County side of the route is arguably the easier and less dangerous portion of the CA 17 mountain crossing; the more problematic and accident-prone segment lies within Santa Clara County.  It has considerably more curvature,  some of which is signed for 40mph, including the "Big Moody" curve, the site of spinouts and K-rail scrapes usually reported several times per week.   The 50mph speed limit seems to be considered as merely "advisory" by both commute and recreational traffic, which would account for many of the road's issues.   Fortunately, most of the most egregions cross-traffic issues have been dealt with by elimination of left turns from the road -- but there are still RIRO's on blind curves (including the infamous Redwood Estates "exit").   One of my oldest friends lives up there and has to put up with the commute to San Jose five days per week -- but he's been there over 25 years and has no intention of relocating despite the daily hassle.  Despite the inviting scenery, I can't think of anyone who actually enjoys driving on CA 17.  It's nice that the Santa Cruz side (which is Caltrans' D5; the Santa Clara side is within D4) is seeing some improvements (chances are that it'll mean the effective end of the Summit Inn, since it'll only be accessible NB after the modifications) -- but without gouging out most of the north slope area traversed by the highway, there's little that can be done to improve that side of the summit; D4's approach has been to address problems that have become publicly egregious, normally by access elimination (it's been suggested that the only way to get things done is to make sure the problem is discussed in Gary Richards' "Roadshow" column in the Murky News!).   

[djsekani]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.

Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.

[Plutonic Panda]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.

Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.

It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.

[Max Rockatansky]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.

Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.

It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.

Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days.  I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment.  Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards.  My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway.  Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again. 

[SeriesE]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.

Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.

It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.

Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days.  I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment.  Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards.  My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway.  Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again.

Probably varies district by district. D7 and D12 have recently put out project proposals with some alternatives calling for narrower than standard lane/shoulder widths and/or shorter than standard interchange spacing.

Modern freeways can be made aesthetically pleasing too, so even if a complete rebuild happens the road will still keep its charm.

[Plutonic Panda]

They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.

Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.

It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.

Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days.  I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment.  Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards.  My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway.  Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again.

Well an exception certainly might be made for the 105 which has an alternative that has substandard shoulders proposed for a two lane tolled system. Though that could be eliminated and seeing the recent news regarding freeways in SoCal I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding aesthetics that's a tough sell for me that Caltrans can keep the current look and make the Arroyo Seco Parkway more functional.  In recent upgrades to CA 99 a lot of the design features that made it catching in the heyday of US 99 have been removed such as center median foliage.  Recent bridge rebuilds from eras like the 1930s and 1940s have included modern surface facades rather than the original flowing Arc Deco look.  Considering almost every piece of the Arroyo Seco Parkway is essentially timeless that raises a lot of questions of how well it could be kept that way.  The Arroyo Seco Parkway as it exists isn't really a true transportation corridor like the other Los Angeles freeways are.  At best it serves a limited amount of commuter traffic to/from downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena.  The truck ban has been effect almost from day one with the Arroyo Seco Parkway and it will never connect to I-210 or CA 134.

[sparker]

Regarding aesthetics that's a tough sell for me that Caltrans can keep the current look and make the Arroyo Seco Parkway more functional.  In recent upgrades to CA 99 a lot of the design features that made it catching in the heyday of US 99 have been removed such as center median foliage.  Recent bridge rebuilds from eras like the 1930s and 1940s have included modern surface facades rather than the original flowing Arc Deco look.  Considering almost every piece of the Arroyo Seco Parkway is essentially timeless that raises a lot of questions of how well it could be kept that way.  The Arroyo Seco Parkway as it exists isn't really a true transportation corridor like the other Los Angeles freeways are.  At best it serves a limited amount of commuter traffic to/from downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena.  The truck ban has been effect almost from day one with the Arroyo Seco Parkway and it will never connect to I-210 or CA 134.

Since the completion of the Glendale/CA 2 freeway in '76, an all-freeway alternative connection to central Pasadena has been in place with zero truck restrictions, so there's no functional reason to effect any expansion of the Arroyo Seco.  It's a parkway and a leisurely (if you don't push things as a driver!) drive between downtown L.A. and downtown Pasadena -- nothing more, nothing less -- the fact that thousands still elect to use it as a commuter artery notwithstanding. 

[djsekani]

I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!

The induced demand principle is definitely a thing in Los Angeles; you'd have probably a day before those two extra lanes in each direction became just as jammed as the rest of the freeway. Trying to add lanes to increase rush-hour capacity and/or improve traffic flow is a fool's errand. CalTrans seems to have finally figured this out, which is why almost all of the freeway construction in the region is focused on adding or expanding HOV and toll lanes.

Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway), or add traffic lights. I'd honestly prefer the former. Actually widening the parkway is going to be a non-starter for political reasons. Redesigning the exit ramps would cause almost as many issues with property acquisition because there's just not much space to work with... but if it was possible, that would I assume be the preferred option.

[mrsman]

I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!

The induced demand principle is definitely a thing in Los Angeles; you'd have probably a day before those two extra lanes in each direction became just as jammed as the rest of the freeway. Trying to add lanes to increase rush-hour capacity and/or improve traffic flow is a fool's errand. CalTrans seems to have finally figured this out, which is why almost all of the freeway construction in the region is focused on adding or expanding HOV and toll lanes.

Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway), or add traffic lights. I'd honestly prefer the former. Actually widening the parkway is going to be a non-starter for political reasons. Redesigning the exit ramps would cause almost as many issues with property acquisition because there's just not much space to work with... but if it was possible, that would I assume be the preferred option.

It's far preferable to remove a lane than to add traffic signals.  While a lane loss would cause a backup at busy times, it is generally unnoticed at times when traffic is light.  But a red signal will stop all lanes of traffic.

One real world example to view this is at  La Cienega Blvd at Stocker.  This  is the section of LC Blvd that is a near-freeway just north of LAX.  Southbound lanes are free-flow, but one of the 3 lanes ends to accommodate the influx of traffic from Stocker.  This only backs up at the busiest times (afternoon rush).  Northbound lanes do not narrow (3 lanes throughout) but they are subject to the red light to accommodate left turns to/from Stocker and this is a perennial backup.

I would imagine something similar would occur along the Arroyo Seco. 

[stevashe]

Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway)

Exactly. then the space freed up by removing the lane could be converted to accel/decel lanes for the exits. I even drove that section of the parkway twice recently, and there wasn't much traffic either time. The second time the right lane was even blocked anyway, and traffic still flowed past it just fine despite the unexpected loss of a lane, which I would expect to be worse than if there were two lanes permanently. Oh, and did I mention this was heading towards downtown LA during the morning commute?

I will also say claims of drivers going 70 and not paying attention to the slow exits are not true. The majority of drivers were going around 60, compared to 80 on other freeways when there's no traffic, so I think even the LA drivers understand that this highway isn't quite up to handling as high of speeds as most others.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ I was just on that freeway tonight going about 90 and I was passed by three people in the middle lane.

anyhow most people on this road probably average around 65-70 in free flowing conditions. Majority of the time in flowing with traffic in the fast lane and it's going 75-80. But by all means let's take a lane from a freeway in a horribly congested metro because it isn't as congested as other freeways here.

I'm completely against removing lanes as I find that to be asinine and I'm messaging caltrans repeatedly about the issue. But make no mistake, those who want that to happen will likely get their wish. Caltrans and metro have been making idiotic moves lately and it is no surprise they will probably reducing capacity on this road.