News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Headlines About California Highways – September 2021

Started by cahwyguy, October 02, 2021, 12:42:23 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

The headlines for September are up. Here's the intro paragraphs (go to the post for live links):

QuoteHappy new year! What do you mean, I just wished you happy new year? This is a different new year. Happy US government fiscal new year! Welcome to FY22. May it bring us a new budget, a raised debt ceiling, and infrastructure bill, and lots of highway upgrades and improvements at the Federal and State levels.

That said: The September bunch of headlines seems a bit lighter. Part of this is because road construction and planning was a bit on hold as budgets were being worked out, and due to the immense fires in the state. There also wasn’t a CTC meeting in September, so there wasn’t quite as much news. I also think more and more papers are going behind paywalls, making it harder to find information. As always, if you see a highway related headline, please send it my way.

Next week will bring something to these pages that hasn’t been seen since March 2020: a live theatre review. Our theatregoing, in a post-COVID environment, starts next week with My Fair Lady at the Dolby/Broadway In Hollywood. A return to normalcy? A dangerous event? We shall see, but my other hobby is returning. We’re taking it slow at first, but as they say, “Wouldn’t it be loverly?” to be back to normal. You know what you have to do: (redacted, because of the reactions of some on this forum, but at least I took my shot in the full post).

And with that, here are the headlines for September. My plan is to get the highway page update out sometime in mid-November, with a final update for 2021 right at the start of 2022.

So with that said: Here's the link: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16151 ... and Ready, set, discuss.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways


Plutonic Panda

It really appears as if the anti-710 tunnel crowd want to remove every inch of roadway up to the exact line of the 210 and I 10 and build right up against it to make it as hard as possible to ever think there could be a tunnel between the two ever again. And that is just out right despicable even if they don't want to build the tunnel now. I guess I'll write to my congressman again and ask that he opposes any bill that removes the stubs. Not much else I can do besides bitch about it online but I really think this will be looked back on as one of the dumbest moves the state has ever made.

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 02, 2021, 09:14:12 PM
It really appears as if the anti-710 tunnel crowd want to remove every inch of roadway up to the exact line of the 210 and I 10 and build right up against it to make it as hard as possible to ever think there could be a tunnel between the two ever again. And that is just out right despicable even if they don't want to build the tunnel now. I guess I'll write to my congressman again and ask that he opposes any bill that removes the stubs. Not much else I can do besides bitch about it online but I really think this will be looked back on as one of the dumbest moves the state has ever made.

Actually, the bill authorizing relinquishment to Pasadena I believe has already been passed, as has the removal from the Freeway and Expressway system. The route is still on the books, however, so they could find some different route and start over again. Highly unlikely.

As for the dumbest move the state has made (with respect to the highways). Hardly.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 01:05:23 AM

As for the dumbest move the state has made (with respect to the highways). Hardly.
Yeah right. This an obvious connection that anyone looking at a map would wonder why they hell a gap exists here.

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 01:58:01 AM
Yeah right. This an obvious connection that anyone looking at a map would wonder why they hell a gap exists here.

The problem often comes when we see roads as lines on a map, and fail to consider the communities the lines go through, the terrain, and the environmental factors. This is especially true in today's world. If they had never built the stubs at the 10 and the 210, and had just through to build the connector somewhere else on the corridor, they would have had much better success. Building the stubs where they did doomed the effort from Day 1, just as the Beverly Hills freeway was doomed.

But as for other dumb moves: Not planning for greater port traffic on the other end of the 710. Not connecting the 105 to the 5. Not completing the 90. That's just in the LA area.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Max Rockatansky

#5
Considering CA 2 and Glendale Freeway more or less exist in a similar corridor as the 710 gap the latter is hardly the biggest passed on opportunity in the State wide Freeway and Expressway System.  Some others unbuilt freeways and expressways of the same era outside of metro Los Angeles that come to mind that would have had far more utility IMO:

-  I-280 following 19th and CA 1 to the Golden Gate Bridge. 
-  CA 77 becoming a functional connector between I-580 and I-880 if not even I-680.
-  Several of the unbuilt freeways around Sacramento.
-  The built gap or CA 65.

Max Rockatansky

Reading through the headlines it is kind of amusing to see CA 192 somehow is hanging on in places like Montecito.  Much of CA 192 isn't much more than glorified neighborhood streets in Montecito and the outskirts of Santa Barbara.  I know a lot of what is going on now probably ties back to the mudslides in 2018 but I don't recall ever seeing CA 192 even being considered by the CTC for relinquishment.  Either way, it can be kind of handy in bad traffic on US 101 and is sufficiently weird that it caught my interest a couple times (there is a one lane bridge).

Pertaining to Gridley and much of CA 99 north of Yuba City, wasn't a lot of that planned at one point to be upgraded to freeway or expressway?  The traffic in places like Gridley is absolutely terrible and the highway really could use some serious upgrades in the two lane segments..


skluth

Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:06:06 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 01:58:01 AM
Yeah right. This an obvious connection that anyone looking at a map would wonder why they hell a gap exists here.

The problem often comes when we see roads as lines on a map, and fail to consider the communities the lines go through, the terrain, and the environmental factors. This is especially true in today's world. If they had never built the stubs at the 10 and the 210, and had just through to build the connector somewhere else on the corridor, they would have had much better success. Building the stubs where they did doomed the effort from Day 1, just as the Beverly Hills freeway was doomed.

But as for other dumb moves: Not planning for greater port traffic on the other end of the 710. Not connecting the 105 to the 5. Not completing the 90. That's just in the LA area.

As an outsider and recent new arrival to So Cal, I've always thought the strangest gap was between the Arroyo Seco Freeway and the north I-710 stub; it's less than a 2000 ft gap. Once significant opposition to connecting the the I-710 stubs made finishing the freeway unlikely, a pivot to connecting these dead ends should have been a no-brainer. I'm aware that the Arroyo Seco isn't up to modern interstate standards, but it is non-stop and connecting the two highways would provide a measure of completeness.

I don't blame anyone for not anticipating the huge increase of I-710 port traffic. The Terminal Island freeway complex was designed (though not built yet) back in the 70s. There were few who predicted the massive rise in container traffic over the last 30 years. I know when I was living in Norfolk the local port authority was building entire new facilities to accommodate container traffic.

Plutonic Panda

#8
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:06:06 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 01:58:01 AM
Yeah right. This an obvious connection that anyone looking at a map would wonder why they hell a gap exists here.

The problem often comes when we see roads as lines on a map, and fail to consider the communities the lines go through, the terrain, and the environmental factors. This is especially true in today's world. If they had never built the stubs at the 10 and the 210, and had just through to build the connector somewhere else on the corridor, they would have had much better success. Building the stubs where they did doomed the effort from Day 1, just as the Beverly Hills freeway was doomed.

But as for other dumb moves: Not planning for greater port traffic on the other end of the 710. Not connecting the 105 to the 5. Not completing the 90. That's just in the LA area.
But given that the tunnels were planned to go under the communities anyone looking simply lines on a map that would be in the right in assuming that the lines should be connected without having to worry about freeways plowing through communities. But that is in this particular case.

I do agree with you about the other ridiculous gaps in the system which is why I said it would be one of the dumbest not the dumbest.

But I must say I'm not really understanding why you suggest the stubs are the problem here. I was always under the assumption Alhambra had much less of a problem with this Corredor than Pasadena did, and the fact South Pasadena decided that they needed to be involved is pretty ridiculous. The stub going to downtown Pasadena seems to be decently used though I'm unaware of the traffic counts.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 09:16:52 AM
hardly the biggest passed on opportunity in the State wide Freeway and Expressway System.
Max I did not say it was the biggest opportunity passed on I said it was one of the biggest opportunities we passed on. there is a difference. i'm not a native to California so I don't know every single proposal other than a quick glance at some of the maps I've looked at that proposed a really nice build out of a well-connected freeway Network throughout Los Angeles that was butchered.

To be honest I'm not really aware of the other unbuilt freeways you mention other than the one in San Francisco that doesn't connect to the Golden Gate Bridge. I would agree that is a huge missing gap.

Now if the 710 tunnel gap was closed and a tunnel was built under the Angeles national Forest via CA 2 to facilitate trucks so they could just go straight to the desert, now that would be a real nice asset to the state probably costing over $50 billion at minimum. But even without trucks or CA 2 tunnel under the mountains filling this gap would still be very useful for hundreds of thousands of commuters.

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:39:04 PM
But I must say I'm not really understanding why you suggest the stubs are the problem here. I was always under the assumption Alhambra had much less of a problem with this Corredor than Pasadena did, and the fact South Pasadena decided that they needed to be involved is pretty ridiculous. The stub going to downtown Pasadena seems to be decently used though I'm unaware of the traffic counts.

The problem with the stubs is that they forced the location of the endpoints, which dictated the routes that caused the problems. Had they not been built, then routings to slightly different endpoints would have been possible (and more probable).  There were some more commercial-ish corridors further to the east, perhaps in the Rosemead area, that could have worked much better. But with the northern end forced to be where it was, they were stuck. That's what I mean with a problem with the stubs.

I'm native Southern California. Born here, collecting and reading maps since I was 5. Often what looks like simple completion lines on a map are impractical: earthquake faults, difficulties with communities above (you still need ventilation and emergency access; this isn't a subway and accidents and fires happen). The nature of the neighborhood comes into play: in past times due to wealth, add to that the concerns now about impacts on various communities. There are environmental impacts. In urban areas especially, it is never as simple as a line on the map.

There have been proposals for tunnels under the forest as continuations of both the 118 and the 2 (look at Route 249, www.cahighways.org/ROUTE249.html ). But those will be unlikely to happen these days -- the length and depth of the tunnel is far too long (it would be a much greater effort than Glenwood Cyn ever was). I'm a realist: as much as roadgeeks want the numbering changes and new roads and widening, they are unlikely to happen at the present time. With the next generation of technology, maybe. Roads that don't work for human controlled internal combustion might work for computer controlled electric vehicles (especially long tunnels, where computer control can eliminate collisions, and the risk of fire is lower).  So we shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

Don't forget the other headlines, sparse as they are.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

Oh I saw the other headlines and they are great and thank you for all the work that you do I really enjoy your updates every month in fact I look forward to them. I try to be a realist myself and understand one of the things that I want or unlikely to happen which I suppose is my biggest beef with this project is how close it seem to be to actually becoming a reality. if memory serves right the powers that be suggested ways to pay for it would have been found even at its astronomical cost.

But what other routing options could there be? It seems to me this route was the most straightforward but then again that's really only the case had a C a two tunnel been built underneath the mountains which is pretty much a pipe dream for this foreseeable future. But even for commuters going to the North San Fernando Valley this would be a very useful connection to bypass the insane traffic on the 5.

Quillz

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 11:59:27 AM
Reading through the headlines it is kind of amusing to see CA 192 somehow is hanging on in places like Montecito.  Much of CA 192 isn't much more than glorified neighborhood streets in Montecito and the outskirts of Santa Barbara.  I know a lot of what is going on now probably ties back to the mudslides in 2018 but I don't recall ever seeing CA 192 even being considered by the CTC for relinquishment.  Either way, it can be kind of handy in bad traffic on US 101 and is sufficiently weird that it caught my interest a couple times (there is a one lane bridge).

Pertaining to Gridley and much of CA 99 north of Yuba City, wasn't a lot of that planned at one point to be upgraded to freeway or expressway?  The traffic in places like Gridley is absolutely terrible and the highway really could use some serious upgrades in the two lane segments..


I actually find I utilize CA-192 a lot more than I would have thought. Santa Barbara can get bad traffic at times so having that alternative helps.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Quillz on October 03, 2021, 03:22:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 11:59:27 AM
Reading through the headlines it is kind of amusing to see CA 192 somehow is hanging on in places like Montecito.  Much of CA 192 isn't much more than glorified neighborhood streets in Montecito and the outskirts of Santa Barbara.  I know a lot of what is going on now probably ties back to the mudslides in 2018 but I don't recall ever seeing CA 192 even being considered by the CTC for relinquishment.  Either way, it can be kind of handy in bad traffic on US 101 and is sufficiently weird that it caught my interest a couple times (there is a one lane bridge).

Pertaining to Gridley and much of CA 99 north of Yuba City, wasn't a lot of that planned at one point to be upgraded to freeway or expressway?  The traffic in places like Gridley is absolutely terrible and the highway really could use some serious upgrades in the two lane segments..


I actually find I utilize CA-192 a lot more than I would have thought. Santa Barbara can get bad traffic at times so having that alternative helps.

I use it a lot also, but it's also fair to say that 192 is far below the typical standards seen on most state highways. 

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 03:19:06 PM
But what other routing options could there be? It seems to me this route was the most straightforward but then again that's really only the case had a C a two tunnel been built underneath the mountains which is pretty much a pipe dream for this foreseeable future. But even for commuters going to the North San Fernando Valley this would be a very useful connection to bypass the insane traffic on the 5.

There are two issues: truck traffic and commuters. Commuters are less of an issue: There are few commuters to the SF Valley from that area, and those that are going to the port use other routes. Commuters could be served by widening the portion of the 5 between the 134 and downtown, but there are no good options for widening the 5 downtown.

Truck traffic is the real issue regarding the 710 -- both the northern and southern ends. The communities don't want the truck traffic and pollution that doesn't bring business to their communities, and truck breakdowns in a long tunnel -- with possible hazmat -- is a big problem. The answer is to actually not use trucks but improve rail to move containers out of the port to an inland location, and truck from there, but the rail lines are fighting it (as, I think, are some of the union workers).

There are typically solutions if you become creative.

One of the big problems with new freeways is that they rarely benefit the cities they cut through. They benefit through traffic, and they pull that traffic away from the city's businesses, while increasing air pollution for the city, creating difficulties in crossing a city. So why should the city want this?
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

But I could argue that the cities that are being divided by these freeways indirectly benefit by having a prosperous region that is more connected due to said freeway. Now where I think we went wrong and hopefully you could agree with this is how we just blatantly carved massive swaths for 10 lane highways straight through neighborhoods with little regard to mitigating impacts such as division. These are things that can be solved such as tunnels like the 710 that was proposed or Denvers I 70 rebuild that is lowering the highway in place in caps in certain areas.

Frankly I'm just baffled at why so many countries seem to be able to build tunnels with no problems but in America we have this mentality that tunnels are no longer an option to consider given their cost. I'm all ears in hearing that point the bigger issue I have with it is the conversation usually stops there it goes no further. So we ultimately end up with well there simply isn't a way to do it.

I believe Max explained to me and another thread the issue with the rail connection to the ports and I need to go re-read his post to me to understand it a bit better but I do agree that we should be utilizing Rall more than we do.

On a sidenote I drove PCH today through Huntington Beach and I damn near rear ended someone as I was an all looking out to the ocean at the back ups of the ships waiting to go to the port and unload. I had read the ports were moving towards 24 hour operations but for whatever reason I saw another article a couple days ago that said that that hasn't really kicked into full gear yet.

skluth

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 04:23:52 PM
On a sidenote I drove PCH today through Huntington Beach and I damn near rear ended someone as I was an all looking out to the ocean at the back ups of the ships waiting to go to the port and unload. I had read the ports were moving towards 24 hour operations but for whatever reason I saw another article a couple days ago that said that that hasn't really kicked into full gear yet.

WTH? I've lived in a few port cities. Every one was a 24/7 operation. When I lived across Scott Creek from Pinners Point in Portsmouth, VA, I could hear the container ships loading and unloading even at 2 AM. Not doing 24/7 in LA is madness. No wonder ships are backing up.

Max Rockatansky

Regarding tunnels I kind am amused how contentious they are for highway development but almost everyone was on board for them with the HSR.  At least conceptually the HSR tunnels would have (might still be hypothetically) far longer than anything seen in on any road in the state.  If I recall correctly planners mostly sought to avoid the San Andreas Fault given tunneling wouldn't be nearly as viable (hence why Tehachapi Pass was on the planned route over Tejon Pass).  In that line of thought the Transbay Tube which carries all the BART lines has always fascinated me given how close it is to the San Andreas Fault.  Granted the Transbay Tube has seismic joints and isn't covered by earthen materials. 

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 04:23:52 PM
But I could argue that the cities that are being divided by these freeways indirectly benefit by having a prosperous region that is more connected due to said freeway. Now where I think we went wrong and hopefully you could agree with this is how we just blatantly carved massive swaths for 10 lane highways straight through neighborhoods with little regard to mitigating impacts such as division. These are things that can be solved such as tunnels like the 710 that was proposed or Denvers I 70 rebuild that is lowering the highway in place in caps in certain areas.

Except that the neighborhoods don't really benefit. The traffic goes through, leaves pollution (even with a tunnel -- it has to be vented somewhere), and doesn't create direct commerce. Unless there are businesses being served by the trucks, there really aren't even indirect benefits.

I do not believe you will see any new freeways constructed THROUGH urban areas. The right of way and environmental impacts are just far too much. You may see slight widening, and you'll certainly see HOV and HOT lanes to encouraged increased density of passengers in vehicles.

What you may see are BYPASSES around urban areas, built in non-urban locations. Right of way there is cheaper, and there are less people to complain (and you create jobs with logistic and shipping centers, in many cases).

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 04:23:52 PM
Frankly I'm just baffled at why so many countries seem to be able to build tunnels with no problems but in America we have this mentality that tunnels are no longer an option to consider given their cost. I'm all ears in hearing that point the bigger issue I have with it is the conversation usually stops there it goes no further. So we ultimately end up with well there simply isn't a way to do it.

I think there is a difference between tunnels constructed for high speed rail and generic truck or auto traffic. Rail is constrained by the rail to a single direction, and there are controls to prevent crashes in the tunnel. Urban rail is electronically controls to prevent crashes.

Long vehicular traffic, at least with current vehicles, has the human problem. Accidents will occur. Car and truck fires will occur. People will change lanes into other people. These problems become greater with the length of the tunnel. So you'll see short tunnels, but not super long tunnels such as was planned for the 249, or you've discussed for Grimes Canyon, or for the 710. That may change as we move to an all electric fleet, where traffic control could take control of vehicles for the length of the tunnel, preventing accidents.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

Agreed with most of your points but what I meant in regards to the neighborhoods was that they benefit if the region benefits. I mean a well-connected flourishing region and no doubt benefits for communities that are part of it and part of that connection is freeways passenger rail water and electric connections etc.

CA 71 is being upgraded to a full freeway and is urban I'm guessing that will be the last one for a very long time if ever. Maybe the next freeway is built in Los Angeles County will either be the CA 126 we've been discussing or perhaps the desert roads. frankly I wonder if a single new road to road interchange will ever be constructed in urban LA in the foreseeable future.

ClassicHasClass

I'm not sure what the City of Pasadena thinks it's going to do. Fill the Ditch in with soil?

Santee has a point with SANDAG. The current director is refusing to recognise the obvious about where people are moving to, and CA 52 is supposed to be (part of) the San Diego outer loop.


heynow415

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 03, 2021, 05:34:43 PM
Regarding tunnels I kind am amused how contentious they are for highway development but almost everyone was on board for them with the HSR.  At least conceptually the HSR tunnels would have (might still be hypothetically) far longer than anything seen in on any road in the state.  If I recall correctly planners mostly sought to avoid the San Andreas Fault given tunneling wouldn't be nearly as viable (hence why Tehachapi Pass was on the planned route over Tejon Pass).  In that line of thought the Transbay Tube which carries all the BART lines has always fascinated me given how close it is to the San Andreas Fault.  Granted the Transbay Tube has seismic joints and isn't covered by earthen materials.

The key difference between the transbay tube and the proposed HSR tunnel is that the tube does not cross any fault lines.  While it would certainly get shaken up by a quake on the San Andreas or Hayward faults, it's not subject to the potential lateral shearing that could occur with a tunnel crossing a fault line like HSR.  It's also sitting on the bay floor, only partially sunken into the mud as opposed to being completely buried (until it hits land on either end) - that it's not really anchored and its intentional flexibility is supposed to enable it to "go with the flow" as it were.  BART tracks do cross the Hayward fault in two places but both sections are at or above grade at those points.

mrsman

Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 03:06:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 02:39:04 PM
But I must say I'm not really understanding why you suggest the stubs are the problem here. I was always under the assumption Alhambra had much less of a problem with this Corredor than Pasadena did, and the fact South Pasadena decided that they needed to be involved is pretty ridiculous. The stub going to downtown Pasadena seems to be decently used though I'm unaware of the traffic counts.

The problem with the stubs is that they forced the location of the endpoints, which dictated the routes that caused the problems. Had they not been built, then routings to slightly different endpoints would have been possible (and more probable).  There were some more commercial-ish corridors further to the east, perhaps in the Rosemead area, that could have worked much better. But with the northern end forced to be where it was, they were stuck. That's what I mean with a problem with the stubs.

I'm native Southern California. Born here, collecting and reading maps since I was 5. Often what looks like simple completion lines on a map are impractical: earthquake faults, difficulties with communities above (you still need ventilation and emergency access; this isn't a subway and accidents and fires happen). The nature of the neighborhood comes into play: in past times due to wealth, add to that the concerns now about impacts on various communities. There are environmental impacts. In urban areas especially, it is never as simple as a line on the map.

There have been proposals for tunnels under the forest as continuations of both the 118 and the 2 (look at Route 249, www.cahighways.org/ROUTE249.html ). But those will be unlikely to happen these days -- the length and depth of the tunnel is far too long (it would be a much greater effort than Glenwood Cyn ever was). I'm a realist: as much as roadgeeks want the numbering changes and new roads and widening, they are unlikely to happen at the present time. With the next generation of technology, maybe. Roads that don't work for human controlled internal combustion might work for computer controlled electric vehicles (especially long tunnels, where computer control can eliminate collisions, and the risk of fire is lower).  So we shall see, but I'm not holding my breath.

Don't forget the other headlines, sparse as they are.

I would think that even without the stubs, the planned 710 corridor would be far preferred over any other parallel corridor.

If 710 ended at 10 at a T-interchange, and 210/134 were also a T-interchange, there would be great operational benefit to connect them.  For one thing, you wont' be mixing northbound traffic with eastbound traffic.  if you were coming from the Long Beach port and wanted to head to 210 east, it would be better to just keep heading north, rather than going east on 10 and then north on 19 and then east on 210.  That section of the 10 between 710 and 19 would be extra busy if it needed to carry both the eastbound 10 traffic as well as transitioning traffic that really is meant to be headed north.

It would be like repeating the errors of the 60/57 interchange.

Now if 710 never existed north of I-5, one could then view the Long Beach Freeway as a southern branch of the Santa Ana Freeway (as it used to be for a while before the 710 north of I-5 was built).  CA-2, at the same time, could be viewed as a northern branch of the GS Freeway (especially if Echo Park stub were closed).  Thus, the natural northbound traffic stream would follow 710 to 5 to 2, which could certainly be helfpul for any 710 north traffic that is headed to 210 west.

Of course, it would be awful for transversing the East LA interchange without some from of bypass that the current 710 does provide.

M3100

Re: PCH California SR 1 in Ventura County (south of Pt. Mugu, near Sycamore Canyon): I have driven this stretch of highway numerous times; I did not realize the 'ocean side' had eroded so much.  This is an enjoyable stretch of highway, in part because it is largely undeveloped.  Much as I like (and need) city areas I like the open spaces too, am it is good to see that resources were put to use to shore up that section.


theroadwayone

Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 04, 2021, 01:12:53 PM
I'm not sure what the City of Pasadena thinks it's going to do. Fill the Ditch in with soil?

Santee has a point with SANDAG. The current director is refusing to recognise the obvious about where people are moving to, and CA 52 is supposed to be (part of) the San Diego outer loop.

You're right with Santee. There's been plans to build reversible carpool lanes on the 52 since like forever; the median space is there. They just haven't gotten around to it for financial reasons. I take it that much of the money has been taken up by the trolley extension and the NCC.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.