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

My5LA

Started by California405freeway, July 09, 2021, 03:00:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Do you think that the My5LA freeway improvement is worth the money and work? Will it maybe improve traffic?

Yes
6 (60%)
No
1 (10%)
Who know's
3 (30%)

Total Members Voted: 10

Voting closed: July 19, 2021, 03:00:40 AM

California405freeway

I really wanted to know if the My5LA project will improve traffic along the 5 Freeway in Los Angeles. Caltrans D7 says that it will.


Occidental Tourist

#1
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10, Sacramento is a control city for the 101.  I'd take what D7 says with a grain of salt.

I voted, but I'd suggest splitting up the two questions in the poll or removing one of them.  Some people may think that it will reduce traffic but that it's still not worth the money.

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

TheStranger

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10,

If it was going off of strict "maintenance/funding" (which we know is why there are TO Route 1 signs along PCH near Santa Monica), by that same token, D4 has never once correctly signed I-80 in SF as State Route 80 (its interstate mileage was taken away in 1968). 

I've mentioned in numerous threads here though that I like the consistency of "Harbor Freeway - interstate 110, Arroyo Seco Parkway - no-trucks State Route 110"

Quote

Sacramento is a control city for the 101.  I'd take what D7 says with a grain of salt.


That CAN work in one instance (if it's anywhere along the Hollywood Freeway leading to 170 north).  I do see where that's wacky though especially compared to what drivers would be expecting.

Chris Sampang

SectorZ

Why did they make the project sound like a local TV station name? Was "5 on your side" not available?

andy3175

Here's the link to the my5la webpage:

http://my5la.com/

This page shows all the various projects happening along Interstate 5 in Los Angeles County, and it includes the critical ones through Norwalk, Burbank, and Santa Clarita, among others. Each of these projects have definite merit, making the overall project worthwhile. This page shows the projects under construction within the corridor: http://my5la.com/latest-i-5-construction-updates/.

Interstate 5 south project overview:

QuoteCaltrans is investing $1.9 billion dollars to improve southern segments along I-5 (Santa Ana Freeway) between the Orange County line and I-605 (San Gabriel River Freeway). Improvements will enhance safety and freeway access and encourage ride sharing through new HOV lanes. Projects include:

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool) Lanes — Carpool lanes for vehicles with two or more passengers
Mixed-Flow Lane — Lane for all motorists
Interchange Modifications — Upgraded on-ramps and off-ramps, bridge widening or bridge reconstruction
Pedestrian Overcrossing — Bridge for pedestrians to cross over freeway
Frontage Road Modification — Reconstruction or improving road surfaces adjacent to freeway
There are now four freeway lanes open to traffic in both directions of I-5 from I-605 to just north of Valley View Ave.

The remaining segment under construction is the Valley View Ave. Interchange Project. For details go to http://www.my5la.com/valley-view-avenue-interchange-project-may-14-2021/ .  It is expected to complete by mid-2022.

Interstate 5 north overview:

QuoteCaltrans is investing more than $1.3 billion to improve northern segments along the Golden State Freeway (I-5) between the Ventura Freeway (SR-134) and the Kern County line. Improvements listed below will enhance safety, improve traffic flow, reduce congestion, encourage ridesharing, decrease surface street traffic and improve air quality:

High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV or carpool) Lanes — Carpool lanes for vehicles with two or more passengers
Direct HOV Connectors — Carpool lane connections so motorists can travel from one freeway directly to another without leaving the HOV lane
Interchange Improvements — On- and off-ramp improvements, bridge widening and bridge reconstruction
Truck Lane — New lane designated for truck traffic
Pavement Replacement — Extends the life of the road, lessens the need for maintenance and related costs as well as provides a smoother roadway surface
Grade Separation — Bridge crossing used to separate levels at which roads, railroads, or pedestrians use to cross one another
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

Compared to doing nothing? Absolutely it will help.

California405freeway

Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10, Sacramento is a control city for the 101.  I'd take what D7 says with a grain of salt.

I voted, but I'd suggest splitting up the two questions in the poll or removing one of them.  Some people may think that it will reduce traffic but that it's still not worth the money.

I still remember the I-405 freeway upgrade that happened in 2011. They said it would improve traffic. Apparently it made it Worse. Caltrans D7 needs to invest in other ways to improve traffic. How long has the 405 freeway been like this?! Sad to see how they waste money only to say that they should just replace carpool lanes with toll lanes. Honestly, invest in Public Transit. Another idea is maybe improve the design. The main issue is about LAX Airport. People coming from LAX use the 405 to go to nearby areas. I think there should be separated lanes for people who are coming From LAX and they dont go directly in the 405. It would be separated with a Median. Also the I-105 and I-405 segment is the worst area. Many people merging from LAX and other nearby streets. Caltrans needs to fix this part.

California405freeway

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
Compared to doing nothing? Absolutely it will help.

True but still what happened with the 405 freeway in 2011 made me not trust them anymore. I now see them as wasting money. Literally, BILLIONS of dollars to improve it and still it got worse. Only to say that they should replace carpool lanes with Toll Lanes.

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: California405freeway on July 10, 2021, 04:35:24 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 10, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
Compared to doing nothing? Absolutely it will help.

True but still what happened with the 405 freeway in 2011 made me not trust them anymore. I now see them as wasting money. Literally, BILLIONS of dollars to improve it and still it got worse. Only to say that they should replace carpool lanes with Toll Lanes.
I think a couple things about the 405.

First I think it should have been widened to contain 2-3 additional toll lanes each way on top of what it has now.

Secondly I also think the horrible interchange at the 101 doesn't help matters as it creates a bottleneck and the 101 also desperately needs a widening in the valley which probably won't happen anytime soon. The backs ups from I-10's lack of adequate capacity to meet demand which spill onto the 405 don't help either.

What I'm really interested to see is if OC's 405 project helps traffic flow. They are adding two lanes each way plus aux lanes.

Also, from Metros reports the 405 did have benefits but they were marginal at best. I just think the project should have been larger. This is a case of doing it right or not doing it at all.

Remember, there is a project to add toll lanes which could result in additional lane each way without widening the footprint of the highway. It'll be interesting to see if metro goes that route. They plan to leverage funding from a toll lane(s) to help fund the new transit line.

Plutonic Panda

Regarding I-5, I don't think it will solve the traffic problem but I do think it'll help traffic flow better off peak hours. I-5 needs to be at least 5 GP lanes plus 2-3 toll lanes. Of course that isn't easy to do.

Metro has a plan to widen the 605 which will include additional improvements to I-5 through the interchange. I have a feeling that project will receive the same fate as the 710(LA) and I-45(Houston).

The next stretch of I-5 will be from SR-14 to Castaic:

QuoteSanta Clarita, which is now the third-largest city in Los Angeles County, is expected to increase its population by more than 25,000 people by 2035 as documented in the City of Santa Clarita's One Vision One Valley Plan. To prepare for this increase and relieve congestion in the Santa Clarita Valley, Metro and Caltrans District 7, will be making operational and capacity enhancements along the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway in the northern part of Los Angeles County from the State Route 14 (SR-14) interchange in Santa Clarita to just south of Parker Rd in Castaic.

The enhancements include:

·      Addition of high occupancy vehicle (HOV)/carpool lanes in each direction along I-5

·      Extension of the northbound truck lane from Gavin Canyon undercrossing to Calgrove Bl off-ramp

·      Addition of southbound truck lane from Calgrove Bl on-ramp to SR-14

·      Addition of auxiliary lanes (additional outside lanes extending between an on-ramp and a subsequent off-ramp).

These improvements will enhance safety on the freeway by removing trucks from the general-purpose lanes (GPLs) and increasing access for merging.

The new lanes are expected to provide a much faster and smoother driving experience in the area for locals and travelers. These improvements are part of a multi-phase program identified in Metro's Long Range Transportation Plan as I-5 North Capacity Enhancements.

- https://www.metro.net/projects/i-5-enhancements/

After that it seems like the only other part of I-5 that needs widened and reconstruction will be from SR-134 to I-605. The real question is how likely is it that ever gets done.

myosh_tino

Quote from: SectorZ on July 10, 2021, 08:39:19 AM
Why did they make the project sound like a local TV station name? Was "5 on your side" not available?

"5 on Your Side" is a consumer protection segment on KPIX 5 up here in the S.F. Bay Area. LOL! :-D
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

cahwyguy

Quote from: California405freeway on July 09, 2021, 03:00:40 AM
I really wanted to know if the My5LA project will improve traffic along the 5 Freeway in Los Angeles. Caltrans D7 says that it will.

As with any project, it will screw up traffic during construction, improve it for a while, people will discover the improved freeway, and it will be back to where it was. That's because any widening it not addressing the source of the problem: what causes the traffic. It only addresses the throughput. If what jams the traffic is houses in one place, and jobs in another, then things won't be fixed: the improved flow will result in more jobs in the job-full area, and due to housing costs, more people living in the other area.

Solutions to problem are never never simple. There's always an inherent complexity.

As for widening further -- either the 405 or the 5 -- there are numerous roadblocks to doing so. The first is that there simply isn't the right of way to be easily had, where easily means "within budget". Then there's the same thing that stops the 710 southern widening: environmental impacts now consider pollution from traffic. That will stop many future widenings.  Both the 405 and 5 widenings happened not because of actual widening, but to add an HOV lane.

Now: I've recently gotten email that they are thinking about converting the HOV lane for the 405 in the Sepulveda Pass to an Express Lane. Also, if you read the highway page update I posted recently, there are concerns about the speeds in the HOV lanes on the 5 in Southern Orange County, so they are looking for solutions there.

Daniel
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

Concrete Bob

#13
With the ongoing proliferation of electric vehicles, especially after 2035, the argument against freeway expansion today might be considered short sighted.  I would hope organizations, individuals and groups advocating freeway expansion incorporate electric vehicles into their arguments with the "powers that be" when arguing their cause. 

If the State of California can come up with a reasonable and fair methodology to impose an annual fee on all electric vehicles registered in California in lieu of the gas tax, we could be on a road to a pragmatic and stable funding base for road maintenance and (Oh My!) actual system expansion that actually reflects California's population growth and transportation needs.     

By 2050, I think the majority of the cars on California's roads and freeways will probably be electric.  Today's "air pollution" and "climate change" arguments against road and freeway upgrades will be largely moot.  By 2050 (if not sooner), full electronic charging a vehicle will probably be as fast as filling up your tank at your local Chevron is today.  And, I will be willing to bet that a 2050 motorist will be purchasing their charge will be from the same entities they are purchasing their gasoline from today.  I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing.  The same technology will probably apply to trucks by 2060 or so (if not sooner).       

Plutonic Panda

Maybe when/if teleportation ever becomes a thing traffic will go away but I don't we will ever solve traffic problems. They can be lessened with things like telecommuting, not having everyone going to and leaving work at the same time, and alternative transportation options. I believe things like self driving cars, automated flying taxis, more robust mass transit network, will all be things coming in the future that will help ease traffic congestion.

At the end of the day, infrastructure will always have to be expanded as our population grows. That includes larger freeways.

Henry

Quote from: myosh_tino on July 10, 2021, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on July 10, 2021, 08:39:19 AM
Why did they make the project sound like a local TV station name? Was "5 on your side" not available?

"5 on Your Side" is a consumer protection segment on KPIX 5 up here in the S.F. Bay Area. LOL! :-D
And BTW, the MyNetworkTV affiliate in L.A. is KCOP (My 13), sister station to KTTV (Fox 11), both flagship stations to their respective networks.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

mrsman

Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10,

If it was going off of strict "maintenance/funding" (which we know is why there are TO Route 1 signs along PCH near Santa Monica), by that same token, D4 has never once correctly signed I-80 in SF as State Route 80 (its interstate mileage was taken away in 1968). 

I've mentioned in numerous threads here though that I like the consistency of "Harbor Freeway - interstate 110, Arroyo Seco Parkway - no-trucks State Route 110"



Could you elaborate on CA-80 in San Francisco?  Why was the interstate mileage taken away?  Why is I-80 an incorrect designation?

TheStranger

Quote from: mrsman on July 15, 2021, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10,

If it was going off of strict "maintenance/funding" (which we know is why there are TO Route 1 signs along PCH near Santa Monica), by that same token, D4 has never once correctly signed I-80 in SF as State Route 80 (its interstate mileage was taken away in 1968). 

I've mentioned in numerous threads here though that I like the consistency of "Harbor Freeway - interstate 110, Arroyo Seco Parkway - no-trucks State Route 110"



Could you elaborate on CA-80 in San Francisco?  Why was the interstate mileage taken away?  Why is I-80 an incorrect designation?

From Dan Faigin's pages:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE080.html

"Approved as chargeable Interstate on 7/7/1947; deleted as chargeable interstate in August 1965." (segment from Central Freeway (and also the never-built portion west of the Central Freeway to what used to be the 80/480 juntion)

The route started getting I-80 signs in the late 1950s/early 1960s (back when I-480 itself was an Interstate) and I recall one photo from California Highways and Public Works magazine showing the back of a three-sign trailblazer setup, with two US shields (presumably US 40/50) and an Interstate shield. 

So technically this portion of freeway has NOT been officially Interstate for 56 years, but unlike 480 it never has been signed as a state route.  If I'm not mistaken, the mileage erased from this ended up being transferred to the Interstate chargeable mileage for I-105/Century Freeway in LA, along with other decommissioned routes' mileage (i.e. the old I-105 and I-110 on existing US 101 and I-10 around the East Los Angeles Interchange)

The questions this does create:

1. Was the removal of the segment from the Interstate system really mostly about the canceled/heavily protested Western Freeway between US 101 and Route 1? 

2. And if #1 is the case, was the mileage removed between the Central Freeway and the I-480 junction simply because the route was built already before the Interstate system funding allocations started?

---

Since you're in Maryland I recall I-695 has a similar section of "road signed as Interstate for continuity but not actually an Interstate."
Chris Sampang

bing101

Quote from: mrsman on July 15, 2021, 08:34:53 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2021, 08:20:15 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on July 09, 2021, 08:02:59 PM
Caltrans D7 says lots of things: Route 91 continues west of Vermont Avenue, the 110 is an interstate north of the 10,

If it was going off of strict "maintenance/funding" (which we know is why there are TO Route 1 signs along PCH near Santa Monica), by that same token, D4 has never once correctly signed I-80 in SF as State Route 80 (its interstate mileage was taken away in 1968). 

I've mentioned in numerous threads here though that I like the consistency of "Harbor Freeway - interstate 110, Arroyo Seco Parkway - no-trucks State Route 110"



Could you elaborate on CA-80 in San Francisco?  Why was the interstate mileage taken away?  Why is I-80 an incorrect designation?
CA-80 is an unsigned route but it's mainly signed as I-80 up to US-101 Bayshore freeway. I remember there were maps showing that I-80 was supposed to take the Central Freeway section until that was cancelled and I-80 was supposed to end at 19th Ave as I-80's west end but that was rejected.

Plutonic Panda

The Burbank Bridge opened up to traffic. I'm out of state so I haven't driven it yet.

https://twitter.com/my5la/status/1463624261080256512?s=21

SSR_317

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2021, 09:03:23 PM
The Burbank Bridge opened up to traffic. I'm out of state so I haven't driven it yet.
Cool, thanks for the info! I've been reading a lot about this project in the FEIS for the Burbank-Los Angeles section of the California High-Speed Rail project lately. Among other benefits, this new structure provides the required clearance over the future HSR alignment next to the existing Metrolink tracks below.

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ yes that is very exciting as well thank you for pointing that out. I suspect will be hearing more about that pretty soon

SeriesE

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2021, 09:03:23 PM
The Burbank Bridge opened up to traffic. I'm out of state so I haven't driven it yet.

https://twitter.com/my5la/status/1463624261080256512?s=21

Can't believe caltrans is building new diamond interchanges in urban areas when other more efficient options exist

Alps

Quote from: SeriesE on November 27, 2021, 12:37:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 26, 2021, 09:03:23 PM
The Burbank Bridge opened up to traffic. I'm out of state so I haven't driven it yet.

https://twitter.com/my5la/status/1463624261080256512?s=21

Can't believe caltrans is building new diamond interchanges in urban areas when other more efficient options exist
Diamond interchanges are fine for certain volumes and vehicle patterns. I'm sure they studied it.

JustDrive

Quote from: SeriesE on November 27, 2021, 12:37:12 AMCan't believe caltrans is building new diamond interchanges in urban areas when other more efficient options exist

The existence of Front Street at that particular interchange makes the diamond the most viable option. I've only seen diverging diamonds and SPUIs in CA on the 99 and 120 in San Joaquin County.



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.