East Los Angeles Interchange Question

[jpm]

Does anyone know when (or if) there are any plans for refurbishing / updating the east LA interchange?  I was driving through there the other day and it appears that very little has changed in the interchange over the last 20 years.  And the overhead freeway signs look like they've been there forever....

Thanks for helping out an inquiring mind,

--j

[Max Rockatansky]

Did you check the SB1 project maps to see if anything is active out of those?  You might want to check CAhighways.org too.

[sparker]

According to the SB1 project list for L.A. County, there doesn't appear to be any projects addressing the ELA interchange.  Now in operation for 57 years (the Golden State-Santa Ana/I-5 through route ramps opened in early 1961) there have been only minor changes since the last major structural project -- the 1966-67 connection to the CA 60 Pomona Freeway -- were completed.  The design (or as some may say about this interchange, the lack thereof!), with its functional preservation of the Santa Ana Freeway, now a combination of I-5 and US 101 as the interchange's "spine", combined with the over-under directional Pomona Freeway separations, doesn't lend itself to much more than incremental modifications (additions of a lane here and there, restriping, closing off a couple of local ramps).  And the fact that I-10 is sited on a viaduct that starts right after the I-5 (SB) split and doesn't touch ground until I-110, several miles to the west, means that any projects involving that route are going to be hyper-costly! 

And there's a reason that many of the signs look like they've been there since the beginning -- it's because they have!  D7 has generally chosen to preserve the old porcelain monsters whenever possible; they never seem to run out of "greenout" material.  If they upgrade signs, it's generally "all in", with whole areas receiving reflective signage in one fell swoop. 

[Occidental Tourist]

There are some minor fixes they could do, bridge widenings and the like to give it standard shoulder widths.  The biggest thing they could do would be to create separate truck interchange lanes for the 5 south to the 60 east and 5 south, and for the 5 north to the 101 and 5 north.  This would prevent some of the congestion from trucks weaving into and out of the left lanes.

To create truck interchange lanes southbound you'd have to create a 180 degree flyover ramp from the right lane of what becomes the 10 west exit to Santa Fe over to to the Santa Fe collector distributor lanes of the 10 east.  That would require building a long flyover ramp essentially over the LA River as well as acquiring right of way over some of the industrial properties to site the bents for the ramp to give it a wide enough turning radius.  You'd also have to build an additional lane and a bridge on the 5 south/60 eastbound lanes in order to allow trucks to stay right once they have made the 180 degree turn and to pass over the mainline 5 south lanes when they split off from the 60 east lanes.

To create a northbound truck interchange lane, you'd have to get some right of way on the right side of the 5 north at the Euclid Avenue undercrossing, then create a truck lane and bridge that rises up to connect to the Euclid Avenue on-ramp, and use the existing on-ramp bridge and a drop bridge to allow trucks to access the 101 and 5 freeways on the right side of each.

[cahwyguy]

I don't recall any planned major work (you might see resurfacing and restriping) -- if I know of any, it would be on my pages or added in the next update. That area is extremely space constrained, making widening difficult. There certainly is no space available -- and no political interest -- in a wholesale redesign (especially as one would have to keep the interchange open during the redesign). I think the main emphasis is getting the commuter traffic off the freeway completely through the expansion of what is currently the Gold Line and the Metrolink options.

[sparker]

I don't recall any planned major work (you might see resurfacing and restriping) -- if I know of any, it would be on my pages or added in the next update. That area is extremely space constrained, making widening difficult. There certainly is no space available -- and no political interest -- in a wholesale redesign (especially as one would have to keep the interchange open during the redesign). I think the main emphasis is getting the commuter traffic off the freeway completely through the expansion of what is currently the Gold Line and the Metrolink options.

EB out of downtown L.A. -- re the automobile commute from 2:30 pm to 7 pm -- is at best a choice of many bad options (and at times I explored most of them when I was living down there).  While it is fortunate that the Gold Line is being extended (hopefully and eventually all the way to Ontario Airport), it's still an out-of-the-way ride from downtown L.A.; it's better suited to folks working in the Pasadena area needing to commute east.  Metrolink's two lines east from L.A. (Riverside via the Walnut Valley and Pomona or San Bernardino via Covina and Upland) are much better options, as (a) they're a lot faster and more direct, and (b) have more extensive park-and-ride facilities at their stations.  And there's no better advertisement for Metrolink service than sitting in traffic on I-10 and watching a train speed by doing 75mph in the median!  Using the repurposed old Pacific Electric and/or SP branch lines in the San Gabriel Valley was a fine strategic decision by Metrolink back in the late '80's when the system was being laid out -- it served valley residential centers closely enough to make the composite commute (car-to-train and vice-versa) viable.   

[jpm]

I haven't been through the East LA interchange in a while - if one is travelling from San Diego to the Central Valley, it's faster to take "the long route" inland via I-15 and along the Foothill Fwy.

The only times I've been able to consistently get through the interchange has been in the wee hours of the morning (after MN/before 5A).  Is that true or is it now congested 24/7?

-jpm

[sparker]

I haven't been through the East LA interchange in a while - if one is travelling from San Diego to the Central Valley, it's faster to take "the long route" inland via I-15 and along the Foothill Fwy.

The only times I've been able to consistently get through the interchange has been in the wee hours of the morning (after MN/before 5A).  Is that true or is it now congested 24/7?

-jpm

Even better -- stay on I-15 to US 395 and take it up to CA 58 in order to shoot straight into the Valley.  And I say this as a born & raised L.A. native:  if L.A. County can possibly be avoided, it should be done.

[djsekani]

While it is fortunate that the Gold Line is being extended (hopefully and eventually all the way to Ontario Airport), it's still an out-of-the-way ride from downtown L.A.; it's better suited to folks working in the Pasadena area needing to commute east.

What do you mean by out of the way? The Gold Line currently has several downtown stops (including Union Station), and more are being built to connect it to the Financial District directly.

[sparker]

While it is fortunate that the Gold Line is being extended (hopefully and eventually all the way to Ontario Airport), it's still an out-of-the-way ride from downtown L.A.; it's better suited to folks working in the Pasadena area needing to commute east.

What do you mean by out of the way? The Gold Line currently has several downtown stops (including Union Station), and more are being built to connect it to the Financial District directly.

It's not a matter of how many stops it has downtown, it's that the line utilizes the old Santa Fe ROW paralleling the Arroyo Seco Parkway (and crossing it 3 times), which twists and turns through Highland Park and South Pasadena in order to get to Pasadena.  I've ridden it several times, and it's a slow go at best -- part of the agreement to utilize that alignment was a multitude of stops between downtown L.A. and Pasadena.   Now -- once past Pasadena, the stations spread out and the line's trajectory is on a more E-W line; it's a more viable commute path, whereas L.A.-Pasadena functions best as a local server.  Back in the '80's when planning for the rail system was underway, the old Santa Fe line through Pasadena was considered for a Metrolink line -- but local activists, primarily from Highland Park, lobbied successfully for conversion of the route to a LR facility, which was considered more appropriate for local service needs.  For commute purposes, the San Bernardino Metrolink line is considerably more efficient -- in terms of both time and mileage -- than a trip out on the Gold Line.  The problem is that while the lines parallel each other a couple of miles apart out past El Monte (Metrolink) and its neighbor to the north, Monrovia (Gold Line) and thus are functionally interchangeable regarding at least "park & ride" commuting, there are still some areas (eastern Pasadena, Sierra Madre, Arcadia) where the Gold Line provides the only nearby rail-based service; the Metrolink line dips too far south (the section in the I-10 median) to be readily accessible to residents of those areas. 

And once in downtown, with the pending completion of the downtown connector, all the LR lines to the west and south are accessible from Union Station's LR service (which also encompasses the Gold Line).  In short, unless one lives specifically in the area between L.A. and Pasadena, Pasadena itself, Sierra Madre, or Arcadia, it's more efficient and at least equally convenient to utilize Metrolink commute rail than the Gold Line.

That being said -- the Gold Line actually is something of a piece of history, sitting as it is atop the old Santa Fe Pasadena Line ROW.  That line is the way the classic old Santa Fe passenger trains (Super Chief, El Capitan, etc.) got into L.A.; while a "slow go" down the Arroyo Seco (even the vaunted passenger service rarely exceeded 30 mph along that stretch because of the multitude of cross streets and the fact that it essentially went through residential neighborhoods), the line served in its day the more built-up L.A. suburbs along the San Gabriel foothills; most freight used the longer but higher-speed line via Santa Ana Canyon and Riverside.  The Gold Line tracks actually utilize the original Santa Fe structures (refurbished, of course), including a high trestle over the Arroyo Seco just south of the York Blvd. concrete arch structure.  Although slow, it's a fun trip.

[mrsman]

While it is fortunate that the Gold Line is being extended (hopefully and eventually all the way to Ontario Airport), it's still an out-of-the-way ride from downtown L.A.; it's better suited to folks working in the Pasadena area needing to commute east.

What do you mean by out of the way? The Gold Line currently has several downtown stops (including Union Station), and more are being built to connect it to the Financial District directly.

It's not a matter of how many stops it has downtown, it's that the line utilizes the old Santa Fe ROW paralleling the Arroyo Seco Parkway (and crossing it 3 times), which twists and turns through Highland Park and South Pasadena in order to get to Pasadena.  I've ridden it several times, and it's a slow go at best -- part of the agreement to utilize that alignment was a multitude of stops between downtown L.A. and Pasadena.   Now -- once past Pasadena, the stations spread out and the line's trajectory is on a more E-W line; it's a more viable commute path, whereas L.A.-Pasadena functions best as a local server.  Back in the '80's when planning for the rail system was underway, the old Santa Fe line through Pasadena was considered for a Metrolink line -- but local activists, primarily from Highland Park, lobbied successfully for conversion of the route to a LR facility, which was considered more appropriate for local service needs.  For commute purposes, the San Bernardino Metrolink line is considerably more efficient -- in terms of both time and mileage -- than a trip out on the Gold Line.  The problem is that while the lines parallel each other a couple of miles apart out past El Monte (Metrolink) and its neighbor to the north, Monrovia (Gold Line) and thus are functionally interchangeable regarding at least "park & ride" commuting, there are still some areas (eastern Pasadena, Sierra Madre, Arcadia) where the Gold Line provides the only nearby rail-based service; the Metrolink line dips too far south (the section in the I-10 median) to be readily accessible to residents of those areas. 

And once in downtown, with the pending completion of the downtown connector, all the LR lines to the west and south are accessible from Union Station's LR service (which also encompasses the Gold Line).  In short, unless one lives specifically in the area between L.A. and Pasadena, Pasadena itself, Sierra Madre, or Arcadia, it's more efficient and at least equally convenient to utilize Metrolink commute rail than the Gold Line.

That being said -- the Gold Line actually is something of a piece of history, sitting as it is atop the old Santa Fe Pasadena Line ROW.  That line is the way the classic old Santa Fe passenger trains (Super Chief, El Capitan, etc.) got into L.A.; while a "slow go" down the Arroyo Seco (even the vaunted passenger service rarely exceeded 30 mph along that stretch because of the multitude of cross streets and the fact that it essentially went through residential neighborhoods), the line served in its day the more built-up L.A. suburbs along the San Gabriel foothills; most freight used the longer but higher-speed line via Santa Ana Canyon and Riverside.  The Gold Line tracks actually utilize the original Santa Fe structures (refurbished, of course), including a high trestle over the Arroyo Seco just south of the York Blvd. concrete arch structure.  Although slow, it's a fun trip.

When discussing the rail commute from the IE and eastern SGV into LA and/or Pasadena, I like comparing it to the freeway situation. 

If you live in Montclair or any area to the east, you would take the Metrolink SB line.  Even though it is cheaper, you would not transfer (in the future when gold line is extended) in La Verne to the gold line unless your destination were in Pasadena or along the Foothill corridor east of Pasadena.  Downtown trips would stay on the Metrolink, and even to reach areas of the gold line north of LA, you'd make the transfer at Union Station.

Similarly, for most of the 1980's and 1990's, I-210 ended in Pomona at I-10/CA71/CA57 with a CA-30 stub freeway to La Verne.  If you lived east of Pomona, you would probably start your trip along I-10, unless you lived close to the CA-30 stub freeway.  As you approached the Kellogg Interchange, you'd stay on I-10 for traffic to LA and only take the 210 to reach Pasadena and environs (and yes to continue further west on either 210 and 134 corridors.  You would never go to Pasadena to then drive down surface streets to find your way to the Arroyo Seco Parkway.

[The analogy is not as perfect with the freeway extension as people would likely head to the closest freeway and then transfer via I-15, CA-57, or I-605 as needed.  In the 1980's, commuters from north Upland would drive down to the 10 with a Downtown destination, but were very likely to just take Foothill to CA-30 if headed to Pasadena.  Now, drivers are more likely to use the 210 for both LA or Pasadena and use one of the N-S freeways to reach I-10.]

[I am basing a lot of this anectodally on my uncle who for most of his working career worked in Pasadena and lived in different parts of the IE (first Pomona, then La Verne, and then Upland).  Even though he was a lot closer to Euclid/10 then Foothill/30, he preferred just using the surface streets to get to 30 and not even begin to mess with the traffic along I-10.  By being on 30 ,he would be positioned in the left  lanes and minimize his slowing on 210 as well.  Nowadays, there is no question that he would start all of his trips onto the 210 as there is an entrance for the expanded 210 only 1/2 mile from his house.  What I find interesting is that they put the entrance in Upland at Campus (which was once a minor neighborhood collector) instead of Euclid (CA-83 and a major surface street and connection to Mt Baldy).  Campus has of course since been widened north of Foothill and is itself a major street now.]

So if you are going from SB Co to LA you stay on METROLINK or I-10.  If you are heading to Pasadena, you transfer to Gold Line or I-210 in the Pomona area.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
Although it is technically possible to access I-210 east from downtown L.A. through a combination of NB I-5, NB CA 2, and EB CA 134, that route is a congestion "deathtrap" anytime after about 2:30 p.m.  I-210 east of the 134 Pasadena interchange is the poster child for rush-hour congestion, with one lane after another disappearing (you initially get 7 lanes EB right after the interchange) until the inevitable but LOS "F" 4 lane facility. 

General rule of thumb:  there is NO efficient peak-hour route east from central L.A. out toward the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire.  NONE (and I've personally explored virtually every available option, freeway or surface street, at one time or another).  Sure, there are a few where you won't be stuck in traffic -- but they slog through burb after burb with at least 2 mostly uncoordinated signals per mile (I'm looking at you, Arrow Highway!).  The only saving grace is that the area was the original stomping grounds of In-N-Out; and there are still more of those in that area than any other, so if you get hungry, you'll likely run across one regardless of routing!   

[Occidental Tourist]

There's one eastbound route that moves, but you have to pay for it.  The 10 express lanes move pretty fast through the eastern San Gabriel Valley as long as you don't mind paying the $10 plus in tolls and don't mind coming to a screeching halt at the 605.

[sparker]

There's one eastbound route that moves, but you have to pay for it.  The 10 express lanes move pretty fast through the eastern San Gabriel Valley as long as you don't mind paying the $10 plus in tolls and don't mind coming to a screeching halt at the 605.

That may work reasonably well for the more fiscally fortunate residents in Hacienda Heights or even the Covina Hills -- but the lack of express facilities through West Covina and over Kellogg Hill make it less than optimal for Inland Empire commuters.  And the fact that I-10 through that area is "hemmed in" by commercial development that would be difficult if not impossible to dislodge makes any such project unlikely.  And the express lanes along CA 60 to the south tend to be only marginally more efficient than the "free" lanes -- they're often congested as well during peak commute hours.

[Plutonic Panda]

The 10 express lanes need to be widened to 3 lanes each direction and be elevated. This would allow for a couple more GP lanes to added each way as well. It should be this way all the way to 15 with at least one express lane in each direction to CA 111.

[Occidental Tourist]

The 10 express lanes need to be widened to 3 lanes each direction and be elevated. This would allow for a couple more GP lanes to added each way as well. It should be this way all the way to 15 with at least one express lane in each direction to CA 111.

There's mostly residential lining that section of the 10, and as we learned from the proposed Ventura Freeway carpool lane project, there's no political will to push through elevated lanes near residential.

[djsekani]

There's one eastbound route that moves, but you have to pay for it.  The 10 express lanes move pretty fast through the eastern San Gabriel Valley as long as you don't mind paying the $10 plus in tolls and don't mind coming to a screeching halt at the 605.

That may work reasonably well for the more fiscally fortunate residents in Hacienda Heights or even the Covina Hills -- but the lack of express facilities through West Covina and over Kellogg Hill make it less than optimal for Inland Empire commuters.  And the fact that I-10 through that area is "hemmed in" by commercial development that would be difficult if not impossible to dislodge makes any such project unlikely.  And the express lanes along CA 60 to the south tend to be only marginally more efficient than the "free" lanes -- they're often congested as well during peak commute hours.

Aren't the toll/HOV lanes being extended at least out to the Kellogg Interchange?

[sparker]

Aren't the toll/HOV lanes being extended at least out to the Kellogg Interchange?

The current express lane project on I-10 only extends out from its current end at Puente Ave. (the merging of which into GP lanes causes the backup to I-605, a couple of exits to the west) to Citrus Ave. in West Covina.  While there is a pending project from that point over the top of Kellogg Hill to connect to the previously deployed express lanes through Pomona and Ontario out to I-15, construction of such has yet to commence there.