I've posted a few updates to my 710 Freeway gap page with more maps and data. It is still a work in progress but most of it is up now.
http://socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/route_710_freeway_stub_ends/
Quote from: sdmichael on April 29, 2013, 10:17:24 PM
I've posted a few updates to my 710 Freeway gap page with more maps and data. It is still a work in progress but most of it is up now.
http://www.scvresources.com/highways/la_highways/route_710_freeway_stub_ends/
Did you create the maps of the proposed route?
rte66man
The maps of the proposed route were from Caltrans Right of Way maps available to the public. As my scanner isn't long enough, I had to scan in pieces and stitch the images together.
Quote from: sdmichael on April 29, 2013, 10:17:24 PM
I've posted a few updates to my 710 Freeway gap page with more maps and data. It is still a work in progress but most of it is up now.
http://www.scvresources.com/highways/la_highways/route_710_freeway_stub_ends/
I did see them and the 710/110 interchange showed rt-7 and rt-11 perhaps it needs signs on the 710 fwy nb or the 710 fwy sb to the 110 parkway sb no trucks. I'm not sure if they will widen the Arroyo Seco Parkway back in 1966 to accommodate the interchange and lane changes
what
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2013, 09:54:46 PM
what
given that he is talking about whether they will do something in 1966, I'm assuming he's in shock from the time travel.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 01:07:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 08, 2013, 09:54:46 PM
what
given that he is talking about whether they will do something in 1966, I'm assuming he's in shock from the time travel.
I need to go back... to the future! The future, Charlie! Yeah, the future!
The I-710/ Long Beach freeway gap is unique to the Los Angeles freeway system: an incomplete route. I always thought the cause of the I-710 gap was from residents blocked completion of the I-710 that should connect with the I-110. A few blocks would been bulldozed for the freeway and residents in the way have to move.
I looked at sdmichael's site to view the photos and the scrapped plans of the what-could-been I-110/I-710 interchange in South Pasadena, the upper-middle class suburb known for streets lined with a variety of trees and historic homes, some used in numerous movie sets. The city wanted to protect neighborhoods and expressed environmental concerns on having a freeway can dirty up the air.
More information regarding the I-710 extension controversy in South Pasadena.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pasadena,_California#Interstate_710_extension_controversy
I think South Pasadena has been fighting the 710 for longer than I've even been around--and I'm on the wrong side of the big 5-oh!
I remember seeing the gap and wondering: "Will this thing ever be finished?" Perhaps a tunnel could help out a lot; that way, the freeway would be completed without disrupting the area around it.
Quote from: Henry on May 21, 2013, 06:41:53 PM
I remember seeing the gap and wondering: "Will this thing ever be finished?" Perhaps a tunnel could help out a lot; that way, the freeway would be completed without disrupting the area around it.
Well, that is the current line of thinking at official levels and what their studies are now centering around.
:nod:
Stay tuned!
Mike
Let me guess.... the people who are protesting against the completion of this project are the same people who complain about the traffic backup.
Someone pass me the frying pan. :pan:
Quote from: ZLoth on June 04, 2013, 02:55:12 AM
Let me guess.... the people who are protesting against the completion of this project are the same people who complain about the traffic backup.
Someone pass me the frying pan. :pan:
That's about the size of it. Makes no sense to me either; it's like the people who move near the airport and then complain that the planes make too much noise.
Now let me have a turn with the pan. :pan:
Another update to the 710 page. I finally found the photos I took of a model that was constructed by Caltrans showing another design for the 710 / 110 interchange, complete with HOV lanes on the 710. It really shows the impact that freeway would have had to South Pasadena.
Saw the recent Caltrans model for the 710 fwy in Pasadena and it's interesting that the carpool lanes in the model can also serve as a BRT route because the LA metro has a brt or a lrt line that is planned to go on the 710 fwy corridor. if the BRT option was adapted for the 710 gap then it will become similar to I-10 or I-110 both have brt routes running on the carpool lane, but LRT option was used then the 710 fwy will be similar to the 105 fwy because the LRT acts as a median between the two directions of travel
http://www.scvresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/P3150033.jpg (http://www.scvresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/P3150033.jpg)
I can't believe the possible route for the LRT! Great, let's tear up Fremont Avenue through Alhambra and South Pasadena and really foul things up! :pan: :pan: :pan: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
And did anybody notice that TDM is pronounced "tedium"?
If only South Pasadena would just go away.
Resurrecting an old thread, I found an "alternatives analysis" for options related to BRT, light rail, freeway, freeway tunnel, and arterial upgrades for the 710 gap in Pasadena-South Pasadena on Caltrans' webpage. It is dated Dec 2012:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/
Of interest is the executive summary, which lists and explains the various alternatives, and the appendix drawings of each alternative, which shows intended route, signage, and related appurtenances of the various alternatives.
Regards,
Andy
I drove through Monterrey Park today and figured I'd check and see if this sign was still up. Sure enough!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeEGaNTz.jpg%3F1&hash=a98af2591fe7005843ae550fd88c11918c27ada3)
Fremont Avenue is littered with these banners:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FP85jSIY.jpg%3F1&hash=f152739cf344620503b1b2f5c15d3e08f8a4515c)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7YtHX2d.jpg%3F1&hash=421b017469e2e82affbcaf2dcb26c7bfb027fd7a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVMcXJFQ.jpg%3F1&hash=d77cacca8884798c49dc4c7cbbecb8360eb69352)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOHB7RQb.jpg%3F1&hash=edd820b5b21312f1686fd5ef661e18fb6fafd355)
Judging by those banners, I take it that the only community putting up a stink about the 710 freeway is Pasadena? Looks like all of the surrounding communities are in favor of building the freeway.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 08, 2014, 11:51:44 AM
Judging by those banners, I take it that the only community putting up a stink about the 710 freeway is Pasadena? Looks like all of the surrounding communities are in favor of building the freeway.
More specifically, South Pasadena (a separate city) which has been the one community against closing the 710 gap for over 5 decades.
South Pasadena, mostly. While it is true that the extension would bisect their city, this route has been on the books for over half a century...I would wager the vast majority of people who would be affected by this route moved into the area knowing (or should have been knowing) that this may one day become a reality.
I think the surface freeway option is officially off the table, and the tunnel is the best hope for this gap being filled.
The surface street option is dead. Caltrans is selling the homes it owns on the pathway. A tunnel would be the only option to complete Route 710, but South Pasadena even doesn't like that due to issues like the ventilation of exhaust.
Quote from: emory on June 08, 2014, 03:40:41 AM
I drove through Monterrey Park today and figured I'd check and see if this sign was still up. Sure enough!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeEGaNTz.jpg%3F1&hash=a98af2591fe7005843ae550fd88c11918c27ada3)
That's an ancient sign! The freeway has been I-710 for about thirty years or more.
Quote from: emory on June 08, 2014, 03:47:55 AM
Fremont Avenue is littered with these banners:
Caltrans is also eternally optimistic about this happening. In addition to slavishly signing Pasadena as a control city on southern parts of the Long Beach Freeway (but LA on the 91?!), I saw this carpool lane gem (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.15202,-118.09152,3a,75y,279.4h,76.54t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sF2NbpTN2B009Pq30GH2kbA!2e0) on the Foothill Freeway a couple of weeks ago.
I take every opportunity to drive the I-710 detour from Alhambra to Pasadena or vice versa. I make sure that I drive especially slow through South Pasadena and hold up as many of their drivers as I can. If I was in charge, Caltrans would never sell the right of way land, and I would tear down the houses and plant trees until they could build the freeway as originally intended. They also need to do something with I-210 East where cars are forced to exit to stay on I-210 past the I-710, CA-134 interchange. It causes a lot of backups.
I tend to take the 134 to the 2 in order to avoid the backup. I had also thought that a small gap decrease would have helped with the freeway ending at Huntington instead of Valley.
Set up a route via Surface Streets in the gap and sign as CA 710?
I don't see any way the tunnel option can be financially feasible, unless a huge funding gift comes from the State of California or federal funding. The documents referenced in a previous post report that "Included in the Measure R plan is the commitment of $780 million to improve the connection between the SR 710 and I-210 freeways.", but this is a small fraction of the cost.
As a rough estimate, each mile of the double-decked toll tunnel (two lanes on each level, as depicted on one of the online documents) will cost around $1 billion. I base that number on a report for an in-progress study of a Houston project where the tunnel cost was estimated to be $700 million/mile and the Alaskan Way project, which is $3.2 billion for a single, two-mile-long double deck tunnel (plus other work including a 1-mile surface freeway, etc). Granted, I don't know how the geology compares at the three locations, but $1 billion per mile per bore is a reasonable number.
So this project is 3 miles long times two bores, around $6 billion. If projects like the Bay Bridge and High Speed Rail are any indication, the cost is likely to be even higher. Tolls wouldn't even come close to paying interest on a $5 billion bond (5% interest = $250 million, 150k vehicles/day * $3 toll = $164 million).
So I'm wondering, have any cost estimates for the tunnel been prepared?
For comparison, I'm thinking a surface option in a trench could probably be done for $500 million/mile. Maybe Socal locals could provide a better estimate of the surface option.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 16, 2014, 10:25:02 PM
So this project is 3 miles long times two bores, around $6 billion. If projects like the Bay Bridge and High Speed Rail are any indication, the cost is likely to be even higher. Tolls wouldn't even come close to paying interest on a $5 billion bond (5% interest = $250 million, 150k vehicles/day * $3 toll = $164 million).
I honestly could imagine the toll to be higher, on par with the Bay Area bridges (the cheapest now of which is the Bay Bridge at off-peak hours, at $4; the rest are either $5 all the time, or the ever-increasing Golden Gate Bridge which I think is going to $7 soon).
The surface option at this point will likely remain a non-starter because of South Pasadena's decades-old recalcitrance.
Quote from: mapman1071 on June 16, 2014, 09:58:08 PM
Set up a route via Surface Streets in the gap and sign as CA 710?
The cities who control those roads wouldn't go along with that.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 17, 2014, 12:53:17 AM
I honestly could imagine the toll to be higher, on par with the Bay Area bridges (the cheapest now of which is the Bay Bridge at off-peak hours, at $4; the rest are either $5 all the time, or the ever-increasing Golden Gate Bridge which I think is going to $7 soon).
The Bay Area bridges are tolled in one direction only. So a $7 toll is equivalent to $3.50 if both directions are tolled.
A $3 toll for a 3-mile highway segment is $1 per mile - very high. I don't know if traffic would reach 150k vehicles per day at that punishing toll rate.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 17, 2014, 09:40:01 AM
A $3 toll for a 3-mile highway segment is $1 per mile - very high. I don't know if traffic would reach 150k vehicles per day at that punishing toll rate.
Comparison point:
Route 73 in Orange County, if you pass through without exiting, is approximately (average) $5.50 toll in each direction. 17 miles long, but very similar function to the 710 gap (73 bypasses the El Toro Y; the future 710 would bypass the East Los Angeles Interchange and to some extent the Four-Level and San Bernardino Split).
Traffic IS significant enough - even on weekends - at the East Los Angeles Interchange and the slot portion of the Santa Ana Freeway (the US 101 segment) that north-south through travel probably would have plenty of incentive to take the 210/710 bypass even with a toll.
If you were to toll it in one direction, which would it be?
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 16, 2014, 10:25:02 PM
So I'm wondering, have any cost estimates for the tunnel been prepared?
Great question ... and one for which I've not seen a definitive answer. According to the 710 tunnel fact sheet (http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/fact_sheets/sr_710_north_fwy_tunnel_alt_fact_sheet.pdf), the tunnel would actually be two separate tubes that would be double decked, two lanes wide. Here are some more specifics:
QuoteIn the initial concept calls for two-level twin bored freeway tunnels, with 4 lanes in each direction, to connect the existing southern stub of State Route 710 in Alhambra, north of Interstate 10, to the existing northern stub of Interstate Route 710, south of the Interstate 210/State Route 134 interchange in Pasadena. A two-level single bore tunnel variation of this alternative, with 2 lanes in each direction, will also be studied. ...
The freeway tunnel alignment is approximately 6.3 miles long, with a bored tunnel (4.2 miles), cut-and-cover tunnel (0.7 miles), and at-grade (1.4 miles) segments. The bored tunnel would have an outside diameter of about 59 feet and would have approximately 100 to 150 feet of cover above the tunnels.
After finding the above document, I found an announcement indicating that the environmental document would be ready for public review in February 2015 for a 90-day comment period (longer than the typical 45-day period): http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/sr_710_north_study_update_press_release.pdf.
There is also a study variant to have the 710 tunnel to consist of only one bore rather than two:
http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/2013_0524_SR710_infoupdate.pdf
Quote from: andy3175 on June 17, 2014, 11:48:46 PM
According to the 710 tunnel fact sheet (http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sr_710/images/fact_sheets/sr_710_north_fwy_tunnel_alt_fact_sheet.pdf), the tunnel would actually be two separate tubes that would be double decked, two lanes wide. Here are some more specifics:
QuoteIn the initial concept calls for two-level twin bored freeway tunnels, with 4 lanes in each direction, to connect the existing southern stub of State Route 710 in Alhambra, north of Interstate 10, to the existing northern stub of Interstate Route 710, south of the Interstate 210/State Route 134 interchange in Pasadena. A two-level single bore tunnel variation of this alternative, with 2 lanes in each direction, will also be studied. ...
The freeway tunnel alignment is approximately 6.3 miles long, with a bored tunnel (4.2 miles), cut-and-cover tunnel (0.7 miles), and at-grade (1.4 miles) segments. The bored tunnel would have an outside diameter of about 59 feet and would have approximately 100 to 150 feet of cover above the tunnels.
Based on the wording above and the signage on the map in that document, has it been determined that the tunnel extension would not be Interstate-standard and would therefore have to be signed as CA-710 north of I-10 (the same way we we have I-110 and SR-110)?
Quote from: DTComposer on June 18, 2014, 01:41:28 AM
Based on the wording above and the signage on the map in that document, has it been determined that the tunnel extension would not be Interstate-standard and would therefore have to be signed as CA-710 north of I-10 (the same way we we have I-110 and SR-110)?
I wonder if it depends on WHICH tunnel plan is built. The two-bore, 4-lanes-in-each-direction format seems like it could be Interstate standard, but the single-bore two-lanes-in-each-direction version doesn't. (Also, the latter would alleviate the East Los Angeles Interchange much, much less).
While the single-bore version would offer much less capacity than the eight-lane iteration, would a high enough toll be useful in managing traffic load along fewer lanes? (in effect, taking what made the 125 tollway in Chula Vista lightly trafficked, but using that to prevent a small 710 tunnel from being overloaded)
Quote from: kendancy66 on June 12, 2014, 10:15:42 PM
They also need to do something with I-210 East where cars are forced to exit to stay on I-210 past the I-710, CA-134 interchange. It causes a lot of backups.
I think it was designed that way because Caltrans planned on the 710 being the more heavily-traveled freeway when the interchange was designed and built in the 1960s and '70s. Who would've guessed that South Pasadena would still be fighting the 710 fifty-plus years later?
What California needs is politicians willing to stand up to South Pasadena and say, "This freeway is going through, like it or not!"
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/business/20140708/caltrans-to-place-homes-in-the-path-of-710-freeway-up-for-sale
Here is an update for I-710 stub.
It seems like they use the Tunnel option to say it might get built but financially I highly doubt it. I can't believe one small city blocked a freeway. They should sign the surface streets as Temp 710.
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
I'm wondering if an alignment entirely to the west of South Pasadena was ever considered. Starting on the north end of the corridor at CA 134, and west bypass would follow the Arroyo Seco ditch to CA 110 (the Arroyo Seco Parkway), then head southwestward along the Arroyo Seco parkway to Avenue 64 then go due south just west of the South Pasadena city limit to near Collins Avenue @Pullman (or possibly further south to avoid a park), where it could angle back southeastward to the existing freeway stub. This alignment is about 5.4 miles and is a noticeable but tolerable detour.
I don't know what kind of environmental obstacles may be in that path but the amount of property displacement looks comparable or even less than the path through South Pasadena.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foscarmail.net%2Fphotos%2F20140724_710.jpg&hash=cb0dcf44aed69c4184274f3765d3d903f6414692)
Going along the Arroyo Seco would be a non-starter. Real estate costs are also higher along most of that corridor. The logistics of putting a freeway-freeway interchange at the 134 at that location, with two large arch bridges, would be a bit much as well.
I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?
True, it doesn't really provide a north—south corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210. The obvious drawback is that it couldn't be upgraded to Interstate and likely federal funding might not come into play. But depending on where Caltrans has already purchased right of way, maybe this would be an easier connection to make...?
Quote from: roadfro on July 29, 2014, 03:09:44 AM
I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?
True, it doesn't really provide a northsouth corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210. The obvious drawback is that it couldn't be upgraded to Interstate and likely federal funding might not come into play. But depending on where Caltrans has already purchased right of way, maybe this would be an easier connection to make...?
I don't think so - while not specifically the concept of
only connecting 110 to the stub, the planned interchange of 110 and 710 was eliminated a few years back as part of a CalTrans attempt to mitigate as much right of way usage as possible for whatever ends up getting built in the area.
Quote from: roadfro on July 29, 2014, 03:09:44 AM
I echo Duke87's question above. Has any thought been given to connecting the end of CA 110 to the CA 710 stub?
True, it doesn't really provide a north—south corridor through Pasadena towards I-10, but I have to imagine that a good chunk of traffic coming off 110 makes its way over to the 710 stub and disperses via CA 134 or I-210.
I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).
Quote from: DTComposer on July 29, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).
The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway. (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 29, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 29, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).
The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway. (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, the surface street portion of CA-2 (Alvarado Street/Glendale Boulevard) is usually a mess, but the Glendale Freeway itself is usually in good shape (I'm driving from Long Beach to Glendale and/or Pasadena on a regular basis, and often during the afternoon commute).
Quote from: DTComposer on July 29, 2014, 02:26:25 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 29, 2014, 01:08:46 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on July 29, 2014, 01:06:53 PM
I don't know how true that would be - if I were coming from downtown and wanted to end up along the CA-134 or I-210 corridors but not in Pasadena itself, I would take CA-2 (which is not nearly as congested as CA-110 can get).
The one time (fall 2010) I've been along 2 between 101 and 5, I remember how backed up northbound Alvarado Street was en route to the freeway. (Also thinking aloud: that segment of 2 is an acceptable truck route towards that area where 110 is not, while 710 hasn't yet been built)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Yes, the surface street portion of CA-2 (Alvarado Street/Glendale Boulevard) is usually a mess, but the Glendale Freeway itself is usually in good shape (I'm driving from Long Beach to Glendale and/or Pasadena on a regular basis, and often during the afternoon commute).
It's hard to tell from just traffic stats alone, but how does the section of the Glendale Freeway between 5 and 134 compare with 110 north of 5?
I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system.
If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605). To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave. In short, a breezewood is necessary.
So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets.
* This wasn't a hypothetical for me. I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland. My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita. The question is how to get between the two points? Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita. It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2014, 12:23:49 AM
I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system.
If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605). To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave. In short, a breezewood is necessary.
So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets.
* This wasn't a hypothetical for me. I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland. My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita. The question is how to get between the two points? Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita. It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.
These gaps are annoying. However, look at it this way: from Hollywood, you have 4, maybe 5 miles of "non-freeway" driving (in quotes because you could make US-101 part of this route) before you get to the freeway (CA-2, CA-134 or I-5), then it's all freeway to Santa Anita.
There are many, many places in the L.A. area (and other cities, I'm sure) that have comparable distances to get to a freeway: Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula; Chatsworth; La Habra; and many other trips that don't have a logical freeway route: LAX to Hollywood; Downtown Long Beach to Huntington Beach; Glendale to Beverly Hills.
So, not to belittle your situation - it's probably more frustrating, since your gaps are just portions of freeways waiting to be completed, as opposed to many of the above examples, who were supposed to be served by freeways that never got off the drawing board - but there are many thousands of people who have similar non-freeway drives as part of their regular travels.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 31, 2014, 02:56:47 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2014, 12:23:49 AM
I know I've mentioned this on another thread, but one thing about the L.A. freeway system is that there is a big "disconnect" between the I-210 and the rest of the freeway system.
If you're starting on the 101 in Hollywood (my old neighborhood), you can get to probably any other part of L.A. County without significant backtracking completely on a freeway , but not the I-210 corridor (between 118 and I-605). To reach this Pasadena stretch of I-210, I would need to use surface streets to a) make the missing connection at the 101/134/170 interchange, b) make a connection to the 2 freeway via Alvarado Street, c) make a connection from 110 to the 210 freeway, d) fill in the 710 gap via Fremont Ave. In short, a breezewood is necessary.
So at least, if the 110 connected to the 134/210 interchange, from Hollywood, I (and other car drivers) could reach the whole Pasadena-Arcadia-Monrovia stretch of the 210 without backtracking or using surface streets.
* This wasn't a hypothetical for me. I grew up in the Hollywood area, where the closest freeway point to my parent's house was the 101 at Highland. My wife's grandmother lived in Arcadia, not far from I-210 at Santa Anita. The question is how to get between the two points? Well, I would drive a stretch on the 101 freeway, get off using one of the four methods above, and continue on the 210 to Santa Anita. It's terrible that there is no all-freeway way to get from one point to the other without significant backtracking, but it's true.
These gaps are annoying. However, look at it this way: from Hollywood, you have 4, maybe 5 miles of "non-freeway" driving (in quotes because you could make US-101 part of this route) before you get to the freeway (CA-2, CA-134 or I-5), then it's all freeway to Santa Anita.
There are many, many places in the L.A. area (and other cities, I'm sure) that have comparable distances to get to a freeway: Torrance and the Palos Verdes Peninsula; Chatsworth; La Habra; and many other trips that don't have a logical freeway route: LAX to Hollywood; Downtown Long Beach to Huntington Beach; Glendale to Beverly Hills.
So, not to belittle your situation - it's probably more frustrating, since your gaps are just portions of freeways waiting to be completed, as opposed to many of the above examples, who were supposed to be served by freeways that never got off the drawing board - but there are many thousands of people who have similar non-freeway drives as part of their regular travels.
True, that there are quite a few trips like that with many miles without a good freeway. LAX to Hollywood was a frequent one for me as I used to work in El Segundo, so my route was generally: La Brea - Redondo - Venice - Fairfax - La Cienega - to the 405 Freeway to El Segundo Blvd. A portion of La Cienega is expressway (mini-freeway) but it was a long way to go regardless.
The more annoying part of the Arcadia to Hollywood drive is that the gap is in the middle. There are definitely many people who live far from the freeway system and need to drive a good distance just to reach the first freeway entrance. But a comprehensive system should be able to get from one point on the system to another point on the system without leaving the system.
Heck, I have it worse now that I live in the DC area. There is no direct freeway from my area into Downtown DC. While I take Metro to work, it would be nice to have an all-freeway route into Downtown for traveling with the family on weekends when there is little traffic. A trip that could take 15 minutes, takes nearly an hour because of all of the traffic lights that I face.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.
Quote from: hm insulators on August 11, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.
I say split the difference: Tunnel the north 710 stub to the 110 and make it Autos only. Build and tunnel the south 710 stub to Huntington Drive. Then widen the 2 and the 5 between the 134 and the E LA Interchange and build a truck bypass interchange from the 5 to the 60.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 12, 2014, 09:06:42 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on August 11, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.
I say split the difference: Tunnel the north 710 stub to the 110 and make it Autos only. Build and tunnel the south 710 stub to Huntington Drive. Then widen the 2 and the 5 between the 134 and the E LA Interchange and build a truck bypass interchange from the 5 to the 60.
Some good ideas. I've never understood why Caltrans did not extend the 710 to Huntington. Huntington is much wider than Valley so it could much easier absorb the traffic. Caltrans owned the right of way along the El Sereno / Alhambra border and the houses that were there were vacant, but not yet demolished. The freeway would not have hit South Pasadena, and by extending to Huntington there would be a lot less impact on Alhambra from traffic on surface streets. Plus, Fair Oaks, a major street into Pasadena, ends at Huntington, so there would be no need for traffic to make turns onto Fremont.
Quote from: hm insulators on August 11, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.
The main reason why 110 and 710 were not considered for a connection is likely because of the restriction on commercial vehicles on 110 north of 101. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-110.htm, which states:
QuoteSpecial Route Restriction History - Route 110
LOCATION
The Pasadena Freeway, also known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway, is an 8.2-mile stretch of Route 110 between Route 101 (PM 23.73) and Glenarm St. in Pasadena (PM 31.91) in Los Angeles County.
RESTRICTION
"No commercial vehicles over 6,000 pounds, including buses unless authorized by the PUC."
EXEMPTIONS
This restriction shall not apply to the following:
Passenger stages: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 35701(a) states that local ordinances may establish a maximum vehicle weight, but not with respect to a vehicle subject to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 1031 to 1036. These are passenger stages, which are defined in the PUC Sections 225 and 226. To travel on 110, the passenger stages must be certified by the PUC with approved routing that includes the Pasadena Freeway. However, the Pasadena Freeway would probably not be approved as there are convenient detours.
Pickups or deliveries: CVC Section 35703 states that commercial vehicles may make pickups or deliveries on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.
Public utilities: CVC Section 35704 states that vehicles owned by a public utility on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 14, 2014, 12:21:15 AM
Quote from: hm insulators on August 11, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on July 27, 2014, 06:39:42 PM
So, I have a dumb question: has anyone ever considered simply connecting the northern stub of 710 to 110 and calling it good? You then would create a new freeway connection without disturbing South Pasadena. Less helpful than actually finishing 710 but still better than the current situation, at least.
That poor little 110 has a tough time handling the traffic it's forced to now; it's actually the old Arroyo Seco Parkway which was built in 1940 and has all kinds of weird little quirks: sharp curves, narrow bridges, tight on- and offramps, and it's a non-truck route.
The main reason why 110 and 710 were not considered for a connection is likely because of the restriction on commercial vehicles on 110 north of 101. See http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/trucks/routes/restrict-hist-110.htm, which states:
QuoteSpecial Route Restriction History - Route 110
LOCATION
The Pasadena Freeway, also known as the Arroyo Seco Parkway, is an 8.2-mile stretch of Route 110 between Route 101 (PM 23.73) and Glenarm St. in Pasadena (PM 31.91) in Los Angeles County.
RESTRICTION
"No commercial vehicles over 6,000 pounds, including buses unless authorized by the PUC."
EXEMPTIONS
This restriction shall not apply to the following:
Passenger stages: The California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 35701(a) states that local ordinances may establish a maximum vehicle weight, but not with respect to a vehicle subject to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 1031 to 1036. These are passenger stages, which are defined in the PUC Sections 225 and 226. To travel on 110, the passenger stages must be certified by the PUC with approved routing that includes the Pasadena Freeway. However, the Pasadena Freeway would probably not be approved as there are convenient detours.
Pickups or deliveries: CVC Section 35703 states that commercial vehicles may make pickups or deliveries on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.
Public utilities: CVC Section 35704 states that vehicles owned by a public utility on streets restricted pursuant to Section 35701.
You're right. As originally envisioned the 710 gap was to be used to allow for a truck bypass around Downtown LA. Trucks from Long Beach Harbor can continue onto the 210 freeway.
This was one reason why La Canada Flintridge joined South Pasadena in opposing the project. Even though the proposed freeway does not pass near La Canada, they felt that more trucks would now use the 210 (through La Canada) to avoid the traffic on the 5.
Yet, as stated earlier, it would be nice to have any connection directly to the 210 in this area, for the automobiles at least.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/03/06/50226/busway-option-to-close-710-freeway-gap-would-cost/
Here we go again
Build the tunnel and send the bill to the NIMBY cities. Traffic must flow! They held things up so long that the cost went from the millions to the billions so they should be the ones to pay the piper.
Rick
It's to the point where I wonder if it would have been cheaper to just buy the ENTIRE city of South Pasadena?
The online EIS is huge and super-detailed, including the tunnel technical study. It was surely a massive effort preparing the report.
The bottom line is
"The total estimated cost of the Freeway Tunnel Alternative is approximately $5,650 million for the dual bore design variation and $3,150 million for the single bore design variation."
"The dual bore tunnel design variation is approximately 6.3 miles long, with approximately 4.2 miles of bored tunnel, 0.7 mile of cut and cover tunnel, and 1.4 miles of at-grade segments."
Last summer I speculated that the cost for the twin bore would be around $6 billion https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365.25 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365.25). I think the $5.65 billion estimate is quite reasonable considering that there is 4.9 miles of tunnel. I'm not in a position to say if it seems low, but if the $5.65 billion number does in fact hold steady without escalation, then maybe the project can be done. But it will take some serious political will to come up with the money.
^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...
Quote from: roadfro on March 07, 2015, 01:18:05 PM
^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...
It is correct as-is. Those are commas, not decimal points. I copied those sentences directly from the online EIS, which specified the cost as $5,650 million rather than $5.65 billion.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on March 07, 2015, 01:28:13 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 07, 2015, 01:18:05 PM
^ I think you meant "billion" instead of "million" in the bottom line sentence above...
It is correct as-is. Those are commas, not decimal points. I copied those sentences directly from the online EIS, which specified the cost as $5,650 million rather than $5.65 billion.
I stand corrected. Didn't see that before. (I am not a fan of that style of notation for this very reason :rolleyes:)
Quote from: nexus73 on March 06, 2015, 10:52:30 PM
Build the tunnel and send the bill to the NIMBY cities. Traffic must flow! They held things up so long that the cost went from the millions to the billions so they should be the ones to pay the piper.
Rick
Would it be a 3-mile tunnel??? WOW...what a project to do. I don't believe South Pasadena wants it and the 110 stops being a freeway in the southwest section of nearby Pasadena. What's interesting about the 110 (the Arroyo Seco from Pasadena to downtown L.A.) is believed to be the world's first modern freeway outside of Germany's autobahn project, that section of the 110 was completed around 1940.
Quote from: Mike D boy on March 08, 2015, 08:58:19 PM
What's interesting about the 110 (the Arroyo Seco from Pasadena to downtown L.A.) is believed to be the world's first modern freeway outside of Germany's autobahn project
No it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autostrada_A9_%28Italy%29
PS: NYC had a bunch of freeways before LA.
Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 16, 2015, 04:33:28 PM
Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?
Due to the potential high costs, I would be totally shocked if it ever got built, but it would be a welcome addition to the freeway.
Quote from: Henry on March 25, 2015, 12:52:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 16, 2015, 04:33:28 PM
Does anyone think the tunnel will ever be built? Or will it die like all the other extension proposals?
Due to the potential high costs, I would be totally shocked if it ever got built, but it would be a welcome addition to the freeway.
In that case, Los Angeles should just do what Phoenix did with the I-10 Papago Freeway and build I-710 over South Pasadena whether they like it or not. If they don't like it, too bad for them. It needs to happen.
707, to do that was precisely the reason the freeway revolts occurred. While I agree South Pasadena shouldn't have held up the process, just plowing them over is not the solution. Building the tunnel was and is the only way to complete the link.
In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects. You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.
Quote from: kkt on March 25, 2015, 05:36:21 PM
In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects. You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.
So how did ADOT finally build I-10 through Phoenix after 30 years of being pushed down? Did the city relent?
Quote from: 707 on March 25, 2015, 06:36:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 25, 2015, 05:36:21 PM
In the U.S., cities get veto power over projects. You can ask nicely, you can persuade, you can bargain, you can trick, but you can't dictate.
So how did ADOT finally build I-10 through Phoenix after 30 years of being pushed down? Did the city relent?
I'd be interested if anyone knows the answer.
They scaled back the design. The original plan was to have the freeway super-elevated with long curving ramps to enter and exit the freeway. The final design ended up being mostly below-grade except near the stack interchange with I-17.
More public meetings are coming on the 710 EIR. I found the last part of this article to be a fairly decent summary of where we are currently.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20150406/two-additional-meetings-added-for-710-freeway-extension-report
QuoteThe EIR/EIS looks at different ways to extend the 710 about 4.5 miles from where it ends at Valley Boulevard to connect with the 210 Freeway in Pasadena: a no-build option; a traffic management system that would upgrade streets and sync traffic signals at local intersections to move traffic more quickly; a dedicated busway with high-frequency service and few stops; a 7.5-mile light-rail line that would stretch from East Los Angeles to Pasadena; a 6.3-mile freeway tunnel, of which 4.2 miles would be completely underground.
Construction would take five years for the tunnel, six years for the light-rail system, the report estimates.
Currently, $780 million has been put aside for the 710 Freeway gap project from Measure R, a 2008 half-cent sales tax passed by voters.
On March 6, the 26,625-page draft EIR/EIS concluded that constructing a 6.3-mile freeway tunnel "would have the largest increase in freeway and arterial performance" of any alternative, but carries the highest price tag. At a price of $3.1 billion to $5.65 billion, the tunnel would cost more than a proposed light-rail line, estimated at $2.4 billion. Some argue the real cost a tunnel will end up closer to $10 billion. A tunnel would need private funding and would function as a toll road.
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 25, 2015, 07:54:29 PM
They scaled back the design. The original plan was to have the freeway super-elevated with long curving ramps to enter and exit the freeway. The final design ended up being mostly below-grade except near the stack interchange with I-17.
Yeah the original design was absurd. No wonder everyone opposed it! I think by the early 80's (disclaimer: I was born in November of 1985) traffic started getting pretty bad and the need for a freeway became pretty apparent. I would also guess that ADOT came up with the eventually-built plan of a tunnel with a part on top, and also a mass-transit station built into it to get people to relent.
https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/papago.html (https://www.arizonaroads.com/urban/papago.html)
Those heliocoils...
Quote from: Bickendan on April 08, 2015, 11:04:26 AM
Those heliocoils...
An elevated turbine interchange?
IIRC, 2 of them only 14 blocks apart.
Well I thought South Pasadena have had abandoned houses for some time. I know the trucking industry wants the CA-710 and I-710 gap closed so the trucks can drive through I-210 straight to CA-710 and I-710 without facing delays on the East LA interchange and the 405 freeway to Long Beach.
At one of the public forums on the project tunnel supporter and MTA Board member John Fasana said he would lean towards the one tunnel, no trucks option just to get something through and as a compromise to the no freeway people. I think a one tunnel, no trucks, HOT/congestion priced option would be financially feasible and alleviate existing traffic issues without inducing too much traffic.
Caltrans is now developing a process for selling houses located along the 710 freeway corridor now that the surface freeway option is no longer viable. A public meeting is scheduled this evening.
http://www.pasadenanow.com/main/caltrans-holds-hearing-monday-on-selling-surplus-pasadena-homes-in-710-corridor/#.VTW-nyFVhBc
QuoteCaltrans will host a public meeting Monday to get input on how it should go about selling surplus homes along the 710 Freeway corridor in Pasadena and South Pasadena, focusing on a new set of proposed regulations after the public reacted critically to its earlier guidelines.
The input will be used to finalize regulations governing the sale of 460 properties related to SR 710 projects in Pasadena, South Pasadena and El Sereno. These will be offered for sale in phases according to when they are declared surplus and consistent with state law.
53 local properties will be sold in the first phase of sales — nine homes in Pasadena, 38 in South Pasadena and six in Los Angeles.
Caltrans withdrew its original set of May 30, 2014 proposed surplus home sales regulations after the public reacted critically. The new regulations being discussed Monday are a draft set resubmitted for public scrutiny.
Quote from: fungus on April 11, 2015, 04:48:31 PM
At one of the public forums on the project tunnel supporter and MTA Board member John Fasana said he would lean towards the one tunnel, no trucks option just to get something through and as a compromise to the no freeway people. I think a one tunnel, no trucks, HOT/congestion priced option would be financially feasible and alleviate existing traffic issues without inducing too much traffic.
Interesting, I thought one of the major rationales for this project was truck traffic from the port area.
Quote from: flowmotion on April 23, 2015, 06:09:50 PM
Interesting, I thought one of the major rationales for this project was truck traffic from the port area.
I wonder if diverting enough of the commute/bypass car traffic along 210/710 will be helpful enough for the trucks that currently must go through the East Los Angeles Interchange.
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/massive-freeway-tunnel-los-angeles-710-freeway
QuoteThe 710 runs 23 miles north-south through the heart of the Los Angeles Basin, roughly paralleling the path of the Los Angeles River, from the port city of Long Beach to the inner suburb of Alhambra. There, the freeway abruptly stops, just past its interchange with the 10 Freeway, as if swallowed by a tar pit. Four-and-a-half miles to the north, the 210 freeway runs perpendicular to the 710's logical route, and heads eastward to connect Los Angeles County to the Inland Empire.
"The area is widely considered to have an incomplete transportation infrastructure," says Metro spokesperson Paul Gonzales. "This has persisted for about five decades."
A plan is now afoot to close the gap. In March, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), in cooperation with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), released an environmental impact report detailing alternatives for closing the gap. After years of bickering and speculation, the EIR was mandated by 2008's Measure R, a successful ballot measure that earmarked $780 million for the 710 corridor.
Of the report's five options – from a legally required "no-build" alternative to a light-rail line to a busway – the one that has arguably received the most popular support involves a freeway-sized tunnel running uninterrupted for 4.9 miles under South Pasadena at depths of over 100 feet. The largest version of the tunnel would feature two tubes, each with two levels of roadway.
It would, supporters say, mark the end of the freeway-building era.
QuoteThe dual-tunnel version of the project would, according to the EIR, have the greatest impacts on travel times. It would reduce daily rush hour traffic by 7,000 vehicle hours, or 2.5 percent less than current levels in the 710 corridor.
These potential benefits, say supporters, justify the expense of an estimated $5.6 billion tunnel. It is expected that some of the expense would be covered by tolls. But, while the tunnel would prevent the destruction of houses and other disruptions on the surface, civic leaders in and around South Pasadena remain firmly opposed. They say that a tunnel presents a whole new set of hazards, financial and otherwise.
Glendale City Council Member Ara Najarian, who also sits on Metro's 14-member board, says he fears the true cost of a tunnel could be more like $14 billion. And he said that the tunnel's impact on surface street traffic would be negligible.
South Pasadena Mayor Marina Khubesrian is the co-founder of the 5 Cities Alliance, which opposes the tunnel (that alliance is countered by the 710 Coalition, a group of surrounding cities that feel pinched by the gap). Khubesrian and other tunnel opponents have invoked such costly debacles as Boston's Big Dig, which went over $10 billion over-budget, and Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel, which grappled with a halted boring machine.
"We are concerned that (Metro and Caltrans) are still looking at a freeway as a solution in this day and age," says Khubesrian. "We see that as a backward investment rather than investing in the future of transportation with greener technologies."
Earlier this month, Pasadena City Council voted to oppose the tunnel and expressed support for a multimodal, public-transit-oriented plan.
Opponents taking the regional view are also encouraging Metro, which has ultimate say over the project, to consider the mass-transit alternatives and to encourage the completion of the Alameda Corridor East – an extension of a successful below-grade rail line from the ports – to handle cargo.
QuoteAnd [Ara Najarian] said that the tunnel's impact on surface street traffic would be negligible.
If the tunnel is running uninterrupted for 4.9 miles from Valley Blvd to present CA 710, well, duh, it won't impact surface street traffic much. It can't because it won't have interchanges; it's relieving I-5 instead. Way to miss the point, Councilor.
Maybe there will be no interchanges between the two portals since the fight for this freeway connection has gone on for decades, and it seems only Alhambra wants the extension built.
I'd suspect Long Beach and Los Angeles want it as well.
Long Beach, maybe. Los Angeles, maybe not.
In September 2012, the Los Angeles city council voted to opposed any extension option -- surface or tunnel.
Source: http://www.cahighways.org/466-740.html#710
With the draft EIR, more articles coming out about 710. Here's the link to the draft EIR: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/draft_eir-eis/
And now some articles, some of which appear slanted ...
http://www.pasadenanow.com/main/wpra-finds-caltrans-sr-710-draft-eir-to-be-grossly-inadequate/#.VdayZvlVhBc
QuoteThe California Department of Transportation's SR-710 North Study Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) misrepresents data in favor of the tunnel alternative and fails to address substantial environmental and community impacts, a Pasadena residents group said Friday.
These and other findings were delivered to Caltrans this week as part of the West Pasadena Residents' Association's formal comments on the DEIR. The comments have also been published online at www.wpra.net.
QuoteThese experts found inadequacies in almost all of the DEIR's sections, including growth, tunnel boring machine failure, land use, community impacts, traffic, transportation, air quality, noise, hydrology, water quality, geology, energy, and more.
The team found that, from its inception, the SR-710 Study environmental process has been improperly conducted in a manner to justify and sustain a decision already made: the freeway tunnel as the preferred alternative.
Caltrans and Metro's bias in favor of the tunnel continues in the DEIR with "the selection of the Study Area boundaries and alternatives, the bundling of options, the deferral or complete failure to address large environmental impacts for the tunnel alternative, data averaging, and the selective presentation and manipulation of data," Baum and WPRA vice president and 710 Team lead Sarah Gavit wrote in a letter to Caltrans.
The SR-710 Analysis of the Alternatives is also grossly deficient, the group said. For example, the SR-710 Study fails to consider a multimodal alternative, despite numerous community inputs to do so during the scoping process. This is egregious particularly in light of the 1999 injunction prohibiting a 710 surface freeway extension due to Caltrans' failure to consider a multimodal low build alternative. Remnants of historic 710 extension aspirations, these transportation and safety nightmares have divided and plagued these communities for more than a half century. Moreover, the Draft EIR/EIS proposes several tunnel alternative options that are not credible. This includes the "˜no truck' option, which is not enforceable either in the near term or future, and the single-bore tunnel option, which is not reasonable because it exceeds margins of safety and passes unacceptable fire and accident risks onto tunnel users.
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150813/aqmd-710-freeway-tunnel-would-raise-cancer-risk-to-unacceptable-levels
QuoteIn a detailed critique, the South Coast Air Quality Management District said the draft environmental impact report for the proposed 710 Freeway extension failed to estimate emissions of carbon monoxide and airborne particulates and that the tunnel project would raise the cancer risk to unacceptable levels.
The eight-page letter from Ian MacMillan, the anti-smog district's planning and rules manager, says the lack of basic air quality analysis renders the draft EIR useless to the agency or those deciding on a tunnel or other transit options.
QuoteNo analysis of a localized impact, also known as a hot spots study, was ever done, MacMillan wrote. For example, if the 4.5-mile gap from Alhambra to Pasadena is built underground as a tunnel, the study needed to determine the concentrations of nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide at portals and near ventilation stacks.
The letter points out that Caltrans is aware of hot spots studies since it is common practice among many government agencies and was conducted for the I-710 Corridor project EIR, just south of the 710 North extension project.
QuoteSouth Pasadena Councilwoman Marina Khubesrian said the district letter reaches many of the same conclusions as South Pasadena and other cities opposed to the freeway tunnel. She wants to see the air quality analysis revised.
"It would be the height of arrogance to not take the concerns of the AQMD seriously," she said.
Letter from AQMD:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/274519944/August-5-Letter-from-the-South-Coast-Air-Quality-Management-District
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2015/08/14/44122/another-bump-in-the-road-report-says-710-eir-doesn/
If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time. And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians
It seems very likely that the opposition will file another lawsuit against the project if/when a Record of Decision approving the tunnel is issued.
That could delay the project, depending on whether an injunction is issued to stop pre-construction activity, and also depending on when the funding would be available. In a best case scenario for a lawsuit, no injunction is issued and the lawsuit is dismissed before the earliest date construction could begin.
But it does seem like judges in the previous lawsuits have been very sympathetic to the opposition, ruling in favor of the opposition. If the opposition can convince a judge that the process was rigged in favor of the tunnel, then the whole environmental process could be declared invalid. And who knows if the project could survive another ruling against it.
I've always had a special interest in this project because on my first road trip ever as a 19-year-old in 1986, we camped in the Angeles National Forest in Altadena, just north of Loma Alta road. It was a nice campground, free and in a very scenic setting, although it did lack showers. Between 5 and 10 years ago (I don't remember exactly when I visited) the campsite was still there, although it could have been hit with wildfire since then. We stayed for about 10 days, and every day when we drove into L.A. or O.C. we had to deal with the lack of the freeway section, either taking the Pasadena Freeway into downtown or driving on the surface streets between I-210 and I-10. In fact, I still have vivid memories of driving on those surface streets, and of course you can never forget the Pasadena Freeway. I you asked me in 1986 if nothing would be changed in 29 years, I would have said "no way"....but we all know the rest of the story.
If it were up to me, I'd drop the plans immediately, because as much as I'd like to see I-710 completed in my lifetime, it seems less and less likely that it actually will. Just remake the disconnected northern section into a surface boulevard (a la CA 480/Embarcadero in San Francisco) and get it over with.
Quote from: Henry on August 24, 2015, 11:32:44 AM
If it were up to me, I'd drop the plans immediately, because as much as I'd like to see I-710 completed in my lifetime, it seems less and less likely that it actually will. Just remake the disconnected northern section into a surface boulevard (a la CA 480/Embarcadero in San Francisco) and get it over with.
Due to South Pasadena's opposition to any above-ground construction (and any construction at all) I don't think ANY surface road is going to happen on that route, period - which is why the tunnel option has been floated at all, despite its expense. (Embarcadero as a surface street existed both before and during the time 480 was present on SF's downtown waterfront.)
It appears that even the tunnel proposal is likely to be canceled. What is the solution, then? Do nothing?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 24, 2015, 06:42:34 PM
It appears that even the tunnel proposal is likely to be canceled. What's is the solution, then? Do nothing?
The NIMBYS favorite option is no-build. So yes, do nothing.
710 and the Embarcadero Freeway aren't really comparable. The Embarcadero Freeway (as built) was never more than a glorified off-ramp, a way to exit north of Market St. and save a mile on city streets. 710 would be a significant through route if completed. Would Pasadena kick in a sizable portion of the extra cost of a tunnel compared to a surface freeway?
Quote from: kendancy66 on August 23, 2015, 02:10:39 PM
If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time. And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians
Many years ago, my mother came up with this idea: Make every resident of South Pasadena have special license plates on their cars to indicate where they live, then prohibit these people by law from using any freeway in southern California, forcing them to use surface streets (with their signals, pedestrians, cyclists and other traffic-slowing entities) entirely. Period.
Quote from: hm insulators on September 12, 2015, 04:22:25 PM
Quote from: kendancy66 on August 23, 2015, 02:10:39 PM
If building a freeway is as bad as these people perceive it to be then these communities should be willing to pay to remove the rest of I-710 in Alhambra, Los Angeles, and the rest of the communities that did their share for the common good of the whole LA freeway system. Of course all these selfish bastards want to do is midigate until the end of time. And they get away with it because the are rich and are lining the pockets of well connected politicians
Many years ago, my mother came up with this idea: Make every resident of South Pasadena have special license plates on their cars to indicate where they live, then prohibit these people by law from using any freeway in southern California, forcing them to use surface streets (with their signals, pedestrians, cyclists and other traffic-slowing entities) entirely. Period.
I agree with this suggestion.
To have an effective transportation system, everyone must be on board for the pros and the cons. SPas people have no right to prohibit the freeway in their midst and then use other freeways. Especially, since the current iteration of a tunnel wouln't even result in the loss of anyone's home.
I like the personalized license plate idea, I mean were these people protesting the 105? Or the 5 when they got built.
They should sign the 710 as CA 710 on surface streets to connect the gap until the freeway actually gets built.
Or maybe Caltrans should have made sure they had all their permissions lined up for the whole proposed 710 route before building the sections south of Pasadena...
There needs to be a balance between the need for through freeway routes, and the rights of localities not to have any eyesore that someone far away dreams up rammed through.
Quote from: kkt on September 14, 2015, 12:48:40 PM
Or maybe Caltrans should have made sure they had all their permissions lined up for the whole proposed 710 route before building the sections south of Pasadena...
There needs to be a balance between the need for through freeway routes, and the rights of localities not to have any eyesore that someone far away dreams up rammed through.
CalTrans DID buy the properties on the right of way decades ago, in an age before the environmental impact statement was even dreamt of. Now that the tunnel seems to be the only option being pursued by them, that generally takes care of the "eyesore" part - should the route ever actually be completed.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 14, 2015, 02:45:28 PM
CalTrans DID buy the properties on the right of way decades ago, in an age before the environmental impact statement was even dreamt of. Now that the tunnel seems to be the only option being pursued by them, that generally takes care of the "eyesore" part - should the route ever actually be completed.
They bought the ROW but didn't get the city to sign off on it.
Yes, the tunnel might be an acceptable compromise.
Acceptable to those who want the gap completed yes. But I have a bad feeling the NIMBYs will prevail, and the gap will forever remain.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2015, 06:59:02 PM
Acceptable to those who want the gap completed yes. But I have a bad feeling the NIMBYs will prevail, and the gap will forever remain.
Yeah. This gap will be a thorn in LA's side. They never got their freeways done, for example the Glendale wasn't finished to US 101, and there was the planned Beverly Hills Freeway, canceled in the 70s and never built. It's either let the FHWA pester LA or just accept it cannot be done.
This gap was very frustrating when I lived in LA. It means that the 210 freeway is relatively isolated from the rest of the freeway network.
I've known that South Pasadena was a thorn in keeping this freeway from being completed, but I never understood why Caltrans could not build the freeway in the 1970's to at least Huntington Drive. Huntington Drive is much wider than Valley Blvd and would provide more surface street connections into Pasadena.
Oh well. At this point, it's a toll tunnel or nothing.
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20150913/epa-calls-710-tunnel-project-report-inadequate
QuoteAn environmental review of the completion of the so-called 710 Freeway gap between El Sereno/Alhambra and Pasadena has been called "inadequate" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The federal environmental agency said the 26,000-page document released by Caltrans in March does not assess whether a 6.3-mile tunnel extension would help or hinder air quality in the region, the smoggiest in the nation.
Specifically, in an Aug. 27 letter to Caltrans, the agency said more study is needed to determine if concentrated emission points, known as hot spots, would occur near the entrances to the proposed tunnel at the 10 Freeway near Valley Boulevard and at the 210/134 freeways interchanges in Pasadena.
The EPA said Caltrans has failed to provide to the public a thorough analysis of air emissions at the tunnel entrances or portals, something that can be studied and should be released to the public, wrote Jared Blumenfeld, EPA's regional administrator in a letter addressed to Carrie Bowen, director of Caltrans District 7, obtained by this newspaper.
Blumenfeld recommended Caltrans perform a separate, "focused supplemental" environmental impact study just on the tunnel emissions. The EPA said depending on the results, a design change in the tunnel project may be necessary in order to eliminate impacts on air quality. ...
Almost 10 years ago, Caltrans and Metro abandoned plans for a surface route and instead have proposed either a single-bore tunnel, with two lanes of traffic in each direction, or double-bore, twin tunnels with four lanes in each direction, as well as the other non-freeway alternatives such as a light-rail line, a dedicated busway, or transportation demand fixes. The Caltrans Environmental Impact Report concluded building a freeway tunnel would provide the greatest amount of traffic relief and the fewest impacts of the five alternatives studied.
The EPA letter said a 7.5-mile light-rail from East Los Angeles to Pasadena has the potential to disrupt the community, namely East Los Angeles, along the aerial portions. The EPA would like to see more analysis of those impacts related to tunneling for a light-rail system and said this portion of the report had "insufficient information."
EPA comments followed those from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which called the air pollution estimates into question and said the tunnel project would raise cancer risks to unacceptable levels.
So back to the drawing board ... we'll see what happens next.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 06, 2015, 12:33:47 AM
http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20150913/epa-calls-710-tunnel-project-report-inadequate
QuoteAn environmental review of the completion of the so-called 710 Freeway gap between El Sereno/Alhambra and Pasadena has been called "inadequate" by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The federal environmental agency said the 26,000-page document released by Caltrans in March does not assess whether a 6.3-mile tunnel extension would help or hinder air quality in the region, the smoggiest in the nation.
Specifically, in an Aug. 27 letter to Caltrans, the agency said more study is needed to determine if concentrated emission points, known as hot spots, would occur near the entrances to the proposed tunnel at the 10 Freeway near Valley Boulevard and at the 210/134 freeways interchanges in Pasadena.
The EPA said Caltrans has failed to provide to the public a thorough analysis of air emissions at the tunnel entrances or portals, something that can be studied and should be released to the public, wrote Jared Blumenfeld, EPA's regional administrator in a letter addressed to Carrie Bowen, director of Caltrans District 7, obtained by this newspaper.
Blumenfeld recommended Caltrans perform a separate, "focused supplemental" environmental impact study just on the tunnel emissions. The EPA said depending on the results, a design change in the tunnel project may be necessary in order to eliminate impacts on air quality. ...
Almost 10 years ago, Caltrans and Metro abandoned plans for a surface route and instead have proposed either a single-bore tunnel, with two lanes of traffic in each direction, or double-bore, twin tunnels with four lanes in each direction, as well as the other non-freeway alternatives such as a light-rail line, a dedicated busway, or transportation demand fixes. The Caltrans Environmental Impact Report concluded building a freeway tunnel would provide the greatest amount of traffic relief and the fewest impacts of the five alternatives studied.
The EPA letter said a 7.5-mile light-rail from East Los Angeles to Pasadena has the potential to disrupt the community, namely East Los Angeles, along the aerial portions. The EPA would like to see more analysis of those impacts related to tunneling for a light-rail system and said this portion of the report had "insufficient information."
EPA comments followed those from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which called the air pollution estimates into question and said the tunnel project would raise cancer risks to unacceptable levels.
So back to the drawing board ... we'll see what happens next.
Ehhh...this might not be good. South Pasadena still hates it.
Does this mean the tunnel is as good as dead?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2015, 03:24:53 PM
Does this mean the tunnel is as good as dead?
My personal opinion -- yes, it's dead. Despite the importance of having this tunnel to complete the network and to take traffic off of Valley, Fremont, and Fair Oaks, I cannot ever see the 710 gap being completed or even mitigated to any significant degree.
Quote from: mrsman on October 08, 2015, 12:12:00 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2015, 03:24:53 PM
Does this mean the tunnel is as good as dead?
My personal opinion -- yes, it's dead. Despite the importance of having this tunnel to complete the network and to take traffic off of Valley, Fremont, and Fair Oaks, I cannot ever see the 710 gap being completed or even mitigated to any significant degree.
After reading the news report, I don't think the tunnel option is dead. This is just a part of the environmental process, and this is the time to address these kinds of concerns to the EPA's satisfaction. It may turn out that the possible concentration of exhaust is not a problem, or it may turn out that remediation is needed.
Suppose that the EPA let the process proceed forward. Then the opposition could use this issue in a lawsuit to stop the project. If this concern is dealt with now, then it is one less issue that the opposition can use against the project in a probable lawsuit.
So I say the project is still alive. It faces a small bump, but getting over this bump will help ensure a smoother process ahead.
Continuing along with 710 gap news... tunneling operations for transit projects (along with the restart of Bertha for the 99 tunnel in Seattle) seem to be raising prospects among some (but not all!) of the long-delayed 710 gap closure project. And many question whether the scale of the transit projects really compares with the size and scope of the 710 project. All this and more at the following link:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20160312/will-metros-tunneling-under-los-angeles-spur-a-710-freeway-tunnel
QuoteWhen Bertha, a giant tunnel-boring machine, stalled and nearly caught fire beneath downtown Seattle, opponents of a similar tunnel proposed for the 710 Freeway between Alhambra and Pasadena would point to the drill's troubles and say if they can't do it there, they can't do it here.
But after a two-year delay, Bertha is back in business as of March 7, churning out a roadway tunnel that will replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct (SR-99), an old freeway with structural problems.
Besides Seattle's renewed tunneling success, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority this month placed its own machine, nicknamed Harriet, under Crenshaw Boulevard, where tunneling for three new underground rail stations will take place during the next 15 months. In addition, Metro will soon tunnel under Wilshire Boulevard at La Brea, Fairfax and La Cienega to complete the first section of the Purple Line subway extension, and will tunnel beneath downtown Los Angeles for the Regional Connector rail project between Little Tokyo and Bunker Hill.
All this digging beneath different neighborhoods of Los Angeles, plus the resurrection of Bertha in Seattle, has buoyed those in favor of extending the 710 Freeway underground for cars, possibly trucks, as part of a long-awaited extension from the freeway's end at Valley Boulevard in Alhambra, through El Sereno and South Pasadena to the 134/210 interchange in west Pasadena.
"Yes, its doable," said the leading 710 Freeway tunnel proponent, Alhambra Councilwoman Barbara Messina. "It was doable when they tunneled under the English Channel. Plus, look at all the subway tunnels (in L.A.) we've built successfully."
Metro's next three rail projects are tunnel-ready. In mid-Wilshire, the large transit agency is prepared to move forward no matter what the obstacles may be.
"We will be tunneling through the La Brea Tar Pits. Talk about complex," said Dave Sotero, Metro spokesman. "There you may have gassy grounds and oil deposits."
With the 710, two freeway tunnel options have been explored in a 26,000-page draft environmental impact report released in March 2015. Twin-bore tunnels would be excavated side by side – one northbound, one southbound – and each tunnel would have two levels, with two lanes of traffic per level, for a total of four lanes in each tunnel. A single-bore, double-decker tunnel would be one tunnel with two levels: northbound traffic would use the upper level and southbound traffic the lower level, amounting to two lanes in each direction for a total of four lanes.
Caltrans and Metro estimate the cost of the tunnels between $3.2 billion and $5.6 billion.
Alhambra is a leading force in the 710 Coalition, which calls for "closing the gap" of the freeway that starts in Long Beach and is considered the missing link in the 14 Southern California freeways. Caltrans first proposed the extension in 1959. Other cities in the group include San Marino, Monterey Park, Rosemead and San Gabriel. They say the congestion raises the level of air pollution in their cities and that a tunnel would ease gridlock and air pollution.
Opponents include the cities of South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge, Glendale, Sierra Madre and Pasadena, which say tunnels are unfeasible, dangerous, too costly and not a solution to local traffic. Two analyses, one by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and one by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, say the tunnel option would adversely affect air quality. The AQMD analysis says the tunnel would raise the cancer risk to unacceptable levels. The EPA said that a dual-bore tunnel carrying 180,000 vehicles a day would add to the load of PM2.5 particles, which are fine particles that can reach the lungs and cause disease.
With groups entrenched on both sides, neither the EIR nor the project itself has received approval from Metro or Caltrans. Some say the vote, expected this spring by the Metro board, will be postponed until after the November election.
But until then, can anti-710 groups still say tunnels are not possible?
Another entity has announced opposition to the 710 tunnel:
http://www.latimes.com/socal/glendale-news-press/news/tn-gnp-me-710tunnel-20160317-story.html
QuoteThe Glendale Unified School Board took an opposing stance to a potential tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway on Tuesday, siding with concerns from neighboring districts over possible adverse impacts to student health.
The unanimous vote by the local board is aimed at aligning Glendale Unified with the Pasadena, South Pasadena, Burbank and La Cañada school districts within a group called the 5-Star Education Coalition.
The collective will then vote to pass along its concerns to Gov. Jerry Brown's office in hopes the state government will intervene and compel Caltrans and Metro – the key principals on the potential tunnel project – to refine their proposal. The tunnel itself may end up being as long as 4.5 miles and would connect the 710 Freeway to Pasadena.
In the adopted resolution, Glendale Unified is challenging the findings of a draft environmental impact report conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2016, 11:23:16 PM
Another entity has announced opposition to the 710 tunnel:
http://www.latimes.com/socal/glendale-news-press/news/tn-gnp-me-710tunnel-20160317-story.html
QuoteThe Glendale Unified School Board took an opposing stance to a potential tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway on Tuesday, siding with concerns from neighboring districts over possible adverse impacts to student health.
The unanimous vote by the local board is aimed at aligning Glendale Unified with the Pasadena, South Pasadena, Burbank and La Cañada school districts within a group called the 5-Star Education Coalition.
The collective will then vote to pass along its concerns to Gov. Jerry Brown's office in hopes the state government will intervene and compel Caltrans and Metro – the key principals on the potential tunnel project – to refine their proposal. The tunnel itself may end up being as long as 4.5 miles and would connect the 710 Freeway to Pasadena.
In the adopted resolution, Glendale Unified is challenging the findings of a draft environmental impact report conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Why should anyone in Glendale care?
how would a tunnel hurt student's health? is this the best they could do?
LOL! Student health being compromised? Why couldn't a school district closer to where this is actually being built say that and maybe they could at least claim proximity for some sort of credibility.
I bet you a million dollars an idiot that's dumber than Glendale is able to make a better claim than this. How does a tunnel hurt anyone when it's finished? Physical conditions, please.
Quote from: emory on March 23, 2016, 03:00:23 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2016, 11:23:16 PM
Another entity has announced opposition to the 710 tunnel:
http://www.latimes.com/socal/glendale-news-press/news/tn-gnp-me-710tunnel-20160317-story.html
QuoteThe Glendale Unified School Board took an opposing stance to a potential tunnel extension of the Long Beach (710) Freeway on Tuesday, siding with concerns from neighboring districts over possible adverse impacts to student health.
The unanimous vote by the local board is aimed at aligning Glendale Unified with the Pasadena, South Pasadena, Burbank and La Cañada school districts within a group called the 5-Star Education Coalition.
The collective will then vote to pass along its concerns to Gov. Jerry Brown's office in hopes the state government will intervene and compel Caltrans and Metro – the key principals on the potential tunnel project – to refine their proposal. The tunnel itself may end up being as long as 4.5 miles and would connect the 710 Freeway to Pasadena.
In the adopted resolution, Glendale Unified is challenging the findings of a draft environmental impact report conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Why should anyone in Glendale care?
The saga of the 710 gap is one of 10 corridor cities vs. 210 corridor cities. It's clear that Alhambra is most pro-tunnel, since most of the traffic leaves the 710 and clogs up Valley and Fremont in Alhambra. But enough other people continue along 10 East to reach arterials like San Gabriel and Rosemead to eventually get to the 210. So some of those neighboring cities are pro-710. And it's clear that So Pas and Pasadena are anti-710, but if the tunnel is completed, it will dramatically increase traffic on the 210. A 710 tunnel will provide a direct shot to 210 west, a great bypass of the I-5 for those heading to the San Joaquin Valley. So this explains why Glendale and La Canada Flintridge are opposed. The 210 between San Fernando and Pasadena is one of the few freeways in So Cal that tends to move at speed, even during rush hours. If 210 is easier to get to with the completion of the 710, this stretch will begin to get crowded.
Quote from: noelbotevera on March 23, 2016, 06:33:19 PM
I bet you a million dollars an idiot that's dumber than Glendale is able to make a better claim than this. How does a tunnel hurt anyone when it's finished? Physical conditions, please.
Exactly! Harmful, my ass.
^ I'd speculate that the harm caused by a tunnel is related to potential tunnel ventilation. You have to vent the vehicle exhaust out of a tunnel like that. People living near the portals or other ventilation sites may be concerned with air quality emanating from the vent system, as the amount of particulate matter in the air would be much more concentrated near the vent exhaust points than compared to an open air freeway.
Or maybe "student health" is just another excuse to keep the gap unfilled.
Meanwhile, Glendale wants to put a lid on the 134. Seems like the school district wants to have its cake and eat it too...
Quote from: roadfro on March 24, 2016, 03:59:51 PM
^ I'd speculate that the harm caused by a tunnel is related to potential tunnel ventilation. You have to vent the vehicle exhaust out of a tunnel like that. People living near the portals or other ventilation sites may be concerned with air quality emanating from the vent system, as the amount of particulate matter in the air would be much more concentrated near the vent exhaust points than compared to an open air freeway.
They're in the middle of the most polluted air in North America, and suddenly putting some cars under the ground is going to kill the children?
Quote from: Sonic99 on March 25, 2016, 02:30:25 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 24, 2016, 03:59:51 PM
^ I'd speculate that the harm caused by a tunnel is related to potential tunnel ventilation. You have to vent the vehicle exhaust out of a tunnel like that. People living near the portals or other ventilation sites may be concerned with air quality emanating from the vent system, as the amount of particulate matter in the air would be much more concentrated near the vent exhaust points than compared to an open air freeway.
They're in the middle of the most polluted air in North America, and suddenly putting some cars under the ground is going to kill the children?
Exactly. Nothing's gonna change. It's the same traffic, but being moved underground. Literally, the only thing that would change would be less cars on the streets of South Pasadena and no surface freeway disturbing their little town. I mean seriously, isn't that supposed to be a good thing? You'd think residents would like the idea of the traffic going somewhere where it won't disturb them or their communities, but noooooooo. Instead, this hippies have to complain like always and spread further unbelievable b******t. Even if you tore up all the roads in the world and made humans go back to living in caves, they'd still complain and whine.
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
Wow. That's just selfish of La Canada. South Pasadena should just stop complaining. They won't get the freeway bulldozing their town and they'll hardly notice a thing since the construction and freeway will be 40 feet under ground.
Quote from: 707 on April 17, 2016, 11:21:12 PM
Wow. That's just selfish of La Canada. South Pasadena should just stop complaining. They won't get the freeway bulldozing their town and they'll hardly notice a thing since the construction and freeway will be 40 feet under ground.
Even if the freeway was buried 100 feet underground, South Pasadena would still bitch about it.
Maybe it's a good thing there will be no exits between the two portals of the tunnel. Drivers can just drive under the whining NIMBYs.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.
Quote from: emory on April 20, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.
The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2016, 02:53:49 PM
Maybe it's a good thing there will be no exits between the two portals of the tunnel. Drivers can just drive under the whining NIMBYs.
There you go!
Quote from: Bickendan on April 21, 2016, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: emory on April 20, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.
The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.
I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.
Quote from: emory on April 27, 2016, 05:19:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 21, 2016, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: emory on April 20, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.
The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.
I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.
And don't forget that Caltrans is doing everything in their power to remove the freeway names from our consciousness. So we will simply have 210/710 as opposed to Foothill Fwy, Ventura Fwy, Long Beach Fwy.
I agree on renumbering the 134 as part of the 210. It helps with the continuity of having a nearly perfect E-W freeway along this latitude from US 101 to I-215. (I have similarly proposed having CA-60 take over the numbering on the Santa Monica Fwy for similar reasons.)
But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Quote from: mrsman on April 28, 2016, 08:19:33 AM
Quote from: emory on April 27, 2016, 05:19:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 21, 2016, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: emory on April 20, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2016, 05:08:29 PM
Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview
I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.
The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.
I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.
And don't forget that Caltrans is doing everything in their power to remove the freeway names from our consciousness. So we will simply have 210/710 as opposed to Foothill Fwy, Ventura Fwy, Long Beach Fwy.
I agree on renumbering the 134 as part of the 210. It helps with the continuity of having a nearly perfect E-W freeway along this latitude from US 101 to I-215. (I have similarly proposed having CA-60 take over the numbering on the Santa Monica Fwy for similar reasons.)
But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.
The signs on I-5 heading north from Los Angeles recently got changed and CA 2 and CA 134 are still bearing their respective Glendale Freeway and Ventura Freeway names on the new overhead signs.
Quote from: emory on April 29, 2016, 05:05:04 AM
What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.
I think what's being meant here is that 710 is primarily a north-south route for the Long Beach Freeway's entirety (including the still-proposed tunnel).
(Since you brought up the Glendale Freeway, IIRC Route 2 is signed north-south there but east-west on all other segments, as a comparison to the hypothetical 710/210 example being discussed.)
Quote from: TheStranger on April 29, 2016, 12:50:30 PM
Quote from: emory on April 29, 2016, 05:05:04 AM
What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.
I think what's being meant here is that 710 is primarily a north-south route for the Long Beach Freeway's entirety (including the still-proposed tunnel).
(Since you brought up the Glendale Freeway, IIRC Route 2 is signed north-south there but east-west on all other segments, as a comparison to the hypothetical 710/210 example being discussed.)
What I meant to say was that it is inherently confusing to sign 710, which is primarily north-south, along a corridor that is primarily east-west. If you sign 710 as north-south over the western Foothill, then the cardinal direction doesn't match the compass direction very well. Yes, there are other corridors that do this (US 101 along the Ventura Fwy) but why introduce more confusion.
It is also inherently confusing to sign 710 along the western Foothill as east-west when the 710 itself is known as a north-south freeway. Yes it is done in some instances, especially with regard to Beltways, but it is probably less confusing if the western Foothill had a highway number that is not the same as the Long Beach Fwy.
With regard to the "2" designation, had the Beverly Hills Freeway gone through, I believe the entire stretch of "2" from Santa Monica into the Mountains would be east-west. The Glendale Freeway would be analogous to the 101 Ventura Freeway. But since the existing stretch are really different segments: a north-south freeway and an east-west mountain 2-lane road, there is no confusion in the change in cardnial direction.
And it is even easier as the portions along US 101 and Santa Monica Blvd get decomissioned.
The Interstate 710/California 710 Long Beach Freeway 6.2 mile extension?
I think the process is being slowed down of having the extension of the Long Beach Freeway with its planned tunnels from Alhambra at Valley Blvd to Pasadena from Caltrans. Many people do not want this freeway to go underground, when it is the best way to handle the needed traffic through stop and go traffic signals through the corridor. I support this plan, as of now and it would take traffic off the Interstate 10/Interstate 5/California state route 2/California state route 134. The San Bernardino Freeway-Golden State Freeway-Glendale Freeway-Ventura Freeway to Pasadena.
Does anyone know about this project and want to give their content and commentary of this much needed freeway project that has been delayed for almost 50 years?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
See http://cahighways.org/466-740.html#710 for loads of info.
The gap in I-710 has been widely discussed here...
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365.0
The extension is likely to be scrapped. Too many people oppose it. Once the tunnel is canceled, I hope when tunnel opponents bitch about there being too much congestion, someone tells them this is what they wanted.
Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped. Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
I am very much a proponent of building the 710 extension as a tunnel. I'd be very surprised if it actually is constructed, though.
Sure wish the original surface option was not scrapped...even better if it was actually built
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 05, 2016, 07:12:40 PM
Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped. Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
A direct connection to the 2 would be pointless. There is hardly any traffic on that freeway, except for the jam at the southern terminus of the Glendale. Any traffic that would need to go that way could take the San Bernardino (10) to the 5 or 101. The better route would still be taking it all the way to the 210, finally giving that freeway some purpose.
Quote from: Exit58 on July 19, 2016, 10:34:22 PM
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 05, 2016, 07:12:40 PM
Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped. Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
A direct connection to the 2 would be pointless. There is hardly any traffic on that freeway, except for the jam at the southern terminus of the Glendale. Any traffic that would need to go that way could take the San Bernardino (10) to the 5 or 101. The better route would still be taking it all the way to the 210, finally giving that freeway some purpose.
adding this link would take pressure off i-5, 10 and us 101
OK -- let's assume the 710 extension is built (tunnels, surface, whatever) and it, as planned, distributes its traffic flow at the 210/134 interchange. Where do you think the bulk of rush-hour (locally, between 2:30 and 7:30 p.m.) traffic will go? If you said it would make a hard right onto east I-210 toward Arcadia, Azusa, and beyond you, as Don Rickles was prone to say, get a cookie! I'm certain posters who are residing in or are at least familiar with the area would be concerned about dumping several thousand extra cars & trucks on 210 east in the late afternoon; it's miserable enough currently -- and capacity expansion along this section of 210 would be next to impossible. The only thing that would partially mitigate this would be to install metering lights on the ramp from 710 north to 210 east (which would probably be done in any instance) -- but that would likely back the 710 traffic up into the tunnels (if that were the methodology adopted), requiring an exhaust-evacuation system of extraordinarily high capacity, not to mention an equally high level of expenditure.
IMHO -- regardless of how 710 is to be extended, the implications of the very existence of that corridor in that location, given its potential to impact an area far beyond its own alignment, require a reconsideration of the project as a whole.
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205)
205 actually fits the system in a strange way: while it is no loop route, both ends (580 & 5) are Interstates! So the even first digit still works in that setup.
California and Illinois are the two states I know that have never minded using an odd first digit for a spur route that connects two different interstates, thus I-505 here and I-355 over there (I-394 in Minnesota is another example). I-580 used to qualify for that until it was extended west to US 101 in the 1980s. (I think you've mentioned that I-980 came into existence when the Nimitz Freeway was still Route 17; only when I-880 was added about 3-4 years later afterwards was when 980 ended up with both ends at Interstate routes).
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Of course, the answer would be to number our highways in Hex, but then that's the compusaur in me talking. I think I'll just take the C05 home now :-)
Quote from: sparker on July 20, 2016, 12:59:31 PM
OK -- let's assume the 710 extension is built (tunnels, surface, whatever) and it, as planned, distributes its traffic flow at the 210/134 interchange. Where do you think the bulk of rush-hour (locally, between 2:30 and 7:30 p.m.) traffic will go? If you said it would make a hard right onto east I-210 toward Arcadia, Azusa, and beyond you, as Don Rickles was prone to say, get a cookie! I'm certain posters who are residing in or are at least familiar with the area would be concerned about dumping several thousand extra cars & trucks on 210 east in the late afternoon; it's miserable enough currently -- and capacity expansion along this section of 210 would be next to impossible. The only thing that would partially mitigate this would be to install metering lights on the ramp from 710 north to 210 east (which would probably be done in any instance) -- but that would likely back the 710 traffic up into the tunnels (if that were the methodology adopted), requiring an exhaust-evacuation system of extraordinarily high capacity, not to mention an equally high level of expenditure.
IMHO -- regardless of how 710 is to be extended, the implications of the very existence of that corridor in that location, given its potential to impact an area far beyond its own alignment, require a reconsideration of the project as a whole.
Any traffic heading for the 210 East currently clogs up the 605 North during rush hour; the 605-210 interchange is such a massive cluster that it's frequently faster to take surface streets. The 710 extension would possibly relieve some of this congestion, but not by much.
The primary purpose of the 710 would be to serve as a bypass of the East L.A. interchange, particularly for truck traffic coming from the ports. As such the current freeway most likely to be negatively affected is actually the 210 West, which is why the foothill communities like La Canada Flintridge are so opposed to the project. The stretch of the 210 between the 134 interchange and the 5 freeway has one of the lightest rush-hour traffic volumes in the area, and the locals want to keep it that way.
All well and good -- a 710 completion would have the potential to draw north-south truck traffic to and from the ports away from I-5 by simply using the 710/210 combination as a bypass, thus potentially disturbing those folks in La Canada/Flintridge, La Crescenta, and Montrose who have come to see that portion of 210 as more or less undisturbed (folks, I'm originally from Glendale, and can remember the locals' fight about the freeway segment through La Canada that resulted in the I-210 "tunnel" under Foothill Blvd. just east of the CA 2 interchange -- one of my college girlfriends' father was the lead District 7 PE on that design project!). Foothill folks don't want their bucolic existence disturbed!
But that isn't my concern here -- an extended I-710 will be considered by regional commuters to be just another N-S link between the northern/I-210 & central/I-10 primary E-W corridors serving such traffic (CA 60 being the southern San Gabriel-Pomona-Ontario corridor). As such, it will dump afternoon rush-hour traffic onto an already congested 210, which tends to come to a standstill while still in eastern Pasadena; it still has to traverse Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, and Duarte before intersecting I-605; presently, that whole section is at best a crawl eastbound after 2:30 p.m. The saving grace has been that the through freeway route into Pasadena from central L.A. has involved a multiple-facility routing north on I-5, northeast on CA 2, and then east on CA 134 before merging with I-210 from the northwest. The fact that it's a bit out of the way -- and utilizes other freeways with their own congestion base -- has made it a suboptimal option, which has kept I-210 immediately east of Pasadena no worse than it already is in terms of congestion. Commuter traffic terminating in Arcadia, Monrovia, and that immediate area is as likely to use I-605 north and then turn west on I-210 (rush-hour contraflow) to get to their destination -- and while it's no picnic, it at least is a workable concept -- much more than adding additional thousands of vehicles onto 210 east in central Pasadena.
Honestly, there is nothing you can do to make LA's traffic acceptable. To many cars, not enough lanes. Making it a walkable city years ago could have helped, but honestly there's no amount of walkability that would fix traffic in a city this size with at least 5 million people in the metro area. Best to grin and bear it. Can anyone in the area comment on the public transit? Does LA have a subway system? Or at least a bus system? I haven't heard good things about their public transit in general.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
Making it a walkable city years ago could have helped, but honestly there's no amount of walkability that would fix traffic in a city this size with at least 5 million people in the metro area.
Downtown is pretty walkable...but the suburban reach is much more vast than almost anywhere in the US (save maybe Chicago and New York). To put it in perspective, while the city limits are a little bonkers south of the USC/Memorial Stadium area, you could theoretically go from one end of the city (San Pedro) to another (Sylmar) in the same distance that it takes to get from San Jose to San Francisco, approximately 40 miles.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 08:28:48 AM
Does LA have a subway system? Or at least a bus system? I haven't heard good things about their public transit in general.
LA has a pretty extensive bus and light rail system (though the light rail does not reach the airport and likely won't for years to come, with a station a mile or two away) that connects Pasadena, South Central LA, Long Beach, Norwalk, Culver City and East LA...and a smaller subway system that primarily serves downtown and Hollywood (with one planned extension).
http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2016-0520.gif
http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/rail_map.gif
QuoteBut that isn't my concern here -- an extended I-710 will be considered by regional commuters to be just another N-S link between the northern/I-210 & central/I-10 primary E-W corridors serving such traffic (CA 60 being the southern San Gabriel-Pomona-Ontario corridor). As such, it will dump afternoon rush-hour traffic onto an already congested 210, which tends to come to a standstill while still in eastern Pasadena; it still has to traverse Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, and Duarte before intersecting I-605; presently, that whole section is at best a crawl eastbound after 2:30 p.m. The saving grace has been that the through freeway route into Pasadena from central L.A. has involved a multiple-facility routing north on I-5, northeast on CA 2, and then east on CA 134 before merging with I-210 from the northwest. The fact that it's a bit out of the way -- and utilizes other freeways with their own congestion base -- has made it a suboptimal option, which has kept I-210 immediately east of Pasadena no worse than it already is in terms of congestion. Commuter traffic terminating in Arcadia, Monrovia, and that immediate area is as likely to use I-605 north and then turn west on I-210 (rush-hour contraflow) to get to their destination -- and while it's no picnic, it at least is a workable concept -- much more than adding additional thousands of vehicles onto 210 east in central Pasadena.
Well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I do drive in L.A. almost daily, and personally I don't see a reason why a 710 N to 210 E connection would be as popular as you claim it will be. Any traffic going further east than Duarte will still be taking the 605 N because it's a shorter, more direct route. 605 N to 210 W would still be a faster option to Arcadia and Monrovia, so why would anyone opt to jump into the 210 E slog through Pasadena instead? Besides with rush hour traffic being what it is you can't really make anything that much worse.
QuoteCan anyone in the area comment on the public transit? Does LA have a subway system? Or at least a bus system? I haven't heard good things about their public transit in general.
Public transit is one of those things that's mocked by know-nothings that have never been here. We have an extensive system of buses, BRT, commuter (heavy) rail, light rail, and subways. L.A. actually has the second-most popular light rail system in the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_light_rail_systems_by_ridership), and that's not counting the recent expansions that opened earlier this year. In addition there are two subway expansions and a light rail line to LAX under construction right now, and more projects are in the works. The region's biggest challenge isn't so much the car culture as it is the physical size of the city. It's hard to effectively connect such a sprawling metropolis, even harder when you consider the natural (mountains) and political (NIMBYs) barriers that have to be overcome.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 05, 2016, 06:07:36 PM
The extension is likely to be scrapped. Too many people oppose it. Once the tunnel is canceled, I hope when tunnel opponents bitch about there being too much congestion, someone tells them this is what they wanted.
Hear, hear! :clap:
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2016, 04:59:31 AM
All well and good -- a 710 completion would have the potential to draw north-south truck traffic to and from the ports away from I-5 by simply using the 710/210 combination as a bypass, thus potentially disturbing those folks in La Canada/Flintridge, La Crescenta, and Montrose who have come to see that portion of 210 as more or less undisturbed (folks, I'm originally from Glendale, and can remember the locals' fight about the freeway segment through La Canada that resulted in the I-210 "tunnel" under Foothill Blvd. just east of the CA 2 interchange -- one of my college girlfriends' father was the lead District 7 PE on that design project!). Foothill folks don't want their bucolic existence disturbed!
But that isn't my concern here -- an extended I-710 will be considered by regional commuters to be just another N-S link between the northern/I-210 & central/I-10 primary E-W corridors serving such traffic (CA 60 being the southern San Gabriel-Pomona-Ontario corridor). As such, it will dump afternoon rush-hour traffic onto an already congested 210, which tends to come to a standstill while still in eastern Pasadena; it still has to traverse Sierra Madre, Arcadia, Monrovia, and Duarte before intersecting I-605; presently, that whole section is at best a crawl eastbound after 2:30 p.m. The saving grace has been that the through freeway route into Pasadena from central L.A. has involved a multiple-facility routing north on I-5, northeast on CA 2, and then east on CA 134 before merging with I-210 from the northwest. The fact that it's a bit out of the way -- and utilizes other freeways with their own congestion base -- has made it a suboptimal option, which has kept I-210 immediately east of Pasadena no worse than it already is in terms of congestion. Commuter traffic terminating in Arcadia, Monrovia, and that immediate area is as likely to use I-605 north and then turn west on I-210 (rush-hour contraflow) to get to their destination -- and while it's no picnic, it at least is a workable concept -- much more than adding additional thousands of vehicles onto 210 east in central Pasadena.
Sparker, I grew up in La Canada and remember the 210 being built.
While the 710 extension to 210 may not be perfect, I still believe it is a needed link in the Los Angeles freeway system.
We could all go back & forth about this ad infinitum -- but the truth of the matter is that the L.A. area is expanding faster than any facility -- or combination of different types of facilities -- can address. Period. Any attempt to alleviate the situation, be it a 710 extension, more LR, added or expanded Metrolink service, even adding bus lines -- will be a mere Band-Aid as regards the overall situation. It's like chasing a ball downhill -- with an ever-steepening slope! I'm in favor of whatever works and makes some kind of difference; but I'll always call 'em as I see 'em!
That being said, I am looking forward to exploring the Gold Line extension out to Azusa during my next visit. When I left SoCal 4 years ago, there were long-range plans for a further extension -- ultimately out to Ontario Airport. The last news I heard was that the next segment was going to terminate at the Metrolink station in either north Pomona or Montclair. Anyone out there have an update on the status of any of these extension proposals?
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is that documented or is it a hunch?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 21, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is that documented or is it a hunch?
My own hunch on the matter.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Thank you for the response. That makes sense.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2016, 12:01:33 PM
though the light rail does not reach the airport and likely won't for years to come, with a station a mile or two away
What about the "Aviation/LAX Station"? I mean, it's just as far as the car rental offices and there's a free bus to it from the terminals. Obviously it's not ideal to have to change trains in Watts to reach Downtown, but it's still a connection. And the Crenshaw Line is theoretically just a couple of years off. I went by there in April and they had made a lot of progress on it.
What's interesting is that there's a connecting track at Watts between the Blue and Green lines -- but it's only used for movement of equipment off the Green Line for maintenance -- the cars on the other lines are incompatible with those on the Green Line (IIRC, because of different station platform clearance standards).
Quote from: coatimundi on July 24, 2016, 02:33:11 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 21, 2016, 12:01:33 PM
though the light rail does not reach the airport and likely won't for years to come, with a station a mile or two away
What about the "Aviation/LAX Station"? I mean, it's just as far as the car rental offices and there's a free bus to it from the terminals. Obviously it's not ideal to have to change trains in Watts to reach Downtown, but it's still a connection. And the Crenshaw Line is theoretically just a couple of years off. I went by there in April and they had made a lot of progress on it.
A lot of people think you want light rail to the airport, and by that they mean "to the terminals directly". You don't; you want to do what LA is doing. Here's the explanation I heard. If you are going to the terminals directly, you are stopping at each terminal, and drastically slowing the overall speed of that light rail line to its other points.
What LA is doing is similar to New York (and, IIRC, Chicago). Light rail to a single terminal near the airport, and then some form of Shuttle (in the case of LA, it will be a separate rail line that services both the terminals and a consolidated car rental station).
The LAX/Aviation station is good (I pass by it every day), but people forget about the G shuttle. It's also a pain if you are on the Red Line -- you have to do that Red to Blue to Green dance. For me, I take the Flyaway.
While it might look good on a map, the cost of connecting I-710 to I-210 would be so horribly expensive there wouldn't be enough benefit to justify the sky high price. Building tunnels would probably be the only practical approach to avoid demolishing many dozens of properties. But a tunnel project like that could cost several billion dollars, maybe even $10 billion. And that would be a massive tunnel project in an earthquake prone area.
Quote from: TheStrangerDowntown is pretty walkable...but the suburban reach is much more vast than almost anywhere in the US (save maybe Chicago and New York). To put it in perspective, while the city limits are a little bonkers south of the USC/Memorial Stadium area, you could theoretically go from one end of the city (San Pedro) to another (Sylmar) in the same distance that it takes to get from San Jose to San Francisco, approximately 40 miles.
The Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston metro areas both cover a hell of a lot of area. The far reaches of DFW run about 80 miles West to East and over 60 miles South to North. It can easily take over an hour to cross that even late at night when traffic is light.
Even in some "smaller" sprawling cities, like Oklahoma City, there is just too much physical area for mass transit and walk-ability to cover every neighborhood. Plus one needs enough potential passengers to make anything like a light rail line cost effective. I think it's downright absurd just how expensive light rail lines can be. It's easy for a modest project to cost over a billion dollars. Bus lines are far less expensive, but who really enjoys taking the bus? It can be kind of ghetto in some respects.
Oklahoma City has been doing a great job improving its downtown core. It's taking a much longer time to make other areas more walkable. ODOT and suburb city councils have been making stupid, short-sighted mistakes in regional planning for things future highway expansion needs. Texas is pretty good at doing that and the Houston and Dallas areas both have growing light rail systems too.
Quote from: cahwyguyWhat LA is doing is similar to New York (and, IIRC, Chicago). Light rail to a single terminal near the airport, and then some form of Shuttle (in the case of LA, it will be a separate rail line that services both the terminals and a consolidated car rental station).
Dallas has a similar setup. The DART light rail line going to DFW ends at terminal B. There is a separate rail system that goes around the DFW terminals and parking areas.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 24, 2016, 11:57:00 AM
The LAX/Aviation station is good (I pass by it every day), but people forget about the G shuttle. It's also a pain if you are on the Red Line -- you have to do that Red to Blue to Green dance. For me, I take the Flyaway.
That dance is problematic, and I never recommend people try that. If they're coming from LAX and going Downtown, I just suggest the Flyaway.
Both Midway and O'Hare airports have the single stop. Actually, most airports do: Washington Reagan, BWI, ATL, Cleveland (which, btw, was the first airport in the US to have a direct rail transit connection), Newark, PHX, SFO, OAK, San Jose, Seattle, etc. The only one I can think of that has the actual light rail line stop at each terminal is MSP, but they only have two terminals. I'm fairly certain that, when I rode it, it only went to one of the terminals, but that was years ago and I could be wrong.
Dallas Love also has an "airport stop," but it's a couple of miles away. However, you get a free transfer between the bus and the light rail. But that bus is a pain. I rode it to get Downtown a few months ago and it took a really long time. Once you start requiring bus transfers, then it becomes a much less attractive option. I've had several problems at San Jose, and I've written VTA each time trying to get them to not see it as a regular bus service but, rather, an airport connector, as it's supposed to be. I think that, if this bus (and all of these buses) operated more as an airport shuttle, they would have more success.
But, oh goodness, this is quite off topic. To get it back: I noticed that they had "light rail alternatives" in the 710 alternatives document. Seems like they should build both a freeway and a light rail, the latter to connect the two Gold Line segments. Though that may be more useful farther east.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 07:48:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 21, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is that documented or is it a hunch?
My own hunch on the matter.
Well, how do you explain the 4-digit state routes that exist in KY, LA and (as secondary routes) VA?
Quote from: Henry on July 28, 2016, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 07:48:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 21, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is that documented or is it a hunch?
My own hunch on the matter.
Well, how do you explain the 4-digit state routes that exist in KY, LA and (as secondary routes) VA?
That's state not federal, but I'm not saying it's impossible or not a good idea, just a hunch. I guess you could argue H-201 is sort of a 4 digit highway. What should the rules be on a federal 4 digit route? Curious for others ideas
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 28, 2016, 07:23:13 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 28, 2016, 07:15:23 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 07:48:41 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 21, 2016, 07:46:16 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 20, 2016, 08:10:11 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 20, 2016, 04:45:21 PM
Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:
QuoteBut it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill. This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number. It needs a new number.
Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.
And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.
(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)
There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html
This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is that documented or is it a hunch?
My own hunch on the matter.
Well, how do you explain the 4-digit state routes that exist in KY, LA and (as secondary routes) VA?
That's state not federal, but I'm not saying it's impossible or not a good idea, just a hunch. I guess you could argue H-201 is sort of a 4 digit highway. What should the rules be on a federal 4 digit route? Curious for others ideas
I guess you're right.
There are no 4-digit US Highways or 4-digit Interstate Highways (Except possibly Interstate H-201). There's no reason to start bringing them into existence now!
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 20, 2016, 08:42:58 PM
4 digits are not allowed and shouldn't ever be really, a 4 digit highway implies that it is a child route of a 3 digit route which isn't necessary
Is there a written law or policy against 4-digit interstate numbers? I didn't think there was.
There isn't, so 238 could have theoretically been 1880 or 1580 (a spur child of either 880 or 580), but this is more a system pf precedence and not of codified rules. There's a reason it doesn't exist elsewhere: because it doesn't exist elsewhere.
The precedent/preference unwritten "rule" also explains why there has never been, despite several northern-tier/border plans in NY, Maine, and elsewhere, any attempt to propose or plan an "Interstate 100"; the number suggested for such proposals has inevitably been one of the two not yet commissioned (92,98) or a 2nd section of another 90-series even number. Since that number never occurred within the U.S. highway lexicon -- and, technically, it is composed of 3 digits -- it's not likely to be utilized for any future concepts either. And to cite an exception that proves the rule, the inverse has occurred with "101"; the longstanding presence of the West Coast-hugging US route (as the natural terminating extension of the E-W odd-number progression) has prompted a number of proposals to utilize that number as an Atlantic Coast-based proposed route; most notably (via the 1997 "Roads & Bridges" article proposing several Interstate corridors nationwide) along the Delmarva peninsula, using the DE 1 toll facility and the CBBT.
There may not be a rule against 4-digit Interstate Highways, but I stand by my comment. It may have just been my personal opinion, but I find it perfectly logical.
The most rational argument against 4-digit Interstates is the fact that except for I-5 in CA (and 705 has yet to be commissioned within that state!) and I-90 in NY, no other state has even come close to exhausting the 3-digit litany for any Interstate route within. The argument essentially comes down to a heuristic debate over the aesthetics of a 4-digit shield or whether AASHTO and/or FHWA would consider a 4-digit designation. This might deserve its own fictional thread, but is, IMO, an unnecessary divergence from other thread topics.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2016, 08:16:33 PM
The most rational argument against 4-digit Interstates is the fact that except for I-5 in CA (and 705 has yet to be commissioned within that state!) and I-90 in NY, no other state has even come close to exhausting the 3-digit litany for any Interstate route within.
There's I-80 in California that has used up I-280 to I-980 (if we count the former I-480), but that's only because of the state's unwillingness to renumber 1934-present Route 180 (which fascinates me because in 1964, state routes 5, 15, and 8 all got renumbered right away - and 1934 Route 10 became Route 42 in the late 1950s as I-10 became the working number for the Santa Monica Freeway).
Figured that the missing 180 & 480 (the latter which, IMO, could be re-used outside SF itself) put I-80 in CA into the "not-quite-full-house" category, regardless of rationale for non-use. However, I missed an obvious one: I-95 in Maryland -- except for the non-existent I-995, all other auxiliaries are present and accounted for (including the hidden I-595).
Back to the 710 Long Beach Freeway Gap, as much as I'd personally like it to be built, I'm still not optimistic about its chances (too much opposition and NIMBYism, even though it will mostly be a tunnel).
Many of the homes in South Pasadena are older "California Bungalow" frame types, seated on minimal cinderblock foundations (my early childhood was spent in one of these) or, even more fragile, unreinforced adobe construction. FWIH from a family friend who's a local there, many older residents are worried that vibrations from tunneling will damage their homes -- to the point of being uninhabitable. Whether that is actually the case is a moot point; the perception of harm to both individual houses and the town's housing stock in the aggregate sense is pervasive in that community -- well past the point where any PR campaign can sway opinion.
Oddly enough neither the pro- or anti-tunnel groups seem to have a reasonable solution to dealing with the freight traffic coming from the port of Long Beach. Passenger traffic can easily be distributed through mass transit (like a north-south light rail), but all the trucks will still be jamming the 60 east to the Inland Empire distribution centers or the East L.A. Interchange for points north.
I can sum up their likely attitudes towards freight in four words: IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!
If indeed the I-710 extension is ever completed as (variously) planned, commercial drivers planning on utilizing that route to gain access to westbound I-210 as an alternative to the ever-jammed I-5 corridor will have a rude awakening -- particularly semis hauling heavy containers -- when they get up to the La Crescenta area and encounter the heavy upgrade to surmount the Verdugo Mountains at La Tuna Canyon that begins right after the CA 2 interchange. They'll be in the right lane in low gear (as existing truck traffic does today), eating fuel and adding several minutes to the trip (I've dodged truck traffic on 210 since it opened!). Initially, it'll still be more efficient than I-5 -- but as more trucks utilize the route, the trip over the Verdugos will likely feature a consistently jammed right lane or two! I'd give it 5 years after the I-710 completion until the routes virually equalize in terms of effectuality.
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 12:23:31 AM
If indeed the I-710 extension is ever completed as (variously) planned, commercial drivers planning on utilizing that route to gain access to westbound I-210 as an alternative to the ever-jammed I-5 corridor will have a rude awakening -- particularly semis hauling heavy containers -- when they get up to the La Crescenta area and encounter the heavy upgrade to surmount the Verdugo Mountains at La Tuna Canyon that begins right after the CA 2 interchange. They'll be in the right lane in low gear (as existing truck traffic does today), eating fuel and adding several minutes to the trip (I've dodged truck traffic on 210 since it opened!). Initially, it'll still be more efficient than I-5 -- but as more trucks utilize the route, the trip over the Verdugos will likely feature a consistently jammed right lane or two! I'd give it 5 years after the I-710 completion until the routes virually equalize in terms of effectuality.
I would think that the toll on I-710 would in some degree preserve I-210's time benefits. Both roads will get busy but I-5 will always be worse.
I have heard that the tunnel project will officially be killed off later this month or next month. It was just an Uber driver I've never met before who told me this, but I hope that he is wrong.
After the decades-long controversy to extend the Long Beach Expressway to Interstate 210 in any shape or form, I'd be surprised if it isn't canceled.
As I-710 was never a chargeable Interstate facility, simply deleting it wouldn't result in complications like with the I-210/CA 57 corridor to the east; it would simply be a California issue.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 15, 2016, 06:43:34 PM
After the decades-long controversy to extend the Long Beach Expressway to Interstate 210 in any shape or form, I'd be surprised if it isn't canceled.
Regardless of what happens, they need to get rid of Pasadena as a control city now. They can always re-greenout the signs later to return Pasadena as a control city if the tunnel ever gets built.
Perhaps it was related to the following article from earlier today?
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160916/pasadena-councilman-says-residents-should-demand-garcetti-brown-put-a-stake-in-710-freeway-tunnel
QuoteIn an effort to fortify opposition to a 710 Freeway extension, Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison hosted a forum Thursday night that laid out alternatives to building the 4.9-mile tunnel Caltrans has proposed to construct between the end of the freeway and the 210/134 Freeway interchange.
Madison's meeting also hinted at a stronger role to play for Pasadena City Hall, as well as west San Gabriel Valley residents.
One of the 200 attendees asked how Pasadenans can kill the tunnel project, which urban planning experts said won't ease local traffic between El Sereno, Alhambra, South Pasadena and Pasadena – roughly where the tunnel would go – and would waste money that could be spent on more practical solutions, such as a north-south boulevard, more bike lanes and widening other nearby north-south streets.
Madison hinted that the silence from major political players in the state may have to be broken. He said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Gov. Jerry Brown "wield power" over the 710 Freeway fight.
"There will come a time when we make a strong demand to them to put a stake through the heart of the tunnel," Madison said.
QuoteCaltrans estimates the dual-bore tunnel would cost $5.6 billion.
The 710 Coalition – a five-member group formed in 1982 that includes the cities of Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino – sent a response to the forum, calling it "one-sided."
"Completion of the 710 is not about one city," the coalition said in its response. "It's about the entire Los Angeles region."
The coalition supports the tunnel and says it will reduce congestion and air pollution in local neighborhoods.
QuoteMoore said he believed Garcetti has yet to weigh in on the 710 project because he doesn't want to give those opposed to an extension a reason to vote against Measure M, the half-cent sales tax initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that would add $120 billion for 38 transportation projects over the next 40 to 50 years.
The L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro, has omitted the extension project from its ballot measure and has postponed any vote on the north 710 EIR until mid-2017.
Metro took an unprecedented step of including language in the measure saying, "No net revenues generated from the sales tax shall be expended on the State Route 710 North Gap Closure Project."
Quote from: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 02:27:03 AM
Perhaps it was related to the following article from earlier today?
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20160916/pasadena-councilman-says-residents-should-demand-garcetti-brown-put-a-stake-in-710-freeway-tunnel
QuoteIn an effort to fortify opposition to a 710 Freeway extension, Pasadena City Councilman Steve Madison hosted a forum Thursday night that laid out alternatives to building the 4.9-mile tunnel Caltrans has proposed to construct between the end of the freeway and the 210/134 Freeway interchange.
Madison's meeting also hinted at a stronger role to play for Pasadena City Hall, as well as west San Gabriel Valley residents.
One of the 200 attendees asked how Pasadenans can kill the tunnel project, which urban planning experts said won't ease local traffic between El Sereno, Alhambra, South Pasadena and Pasadena – roughly where the tunnel would go – and would waste money that could be spent on more practical solutions, such as a north-south boulevard, more bike lanes and widening other nearby north-south streets.
Madison hinted that the silence from major political players in the state may have to be broken. He said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and Gov. Jerry Brown "wield power" over the 710 Freeway fight.
"There will come a time when we make a strong demand to them to put a stake through the heart of the tunnel," Madison said.
QuoteCaltrans estimates the dual-bore tunnel would cost $5.6 billion.
The 710 Coalition – a five-member group formed in 1982 that includes the cities of Alhambra, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel and San Marino – sent a response to the forum, calling it "one-sided."
"Completion of the 710 is not about one city," the coalition said in its response. "It's about the entire Los Angeles region."
The coalition supports the tunnel and says it will reduce congestion and air pollution in local neighborhoods.
QuoteMoore said he believed Garcetti has yet to weigh in on the 710 project because he doesn't want to give those opposed to an extension a reason to vote against Measure M, the half-cent sales tax initiative on the Nov. 8 ballot that would add $120 billion for 38 transportation projects over the next 40 to 50 years.
The L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Metro, has omitted the extension project from its ballot measure and has postponed any vote on the north 710 EIR until mid-2017.
Metro took an unprecedented step of including language in the measure saying, "No net revenues generated from the sales tax shall be expended on the State Route 710 North Gap Closure Project."
How do Urban planners know this won't help traffic? Are they also traffic engineers? Or are they people who just say "breas paradox" and drop the mic?
It appears that urban planners seem to know what's best for us, even if we're too stupid to realize it. I've read that traffic engineers lost out to urban planners after the freeway revolts. Of course, I get most of my information from Randal O'Toole a.k.a. The Antiplanner. For more on what O'Toole has to say, check out this website: www.ti.org/antiplanner.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 18, 2016, 10:39:38 PM
How do Urban planners know this won't help traffic? Are they also traffic engineers? Or are they people who just say "breas paradox" and drop the mic?
I'm not necessarily a supporter of Urban Planners, but if you read the quote fully:
Quote
One of the 200 attendees asked how Pasadenans can kill the tunnel project, which urban planning experts said won't ease local traffic between El Sereno, Alhambra, South Pasadena and Pasadena – roughly where the tunnel would go – and would waste money that could be spent on more practical solutions, such as a north-south boulevard, more bike lanes and widening other nearby north-south streets.
They're saying it won't ease LOCAL traffic, and nothing about what it will do about REGIONAL traffic. As someone who made several hundred trips between Long Beach and Pasadena/Glendale during my time there, I can tell you (anecdotally) they're right - I gave up on the surface streets in the area (Fremont, Fair Oaks, Atlantic, etc.) and went over to CA-2, CA-110 or Rosemead Boulevard. Closing the I-710 gap has, so far as I know, always been about REGIONAL traffic concerns.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2016, 05:09:10 PM
It appears that urban planners seem to know what's best for us, even if we're too stupid to realize it. I've read that traffic engineers lost out to urban planners after the freeway revolts. Of course, I get most of my information from Randal O'Toole a.k.a. The Antiplanner. For more on what O'Toole has to say, check out this website: www.ti.org/antiplanner.
Meh - I've read his stuff (and went back now to read some more) and he's like 90% of the people who comment on 90% of the issues in this country - he's got his biased starting point and writes everything from there, and there's no room for considering that the answer probably lies somewhere in between his point and that of his opponents, since that would require compromise and cooperation - and those two words seem to be amazingly un-American these days. Not to say some of his points aren't extremely valid, but for me they get lost in the noise - the same with blogs from the opposite side like streetsblog.
I laughed at the alternative suggestion of a north-south boulevard to connect the two segments of 710. Um, news flash: there is a bunch of houses and other properties in the way, which is kind of why a tunnel was suggested as a solution.
$5.6 billion (current cost) is a pretty crazy amount of money to spend on a 5 mile long tunnel. I'm guessing at least some of that funding would be federal money. There's a lot of other big, un-finished highway projects elsewhere in California and the rest of the nation that could be completed for quite a lot less money. It sure wouldn't cost $1 billion per mile to get I-40 completed to Bakersfield and Bowerbank (I-5) -and that one project would do more to help long distance regional traffic than spanning a freeway gap in Pasadena.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 19, 2016, 05:09:10 PM
It appears that urban planners seem to know what's best for us, even if we're too stupid to realize it. I've read that traffic engineers lost out to urban planners after the freeway revolts. Of course, I get most of my information from Randal O'Toole a.k.a. The Antiplanner. For more on what O'Toole has to say, check out this website: www.ti.org/antiplanner.
I honestly agree with much of what that guy is saying.
http://www.abc7.com/news/section-of-710-fwy-to-be-closed-for-nine-weekends/1521757/
Heres an Update for the Long Beach Freeway.
Any updates on whether the tunnel proposal is alive, dead, or in suspended animation?
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-caltrans-freeway-homes-20161219-story.html
QuoteTransportation officials have begun the painstaking process of selling hundreds of houses acquired decades ago for a Los Angeles County freeway project that was never built. In the 1950s and 1960s, Caltrans began buying empty lots, houses and apartments along the planned route of the 710 Freeway extension between Pasadena and Alhambra.
But decades of litigation and legislation stalled the 6.2-mile project before construction could begin, leaving transportation officials as landlords for 460 structures. The properties, most of which are occupied, range from modest cottages in El Sereno to Craftsman mansions on stately streets in South Pasadena.
Caltrans officials mailed preliminary information Friday (12/16/16) to the tenants of the 42 properties that will be sold first, spokeswoman Lauren Wonder said. Tenants have three months to respond to the agency if they have any interest in buying their homes.
QuoteThe sale process for the first 42 homes could take a year, Wonder said. The remaining 418 homes will not be sold for at least a year, depending on what option Caltrans eventually selects for the long-stalled 710 project.
Transportation officials ruled out all above-ground options in 2015, but are still considering a light-rail line, a bus rapid-transit system or a $5.6-billion set of double-decker freeway tunnels to link Alhambra and Pasadena.
The 710 is a favored route for truckers shuttling between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and distribution centers in the central county. Today, the route ends abruptly, dumping heavy truck traffic onto Valley Boulevard in Alhambra.
The project received $780 million from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects the county electorate approved in 2008.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 22, 2016, 01:48:23 AM
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-caltrans-freeway-homes-20161219-story.html
QuoteTransportation officials have begun the painstaking process of selling hundreds of houses acquired decades ago for a Los Angeles County freeway project that was never built. In the 1950s and 1960s, Caltrans began buying empty lots, houses and apartments along the planned route of the 710 Freeway extension between Pasadena and Alhambra.
But decades of litigation and legislation stalled the 6.2-mile project before construction could begin, leaving transportation officials as landlords for 460 structures. The properties, most of which are occupied, range from modest cottages in El Sereno to Craftsman mansions on stately streets in South Pasadena.
Caltrans officials mailed preliminary information Friday (12/16/16) to the tenants of the 42 properties that will be sold first, spokeswoman Lauren Wonder said. Tenants have three months to respond to the agency if they have any interest in buying their homes.
QuoteThe sale process for the first 42 homes could take a year, Wonder said. The remaining 418 homes will not be sold for at least a year, depending on what option Caltrans eventually selects for the long-stalled 710 project.
Transportation officials ruled out all above-ground options in 2015, but are still considering a light-rail line, a bus rapid-transit system or a $5.6-billion set of double-decker freeway tunnels to link Alhambra and Pasadena.
The 710 is a favored route for truckers shuttling between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and distribution centers in the central county. Today, the route ends abruptly, dumping heavy truck traffic onto Valley Boulevard in Alhambra.
The project received $780 million from Measure R, the half-cent sales tax for transportation projects the county electorate approved in 2008.
maybe elon musk's "new" idea of boring tunnels can help this out. I like how the media swoons every time he comes up with a "new" idea, but this one in particular is stupid, not because it's impossible, or a bad idea, but because it's literally not new. Until you solve the cost of boring tunnels, it doesn't matter who brings it up, it will always be hard to do.
For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:34:51 PM
For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.
This is what i was referring to: https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/17/elon-musk-might-start-a-literal-boring-company-to-tunnel-under-traffic/
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2016, 04:34:51 PM
For some reason, I don't see Elon Musk advocating building new roads, let alone new tunnels.
I do. In addition to what Silverback linked, Elon Musk's frustration with 405 traffic was mentioned in multiple news outlets back in 2013 (so this news is somewhat dated):
http://la.curbed.com/2013/3/19/10262376/east-hollywood-target-sprouting-teslas-elon-musk-doubledeck-405
QuoteSANTA MONICA: KCRW' s architecture and design-themed DnA show is moving from a monthly show to a weekly podcast--host Frances Anderton hosted an event for the relaunch at the Promenade's Tesla store, featuring a talk with the electric car company's co-founder Elon Musk. The 41-year-old entrepreneur, who also co-founded Paypal and launched SpaceX, which builds rockets for NASA, discussed how design could help LA. The car-lover thinks we should double-deck the 405 with metal materials to alleviate traffic and pay more attention to freeway aesthetics. Musk is also dubious about the speed and cost of the state's high-speed rail system (disgruntled murmurings from the crowd were audible).
http://la.curbed.com/2013/4/25/10250088/elon-musk-didnt-exactly-give-50k-to-speed-up-405-widening
QuoteWe already knew Tesla and Paypal cofounder Elon Musk has ideas for the 405 (double-deck it, make it pretty), but the Bel Air resident is so over the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Improvements Project (it's that widening that caused Carmageddon and The Rampture) that he's given $50,000 to speed up work, according to the LA Times--well, sort of. "That'll cover about a half-inch of pavement," LAT business columnist Michael Hiltzik tweeted today about Musk's pledge, and Metro's Dave Sotero has no record of money coming from Musk, adding that it's highly unusual, and likely not allowed, for a private individual to donate money to a public works project (so Eli Broad won't be funding an extension of the Crenshaw Line to West Hollywood). Turns out that Musk actually gave that money to Angelenos Against Gridlock, a group that advocates to speed up infrastructure projects. David Murphy of AAG tells us the donation will go toward "outreach."
Ghostbuster, please back up your statements with facts.
It looks like I stand corrected about my statement. I had thought Elon Musk was more interested in electric cars, hyperloops, and going to Mars, than doing anything to improve the road system. Of course, I'm not a regular follower of his achievements.
They will release new information soon and have recommended the single bore tunnel option although they clearly state no funding is indentified.
http://mailchi.mp/metro/sr-710-north-study-update-march-1274053?e=%5BUNIQID%5D
It's good that they stuck with the road tunnel option. Where the funding to possibly build it will come from is anyone's guess.
maybe the boring company will do it
Only if they get bored.
Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job! :sombrero:
And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.
Quote from: Henry on May 15, 2017, 11:58:58 AM
Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job! :sombrero:
And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.
It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes. If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill. For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics. At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced. This is a project that will
never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2017, 09:46:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 15, 2017, 11:58:58 AM
Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job! :sombrero:
And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.
It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes. If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill. For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics. At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced. This is a project that will never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!
Were there any alternatives that goes east of South Pasadena city limits?
Quote from: SeriesE on May 16, 2017, 02:54:18 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2017, 09:46:20 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 15, 2017, 11:58:58 AM
Perhaps they could send something called the Son of Bertha for the job! :sombrero:
And Caltrans doesn't give a damn what anyone in Pasadena has to say about it.
It's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's) with a politically active population base -- and a lot of older "classic California" homes. If any city's profile would pose a problem for freeway planners, South Pasadena would certainly fit that bill. For a very brief instant back in the '80's, Caltrans thought of rerouting 710 along the west side of the South Pasadena/L.A. city line to avoid the city as much as possible -- but ran headlong into activists in the neighboring El Sereno district of L.A. who claimed ethnic bias against Hispanics. At that point the 30+ year impasse commenced. This is a project that will never find full consensus; regardless of the final outcome, some noses will be severely tweaked!
Were there any alternatives that goes east of South Pasadena city limits?
That would be San Marino -- the Beverly Hills of the San Gabriel Valley (regardless of what Sierra Madre thinks!). If you think South Pasadena has NIMBY's, just try suggesting rerouting
anything through San Marino. Their naysayers have (a) political clout (b) money to spare (c) little patience for anything that would disturb their bucolic lifestyle! Any agency suggesting such a thing would get a call from someone's attorney in
very short order. In sum -- not a chance in hell!
I say that as a compromise, the freeway from Long Beach should be extended to Huntington Drive and the freeway from the 134//210 interchange should be extended in some way to the Arroyo Seco Parkway without passing a traffic signal. The extension to Huntington Drive will give 710 traffic more options to dissipate. Huntington is a wider street and provides direct access to more streets that lead to Pasadena like Fair Oaks.
The 110 connection to 134/210 will finally resolve a major connection problem for the northern San Gabriel Valley to the rest of the LA Basin:
As you all know, currently there is no direct connection , from the US 101 Hollywood Freeway in Hollywood, to the 134/210 freeway from Burbank to Duarte without using some type of surface street connection, or significant backtracking. If I wanted to make a trip from Hollywood to Arcadia, I would have to do one of the following: 1) US 101 freeway to Studio City then use a surface street to make the missing connection to the 134 (Vineland, Lankershim, Barham or Caughenga ); 2) US 101 South to Alvarado to connect US 101 to CA-2 to the 134; 3) US 101 to CA-110 to Pasadena, but then surface streets in Pasadena (Arroyo Parkway and Marengo) to make the 110 to 210 connection; or 4) US 101 south to I-10 east to 710 north and deal with the 710 gap (or use another major surface street to connect 10 to 210 like Rosemead or Santa Anita). So a connection of CA-110 to the 210/134 interchange completes #3 and provides a freeway to freeway connection from Hollywood and Downtown to Pasadena and all the SG Valley cities east of Pasadena all the way to the 605. While not as great as a full gap closure of the 710, it could be a big help to a lot of traffic.
Is CA 110 capable of handling the amount of traffic that would come from I-210 and CA 134? With only 6 lanes total (which is relatively few for a freeway in LA), it would seem quite inadequate.
Quote from: compdude787 on May 17, 2017, 01:59:00 AM
Is CA 110 capable of handling the amount of traffic that would come from I-210 and CA 134? With only 6 lanes total (which is relatively few for a freeway in LA), it would seem quite inadequate.
Not only could the 110 not handle the extra vehicle traffic, but truck traffic isn't even allowed on it. Plus, to get from the 210 to the 110, you'd have to tunnel anyway because that cooridor is all historic and expensive homes sitting above the Arroyo Seco. And NIMBYs already killed the idea of an interchange between the 710 tunnel extension and the 110, so a 110 interchange to a northern 210 connection would likely fare as poorly even if it was a connection to an underground routing.
Plus, the stated purpose of the 710 extension is to allow commercial and auto traffic going north-south through the Basin a bypass around Downtown. Obviously, having a bypass that can't handle truck traffic and which dumps traffic directly back into the congested 5 near Downtown doesn't accomplish that purpose.
does anyone think this will be built?
I'm for this and want to see it built so bad, but I will say I will be very surprised if it does get built.
Fucking nimbys.... the tunnel is dead.
Here's what I found:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements
QuoteA committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.
The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.
Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.
The LA Times also has a map and graphic of the tunnel proposal at http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-710-tunnel-20170518-htmlstory.html.
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2017, 09:46:20 PMIt's not so much Pasadena as South Pasadena that has been the crux of most of the objections, since it's a relatively small city (and the original hometown of Trader Joe's)
The original Trader Joe's is three-fourths of a mile north of South Pasadena. The Pasadena Freeway makes it to Pasadena.
The divide on the other city of the city is interesting - all of a sudden the "build I-710" banners appear when you leave the city limits.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 20, 2017, 05:04:50 PM
Here's what I found:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements
QuoteA committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.
The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.
Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.
I read that article. Does this mean the tunnel is dead for good?
Edit: upon reading the LA times article, I found that the Metro Board will have to accept the recommendation and they may not do that. so it isn't officially dead, yet.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:11:13 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on May 20, 2017, 05:04:50 PM
Here's what I found:
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170518/a-metro-committee-recommends-no-710-tunnel-instead-chooses-street-improvements
QuoteA committee of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has rejected building a tunnel to close the 710 Freeway gap between Alhambra and Pasadena, instead urging moderate fixes to unclog bottlenecks and reduce local traffic congestion.
The Metro Board of Directors' Ad Hoc Congestion, Highways and Roads Committee voted 3-2 late Wednesday to urge the full board to demand management solutions and put off the long-considered tunnel - unless the communities along the route can all agree such a tunnel would be worthwhile.
Agreement among the cities is a highly unlikely scenario; the communities have been divided on the freeway extension for nearly 60 years.
I read that article. Does this mean the tunnel is dead for good?
Edit: upon reading the LA times article, I found that the Metro Board will have to accept the recommendation and they may not do that. so it isn't officially dead, yet.
Yup, I think we're still waiting for a final answer on the 710 gap. It's possible too that they may place the project into dormant status, so the project could come back at some point in the future. I guess we'll see.
I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:32:46 AM
I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.
Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason. As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not. Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents. Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!
If the gap actually does get closed, does Caltrans plan to sign this as I-710 or will they do like they did with 15/210/905 and sign it as CA-710?
Quote from: LM117 on May 21, 2017, 04:48:50 PM
If the gap actually does get closed, does Caltrans plan to sign this as I-710 or will they do like they did with 15/210/905 and sign it as CA-710?
i'd say i-710, assuming it's built to interstate standards
If the whole thing gets cancelled for good, sign the northern extension as CA 710 and get done with it!
Quote from: Henry on May 22, 2017, 10:03:07 AM
If the whole thing gets cancelled for good, sign the northern extension as CA 710 and get done with it!
The "northern extension", which is more aptly described as a southern extension of I-210's main lanes north of the 134 interchange, is essentially an offramp to California Blvd. (and basically a way to get to Cal Tech without slogging through downtown Pasadena). As such, it really doesn't warrant any signed designation as such; maintaining the local reference for navigation purposes is quite adequate. The property is actually very valuable -- so if the tunnel concept fails and it looks like 710 won't be extended north, I wouldn't be surprised if the physical configuration of that 710 "stub" is cut back drastically to as small/short a facility feasible, and what's left of the property sold off to private interests. That certainly has been done before; it tends to put the final "nail in the coffin" to a cancelled project.
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2017, 01:21:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:32:46 AM
I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.
Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason. As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not. Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents. Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!
I was raised in La Canada Flintridge.
Quote from: hm insulators on May 24, 2017, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2017, 01:21:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:32:46 AM
I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.
Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason. As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not. Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents. Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!
I was raised in La Canada Flintridge.
I can remember back in my high school days (mid-'60's) the controversy regarding the I-210 segment through La Canada/Flintridge; it almost took on the proportions of a genuine "freeway revolt". Activists from that region (generally high-income then as now) were even suggesting that 210 be rerouted south along the CA 2 alignment to CA 134 and use
that routing to access Pasadena -- eliminating the whole segment east of Montrose and north of central Pasadena. That almost happened -- but 210 was instead reconfigured to the format existing today, including the massive cut & cover "tunnel" under Foothill Blvd. just east of the CA 2 interchange -- with the portion east of there sunk below ground level until it reached the original Foothill Freeway (ex-CA 118) alignment across Arroyo Seco. That seemed to placate the local naysayers enough to get the freeway pushed through by the mid-70's.
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html
QuoteThe Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted unanimously to withdraw its support and funding for a five-mile, $3.2-billion tunnel through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena connecting the 710 and 210 freeways.
Instead, the board voted to spend $700 million on a range of transportation fixes to ease congestion and other problems arising from traffic spilling onto the streets of Alhambra at the 710's abrupt northern terminus. ...
"To have a unanimous vote is a reflection of the mood in the boardroom," said Jan Soohoo of La Ca̱ada Flintridge, a member of the No 710 Action Committee. "We've been fighting and fighting for years just to get seven votes" Рthe minimum that tunnel foes needed to kill the idea. ...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore." ...
The 710 corridor project obtained about $780 million through Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase voters approved in 2008. Some of the money has already been spent on planning, studies and environmental work.
The motion approved Thursday would allocate $105 million of the remaining funds toward synchronized traffic signals, new meters on freeway ramps, capacity enhancements at three dozen intersections and local streets as well as incentives to encourage carpooling, transit use and staggered work schedules.
The board voted to defer decisions on other transportation options that will use the remaining funding until cities along the north 710 corridor and other interested parties can agree. Metro staff will report back in 90 days on a process to identify potential projects.
shouldn't this thread be called the Pasadena gap?
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html
QuoteThe Metropolitan Transportation Authority board voted unanimously to withdraw its support and funding for a five-mile, $3.2-billion tunnel through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena connecting the 710 and 210 freeways.
Instead, the board voted to spend $700 million on a range of transportation fixes to ease congestion and other problems arising from traffic spilling onto the streets of Alhambra at the 710's abrupt northern terminus. ...
"To have a unanimous vote is a reflection of the mood in the boardroom," said Jan Soohoo of La Ca̱ada Flintridge, a member of the No 710 Action Committee. "We've been fighting and fighting for years just to get seven votes" Рthe minimum that tunnel foes needed to kill the idea. ...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore." ...
The 710 corridor project obtained about $780 million through Measure R, the half-cent sales tax increase voters approved in 2008. Some of the money has already been spent on planning, studies and environmental work.
The motion approved Thursday would allocate $105 million of the remaining funds toward synchronized traffic signals, new meters on freeway ramps, capacity enhancements at three dozen intersections and local streets as well as incentives to encourage carpooling, transit use and staggered work schedules.
The board voted to defer decisions on other transportation options that will use the remaining funding until cities along the north 710 corridor and other interested parties can agree. Metro staff will report back in 90 days on a process to identify potential projects.
There
will be dancing over this particular grave in South Pasadena. In retrospect, the shift within the Metro board was all but inevitable -- urban activists and transit supporters now dominate pretty much all of the policymaking entities in greater L.A. Except for finishing CA 71 in Pomona, don't expect a single foot of new freeway to be even considered within L.A. County south of the San Gabriel mountains. The 710 extension was the last formally adopted corridor remaining in the basin that has not been deleted or relinquished; now that it's effectively dead, the folks at Metro will almost certainly be pressing Caltrans for more funding shifts to local streets and transit facilities -- the STIP has, for the past few iterations, been itself dominated by joint state/local projects -- some for congestion relief, but some for "traffic calming" (which has zero relationship to driver calming!) efforts. Looks like the spiritual home of the freeway will have to make do with what's on the ground right now!
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
I was optimistic that the project would move forward, especially since it recently survived the effort to kill it in the California legislature.
But I agree with Sparker and Andy 3175: this is probably the end.
It seems like the Metro board's intent is to use up the $700 million on the planned traffic control measures to ensure none of it is available for the freeway/tollway tunnel.
So that seems to leave only Caltrans funds and maybe some kind of mostly or fully private funding with tolls. I don't expect anything to come out of Trump infrastructure initiative, but that seems like the only (very long) longshot: some kind of federal-level legislation promoting private investment and/or PPPs which would make this kind of project attractive to investors.
Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker? Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!
Rick
$700 million is a lot of traffic circles.
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2017, 06:49:37 PM
Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker? Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!
Rick
I wish I knew a bit more; won't be down that way until July or August at the earliest. AFAIK, the facility between the Mission Blvd. interchange and CA 60 largely remains an expressway -- although I
do understand that the intersecting streets no longer cross the median and are dealt with as RIRO's. If any CA poster has a downloaded STIP (I should have done so myself, but business issues have kept me otherwise occupied), it might be useful to see if any CA 71 projects for District 7 (in which the unimproved segment lies) are active. BTW, it looks as if Google Earth hasn't scanned this region in some time, so no recent facility changes can be seen there.
I drive down the 71 regular and all of the signals have been turned off and all intersections are right in right out, K-rail has been placed in between to prevent turns. Overall it's as good as it will be, until it becomes a freeway. Note that the residents of Phillips Ranch did not want an interchange at North Ranch or Old Pomona, thus they will be consigned to using the Rio Rancho off ramp. It actually is fairly long ramp spacing for an urban/suburban freeway.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
Or, as some would rather say, "death".
Given the nature of Los Angeles Metro politics, I guess this was inevitable.
I suppose the next agenda for the New Urbanists will be to downgrade most of 710 to a surface-level boulevard and build a transit rail line over it to "liberate" the neighborhoods.
Or, start gunning for tearing down other LA freeways to make room for their paradise of "carless" communities.
Lots of luck for that, I figure.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 30, 2017, 01:28:19 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
Or, as some would rather say, "death".
Given the nature of Los Angeles Metro politics, I guess this was inevitable.
I suppose the next agenda for the New Urbanists will be to downgrade most of 710 to a surface-level boulevard and build a transit rail line over it to "liberate" the neighborhoods.
Or, start gunning for tearing down other LA freeways to make room for their paradise of "carless" communities.
Lots of luck for that, I figure.
I'm a native of greater L.A. (about 10 miles north of downtown) -- they'll have to pry my steering wheel out of my cold dead hands! :angry:
they can't make any city in the us carless even if they tried. especially la
Folks, let's turn down the volume on the political aspects, the calls blaming "new urbanism" or "progressives". Ultimately, Metro's action in killing the tunnel was none of those, it was realism.
I commute the 405 every workday, driving a vanpool between Northridge and El Segundo. I lived through a freeway that was under construction from when I started with my employer in 1988 until about two years ago when the HOV lanes were finished. Guess what? We record our travel times. Things got slightly better for a bit, but now we're back to where we work. The construction yielded little benefit for the cost.
Building the 710 tunnel would have been years and years of more lawsuits. Wasted money. Ultimately, you would have an impractical tunnel: no trucks, high toll, and the first car fire or major accident and *boom*, it's done. It just wasn't worth what it would cost. Much better to spend the money on other smaller improvements in the same corridor that might be effective.
Other new freeways in the area? Where, prey tell me, where? With the costs of right of way acquisition, there are precious few places where it would be appropriate. Better to use the funds to build more transit lines to get people off the roadways, funds to encourage more ride sharing, funds to better increase the capacity of the roads we have as opposed to a pipe dream that will be dead due to induced demand.
Will you see more construction? Quite possibly. There are roads that are dying for the addition of a lane or safety improvements -- US 101 and Route 110 being prime examples. You may see something there. You may see attempts to get a full HOV lane down I-5. The big issue is right of way, and often there isn't any space to do more.
But this isn't an issue you can blame on progressives and urbanist. It is an issue you can blame on a city where land has become far too valuable for concrete, and issue you can blame on realizations that there are better and smarter ways to do things.
Daniel
The 405 needed more lanes than it got and it also reduced surface congestion on local streets by over 30%. I disagree with you that the benefits weren't worth the cost.
I don't understand the logic of induced demand because it doesn't take into account the growth of the area from the time a lane has been added, whether or not the add a lane(s) project added enough lanes by simple math or just politics to show people they're investing something, and how many commuters switched from their usual route to the recently expanded one taking stress off of other freeways. They also don't show how much congestion was reduced on local surface streets(the case with the 405 Sepulveda Pass project) and sometimes whether someone decided to switch modes of transit because their prime choice would be a personal automobile and the fact they have a more direct commute now represents better government.
Sure, some of those things in their own right could be examples of localized induced demand, but I just don't but the entire theory because there are so many variables as I pointed out above that it doesn't take into account. The biggest one for me the stress it takes off of freeway on a regional level.
Another one is personal choice by citizens to use a car or transit. Why is that transit advocates get excited when frequencies are increased on rail lines yet scream induced demand when a freeway widening project is announced? Seems like a double standard. Sure, I get that it's more efficient to lure more people on a rail line, and I support increased frequencies and more transit in LA so those who want to use it can do so, but I also support widening freeways. It's a win win for everyone.
If a freeway gets clogged shortly after it was widened, then it needs more lanes. It needed more to begin with. They should run scenarios for how many people might switch their commutes with newly added lanes and if they find that it might be just as congested due to that, than they should add even more lanes. You can't sit there and tell me that if you widened the 405 to a 100 lanes they would fill up. The Kilpatrick turnpike in OKC had a lane added over 5 years ago to make it 3 lanes each way and it is nowhere close to becoming congested.
Of course the 405 example was an extreme one and it isn't reasonable to assume a freeway have 100 lanes, but have about 4-5 more lanes added each way and if needed do what TxDOT did to 635. Widen other freeways such as the 105, I-5, 110, 210, I-10 etc. to 12-16 lanes. Double stack or add a tunnel along the 101 in the inner city. Complete the I-40 extension to Bakersfield. Complete the HDC. Add more rail lines. Finish the HSR. Complete gaps like the 710.
I don't know how many billions of dollars it would take to complete all of that and I don't think it's realistic to do all of that at once or even in the near future. But simply yelling induced demand or building more freeways won't solve congestion issues(aka not doing anything except building more transit) is not the way to go. Mass transit will actually increase congestion faster since it usually increases density and since LA is so spread out, it isn't transit that is needed, it is a change in the way people live. That is what I'm against is telling people how to live even if it's for their good. Though I am a bit biased because I just think freeways are cool, I think most people prefer to drive and live in the suburbs. I don't have much to back that up other than more people live in the outlying suburbs than urban jungles and suburban housing growth accounted for 80% of all of home sales last year.
We'll see how this plays out but it speaks to me that is was a bunch of things that went wrong. Even if the money was there, I suspect the same outcome would have happened. It's evident by the fact that they didn't even want to wait to see if Caltrans would add anything to the 700 million which now it will be up to them to fully fund this if they want to. Hopefully they do.
I also think the enemy of my enemy is my friend played out here because the new urbanist stood by the nimbys for two extremely different reasons. What I'm even more perplexed by is the fact they are claiming that surface improvements will be better for these people yet drivers already drive like a bat out of hell in the area exceed 3x the limit on occasions and their solution to move them even quicker through these communities?
To add to my post above, I think that a bunch of bullshit just happened here. You had new urbanists attacking it, nimbys attacking it, other communities that wanted to keep traffic lower on freeways that were obviously built to handle more traffic than they do, and beyond that I'm guessing there just wasn't enough vocal support to get metros motion to move forward here.
So now it's up to Caltrans. Hopefully they see the value in this project and take matters into their own hands like they should do and not rely on an MTA to assist in every major freeway project in regards to funding.
I will admit here, that aspect is something I don't know too much about. TxDOT seems to push through with a lot of major freeway projects without local funding from MTAs and I'm fairly certain OkDOT does as well unless they never talk about it.
In an ideal unconstrained world, we might widen, widen, widen. However, we live in a world with limited funding. More, we don't have the right of way to widen widen widen. What is the cost in houses and businesses of widening US 101 (which really needs it). What is the costs in businesses and housing of widening the 405 even further? Not all of these freeways have room for continued expansion, much as it might be an ideal solution for today's technology.
However, if we increase the density on the road, we don't have to widen. Ridesharing and HOVs are part of the story. Uber and Lyft and the sharing economy are another, for they increase rider density in cars. Autonomous vehicles are another, for they can reduce spacing required between cars at speed due to faster reaction times.
Bringing this back to the topic, the 710 tunnel in particular would not have been a great solution for the $$$. Toll, limited to passenger vehicles, limited emergency access, and limited widening capabilities. Not worth the money. A surface freeway would have been better, but that boat sailed long ago and isn't coming back.
Yes I agree a surface option would have been nice, but the plans called for 8 lanes which would have been better than nothing and in this particular case, I think this would have sufficed for many hours out of the day for tens of thousands of commuters if not more. The cost of building it is worth it to me than doing nothing which is basically what is proposed at this point.
I expected this would ultimately happen. I have a feeling the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel will likely be the last road tunnel ever built in the United States.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 30, 2017, 04:48:59 PM
I expected this would ultimately happen. I have a feeling the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel will likely be the last road tunnel ever built in the United States.
Just because L.A. doesn't want to build 710 as a tunnel, no one will ever build a tunnel again? That seems, um, a little arrogant. I'm sure there are cities which would like to move their viaducts through the city underground, or rivers or lakes that need a way to cross and a tunnel works out the best.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 28, 2017, 05:45:48 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
I was optimistic that the project would move forward, especially since it recently survived the effort to kill it in the California legislature.
But I agree with Sparker and Andy 3175: this is probably the end.
It seems like the Metro board's intent is to use up the $700 million on the planned traffic control measures to ensure none of it is available for the freeway/tollway tunnel.
So that seems to leave only Caltrans funds and maybe some kind of mostly or fully private funding with tolls. I don't expect anything to come out of Trump infrastructure initiative, but that seems like the only (very long) longshot: some kind of federal-level legislation promoting private investment and/or PPPs which would make this kind of project attractive to investors.
Even though SANDAG got a very nice piece of infrastructure for 40 cents on the dollar, the experience with the South Bay Expressway has probably soured Caltrans on P3s of that nature for at least the next 10 years. And while there are investors who have no problems investing in things like the Dakota Access Pipeline, despite the...aggressive protests, the ROI for the investment community on a 710 tunnel wouldn't be seen for many decades.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html
Quote...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore." ...
...
Well, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 30, 2017, 11:39:23 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on May 27, 2017, 09:42:03 AM
With Metro's decision on May 25, the 710 gap enters indefinite dormancy.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-710-freeway-20170524-story.html
Quote...
"As a city and county, we've moved away from freeways," said Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Metro board member. "Voters don't see freeways as meeting their transportation needs anymore." ...
...
Well, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.
Pure political posturing. Garcetti hasn't decided if he's going to run for the Senate (if Feinstein retires) or challenge Gavin Newsom for governor. He's shoring up the urban-left of the party in advance of whatever he has in mind. Of course, he's got Villaraigosa to contend with regarding just who can be the most urban-conscious of L.A. recent mayors. This is one of those instances that makes me glad I'm an independent!
P.S.: the next time he has to go out to the far reaches of the Valley for a fund-raiser, let's see if his entourage uses surface streets!
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2017, 06:49:37 PM
Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker? Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!
I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5
Quote from: cahwyguy on May 31, 2017, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2017, 06:49:37 PM
Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker? Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!
I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5
Any actual construction time frame attached to that? It'll be interesting to see if that ends up indeed being the last new (or, in this case, semi-new) freeway built in L.A. County (save the high desert) for the foreseeable future.
Take a look at the agenda item background: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/0317/77_2.5t2a.pdf
Quote from: cahwyguy on May 31, 2017, 09:41:21 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2017, 06:49:37 PM
Speaking of 71, is there any news on that Sparker? Amazing to think we're in 2017 and that this freeway still is not finished!
I'm going through the CTC minutes, and noticed the following related to this: In March 2017: Resolved, that $395,000 be allocated from Budget Act Item 2660-002-3007 for plans, specifications and estimates for the State administered TCRP project described on the attached vote list. Project 50 - Route 71 Expressway to Freeway Conversion (Route 10 to Route 60). In Pomona, between Route 10 and Route 60. Add one mixed flow lane and one HOV lane in each direction on Route 71. Outcome/Output: Upgrade three miles of existing four-lane express way to eight lane freeway. 07-LA-71
0.5/ 4.5
Thank you Cahwyguy!
Rick
Quote from: cahwyguyWill you see more construction? Quite possibly. There are roads that are dying for the addition of a lane or safety improvements -- US 101 and Route 110 being prime examples. You may see something there. You may see attempts to get a full HOV lane down I-5. The big issue is right of way, and often there isn't any space to do more.
But this isn't an issue you can blame on progressives and urbanist. It is an issue you can blame on a city where land has become far too valuable for concrete, and issue you can blame on realizations that there are better and smarter ways to do things.
I think major coastal cities like Los Angeles and New York have greater problems looming. One of the key visions of the New Urbanist theme is many people walking or riding bicycles to work, or at most taking a short ride on a light rail train. This vision falls apart with the extreme high cost of living in these city cores.
Extremes of income inequality will at some point make these high priced cores non-functional. It seems like developers only think of these city cores in terms of high income residents they can attract to luxury condos and apartments. These trendy areas with all their shops, restaurants and outlets of entertainment all need lots of service industry workers. How many of these workers can afford to live anywhere near their work place? Just how far is a service worker willing to commute everyday to an arguably dead end job with crappy pay? At some point the service worker is going to realize he'll never get ahead by losing so much of his income and free time to his commute. He'll find a job closer to home, hours away from that swanky city core. And then more will follow his example.
Urbanists' interests of "increasing density" are pretty useless if
affordability is not included in the equation. Affordability is not on the radar now. Until then the freeways, rail lines and bus systems will continue to need costly upgrades as sprawl continues.
Quote from: Plutonic PandaIf a freeway gets clogged shortly after it was widened, then it needs more lanes. It needed more to begin with. They should run scenarios for how many people might switch their commutes with newly added lanes and if they find that it might be just as congested due to that, than they should add even more lanes. You can't sit there and tell me that if you widened the 405 to a 100 lanes they would fill up. The Kilpatrick turnpike in OKC had a lane added over 5 years ago to make it 3 lanes each way and it is nowhere close to becoming congested.
I'm not sure if the Kilpatrick Turnpike is the best example to use. In this case it was easy for OTA to add an additional lane since the turnpike was built on a pretty wide ROW. It will cost OTA a good bit for bridge modifications, but they have enough room to make the Kilpatrick 8 lanes wide if that needed to happen. The really bad thing with the Kilpatrick is failure on the part of the OTA, state government and city governments in Mustang and Yukon to properly plan the Southern half of the Kilpatrick. Good ole boy network bull crap got in the way of acquiring or at least protecting the ROW so the Kilpatrick could loop down to Norman as originally intended. They just let developers build all over the necessary ROW. The situation is just disgusting to me considering the giant sized highway projects underway nearby in Texas. At least the folks in Texas know how to acquire and preserve highway ROW for future building.
IMHO, the Southern extension of the Kilpatrick is every bit as screwed up as the I-710 tunnel in L.A. The meager extension now proposed, winding its curvy way to Airport Road, will provide little regional traffic relief of I-35 and I-40. Most drivers will merely shunpike that thing.
Quote from: The GhostbusterI expected this would ultimately happen. I have a feeling the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel will likely be the last road tunnel ever built in the United States.
Quote from: kktJust because L.A. doesn't want to build 710 as a tunnel, no one will ever build a tunnel again? That seems, um, a little arrogant. I'm sure there are cities which would like to move their viaducts through the city underground, or rivers or lakes that need a way to cross and a tunnel works out the best.
It's all about cost. And building tunnels in the United States costs an extreme fortune now. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Tunnel is only 2 lanes in each direction for 2 miles. Cost is over $3.2 billion, not counting demolition of the old viaduct and other street & interchange improvements. In New York City current day cost estimates for the 8.5 mile long 2nd Avenue Subway project is $17 billion. But those costs are certain to rise as the later phases are built. The first 2 miles currently in progress is costing $4.45 billion.
I don't know how China is managing it, but they're building all sorts of road and rail tunnels. And that's on top of all the other big infrastructure projects they're building.
QuoteWell, glad that's been determined. I guess Caltrans can begin closing down all the freeways. According to Eric Garcetti, they're not needed. Surface streets it is for everyone.
Like Sparker said, that probably is political posturing. Unfortunately it feeds into the New Urbanist fantasy that everybody can afford to live within walking or bicycling distance to their workplace, coffee shop, grocery store, etc. They're not in touch with the fact most Americans have to use cars to get from place to place. There's no other practical choice.
Quote from: cahwyguy on May 31, 2017, 11:04:03 PM
Take a look at the agenda item background: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2017/0317/77_2.5t2a.pdf
"Future consideration of funding" -- can it get more vague than that? Since the $395K is simply for the study regarding just what the finished "product" will look like, one can surmise that actual construction remains several years away. The sole saving grace is that considering the attitudes surrounding L.A. area transportation, the project is still on the agenda.
Generally, things are approved for future consideration of funding, then when the funds become available, the project starts. There are also numerous phases for the projects, from environmental, to plans and engineering, to construction. The key phrase here is: "The Department is ready to proceed with this project and is requesting an allocation at this time.". Yes, this is the allocation for the plans. They've got to do that first before they can turn the shovels. Note when the future consideration of funding was: "Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-02-48; October 2002". So this project was first approved in 2002, now they've got the funds to start the actual work. Environmental is done: see "CEQA - ND, 5/31/2013 -Revalidation". CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act, ND = Negative Declaration (no environmental impact) -- that was in 2013. If you do a search on TCRP Project 50, you'll find this, which explains the Tier 2 aspect: http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2016Agenda/2016-06/019_4.14.pdf . You could likely do more search to see when construction was scheduled.
http://trib.al/V1tTaD1
Nexus 6P
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 13, 2017, 04:31:09 PM
http://trib.al/V1tTaD1
Nexus 6P
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again
Oh jeez. So pretty much every project to increase highway capacity/ build new freeways is labeled "wasteful." But public transit, which serves far less commuters than roads do, isn't? Sigh... :rolleyes:
Quote from: compdude787 on June 13, 2017, 10:35:44 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 13, 2017, 04:31:09 PM
http://trib.al/V1tTaD1
Nexus 6P
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: June 13, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Citylab at it again
Oh jeez. So pretty much every project to increase highway capacity/ build new freeways is labeled "wasteful." But public transit, which serves far less commuters than roads do, isn't? Sigh... :rolleyes:
I've had a 20+ year ongoing war of words with Mr. Eric Jaffe (who makes his living writing for
Atlantic Cities) regarding just how portable the New York notion of living actually is (small flat w/limited space, only buying the food you need for one day at a local store, relatively few physical possessions [particularly automotive!], and other similar examples of deliberately bounded rationality). He thinks it's simply a matter of choice; I'd add circumstance to that. Given the likelihood that even if someone like Jaffe's making 150K+ a year as a senior writer, he's probably spending a big chunk of that on his living situation (apparently he lives at or near the north tip of Manhattan). But one of the things I've always found questionable about writers who denigrate mobility and attempts to enhance such via new or expanded facilities is that almost to a person they display little curiosity about those persons (and the regions in which they reside) and why it is they resist the siren call of urban citizenry. Mr. Jaffe has on more than one occasion opined that he couldn't imagine living anywhere except in New York, Boston, Chicago, or San Francisco -- all cities with longstanding saturation-level transit facilities (all right, maybe not the Sunset district of SF!). And in reply I've suggested more than once that he spend a few months living among the rest of us not ensconced in urbanity; he has politely (to his credit) declined. If one thinks the country as a whole is divided, from all appearances and evidence the gap between the deliberately (and often vehemently) carless and those of us who value our ability to move around as needed to live our lives (even though some of us would prefer to have fossil fuels fuck off & die [again]!) is even greater.
Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2017, 04:00:03 PM
Quote from: hm insulators on May 24, 2017, 01:16:45 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2017, 01:21:05 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:32:46 AM
I also noticed Glendale is against this tunnel which is odd given how far away they are from this. One could say they are worried about a reduction in traffic on CA 2 if this is built, not that traffic would actually see a substantial drop. I don't know why else they'd be sticking their nose in this.
Since CA 2 barely serves Glendale, instead skirting its east side with only a couple of exits besides the CA 134 interchange, that's probably not the reason. As a person born & raised in that town -- and having seen more than one area freeway controversy over the years -- it's probably connected to the probability that I-210 in the Montrose/La Crescenta area (part of which lies within Glendale) would see considerably more traffic -- commercial and otherwise -- if I-710 is completed as originally planned, tunnel or not. Area residents are accustomed to having a relatively uncrowded facility available to them much of the time; the prospects of that changing and 210 becoming the site of regularized congestion (and adding more pollution to the area in the process) are likely off-putting to those residents. Glendale folks can become a bit insular when their idiom is threatened!
I was raised in La Canada Flintridge.
I can remember back in my high school days (mid-'60's) the controversy regarding the I-210 segment through La Canada/Flintridge; it almost took on the proportions of a genuine "freeway revolt". Activists from that region (generally high-income then as now) were even suggesting that 210 be rerouted south along the CA 2 alignment to CA 134 and use that routing to access Pasadena -- eliminating the whole segment east of Montrose and north of central Pasadena. That almost happened -- but 210 was instead reconfigured to the format existing today, including the massive cut & cover "tunnel" under Foothill Blvd. just east of the CA 2 interchange -- with the portion east of there sunk below ground level until it reached the original Foothill Freeway (ex-CA 118) alignment across Arroyo Seco. That seemed to placate the local naysayers enough to get the freeway pushed through by the mid-70's.
I remember the freeway being built.
Let me respond to kkt, who believed my post about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel being the last road tunnel ever built in the United States to be arrogant. I thought there might be some merit to my comment. The Big Dig and the aforementioned SR 99 tunnel have been plagued with problems. The ceiling in one of the tunnels in Boston collapsed, and the Bertha tunnel-boring machine had to be stopped and restarted. Both projects were fraught with problems, and I figured the cancelation of the 710 tunnel, and other canceled tunnels was not only due to the cost, nor widespread NIMBYism as is the case of 710, but also to avoid all of the problems the Big Dig and Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnels have wrought. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly supportive of building road tunnels in the United States, like those that have been built overseas. I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.
I am unaware of continued issues with the Big Dig, other than the roof panel that fell off due to contractor malpractice years ago. If anything comparing the open space now to the dark shadow of the Central Artery would lead people to conclude it was worth it.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.
The Interstate 635 managed lanes project in Dallas were slated to use twin bored tunnels for a two-mile section of the project. My understanding was that the engineering was substantially or fully complete.
But in the late 2000s it was designated as a public-private toll project, and a cost analysis was done which determined that tunnels were cost-infeasible. I don't recall any mention of risks (Dallas' chalk-limestone is ideal for tunneling), but the long-term cost of maintaining a firefighting and emergency response team was cited as a factor. So the project was redesigned to be in a partially-open trench with main lanes overhanging the trench.
Of course, the design used on I-635 was not a possible option for I-710.
Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.
http://dfwfreeways.com/i635/roadside-lbj-express (http://dfwfreeways.com/i635/roadside-lbj-express)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 15, 2017, 07:42:04 PM
Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.
Not sure how you define "urban," but the recently completed East End/Lewis and Clark Ohio River Toll Bridge and approach freeway on the Lousiville Outer Beltway/I-265, uses a new tunnel between the bridge and the previous end of the Freeway in KY, and this was built very recently...
Granted, its not the Downtown area of one of the top 10 cities in the country, but it is a pretty new Freeway tunnel (twin 2-lane tubes), in at least a Suburban area of the Louisville Metro area
The 265 Tunnels are comparatively pretty short. Certainly not comparable to what would be needed to connect the discontinuous segments of the 710 Freeway.
A better example of a new urban tunnel would be the 99 Freeway tunnel in Seattle.
I hope what everyone saying about tunnels not happening isn't true. I love tunnels.
Quote
Generally speaking, it is true that tunnels are very expensive and impose substantial risks for cost overruns. For those reasons, tunnels will remain very rare, and it is possible we won't see any new urban vehicular tunnels at all, not even underwater tunnels.
Actually, I forgot to consider the possibility of tunnels underneath deck parks, like the Klyde Warren Park on top of Spur 366 in downtown Dallas. There is another deck park planned for IH-35E south of downtown, and plans for the $7 billion Interstate 45 project in Houston have two deck parks, one very long. I think there are plans in the works in Denver on I-70.
Putting a deck or "cap" over a trenched freeway is far less complex and risky than bored tunneling (e.g. Seattle SR 99) or a project like the Big Dig. So we'll probably see more tunnels in association with deck parks on top of freeways.
Tunnels are expensive projects and will certainly be rare, but they do sometimes solve problems nothing else can. For instance, need to cross a navigable waterway with an airport nearby. The minimum bridge clearance is too high to fit under the maximum height for the aircraft.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:41:03 PM
Let me respond to kkt, who believed my post about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel being the last road tunnel ever built in the United States to be arrogant. I thought there might be some merit to my comment. The Big Dig and the aforementioned SR 99 tunnel have been plagued with problems. The ceiling in one of the tunnels in Boston collapsed, and the Bertha tunnel-boring machine had to be stopped and restarted. Both projects were fraught with problems, and I figured the cancelation of the 710 tunnel, and other canceled tunnels was not only due to the cost, nor widespread NIMBYism as is the case of 710, but also to avoid all of the problems the Big Dig and Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnels have wrought. Don't get me wrong, I am strongly supportive of building road tunnels in the United States, like those that have been built overseas. I just felt that people in this country would look at the Big Dig and Alaskan Way projects, and conclude that building road tunnels in this country just isn't worth it.
Quote from: kkt on June 16, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Tunnels are expensive projects and will certainly be rare, but they do sometimes solve problems nothing else can. For instance, need to cross a navigable waterway with an airport nearby. The minimum bridge clearance is too high to fit under the maximum height for the aircraft.
In the case of 710, the tunnel was simply a means to circumnavigate a longstanding political issue. The backers likely saw the Boston Big Dig as an example of a sociopolitically-motivated project that, despite the seeming endless onset of problems and the corresponding bad press, was eventually completed -- and that a similar scenario was doable in metro LA. But they were 15-20 years too late; by the time the project was proposed, urban political sentiment was already lined up in opposition to virtually
any new freeway facility -- and what support there was, largely from the city of Alhambra, was simply not enough to carry the regional day.
It's likely that road tunnels -- urban or rural -- that actually are seen as solving an otherwise unresolvable topographic issue such as a ridge standing in the way of a facility with broad developmental support -- will still be considered to be viable solutions, except for those who categorically oppose any new road construction (such as the various "PIRG's" strewn across the country). However, because of the costs involved, they'll likely remain the methodology of last choice.
QuoteIt's likely that road tunnels -- urban or rural -- that actually are seen as solving an otherwise unresolvable topographic issue such as a ridge standing in the way of a facility with broad developmental support -- will still be considered to be viable solutions, except for those who categorically oppose any new road construction (such as the various "PIRG's" strewn across the country). However, because of the costs involved, they'll likely remain the methodology of last choice.
And, in California at least, you'll see long tunnels still predominately used for transit, not roads, because a simple picture of a tunnel, jam packed during rush hour due to an accident in the middle of the tunnel, when a significant earthquake hits. Trains and such aren't subject to such blockages, and so the odds of a given train in a given tunnel is low, whereas the odds of significant traffic is high. I just don't think you'll be seeing really long tunnels on roads (which, of course, could bring the question of what the longest tunnel is on the California state highway system? My page at http://www.cahighways.org/stats1.html lists all of the tunnels on the state highway system. Lengths aren't given, but I don't think that any of them are that long. I did find this on the Devils Slide tunnels on Route 1: "The Devil's Slide tunnels, as they are usually called, are the second and third longest road tunnels in California at 4,149 ft (1,265 m) northbound, and 4,008 ft (1,222 m) southbound." Those are under a mile. The longest tunnel isn't technically on the state highway system: "At 4,233 feet (1,290 m) long Wawona Tunnel is the longest highway tunnel in California.". That's on Route 41, but within Yosemite so its National Park property. Again -- under a mile.
How long were the 710 tunnels going to be? I've seen numbers like 4.9 miles. That's a big difference. A road tunnel under the Sepulveda Pass? Again, multiple miles. We're not going to see road tunnels that long. Bridges, yes. Tunnels, no.
You can carry quite a large number of passengers in a 2-track train or rapid transit tunnel. It's a very unusual situation where a railroad has enough traffic to justify more than a two-track tunnel. BART under the Bay maybe someday, but the 2-track stations under Market Street are a bigger bottleneck than the Transbay Tube.
The Devil's Slide tunnel is 4,149 feet (wikipedia under Wawona Tunnel footnote 4)
The Caldecott bore 3 is the longest bore, at 3,771 feet (Wikipedia)
Collier Tunnel 1,886.2 ft (bridgehunter.com)
Washington has an old railroad tunnel that's over 5 miles. Of course that was built by imported Chinese labor under slave-labor conditions. It's a park now, you can strap on headlamps and walk through. Very wet, dripping all the way.
having just returned from LA on vacation, I think 710 would be wonderful, you can bypass downtown completely, which would help a lot. After driving in that city, I'll never complain about traffic again at home (Indianapolis) :)
Quote from: kkt on June 20, 2017, 01:35:36 PM
Washington has an old railroad tunnel that's over 5 miles. Of course that was built by imported Chinese labor under slave-labor conditions. It's a park now, you can strap on headlamps and walk through. Very wet, dripping all the way.
As well as a couple of long working tunnels, both on BNSF: Cascade, at about 7+ miles (under Stevens Pass), and Stampede (under the pass of the same name), about 2 miles in length, both under the Cascade ridgeline and connecting the Puget Sound area to eastern Washington.
What road tunnel is most likely to happen next other than the 710? Doesn't matter if it's 95 years out. Which one is nost likely to happen?
Quote from: Rothman on June 15, 2017, 05:13:04 PM
I am unaware of continued issues with the Big Dig, other than the roof panel that fell off due to contractor malpractice years ago. If anything comparing the open space now to the dark shadow of the Central Artery would lead people to conclude it was worth it.
Of course "they" think it was worth it. "They" only paid for a tiny fraction of it.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 20, 2017, 02:08:03 PM
having just returned from LA on vacation, I think 710 would be wonderful, you can bypass downtown completely, which would help a lot. After driving in that city, I'll never complain about traffic again at home (Indianapolis) :)
On the other hand, Portland traffic's getting uglier and uglier x.x
Quote from: Bickendan on June 21, 2017, 04:02:03 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 20, 2017, 02:08:03 PM
having just returned from LA on vacation, I think 710 would be wonderful, you can bypass downtown completely, which would help a lot. After driving in that city, I'll never complain about traffic again at home (Indianapolis) :)
On the other hand, Portland traffic's getting uglier and uglier x.x
Boy is that the truth! I just got back from an 11 day roadtrip and found SW PDX suburbia clogged to the point of a heart attack...LOL! It turned out Bend was just as bad too.
Rick
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2017, 07:47:21 PM
What road tunnel is most likely to happen next other than the 710? Doesn't matter if it's 95 years out. Which one is nost likely to happen?
A cut-and-cover or a bored tunnel? Remember, all tunnels don't have to be exciting :bigass:
maybe elon will make his boring company build 710, i'd love a tunnel to complete the i-69 gap to downtown indy (a project that will never happen)
As much as I wish it were otherwise, the 710 tunnel is likely dead permanently!
Sometimes dead projects get resurrected in 20 or 30 years...
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2017, 04:26:07 PM
As much as I wish it were otherwise, the 710 tunnel is likely dead permanently!
Quote from: kkt on June 22, 2017, 04:30:19 PM
Sometimes dead projects get resurrected in 20 or 30 years...
Barring an apocalypse, as long as property values in South Pasadena remain on a constant uptick over the next couple of decades -- and the official LA metro attitude mitigates against new freeway development, don't count on 710 being resurrected in the foreseeable future, even with private financing.
Even though that they seemed to stress it was about funds. Smh
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 22, 2017, 06:13:02 PM
Even though that they seemed to stress it was about funds. Smh
Well, while money was a significant part of it; it's not likely the tunnel -- at its projected costs -- would have much of a chance of passing a CBE -- particularly if the probability that a big part of the NB rush-hour traffic would simply hang a right (EB) at 210, adding to the perennial congestion on that route, was factored into the equation. What the 710 extension was largely about was giving commercial traffic coming up from the Ports of Long Beach and L.A. an alternative to I-5 (and certainly I-405) by shifting to the underutilized section of I-210 from Pasadena NW to I-5 at Newhall Pass.
That was the plus side of the equation; the minus side was the other direction of I-210; "grid pattern" outbound commute traffic would likely use I-710 as simply another N-S connector from CA 60 and/or I-10 up to 210, particularly traffic destined for the area between Pasadena and I-605 (i.e. Arcadia and Monrovia), which for the most part utilizes I-605 and then turns
west on 210 to get where they're going. It would save a few miles -- but EB 210 has been clogged for decades in and just east of Pasadena -- and there's no real chance of that facility being expanded to accommodate even more peak-hour traffic. And traffic from central L.A. going to interim points on WB 210 (La Canada/Flintridge, La Crescenta, Tujunga, etc.) already uses the CA 2 freeway to do just that; the 710 extension would only marginally affect that traffic pattern.
It seems the battle over the I-710 (and before that, the CA 7) extension has been ongoing almost as long as the Middle East conflicts -- with about the same chances of resolution. And by now inflation has essentially rendered the project at best a "money pit", and at worst a sociopolitical nightmare -- and Caltrans has enough of those already! :ded:
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 20, 2017, 07:47:21 PM
What road tunnel is most likely to happen next other than the 710? Doesn't matter if it's 95 years out. Which one is nost likely to happen?
For in the USA, I mused this in other forvms over the past year or two, mentioning places such as two in NYC and on I-40 in the Great Smoky Mountains area. I also believe that there are active plans for additional tunnels along PR 53 in Puerto Rico's southeastern coast area.
Mike
Continuing the discussion... http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170618/two-sides-still-fighting-over-710-freeway-extension-turn-to-attorneys-legislature-to-lobby-for-caltrans-vote
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimage.sgvtribune.com%2Fstoryimage%2FLC%2F20170618%2FNEWS%2F170619459%2FAR%2F0%2FAR-170619459.jpg%26amp%3Bmaxh%3D400%26amp%3Bmaxw%3D667&hash=17bec5958784f11cc5b5bd6189bdb36bad2bdd25)
QuoteThe fight over the completion of the 710 Freeway is not over
June 18, 2017
Despite a historic vote by LA Metro to reject a car tunnel to close the 4.5-mile gap between El Sereno and Pasadena, recent moves from cities and local legislators indicate the two rival camps are still jockeying to see the project built, or kill it for good.
Rosemead, part of the 710 Coalition, the collection of east San Gabriel Valley cities pushing for the construction of a $3 billion to $5 billion tunnel, voted on May 30 to hire a law firm to look into the legality of Metro's vote.
The group wants to find out whether the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's vote went against the voters, who passed Measure R in 2008 – included in the text of the measure was $780 million in funding reserved for a plan called "Interstate 710 North Gap Closure (tunnel)."
"We want to find out if we have any case to try to get that back on the radar," said Rosemead City Councilwoman Margaret Clark. "It is basically to see if there's anything we can do. It is a fight over the fact that we need that completion."
Rosemead hired Blank Rome LLP, a nationwide firm with a Los Angeles office that specialize in government affairs.
Councilman Steven Ly said the Metro board's unanimous vote to kill the tunnel was a detriment to the Rosemead community and to the region. "Measure R specifically allocated funds for this project. Let's not deviate from the will of the voters," he said in a statement released by the Coalition, which also includes Alhambra, Monterey Park, San Marino and San Gabriel.
While Metro voted to remove the tunnel as an option and instead invest in improvements to local north-south roadways, Caltrans is the lead agency and also gets a vote.
Meanwhile, State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, an opponent of the tunnel plan, will meet with state transportation leaders early next week. "I am looking forward to connecting with the secretary and the greater community to meet the local transportation needs of the 710 communities, now that the tunnel is dead."
In addition, members of the No 710 Action Committee are asking Gov. Jerry Brown, Secretary of Transportation Brian Kelly and Caltrans itself to immediately pronounce the tunnel alternative dead and end a prolonged environmental process that began in March 2015. The proposal dates back nearly 60 years.
"They do not have to wait and they do not have to finish the EIR," said Joanne Nuckols of South Pasadena, a member of the group and longtime freeway opponent.
In a May 10 letter from attorney Antonio Rossmann to the No 710 Action Committee and Chairwoman Claire Bogaard, he suggested Caltrans does not have to wait until the environmental process is finalized to choose the preferred alternative.
Instead, Rossmann suggests Caltrans remove the tunnel from the project and complete a revised environmental review. Continuing with a review that includes a project the local agency has already rejected is a waste of taxpayer money, he said.
"Keeping the tunnel as part of a revised EIR not only wastes time getting to approval of a better project, but also consumes scarce funds that would then be needed to complete analysis of the tunnel component of that EIR," Rossmann wrote to Bogaard and the Coalition.
"Those funds could and should instead be dedicated toward the adoption of the consensus-based project."
Lauren Wonder, a Caltrans spokeswoman, did not provide a response to the Rossmann letter about the environmental review on the project as requested by this newspaper via email queries sent over several days.
Metro has reported that, as the lead agency, Caltrans must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act and certify the final environmental review on the 710 project.
Metro said 8,000 comments were received for the review. Of those, 1,328 comments supported and 237 comments opposed the freeway tunnel. Comments will be included in a final review to be completed by the end of the first quarter of 2018.
The 710 North draft EIR included five alternatives: a tunnel, a new rail system, a bus rapid transit way, a series of roadway improvements, and building nothing.
Metro board chose the option of improving local roads as its preferred alternative and offered $105 million from Measure R to be spent first. The board also offered leftover money to be used for other projects alleviating local traffic snarls in El Sereno, Alhambra, South Pasadena and Pasadena roughly along the route of the rejected freeway extension.
"While it is a relief the Metro part is over, it is not quite over yet," Nuckols said
I am surprised to hear this. I thought the 710 tunnel was dead as a doornail.
Voters decided to move forward. Government agency decided to ignore that. I saw that storyline play out in Eugene last decade. People supported a West Eugene Parkway. The "progressives against progress" stopped the project. ODOT had the funds in hand but once it became apparent the building of a needed road had turned into a political football, the money got spent elsewhere.
Rick
"progressives against progress" lol
What an oxymoron.
And having driven through Springfield-Eugene on the way to Florence last year, hitting Eugene during rush hour, OR 126 was overwhelmed.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 29, 2017, 12:32:04 AM
"progressives against progress" lol
What an oxymoron.
And having driven through Springfield-Eugene on the way to Florence last year, hitting Eugene during rush hour, OR 126 was overwhelmed.
:-D the very definition of oxymoron
By the time they finally start work on the tunnel, if ever, most of us probably will be dead then.
only boring king elon can save us now.
Every so often another article on the 710 gap shows up...
https://www.sgvtribune.com/2018/03/06/10-months-after-metro-killed-710-tunnel-a-nervous-south-pasadena-hires-outside-attorney-to-bring-the-fight-to-caltrans/
10 months after Metro killed 710 tunnel, a nervous South Pasadena hires outside attorney to bring the fight to Caltrans
QuoteDespite assurances that the project is dead, South Pasadena last week hired an outside attorney to help the city redouble its efforts to fight a tunnel extension of the 710 Freeway from Alhambra to Pasadena, city and state sources said.
Douglas Carstens, an expert in California environmental law and part of the Los Angeles-based Chatten-Brown & Carstens law firm, was hired by South Pasadena to help with the city's latest effort to respond to Caltrans about how a 6.3-mile, north-south tunnel connecting the 10 Freeway with the 134/210 freeways in west Pasadena would adversely affect historical buildings, city spokesperson Susan Groveman said in an email.
A six-page letter to Caltrans dated March 1 obtained by this news organization points out that four Pasadena properties along the route would be damaged by the drilling:
The Markham Place Historic District, roughly bounded by California Street, Pasadena Avenue, Bellefontaine Street and Orange Grove Boulevard
Caroline Walkley House, 696 S. Pasadena Ave.
Driscoll House, 679 S. Pasadena Ave.
Sequoyah School, 535 S. Pasadena Ave.
"In light of the adverse effects that cannot be fully mitigated, the Freeway Tunnel alternative cannot be approved," the letter said. It was signed by South Pasadena City Manager Stephanie DeWolfe, who hired Carstens to help her draft the letter. Groveman said the city manager has the authority to hire someone in a "limited contract" to assist her staff.
Caltrans has not yet signed off on the environmental analysis of the north-710 connector. Until it does, the project is not officially decided since Caltrans is the lead agency. The project was dealt a major blow May 25 when the board of the funding agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, voted unanimously not to build the tunnel, saying the price tag, between $3 billion and $5 billion, was prohibitive.
Instead, the board voted for a preferred local alternative that would improve affected roadways across city lines by adding capacity, new bus lines, bike lanes and synchronized signals in the high-traffic areas of Fremont and Garfield avenues and on Fair Oaks Avenue, as well as Pasadena Avenue and St. John Avenue in Pasadena.
Several members from the No on 710 group were not satisfied and asked the city to hire an attorney to keep the pressure on Caltrans to kill the tunnel project. The group also wanted Carstens to get Caltrans to remove the 710 connector from the state highway code, but the letter does not address that issue. The closure of the freeway gap has been on the state map since 1959.
The letter says Caltrans has changed its stand, saying tunneling will have an adverse effect on certain historic properties because the agency does not have a proper plan in case a tunnel boring machine breaks down or a tunnel fire ignites. Other possible adverse effects listed were: sinkholes created by tunneling; earthquakes triggered by tunneling activity on the Eagle Rock and San Rafael faults; vibrations that could shake historical buildings and ground settling.
In response, Caltrans is preparing to augment a portion of the environmental reports relating to historical resources and will begin recirculating that portion in April. The public and various agencies will have 45 days to comment, State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge said Tuesday. This will push back the finalization of a project under debate for nearly 60 years from spring to summer, he said.
While Portantino said the additional study was appropriate, he estimates a decision from Caltrans and the California State Transportation Agency Secretary won't come until July now, he said. Also, that will come not from Brian P. Kelly, who resigned recently to head up the California High-Speed Rail Authority, but from Brian C. Annis, acting secretary.
On the other hand, the delays and a new secretary don't change anything because the project is not funded, he said.
"I am still excited the tunnel is no longer a viable threat to our region," he said.
This is why we can't have nice things. So the sensible solution is widen streets in local areas and have more cars drive even faster through neighborhoods rather than under them in a tunnel... makes sense. :clap:
I wouldn't be surprised if the northern piece of I-710 was eventually decommissioned; apparently, the only thing worse than a NIMBY town is a BANANA town, which Pasadena is!
how does a tunnel hurt historic buildings? it would go well below any buildings depths! and LA's air quality is already shitty, wouldn't this make it better, less stationary cars.
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 09, 2018, 11:50:07 AM
how does a tunnel hurt historic buildings? it would go well below any buildings depths! and LA's air quality is already shitty, wouldn't this make it better, less stationary cars.
Because it's California. I'm not sure how many of you are aware but the California EPA act predates the Federal act by a couple years. Since the early 1970s infrastructure development has essentially ground to a halt because of red tape and lack of political will to pick up the cause.
Quote from: Henry on March 09, 2018, 11:26:07 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if the northern piece of I-710 was eventually decommissioned; apparently, the only thing worse than a NIMBY town is a BANANA town, which Pasadena is!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 09, 2018, 04:02:28 AM
This is why we can't have nice things. So the sensible solution is widen streets in local areas and have more cars drive even faster through neighborhoods rather than under them in a tunnel... makes sense. :clap:
May I drink to both of these?
Frankly, I'm surprised anything can be built in California in this day and age.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2018, 06:39:29 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised anything can be built in California in this day and age.
Especially if it is related to public transit in one form or another.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 09, 2018, 09:30:08 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 09, 2018, 06:39:29 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised anything can be built in California in this day and age.
Especially if it is related to public transit in one form or another.
Transit projects of a smaller and more localized scale have and currently are being deployed around CA; the BART extension to Warm Springs and under construction down to the east side of San Jose exemplify that. The eastern extension of the Gold Line in L.A. metro is another current project; IIRC that will in relatively short order be extended out to Ontario Airport. The common factor among these is localized funding via special tax districts and/or bond issuance. However, the ongoing controversy regarding HSR has cast a bit of a shadow over whether such measures will find future success; opponents of even local projects can (and have!) pointed to the cost overruns (more massive underestimating than anything else!) of the statewide project and attempted to conflate it to the local level; that's not likely to blow over in the near term but continue to be a thorn in the side of funding identification.
I'm under the impression the camps fighting over freeways versus mass trasit rail or high speed rail are really just different "good ole boy network" teams playing each other in a zero sum game for a big gravy train of taxpayer money. One team's project must be eliminated so the other team's project can be realized. Then they get paid and go big pimpin'.
Some of these lavish projects, like high speed rail efforts or even a freaking Hyperloop, run a serious risk of having little if anything built over the long term. Ever rising living costs, among other issues, are creating a mathematically (and politically) unsustainable imbalance. How will California finish any of this stuff if they're faced with a large migration of American-born residents out of the state? I read an article recently that demand for U-Haul trailers was so high in the San Francisco area that the normal one-way price of $200 going out of SF had multiplied to over $2000. There's that many people leaving. None of the state's cosmopolitan cities can survive without low wage service industry workers. No city can really. INS raids are hitting another base of workers. The state is deep in debt and its tax base is on increasingly shaky ground, and that has nothing to do with earthquakes. From my perspective it looks like the NIMBYs and people fantasizing about high speed rail lines, hyperloops and such are disconnected from reality.
There are some people who are actually OK with the idea of paying what would be a luxury apartment rate here to live in a glorified college-like dorm room. I was reading an article about it in the NY Times yesterday.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/technology/dorm-living-grown-ups-san-francisco.html
Why can't they just build this again? Is South Pasadena that powerful?
Maybe there is a chance. Caltrans still has to kill it.
it's citylab at it again: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/la-says-no-to-freeway-expansion/555353/?utm_source=SFFB
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 12, 2018, 05:46:32 PM
it's citylab at it again: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/la-says-no-to-freeway-expansion/555353/?utm_source=SFFB
Well, there goes that.
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 12, 2018, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 12, 2018, 05:46:32 PM
it's citylab at it again: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/la-says-no-to-freeway-expansion/555353/?utm_source=SFFB
Well, there goes that.
Not today, anyway.
Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2018, 08:58:07 PM
Quote from: theroadwayone on March 12, 2018, 08:01:45 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 12, 2018, 05:46:32 PM
it's citylab at it again: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/la-says-no-to-freeway-expansion/555353/?utm_source=SFFB
Well, there goes that.
Not today, anyway.
Don't underestimate the resolve of the Twin Ports (L.A./Long Beach); if 710 is a no-go for the time being, what will happen is likely to be an acceleration of plans to alleviate I-710 traffic. Much of that relates to rail issues: using trucks as a "bridge" between the ports and the downtown railyards was always supposed to be a temporary situation to be at least mitigated if not resolved by the Alameda rail corridor -- but the railroads (particularly UP) got "fat & lazy" with the current methodology and didn't fully upgrade their yard facility down in Wilmington, near the docks, so that trains could be assembled there rather than downtown for the transcontinental trip east. If implemented, that would remove a substantial number of trucks from I-710, the corridor between port & currently-used yard. BNSF, the other rail carrier serving the port,
does assemble significantly more trains down near the ports than does UP; if further "sorting" or "routing" needs to take place, that is done either in San Bernardino or Barstow, where there are major facilities deployed for just that purpose. But UP's facilities are concentrated just east of L.A.; their other major yard (West Colton) is geared toward traditional "manifest" train assembly and is not particularly amenable to containerized cargo (much of which bypasses that yard in any case, traveling east through Riverside and Colton). But increased "dwell time" (i.e. cargo slowdowns due to congestion) between port and the East L.A. yard may in short order prompt UP to complete the process of rebuilding the old S.P. "Dolores" yard in east Wilmington so that long-distance trains may be assembled there and sent eastward, avoiding the one-or-two-container-at-a-time schlep up I-710. Alternately, there are smaller UP yards with container-loading capabilities in the City of Industry and in Mira Loma (between Ontario & Riverside) that could be pressed into service; the possibility that some of the I-710 traffic could shift to other freeway facilities (I-605, CA 57, or a combination of CA 91 & I-15 --
good luck with that! -- come to mind) that more closely serve these more outlying yards.
While citylab can and does engage in hyperbole, conflation, and emotional "heart-tugs" to bolster their position while largely ignoring commerce as a legitimate concern, they
are correct in the statement that I-710 traverses what could be termed the "poorest of the poorest" segments of greater L.A. And it's a freeway dating from the early '50's that was hardly expected to carry a significant portion of the nation's imported cargo. That combination naturally spells "political dynamite"; I'd guess that the estimate of taking a hundred homes is on the light side; knowing the traversed area, I would have increased that figure by at least 50-60 per cent if not more. If the MPO hadn't dropped the boom on this project, chances are class-action litigation would have at least slowed the process down to a crawl.
The railroads -- the progenitors of the problem -- are simply going to have to bite the bullet and start assembling their trains at the point of origin rather than depend upon short-haul trucks to take up the slack.
With regard to the 710 gap in Pasadena, it would be nice if as a consolation if Caltrans (or LA City DOT) constructed a surface boulevard from Valley Blvd to Huntington. There should be some grade separation for the R/R crossing. This routing would avoid having the major movement of traffic making turns at busy intersections (710/Valley and Fremont/Valley) and instead allow the movement to go straight and use Huntington which is the widest surface street in the area.
In some ways, I see this as analogous to what happened in San Francisco with regard to 101. As a response to the earthquake and the anti-freeway movement in general, the freeway (is this 101?) was reduced to Market Street. But then Octavia Street, which used to be underneath the Central Freeway, was widened into Octavia Blvd, a widened surface boulevard, to provide a way for traffic to connect to Fell/Oak (a major corridor towards GG Park). A similar surface boulevard is needed to reduce the immediate impact of the 710 freeway end until traffic can dissipate onto Huntington and then Fair Oaks.
Quote from: mrsman on March 14, 2018, 10:42:11 PM
With regard to the 710 gap in Pasadena, it would be nice if as a consolation if Caltrans (or LA City DOT) constructed a surface boulevard from Valley Blvd to Huntington.
I agree, but there are too many houses along that path. You'd get the same opposition that you got to the full surface routing. A tunnel that allowed westbound Huntington traffic onto the 710 south and dumped 710 north traffic onto Huntington east would be ideal.
QuoteDon't underestimate the resolve of the Twin Ports (L.A./Long Beach); if 710 is a no-go for the time being, what will happen is likely to be an acceleration of plans to alleviate I-710 traffic.
Vehicle traffic from the L.A./Long Beach ports might also be alleviated by more container ships using the recently expanded Panama Canal. The $5 billion expansion will allow "Neo-Panamax" sized ships in the Pacific Ocean to reach ports on the Gulf Coast and East Coast more directly. It also opens up a safer passage between the Far East and Western Europe. Accessing the Suez Canal has been dicey lately due to wars and pirates nearby.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 15, 2018, 09:59:42 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 14, 2018, 10:42:11 PM
With regard to the 710 gap in Pasadena, it would be nice if as a consolation if Caltrans (or LA City DOT) constructed a surface boulevard from Valley Blvd to Huntington.
I agree, but there are too many houses along that path. You'd get the same opposition that you got to the full surface routing. A tunnel that allowed westbound Huntington traffic onto the 710 south and dumped 710 north traffic onto Huntington east would be ideal.
But as I understood it, those houses have already been owned by Caltrans for the past 50 years. They don't need to do an eminent domain action, as they already own the land. True, some of those houses probably have tenants, and some are probably vacant. [And I think I even read an article suggesting that Caltrans is trying to sell the individual houses knowing that the fwy project is dead.]
And it is surprising that in of all places San Francisco, the most anti-freeway city in CA, had the sense that they had to put in Octavia Blvd to direct traffic on specific streets (as opposed to letting them pick and choose to drive on whatever narrow street Waze directs them to).
So the construction of a "Sheffield Blvd" (named after the street along the original ROW) should also occur here. And I'm not talking about a surface level freeway, let it be a surface street of similar width to Fremont Ave, 2 lanes in each direction with a suitable median. This would avoid two major turns along the current route and provide no more singficant impact than being near any major street in the area like Fremont or Atlantic. And most importantly, this corridor south of Huntington is all in Los Angeles, so South Pasadena can't stop it.
You want to see eminent domain in action, check out the area near LAX between Aviation-Arbor Vitae-La Cienega-Century. THis was a full neighborhood up until a few years ago. LAX is slowly buying property and tearing down houses to build (I believe) a new rental car center. Yet, a few stragglers remain. THere's also a public school there. And the area is taken over by homeless people in camper vans and tents. Not a good situation. Better to clear the whole area for the eventual transportation improvements. (And the same should occur in El Sereno.)
See this: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9492691,-118.3735003,3a,75y,134.94h,96.16t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sykJHGiWvulmDhhj7lXxHsw!2e0!5s20170301T000000!7i13312!8i6656
But I know you're right, so the 710 drivers will simply all clog Valley and Fremont for now and forever.
surface blvd is a great idea, but it's california, so it ain't happening!
It looks like Caltrans is finally starting to sell a few of the houses they have held on, to tenants renting for decades. But I'm not sure if they means the gap will be fully resolved.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/08/caltrans-sells-homes-cheap-after-freeway-project/
For those who don't want to turn off their ad-blocker:
QuoteFor 40 years, the 67-year-old mom raised three children in this South Pasadena home, launched a catering company, hosted block parties and sat in her back porch listening to the thud of tree-ripened avocados bouncing off the wood deck. A seemingly bucolic life, except for the dark cloud of a potential surface freeway that might consume her home with pollution from cars and trucks.
Come July, she'll begin a new life chapter that's hard for her to grasp, as she signs the deed transferring ownership of the 100-year-old home no longer needed for a freeway project to her name.
Start your day with the news you need from the Bay Area and beyond.
Sign up for our new Morning Report weekday newsletter.
She is one of six 710 route tenants given the green light by the California Transportation Commission in late May to buy the homes they've rented from Caltrans – a first for multiple residents since the ill-fated project's 59-year-old saga began.
"I've always wanted a house," she said, warming to a reality she thought would never come, her mind racing with future home improvement designs.
"I am thinking about light cocoa with white and black trim."
Six entered escrow
Talbot and five other long-time Caltrans tenants are scattered throughout the 6.3-mile route of the defunct freeway extension, once proposed from the terminus at Valley Boulevard near Alhambra through El Sereno, South Pasadena and Pasadena to the 210/134 freeways interchange. First the extension would run along the surface, then it was proposed as a tunnel.
They are the first tenants to buy homes among the 42 listed available almost two years ago by Caltrans (full list at bottom of article) in a phased-in land sale that continues through 2020 and involves about 460 properties, confirmed Lauren Wonder, Caltrans spokesperson.
The six properties approved for sale by the CTC on May 17, according to records, are:
2011 Cambridge Place, South Pasadena; 1,174-square-foot home built in 1920, 3 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1-car garage; 7,483-square-foot lot. Selling for $150,660, valued at $814,000.
910 Bonita Drive, South Pasadena; 1,222-square foot home built in 1947, 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 2-car garage; 5,110-square-foot lot. Selling for $198,738, valued at $816,000.
852 Monterey Rd., South Pasadena; 1,817-square-foot home built in 1923, 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 2-car garage; 7,014-square-foot lot.
265 Waverly Drive, Pasadena; 1,581-square-foot home built in 1967, 2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 3-car garage; 18,540-square-foot lot. Selling for $297,421, valued at $1.08 million.
532 Meridian Ave., South Pasadena; 927-square-foot home built in 1949, 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 2-car garage; 5,669-square-foot lot.
385 Havendale Drive, Pasadena; 1,070-square-foot home built in 1947, 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 2-car garage; 10,000-square-foot double lot.
All six homes are inhabited by long-time tenants, and all have qualified for the affordable pricing program under special state laws enacted just for these properties.
Each resident is in escrow, Wonder confirmed.
Talbot is buying her 1,174-square-foot house for $150,660. The home's fair market value is $814,000. In 1979, she signed a deal with Caltrans saying she'd pay rent but will have first crack at buying the home.
That chance came 40 years later. Under what's known as the "Roberti Law," Caltrans must offer the homes to tenants at a reduced sales price.
The resident must not own other property and have an income not more than 150 percent of the median income in Los Angeles County.
"I think it is a really good deal but it sure took long," she said. Her sons are lending her the money to buy the home, she added. "Yeah, I'm at the very end of the story."
One of the six who could not contain her joy was Debra Regan, whose house on Waverly Drive off Pasadena's famous South Orange Grove Boulevard is close to where the 710 Freeway extension would have been built in west Pasadena.
Regan and her husband, William, are buying the home they've rented since 2008 for $297,421. The home is appraised at $1.08 million.
"Why would I say no? We love this house and we love this neighborhood," she said on Monday. "After 10 years, it is heartening to know they are following through on their promises."
Highway Heaven does a tour of the I-710 to CA-710 gap in South Pasadena to Pasadena section with a trace of what would happen if it was approved with Proposed BGS Signs.
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
Glad you got those while you still can. Once 2024 comes around, I expect that segment of I/CA-710 to go bye-bye.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 21, 2022, 04:47:19 PM
Glad you got those while you still can. Once 2024 comes around, I expect that segment of I/CA-710 to go bye-bye.
I still need the south segment but I'll probably get photos of that in March when we take one of our nieces to Knott's Berry Farm.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
Those exit numbers are on EB I-210 approaching the interchange. The 710 "CA 7" stub doesn't have exit numbers. I have some pictures of my own in both directions here:
https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/110/u1/#sec_5 (SB)
https://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/110/u3/#sec_73 (NB)
so i guess the burning question is now ... what will become the new control city on the 710N to replace Pasadena??
Alhambra?
Los Angeles?
"THRU TRAFFIC"????
~cat
Quote from: the91fwy on April 28, 2022, 11:26:53 PM
so i guess the burning question is now ... what will become the new control city on the 710N to replace Pasadena??
Alhambra?
Los Angeles?
"THRU TRAFFIC"????
~cat
Leave it so long as southern stub exists, Fremont Avenue is right there as access to Pasadena.
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
Quote from: kkt on April 29, 2022, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
A few miles south, I-380 still uses exit numbers based on a potential terminus of Route 1 at Pacifica, even though the section west of I-280 has been long shelved.
380 at Route 82 (El Camino Real) is Exit 5, at US 101 is Exit 6A/6B, and at South Airport Boulevard/North Access Road is exit 7.
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
They could have found the money. They have hundreds of millions if not billions allocated for to close the gap. There's no logical reason it shouldn't have been built. The people in south Pasadena and Pasadena who opposed this are idiots. Plain and simple. This is nothing more than those people not wanting to wake up to the reality that a mega project like that is needed, IMO. Yet Australia, Japan, China, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, are all capable of building these kinds of projects.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 29, 2022, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
They could have found the money. They have hundreds of millions if not billions allocated for to close the gap. There's no logical reason it shouldn't have been built. The people in south Pasadena and Pasadena who opposed this are idiots. Plain and simple. This is nothing more than those people not wanting to wake up to the reality that a mega project like that is needed, IMO. Yet Australia, Japan, China, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, are all capable of building these kinds of projects.
This is one of those situations where it should just be allowed to fester in anonymous obscurity until the present gentry is completely gone and forgotten and then continue waiting until future generations are so completely fed up with life on the surface streets that they start irresistibly calling for it to be resurrected and built.
Maybe the same thing will happen WRT a convenient connection between I-105 to the west and I-5 to the southeast.
Mike
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
oh yes. The urbanists in the Bay area will say no to freeways while complaining about the traffic on I-880 in the same breath. No sh*t, there's no alternative to it between Fremont and Hayward because CA-238 freeway was canceled. The people that would take BART are already takin BART.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 29, 2022, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
They could have found the money. They have hundreds of millions if not billions allocated for to close the gap. There's no logical reason it shouldn't have been built. The people in south Pasadena and Pasadena who opposed this are idiots. Plain and simple. This is nothing more than those people not wanting to wake up to the reality that a mega project like that is needed, IMO. Yet Australia, Japan, China, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, are all capable of building these kinds of projects.
it's just a story of how money talks. most of the people in the way of the 710 had money to fight it.
compare it with the 110 (century fwy) and nobody in it's corridor had the money to fight it.
both sets of people had an equal hatred towards their respective freeways.
~cat
Quote from: the91fwy on April 29, 2022, 08:08:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 29, 2022, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
They could have found the money. They have hundreds of millions if not billions allocated for to close the gap. There's no logical reason it shouldn't have been built. The people in south Pasadena and Pasadena who opposed this are idiots. Plain and simple. This is nothing more than those people not wanting to wake up to the reality that a mega project like that is needed, IMO. Yet Australia, Japan, China, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, are all capable of building these kinds of projects.
it's just a story of how money talks. most of the people in the way of the 710 had money to fight it.
compare it with the 110 (century fwy) and nobody in it's corridor had the money to fight it.
both sets of people had an equal hatred towards their respective freeways.
~cat
:nod:
so the moral is, if you are a DOT, is always route the freeway through a neighborhood of poor people.
Quote from: kkt on April 29, 2022, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
Those are exit numbers based on the 210, not the unsigned 710.
If they were based on the 710, they would be approximately Exits 28 or 29.
Quote from: mgk920 on April 29, 2022, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 29, 2022, 10:36:56 AM
Quote from: Henry on April 29, 2022, 10:31:25 AM
Outside the Bay Area's incomplete freeway system, this is Caltrans' biggest failure. I've always been bothered by the gap in Pasadena, although it's clear to see why it exists. Simply too expensive to plow through, and there's no good way around it either, so I'm not surprised that the connecting freeway is getting cancelled, once and for all.
They could have found the money. They have hundreds of millions if not billions allocated for to close the gap. There's no logical reason it shouldn't have been built. The people in south Pasadena and Pasadena who opposed this are idiots. Plain and simple. This is nothing more than those people not wanting to wake up to the reality that a mega project like that is needed, IMO. Yet Australia, Japan, China, Spain, the Netherlands, New Zealand, are all capable of building these kinds of projects.
This is one of those situations where it should just be allowed to fester in anonymous obscurity until the present gentry is completely gone and forgotten and then continue waiting until future generations are so completely fed up with life on the surface streets that they start irresistibly calling for it to be resurrected and built.
Maybe the same thing will happen WRT a convenient connection between I-105 to the west and I-5 to the southeast.
Mike
I guess at some point it still can theoretically still be built even without the stubs it'll just be much harder and costly.
I vote for THRU TRAFFIC. If there's any destination everyone in greater LA can agree on, it's that we're going to MOAR TRAFFIC.
Plus, why should the 605 have all the fun?
Quote from: kkt on April 29, 2022, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
Shouldn't that Seventh St exit then be exit 3? I'm pretty certain exit numbers were supposed to reflect postmiles.
Quote from: RZF on April 30, 2022, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 29, 2022, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
Shouldn't that Seventh St exit then be exit 3? I'm pretty certain exit numbers were supposed to reflect postmiles.
I-80 has been legislatively defined to end at US 101 (Bayshore and Central Freeways) since 1965 or so, after the Western Freeway (from Golden Gate Park to the former Fell Street interchange complex off the Central Freeway) was vociferously opposed during the San Francisco freeway revolts.
Prior to the 1989 earthquake, the section of I-80 coming off the Bay Bridge westbound was signed as "I-80 / US 101" (possible holdover from when 80 was defined along the east-west part of the Central Freeway and then to the canceled Western) but is now primarily signed as "US 101 SOUTH - San Jose", another of those CalTrans "implied TO" situations.
This is different from the other scenarios in which exit number and postmile may conflict:
- I mentioned I-380 above, with its exit number range from 5 to 7. The route definition still includes the likely-to-never-be-built portion from Pacifica at Route 1 to I-280. (I still think the route should be extended as a short 2-lane road to Skyline Boulevard/Route 35, but that is probably never happening).
- Route 14 is legislatively defined to start at Route 1 near Malibu (passing through Reseda) but that extension southwest of Sylmar has been dead for at least 5 decades; the exit numbers for what has been built explicitly begin at I-5/Golden State Freeway.
Now this stupid shit: https://la.streetsblog.org/2022/05/04/pasadena-and-caltrans-reach-agreement-to-relinquish-710-freeway-stub-to-city/?fbclid=IwAR1US669xGxaLjwqejoaIaV13l5bsLPKY9BVt4CtqdV6KUPa6lUIBf-O3IU
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 05, 2022, 12:16:42 PM
Now this stupid shit: https://la.streetsblog.org/2022/05/04/pasadena-and-caltrans-reach-agreement-to-relinquish-710-freeway-stub-to-city/?fbclid=IwAR1US669xGxaLjwqejoaIaV13l5bsLPKY9BVt4CtqdV6KUPa6lUIBf-O3IU
I mean, this wasn't known that it was going to happen. Why torment yourself by reading an urbanist page?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2022, 12:43:29 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 05, 2022, 12:16:42 PM
Now this stupid shit: https://la.streetsblog.org/2022/05/04/pasadena-and-caltrans-reach-agreement-to-relinquish-710-freeway-stub-to-city/?fbclid=IwAR1US669xGxaLjwqejoaIaV13l5bsLPKY9BVt4CtqdV6KUPa6lUIBf-O3IU
I mean, this wasn't known that it was going to happen. Why torment yourself by reading an urbanist page?
Oh I didn't read it. I refuse to read Streetsblog given the writer, Joe Linton, is a joker who only wants a one sided discussion and banned me from commenting. But I supposed it was worth posting here.
Surprisingly enough I came across it from Urbanize LA which I follow for development in LA and there's several people voicing their displeasure with this.
Quote from: RZF on April 30, 2022, 03:56:00 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 29, 2022, 12:14:56 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on April 28, 2022, 12:00:00 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2022, 12:36:45 PM
Checked out the unsigned portion of CA 710/I-710 south of the I-210/CA 134 interchange this week:
https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjzCKVc
What's amazing about this is that they have exit numbers as if the entire freeway would've been completed.
CalTrans likes to lay out mile numbers and postmile numbers as if all proposed roads will eventually be completed, however unlikely that is.
For example, I-80's first exit in San Francisco, Seventh Street, is exit 1, as you'd expect. But its postmile number is 3.91. That reflects I-80s formerly planned west end at CA Highway 1, 19th Avenue.
Shouldn't that Seventh St exit then be exit 3? I'm pretty certain exit numbers were supposed to reflect postmiles.
The exit numbers were not applied in California until way after I-80 was truncated at US 101. Caltrans kept the postmile numbers for continuity with records of work done previously.
The exit numbers reflect the total mileage within the state. The postmile numbers reset to 0 at each county line.
Put something together for the Pasadena Stub:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/07/hidden-california-state-route-710-and.html?m=1
Also an article from the Pasadena Star regarding the CTC relinquishing the Pasadena Stub on 6/29:
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2022/06/29/historic-vote-returns-710-stub-to-pasadena/
With the relinquishment of CA 710, does that mean that come 2024, the stub will be demolished and redeveloped? I was unable to get through all of the Pasadena Star-News story before the paywall showed up.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2022, 02:14:18 PM
With the relinquishment of CA 710, does that mean that come 2024, the stub will be demolished and redeveloped? I was unable to get through all of the Pasadena Star-News story before the paywall showed up.
Unclear, they say 2026-2030 in the article.
Quote from: Pasadena Star-News
As currently constructed, the 710 freeway's end at Valley Boulevard in Alhambra forces traffic onto local streets, where dozens of commuters regularly travel 4.5-miles to the 210 Freeway entrance.
As someone who had to take that detour many times over a 15-year period, I can tell you it's a whole heck of a lot more than "dozens."
If anyone caught the recent season 3 of Barry on HBO Max, there was a nice chase scene on the stub.