Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sparker]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[pderocco]

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.

[Bickendan]

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

[nexus73]

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

[rte66man]

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 

[silverback1065]

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)

[The Ghostbuster]

As much as I wish it were otherwise, the 710 tunnel is likely dead permanently!

[kkt]

Sometimes dead projects get resurrected in 20 or 30 years...

[sparker]

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...

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. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Even though that they seemed to stress it was about funds. Smh

[sparker]

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!        

[mgk920]

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

[andy3175]

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

The 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

[The Ghostbuster]

I am surprised to hear this. I thought the 710 tunnel was dead as a doornail.

[nexus73]

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

[Bickendan]

"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.

[silverback1065]

"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.

the very definition of oxymoron

[Henry]

By the time they finally start work on the tunnel, if ever, most of us probably will be dead then.

[silverback1065]

only boring king elon can save us now. 

[andy3175]

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

Despite 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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. 

[Henry]

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!

[silverback1065]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.