Print

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

[theroadwayone]

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!

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. 

May I drink to both of these?

[The Ghostbuster]

Frankly, I'm surprised anything can be built in California in this day and age.

[theroadwayone]

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.

[sparker]

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.     

[Bobby5280]

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.

[vdeane]

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

[Interstate Trav]

Why can't they just build this again?  Is South Pasadena that powerful?

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe there is a chance. Caltrans still has to kill it.

[silverback1065]

it's citylab at it again: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/la-says-no-to-freeway-expansion/555353/?utm_source=SFFB

[theroadwayone]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[mrsman]

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.

[Occidental Tourist]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

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.

[mrsman]

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.

[silverback1065]

surface blvd is a great idea, but it's california, so it ain't happening!

[Techknow]

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:

For 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.”

[bing101]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[The Ghostbuster]

Glad you got those while you still can. Once 2024 comes around, I expect that segment of I/CA-710 to go bye-bye.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[ztonyg]

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.

[ClassicHasClass]

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)

[the91fwy]

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