Quote
Lower speed limits and fewer traffic lanes are on the table for L.A.'s oldest freeway
5 alternatives will be studied to improve safety along a stretch of the Arroyo Seco Parkway
Caltrans has begun studying several ways to improve safety along a nearly 5-mile stretch of the narrow and winding Arroyo Seco Parkway (110 Freeway), including lowering the speed limit to 45 miles per hour and reducing the parkway to two lanes in each direction.
The five alternatives -- which also includes keeping things as they are -- are focused on making it safer to get off and on the nearly 80-year-old freeway, which is notorious for its extremely short onramps and offramps.
https://www.theeastsiderla.com/news/transportation_and_traffic/lower-speed-limits-and-fewer-traffic-lanes-are-on-the/article_a32d2b22-d89b-11e9-8b7e-4308efe1f68a.html
In my opinion, the third alternative in the article, the conversion into acceleration/deceleration/auxiliary lane seems to be the best option.
The real danger on this road is the difficulty to merge in and out. If the right lane were to become an exit lane, it would make this much easier. To allow this to happen, the 4 northbound lanes coming out of the tunnel should be modified to force the left two lanes towards I-5 north (or the Figueroa Street exit) and only have 2 lanes continue north on the 110. Traffic from I-5 north to 110 north can form the accel-decel lane and be forced to exit at Ave 43.
Really at this point there hasn't a ton of utility in the Arroyo Seco Parkway for decades. I'd say leave it as is and continue to shift it's focus towards being a historic parkway rather than major urban freeway. Granted not having a completed I-710 really doesn't help with that kind of mindset.
I think Caltrans is trying to address a real current safety concern. When I lived in CA, I felt fortunate that I had no real reason to ever enter the Pkwy at any of these entrances that were controlled by a stop sign. It is really dangerous to get up to speed with so little room.
In the NYC area, there are a bunch of isolated dangerous entrances as well. I remember that if I knew of a troublesome entrance, I could avoid it and enter the highway at a much more conventional and safe entrance.
Here's an example at Union Turnpike onramp onto the Grand Central westbound.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7168851,-73.8285106,3a,75y,217.59h,92.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seTvTZ61SpgcIzgmfB3-uPg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
A short detour to Jewel Ave, will lead to this onramp. Much better:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7281569,-73.8385857,3a,75y,309.41h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sotzNb5whw7d2AAyd1hpYPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Avoiding bad entrances is a lot harder to do along the 110, as it seems that every entrance between I-5 and Orange Grove is similarly deficient.
Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2019, 02:12:39 PM
Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?
That's what I thought too. Just look at the very old signs and sign gentries along the route!
I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the future they decide to convert interchanges to intersections and put traffic lights along the route. Probably cheaper maintenance wise.
Quote from: SeriesE on September 21, 2019, 12:17:38 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 20, 2019, 02:12:39 PM
Can they even do any modifications to CA-110? I thought the "historical" freeway designation prevented any modifications from ever being made to the roadway? Can someone clarify this?
That's what I thought too. Just look at the very old signs and sign gentries along the route!
I always wondered what a historical designation really meant, and found this:
Quote
Myth #1:"If a property gets designated as a historic landmark, it's protected
forever and can never be demolished."
Fact: Landmark designation ensures a more thorough review of demolition proposals,
but it does not prohibit demolition outright. In the City of Los Angeles, designation as a
City historic landmark (Historic-Cultural Monument) allows the City's Cultural Heritage
Commission to object to the issuance of a demolition permit, but only for 180 days.
As for the Parkway, changes have been made, but more care is given to the design of the changes. For instance, additional lighting was added but it used teardrop shaped fixtures on decorative poles. The metal median barrier was replaced with a concrete barrier stamped with Craftsman style elements.
It seems like the historic designation means that an overall plan has been developed for the corridor and all of the changes are designed to fit into that plan.
I like the idea of alternative 2 and 3, but I'm not sure a fancy new sign system would fit very well given the historic parkway designation. I also feel just dropping the 3rd lane for an auxiliary lane should be sufficient as I'd guess it's probably not being used by much through traffic anyway. I'd also be for dropping the speed limit in theory but given this is California I'm not sure it'd have much of an effect.
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day. Every single one of these options will make driving worse on this road and cause more traffic. Reducing the speed limit will do nothing as no one abides by the current limit. I will be heavily involved in trying to protest any of these attempted changes.
As bad and infamous the traffic is in the Los Angeles metro, and they want to -remove- a lane on a major freeway?
I say add acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, and auxiliary lanes where needed, but as new construction off to the side, not eliminating the right lane and using it as one.
I agree improvements are needed, but the last thing needed is to remove a lane.
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 24, 2019, 11:04:15 PM
As bad and infamous the traffic is in the Los Angeles metro, and they want to -remove- a lane on a major freeway?
I say add acceleration lanes, deceleration lanes, and auxiliary lanes where needed, but as new construction off to the side, not eliminating the right lane and using it as one.
I agree improvements are needed, but the last thing needed is to remove a lane.
Constructing a new lane on this particular parkway would require extensive taking of old-stock housing along the northwest side and the Arroyo Seco "linear park" on the southeast -- the former would likely draw substantial opposition from both localized NIMBY factions, with "piling on" by the L.A. city council, the parks department, and other affected parties. Many of the RIRO access points are from local streets; very few through arteries cross the freeway and adjoining channelized waterway; when they do they're usually from high bridges (e.g. York Boulevard and the LR line up on the old Santa Fe trestle). Closing off some of the more egregious and dangerous (blind approach) RIRO's might not be such a bad idea, despite the pissing and moaning from the yups who are buying up the Highland Park housing stock right & left (idea: let 'em take the Gold Line LR!). But any sideways expansion of the CA 110 ROW is likely DOA!
I haven't been on CA-110, the closest highway I have been on would have to be CA-17 from CA-9 to Scotts Valley, a 12 to 13 mile stretch of 4-lane expressway with windy turns and at-grade intersections with rural roads through the Santa Cruz mountains. There are at least a couple nicknames for these curves, on Wikipedia there is the "Valley Surprise" and the "Big Moody Curve". I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic. I think a few of the interchanges on CA-110 should go, particularly the one on Avenue 43. There's an advisory sign (http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/110/#img_17) for 5 MPH on a 55 MPH road. On GSV one can see at least one left exit to a street that is now barred off (why it was built I probably will not understand).
Quote from: Techknow on September 29, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic.
The long term plan for the Santa Cruz County portion of CA-17 is to eliminate all cross traffic by building three interchanges with frontage roads. The remaining driveways would be converted to a right-in, right-out configuration.
Quote from: jeffe on September 30, 2019, 12:48:33 AM
Quote from: Techknow on September 29, 2019, 04:26:26 PM
I'm not sure what can really be done to improve either highway that has not been done already, at least for CA-17 there are concrete K-rails, overcrossings, and the intersections don't have much traffic.
The long term plan for the Santa Cruz County portion of CA-17 is to eliminate all cross traffic by building three interchanges with frontage roads. The remaining driveways would be converted to a right-in, right-out configuration.
The Santa Cruz County side of the route is arguably the easier and less dangerous portion of the CA 17 mountain crossing; the more problematic and accident-prone segment lies within Santa Clara County. It has considerably more curvature, some of which is signed for 40mph, including the "Big Moody" curve, the site of spinouts and K-rail scrapes usually reported several times per week. The 50mph speed limit seems to be considered as merely "advisory" by both commute and recreational traffic, which would account for many of the road's issues. Fortunately, most of the most egregions cross-traffic issues have been dealt with by elimination of left turns from the road -- but there are still RIRO's on blind curves (including the infamous Redwood Estates "exit"). One of my oldest friends lives up there and has to put up with the commute to San Jose five days per week -- but he's been there over 25 years and has no intention of relocating despite the daily hassle. Despite the inviting scenery, I can't think of anyone who actually enjoys driving on CA 17. It's nice that the Santa Cruz side (which is Caltrans' D5; the Santa Clara side is within D4) is seeing some improvements (chances are that it'll mean the effective end of the Summit Inn, since it'll only be accessible NB after the modifications) -- but without gouging out most of the north slope area traversed by the highway, there's little that can be done to improve that side of the summit; D4's approach has been to address problems that have become publicly egregious, normally by access elimination (it's been suggested that the only way to get things done is to make sure the problem is discussed in Gary Richards' "Roadshow" column in the
Murky News!).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2019, 10:52:44 PM
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.
Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.
Quote from: djsekani on October 13, 2019, 11:46:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2019, 10:52:44 PM
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.
Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.
It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 14, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: djsekani on October 13, 2019, 11:46:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2019, 10:52:44 PM
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.
Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.
It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.
Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days. I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment. Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards. My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway. Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 14, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: djsekani on October 13, 2019, 11:46:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2019, 10:52:44 PM
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.
Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.
It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.
Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days. I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment. Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards. My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway. Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again.
Probably varies district by district. D7 and D12 have recently put out project proposals with some alternatives calling for narrower than standard lane/shoulder widths and/or shorter than standard interchange spacing.
Modern freeways can be made aesthetically pleasing too, so even if a complete rebuild happens the road will still keep its charm.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2019, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 14, 2019, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: djsekani on October 13, 2019, 11:46:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 24, 2019, 10:52:44 PM
They need to leave things the way they are. If you can't manage to judge distances and safely pull out then stay off this road. It is fine the way it is and I use this road every day.
Haha, no it isn't fine. That right lane is just a disaster waiting to happen. I don't trust the average L.A. driver flying down the right lane at 70+ MPH to be able to deal with traffic slowing down to exit at those RIRO exits let alone cars trying to merge in.
It works fine most of the time. Caltrans should do it the right way and install merging areas which would require acquisition of properties and more expense. There are areas where they can move the streets closer to the homes without needing to demolish the house entirely. They could even build substandard and safety would be improved. Removing capacity is not the answer.
Caltrans isn't exactly known for bending from their standards to accommodate anyone, especially these days. I know it isn't a exactly a one-for-one but a lot of the design standards Caltrans for urban roadways is counter intuitive towards the reality of the urban environment. Considering the Arroyo Seco Parkway dates to a time way before current freeway designs the only way to be economical in improving it is to bend from those standards. My fear is that Caltrans will ultimately get their way and rip up a beautiful classic parkway just to make it a modernized bore of a freeway. Unfortunately some of the real solutions that could have gotten traffic off the Arroyo Seco Parkway have recently been more or less dealt a death blow...but that's a bag of worms that probably isn't worth opening again.
Well an exception certainly might be made for the 105 which has an alternative that has substandard shoulders proposed for a two lane tolled system. Though that could be eliminated and seeing the recent news regarding freeways in SoCal I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!
Regarding aesthetics that's a tough sell for me that Caltrans can keep the current look and make the Arroyo Seco Parkway more functional. In recent upgrades to CA 99 a lot of the design features that made it catching in the heyday of US 99 have been removed such as center median foliage. Recent bridge rebuilds from eras like the 1930s and 1940s have included modern surface facades rather than the original flowing Arc Deco look. Considering almost every piece of the Arroyo Seco Parkway is essentially timeless that raises a lot of questions of how well it could be kept that way. The Arroyo Seco Parkway as it exists isn't really a true transportation corridor like the other Los Angeles freeways are. At best it serves a limited amount of commuter traffic to/from downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena. The truck ban has been effect almost from day one with the Arroyo Seco Parkway and it will never connect to I-210 or CA 134.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 15, 2019, 02:29:31 PM
Regarding aesthetics that's a tough sell for me that Caltrans can keep the current look and make the Arroyo Seco Parkway more functional. In recent upgrades to CA 99 a lot of the design features that made it catching in the heyday of US 99 have been removed such as center median foliage. Recent bridge rebuilds from eras like the 1930s and 1940s have included modern surface facades rather than the original flowing Arc Deco look. Considering almost every piece of the Arroyo Seco Parkway is essentially timeless that raises a lot of questions of how well it could be kept that way. The Arroyo Seco Parkway as it exists isn't really a true transportation corridor like the other Los Angeles freeways are. At best it serves a limited amount of commuter traffic to/from downtown Los Angeles and Pasadena. The truck ban has been effect almost from day one with the Arroyo Seco Parkway and it will never connect to I-210 or CA 134.
Since the completion of the Glendale/CA 2 freeway in '76, an all-freeway alternative connection to central Pasadena has been in place with zero truck restrictions, so there's no functional reason to effect
any expansion of the Arroyo Seco. It's a parkway and a leisurely (if you don't push things as a driver!) drive between downtown L.A. and downtown Pasadena -- nothing more, nothing less -- the fact that thousands still elect to use it as a commuter artery notwithstanding.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 15, 2019, 05:31:06 AM
I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!
The induced demand principle is definitely a thing in Los Angeles; you'd have probably a day before those two extra lanes in each direction became just as jammed as the rest of the freeway. Trying to add lanes to increase rush-hour capacity and/or improve traffic flow is a fool's errand. CalTrans seems to have finally figured this out, which is why almost all of the freeway construction in the region is focused on adding or expanding HOV and toll lanes.
Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway), or add traffic lights. I'd honestly prefer the former. Actually widening the parkway is going to be a non-starter for political reasons. Redesigning the exit ramps would cause almost as many issues with property acquisition because there's just not much space to work with... but if it was possible, that would I assume be the preferred option.
Quote from: djsekani on October 19, 2019, 09:19:31 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 15, 2019, 05:31:06 AM
I hate the overly wide shoulders they built on the 210 and a few other freeways. It is worse on the 210 when traffic is stop and go and there is a shoulder that could easily accommodate two lanes in each direction. Ugh!
The induced demand principle is definitely a thing in Los Angeles; you'd have probably a day before those two extra lanes in each direction became just as jammed as the rest of the freeway. Trying to add lanes to increase rush-hour capacity and/or improve traffic flow is a fool's errand. CalTrans seems to have finally figured this out, which is why almost all of the freeway construction in the region is focused on adding or expanding HOV and toll lanes.
Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway), or add traffic lights. I'd honestly prefer the former. Actually widening the parkway is going to be a non-starter for political reasons. Redesigning the exit ramps would cause almost as many issues with property acquisition because there's just not much space to work with... but if it was possible, that would I assume be the preferred option.
It's far preferable to remove a lane than to add traffic signals. While a lane loss would cause a backup at busy times, it is generally unnoticed at times when traffic is light. But a red signal will stop all lanes of traffic.
One real world example to view this is at La Cienega Blvd at Stocker. This is the section of LC Blvd that is a near-freeway just north of LAX. Southbound lanes are free-flow, but one of the 3 lanes ends to accommodate the influx of traffic from Stocker. This only backs up at the busiest times (afternoon rush). Northbound lanes do not narrow (3 lanes throughout) but they are subject to the red light to accommodate left turns to/from Stocker and this is a perennial backup.
I would imagine something similar would occur along the Arroyo Seco.
Quote from: djsekani on October 19, 2019, 09:19:31 AM
Back to the Arroyo Seco, if CalTrans is serious about improving safety, their only real options are to remove a lane north of I-5 (which let's be real isn't that busy anyway)
Exactly. then the space freed up by removing the lane could be converted to accel/decel lanes for the exits. I even drove that section of the parkway twice recently, and there wasn't much traffic either time. The second time the right lane was even blocked anyway, and traffic still flowed past it just fine despite the unexpected loss of a lane, which I would expect to be worse than if there were two lanes permanently. Oh, and did I mention this was heading towards downtown LA during the morning commute?
I will also say claims of drivers going 70 and not paying attention to the slow exits are not true. The majority of drivers were going around 60, compared to 80 on other freeways when there's no traffic, so I think even the LA drivers understand that this highway isn't quite up to handling as high of speeds as most others.
^^^^ I was just on that freeway tonight going about 90 and I was passed by three people in the middle lane.
anyhow most people on this road probably average around 65-70 in free flowing conditions. Majority of the time in flowing with traffic in the fast lane and it's going 75-80. But by all means let's take a lane from a freeway in a horribly congested metro because it isn't as congested as other freeways here.
I'm completely against removing lanes as I find that to be asinine and I'm messaging caltrans repeatedly about the issue. But make no mistake, those who want that to happen will likely get their wish. Caltrans and metro have been making idiotic moves lately and it is no surprise they will probably reducing capacity on this road.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2019, 01:54:52 AM
^^^^ I was just on that freeway tonight going about 90 and I was passed by three people in the middle lane.
anyhow most people on this road probably average around 65-70 in free flowing conditions. Majority of the time in flowing with traffic in the fast lane and it's going 75-80. But by all means let's take a lane from a freeway in a horribly congested metro because it isn't as congested as other freeways here.
I'm completely against removing lanes as I find that to be asinine and I'm messaging caltrans repeatedly about the issue. But make no mistake, those who want that to happen will likely get their wish. Caltrans and metro have been making idiotic moves lately and it is no surprise they will probably reducing capacity on this road.
The idea isn't to take away a lane for the sake of taking away a lane - it is for the sake of a safety issue that is absolutely present along the on-ramps.
Given that the 110 does not go directly to the 210 or 134, its demand is naturally limited to the capacity of the surface streets in Pasadena that it feeds into (primarily Arroyo Parkway and Glenarm, and to a secondary extent Fair Oaks and Orange Grove).
At the present day parkway, going south, 2 lanes of surface Arroyo Parkway (3 lanes during rush hour when parking is prohibited), become 3 lanes at the Glenarm signal. Traffic from eastbound Glenarm provides a brief 4th lane that quickly exits and then the 3 lane parkway narrow to 2 after the (State St) Fair Oaks exit. The parkway is currently 2 lanes southbound (with an accel/decel lane formed with the Fair Oaks onramp and the Orange Grove offramp). Only once past Orange Grove does the onramp become the third permanent lane. For southbound, the idea would be to not let the new lane from Orange Grove become a regular third lane, but have it exit at York. The entrance from York to merge in to the 2 lanes. The entrance from Ave 64 to exit at Ave 60; the entrance from Ave 60 to exit at Via Marisol, the entrance at Via Marisol to exit at Ave 52; the entrance at Ave 52 to exit at Ave 43. The entrance from Ave 43 can become the new third lane towards i-5 and into Downtown. This would narrow the current freeway for about 3.5 miles. But in real effect, a lane isn't simply forced to end, it is never given the chance to become a full lane in the first place until Ave 43. Given traffic patterns, I don't believe this would have much effect as the real backups occur where I-5 traffic towards Downtown is added into this freeway at Elysian Park, not in the section through Montecito Heights and Highland Park.
And for northbound, I would say the same thing. The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north. Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move. It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes. The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2019, 03:23:13 PM
And for northbound, I would say the same thing. The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north. Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move. It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes. The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.
Reducing the Arroyo Seco to a general 2+2 is not a bad idea; the outer/3rd lane might be configured as a "slip lane" between the various RIRO-type exits. Also, dedicating 2 lanes to the NB 110>NB I-5 movement also deserves merit -- but I would split Lane #2 (the rightmost of the two exiting to I-5) so that it continues on -- but only to the left North Figueroa/Avenue 26 exit. That would give folks who don't have the opportunity, due to traffic, to move 2 lanes to the right to stay on 110 the chance to do so with only a single lane shift; at that point they could complete the move onto the leftmost lane of the two remaining for the 110 mainline after a large portion of the aggregate flow has left. As one who has traveled on that road numerous times, providing some margin for error -- particularly within the often claustrophobic atmosphere of the tunnels that can actually frighten some drivers (I've also been a passenger in that situation) -- is highly advisable. But the short continuation lane needs to be clearly marked -- from at least the beginning of Tunnel #4 -- with the heavier/double dashed lines used to delineate exit-only lanes.
Quote from: sparker on October 27, 2019, 11:49:16 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2019, 03:23:13 PM
And for northbound, I would say the same thing. The real backup is getting traffic from 110 to I-5 north. Dedicate 2 of the 4 lanes to this movement that crawls and leave 2 (not 3 lanes) for 110 traffic that tends to move. It will continue to move even with only 2 real lanes. The third lane as an accel/decel lane will keep things smooth.
Reducing the Arroyo Seco to a general 2+2 is not a bad idea; the outer/3rd lane might be configured as a "slip lane" between the various RIRO-type exits. Also, dedicating 2 lanes to the NB 110>NB I-5 movement also deserves merit -- but I would split Lane #2 (the rightmost of the two exiting to I-5) so that it continues on -- but only to the left North Figueroa/Avenue 26 exit. That would give folks who don't have the opportunity, due to traffic, to move 2 lanes to the right to stay on 110 the chance to do so with only a single lane shift; at that point they could complete the move onto the leftmost lane of the two remaining for the 110 mainline after a large portion of the aggregate flow has left. As one who has traveled on that road numerous times, providing some margin for error -- particularly within the often claustrophobic atmosphere of the tunnels that can actually frighten some drivers (I've also been a passenger in that situation) -- is highly advisable. But the short continuation lane needs to be clearly marked -- from at least the beginning of Tunnel #4 -- with the heavier/double dashed lines used to delineate exit-only lanes.
I find your suggestion acceptable. #1 lane to I-5 north. #2 lane to I-5 north or to Figueroa.* The right two lanes of 110 will take the bulk of the traffic heading to Pasadena. Forcing the left lane off at Figueroa, will allow for an easier merge coming in from San Fernando Road, and a much easier merge for the significant traffic coming in from I-5/Ave 26. The I-5/Ave 26 traffic will have an entire lane (the right lane of the 110) to itself, until forced to exit at Ave 43. (I beleive it would be beneficial to do this to the I-5/110 interchange even if the third lane does not become a forced exit at Ave 43, since it will make it easier for I-5 traffic to merge in. So the adjustment should be done, even if the third lane continues into So Pas.)
A key for all of this is appropriate signage. The tunnels make it difficult, but so long as people have adequate warning of what lane they need to be in, it should be alright.
*Currently, the #1 lane is for I-5 and the #2 lane is for 110 north. During rush hours, #2 lane is an option lane, controlled with electronic signs, for either I-5 or 110. Even if this plan to use the 3rd lane for accel/decel does not go through, I believe it would be wise to allow #2 lane traffic to access I-5 at all times. The movment of 110 to I-5 is a really significant movement and really needs 2 lanes.
And given current backups, Pasadena bound traffic largely confines itself anyway to the right two lanes of 110 through the tunnels. The left lane is for I-5. The #2 lane is also for I-5 (and before the option lane, was the lane for last minute change into the left lane) and/or Figueroa.
I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.
I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 03, 2019, 05:53:51 PM
I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.
I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.
When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery). As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena.
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2019, 11:15:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 03, 2019, 05:53:51 PM
I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.
I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.
When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery). As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena.
Given that capacity has shifted to the Glendale Freeway really any aspirations for expansion on the Arroyo Seco should be superseded by preserving it. The value in the Arroyo Seco is in it's historic value rather than it's long outdated usefulness. I'm not a huge fan of reducing lanes in favor of "safety" but at least that would be somewhat in line with historic preservation than expansion. L.A. needs another megalithic freeway connector but the Arroyo Seco no matter what is done won't be it...and the one that should have been is effectively legislatively dead. I guess in that sense if someone were to try to commute on the Arroyo Seco you should be prepared to drive it like a road from a different time period...because it is.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 03, 2019, 11:41:26 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2019, 11:15:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 03, 2019, 05:53:51 PM
I am coming around to the idea of removing a lane. I only wonder if there could be a way to use a projectors that change lane markings on the road to improve geometry and decrease the dramatic curves outside of rush hour.
I still wish they would do it the right way and increase ROW width but surely that isn't happening.
When the classification was returned to a parkway from its longstanding "Pasadena Freeway" nomenclature, CA 110 in that area effectively ceased to be a freeway, instead being considered less a high-capacity facility than a meandering multilane park road following a creekbed (despite its continuing use as a commuter artery). As such it's not considered an expandable facility; through traffic (it's never been open to heavy commercial vehicles) is expected to seek alternate routes (hence the parallel North Figueroa St. being signed as "Alternate US 66" for the first 23 years the parkway was in existence); currently the favored path for such traffic is north on I-5 to CA 2, north on that freeway to CA 134, and then east to Pasadena.
Given that capacity has shifted to the Glendale Freeway really any aspirations for expansion on the Arroyo Seco should be superseded by preserving it. The value in the Arroyo Seco is in it's historic value rather than it's long outdated usefulness. I'm not a huge fan of reducing lanes in favor of "safety" but at least that would be somewhat in line with historic preservation than expansion. L.A. needs another megalithic freeway connector but the Arroyo Seco no matter what is done won't be it...and the one that should have been is effectively legislatively dead. I guess in that sense if someone were to try to commute on the Arroyo Seco you should be prepared to drive it like a road from a different time period...because it is.
Originally the Ramona Parkway, which eventually expanded into the San Bernardino Freeway, was planned along another creekbed -- albeit alongside the main Pacific Electric line east from downtown -- to be much the same physical configuration as the Arroyo Seco. Much of the western end, from the L.A. River out to Alhambra -- retained its narrow, limited line-of-sight characteristics until well after the I-5/Golden State and Long Beach (SSR 15/CA 7, I-710) freeways intersected its alignment. It wasn't until the huge influx of traffic from those feeders overwhelmed the original facility that it was expanded out to its 10-12 lane current width. Remember, while it
did host the US 60/70/99 "triumvirate" along most of the older section, those routes exited onto Garvey Avenue into Monterey Park until the late '50's. Fortunately (at least for the sake of road expansion) when the PE line ceased its passenger service circa '62-'63, a good deal of adjacent ROW became available, which was ideal for expansion of what was by then I-10. Even the section of US 101 under the Boyle Heights bluffs had similar characteristics to the Arroyo Seco, but without the sharp turns (albeit with
really short on & off ramps, since upgraded or, in some cases, removed). Narrow ROW's with now-substandard egress & access points were S.O.P. for construction throughout the '40's; it wasn't until the Harbor and Hollywood freeways were constructed in the early '50's that what are now considered minimum freeway standards were deployed; even the Santa Ana Freeway didn't expand out until it left L.A. city limits (at the Indiana St. interchange) until rebuilt in the mid-'60's after the ELA interchange was constructed.
Any update on this project? I'm perfectly fine with the freeway staying as is lol but I'm curious if any decision has been made.