In February 1938, a biblical rainstorm hit Southern California. The LA and Santa Ana rivers overflowed their banks causing tremendous damage in LA, Riverside, and Orange Counties. 5,600 buildings were destroyed and 113 people died. This was the last straw for the LA River, it had misbehaved too many times so now it had to be put in a straitjacket. 2 years later, the Army Corps of Engineers encased most of the river in concrete. This was meant to speed up water flow and prevent the river's course from changing. It has worked well.
But almost immediately after the cement had hardened, people looked at this long strip of concrete and thought to themselves "why not make it into a highway?". (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hidden_History_of_Transportation_in_Los/-hp3CQAAQBAJ?q=%22LA+river+into+a+freeway%22&gbpv=1#f=false) In 1941, LA County supervisor Gordon L McDonough suggested that the river would be ideal for transporting material to and from the aircraft factories making vital war materials. The Military didn't take up the idea. In 1947, another supervisor, Raymond Darby, brought up the idea, as LA's traffic became internationally infamous. And ordinary citizens didn't wait around. In 1954, some commuters discovered an unlocked gate on San Fernando road and helped themselves. A roadblock was quickly installed. Hot rodders began using it for drag races a la Grease.
In 1960, after another politician brought it up, the California Department of Highways finally decided to explain why this idea was a bad one. The reasons were as follows:
-The river was too narrow
-The river made too many sharp turns
-Vehicles using the river would pollute the water
-Ramps would need to somehow be designed to not block water flow
-Rainfall would force the road to be closed
-The debris left behind by such storms would take days to clear before the road could be reopened
But the idea stuck. In 1979, the Los Angeles Rapid Transit District and the Army Corps of Engineers tested the idea of using the river as a busway. They found that bumps along the riverbed would cause the buses to bottom out.
The last serious River Freeway proposal came from State Assemblyman Richard Katz in 1988. He recommended allowing carpools on the part of the river north of DTLA to relieve the Ventura and Golden State Freeways and trucks on the parts south to relieve congestion between the Port of Long Beach and the factories near downtown. The idea was mocked, The LA Times wrote an editorial titled "It No Longer Flows Only When It's Raining Katz and Dogs". But Katz persevered, claiming his project would cost one tenth that of the planned Red Line subway and he even drove his own car on the river to prove it would work.
But by this point, people were more interested in returning the river to a more natural state and after heavy rainfall in 1992, support for the idea was washed away. And with the signing of SB 20, which created the LA River Conservancy, the door was permanently slammed shut on the River Freeway dream.
Having been to the bottom of the Los Angeles River many times I can attest that isn't even close to being smooth or engineered well enough to be a high speed roadway. If I recall correctly I believe that there has been numerous groups seeking to modify the Los Angeles River to a more natural state?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 15, 2020, 06:24:25 PM
Having been to the bottom of the Los Angeles River many times I can attest that isn't even close to being smooth or engineered well enough to be a high speed roadway. If I recall correctly I believe that there has been numerous groups seeking to modify the Los Angeles River to a more natural state?
All those movies and video games lied to us. For shame.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2020, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 15, 2020, 06:24:25 PM
Having been to the bottom of the Los Angeles River many times I can attest that isn't even close to being smooth or engineered well enough to be a high speed roadway. If I recall correctly I believe that there has been numerous groups seeking to modify the Los Angeles River to a more natural state?
All those movies and video games lied to us. For shame.
Usually those forms of popular media are set near downtown where the river widens considerably. Northward it doesn't really resemble much more than a dirt bottom ditch lined with concrete (specially the Glendale Narrows).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 15, 2020, 06:29:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2020, 06:25:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 15, 2020, 06:24:25 PM
Having been to the bottom of the Los Angeles River many times I can attest that isn't even close to being smooth or engineered well enough to be a high speed roadway. If I recall correctly I believe that there has been numerous groups seeking to modify the Los Angeles River to a more natural state?
All those movies and video games lied to us. For shame.
Usually those forms of popular media are set near downtown where the river widens considerably. Northward it doesn't really resemble much more than a dirt bottom ditch lined with concrete (specially the Glendale Narrows).
What is Mother Nature good for if she can't carve out a smooth straight riverbed that's consistently wide enough for 6 lanes of traffic, shoulders, a median, and ramps?
Some articles incorrectly state that turning the LA River into a freeway was seriously considered. It wasn't, only a few ill-informed politicians proposed it. The people tasked with actually building highways always thought it was a bad idea.
I can't imagine anyone turning a river into a roadway, let alone a freeway. That is, unless someone can build a car that can be driven on water, and can keep the water from getting into the vehicle and wreaking the internal components.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 16, 2020, 02:23:23 PM
I can't imagine anyone turning a river into a roadway, let alone a freeway. That is, unless someone can build a car that can be driven on water, and can keep the water from getting into the vehicle and wreaking the internal components.
You've probably seen it in photos or in movies. It's empty most of the year. Only in winter does it resemble a river.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 16, 2020, 11:55:16 AM
Some articles incorrectly state that turning the LA River into a freeway was seriously considered. It wasn't, only a few ill-informed politicians proposed it. The people tasked with actually building highways always thought it was a bad idea.
An "engineered" river has all sorts of structures and features within it to, big surprise, manage and direct water flows, turbulence and scouring effects, so it's sure not consistently smooth or level. The notion of trucks and buses barrelling through it at 70+ is quite the visual. Ok, maybe if you're the Terminator on a motorcycle it would possibly work . . . ah, Hollywood.
I'm picturing a hilarious scene involving city buses desperately trying to outrun a flash flood like they are being chased by the T-1000. Same music and everything. :-D
Did these same politicians also propose to use sewer pipes as subway lines? If the Ninja Turtles can set up shop down there, then surely it can work! :P
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 18, 2020, 10:50:25 AM
I'm picturing a hilarious scene involving city buses desperately trying to outrun a flash flood like they are being chased by the T-1000. Same music and everything. :-D
Did these same politicians also propose to use sewer pipes as subway lines? If the Ninja Turtles can set up shop down there, then surely it can work! :P
And also the water is bearing down on them at 50 mph so if they go slower, they're dead.
(https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Speed-b.jpg)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 16, 2020, 02:23:23 PM
I can't imagine anyone turning a river into a roadway, let alone a freeway. That is, unless someone can build a car that can be driven on water, and can keep the water from getting into the vehicle and wreaking the internal components.
Like a Dutton?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/2d/99/262d99c8765aee8be74bd401eb0e601b.png)
Some years ago in the Long Beach Library I dug up a 1941 report by the Regional Planning Commission of L.A. County. I sent the following along to Dan Faigin for cahighways.org:
Quote from: cahighways.org
An August 1941 report issued by the Regional Planning Commission of Los Angeles County entitled "A Report on the Feasibility of a Freeway Along the Channel of the Los Angeles River" proposed a four-lane roadway on each levee from Anaheim Street in Long Beach north to Sepulveda Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley; excepting between Soto Street and Dayton Street in downtown Los Angeles, where, due to a lack of right-of-way along the river, the alignment matches the future alignment of the US 101 portion of the Santa Ana Freeway. There is no mention in the report of a master plan of freeways like that issued in 1947, although the maps showed connections to the already-completed Arroyo Seco Parkway and the proposed Ramona and Rio Hondo Parkways.
As stated above, the report talked at length about building on the levees, but not in the riverbed itself. Not sure if this ties directly into Supervisor McDonough's idea or not, or if this is mentioned in the book from the OP.
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2020, 02:23:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 16, 2020, 02:23:23 PM
I can't imagine anyone turning a river into a roadway, let alone a freeway. That is, unless someone can build a car that can be driven on water, and can keep the water from getting into the vehicle and wreaking the internal components.
Like a Dutton?
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/2d/99/262d99c8765aee8be74bd401eb0e601b.png)
I was thinking of the Amphicar
(https://i.imgur.com/JfwJuSZ.jpg)
LBJ had one, and this photo actually shows him puttering along his lake with Eunice Kennedy and Paul Glynn. He would enjoy terrifying his guests by driving into his lake, screaming that his brakes had failed.
Quote from: kphoger on December 18, 2020, 02:21:27 PM
(https://www.filmstories.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Speed-b.jpg)
I love that movie. Also, it seems like that super impermeable concrete we were talking about earlier would be ideal for the river's channels.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 18, 2020, 02:34:12 PM
I was thinking of the Amphicar
(https://i.imgur.com/JfwJuSZ.jpg)
LBJ had one, and this photo actually shows him puttering along his lake with Eunice Kennedy and Paul Glynn. He would enjoy terrifying his guests by driving into his lake, screaming that his brakes had failed.
Good golly, if a US President did something like that today, half the nation would be in an uproar. They'd call him unfit to hold public office, claiming he was abandoning his sacred duties as commander-in-chief.
Quote from: kphoger on December 18, 2020, 02:41:11 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 18, 2020, 02:34:12 PM
I was thinking of the Amphicar
....
LBJ had one, and this photo actually shows him puttering along his lake with Eunice Kennedy and Paul Glynn. He would enjoy terrifying his guests by driving into his lake, screaming that his brakes had failed.
Good golly, if a US President did something like that today, half the nation would be in an uproar. They'd call him unfit to hold public office, claiming he was abandoning his sacred duties as commander-in-chief.
The Secret Service likely wouldn't allow him to operate a convertible while in office. There was this matter of a convertible presidential limo one day in Dallas in 1963....
Quote from: 1995hoo on December 18, 2020, 02:52:55 PM
The Secret Service likely wouldn't allow him to operate a convertible while in office.
On his own property? That's where the picture is from.
Quote from: Business Insider: Lyndon Johnson Liked Taking His Advisors Out For Joyrides That Ended With This Terrifying Prank (Corey Adwar, 27-AUG-2014)
Lyndon Johnson, who was born on August 27 1908, was remembered by close advisors and friends long after his 1973 death for a horrifying prank he played on unsuspecting guests at his Stonewall, Texas ranch.
[...]
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., the president's special assistant for domestic affairs at the time, recalled his experience as a victim of his boss's prank:
The President, with [White House secretary] Vicky McCammon in the seat alongside him and me in the back, was now driving around in a small blue car with the top down. We reached a steep incline at the edge of the lake and the car started rolling rapidly toward the water. The President shouted, "The brakes don't work! The brakes won't hold! We're going in! We're going under!" The car splashed into the water. I started to get out. Just then the car leveled and I realized we were in a Amphicar. The President laughed. As we putted along the lake then (and throughout the evening), he teased me. "Vicky, did you see what Joe did? He didn't give a damn about his President. He just wanted to save his own skin and get out of the car." Then he'd roar.
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, John W. Gardner, one of the only Republican cabinet members during Johnson's presidency, was also reportedly a victim of this prank.
By the way, I'm sure the Secret Service at the time was plenty aware of that "incident" in 1963, considering we're talking about LBJ here...
^^^
I didn't realize it was on his own property. In that case, it makes a lot more sense.
Hey, the Los Angeles River worked funneling all that magma from Mount Wilshire to the ocean:
Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property. Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams). I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium. The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues. They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0. The Corps of Engineers added to that, stating that despite its size, the Verdugo Channel's capacity was intended to handle a 100-year flood situation (1938 was considered just that!), since it drained 90% of the Verdugo Mountains, a sizeable chunk of the San Gabriels, and the San Rafael Hills between Glendale and Pasadena. Of course, there was a counter-argument positing that that meant Glendale should be "good" until at least 2038! But between the agencies, they were able to make the case for an alignment away from the channel. Interestingly, the route selected in 1960 paralleled the wash about 2 blocks away for much of its run through downtown Glendale. But the point was driven home in the "50-year" flood of 1964; the lower reaches of the wash under the San Fernando Road bridge, which were somewhat wider and much shallower, featured water levels only a couple of feet below the bridge deck -- the city had deployed sandbags along the top of the sloping walls upstream from that bridge. Between Verdugo Mountain springtime fires and the flooding, 1964 wasn't a terribly good year in Glendale!
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2020, 07:19:59 PM
Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property. Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams). I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium. The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues. They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0. The Corps of Engineers added to that, stating that despite its size, the Verdugo Channel's capacity was intended to handle a 100-year flood situation (1938 was considered just that!), since it drained 90% of the Verdugo Mountains, a sizeable chunk of the San Gabriels, and the San Rafael Hills between Glendale and Pasadena. Of course, there was a counter-argument positing that that meant Glendale should be "good" until at least 2038! But between the agencies, they were able to make the case for an alignment away from the channel. Interestingly, the route selected in 1960 paralleled the wash about 2 blocks away for much of its run through downtown Glendale. But the point was driven home in the "50-year" flood of 1964; the lower reaches of the wash under the San Fernando Road bridge, which were somewhat wider and much shallower, featured water levels only a couple of feet below the bridge deck -- the city had deployed sandbags along the top of the sloping walls upstream from that bridge. Between Verdugo Mountain springtime fires and the flooding, 1964 wasn't a terribly good year in Glendale!
The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference" (https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=John_Reber:_The_Man_Who_Helped_Save_the_Bay_by_Trying_to_Destroy_It). But they also produced their own bad ideas (http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3fe3d08e-f9e5-11e2-b2e7-0019bb2963f4.html), like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 07:54:33 PM
The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference" (https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=John_Reber:_The_Man_Who_Helped_Save_the_Bay_by_Trying_to_Destroy_It). But they also produced their own bad ideas (http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3fe3d08e-f9e5-11e2-b2e7-0019bb2963f4.html), like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.
Re the PCH freeway concept NW of Santa Monica: The one thing consistent about that area (Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Point Dume) has been the fact that even before the land value increases starting in the '70's, that coastal stretch -- all the way to the top of the first ridgeline -- featured the highest per-acre property values in both L.A. and Ventura Counties. On top of that, a sizeable chunk of the residents therein were both rich and influential enough to stymie any proposal that would have affected their properties, even well up the hill. And the hillside was quite unstable; mostly sandstone that would regularly erode into mudslides down the canyons (a nasty little fact of life on the coastline above L.A. all the way to Point Concepcion -- evidenced by the deadly Montecito mudslides a few years back). Between the terrain and
not wanting to piss off the generally well-connected and litigious residents, a land-bound freeway was DOA -- the reason the Corps, acting as DOH consultants, formulated the idea for a string of "keys" offshore -- even though unlike the extensive Atlantic offshore "shelf", the Pacific starts dropping off precipitously once about a quarter-mile from the mean shoreline, which would have rendered the concept foolhardy, prohibitively expensive, or both.
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2020, 02:49:46 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 07:54:33 PM
The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference" (https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=John_Reber:_The_Man_Who_Helped_Save_the_Bay_by_Trying_to_Destroy_It). But they also produced their own bad ideas (http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3fe3d08e-f9e5-11e2-b2e7-0019bb2963f4.html), like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.
Re the PCH freeway concept NW of Santa Monica: The one thing consistent about that area (Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Point Dume) has been the fact that even before the land value increases starting in the '70's, that coastal stretch -- all the way to the top of the first ridgeline -- featured the highest per-acre property values in both L.A. and Ventura Counties. On top of that, a sizeable chunk of the residents therein were both rich and influential enough to stymie any proposal that would have affected their properties, even well up the hill. And the hillside was quite unstable; mostly sandstone that would regularly erode into mudslides down the canyons (a nasty little fact of life on the coastline above L.A. all the way to Point Concepcion -- evidenced by the deadly Montecito mudslides a few years back). Between the terrain and not wanting to piss off the generally well-connected and litigious residents, a land-bound freeway was DOA -- the reason the Corps, acting as DOH consultants, formulated the idea for a string of "keys" offshore -- even though unlike the extensive Atlantic offshore "shelf", the Pacific starts dropping off precipitously once about a quarter-mile from the mean shoreline, which would have rendered the concept foolhardy, prohibitively expensive, or both.
I see. You wouldn't happen to know what caused to cancellation of the Mullholland Scenic Parkway?
Also, it seems like Caltrans' insistence on making freeways 8 or 10 lanes wide really backed them into a corner. The current Pacific Coast Highway is already a wide arterial. A 4 or 6 lane freeway would've required relatively little ROW taking.
And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.
Quote from: sparker on December 19, 2020, 07:19:59 PM
Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property. Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams). I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium. The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues. They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0. The Corps of Engineers added to that, stating that despite its size, the Verdugo Channel's capacity was intended to handle a 100-year flood situation (1938 was considered just that!), since it drained 90% of the Verdugo Mountains, a sizeable chunk of the San Gabriels, and the San Rafael Hills between Glendale and Pasadena. Of course, there was a counter-argument positing that that meant Glendale should be "good" until at least 2038! But between the agencies, they were able to make the case for an alignment away from the channel. Interestingly, the route selected in 1960 paralleled the wash about 2 blocks away for much of its run through downtown Glendale. But the point was driven home in the "50-year" flood of 1964; the lower reaches of the wash under the San Fernando Road bridge, which were somewhat wider and much shallower, featured water levels only a couple of feet below the bridge deck -- the city had deployed sandbags along the top of the sloping walls upstream from that bridge. Between Verdugo Mountain springtime fires and the flooding, 1964 wasn't a terribly good year in Glendale!
How did that reduce the viability of the freeway?
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 09:19:49 AM
And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.
While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line. Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino. Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge. Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch. Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets. At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra. The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda. There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing. This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street. Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street. Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare. That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run. As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".
And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs! Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!
Flooding in California historically has been wildly unpredictable. There is no real way to know if a particular winter will be wet or a even if a very short time period will be. One only needs to look at the winter of 2016-2017 for a recent example of how a heavy winter wreaked havoc on the road network. The Los Angeles River essentially is where the bulk of all that water is going to wind up and that's not a place you would want to serve as a central nerve of a transportation corridor. Flash floods and mudslides are still common place during the winter despite of upstream impoundments/flood controls state wide in wet years. Said situation is often worsened following years with active Forest Fire seasons.
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2020, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 09:19:49 AM
And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.
While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line. Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino. Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge. Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch. Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets. At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra. The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda. There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing. This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street. Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street. Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare. That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run. As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".
And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs! Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!
And was there even space for a 747 to land?
In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2020, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 09:19:49 AM
And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.
While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line. Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino. Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge. Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch. Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets. At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra. The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda. There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing. This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street. Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street. Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare. That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run. As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".
And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs! Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!
And was there even space for a 747 to land?
Well, let's see -- this was right after WWII, well before the 1971 introduction of the 747 -- in fact, the 707 was ten years away from production at that time. The most widely used passenger plane of the time was still the DC3; so the runway lengths considered would have been shorter. Nevertheless, with bridges at Washington, Olympic, 7th Street, the 6th Street viaduct, and 4th Street that would have had to go to accommodate even the aircraft of the day, the idea was all but DOA!
Quote from: MarkF on December 21, 2020, 01:32:28 AM
In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.
And I assume all of the same issues applied here?
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2020, 07:57:47 AM
Quote from: MarkF on December 21, 2020, 01:32:28 AM
In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.
And I assume all of the same issues applied here?
Pretty much, the lower Santa Ana River is pretty much just a concrete lined canal. Interestingly CA 91 follows a lot of the Santa Ana River upstream where it is less engineered.
Quote from: sparker on December 21, 2020, 04:44:23 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 03:38:19 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 20, 2020, 02:53:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2020, 09:19:49 AM
And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.
While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line. Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino. Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge. Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch. Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets. At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra. The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda. There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing. This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street. Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street. Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare. That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run. As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".
And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs! Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!
And was there even space for a 747 to land?
Well, let's see -- this was right after WWII, well before the 1971 introduction of the 747 -- in fact, the 707 was ten years away from production at that time. The most widely used passenger plane of the time was still the DC3; so the runway lengths considered would have been shorter. Nevertheless, with bridges at Washington, Olympic, 7th Street, the 6th Street viaduct, and 4th Street that would have had to go to accommodate even the aircraft of the day, the idea was all but DOA!
It's a good reminder though that we've always had stupid politicians.
I think it's also a good reminder of how silly the ideas of non-experts can be on a subject requiring expertise. They don't know enough to know how dumb their idea is. It's a marvelous example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
There's 'thinking outside the box', but if one doesn't understand what a box is... :pan:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 21, 2020, 10:49:37 AM
I think it's also a good reminder of how silly the ideas of non-experts can be on a subject requiring expertise. They don't know enough to know how dumb their idea is. It's a marvelous example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).
There's 'thinking outside the box', but if one doesn't understand what a box is... :pan:
It's incredibly common when it comes to road, infrastructure, and public works projects in general. I would give it a roads-exclusive definition of the "FritzOwl Effect."
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2020, 07:54:33 PM
The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference" (https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=John_Reber:_The_Man_Who_Helped_Save_the_Bay_by_Trying_to_Destroy_It). But they also produced their own bad ideas (http://www.malibutimes.com/malibu_life/article_3fe3d08e-f9e5-11e2-b2e7-0019bb2963f4.html), like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.
The Bay Model is amazing if you ever get a chance to visit.
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation/Bay-Model-Visitor-Center/
https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/Bay%20Model/BayModelTourBrochure.pdf?ver=2020-05-28-135244-433
Possible stupid question here but why didn't then simply propose building the LA River underneath the freeway instead of at grade?
It really doesn't seem needed now obviously. There efforts to restore the LA River to it's natural state while ensuring the regular occurring floods that are the the reason the current channel design is the way it is doesn't happen again with new designs. I don't have a problem with that nor do I have any proposals as long as they take into account flooding issues.
I used to be a regular biking the parts of the paths that existed mainly along Griffith Park to Frog Town but alas I became with the constant defamation of public property by the homeless I witnessed, the lack of the city's effort to police it and do anything to stop it, and the insane growing homeless encampments sprouting up left and right along the River. I stopped riding it for now. I'm really getting sick of California but that's another topic for another day.
I do think an elevated expressway along the LA River from the East LA area interchange at Santa Fe road should happen to the 710. I also think Santa Fe should have an elevated freeway connecting to the 105 should be a thing eventually connecting to the Alameda freight corridor. But none of those will happen because the city leaders are too damn stupid and incompetent to do anything to improve the city other than their pet projects.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 01:59:14 PM
Possible stupid question here but why didn't then simply propose building the LA River underneath the freeway instead of at grade?
It really doesn't seem needed now obviously. There efforts to restore the LA River to it's natural state while ensuring the regular occurring floods that are the the reason the current channel design is the way it is doesn't happen again with new designs. I don't have a problem with that nor do I have any proposals as long as they take into account flooding issues.
I used to be a regular biking the parts of the paths that existed mainly along Griffith Park to Frog Town but alas I became with the constant defamation of public property by the homeless I witnessed, the lack of the city's effort to police it and do anything to stop it, and the insane growing homeless encampments sprouting up left and right along the River. I stopped riding it for now. I'm really getting sick of California but that's another topic for another day.
I do think an elevated expressway along the LA River from the East LA area interchange at Santa Fe road should happen to the 710. I also think Santa Fe should have an elevated freeway connecting to the 105 should be a thing eventually connecting to the Alameda freight corridor. But none of those will happen because the city leaders are too damn stupid and incompetent to do anything to improve the city other than their pet projects.
Sparker answered this
Quote
Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property. Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams). I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium. The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues. They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0.
Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 07:43:51 PM
Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.
I think money would also be a big problem. I think they would double deck the 405 before they do this.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 08:12:20 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 07:43:51 PM
Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.
I think money would also be a big problem. I think they would double deck the 405 before they do this.
With California's current situation yeah money certainly is an issue. But with California being one of the highest taxed states and an extremely wealthy population I'm sure if the powers that be really wanted this it could happen. I just don't see any political moves for new freeways in SoCal for awhile given what we've seen recently.
FWIW, there's certainly no need to build a freeway over the river now, thanks to the already-existing ones nearby (I-710, I-5 and US 101 being the prime examples), traffic issues be damned. Then again, L.A. is basically one big concrete/asphalt jungle, so almost everything has been covered, except for that pesky gap in Pasadena.
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
Quote from: Henry on December 31, 2020, 08:24:04 PM
FWIW, there's certainly no need to build a freeway over the river now, thanks to the already-existing ones nearby (I-710, I-5 and US 101 being the prime examples), traffic issues be damned. Then again, L.A. is basically one big concrete/asphalt jungle, so almost everything has been covered, except for that pesky gap in Pasadena.
And the Pacific Coast Freeway... and the Marina Freeway... and the Beverly Hills Freeway... and the Laurel Canyon Freeway
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.
Didn't you ever watch The Jetsons? They had traffic jams with their flying briefcase-transforming vehicles.
Quote from: GaryV on January 01, 2021, 07:59:11 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.
Didn't you ever watch The Jetsons? They had traffic jams with their flying briefcase-transforming vehicles.
Later on they found induced demand was the culprit.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.
So let's say someone lives in Lake Forest and works at ABC in Burbank. They leave their home and go to the heliport - for this example, we'll say the existing one near El Toro has been re-purposed for commuter use. A 10-minute drive, plus parking and check-in at the heliport. It's probably a 30-minute ride to Burbank, then you'd need to Uber/Lyft to the ABC building - probably 15-20 minutes. So in an ideal world, it's a one-hour commute for 50-ish miles - if it's a non-stop flight. Not bad, and better than Metrolink or driving.
But the largest military helicopters hold what, 90 people? A Metrolink train can take up to 840 people. And how much to ride? Right now a one-way flight from Long Beach to Avalon is $150. How much can economies of scale reduce that price? And you're trying to establish a full air commute system in what is already one of the busiest airspaces in the world.
I'd love someone to provide better data than my back-of-the-envelope numbers, but right now I'm looking at a system that provides all the drawbacks of trains (fixed schedules, stations, and routes; first and last mile transportation; cost per rider), adding increased safety concerns, and layering it on a infrastructure (the airspace over metro L.A.) that's already overburdened. The reality would be this is reserved for the wealthy and does little to nothing to alleviate regional traffic.
If you're living in south Orange County and working anywhere north/west of downtown L.A., you're accepting that your commute is gonna suck no matter what. Rather than assuming the commute itself is the problem and trying to make up a solution for it, assume that
your choice of living and working locations is the problem and come up with a solution for that.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 01, 2021, 05:30:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 31, 2020, 09:48:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 31, 2020, 08:29:36 PM
My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.
For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.
I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.
So let's say someone lives in Lake Forest and works at ABC in Burbank. They leave their home and go to the heliport - for this example, we'll say the existing one near El Toro has been re-purposed for commuter use. A 10-minute drive, plus parking and check-in at the heliport. It's probably a 30-minute ride to Burbank, then you'd need to Uber/Lyft to the ABC building - probably 15-20 minutes. So in an ideal world, it's a one-hour commute for 50-ish miles - if it's a non-stop flight. Not bad, and better than Metrolink or driving.
But the largest military helicopters hold what, 90 people? A Metrolink train can take up to 840 people. And how much to ride? Right now a one-way flight from Long Beach to Avalon is $150. How much can economies of scale reduce that price? And you're trying to establish a full air commute system in what is already one of the busiest airspaces in the world.
I'd love someone to provide better data than my back-of-the-envelope numbers, but right now I'm looking at a system that provides all the drawbacks of trains (fixed schedules, stations, and routes; first and last mile transportation; cost per rider), adding increased safety concerns, and layering it on a infrastructure (the airspace over metro L.A.) that's already overburdened. The reality would be this is reserved for the wealthy and does little to nothing to alleviate regional traffic.
If you're living in south Orange County and working anywhere north/west of downtown L.A., you're accepting that your commute is gonna suck no matter what. Rather than assuming the commute itself is the problem and trying to make up a solution for it, assume that your choice of living and working locations is the problem and come up with a solution for that.
Helicopters are currently expensive because of the lack of economies of scale. That's because people don't like them. And they don't like them because they're noisy and inefficient.
DTcomposer,
I should add lots of work needs to be done to make my suggestion of shorter distance air commuting feasible. The process of boarding is but a small issue. As you suggest the bigger issues are airspace and pricing feasibility. I suspect as technology gets better, both of those things will support intercity air travel. I don't really ever see something like flying cars en masse being a thing but who knows. It's one of the reasons I think turning the Santa Monica airport into a public park is a huge mistake.
As with trains, bikes, and pedestrians being an alternative in intercity travel to cars to ease congestion instead of solely relying on widening freeways and depending on cars, in major metros like SoCal planes should be part of the mix but there are a grocery list of issues to iron out as you mentioned. It will take at minimum a decade to really become a feasible possibility.
But for most metros outside of extremely large metropolitan issues, ground transportation should work just fine as long as it becomes more balanced.