Nice article in the L.A. Times, though nothing new to people who have read cahwyguy's stuff avidly. :)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-07/the-ghosts-of-los-angeles-unbuilt-freeways
The LA Times got me with their paywall this time.
I've always been intrigued by unbuilt freeways, but even without such gems as the Malibu-Whitnall, Beverly Hills, Marina-Slauson and Pacific Coast Freeways, L.A. still has the biggest urban network in America.
Randolph Collier is probably the biggest reason why it still doesn't have a viable public transit system, because he called the BART lines in San Francisco a "test tube" and "rabbit transit," because "Whatever it is, it's no damn good". If nothing else, at least San Fran was planning ahead with its public transit system (including the famed cable cars), because it realized that not every planned freeway was going to be built (like the Golden Gate, Central and Embarcadero Freeways) and needed a backup plan for the inevitable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 10:47:40 AM
The LA Times got me with their paywall this time.
I was able to read it using an incognito window in Chrome.
I agree it's interesting with little, if any, new information but a good read. Best part for me was the old graphics, though I think if I looked long enough I'd find the same graphics on AA Roads or the Cal Highways page (https://www.cahighways.org/index.html).
Quote from: skluth on June 07, 2022, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 10:47:40 AM
The LA Times got me with their paywall this time.
I was able to read it using an incognito window in Chrome.
I agree it's interesting with little, if any, new information but a good read. Best part for me was the old graphics, though I think if I looked long enough I'd find the same graphics on AA Roads or the Cal Highways page (https://www.cahighways.org/index.html).
Good tip, I just skimmed through it. I think Daniel said to me best one time "basically everything was planned to be a freeway at some point."
Maybe I missed it in my skim but it doesn't look like the Times picked up on the once planned Terminal Island Freeway extension to the Los Angeles River Freeway?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 12:58:31 PM
Maybe I missed it in my skim but it doesn't look like the Times picked up on the once planned Terminal Island Freeway extension to the Los Angeles River Freeway?
No, they didn't, but they also missed the eastern freeways, as well as the the bunch up Santa Clarita way. They did, however, link to cahighways.org, so I think I know their source :-)
Quote from: cahwyguy on June 07, 2022, 06:26:28 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 07, 2022, 12:58:31 PM
Maybe I missed it in my skim but it doesn't look like the Times picked up on the once planned Terminal Island Freeway extension to the Los Angeles River Freeway?
No, they didn't, but they also missed the eastern freeways, as well as the the bunch up Santa Clarita way. They did, however, link to cahighways.org, so I think I know their source :-)
Heh, I caught that when I had an opportunity to read more in depth when the article showed up on Freewayjim.
One gets the feeling that the 1958 Freeway and Expressway Plan was drawn up by engineers who just looked at a map and thought "that looks like a good place for a freeway"
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
The author mentioned that Lucille Ball was one of the celebrities fighting against the Beverly Hills Freeway. Not coincidentally, in 1967, there was an episode (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0637519/) of The Lucy Show where Lucy fights to save a small town from having a highway built down its main street.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
The article shows that CA 1 in the LA area was ALT US 101 at one time. Was that true?
Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2022, 08:47:18 AM
The article shows that CA 1 in the LA area was ALT US 101 at one time. Was that true?
Yes, from 1935-63. It was very briefly CA 3 in 1934.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
From May to September, Kanan Dume/Malibu Canyon and Las Virgenes/Topanga Canyon Rds are all parking lots from about 3pm-6pm every day going northbound to the 101. There is even heavy 101 traffic for a few exits going southbound just from the sheer amount of Malibu beachgoers driving home. PCH has horrendous traffic at this time, too, from Kanan Dume all the way to the 10.
Quote from: RZF on June 08, 2022, 11:35:20 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
From May to September, Kanan Dume/Malibu Canyon and Las Virgenes/Topanga Canyon Rds are all parking lots from about 3pm-6pm every day going northbound to the 101. There is even heavy 101 traffic for a few exits going southbound just from the sheer amount of Malibu beachgoers driving home. PCH has horrendous traffic at this time, too, from Kanan Dume all the way to the 10.
But with freeways, wouldn't that just move the bottleneck to the streets of Malibu?
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
The part from the McClure tunnel to Temescal Canyon and points north (west). You'd be adding traffic from the West Valley and Conejo Valley to a six-lane beach route with traffic lights. Whether it would provide any relief to the 405, I don't know. There might have been, but at the cost of making Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu much more difficult to travel around.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
The part from the McClure tunnel to Temescal Canyon and points north (west). You'd be adding traffic from the West Valley and Conejo Valley to a six-lane beach route with traffic lights. Whether it would provide any relief to the 405, I don't know. There might have been, but at the cost of making Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu much more difficult to travel around.
I have this fantasy where everything between Point Magu and Topanga Beach was made into a park and the Pacific Coast Highway was made into a beautifully landscaped parkway.
I really despise the drawbridge mentality that residents of California's most scenic areas have.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
The part from the McClure tunnel to Temescal Canyon and points north (west). You'd be adding traffic from the West Valley and Conejo Valley to a six-lane beach route with traffic lights. Whether it would provide any relief to the 405, I don't know. There might have been, but at the cost of making Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu much more difficult to travel around.
I have this fantasy where everything between Point Magu and Topanga Beach was made into a park and the Pacific Coast Highway was made into a beautifully landscaped parkway.
I really despise the drawbridge mentality that residents of California's most scenic areas have.
A lot of it is park land. That become pretty apparent pretty quickly on dirt Mulholland or any of the random beaches on CA 1.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
The part from the McClure tunnel to Temescal Canyon and points north (west). You'd be adding traffic from the West Valley and Conejo Valley to a six-lane beach route with traffic lights. Whether it would provide any relief to the 405, I don't know. There might have been, but at the cost of making Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu much more difficult to travel around.
I have this fantasy where everything between Point Magu and Topanga Beach was made into a park and the Pacific Coast Highway was made into a beautifully landscaped parkway.
I really despise the drawbridge mentality that residents of California's most scenic areas have.
A lot of it is park land. That become pretty apparent pretty quickly on dirt Mulholland or any of the random beaches on CA 1.
I wish all of it was. Where Malibu currently exists, there'd be parking and lodging facilities for people who want to go to the beach or take a tour of the Canyon.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 09:47:02 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 08, 2022, 09:44:37 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 09:36:52 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 09:16:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:42:46 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 08:07:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 08, 2022, 05:49:58 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
Having driven PCH for several years, there absolutely would have been traffic to justify their construction. They both would have not only become feeders for the beaches, but alternate commuter routes for the 405, as Topanga Canyon is today.
And PCH south of Temescal Canyon and the 10 from the McClure Tunnel would rival the 405 in terms of volume of traffic if they had.
I think the Laurel Canyon Freeway would've been much more feasible for relieving the 405.
He didn't say it would take traffic from the 405. He said it would rival the volume. It would be adding traffic from the 101 (although some of that traffic takes the 405 to get there).
He was talking about the part of the PCF south of the 10 Freeway
The part from the McClure tunnel to Temescal Canyon and points north (west). You'd be adding traffic from the West Valley and Conejo Valley to a six-lane beach route with traffic lights. Whether it would provide any relief to the 405, I don't know. There might have been, but at the cost of making Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, and Malibu much more difficult to travel around.
I have this fantasy where everything between Point Magu and Topanga Beach was made into a park and the Pacific Coast Highway was made into a beautifully landscaped parkway.
I really despise the drawbridge mentality that residents of California's most scenic areas have.
A lot of it is park land. That become pretty apparent pretty quickly on dirt Mulholland or any of the random beaches on CA 1.
I wish all of it was. Where Malibu currently exists, there'd be parking and lodging facilities for people who want to go to the beach or take a tour of the Canyon.
The main problem is everyone tourism wise congregates at Topanga Canyon. There are a lot of places, especially west of Malibu that are pretty much wide open beach front.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
I think the land along the freeway in the mountains would have been more heavily developed. The residents would work in the SF Valley, but the closer to the beach, the more valuable the land. In the summer it's frequently 30 degrees cooler at the beach than around US-101.
You can see this effect along route 73 in OC. When they first build that, it went through a whole lotta nuthin. Now look at it. Were it not for its exhorbitant tolls, that freeway would be jammed up too.
Quote from: pderocco on June 09, 2022, 01:58:28 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
I think the land along the freeway in the mountains would have been more heavily developed. The residents would work in the SF Valley, but the closer to the beach, the more valuable the land. In the summer it's frequently 30 degrees cooler at the beach than around US-101.
You can see this effect along route 73 in OC. When they first build that, it went through a whole lotta nuthin. Now look at it. Were it not for its exhorbitant tolls, that freeway would be jammed up too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0728478,-118.588346,3a,60y,68.74h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3eaZgCR9nu7BWlRTntfXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Look at this. How the hell would would you build a freeway through that?
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 07:25:13 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 09, 2022, 01:58:28 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 08, 2022, 08:09:42 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 08, 2022, 01:45:02 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 07:56:52 PM
Even without environmentalists or NIMBYs, does anyone really believe they could build freeways through Topanga or Malibu Canyons or that there could possibly be enough traffic to warrant their construction?
If they had done it back in the 60s, they would be jammed up by now.
Really? Is there that much beach traffic?
I think the land along the freeway in the mountains would have been more heavily developed. The residents would work in the SF Valley, but the closer to the beach, the more valuable the land. In the summer it's frequently 30 degrees cooler at the beach than around US-101.
You can see this effect along route 73 in OC. When they first build that, it went through a whole lotta nuthin. Now look at it. Were it not for its exhorbitant tolls, that freeway would be jammed up too.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0728478,-118.588346,3a,60y,68.74h,81.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sb3eaZgCR9nu7BWlRTntfXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Look at this. How the hell would would you build a freeway through that?
Modern excavators. Look at CA 18 in Waterman Canyon above San Bernardino, it is basically a stone throw from four-lane freeway status to CA 138.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/25/archives/nixon-freeway-project-suspended-in-california-dropped-from-masthead.html
The 1974 New York Times article about the cancelation of the Slauson/Marina/Nixon Freeway makes no mention of pollution or demolished homes. It says the decision was purely economic, citing "inflation, spiraling construction costs and uncertain funding from the Federal Government"
As the Century Freeway showed, if Caltrans really, really wants to pursue an extremely unpopular Freeway project, they'll do it.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 08:16:47 PM
The author mentioned that Lucille Ball was one of the celebrities fighting against the Beverly Hills Freeway. Not coincidentally, in 1967, there was an episode (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0637519/) of The Lucy Show where Lucy fights to save a small town from having a highway built down its main street.
I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but I remember seeing an old Bugs Bunny cartoon where a construction crew threatens to pave a freeway over his hole, and Bugs goes to great lengths to stop it from happening.
EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up on Google, and the title is ''No Parking Hare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Parking_Hare)'', a Looney Tunes short from 1954.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 01:14:59 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/25/archives/nixon-freeway-project-suspended-in-california-dropped-from-masthead.html
The 1974 New York Times article about the cancelation of the Slauson/Marina/Nixon Freeway makes no mention of pollution or demolished homes. It says the decision was purely economic, citing "inflation, spiraling construction costs and uncertain funding from the Federal Government"
As the Century Freeway showed, if Caltrans really, really wants to pursue an extremely unpopular Freeway project, they'll do it.
Unbuilt 90 never has been Legislatively cancelled nor deleted from the Freeway & Expressway system. In "theory" if there was enough force of will a new adopted alignment couple be added and be pursued. That's why there was such a push to change the Legislative definition of 710 and delete the Pasadena Gap from the Freeway & Expressway System, it kept reviving conceptually.
Also, you ought to be directing your statement more at the California Transportation Commission than Caltrans.
Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2022, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 08:16:47 PM
The author mentioned that Lucille Ball was one of the celebrities fighting against the Beverly Hills Freeway. Not coincidentally, in 1967, there was an episode (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0637519/) of The Lucy Show where Lucy fights to save a small town from having a highway built down its main street.
I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but I remember seeing an old Bugs Bunny cartoon where a construction crew threatens to pave a freeway over his hole, and Bugs goes to great lengths to stop it from happening.
EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up on Google, and the title is ''No Parking Hare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Parking_Hare)'', a Looney Tunes short from 1954.
There was also a Yogi Bear episode where Yogi wakes up from hibernation only to find his cave is now in the median of a freeway
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: Henry on June 09, 2022, 01:22:25 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 07, 2022, 08:16:47 PM
The author mentioned that Lucille Ball was one of the celebrities fighting against the Beverly Hills Freeway. Not coincidentally, in 1967, there was an episode (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0637519/) of The Lucy Show where Lucy fights to save a small town from having a highway built down its main street.
I can't remember the name off the top of my head, but I remember seeing an old Bugs Bunny cartoon where a construction crew threatens to pave a freeway over his hole, and Bugs goes to great lengths to stop it from happening.
EDIT: Nevermind, I looked it up on Google, and the title is ''No Parking Hare (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Parking_Hare)'', a Looney Tunes short from 1954.
There was also a Yogi Bear episode where Yogi wakes up from hibernation only to find his cave is now in the median of a freeway
There's also the opening of
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur Dent tries to stop a bypass from going through his home right before the Vogons destroy the planet for an intergalactic bypass.
This is funny but irrelevant. I mentioned that Lucy Show episode because Lucille Ball, in real life, was a public opponent of a freeway project in her community. Unless the writers or voice actors for any of these cartoons also opposed a freeway, then it's not relevant.
And anyways, the 1964 traffic study for the Beverly Hills Freeway was predicated on a population in Los Angeles county of 13 million by 1990. I think that the Santa Monica Freeway gets the job done, especially since the Century Freeway got rid of the LAX-bound traffic. Also, the Beverly Hills Freeway, on its east side, would've created a new bottleneck on the already-congested Hollywood Freeway and on the West Side, there would've been just 1.2 miles between its interchange with the 405 and that of the Santa Monica.
You could accuse me of sour grapes, but I don't think the cancellation of the Beverly Freeway was that big of a deal.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 10:45:04 PM
This is funny but irrelevant. I mentioned that Lucy Show episode because Lucille Ball, in real life, was a public opponent of a freeway project in her community. Unless the writers or voice actors for any of these cartoons also opposed a freeway, then it's not relevant.
And anyways, the 1964 traffic study for the Beverly Hills Freeway was predicated on a population in Los Angeles county of 13 million by 1990. I think that the Santa Monica Freeway gets the job done, especially since the Century Freeway got rid of the LAX-bound traffic. Also, the Beverly Hills Freeway, on its east side, would've created a new bottleneck on the already-congested Hollywood Freeway and on the West Side, there would've been just 1.2 miles between its interchange with the 405 and that of the Santa Monica.
You could accuse me of sour grapes, but I don't think the cancellation of the Beverly Freeway was that big of a deal.
The Hollywood-Santa Monica corridor that is mainly Santa Monica Blvd (and some other parallel streets) is one of the busiest corridors in L.A. A lot of this is because it is the wealthiest part of town and employment follows wealth.
If Downtown LA remained the main office hub of the area, then a freeway in this area would not be so critical, as Westside to Downtown LA traffic could take the 10. But with the rise of offices in Beverly Hills, Century City, Westwood, and Santa Monica, you have basically a new Downtown right on the west side. Downtown LA has freeways serving it in every direction, Beverly Hills and Century City are simply not served by freeways.
It is a real slog to get to Century City via Motor Ave to the 10 or via Santa Monica and Olympic to the 405. What about the folks coming in from cheaper areas like Hollywood and Silver Lake (and then taking the 2 to reach further suburbs). They take surface streets the whole way. And the main surface streets, like Olympic and Pico are so crowded that people are commuting on narrow residential streets. Look at Whitworth (between Olympic and Pico) or Cashio (south of Pico). Look at Willoughby (between Melrose and Santa Monica).
Better freeway access would have helped. Hopefully, the extension of the Wilshire subway can provid alternatives for those commuting to this area.
Would it have been possible to build any of the canceled freeways underground in deep-bored tunnels? The 710 tunnel should have been built, and I believe those who opposed it have lost their right to bitch about congested roads.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2022, 07:33:34 PM
Would it have been possible to build any of the canceled freeways underground in deep-bored tunnels? The 710 tunnel should have been built, and I believe those who opposed it have lost their right to bitch about congested roads.
Sure, if you throw enough money at it, they could do anything.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2022, 07:33:34 PM
Would it have been possible to build any of the canceled freeways underground in deep-bored tunnels? The 710 tunnel should have been built, and I believe those who opposed it have lost their right to bitch about congested roads.
An I-710 tunnel connecting the two stubs would be about 4.5 miles. A two lane tunnel would cost $250M per mile minimum; that's already $2.25B for twin two-lane tunnels. The price goes up if you hit hard rock like granite, add extra lanes, earthquake-proofing, etc. The estimated cost to start was already $5.4B (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-710-tunnel-20170518-htmlstory.html) (paywalled) and no big project is ever as low as the initial cost, especially in California. (Check the new Bay Bridge (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-cost-of-remaking-the-san-francisco-bay-bridge-soared-to-6-5-billion) or the HSR project (https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/593755-price-rises-again-for-california-high-speed/) for examples.)
Quote from: skluth on August 03, 2022, 01:05:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2022, 07:33:34 PM
Would it have been possible to build any of the canceled freeways underground in deep-bored tunnels? The 710 tunnel should have been built, and I believe those who opposed it have lost their right to bitch about congested roads.
An I-710 tunnel connecting the two stubs would be about 4.5 miles. A two lane tunnel would cost $250M per mile minimum; that's already $2.25B for twin two-lane tunnels. The price goes up if you hit hard rock like granite, add extra lanes, earthquake-proofing, etc. The estimated cost to start was already $5.4B (https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-710-tunnel-20170518-htmlstory.html) (paywalled) and no big project is ever as low as the initial cost, especially in California. (Check the new Bay Bridge (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-cost-of-remaking-the-san-francisco-bay-bridge-soared-to-6-5-billion) or the HSR project (https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/infrastructure/593755-price-rises-again-for-california-high-speed/) for examples.)
Well, they're spending a few hundred billion to fight inflation...
Quote from: kernals12 on June 09, 2022, 10:45:04 PM
This is funny but irrelevant. I mentioned that Lucy Show episode because Lucille Ball, in real life, was a public opponent of a freeway project in her community. Unless the writers or voice actors for any of these cartoons also opposed a freeway, then it's not relevant.
And anyways, the 1964 traffic study for the Beverly Hills Freeway was predicated on a population in Los Angeles county of 13 million by 1990. I think that the Santa Monica Freeway gets the job done, especially since the Century Freeway got rid of the LAX-bound traffic. Also, the Beverly Hills Freeway, on its east side, would've created a new bottleneck on the already-congested Hollywood Freeway and on the West Side, there would've been just 1.2 miles between its interchange with the 405 and that of the Santa Monica.
You could accuse me of sour grapes, but I don't think the cancellation of the Beverly Freeway was that big of a deal.
Got a link to that 1964 traffic study? Because that 1990 estimate of 13 million people for LA county is...only off by 3 million for the 2020 Census.