I was wondering what are your thougts on this subject? Do you think that Caltrans should be able to do it, or do you agree with South Pasadena?
I-710 would be the only bypass of the East LA interchange - the merits of it outweigh the objections that South Pasadena may raise.
it needs to be built.
Crazy Nimbys. Imagine how many freeways we would have had if it wasn't for them. Beverly Hills Freeway, Laurel Canyon Freeway, Pacific Coast Freeway, and countless others could have helped so much in terms of traffic relief in Los Angeles. The people in South Pasadena were ok with a tunnel back in the 1990s I believe then when Caltrans begin to study the tunnel, they were against it. Like AgentSteel said, this freeway needs to be built. Its a huge gap in our freeway network here.
don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!
The 19? Lakewood Bl was supposed to be a freeway? I can see the 138 happening since its still pretty open up there. They could easily bypass the developed portions of Lancaster/Palmadale. Has that project been cancelled?
see here for some great planned freeway maps:
http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 07:59:47 AM
don't forget La Cienega Freeway (170 extension, even further south than the Laurel Canyon), the whole 164/19 plan in which 19 was to become a full freeway... and 138 as a northern bypass of the whole damn mess!
164/19 would have probably made the 710 gap less critical than it has become...while the 170 extension would have not only provided better access to LAX from the Valley, but also relieved the 101/405 mess!
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on February 23, 2011, 12:32:40 AM
Crazy Nimbys. Imagine how many freeways we would have had if it wasn't for them. Beverly Hills Freeway, Laurel Canyon Freeway, Pacific Coast Freeway, and countless others could have helped so much in terms of traffic relief in Los Angeles. The people in South Pasadena were ok with a tunnel back in the 1990s I believe then when Caltrans begin to study the tunnel, they were against it. Like AgentSteel said, this freeway needs to be built. Its a huge gap in our freeway network here.
So true, imagine if even just the Beverly Hills and Laurel Canyon Freeways were added. Would make a huge difference.
The only freeway I'm glad was never actually built was the I-480 that was supposed to create a freeway-to-freeway connection in San Francisco. While that would have been convenient, it would have been at the huge cost of the city's charm, taking away many scenic views of the bay.
But in the case of I-710, there is no reason this freeway shouldn't be built.
Also, taking a look at some of those old maps is interesting, especially how "parkway" was being used in place of numbered freeways.
What I found most interesting was the "Whitnall Parkway" that would have been a diagonal through the Valley. Today, there is a short stretch of road known as the "Whitnall Hwy," which I imagine was intended to be part of the freeway. I always wondered why such a short road was called a "highway," and now I know.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 11:14:32 AM
see here for some great planned freeway maps:
http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html
Is the Temescal Pkwy pretty much CA 71 and I-15 south of Corona today?
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on February 24, 2011, 01:44:09 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 23, 2011, 11:14:32 AM
see here for some great planned freeway maps:
http://www.cahighways.org/maps-sc-fwy.html
Is the Temescal Pkwy pretty much CA 71 and I-15 south of Corona today?
Pretty much. But my guess is back then it was just going to be route 71 since the 15 originally stopped in San Bernardino, and even before it got route to its current alignment it was on the now 215.
I did find some additional, recent information on the 710 tunnel (including costs and geotechnical overview):
Metro Meeting Minutes and Staff Report:
http://www.metro.net/about/meetings/board/rbm-0224-2011/agenda/
http://www.metro.net/board/Items/2011/02_February/20110224RBMItem2.pdf
Another page that follows LA transportation issues is la.streetsblog.org. It is generally opinionated but might give a feeling of reasons why some are opposed to the tunnel, for right or wrong:
http://la.streetsblog.org/2011/02/25/name-the-sr-710-extension-moves-to-the-final-page-but-how-much-will-it-cost/
Andy
Would there be a toll for the tunnel extension?
Don't think it was ever discussed with a toll. That would be an intriguing way to finance it, but it would have to be all-electronic given no room for tollbooths.
Has rerouting the 110 to meet up with the 210/134 interchange ever been considered? Caltrans owns the properties along Pasadena Ave up to the existing stub so 110 could be rerouted northward at Fremont Ave. Do you guys think that would make sense?
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on May 24, 2011, 07:32:15 PM
Has rerouting the 110 to meet up with the 210/134 interchange ever been considered?
I don't think so - I know that with the current 710 plans, a proposed 110/710 interchange was nixed, so this likely would not be feasible for the same reason that that junction will not exist.
It would not really be feasible to lift CA 110 out of the trench and get it up Pasadena Ave. You'd have to dig out a considerable amount of Pasadena to curve it northward into that corridor.
Quote from: Steve on May 24, 2011, 08:38:45 PM
It would not really be feasible to lift CA 110 out of the trench and get it up Pasadena Ave. You'd have to dig out a considerable amount of Pasadena to curve it northward into that corridor.
Yeah, thats a good point. I didn't think about that.
Besides, that poor little Pasadena Freeway/Arroyo Seco Parkway (or whatever it is they're calling it) couldn't handle the extra traffic. It was never designed to handle anywhere near the traffic it has to deal with now in the first place.
According to Metro, the extension is in the early planning stages thanks to the measure R funds.
http://www.metro.net/interactives/measurer_projectmap/
Theres a few projects that I haven't heard before. But, I was surprised that theres no plan to redesign the 10/605 interchange.
If the 710 can't be finished, improvements to Fremont Avenue should be made so it could handle the through traffic from the 10 to the 210.
[
it seemed appropriate to bump the thread, since the other threads about the proposed I-710 extension were not directly related to this]
L.A. Times: L.A. opposes 710 Freeway extension above ground or by tunnel (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-710-freeway-20120829,0,57309.story)
QuoteThe L.A. City Council unanimously votes to oppose the options presented by the MTA. It joins South Pasadena, La Cañada Flintridge and Glendale.
QuoteThe Los Angeles City Council unanimously adopted a resolution Tuesday that joined a chorus of voices opposing plans to extend the 710 Freeway north either above ground or by tunnel.
QuoteThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on Thursday narrowed the 12 possible options down to five and decided to cease exploration of any above-ground extension. But a tunnel connecting the 710 Freeway to the 210 Freeway is still on the table.
QuoteMTA officials have said they do not prefer a single option, but foes believe the tunnel is the favored option because it provides a route for trucks from the Port of Los Angeles to move cargo inland.
Since no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra, I'm thinking they should just forget about the I-710 extension but they should also close and demolish the two freeway stubs north of I-10 and south of I-210/CA-134 and use the extension money for a new I-210/CA-134 interchange where I-210 traffic doesn't have to "exit" the freeway to stay on I-210.
Closing the stub north of I-10 will force freeway traffic onto I-10 instead of Valley Blvd thus keeping it out of Alhambra.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 29, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra
not correct. just about anyone who studies the traffic patterns wants it.
it is useful for local traffic, to actually get to Pasadena from the south, and critical for through traffic - as an alternate to the East LA Interchange.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2012, 02:23:53 PM
not correct. just about anyone who studies the traffic patterns wants it.
it is useful for local traffic, to actually get to Pasadena from the south, and critical for through traffic - as an alternate to the East LA Interchange.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see I-710 completed because of it's importance to the freeway system (like the alternative to the East LA Interchange you mentioned) but it's too bad these people don't have a greater influence on local governments. Even if they went on an educational campaign to inform the residents of the benefits of the extension, it would fall on deaf ears.
Perhaps the only way to get this built would be for the port to instruct the truck drivers to take 710 to Valley Blvd to Fremont Ave to I-210 and flood Pasadena and South Pasadena with through truck traffic. Looking at Google Maps, it appears that much of Fremont Ave goes through a residential area so by flooding it with truck traffic might change their minds about the I-710 extension.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 29, 2012, 03:08:56 PM
Perhaps the only way to get this built would be for the port to instruct the truck drivers to take 710 to Valley Blvd to Fremont Ave to I-210 and flood Pasadena and South Pasadena with through truck traffic. Looking at Google Maps, it appears that much of Fremont Ave goes through a residential area so by flooding it with truck traffic might change their minds about the I-710 extension.
not just a residential area, but a very upscale, quiet residential area. the people there seem much more likely to call the cops on block parties, rather than host them.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 29, 2012, 02:23:53 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 29, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra
not correct. just about anyone who studies the traffic patterns wants it.
it is useful for local traffic, to actually get to Pasadena from the south, and critical for through traffic - as an alternate to the East LA Interchange.
And don't assume that just because a body of elected officials passes a resolution against a highway project, that doesn't mean it won't get built.
A recent case in point is Maryland's Route 200 (ICC) toll road. It was the subject of frantic opposition from the Sierra Club and other anti-highway and anti-mobility groups, and those groups got the Prince George's County Council to pass two unanimous resolutions against the project [the eastern end, where it has interchanges with I-95 and U.S. 1 are in Prince George's County]. Several governing councils of small municipalities also passed resolutions against the project, but none of the municipalities opposing the highway were directly impacted by it.
More than a few members of the Maryland General Assembly were also opposed, but they could never muster the votes to de-fund the project.
To me, this situation is an amazing example of NIMBY-ism. This freeway has been on planning documents since the 1940s; Caltrans has owned (and apparently mismanaged) the properties in the ROW for 40 to 60 years. Any resident that moved into the area (and I would imagine there are very very few people who have lived there since before 1950) would have been informed that they were near a freeway ROW. If you don't want a freeway built near your house, don't move somewhere where a freeway is planned.
Of course, I'm biased; I have to travel between Long Beach and Pasadena on a regular basis. All of the arterials between I-10 and I-210 are a mess; the alternative is to cut back to I-5 and up CA-110 (also a mess).
It helps local traffic, port traffic and regional traffic (using I-710 north to I-210 west to I-5 north would actually provide an alternative for Long Beach/Orange County/San Diego traffic to bypass downtown and/or I-405 to points north).
However, I would give all of these residents a pass on their complaints if they can prove to me they made similar complaints about the disruptions caused to the residents displaced by I-105's construction in the early '90s.
I was reading a few articles about the 710 extension and people where commenting saying for the price of the extension, that money could be invested into new mass transit and light rail. I laugh because if all of a sudden LA began to build completely new light rail lines from scratch (pink line,yellow line, amber line, etc) these same people would be fighting that too. They want nothing built if its in their backyard.
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on August 30, 2012, 02:34:23 AM
I was reading a few articles about the 710 extension and people where commenting saying for the price of the extension, that money could be invested into new mass transit and light rail. I laugh because if all of a sudden LA began to build completely new light rail lines from scratch (pink line,yellow line, amber line, etc) these same people would be fighting that too. They want nothing built if its in their backyard.
and I don't think the whole lets-invest-in-mass-transit-instead-of-freeways argument is a valid one because one of the reasons for building the 710 extension is to facilitate truck traffic coming to and from Long Beach. Building mass transit won't help the truckers one iota.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 29, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
Since no one wants the I-710 extension built except for the MTA and the city of Alhambra, I'm thinking they should just forget about the I-710 extension but they should also close and demolish the two freeway stubs north of I-10 and south of I-210/CA-134 and use the extension money for a new I-210/CA-134 interchange where I-210 traffic doesn't have to "exit" the freeway to stay on I-210.
Closing the stub north of I-10 will force freeway traffic onto I-10 instead of Valley Blvd thus keeping it out of Alhambra.
Then why did they even bother building the stubs in the first place? I wouldn't mind if both the stubs were utilised in order to connect I-10 to I-210/CA 134 as part of the 710 extension, but the stubs in their current condition look a bit worse for wear than what was originally intended.
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on August 30, 2012, 02:34:23 AM
I was reading a few articles about the 710 extension and people where commenting saying for the price of the extension, that money could be invested into new mass transit and light rail. I laugh because if all of a sudden LA began to build completely new light rail lines from scratch (pink line,yellow line, amber line, etc) these same people would be fighting that too. They want nothing built if its in their backyard.
Take a lesson from Washington, D.C.
The region has built over 100 miles of heavy rail since 1969, much of it to (in theory) replace the mostly unbuilt D.C. freeway network, and to "reduce traffic."
It has repeatedly shown itself incapable of replacing the freeways, and the cost to build it (including the extension currently under construction to Dulles Airport and Loudoun County, Va.) have routinely generated
massive cost overruns.
Has it "reduced traffic." No. All it did was move people that were taking the bus onto a new and (very expensive) rail system.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 29, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
To me, this situation is an amazing example of NIMBY-ism.
Agreed. And pandering to same by elected officials.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 29, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
This freeway has been on planning documents since the 1940s; Caltrans has owned (and apparently mismanaged) the properties in the ROW for 40 to 60 years. Any resident that moved into the area (and I would imagine there are very very few people who have lived there since before 1950) would have been informed that they were near a freeway ROW. If you don't want a freeway built near your house, don't move somewhere where a freeway is planned.
Don't knock Caltrans for (mis)managing the real estate. They are a state DOT, not a public housing authority.
Maryland's Route 200 goes back to the 1950's and 1960's, yet most of the NIMBYs opposing it arrived after it was put on the planning maps.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 29, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
Of course, I'm biased; I have to travel between Long Beach and Pasadena on a regular basis. All of the arterials between I-10 and I-210 are a mess; the alternative is to cut back to I-5 and up CA-110 (also a mess).
I live rather far away (the saltwater of the Chesapeake Bay is at the end of my street), but know L.A. County (and its traffic and its freeway network) well enough to agree with you.
Quote from: DTComposer on August 29, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
It helps local traffic, port traffic and regional traffic (using I-710 north to I-210 west to I-5 north would actually provide an alternative for Long Beach/Orange County/San Diego traffic to bypass downtown and/or I-405 to points north).
Network redundancy. That's a
good thing, and the "missing link" of I-710 provides some of that (in addition to more capacity).
Quote from: DTComposer on August 29, 2012, 10:22:54 PM
However, I would give all of these residents a pass on their complaints if they can prove to me they made similar complaints about the disruptions caused to the residents displaced by I-105's construction in the early '90s.
Some NIMBYs think they have the moral high ground because they oppose all highway improvement projects everywhere (even though most of them show up to public meetings in private automobiles for some reason).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
Don't knock Caltrans for (mis)managing the real estate. They are a state DOT, not a public housing authority.
I'm not necessarily knocking them, just noticing that story came out right at the same time as this round of don't-you-dare-build-it stories.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on August 30, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
Some NIMBYs think they have the moral high ground because they oppose all highway improvement projects everywhere (even though most of them show up to public meetings in private automobiles for some reason).
I'd only give them a pass in the sense that at least they'd be consistent in their beliefs, as opposed to only worrying about their own neighborhoods and happily utilizing freeways that disrupted other people's lives.
I used to think of a system whereby freeway entrances would be monitored in such a way that drivers who came from cities (i.e. South Pasadena) that so vehemently opposed a freeway in their city would not be allowed to enter any freeway that was built through an already-developed area.
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 30, 2012, 06:12:44 AM
Then why did they even bother building the stubs in the first place? I wouldn't mind if both the stubs were utilised in order to connect I-10 to I-210/CA 134 as part of the 710 extension, but the stubs in their current condition look a bit worse for wear than what was originally intended.
I'm sure the stubs were built with the full intention of completing the I-710 (old CA-7) freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena. I'm not sure what stopped Caltrans back in the 1960's and 70's (public opposition? lack of funding?).
I wonder if there's any benefit to building a partial extension as a boulevard (not unlike the Octavia Boulevard project in San Francisco)...extend it north from Valley, over the railroad tracks, perhaps some partial interchange at Alhambra/Mission, then either due north along Sheffield Avenue (the ROW that Caltrans owns) to Huntington Drive, or northeast along Concord Avenue to Fremont Avenue and perhaps beyond to Palm Avenue/Main Street.
I'm basing that on my experience that the most congested part of the surface route is Valley Boulevard onto Fremont or Atlantic...once I'm north of Main it's not nearly as bad.
Of course, I could just be moving the choke points further north.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2012, 12:39:04 PM
Quote from: national highway 1 on August 30, 2012, 06:12:44 AM
Then why did they even bother building the stubs in the first place? I wouldn't mind if both the stubs were utilised in order to connect I-10 to I-210/CA 134 as part of the 710 extension, but the stubs in their current condition look a bit worse for wear than what was originally intended.
I'm sure the stubs were built with the full intention of completing the I-710 (old CA-7) freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena. I'm not sure what stopped Caltrans back in the 1960's and 70's (public opposition? lack of funding?).
Of course public opposition has thwarted the I-710 extension for decades, but more to the point: I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and of course, the individual freeways weren't built all at once: Caltrans would build a segment here, a piece there, until the whole route was connected. Let's use the 210 as an example as I grew up in La Canada Flintridge and remember its construction:
Setting aside the original Foothill Freeway, a little-bitty freeway built in the '50s that connected Pasadena to La Canada that became an extension of Woodbury Road when the 210 was built, the first segment of the I-210 ran from Santa Anita Avenue to Mt. Olive Drive through Monrovia and Duarte. By 1969, it had been extended to Azusa Avenue (California 39), then in fits and starts out to San Dimas, where back then, it curved south to hook into I-10, California 71 and California 57. Heading west toward Pasadena, the 210 was extended to Rosemead Boulevard about 1971 or thereabouts, and it dead-ended there for years (the final stretch into Pasadena didn't open until almost 1977). The stretch between Pasadena and the Verdugo Hills (through La Canada and so forth) was built in bits and pieces between 1972 and 1977, and the stretch between I-5 and Paxton Street in Sylmar or Pacoima or whatever that is was built about the same time. I think the last stretch of the 210 through Lakeview Terrace didn't open until sometime in the early 1980s but I don't exactly know which year: It was still unbuilt when I moved to Hawaii in 1979, but by the time I moved back to L.A. in 1986, that last stretch through Lakeview Terrace had been finished.
What are South Pasadena's reasons in stopping the extension and are sucessful in court? I'm sure in about 99% of all freeway construction there are some groups or individuals who sues to block construction of a freeway but isn't sucessful. If that was the case, there would be no freeways anywhere.
When dealing with enviromentalists in CA you have to beware: You can sk them until you are blue in the face what would be acceptable options to them for a build. Usually, you only get a reasonable answer after they allready arranged for another organization to show up to protest the option they just sanctioned.
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on August 30, 2012, 07:32:16 PM
What are South Pasadena's reasons in stopping the extension and are sucessful in court? I'm sure in about 99% of all freeway construction there are some groups or individuals who sues to block construction of a freeway but isn't sucessful. If that was the case, there would be no freeways anywhere.
Many opponents of highway improvements will boast (especially to the news media) that they are going to "stop this project in court." And sometimes they get a judge to go along with a remand of the project's environmental impact statement (EIS - EIR in California). But
in general, the judge is not remanding the EIS because there is environmental damage associated with the project, but because there are defects in the EIS
document, or because the federal government and/or a state agency (usually a state DOT) did not follow the
process requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Environmental_Policy_Act) (NEPA) or the regulations and legal precedents associated with it (sometimes, other federal laws are involved, including, but not limited to, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act), Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/4f/index.asp) or the Clean Air Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_%28United_States%29) (and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990)).
But remember that NEPA does
not forbid changes to the environment, but requires the agency wanting to build something to take a "hard look" at its environmental impacts.
Opponents are likely to have more success in stopping a project at the state, county or municipal level by getting elected officials to go along with not funding it, but even that does not always stop it. In 1999, then-Gov. Parris Glendening (D-Md.) announced that he was going to "cancel" the Md. 200 project, and it was within his authority to order the state DOT to not study or discuss the project any longer. But it remained on the master plans of two counties, and when Glendening left office in 2002 (he was term-limited), his successor, Robert Ehrlich, Jr. (R), ordered the planning process restarted, and there was little opponents could do to stop it. The Sierra Club and several aggrieved citizens sued in federal court, and got blown out of the water by the judge who heard their arguments, and after a while, the Club,which had vowed an appeal, dropped all appeals and the road is mostly open to traffic today.
EDIT: Hyperlinked the federal environmental laws.
Quote from: Quillz on February 23, 2011, 09:29:57 PM
Also, taking a look at some of those old maps is interesting, especially how "parkway" was being used in place of numbered freeways.
What I found most interesting was the "Whitnall Parkway" that would have been a diagonal through the Valley. Today, there is a short stretch of road known as the "Whitnall Hwy," which I imagine was intended to be part of the freeway. I always wondered why such a short road was called a "highway," and now I know.
Yep, just amazing that there was never a mid-valley freeway built, Roscoe Blvd and Sherman Way being the biggest beneficiaries.
Tunnel the 710 extension with just one off-ramp at/near Mission Street serving that dense area. Of course it should be
a twin-stacked tunnel, allowing truck/vehicle separation and space for future whatever.
Post Merge: December 08, 2012, 12:03:24 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2012, 12:39:04 PM
I'm sure the stubs were built with the full intention of completing the I-710 (old CA-7) freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena. I'm not sure what stopped Caltrans back in the 1960's and 70's (public opposition? lack of funding?).
As then as now - OLD MONEY. A lot of these families go way back in Los Angeles history. Remember, South Pasadena and surroundings was 'the' place to go back in early century LA. Today, it's the ROW area we so desperately need to develop.
Fixed Quoting. --roadfro
Post Merge: December 08, 2012, 12:03:28 AM
Quote from: hm insulators on August 30, 2012, 07:18:20 PM
... I think the last stretch of the 210 through Lakeview Terrace didn't open until sometime in the early 1980s but I don't exactly know which year: It was still unbuilt when I moved to Hawaii in 1979, but by the time I moved back to L.A. in 1986, that last stretch through Lakeview Terrace had been finished.
I think the studios kept that final stretch through Lakeview Terrace from opening. Ha - They had to finish the CHIPS seasons and it seems that 90% was filmed in that short section from so many different angles, you'd think you were all over the map.
Fixed Quoting. --roadfro
One thing I notice is that a wealthy neighborhood blocks a freeway from being completed for decades, yet I-105 gets built because it isn't through a rich neighborhood.
I think that if South Pasadena doesn't want the freeway then they shouldn't be allowed to use the 105 or even the 5 since When they Built the Golden State Freeway through Downtown it was not popular.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on December 09, 2012, 01:36:34 PM
One thing I notice is that a wealthy neighborhood blocks a freeway from being completed for decades, yet I-105 gets built because it isn't through a rich neighborhood.
That's stating the obvious don't you think? Most of life is that way IMO.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 30, 2012, 07:47:19 PM
When dealing with enviromentalists in CA you have to beware: You can sk them until you are blue in the face what would be acceptable options to them for a build. Usually, you only get a reasonable answer after they allready arranged for another organization to show up to protest the option they just sanctioned.
Damned democracies.
Quote from: LA_MetroMan on December 06, 2012, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2012, 12:39:04 PM
I'm sure the stubs were built with the full intention of completing the I-710 (old CA-7) freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena. I'm not sure what stopped Caltrans back in the 1960's and 70's (public opposition? lack of funding?).
As then as now - OLD MONEY. A lot of these families go way back in Los Angeles history. Remember, South Pasadena and surroundings was 'the' place to go back in early century LA. Today, it's the ROW area we so desperately need to develop.
This freeway route has been on the books for over 50 years. I'd be very surprised if anywhere near a majority of the homeowners in the area are the same, or in the same family. If I'm not mistaken, any transfer of deed (including between family members, whether by gift or inheritance) would have to include the disclosure about being in or near a proposed freeway route.
I'm of the opinion that pretty much everybody there knew (or were told) the freeway was a possibility (however remote) when they moved in, and every time it looks close to becoming a reality, they fight it.
Quote from: DTComposer on December 28, 2012, 01:18:50 AM
Quote from: LA_MetroMan on December 06, 2012, 01:39:32 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 30, 2012, 12:39:04 PM
I'm sure the stubs were built with the full intention of completing the I-710 (old CA-7) freeway through South Pasadena and Pasadena. I'm not sure what stopped Caltrans back in the 1960's and 70's (public opposition? lack of funding?).
As then as now - OLD MONEY. A lot of these families go way back in Los Angeles history. Remember, South Pasadena and surroundings was 'the' place to go back in early century LA. Today, it's the ROW area we so desperately need to develop.
This freeway route has been on the books for over 50 years. I'd be very surprised if anywhere near a majority of the homeowners in the area are the same, or in the same family. If I'm not mistaken, any transfer of deed (including between family members, whether by gift or inheritance) would have to include the disclosure about being in or near a proposed freeway route.
I'm of the opinion that pretty much everybody there knew (or were told) the freeway was a possibility (however remote) when they moved in, and every time it looks close to becoming a reality, they fight it.
That's what happened here in Maryland with Route 200.
The proposed highway was on the planning maps for so many years (the most-recent change to those maps was in the early 1970's - there were some substantial changes in the 1960's), yet there were always plenty of NIMBY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY)s, BANANA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA)s and others who showed up to state their opposition.
LA metro has plans to Complete the Long Beach Fwy (I-710) from Long beach to the interchange with the Foothill (I-210) and Ventura(CA-134) Freeways, and one of their plans is a LRT line running along I-710 to pasadena SR-710 LRT Alternative Fact Sheet (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/sr_710_lrt_alt_fact_sheet_post_final_2012_1221.pdf) just like the green line running along I-105 or a brt on the I-710 corridor up to Pasadena, and it would be similar to the BRT lines running on I-10 (San Berdandino FWY) and I-110 (Harbor FWY) link SR-710 BRT Alternative Fact Sheet. (http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/route_710/images/sr_710_brt_alt_fact_sheet_post_final_2012_1221.pdf)
I fixed the links so they work correctly now.
KNX-1070 NEWSRADIO: Metro To Hear From Public On 710 Extension Proposals (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/01/23/metro-to-hear-from-public-on-710-extension-proposals/)
QuotePublic meetings were set to start on Wednesday night to discuss several proposals to close the gap between the 710 Freeway in Alhambra and the 210 Freeway in Pasadena.
QuoteMetro officials will hold the first of three "All Communities Convening" corridor-wide open house meetings as part of the Alternative Analysis of the SR-710 environmental study to close the four-mile gap in the 710 freeway between Valley Boulevard in Alhambra and California Avenue in Pasadena.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9297712
Is this really the end?
Quote from: jfs1988 on October 23, 2013, 02:08:01 AM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9297712
Is this really the end?
I've gotten the sense in the last few years though that the preferred option for a while from CalTrans's standpoint has been a tunnel route (precisely because of South Pasadena's stance). Hasn't been any chance in decades that a surface-level route was ever going to be constructed in that area.
I remembering reading some where that the original LA metro freeway plan (circa 1957) is about 60% complete. If true, I doubt any more will be built. The era of building more freeways has passed in my opinion, not only for CA. but every where in the US. Too many issues involved, cost, environmental and the growing shift to mass /public transportation.
Quote from: pctech on October 23, 2013, 09:24:16 AM
The era of building more freeways has passed in my opinion, not only for CA. but every where in the US. Too many issues involved, cost, environmental and the growing shift to mass /public transportation.
This doesn't remotely apply to the Midwest/South though (69, 73, 74, Grand Parkway, US 31, 840, etc.)....
In California?
Well, Bakersfield is trying to get the 58 freeway extended to the Westside Parkway...Merced County is currently having 99 upgrades/bypasses built in segments from Chowchilla to Atwater...and the Los Banos bypass is slowly progressing through the planning stages.
It really depends on where you are. New urban freeways in California? They'll be the hardest to come by for sure, but that doesn't necessarily reflect trends everywhere.