Well, I was just looking at the thread about the I-710 with the link to metro.net, and I'm surprised that Bigmikelakers, etc. didn't mention this, as man, oh, man, this is gonna mess up everything in LA next weekend: The big closure of the 405 to knock down half the Mulholland Drive bridge! :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :verymad: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
And I'm going to be in southern California that very weekend, and even needing to drive from Orange County to the San Fernando Valley on the 16th for a friend's kid's birthday party. Believe-you-me, I'm staying far away from that 405! That Saturday, the 605 will be my target, or maybe even the 57 to the 210.
And all it will take will be one stall, minor fender-bender, mattress or ladder on the 101, the 10 or the 5 to gum everything up even further. :pan: :pan: :pan:
Modified thread title --roadfro
I will not be going anywhere near a motor vehicle that weekend - and I live in San Diego.
I am just hoping they are done by the following weekend.
TMZ has been talking about his for a few weeks now- they've dubbed it "Carmegeddon".
Caltrans even has a countdown clock somewhere on their site.
I'm glad I don't have to deal with *that* traffic nightmare. Apparently the closure of 405 is so significant that even Northern California news media are reporting on this (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_18216668).
Even VMS's in the San Jose area show the I-405 closure.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wIfnLMWADWI/ThN8l5Kx2pI/AAAAAAAAHwE/wMyKO1Yuv1Y/s640/US101_I405_closed.jpg)
Quote from: Chris on July 07, 2011, 05:37:18 PM
Even VMS's in the San Jose area show the I-405 closure.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-wIfnLMWADWI/ThN8l5Kx2pI/AAAAAAAAHwE/wMyKO1Yuv1Y/s640/US101_I405_closed.jpg)
That's pretty impressive. From the photo, that looks like it's near Great America in Santa Clara, over 300 miles away! :wow:
The practice of using the VMS to indicate road closures hundreds of miles away isn't new. When the Bay Bridge was closed over a Labor Day weekend a few years ago, VMSs state-wide were lit up warning motorists of the impending closure and I think the LA-area signs were included.
[extreme sarcasm] The closure shouldn't be a problem, since the road is just generating more traffic[/extreme sarcasm]
LA traffic is bad enough already, and just about every time I've taken 405 through there it's jammed...
And I wouldn't be surprised if fines were issued should the closure last longer than planned.
Quote from: rschen7754 on July 08, 2011, 02:47:19 AM
And I wouldn't be surprised if fines were issued should the closure last longer than planned.
$ 6,000 per 10 minutes.
I-5 and CA-99 have VMS updates advising to, I believe, "EXPECT EXTREME DELAYS" as far north as Sacramento/Stockton.
This is big. And if you live in the area and don't need to drive, it's recommended you don't.
Watch as this sets off the world's largest traffic jam, extending all the way up onto the Oak Street Bridge in Vancouver... :pan:
Quote from: Bickendan on July 10, 2011, 03:34:12 AM
Watch as this sets off the world's largest traffic jam, extending all the way up onto the Oak Street Bridge in Vancouver... :pan:
why stop there? I'm guessing the secret Soviet moon base will feel this one too.
It would be a lot of fun when everyone's so scared off they all stay home and the freeways are empty.
This happened a while ago in the Netherlands, when they warned for a snow storm. Everyone left work early or stayed at home, and it turned out to be the least busy rush hour of the entire year.
What construction shows us is that many lanes or even whole roads are unnecessary. Now the 405 is necessary considering its location and the nearest major roads but perhaps the widening or the number of lanes isn't.
Google Earth shows the 405 to have 10 lanes; 5 in each direction. What if 6 lanes were set aside for cars, and 4 lanes for HOV and improved bus service. WAIT, you say, that would spell disaster for everyone! We would only have 6 lanes when we had 10 before!
The doomsday traffic congestion would only happen for about a month or two, as people get used to carpooling and new bus service. The end result might be that the general traffic lanes flow smoother than they did before.
The cost there would be striping modifications, new signs, and say, 100 new buses. The cost there is about 45 million for the buses (assuming no bulk discount) and whatever it costs to stripe and change signs. Savings of about a BILLION (1,000,000,000.00) dollars that can be used elsewhere.
Air pollution reduced. Traffic reduced. Commutes improved for most people. One BILLION dollars saved.
Some of us like the freedom and privacy that comes with using our own car. And I don't want the anti-car people to tell us otherwise!
Who said I was anti car? Besides, you still have 60% of the road space.
While some won't be happy until they have their own planet.
Quote from: Chris on July 10, 2011, 11:44:34 AM
It would be a lot of fun when everyone's so scared off they all stay home and the freeways are empty.
This happened a while ago in the Netherlands, when they warned for a snow storm. Everyone left work early or stayed at home, and it turned out to be the least busy rush hour of the entire year.
Warnings for snow storm...Chicago...scared...nah. Then you get the northbound lanes of LSD on February 1st.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 10, 2011, 01:14:55 PM
Who said I was anti car? Besides, you still have 60% of the road space.
(Quoting the shorter post) Except historical precedent in EVERY other case proves that you'll get less throughput out of the four special lanes than you do with the four general lanes.
Do you happen to have any citations or resources to back that up Steve? I find that very intriguing.
Steve, aren't you a certified PE now? :P
Quote from: Zmapper on July 10, 2011, 01:14:55 PM
Who said I was anti car? Besides, you still have 60% of the road space.
Well, most people who advocate transit and carpooling tend to be.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 10, 2011, 11:07:51 PM
Do you happen to have any citations or resources to back that up Steve? I find that very intriguing.
I'll take that statement back. In general, managed lanes have less throughput, simply to keep traffic flowing. Now, yes, you CAN have more people per hour in a bus lane than in a regular lane. Case in point: Lincoln Tunnel bus lane can cram at least 400 buses per hour through the tunnel. At even 40 passengers per bus, that's 16,000 people in an hour. The actual peak numbers are probably up closer to 25,000. A regular lane can throughput about 1/10 of that (with minimal carpooling).
However, let's look at the case we have here. First, pull out the buses from the general lanes and stick them in the express lanes - let's assume 400 an hour for L.A. Next, pull out the existing carpoolers - let's assume there aren't any (not too unreasonable, really). You can fit maybe 800 cars into the spaces left by the 400 buses. That leaves about 2,800 cars in the existing left lanes that have nowhere to go. If you can add 100 buses with 30 passengers on each, you've pretty much covered the capacity you lost. Think L.A. will be able to get that many people to ride the bus? I'm gonna doubt it.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 11, 2011, 09:46:39 AM
Steve, aren't you a certified PE now? :P
I'm certified
something, but my participation on this forum is as a hobbyist. All the PE does is inform my opinions. (:
NBC Nightly News picked up on this, including the "Carmageddon" name...
NBC Nightly News video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43719134#43719134&from=en-us_msnhp>1=43001)
Will anyone be posting updates on here for the duration of the closure? I'd love to get some real-time updates.
I'm down in San Diego but should I come across anything, sure.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/07/14/carmageddon.jet.blue/index.html?hpt=hp_bn12 - JetBlue is apparently offering $4 flights from Burbank to Long Beach that Saturday.
I'm about 10 miles from the 405. I think Topanga Cyn. Blvd, aka CA-27, is going to be seeing a lot more traffic than usual this weekend. I figure that, as well as US-101 and I-5 are going to be the three most used alternates to the 405. Sepulveda and Laurel Cyn. would work well to, presuming you want to get from the valley into downtown.
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2011, 03:41:25 AM
NBC Nightly News picked up on this, including the "Carmageddon" name...
NBC Nightly News video (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43719134#43719134&from=en-us_msnhp>1=43001)
The footage of NBC was even aired on Australian TV!
lol, somebody is going to try to race JetBlue on a Bicycle.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43776135/ns/us_news-life/
As I type this, Southern California is now 3 minutes into Carmageddon. I can only pray for their safety and well being, and hope that they remain strong though this terrible disaster. :P
Quote from: Zmapper on July 16, 2011, 03:03:51 AM
As I type this, Southern California is now 3 minutes into Carmageddon. I can only pray for their safety and well being, and hope that they remain strong though this terrible disaster. :P
The local news station up here in San Francisco covered the coming Carmageddon this morning and apparently, this is the first of two I-405 closures. The one this weekend will demolish half of the overpass. The other half will be demolished at a later date which has been dubbed Carmageddon 2!
I'm in Long Beach right now, about to go to the Crenshaw District area so I will should be able to see part of it. I want avoid Sepulveda Bl at all cost but I want to go anyway just to see whats happening. :P
Just thought of something: why didn't they simply close half the lanes and re-route the northbound traffic into the southbound lanes? That's what we do in the northeast.
it is general policy here as well - but, in this case, the deviation from the policy I think has to do with the fact that demolishing one half of the bridge could, with a small but important probability, cause the other half to come down, either in whole or in part. don't want any cars going underneath it if it does.
(but don't ask me why they'd have to shut down the entire freeway again next year, when half the bridge is already gone.)
Quote from: deanej on July 16, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
Just thought of something: why didn't they simply close half the lanes and re-route the northbound traffic into the southbound lanes? That's what we do in the northeast.
It's a safety issue!
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_nb_exit_063a_02.jpg)
Do you want potentially large chunks of concrete falling from this overpass onto the road surface? Or even worse, do you want to be driving on this road with large chunks of concrete falling mere feet from your car? I don't think so.
The bridge has two spans either side of the main one so instead of replacing it just remove the earth from beneath the outer spans and build new retaining walls. That way there's enough room for C/D lanes or whatever will be added without causing major disruption.
Carmageddon, what carmageddon. I am looking at Google Traffic right now and aside from 1 serious delay on CA 27 for about 1/2 mile, everything else is fine. Is it different on the ground for those of you in the area?
I'm in New York and this is even on the news here! I've driven thru Sepulveda Pass on several trips to L.A. years ago. Tell me they're not really tearing down that beautiful Mulholland Dr. overpass............... I assume the support columns are in the way of the widening? What are they replacing it with, a similar wider span? Will it look about the same?
Also, if the bridge is gone, how is traffic on Mullholland Drive being detoured?
I'm going to miss that really tall overpass. I've always liked it.
RIP
Traffic seems lighter than normal on the 10 and 101.
By the way; as far as I know they will be only tearing down one side of the Mulholland Bridge this time (south side from the looks of it). The other one will likely require another shutdown in 2012.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 16, 2011, 03:25:34 PM
Carmageddon, what carmageddon. I am looking at Google Traffic right now and aside from 1 serious delay on CA 27 for about 1/2 mile, everything else is fine. Is it different on the ground for those of you in the area?
Yep-I just drove 110 - 405 and traffic definitely lighter than normal-even for a saturday. It looks like peoplewere so scared of dealing with "carmageddon" that it actually scared people to stay home.
they should do it more often.
I'm staying home this weekend but that is because I have no business out of town.
we'll see what next year brings - will people think "carmageddon" or "cry wolf"? an interesting real-life application of game theory.
They're rebuilding that bridge lower so that Mulholland intersects with both the freeway and Sepulveda, right?
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 16, 2011, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 16, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
Just thought of something: why didn't they simply close half the lanes and re-route the northbound traffic into the southbound lanes? That's what we do in the northeast.
It's a safety issue!
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_nb_exit_063a_02.jpg)
Do you want potentially large chunks of concrete falling from this overpass onto the road surface? Or even worse, do you want to be driving on this road with large chunks of concrete falling mere feet from your car? I don't think so.
I was under the impression that the southbound lanes ARE open. If so, why not do a lane shift to the other side? If not, then some of the media should be fined for bad reporting.
Breaking News! The 405 is now opened! 16 hours ahead of schedule.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/carmageddon-ends-405-freeway-reopens-to-traffic-.html
Quote from: Bigmikelakers on July 17, 2011, 05:14:23 PM
Breaking News! The 405 is now opened! 16 hours ahead of schedule.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/carmageddon-ends-405-freeway-reopens-to-traffic-.html
not bad at all. I know there is a fine for late completion, but was there some kind of bonus specified in the contract for early completion?
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 16, 2011, 04:06:57 AM
Quote from: Zmapper on July 16, 2011, 03:03:51 AM
As I type this, Southern California is now 3 minutes into Carmageddon. I can only pray for their safety and well being, and hope that they remain strong though this terrible disaster. :P
The local news station up here in San Francisco covered the coming Carmageddon this morning and apparently, this is the first of two I-405 closures. The one this weekend will demolish half of the overpass. The other half will be demolished at a later date which has been dubbed Carmageddon 2: Electric Boogaloo!
FTFY ;)
Quote from: deanej on July 17, 2011, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 16, 2011, 01:49:45 PM
Quote from: deanej on July 16, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
Just thought of something: why didn't they simply close half the lanes and re-route the northbound traffic into the southbound lanes? That's what we do in the northeast.
It's a safety issue!
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images405/i-405_nb_exit_063a_02.jpg)
Do you want potentially large chunks of concrete falling from this overpass onto the road surface? Or even worse, do you want to be driving on this road with large chunks of concrete falling mere feet from your car? I don't think so.
I was under the impression that the southbound lanes ARE open. If so, why not do a lane shift to the other side? If not, then some of the media should be fined for bad reporting.
The southbound lanes were not open, but they weren't closed as far as the northbound lanes were. They closed the northbound lanes all the way to I-10 so that traffic wouldn't get stuck in the Sepulveda Pass.
http://www.metro.net/projects/I-405/segment-detours/ has the closure maps.
And both sides of the freeway were closed because only one side of the bridge was being demolished - but that was the southbound (?) side, so that would require closure of both sides of the freeway as that side goes over both parts of the freeway.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 17, 2011, 05:19:57 PM
not bad at all. I know there is a fine for late completion, but was there some kind of bonus specified in the contract for early completion?
Just heard on the local news that the contractor, Kiewit, earned a $300,000 bonus for finishing early.
Quote from: rschen7754 on July 17, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
The southbound lanes were not open, but they weren't closed as far as the northbound lanes were. They closed the northbound lanes all the way to I-10 so that traffic wouldn't get stuck in the Sepulveda Pass.
http://www.metro.net/projects/I-405/segment-detours/ has the closure maps.
And both sides of the freeway were closed because only one side of the bridge was being demolished - but that was the southbound (?) side, so that would require closure of both sides of the freeway as that side goes over both parts of the freeway.
Must have been bad reporting from whatever story I was reading (that or I was half asleep). Could it have been possible to keep all but the section immediately under the bridge open for local traffic and use the longer detour for through traffic? That would have kept some traffic off the streets.
A story I read on MSN today says that the off ramps on the closed section were opened after the main freeway; isn't that just a bit silly? If the freeways closed, why close the ramps that nobody can get to and keep them closed after the freeway is re-opened?
Quote from: Quillz on July 17, 2011, 01:57:19 AM
They're rebuilding that bridge lower so that Mulholland intersects with both the freeway and Sepulveda, right?
From what I've heard, it's to add HOV lanes to I-405.
Anthony
$1bn just for 10 miles of HOV lanes? How many HOV lanes will it provide? One each way?
For that sort of money I would expect full C/D roads and the remodelling of interchanges into four level stacks :ded:
Quote from: deanej on July 18, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
A story I read on MSN today says that the off ramps on the closed section were opened after the main freeway; isn't that just a bit silly? If the freeways closed, why close the ramps that nobody can get to and keep them closed after the freeway is re-opened?
This was probably done so the backed up traffic on I-405 at US 101 (southbound) and I-10 (northbound) could clear out before allowing traffic onto the freeway at the various on-ramps. To allow traffic to enter at the on-ramps at the same time as the freeway is reopened would result in some pretty hefty traffic jams.
Guess this is a reality now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2602%2F5788839188_b48e09ebfa.jpg&hash=daf098237009c961d33b5151599ad1b2b9fe1806)
Quote from: HighwayMaster on July 18, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Guess this is a reality now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2602%2F5788839188_b48e09ebfa.jpg&hash=daf098237009c961d33b5151599ad1b2b9fe1806)
Hey, I said that (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg103984#msg103984) over a month ago (albeit in the Road-Related Illustrations thread)! :D
Quote from: deanej on July 18, 2011, 12:32:54 PM
Quote from: rschen7754 on July 17, 2011, 11:57:00 PM
The southbound lanes were not open, but they weren't closed as far as the northbound lanes were. They closed the northbound lanes all the way to I-10 so that traffic wouldn't get stuck in the Sepulveda Pass.
http://www.metro.net/projects/I-405/segment-detours/ has the closure maps.
And both sides of the freeway were closed because only one side of the bridge was being demolished - but that was the southbound (?) side, so that would require closure of both sides of the freeway as that side goes over both parts of the freeway.
Must have been bad reporting from whatever story I was reading (that or I was half asleep). Could it have been possible to keep all but the section immediately under the bridge open for local traffic and use the longer detour for through traffic? That would have kept some traffic off the streets.
A story I read on MSN today says that the off ramps on the closed section were opened after the main freeway; isn't that just a bit silly? If the freeways closed, why close the ramps that nobody can get to and keep them closed after the freeway is re-opened?
If they did that, then people would try and get onto Sepulveda to bypass the closed section, resulting in traffic chaos. In other words, this is LA and nobody would listen to "local traffic only". This way, through traffic is forced to exit onto I-10 and US 101, roads that can handle the high volume of traffic that is forced off the 405.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 18, 2011, 02:36:27 PM
This was probably done so the backed up traffic on I-405 at US 101 (southbound) and I-10 (northbound) could clear out before allowing traffic onto the freeway at the various on-ramps. To allow traffic to enter at the on-ramps at the same time as the freeway is reopened would result in some pretty hefty traffic jams.
Aren't OFF ramps where you get off the freeway? That's how I interpreted it - the freeway opens, but you can't get off at any exit that was in the closed portion.
Quote from: deanej on July 19, 2011, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 18, 2011, 02:36:27 PM
This was probably done so the backed up traffic on I-405 at US 101 (southbound) and I-10 (northbound) could clear out before allowing traffic onto the freeway at the various on-ramps. To allow traffic to enter at the on-ramps at the same time as the freeway is reopened would result in some pretty hefty traffic jams.
Aren't OFF ramps where you get off the freeway? That's how I interpreted it - the freeway opens, but you can't get off at any exit that was in the closed portion.
Oops! My bad! :crazy:
I thought you were talking about the on-ramps. If the off-ramps remained closed even after the freeway reopened, that's just plain stupid.
I was in L.A. during "Carmageddon," and so many people stayed off the roads that it ended up being "Carma-dud-don" or "No-mageddon." It'll be interesting to see what happens next year.
I wonder how things would have turned out if all those proposed freeways over the years, especially the Laurel Canyon Freeway, had gotten built.
Perhaps I-405 wouldn't even be nearly as bad as its reputation?
Perhaps.
Or it could be worse.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 10, 2011, 12:56:28 PM
What construction shows us is that many lanes or even whole roads are unnecessary. Now the 405 is necessary considering its location and the nearest major roads but perhaps the widening or the number of lanes isn't.
Google Earth shows the 405 to have 10 lanes; 5 in each direction. What if 6 lanes were set aside for cars, and 4 lanes for HOV and improved bus service. WAIT, you say, that would spell disaster for everyone! We would only have 6 lanes when we had 10 before!
The doomsday traffic congestion would only happen for about a month or two, as people get used to carpooling and new bus service. The end result might be that the general traffic lanes flow smoother than they did before.
Sure, the idea of people using mass transit to reduce congestion works oh-so-well in Chicago
QuoteThe cost there would be striping modifications, new signs, and say, 100 new buses. The cost there is about 45 million for the buses (assuming no bulk discount) and whatever it costs to stripe and change signs. Savings of about a BILLION (1,000,000,000.00) dollars that can be used elsewhere.
And just how much annually to run those buses versus the existing road?
Fixed quoting. Please use the "preview" function before posting to double-check quote tags in replies, especially when splitting up quotes. --roadfro
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 24, 2011, 07:37:54 PMSure, the idea of people using mass transit to reduce congestion works oh-so-well in Chicago
You missed the point. An HOV with bus service can carry as many as 10 times more people per hour than a general purpose lane. People have the wrong mentality: It's about moving more people, not more cars. The freeway is going to be congested either way, and infact having 2 HOV lanes per direction might actually improve congestion. I would certainly rather have a freeway carrying more people per mile and the extra transportation option of an express bus.
Quote
And just how much annually to run those buses versus the existing road?
Actually, that point is moot, and actually contradicts what you are trying to argue. You forget that the passengers using the buses are paying for the service(And since it will most likely be an express bus service, you can actually charge extra) while at the same time moving more people with the extra HOV lane in each direction. You can drive your car on I-405 with no extra cost. So essential nothing is gained by keeping it a general purpose lane.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 24, 2011, 11:31:43 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 24, 2011, 07:37:54 PMSure, the idea of people using mass transit to reduce congestion works oh-so-well in Chicago
You missed the point. An HOV with bus service can carry as many as 10 times more people per hour than a general purpose lane. People have the wrong mentality: It's about moving more people, not more cars. The freeway is going to be congested either way, and infact having 2 HOV lanes per direction might actually improve congestion. I would certainly rather have a freeway carrying more people per mile and the extra transportation option of an express bus.
Quote
And just how much annually to run those buses versus the existing road?
Actually, that point is moot, and actually contradicts what you are trying to argue. You forget that the passengers using the buses are paying for the service(And since it will most likely be an express bus service, you can actually charge extra) while at the same time moving more people with the extra HOV lane in each direction. You can drive your car on I-405 with no extra cost. So essential nothing is gained by keeping it a general purpose lane.
It's tough to argue that an HOV lane with express bus service will improve congestion. Definitely the capacity of the lane, in terms of passengers per hour, can be increased. However, getting passengers to use that capacity (i.e. switching to bus/express bus or carpools service instead of single-occupant vehicles) is another matter entirely, and not easy given the strong car culture of the west (and southern California in particular).
The point of financing the service is completely valid though. If I am not mistaken, the Federal Transit Administration will often assist municipalities in capital improvements to transit systems (i.e. new fleet vehicles, busway improvements and the like) but don't offer nearly as much assistance with operational costs. That is something that the local agencies often have to take on and partially subsidize in order to keep the service running. There are very few public bus systems that can cover operating costs without subsidy, and even fewer that turn a profit from farebox revenues alone. Even if you charge more for express service, it is likely not enough to cover operating costs.
Quote from: roadfro on July 25, 2011, 06:38:55 AM
It's tough to argue that an HOV lane with express bus service will improve congestion. Definitely the capacity of the lane, in terms of passengers per hour, can be increased. However, getting passengers to use that capacity (i.e. switching to bus/express bus or carpools service instead of single-occupant vehicles) is another matter entirely, and not easy given the strong car culture of the west (and southern California in particular).
The problem with the current HOV setup with most freeways is that it is only 1 HOV to like 4 or 5 Mixed lanes. Where is the enticement to Carpool when I still have 5 general use lanes to work with my Single Occupancy Car? Make the HOV lanes take up 30-50% of the freeway(2 or 3 lane wide HOV lane) THEN there is some enticement. Now there isn't that much room for you SOV, so carpool begins look like a better option.
Quote
The point of financing the service is completely valid though. If I am not mistaken, the Federal Transit Administration will often assist municipalities in capital improvements to transit systems (i.e. new fleet vehicles, busway improvements and the like) but don't offer nearly as much assistance with operational costs. That is something that the local agencies often have to take on and partially subsidize in order to keep the service running. There are very few public bus systems that can cover operating costs without subsidy, and even fewer that turn a profit from farebox revenues alone. Even if you charge more for express service, it is likely not enough to cover operating costs.
This is obviously coming from someone who has never ridden the Foothill Transit Silver Streak. Go ride that and THEN come back to me.
EDIT: Or better yet, have you actually ridden on Metro Rapid Line 761 that actually goes through pass and parallels I-405?
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 24, 2011, 11:31:43 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 24, 2011, 07:37:54 PMSure, the idea of people using mass transit to reduce congestion works oh-so-well in Chicago
You missed the point. An HOV with bus service can carry as many as 10 times more people per hour than a general purpose lane. People have the wrong mentality: It's about moving more people, not more cars. The freeway is going to be congested either way, and infact having 2 HOV lanes per direction might actually improve congestion. I would certainly rather have a freeway carrying more people per mile and the extra transportation option of an express bus.
Why have HOV? We have Metra and the L. HOV is redundant, IMHO.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 25, 2011, 10:32:13 AM
The problem with the current HOV setup with most freeways is that it is only 1 HOV to like 4 or 5 Mixed lanes. Where is the enticement to Carpool when I still have 5 general use lanes to work with my Single Occupancy Car? Make the HOV lanes take up 30-50% of the freeway(2 or 3 lane wide HOV lane) THEN there is some enticement. Now there isn't that much room for you SOV, so carpool begins look like a better option.
So because my significant other or friends get sick when I want to travel somewhere in the metro that is not transit convenient, I get to waste time and gas sitting in traffic?
I don't give an airborne fig about how many people a freeway carries if I can't use it for a trip because I end up traveling alone. And when I end up sitting in traffic at 20:30 on a Saturday because the reversibles are open in the wrong direction, there is a problem.
What if the census counted the number houses and used that for apportionment numbers instead of people. Would you be okay with a family of 8 being counted the same as a single man? Same concept with counting cars instead of people. The infrastructure should be designed and allocated to move the most people possible.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 25, 2011, 11:29:33 PM
What if the census counted the number houses and used that for apportionment numbers instead of people. Would you be okay with a family of 8 being counted the same as a single man? Same concept with counting cars instead of people. The infrastructure should be designed and allocated to move the most people possible.
then enforce a minimum speed in the #1 lane, regardless of its carpool status. I always find it somewhat unnerving when traffic picks up from 55 to 75, but the carpool lane is still doing 60 because of one dumb yutz leading the pack, and there isn't an exit from the carpool lane for another three miles.
Quote from: Revive 755
Quote from: Riverside Frwy
The problem with the current HOV setup with most freeways is that it is only 1 HOV to like 4 or 5 Mixed lanes. Where is the enticement to Carpool when I still have 5 general use lanes to work with my Single Occupancy Car? Make the HOV lanes take up 30-50% of the freeway(2 or 3 lane wide HOV lane) THEN there is some enticement. Now there isn't that much room for you SOV, so carpool begins look like a better option.
So because my significant other or friends get sick when I want to travel somewhere in the metro that is not transit convenient, I get to waste time and gas sitting in traffic?
I don't give an airborne fig about how many people a freeway carries if I can't use it for a trip because I end up traveling alone. And when I end up sitting in traffic at 20:30 on a Saturday because the reversibles are open in the wrong direction, there is a problem.
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic. My CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
EDIT: And to be fair, I'm not fan of reversibles. They are often times a waste of space, and one stalled vehicle can cause a problem(well, any stalled vehicle on a freeway is a problem, but you get my point), but aren't reversibles suppose to be open in the peak direction?
Quote from: agentsteel53
Quote from: Zmapper
What if the census counted the number houses and used that for apportionment numbers instead of people. Would you be okay with a family of 8 being counted the same as a single man? Same concept with counting cars instead of people. The infrastructure should be designed and allocated to move the most people possible.
then enforce a minimum speed in the #1 lane, regardless of its carpool status. I always find it somewhat unnerving when traffic picks up from 55 to 75, but the carpool lane is still doing 60 because of one dumb yutz leading the pack, and there isn't an exit from the carpool lane for another three miles.
Another reason that pushes my point for multi-lane HOVs.
Simply put - I think I-405 should be built up like I-110. Multi-lane HOV with transit way stations. It works beautifully on I-110.
(Mod Note: Accidentally hit "modify" instead of "reply"...:banghead: I believe I've restored the original text. Riverside Frwy, my apologies. --roadfro.)
Where are the multi-lane HOV's in SoCal? I know there are a few.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic.
Really? I can think of at least one corridor that was widened and flows great during rush hour.
QuoteMy CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
Maybe your CA 91 didn't get enough new lanes, or there is some other problem such as a bad merge, sharp curve, or steep grade that messes up traffic and needed to be dealt with when the lane was added.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic. My CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
I suppose we can keep going back and forth on this...
If adding a general purpose lane doesn't help congestion, how will adding another HOV lane help? Unless you've got a major incentive to get more people to carpool (i.e. some kind of employer incentive, toll breaks, or something else that will give drivers a tangible monetary benefit), it's highly unlikely that an additional HOV lane is going to help much. True, the capacity is there to move more people per hour, but the addition of another HOV lane alone is not going to be the way to actually move more people per hour.
The "induced traffic" theory makes no sense. People are going to suddenly decide they need to drive to more places because CA-91 has a new lane? Sure...
Quote from: Bickendan on July 26, 2011, 01:54:27 AM
Where are the multi-lane HOV's in SoCal? I know there are a few.
I-110 between I-105 and Adams Blvd, just south of I-10.
CA-91 also has a brief Multi-Lane HOV just west of CA-71, but this multi-lane HOV is more of a consequence of the fact that it is a continuation of the 91 express lanes that end at the County line.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 26, 2011, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic.
Really? I can think of at least one corridor that was widened and flows great during rush hour.
QuoteMy CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
Maybe your CA 91 didn't get enough new lanes, or there is some other problem such as a bad merge, sharp curve, or steep grade that messes up traffic and needed to be dealt with when the lane was added.
There is already 7 lanes going eastbound from the new lane. You can only make a freeway so wide.(especially since it's already situated against the mountain) And yes, there are cases where adding lanes helps, but in the case I-405 which is what this thread is about, it will do nothing.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
The "induced traffic" theory makes no sense. People are going to suddenly decide they need to drive to more places because CA-91 has a new lane? Sure...
Actually, yes. New lane infers that traffic will flow better, so many people who tried to avoid CA-91 because of it's traffic now thinks it's ok drive, only screwing up the freeway again.
Quote from: roadfro on July 27, 2011, 06:23:47 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic. My CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
I suppose we can keep going back and forth on this...
If adding a general purpose lane doesn't help congestion, how will adding another HOV lane help? Unless you've got a major incentive to get more people to carpool (i.e. some kind of employer incentive, toll breaks, or something else that will give drivers a tangible monetary benefit), it's highly unlikely that an additional HOV lane is going to help much. True, the capacity is there to move more people per hour, but the addition of another HOV lane alone is not going to be the way to actually move more people per hour.
As I said in a previous post, You are going to be sitting in traffic either way. Adding More and more general purpose lanes aren't going to help I-405. I figure, if the freeway is going to be jacked up either way, you might as well be moving more people per hour to their destination.
EDIT: I don't really see how it's NOT going to move more people per hour.
That may be so for CA-91 individually, but if they are now driving CA-91 it means they are not driving whatever route they were using before. The overall capacity of the highway system is still increased. You have to look at effects like this.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 26, 2011, 09:43:19 PM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic.
Really? I can think of at least one corridor that was widened and flows great during rush hour.
QuoteMy CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
Maybe your CA 91 didn't get enough new lanes, or there is some other problem such as a bad merge, sharp curve, or steep grade that messes up traffic and needed to be dealt with when the lane was added.
The problem with the lane added to the 91 is that the 91 still narrows after the 71 and it causes a huge delay. If a lane eachway was added from the County Line to the 15 then traffic would flow smoother, you could had 10 lanes to 91 east, at Green River, but inless it syas wider after the the 71 then it's going to be the same problem.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
The "induced traffic" theory makes no sense. People are going to suddenly decide they need to drive to more places because CA-91 has a new lane? Sure...
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 27, 2011, 04:32:18 PM
Actually, yes. New lane infers that traffic will flow better, so many people who tried to avoid CA-91 because of it's traffic now thinks it's ok drive, only screwing up the freeway again.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
That may be so for CA-91 individually, but if they are now driving CA-91 it means they are not driving whatever route they were using before. The overall capacity of the highway system is still increased. You have to look at effects like this.
This is really a double-edged sword. Let's assume that it is well known and publicized that a new lane has been added. It is possible that people who have been avoiding driving the highway due to chronic congestion may start trying the route again now that additional capacity is added. If enough people make that leap, it may have a negative affect on the flow of the freeway. This might induce those drivers to go back to their old routes avoiding the highway. It can be an endless cycle, but the overall result is that the transportation network as a whole still has added capacity.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 27, 2011, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 27, 2011, 06:23:47 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic. My CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
If adding a general purpose lane doesn't help congestion, how will adding another HOV lane help? Unless you've got a major incentive to get more people to carpool (i.e. some kind of employer incentive, toll breaks, or something else that will give drivers a tangible monetary benefit), it's highly unlikely that an additional HOV lane is going to help much. True, the capacity is there to move more people per hour, but the addition of another HOV lane alone is not going to be the way to actually move more people per hour.
As I said in a previous post, You are going to be sitting in traffic either way. Adding More and more general purpose lanes aren't going to help I-405. I figure, if the freeway is going to be jacked up either way, you might as well be moving more people per hour to their destination.
EDIT: I don't really see how it's NOT going to move more people per hour.
The underlying assumption that I believe you're making is that more HOV vehicles are going to start using that route simply because there's an additional HOV lane. I dispute that--I believe there would not automatically be an increase in HOV traffic by simply adding an HOV lane, as I don't think many people would make the switch to carpooling just because there's another HOV lane, due to the fairly rigid SOV mindset that exists. So in my view, adding an additional general purpose lane would be more effective in moving more people per hour, because there are more SOV/general purpose vehicles.
We might have to agree to disagree on this...
Perhaps some sort of slugging/ casual carpool/ Avego type system could be used to fill the empty seats in the SOVs. The challenge is ensuring a critical mass of users that vehicles show up within a reasonable waiting time and there are passengers to fill the extra seats.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
The "induced traffic" theory makes no sense. People are going to suddenly decide they need to drive to more places because CA-91 has a new lane? Sure...
Agreed. ISTHA added a lane each way on I-355 between I-88 and 75th Street a couple of years ago. The backups were legendary. Now, they're mostly gone but for some weaving at I-88 in the morning and 63rd Street in the afternoon. Ditto for IDOT adding a lane on I-55 between I-80 and Weber Road. The backups disappeared. Turned out that they were caused by merging traffic having nowhere to go coming on at IL-126 in the morning and the lost lane at Weber in the afternoon. It's not so much adding a lane that helps as having a consistent width for the road.
Wait 10 years. Then tell us if the backups are still gone.
That has little to do with the number of lanes on the highway–in ten years the number of people in I-355's "watershed" area will undoubtedly have increased, so more people will be driving whether or not I-355 had been widened.
Quote from: Zmapper on July 27, 2011, 10:07:19 PM
Wait 10 years. Then tell us if the backups are still gone.
It's more about improving flow, not just about lanes. The worst bottlenecks around here have more to do with merging and exiting trucks than anything to do with cars. One of them, Arsenal Road at I-55, is getting a new interchange to fix this exact problem. The old one has some loops that require trucks to slow to 15-20mph to enter I-55, and causes truck backups onto I-55.
Quote from: roadfro on July 27, 2011, 07:01:25 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 02:27:12 PM
The "induced traffic" theory makes no sense. People are going to suddenly decide they need to drive to more places because CA-91 has a new lane? Sure...
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 27, 2011, 04:32:18 PM
Actually, yes. New lane infers that traffic will flow better, so many people who tried to avoid CA-91 because of it's traffic now thinks it's ok drive, only screwing up the freeway again.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 27, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
That may be so for CA-91 individually, but if they are now driving CA-91 it means they are not driving whatever route they were using before. The overall capacity of the highway system is still increased. You have to look at effects like this.
This is really a double-edged sword. Let's assume that it is well known and publicized that a new lane has been added. It is possible that people who have been avoiding driving the highway due to chronic congestion may start trying the route again now that additional capacity is added. If enough people make that leap, it may have a negative affect on the flow of the freeway. This might induce those drivers to go back to their old routes avoiding the highway. It can be an endless cycle, but the overall result is that the transportation network as a whole still has added capacity.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 27, 2011, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 27, 2011, 06:23:47 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 26, 2011, 12:29:53 AM
Wait, wait, wait, aren't you sitting in traffic anyway? The 405 is going to be jacked up no matter what, we all know that adding general lanes doesn't do ANYTHING to traffic. My CA-91 got a new lane and it's STILL jacked up. The new lane just brought a whole new ton of cars with it. So with that said, you might as well be moving more people per mile/hour. So in the case of the 405, you'll be sitting in traffic no matter you do regardless, making your point moot.
If adding a general purpose lane doesn't help congestion, how will adding another HOV lane help? Unless you've got a major incentive to get more people to carpool (i.e. some kind of employer incentive, toll breaks, or something else that will give drivers a tangible monetary benefit), it's highly unlikely that an additional HOV lane is going to help much. True, the capacity is there to move more people per hour, but the addition of another HOV lane alone is not going to be the way to actually move more people per hour.
As I said in a previous post, You are going to be sitting in traffic either way. Adding More and more general purpose lanes aren't going to help I-405. I figure, if the freeway is going to be jacked up either way, you might as well be moving more people per hour to their destination.
EDIT: I don't really see how it's NOT going to move more people per hour.
The underlying assumption that I believe you're making is that more HOV vehicles are going to start using that route simply because there's an additional HOV lane. I dispute that--I believe there would not automatically be an increase in HOV traffic by simply adding an HOV lane, as I don't think many people would make the switch to carpooling just because there's another HOV lane, due to the fairly rigid SOV mindset that exists. So in my view, adding an additional general purpose lane would be more effective in moving more people per hour, because there are more SOV/general purpose vehicles.
We might have to agree to disagree on this...
I think you guys are misunderstanding my post. I'm not disputing that overall capacity for the SYSTEM has increased, I'm saying that for individual freeways themselves, I think turn current General lanes to HOV would be a cost effective way in improving capacity without spending billions on tearing down perfectly good bridges, realigning perfectly good interchanges, and so on...
However, some of you have mentality that we can just keep adding lanes forever. What are we going to have? 20-30 lane freeways crisscrossing LA? We have to look for better options besides just adding lanes.
As I said before Roadfro: The only reason people are so set SOVs is that most of the freeway is made for them. As I said, make the freeways 50% HOV and see more people actually making an effort to get people to ride with.
Agreeing to disagree gets us no where. Infact I hate that phrase, and I think it's something said when the person is afraid of being proven wrong.(I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying from experience)
The only reason people are so set on SOVs is because don't consider HOVs a viable option. Why this is will vary from person to person. Really, outside of "slugging", HOVs are only going to work if you have a bunch of people commuting from a cluster of locations around Point A to a cluster of locations around Point B. Otherwise the time savings gained by being able to use HOV lanes will be offset by the added amount of time picking up and dropping off passengers. Everyone in the car is going to have to be neighbors who work somewhat close to one another. Another thing to consider is that many people find it socially awkward to host someone they barely know in their car, as well.
If adding freeway lanes doesn't help with congestion there is usually a reason for that. Usually that freeway is too overburdened because one of the freeways that was supposed to support it got cancelled. So all the traffic that would have taken that freeway instead is now forced onto one of the freeways that was built. If you look at a metro like Oklahoma City or Kansas City which had all of its freeways built you'll see that traffic flows quite smoothly and in the cases where it doesn't adding lanes is usually enough to sort the problem.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 28, 2011, 06:08:35 PM
I think you guys are misunderstanding my post. I'm not disputing that overall capacity for the SYSTEM has increased, I'm saying that for individual freeways themselves, I think turn current General lanes to HOV would be a cost effective way in improving capacity without spending billions on tearing down perfectly good bridges, realigning perfectly good interchanges, and so on...
However, some of you have mentality that we can just keep adding lanes forever. What are we going to have? 20-30 lane freeways crisscrossing LA? We have to look for better options besides just adding lanes.
As I said before Roadfro: The only reason people are so set SOVs is that most of the freeway is made for them. As I said, make the freeways 50% HOV and see more people actually making an effort to get people to ride with.
Agreeing to disagree gets us no where. Infact I hate that phrase, and I think it's something said when the person is afraid of being proven wrong.(I'm not saying you are, I'm just saying from experience)
Riverside Frwy: I don't believe I'm misunderstanding your posts--I'm still just disagreeing with your premise. I will concede the point that converting an existing lane to a carpool lane is a way to increase capacity in terms of throughput of people per hour. (I feel obligated to point out, however, that people per hour is not a measurement used in traffic engineering as it is something not easily quantifiable [without sophisticated equipment and expense] as opposed to the standard measurement of vehicles per hour.)
Carpooling works much more efficiently in areas where residential communities are denser and closer together, and employment centers are also clustered more closely. In this kind of developed community, it is much easier and convenient for people to establish carpools, as they are more likely to live and/or work much closer together. When looking at an area like Los Angeles, there is much more suburban sprawl, such that homes and businesses can really be anywhere. The growth of the suburb and the rise in availability and affordability of the automobile were closely connected (and still are), thus lending to the single occupant vehicle mindset that is so ingrained in the culture.
All this leads to the point that Scott5114 made above: Is it viable to make a carpool when the members of said carpool live/work so spread out? One has to weigh whether the time saved by using HOV lanes is greater than the time spent picking up/dropping off carpool members at two or more locations. I contend that for most people in most cases, the time saved in the HOV lanes is not worth the extra passenger drop off time--most would prefer the convenience of driving themself to/from work without having to worry about others.
What if we make 50% of the freeway HOV, as you suggest. I'll try to analyze an example with numbers...
(Writing this in the overnight hours, hope it makes sense...)Pretend we have an existing freeway with 1 HOV (2+) lane and 3 general purpose lanes in one direction. For the sake of argument, we'll assume we have a spot on the freeway where we can easily count the number of *people* moving along this freeway. In the existing condition, 10,000 people per hour travel along this stretch; 1000 of those carpool in pairs and the remaining 9000 are SOVs. Thus, we have 500 vehicles per hour in the HOV lane, and an average of 3000 vehicles per hour in each general purpose lane.
Now, in our effort to increase carpool awareness, one existing general purpose lane is converted to HOV--no other improvements to the transportation system are made at this time, so regional traffic patterns are unlikely to change dramatically enough to add new traffic to the route. A media campaign and regional transit agency incentive program manages to sway 30% of drivers that were SOVs to start carpooling in pairs. 30% of 9000 people is 2700. Adding in the previous carpoolers results in 3700 people carpooling, or a grand total of 1850 vehicles carpooling, averaging 925 vph per HOV lane. Meanwhile, the remaining 70% of the original 9000 SOVs are still in driving alone. This means that there are 6300 people driving alone, or 3150 vph per lane.
So in this example with constraints, we have the same amount of people traveling the freeway. The switching of a lane to HOV and 30% conversion of SOV drivers to carpools results in 150 more vehicles per hour using the general purpose lanes than there were before. This may not seem like much, but we're using small traffic volumes and, in my opinion, a very generous SOV-to-HOV driver conversion percentage. If the number of people using the freeway were higher (likely) and the conversion rate smaller (also likely), there would be much more strain on those general lanes.
I think I see your point.(Had to read it a few times) But I ask, what happens when there is no room or money to add a new general lane, and the traffic volumes only continue to increase? Are we just doomed? Plus, I would rather have 50% of the freeway(The HOV lanes) flowing than have 100% in a jam. Personally, I don't care too much for general lanes. I think way too much leeway is given to the SOV. It seems like all steps must be taken to not threaten the precious SOV. I say let the general lanes sit in traffic. If they really want to get traffic flowing again, let them actually make an effort to Carpool. Personally I would have the busiest freeways 100% HOV during rush hours, and lets see how quick thousands of commuters find Carpool buddies, especially the 405.
However, I think this just shows the difference of 2 cultures. New York has had no problem setting up 2 lines of their Select Bus Service, each having a dedicated bus lane at the sacrifice of one general lane. Like that will ever happen in LA....
if they were serious about encouraging carpool lanes, they would enforce two laws:
1) speed limit 120
2) minimum speed 95
you'd get people in pairs doing 115 in no time.
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 29, 2011, 11:12:39 PM
Personally I would have the busiest freeways 100% HOV during rush hours, and lets see how quick thousands of commuters find Carpool buddies, especially the 405.
If that were to happen, I'm sure you'd find that some carpooling might happen... Also likely, cars would flock to any available alternate routes, and HOV violations would increase dramatically.
Quote
However, I think this just shows the difference of 2 cultures. New York has had no problem setting up 2 lines of their Select Bus Service, each having a dedicated bus lane at the sacrifice of one general lane. Like that will ever happen in LA....
Not just cultures, but effects of urban planning and suburban sprawl. New York generally has much greater densities, such that this kind of transit service and change in lane use is much more likely to be utilized effectively.
I-66 in Northern Virginia is HOV-only during rush hours. SOVs can park and take the Metro down the median.
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2011, 02:39:03 AM
I-66 in Northern Virginia is HOV-only during rush hours. SOVs can park and take the Metro down the median.
That works for DC since DC is a one industry town, and most of that industry is clustered downtown. It would fail miserably in Chicago since people start in different locations and go to workplaces almost anywhere in the city and suburbs. To illustrate, outbound rush times are almost as high as inbound rush times in the morning, and they're darn near equal in the afternoon. That is exactly what happens on I-55 between Bolingbrook and the Ryan.
In Chicago it would be more like making LSD HOV-only. Traffic not going downtown has alternate routes, and SOV traffic going downtown can park and take the L.
If you get to the point where you can't easily add lanes, why not restrict growth? If towns/cities simply said "no" to subdivision development, we wouldn't had sprawl problems.
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2011, 02:39:03 AM
I-66 in Northern Virginia is HOV-only during rush hours. SOVs can park and take the Metro down the median.
You can bet that if I-66 didn't end the moment it got into DC that wouldn't work. It works because traffic on I-66 is going to/from downtown DC and areas the metro line serves and the restriction is only during rush hour.
Actually, via the SR 110 almost-freeway, I-66 could be used as part of a through route to the south.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 18, 2011, 03:51:14 PM
Quote from: HighwayMaster on July 18, 2011, 02:46:35 PM
Guess this is a reality now:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2602%2F5788839188_b48e09ebfa.jpg&hash=daf098237009c961d33b5151599ad1b2b9fe1806)
Hey, I said that (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=575.msg103984#msg103984) over a month ago (albeit in the Road-Related Illustrations thread)! :D
Oh. Didn't see that. :pan: on me.
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2011, 07:41:20 AM
In Chicago it would be more like making LSD HOV-only. Traffic not going downtown has alternate routes, and SOV traffic going downtown can park and take the L.
But, it doesn't solve the problem as almost as many people now go out from the Loop as go into the Loop. HOV, just like hub-and-spoke mass transit, does not address that people live and work in many different locations. As for me? I never touch a freeway or tollway to/from work, mass transit is not an option (doesn't even go between the two points), and carpooling doesn't work. Now, if they'd get their asses in gear and build the Metra STAR Line quickly, rail might become an option. The STAR Line seems to be first acknowledgement that people travel suburb-to-suburb for work, never entering the central city.
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
But, it doesn't solve the problem as almost as many people now go out from the Loop as go into the Loop.
The I-66 HOV restriction is inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon only.
Quote from: NE2 on July 31, 2011, 09:04:27 AM
Quote from: Brandon on July 31, 2011, 08:04:36 AM
But, it doesn't solve the problem as almost as many people now go out from the Loop as go into the Loop.
The I-66 HOV restriction is inbound in the morning and outbound in the afternoon only.
Which solves DC's problems as they really are a one industry town (that industry being government, but it still is an industry) that has most of its industry in one place. It would never work for other places. A one-size-fits-all solution never seems to work well for all.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2011, 12:11:18 AM
If you look at a metro like Oklahoma City or Kansas City which had all of its freeways built you'll see that traffic flows quite smoothly and in the cases where it doesn't adding lanes is usually enough to sort the problem.
Nitpick: KC actually had a few cancellations, such as a freeway for US 24 east of the downtown loop, an alternate for the US 71 to I-35 traffic east of downtown yet west of I-435, and a southern downtown bypass between I-670 and the MO 350 corridor.
Quote from: NE2 on July 30, 2011, 07:41:20 AM
In Chicago it would be more like making LSD HOV-only. Traffic not going downtown has alternate routes, and SOV traffic going downtown can park and take the L.
Strongly disagree with the alternate routes part given the chronic congestion on I-90/94 and the lack of an alternate north-south freeway between I-90/94 and I-294.
There are plenty of surface streets to serve as an alternative route. Not saying I agree with NE2's idea completely.
Quote from: roadfro on July 30, 2011, 01:56:35 AM
Quote from: Riverside Frwy on July 29, 2011, 11:12:39 PM
Personally I would have the busiest freeways 100% HOV during rush hours, and lets see how quick thousands of commuters find Carpool buddies, especially the 405.
If that were to happen, I'm sure you'd find that some carpooling might happen... Also likely, cars would flock to any available alternate routes, and HOV violations would increase dramatically.
Good, Sepulveda Bl would be in gridlock, and the Metro Rapid 761 and other carpoolers can have freeway all to themselves. Oh, HOV violations? More money for other projects and improvements.
Quote from: roadfro
Quote from: Riverside Frwy
However, I think this just shows the difference of 2 cultures. New York has had no problem setting up 2 lines of their Select Bus Service, each having a dedicated bus lane at the sacrifice of one general lane. Like that will ever happen in LA....
Not just cultures, but effects of urban planning and suburban sprawl. New York generally has much greater densities, such that this kind of transit service and change in lane use is much more likely to be utilized effectively.
Hmmm, and a Bus Lane on Wilshire or Santa Monica Bl wouldn't be utilized effectively? I was on a Santa Monica Bl Rapid 704 the other day, it took the bus 6 minutes to get pass the Sepulveda/Santa Monica Intersection. Guess the reason why? Nothing but SOVs. People have the nerve to say the bus is slow, but it's only slow because of all the SOVs around it.
EDIT: Fixed quoting and removed bold. It's much easier to follow if formatted this way, and avoids mis-attributing statements if this message is quoted later on. Please take a moment to modify the quote tags in the future. Thanks! –roadfro
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 16, 2011, 08:38:19 PM
they should do it more often.
I'm staying home this weekend but that is because I have no business out of town.
we'll see what next year brings - will people think "carmageddon" or "cry wolf"? an interesting real-life application of game theory.
to follow up on this - I just spotted this link while reading the archives of the Freakonomics blog.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/07/18/bad-karma-geddon-conjecture-construction-and-congestion-in-l-a/
L.A. Daily News: Carmageddon II delayed (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20706249/carmageddon-ii-delayed-utility-work-300m-lawsuit-stalling)
QuoteFans of Carmageddon are going to have to wait a little longer for the sequel.
QuoteOfficials initially hoped to shut down a segment of the San Diego (405) Freeway next month, but delays to the $1 billion project are pushing the massive closure back to August or September.
QuoteUnexpected utility work, a $300 million lawsuit and bickering with FBI representatives over security clearances are all delaying completion, Metro officials said Thursday.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
L.A. Daily News: Carmageddon II delayed (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20706249/carmageddon-ii-delayed-utility-work-300m-lawsuit-stalling)
QuoteFans of Carmageddon are going to have to wait a little longer for the sequel.
QuoteOfficials initially hoped to shut down a segment of the San Diego (405) Freeway next month, but delays to the $1 billion project are pushing the massive closure back to August or September.
QuoteUnexpected utility work, a $300 million lawsuit and bickering with FBI representatives over security clearances are all delaying completion, Metro officials said Thursday.
I have been hearing this all morning. It is the top story at the top of the hour news on KFI here in LA. Thank goodness I am moving out of LA in 3 days to Sacramento!
Quote from: CenVlyDave on May 25, 2012, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2012, 01:37:07 PM
L.A. Daily News: Carmageddon II delayed (http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_20706249/carmageddon-ii-delayed-utility-work-300m-lawsuit-stalling)
QuoteFans of Carmageddon are going to have to wait a little longer for the sequel.
QuoteOfficials initially hoped to shut down a segment of the San Diego (405) Freeway next month, but delays to the $1 billion project are pushing the massive closure back to August or September.
QuoteUnexpected utility work, a $300 million lawsuit and bickering with FBI representatives over security clearances are all delaying completion, Metro officials said Thursday.
I have been hearing this all morning. It is the top story at the top of the hour news on KFI here in LA. Thank goodness I am moving out of LA in 3 days to Sacramento!
I prefer KNX 1070 (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/) when I visit the Southland. <smile>
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
I prefer KNX 1070 (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/) when I visit the Southland. <smile>
Same here. When I'm in southern California, I will tune in to KNX for traffic and news. KNX is the sister station to San Francisco's KCBS which is the station I listen to for traffic and news in the S.F. Bay Area (where I live). The rest of the time, I listen to KNBR in my car.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 02:09:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
I prefer KNX 1070 (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/) when I visit the Southland. <smile>
Same here. When I'm in southern California, I will tune in to KNX for traffic and news. KNX is the sister station to San Francisco's KCBS which is the station I listen to for traffic and news in the S.F. Bay Area (where I live). The rest of the time, I listen to KNBR in my car.
Just so everyone knows, KCBS-AM is in SF; KCBS-TV is in LA. I got the two confused myself.
Quote from: HighwayMaster on May 27, 2012, 08:49:26 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 26, 2012, 02:09:24 AM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on May 25, 2012, 02:40:20 PM
I prefer KNX 1070 (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/) when I visit the Southland. <smile>
Same here. When I'm in southern California, I will tune in to KNX for traffic and news. KNX is the sister station to San Francisco's KCBS which is the station I listen to for traffic and news in the S.F. Bay Area (where I live). The rest of the time, I listen to KNBR in my car.
Just so everyone knows, KCBS-AM is in SF; KCBS-TV is in LA. I got the two confused myself.
Oops, sorry about that. Didn't mean to cause any confusion.
It's funny I actually drove on the 405 North about an hour before they closed it not thinking that it was going to be closed later that day.
Of course it had to be somebody from rich, tony Bel Air to force Caltrans to relocate the ramp by the Getty Center.
I'm planning on being in the L.A. area in mid-July, and it looks like at least I won't have to deal with a Carmageddon II. Although when I was there last July, I found the first Carmageddon no big deal as I knew it was going on and driving from Orange County to the San Fernando Valley, I used the 57 and the 210.
Well, in the meantime, they're closing various ramps from Wilshire Blvd. to the 405; 2 at a time.
Isn't the other closing being delayed?
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:25:37 PM
Isn't the other closing being delayed?
If by what you mean by "other closing" is "Carmageddon II," it is. The Wilshire Blvd. closures are separate (but related to the same construction project) ones to facilitate reconstruction of that interchange, which was built in the 1950s when there was far less traffic in the Sepulveda Pass. Like those nutty "scrunched cloverleafs" on the I-10 through Alhambra, Monterey Park and so forth, they were probably considered "state of the art" when they were built but such was the traffic growth in Los Angeles that the interchange is wholly inadequate.
Cloverleafs were a commonly built configuration into the 1960's. In later years they've been found to be very innefficient and are rarely built today. BTW, the 405 thru Sepulveda Pass was built in the early 1960's. In fact it was under construction during the infamous 1961 Belair brush fire.
If you can catch the 1964 Natalie Wood movie "Sex and the Single Girl" there was a great chase sequence along Sepulveda Blvd. with many scenes of the newly/almost completed freeway.
The new Wilshire / 405 interchange will still be a full-clo with braided ramps.
L.A. Times: L.A. must prepare for Carmageddon II, officials warn (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/la-must-prepare-for-carmageddon-ii-officials-warn.html)
QuoteOfficials are warning drivers to beware of Carmageddon II.
QuoteBridge demolition work is returning Sept. 29 and 30 and the 405 Freeway will again be shut down between the 10 and 101 freeways for 53 hours.
KNX Radio: City Leaders Discuss Expectations For "˜Carmageddon II' (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/08/02/city-leaders-to-discuss-expectations-for-carmageddon-ii/)
QuoteCity officials met with Metro, Caltrans, and other organizations Thursday to discuss preparation plans for "Carmageddon II" .
QuoteThe 10-mile, full closure of I-405 freeway through the Sepulveda Pass will take place the weekend of Sept. 29-30.
QuoteThe 53-hour project will shut down the freeway between I-10 and U.S. 101 so crews can demolish the north side of the Mulholland Bridge, transportation officials announced last month.