Interstate 710 extension

[myosh_tino]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[DTComposer]

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.

[Bigmikelakers]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[national highway 1]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

To me, this situation is an amazing example of NIMBY-ism.

Agreed.  And pandering to same by elected officials.

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.

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.

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).

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).

[DTComposer]

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.

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.

[myosh_tino]

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?).

[DTComposer]

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.

[hm insulators]

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.

[Bigmikelakers]

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.

[ARMOURERERIC]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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 (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, Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act or the Clean Air Act (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.

[LA_MetroMan]

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

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

... 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

[Interstate Trav]

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.

[mc78andrew]

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. 

[LA_MetroMan]

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.

[DTComposer]

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.

[cpzilliacus]

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 NIMBYs, BANANAs and others who showed up to state their opposition. 

[Interstatefan78]

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 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.

I fixed the links so they work correctly now.

[cpzilliacus]

KNX-1070 NEWSRADIO: Metro To Hear From Public On 710 Extension Proposals

Public 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.

Metro 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.

[jfs1988]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=9297712

Is this really the end?