The curious history of plans to turn the LA River into a freeway

[kernals12]

The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference". But they also produced their own bad ideas, like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.

Re the PCH freeway concept NW of Santa Monica:  The one thing consistent about that area (Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Point Dume) has been the fact that even before the land value increases starting in the '70's, that coastal stretch -- all the way to the top of the first ridgeline -- featured the highest per-acre property values in both L.A. and Ventura Counties.  On top of that, a sizeable chunk of the residents therein were both rich and influential enough to stymie any proposal that would have affected their properties, even well up the hill.  And the hillside was quite unstable; mostly sandstone that would regularly erode into mudslides down the canyons (a nasty little fact of life on the coastline above L.A. all the way to Point Concepcion -- evidenced by the deadly Montecito mudslides a few years back).  Between the terrain and not wanting to piss off the generally well-connected and litigious residents, a land-bound freeway was DOA -- the reason the Corps, acting as DOH consultants, formulated the idea for a string of "keys" offshore -- even though unlike the extensive Atlantic offshore "shelf", the Pacific starts dropping off precipitously once about a quarter-mile from the mean shoreline, which would have rendered the concept foolhardy, prohibitively expensive, or both.       

I see. You wouldn't happen to know what caused to cancellation of the Mullholland Scenic Parkway?

Also, it seems like Caltrans' insistence on making freeways 8 or 10 lanes wide really backed them into a corner. The current Pacific Coast Highway is already a wide arterial. A 4 or 6 lane freeway would've required relatively little ROW taking.

[kernals12]

And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.

[kernals12]

Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property.  Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams).  I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium.  The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues.  They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0.  The Corps of Engineers added to that, stating that despite its size, the Verdugo Channel's capacity was intended to handle a 100-year flood situation (1938 was considered just that!), since it drained 90% of the Verdugo Mountains, a sizeable chunk of the San Gabriels, and the San Rafael Hills between Glendale and Pasadena.   Of course, there was a counter-argument positing that that meant Glendale should be "good" until at least 2038!  But between the agencies, they were able to make the case for an alignment away from the channel.  Interestingly, the route selected in 1960 paralleled the wash about 2 blocks away for much of its run through downtown Glendale.  But the point was driven home in the "50-year" flood of 1964; the lower reaches of the wash under the San Fernando Road bridge, which were somewhat wider and much shallower, featured water levels only a couple of feet below the bridge deck -- the city had deployed sandbags along the top of the sloping walls upstream from that bridge.  Between Verdugo Mountain springtime fires and the flooding, 1964 wasn't a terribly good year in Glendale!

How did that reduce the viability of the freeway?

[sparker]

And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.

While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line.  Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino.  Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge.  Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch.  Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets.  At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra.  The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda.  There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing.  This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street.  Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street.  Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare.  That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run.  As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".

And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs!  Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned! 

[Max Rockatansky]

Flooding in California historically has been wildly unpredictable.  There is no real way to know if a particular winter will be wet or a even if a very short time period will be.  One only needs to look at the winter of 2016-2017 for a recent example of how a heavy winter wreaked havoc on the road network.  The Los Angeles River essentially is where the bulk of all that water is going to wind up and that's not a place you would want to serve as a central nerve of a transportation corridor.  Flash floods and mudslides are still common place during the winter despite of upstream impoundments/flood controls state wide in wet years.  Said situation is often worsened following years with active Forest Fire seasons. 

[kernals12]

And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.

While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line.  Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino.  Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge.  Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch.  Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets.  At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra.  The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda.  There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing.  This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street.  Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street.  Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare.  That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run.  As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".

And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs!  Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!

And was there even space for a 747 to land?

[MarkF]

In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.

[sparker]

And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.

While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line.  Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino.  Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge.  Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch.  Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets.  At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra.  The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda.  There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing.  This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street.  Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street.  Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare.  That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run.  As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".

And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs!  Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!

And was there even space for a 747 to land?

Well, let's see -- this was right after WWII, well before the 1971 introduction of the 747 -- in fact, the 707 was ten years away from production at that time.  The most widely used passenger plane of the time was still the DC3; so the runway lengths considered would have been shorter.  Nevertheless, with bridges at Washington, Olympic, 7th Street, the 6th Street viaduct, and 4th Street that would have had to go to accommodate even the aircraft of the day, the idea was all but DOA! 

[kernals12]

In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.

And I assume all of the same issues applied here?

[Max Rockatansky]

In the '90s I recall a similar proposal to use the Santa Ana River as a dry weather continuation of the 57 freeway south of I-5 and meet up with I-405 near CA73.

And I assume all of the same issues applied here?

Pretty much, the lower Santa Ana River is pretty much just a concrete lined canal.  Interestingly CA 91 follows a lot of the Santa Ana River upstream where it is less engineered. 

[kernals12]

And according to that book, it's not just highways that were proposed. Even before the river was paved, some suggested using it for railroads, in the 60s and 70s, hovercraft were suggested (good luck not crashing those things into the bridges), and one guy even suggested an airport runway! Leonard J Roach was on the County Board of Supervisors from 1945 to 1952 and suggested using the part between Washington Boulevard and 1st street. He said it would put aircraft passengers "within 5 minutes of the Biltmore Hotel". I'm sure the guys at the FAA had a very good laugh.

While never themselves floating the idea of placing tracks down in the riverbed, the three major railroads serving L.A. ran their main lines down the banks of the river all the way from what's now the City of Commerce to the Glendale city line.  Santa Fe's main line through the Santa Ana Canyon and Fullerton (where the San Diego branch diverged) hit the river at the big curve south of Washington Blvd. and stayed on the west bank until north of the Broadway bridge, where it continued (in what was a big loop around eastern L.A. metro) as the Pasadena line which eventually merged with the O.C.-Santa Ana Canyon-Riverside line at San Bernardino.  Until LAUPT was built in the late '30's, the Santa Fe passenger depot was located along the riverbank as well near the 4th Street bridge.  Union Pacific occupied the east bank from that same curve north through Lincoln Heights, where the tracks turned east as their Pasadena branch.  Southern Pacific had the most convoluted arrangement; their main L.A. yard until the '70's, Taylor yard, hugged the east bank in Lincoln Heights along their line north to San Francisco and Sacramento, crossed the river directly under the Riverside Drive bridge to a secondary yard between North Broadway and North Main Streets.  At the SW end of this yard was a big wye; the SP line to the port continued down the middle of Alameda Street; their "Sunset" line to the east (eventually reaching Tucson, AZ and El Paso, TX) turned on a 150-degree curve (L.A. actually labeled it as a street called Rondout) which culminated at their straight shot crossing the river and heading toward Alhambra.  The third part of the wye connected the Sunset Line with the "port" line down Alameda.  There were interchange tracks between the various lines where the SP Sunset line made the L.A. River crossing.  This allowed UP passenger trains coming in from the east to access the joint SP-UP depot at Alameda and 7th Street.  Until 1939, when LAUPT opened, all SP and UP passenger trains chugged down a mile and a half of Alameda Street from Main Street north of downtown all the way to between 6th and 7th streets, where the tracks went into the depot on the west side of the street.  Not the cleanest or safest arrangement; it prompted the construction of LAUPT, which branched off the west end of the Sunset Line, and which opened to great fanfare.  That allowed Santa Fe to abandon its riverside depot, which is now the site of the Amtrak "holding yard" where passenger cars are stored and maintained until their next run.  As far as the central part of the city is concerned, the L.A. River has always been "rail central".

And I'm sure the pilots of the day were absolutely thrilled with the prospect of putting down in the L.A. riverbed, which was close to the Boyle Heights bluffs!  Also, the massive 6th Street Bridge, recently replaced, was relatively new then; tearing it out, along with all the the other bridges to the north and south, probably prompted a few "WTF?" or similar comments more apropos to that era from many of the parties concerned!

And was there even space for a 747 to land?

Well, let's see -- this was right after WWII, well before the 1971 introduction of the 747 -- in fact, the 707 was ten years away from production at that time.  The most widely used passenger plane of the time was still the DC3; so the runway lengths considered would have been shorter.  Nevertheless, with bridges at Washington, Olympic, 7th Street, the 6th Street viaduct, and 4th Street that would have had to go to accommodate even the aircraft of the day, the idea was all but DOA!

It's a good reminder though that we've always had stupid politicians.

[triplemultiplex]

I think it's also a good reminder of how silly the ideas of non-experts can be on a subject requiring expertise.  They don't know enough to know how dumb their idea is.  It's a marvelous example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

There's 'thinking outside the box', but if one doesn't understand what a box is... 

[Max Rockatansky]

I think it's also a good reminder of how silly the ideas of non-experts can be on a subject requiring expertise.  They don't know enough to know how dumb their idea is.  It's a marvelous example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

There's 'thinking outside the box', but if one doesn't understand what a box is... 

It's incredibly common when it comes to road, infrastructure, and public works projects in general.  I would give it a roads-exclusive definition of the "FritzOwl Effect."  

[jander]

The Army Corps of Engineers spent a lot of time in those days shooting down stupid ideas in California. They built a scale model of the San Francisco bay to test what would happen if it were diked off to create two freshwater lakes. They concluded it was "infeasible by any frame of reference". But they also produced their own bad ideas, like building an artificial island for the proposed Pacific Coast Freeway (which totally should've been built, just on an inland route) off the coast of Santa Monica, which would've required constant dredging to prevent silting and would've acted as a wavebreak, leaving Santa Monica's surfing community totally bummed out.

The Bay Model is amazing if you ever get a chance to visit.

https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Recreation/Bay-Model-Visitor-Center/

https://www.spn.usace.army.mil/Portals/68/docs/Bay%20Model/BayModelTourBrochure.pdf?ver=2020-05-28-135244-433

[Plutonic Panda]

Possible stupid question here but why didn't then simply propose building the LA River underneath the freeway instead of at grade?

It really doesn't seem needed now obviously. There efforts to restore the LA River to it's natural state while ensuring the regular occurring floods that are the the reason the current channel design is the way it is doesn't happen again with new designs. I don't have a problem with that nor do I have any proposals as long as they take into account flooding issues.

I used to be a regular biking the parts of the paths that existed mainly along Griffith Park to Frog Town but alas I became with the constant defamation of public property by the homeless I witnessed, the lack of the city's effort to police it and do anything to stop it, and the insane growing homeless encampments sprouting up left and right along the River. I stopped riding it for now. I'm really getting sick of California but that's another topic for another day.

I do think an elevated expressway along the LA River from the East LA area interchange at Santa Fe road should happen to the 710. I also think Santa Fe should have an elevated freeway connecting to the 105 should be a thing eventually connecting to the Alameda freight corridor. But none of those will happen because the city leaders are too damn stupid and incompetent to do anything to improve the city other than their pet projects.

[kernals12]

Possible stupid question here but why didn't then simply propose building the LA River underneath the freeway instead of at grade?

It really doesn't seem needed now obviously. There efforts to restore the LA River to it's natural state while ensuring the regular occurring floods that are the the reason the current channel design is the way it is doesn't happen again with new designs. I don't have a problem with that nor do I have any proposals as long as they take into account flooding issues.

I used to be a regular biking the parts of the paths that existed mainly along Griffith Park to Frog Town but alas I became with the constant defamation of public property by the homeless I witnessed, the lack of the city's effort to police it and do anything to stop it, and the insane growing homeless encampments sprouting up left and right along the River. I stopped riding it for now. I'm really getting sick of California but that's another topic for another day.

I do think an elevated expressway along the LA River from the East LA area interchange at Santa Fe road should happen to the 710. I also think Santa Fe should have an elevated freeway connecting to the 105 should be a thing eventually connecting to the Alameda freight corridor. But none of those will happen because the city leaders are too damn stupid and incompetent to do anything to improve the city other than their pet projects.

Sparker answered this

Back in the late '50's/early '60's, when the alignment of the CA 134/Ventura Freeway across Glendale (my home town) was being hashed out, some local property owners posed the question as to why the Verdugo Wash, which was and is a huge flood control channel coming down from La Crescenta and emptying into the L.A. river right where the riverbed changes from its E-W alignment in the San Fernando Valley to the essentially N-S one through central L.A. -- and which occupied a cross-section over a half-block wide -- wasn't considered for much of the freeway's route, obviating the need to take a lot of property.  Their proposed plan, cobbled up by one of their number who was a retired engineer, was to cap the channel and build a double-deck freeway on top of the cap (supported by cross-beams).  I was about 10 at the time, and had the opportunity to sit in on one of DOH's presentations in the City Hall annex/auditorium.  The Army Corps, which had constructed the channel in the wake of the '38 floods, was there, as well as D7's chief engineer and a few colleagues.  They all were quite patient while the local contingent presented their proposal -- but rebutted on a point-by-point basis, starting with the fact that there were several fault lines through the area, and a double-deck freeway lacking underpinnings down to bedrock wouldn't likely withstand a locally-centered quake over 6.0.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.

[kernals12]

Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.

I think money would also be a big problem. I think they would double deck the 405 before they do this.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sorry not sure how I missed that. Given the engineering back in the day I'd and knowing what happened in San Francisco, it was the right decision. Today I figure the engineering exists but the political feasibility does not. Oh well.

I think money would also be a big problem. I think they would double deck the 405 before they do this.

With California's current situation yeah money certainly is an issue. But with California being one of the highest taxed states and an extremely wealthy population I'm sure if the powers that be really wanted this it could happen. I just don't see any political moves for new freeways in SoCal for awhile given what we've seen recently.

[Henry]

FWIW, there's certainly no need to build a freeway over the river now, thanks to the already-existing ones nearby (I-710, I-5 and US 101 being the prime examples), traffic issues be damned. Then again, L.A. is basically one big concrete/asphalt jungle, so almost everything has been covered, except for that pesky gap in Pasadena.

[Plutonic Panda]

My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.

[kernals12]

My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.

For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.

[kernals12]

FWIW, there's certainly no need to build a freeway over the river now, thanks to the already-existing ones nearby (I-710, I-5 and US 101 being the prime examples), traffic issues be damned. Then again, L.A. is basically one big concrete/asphalt jungle, so almost everything has been covered, except for that pesky gap in Pasadena.

And the Pacific Coast Freeway... and the Marina Freeway... and the Beverly Hills Freeway... and the Laurel Canyon Freeway

[Plutonic Panda]

My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.

For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.

I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.

[GaryV]

My suggesting for building over the River stems from being very familiar with the area around Vernon. I think it could help alleviate congestion to build an elevated freeway from the 10 following the LA River to the 710 around Slauson AVE. The only issue is for this to be fully effective it would need a fully directional connection to the East LA interchange which already one of the most complex in the country. I'm not even sure how it would be done but I'm sure it could with the right amount of money.

For the right amount of money, you could establish a helicopter-based mass transit system. And that's one form of mass transit I would support if helicopters cost as much as buses.

I really think air travel should play a bigger part in megalopolis travel like those who commute from west LA to south OC or the like.

Didn't you ever watch The Jetsons?  They had traffic jams with their flying briefcase-transforming vehicles.