AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Author Topic: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge  (Read 3905 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 24760
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:01 PM
    • Gribblenation
CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« on: April 01, 2022, 09:13:28 AM »

California State Route 47 is a short 3.31-mile State Highway located in the Los Angeles Area.  California State Route 47 begins at Interstate 110/Harbor Freeway and follows the Vincent Thomas Bridge east over Los Angeles Harbor to Terminal Island.  California State Route 47 follows Seaside Avenue east into the city limits of Long Beach to the Terminal Island Freeway.  California State Route 47 follows the Terminal Island Freeway north back into the city of Los Angeles where it terminates at the Henry Ford Avenue exit.  From the Terminal Island Freeway California State Route 47 has an unbuilt segment to Interstate 10 in downtown Los Angeles.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/california-state-route-47-and-vincent.html?m=1
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 5288
  • Last Login: Today at 01:31:25 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2022, 08:47:09 PM »

That Bridge is the most filmed suspension bridge outside the Brooklyn Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge and Bay Bridge. Vincent Thomas Bridge tends to be filmed for the "industrial settings" in either the LA area or some random place they want to movie to be set in.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2022, 09:58:50 AM »

California State Route 47 is a short 3.31-mile State Highway located in the Los Angeles Area.  California State Route 47 begins at Interstate 110/Harbor Freeway and follows the Vincent Thomas Bridge east over Los Angeles Harbor to Terminal Island.  California State Route 47 follows Seaside Avenue east into the city limits of Long Beach to the Terminal Island Freeway.  California State Route 47 follows the Terminal Island Freeway north back into the city of Los Angeles where it terminates at the Henry Ford Avenue exit.  From the Terminal Island Freeway California State Route 47 has an unbuilt segment to Interstate 10 in downtown Los Angeles.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/california-state-route-47-and-vincent.html?m=1

Alameda Street is signed with CA 47 shields at various locations from Henry Ford Avenue north to the 91 Freeway.
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 860
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: (not-so) sunny (No) So Cal
  • Last Login: February 22, 2024, 10:53:19 AM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2022, 09:02:24 PM »

Sadly, no END shield at CA 91. Was just there myself. I'd say it's not badly signed though for an urban route.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 24760
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 01:46:01 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2022, 10:06:32 PM »

California State Route 47 is a short 3.31-mile State Highway located in the Los Angeles Area.  California State Route 47 begins at Interstate 110/Harbor Freeway and follows the Vincent Thomas Bridge east over Los Angeles Harbor to Terminal Island.  California State Route 47 follows Seaside Avenue east into the city limits of Long Beach to the Terminal Island Freeway.  California State Route 47 follows the Terminal Island Freeway north back into the city of Los Angeles where it terminates at the Henry Ford Avenue exit.  From the Terminal Island Freeway California State Route 47 has an unbuilt segment to Interstate 10 in downtown Los Angeles.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/04/california-state-route-47-and-vincent.html?m=1


Alameda Street is signed with CA 47 shields at various locations from Henry Ford Avenue north to the 91 Freeway.
Right, just a handful of reassurance shields.  I grabbed a few for the blog and posted where the Postmilage ends.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2022, 11:59:48 PM by Alps »
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #5 on: July 19, 2022, 03:14:04 PM »

And no signage for CA 47 on the 91 at all either.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4700
  • Last Login: Today at 04:36:28 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2022, 06:30:41 PM »

And no signage for CA 47 on the 91 at all either.

What has always intrigued me is the signage for Alameda Street off of 405, which has room for a shield (that has never been placed on it) -

_DSC8959 by Chris Sampang, on Flickr
Logged
Chris Sampang

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 374
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 11:37:52 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2022, 07:46:13 PM »

And no signage for CA 47 on the 91 at all either.

What has always intrigued me is the signage for Alameda Street off of 405, which has room for a shield (that has never been placed on it) -

_DSC8959 by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

That space could've been used for retrofitting the exit number, but D7 don't do that sort of thing unlike D12.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1507
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: February 22, 2024, 10:26:41 PM
    • AARoads
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2023, 01:15:13 AM »

Major repair/deck replacement to the Vincent Thomas Bridge may result in lane closures or complete closures of the bridge in 2025. Community input to determine best approach to repairing the bridge is underway, with public comment period extended to May 26, 2023.

Here is the project webpage: https://virtualeventroom.com/caltrans/vtb/

Info from the fact sheet:

Quote
The deck of the Vincent Thomas Bridge (VTB) on State Route 47 in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, is rapidly deteriorating due to concrete fatigue caused by heavy truck traffic. Caltrans is proposing the VTB Deck Replacement Project (Project) to replace the entire bridge deck and seismic sensors of the bridge to preserve the bridge’s structural integrity and to enhance the bridge’s overall safety. ...

CONSTRUCTION STAGING Due to its location, type of structure, and physical and environmental constraints, construction staging options are of vital importance to minimizing port operational impacts and achieving the construction completion deadlines required by the funding of the project. The following preliminary construction staging options are being considered:

- Single-Stage Construction: full closure may last 9-12 months with detours and 24/7 work.
- Two-Stage Construction: partial closure up to 18-24 months one lane open/three closed with night work and 55-hour closures — 24 to 30 months with no closures.
- Three-Stage Construction: partial closure up to 24-30 months with one lane open and closed in each direction with night work and 55-hour closures — 30 to 36 months with no closures.

Anticipated detour routes will direct traffic to and from Terminal Island via the Commodore Schuyler F. Heim Bridge (SR-47) from the north and the Gerald Desmond Bridge (I-710) from the east. These detour routes potentially include West Harry Bridges Boulevard, Alameda Street, Anaheim Street, Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1), Henry Ford Avenue (SR-47), and Terminal Island Freeway (SR-103). Official detour routes will be selected during the project’s approval phase.

An article recently outlined local concerns about the pending bridge work:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/residents-raise-questions-concerns-about-proposed-closure-of-vincent-thomas-bridge/

Quote
Caltrans plans to replace the deck of the bridge, which connects San Pedro, Wilmington and Harbor City to Terminal Island, to enhance safety and preserve the bridge’s structural integrity.

The construction is expected to impact travel on State Route 47 and nearby streets, and Caltrans is in the process of finding out how much of an impact it would have on the community.

Los Angeles Councilmember, Tim McOkser, who represents District 15 where the bridge is located, said Caltrans is considering multiple preliminary options: Closing the bridge for nine months to an entire year, or leaving one lane open in each direction, which would prolong the closure.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2023, 07:01:03 AM »

Any amount of money should go to a replacement for a six lane bridge.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2023, 01:17:42 PM »

Or adding a second deck, which would address the lack of shoulders, and not require closure of the bridge once repairs are made to the original deck.
Logged

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3250
  • Age: 67
  • Location: Palm Springs, CA
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 03:35:22 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2023, 06:32:17 PM »

Or adding a second deck, which would address the lack of shoulders, and not require closure of the bridge once repairs are made to the original deck.

I like the idea. Could a second deck be retrofitted to the bridge? It would add a lot of weight and change the air flow around the bridge. Just curious. I honestly have no idea of the engineering involved.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2023, 07:13:54 PM »

I like that idea as well as I love the look of the current bridge and then you hit the new bridge and it’s a cool contrast.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4859
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 11:10:50 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2023, 11:36:45 AM »

Or adding a second deck, which would address the lack of shoulders, and not require closure of the bridge once repairs are made to the original deck.

I like the idea. Could a second deck be retrofitted to the bridge? It would add a lot of weight and change the air flow around the bridge. Just curious. I honestly have no idea of the engineering involved.

You typically can't just add a second deck on to a bridge. Bridges are designed and engineered to address a variety of design assumptions (which include but aren't limited to dead load aka weight of the bridge itself, traffic loads, future pavement overlays, etc.) and safety criteria (e.g. earthquake loading). If a bridge wasn't engineered for a second deck in the first place, a lot of these safety and design criteria would have to be reevaluated and the bridge would likely need serious retrofitting to accommodate a second deck–such that it would likely be easier and potentially even cost less to just build a new bridge outright.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2023, 03:22:38 AM »

I know that the bridge authority contemplated adding a second deck to the Golden Gate Bridge for awhile to accommodate more traffic, and actually commissioned a study in the 60’s that concluded it was feasible with only a few engineering changes to the existing structure. 

I believe the idea was to add the second deck below the Golden Gate’s existing one.  I’m not sure that would be duplicable with the Vincent Thomas Bridge given the current height of the existing deck and the shipping traffic that passes underneath.  My recollection is that the Vincent Thomas is about 50’ closer to the water than the Golden Gate, owing to the Golden Gate’s approaches being elevated on bluffs and the Vincent Thomas’s east approach being essentially at sea level.  Given the clearance issue, I have no idea of the differences in engineering concepts of building a second deck on top of the existing roadway deck as opposed to below it like was contemplated for the Golden Gate. And as is pointed out above, even though they are both suspension bridges, the design and materials of the Golden Gate could be different enough from the Vincent Thomas so that while the Golden Gate could safely accommodate a second deck, the Vincent Thomas could not.

So I agree that in all likelihood it’s a pipe dream. Actually, even if it could be accomplished as an engineering feat, it’s still a pipe dream in this day and age of shifted transportation priorities.
Logged

heynow415

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 106
  • Location: San Rafael, CA
  • Last Login: February 22, 2024, 08:30:30 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2023, 12:58:10 PM »

I know that the bridge authority contemplated adding a second deck to the Golden Gate Bridge for awhile to accommodate more traffic, and actually commissioned a study in the 60’s that concluded it was feasible with only a few engineering changes to the existing structure. 

I believe the idea was to add the second deck below the Golden Gate’s existing one.  I’m not sure that would be duplicable with the Vincent Thomas Bridge given the current height of the existing deck and the shipping traffic that passes underneath.  My recollection is that the Vincent Thomas is about 50’ closer to the water than the Golden Gate, owing to the Golden Gate’s approaches being elevated on bluffs and the Vincent Thomas’s east approach being essentially at sea level.  Given the clearance issue, I have no idea of the differences in engineering concepts of building a second deck on top of the existing roadway deck as opposed to below it like was contemplated for the Golden Gate. And as is pointed out above, even though they are both suspension bridges, the design and materials of the Golden Gate could be different enough from the Vincent Thomas so that while the Golden Gate could safely accommodate a second deck, the Vincent Thomas could not.

So I agree that in all likelihood it’s a pipe dream. Actually, even if it could be accomplished as an engineering feat, it’s still a pipe dream in this day and age of shifted transportation priorities.

The big difference with the Golden Gate Bridge that made it even feasible to consider a second deck (or adding BART underneath, which was also under consideration at the time) is that the original bridge deck was steel.  Replacement of that with concrete lessened the dead load of the roadway considerably and evenly across the span.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #16 on: June 26, 2023, 04:56:48 AM »

Been driving through this area a lot and there is a lot of projects they still need to complete to make this area move more efficiently. A direct connector Y interchange at CA-47 would help. Converting Navy Way to a grade separated interchange is another. Widening the 710 to 3 lanes each way from the to the new bridge as well as removing left exits to Long Beach.

The Vincent Thomas bridge also needs to be replaced and made three lanes each way. It’s been packed every time I’ve been on it.

This is one of the most important ports in the country. We need to do better with the surface infrastructure we have here.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2023, 02:51:00 AM »

It looks like there are some opposition to this project and how it is going to be handled: https://www.randomlengthsnews.com/archives/2023/07/20/vincent-thomas-bridge-5/45607
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2023, 03:17:17 AM »

So over the last few weeks, I’ve been spending a lot of time driving around this area and working for the ports for various projects. A fewof things I’ve noticed.

For the most part I 10 from the 405 to CA 47 seems to flow fairly well. Perhaps in additional lane or some auxiliary improvements could help during heavy traffic conditions, but otherwise it seems to flow pretty well most of the time.

The 10/I405 interchange is a complete joke, and needs to be converted to a full stack interchange.

Several areas along the stretch, need extended acceleration and deceleration lanes. Nothing too major other than the change I mentioned at the 405 which would easily be $1 billion project.

The Saint Thomas Vincent Bridge, I think the best solution would be to twin the bridge and then once that’s finished move traffic over to the New bridge and rehabilitate the old one. it’s such a beautiful bridge and I would hate to see it replaced.

If that were to happen, they need to make sure that a rail component can be added later on for passenger rail to connect San Pedro to Long Beach via an extended green line sometime in the future.

The Gaffey interchange needs to be reworked a bit.

The navy Way intersection needs to be converted to an interchange. That creates a lot of congestion on the Saint Thomas bridge for southbound traffic.

Even though it isn’t very long, direct connectors would be beneficial for the CA 47 freeway which would get rid of a lot of idling trucks that sit and wait at the signals.
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 837
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 71
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 10:43:40 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2023, 09:47:03 PM »

For the most part I 10 from the 405 to CA 47 seems to flow fairly well. Perhaps in additional lane or some auxiliary improvements could help during heavy traffic conditions, but otherwise it seems to flow pretty well most of the time.

You mean I-405 from the 10 to CA-47?

The 10/I405 interchange is a complete joke, and needs to be converted to a full stack interchange.

It is a full stack interchange.
Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1238
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 01:07:01 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2023, 10:07:50 PM »

For the most part I 10 from the 405 to CA 47 seems to flow fairly well. Perhaps in additional lane or some auxiliary improvements could help during heavy traffic conditions, but otherwise it seems to flow pretty well most of the time.

You mean I-405 from the 10 to CA-47?

The 10/I405 interchange is a complete joke, and needs to be converted to a full stack interchange.

It is a full stack interchange.


I'm pretty sure every time Panda says 10 they mean 110.
Logged

RZF

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 108
  • Location: Port Hueneme, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:49:21 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2023, 11:54:29 PM »

For the most part I 10 from the 405 to CA 47 seems to flow fairly well. Perhaps in additional lane or some auxiliary improvements could help during heavy traffic conditions, but otherwise it seems to flow pretty well most of the time.

You mean I-405 from the 10 to CA-47?

The 10/I405 interchange is a complete joke, and needs to be converted to a full stack interchange.

It is a full stack interchange.


I'm pretty sure every time Panda says 10 they mean 110.
The onramp from I-10 East to I-405 South is an absolute travesty though.
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 881
  • Last Login: January 07, 2024, 03:25:40 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2023, 12:44:14 AM »

The Saint Thomas Vincent Bridge

While Vincent Thomas was a popular assemblyman, I don't believe he was ever canonized.
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 837
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 71
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 10:43:40 PM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2023, 01:41:32 AM »

I'm pretty sure every time Panda says 10 they mean 110.

Is Panda the plural of Pandum?
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:06:44 AM
Re: CA 47 and the Vincent Thomas Bridge
« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2023, 02:52:31 AM »

For the most part I 10 from the 405 to CA 47 seems to flow fairly well. Perhaps in additional lane or some auxiliary improvements could help during heavy traffic conditions, but otherwise it seems to flow pretty well most of the time.

You mean I-405 from the 10 to CA-47?

The 10/I405 interchange is a complete joke, and needs to be converted to a full stack interchange.

It is a full stack interchange.
Sorry I-10 has nothing to do with this I mistyped. I meant I-110.

So it would be I-110 from the 405 to CA-47.

The interchange I was talking about regarding the one on I-110 is the 405 interchange. It’d mayhem
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.