HO-HO-HO! This is gonna be FUN-FUN-FUN! (I-405 closure in CA)

[Bickendan]

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.

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

[rschen7754]

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!


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.

[Bigmikelakers]

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.

[vdeane]

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?

[Anthony_JK]

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

[Truvelo]

$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

[myosh_tino]

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.

[HighwayMaster]

Guess this is a reality now:

[myosh_tino]

Guess this is a reality now:

Hey, I said that over a month ago (albeit in the Road-Related Illustrations thread)! 

[rschen7754]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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!

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.

[hm insulators]

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.

[Quillz]

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?

[Bickendan]

Perhaps.
Or it could be worse.

[Revive 755]

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

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.

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

[Riverside Frwy]

Sure, 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.

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.

[roadfro]

Sure, 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.

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.

[Riverside Frwy]

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.

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?

[Brandon]

Sure, 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.

[Revive 755]

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.

[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.

[agentsteel53]

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.

[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?

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"...  I believe I've restored the original text.  Riverside Frwy, my apologies. --roadfro.)

[Bickendan]

Where are the multi-lane HOV's in SoCal? I know there are a few.