AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway  (Read 9107 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3865
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:33 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2018, 03:57:08 AM »

Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isnít happening.  :rolleyes:

The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.

The only way to deploy express lanes on the Hollywood Freeway portion of US 101 would be on some sort of T-bar similar to that built over I-110 -- but that would likely arouse Hollywood-area NIMBY ire regarding the visual aspects of such a concept.  The fact that back in 1953 they accepted the above-ground viaduct over Gower rather than the trench that characterizes the facility north of Melrose is itself a wonder.  Some local factions have wanted to place a lid on 101 for some time now; so far, funding to do so has yet to be identified.  And while about 60% of the traffic heading north over Cahuenga Pass does segue with US 101 onto the Ventura Freeway, it's likely that express lanes over that pass would instead continue north on CA 170 and exit in North Hollywood in order to access the transit terminal at Lankershim and Chandler, where the LR temporarily ends and the busway to the West Valley commences -- although there are apparently plans in the works to continue the LR over, ironically, the old Pacific Electric ROW out Chandler and up Van Nuys Blvd. to Parthenia -- and then west to Sepulveda Blvd.  IMHO, that extension was always a natural pathway across the central part of the Valley that had been at least partially preserved by the retention of the curving street configuration that originally held the PE trackage until the early 50's -- this was a line primarily served by PE's famous "Big Red Cars" -- heavyweight interurban self-propelled passenger cars also found on the Long Beach/Newport Beach seafront line as well as the outflung line to San Bernardino and Redlands.  Looks like now the Valley branch of the Red Line will eventually be duplicating the surface run out to Sepulveda after emerging from the tunnel in North Hollywood.

As much of the transportation network in this part of greater L.A. is geared toward mass transit rather than roadway expansion (although express lanes would provide some benefit), it's likely that Caltrans will defer to that prioritization and concentrate on helping to expand the rail/bus network rather than provide additional freeway-based facilities.  As discussed elsewhere, the I-5 expansion heading north out of Orange County will end at I-710 rather than actually enter L.A. proper as a "tip of the hat" to the present local sentiments.         
« Last Edit: July 11, 2018, 03:59:33 AM by sparker »
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:20 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2018, 01:38:01 AM »

Would be nice if they could extend 110 express lanes all the way through downtown up the 101 through the Cahuenga Pass. That would make too much sense though and isnít happening.  :rolleyes:

The 101 needs an express lane worse than any other freeway in the region, but the most congested stretches are too space-constrained for that to happen. There's also that lane-shifting weirdness at the 405 interchange.

The only way to deploy express lanes on the Hollywood Freeway portion of US 101 would be on some sort of T-bar similar to that built over I-110 -- but that would likely arouse Hollywood-area NIMBY ire regarding the visual aspects of such a concept.  The fact that back in 1953 they accepted the above-ground viaduct over Gower rather than the trench that characterizes the facility north of Melrose is itself a wonder.  Some local factions have wanted to place a lid on 101 for some time now; so far, funding to do so has yet to be identified.  And while about 60% of the traffic heading north over Cahuenga Pass does segue with US 101 onto the Ventura Freeway, it's likely that express lanes over that pass would instead continue north on CA 170 and exit in North Hollywood in order to access the transit terminal at Lankershim and Chandler, where the LR temporarily ends and the busway to the West Valley commences -- although there are apparently plans in the works to continue the LR over, ironically, the old Pacific Electric ROW out Chandler and up Van Nuys Blvd. to Parthenia -- and then west to Sepulveda Blvd.  IMHO, that extension was always a natural pathway across the central part of the Valley that had been at least partially preserved by the retention of the curving street configuration that originally held the PE trackage until the early 50's -- this was a line primarily served by PE's famous "Big Red Cars" -- heavyweight interurban self-propelled passenger cars also found on the Long Beach/Newport Beach seafront line as well as the outflung line to San Bernardino and Redlands.  Looks like now the Valley branch of the Red Line will eventually be duplicating the surface run out to Sepulveda after emerging from the tunnel in North Hollywood.

As much of the transportation network in this part of greater L.A. is geared toward mass transit rather than roadway expansion (although express lanes would provide some benefit), it's likely that Caltrans will defer to that prioritization and concentrate on helping to expand the rail/bus network rather than provide additional freeway-based facilities.  As discussed elsewhere, the I-5 expansion heading north out of Orange County will end at I-710 rather than actually enter L.A. proper as a "tip of the hat" to the present local sentiments.         
Which is exactly what should be built and following the 101 at least to the 405 and tying into planned express lanes there which should also continue north to I-5 and tie into express lanes that should be built there. Iíll shut up before I start talking about my proposed 605 tunnel to Palmdale.

But regardless of how difficult and costly it would be to build an elevated T structure that would ideally carry 3 lanes of traffic each way but at the least two each way,  that thing would return a profit so quick I bet it could pay for a new subway within a decade LOL! I am not sure if I have ever seen a freeway that is essentially stop and go from 7am to 12am! Itís almost always like that around SR-2 all the way to the 110. Even if they just started the express lanes to somehow tie in with Highland with the ramps that allow of North Bound entry and exit, they would kill it!
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3865
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:33 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2018, 02:38:44 AM »

Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak.  Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel.  Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began.  Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's.  Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita.  Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14.  Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!     
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 590
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 12:00:20 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2018, 01:52:38 PM »

Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak.  Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel.  Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began.  Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's.  Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita.  Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14.  Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!     
Wow! Never knew that was actually proposed. Man that would have been cool if they had built that.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3227
  • Last Login: Today at 03:19:48 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #29 on: July 12, 2018, 02:33:41 PM »

Back in the "days of yore" when sprawl was considered a natural/normal outgrowth of urban expansion, the "tunnel to Palmdale" was an almost perpetual discussion topic that reached a feverish pitch in the late '60's when a push to relocate most of the LAX functions out to the desert was at its peak.  Whether to start at the north end of the CA 2/Glendale freeway, as an extension of I-605, or north from San Dimas as a 57/210 derivative was the hot topic -- most of us preferred CA 2, as it would start from a higher elevation and thus provide the opportunity for a considerably shorter and more feasible tunnel.  Needless to say, such concepts evaporated quickly once the slowdown of the '70's began.  Even the Division of Highways and successor Caltrans got on the truncation bandwagon; the planning map showing multiple facilities criss-crossing the San Gabriels was a shadow of itself by the mid-'80's.  Palmdale and Lancaster did grow to their present size (a bit under 400K for both) in the interim, but as low-housing-cost "spillover" from the S.F. Valley and Santa Clarita.  Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of a cross-mountain tunnel project was prohibitive -- so now the souls that elected to save their real estate bucks and live out in the high desert schlep into town on the ever-packed CA 14.  Next year the original statewide CA freeway & expressway program turns 60 years old -- and still no sign of a San Gabriel range tunnel in the forecast!     
Wow! Never knew that was actually proposed. Man that would have been cool if they had built that.

Route 249!

https://cahighways.org/249-256.html

Here's a planning map of it from that site:
Logged
Chris Sampang

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3865
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:43:33 AM
Re: Metro Debuts New Express Lanes On 110 Freeway
« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2018, 06:25:23 PM »

I remember the "Ells" tunnel proposal, circa 1965-66 or so; it was intended to connect the upper reaches of the Arroyo Seco gorge at its south end (as pictured in the map above) with, again, the upper reaches of another mountain watershed, the Big Tujunga Canyon area (which drained the southwest portion of the national forest).  Essentially the freeway, alternately dubbed CA 2 along its southern reaches or even CA 122 (the portion extending out into the desert) would stay on the surface (ridge or cliffside) until that became impractical, then tunnel to the next feasible surface segment, repeating until the range was surmounted.  In most maps I've seen, the portion of CA 249 (this map looks like it was lifted from a Thomas Bros. regional atlas from that timeframe -- the style and font of the CA state shields give it away; this is definitely not a Division of Highways product!) connecting (after the interchange with the tunnel-laden corridor) to Angeles Crest Highway/CA 2 was designated as CA 196.  CA 249 essentially followed the Angeles Forest Highway from CA 2 west of Mt. Wilson north to CA 14 near Vincent.  The corridor with the Ells and other tunnels would have likely, if completed as planned, been part of CA 122, which descended to the desert between Palmdale and Pearblossom, crossed CA 138, and struck out NE into the desert, skirting the SE corner of Edwards AFB and terminating at CA 58 west of Hinkley.  While the map above shows the 122 corridor as serving SE Palmdale by tracing Pearblossom Highway west of CA 138, the Division/Caltrans documents invariably show it several miles east of there.  It was intended that after going through the first couple of tunnels, Palmdale-bound traffic would segue onto CA 249 at the mountaintop interchange, while traffic ostensibly heading for Barstow and points beyond would remain on the diagonal desert corridor.  The concept here was simple -- central L.A. to Barstow via the most direct feasible route. 

At some point surveyors and engineers had to get out into the field to get the "lay of the land", so to speak.  I was born & raised in that neck of the woods -- and believe me, the San Gabriels make it exceptionally tough on anything with wheels getting from one side to another -- steep canyons on the south side all the way to the ridge point (averaging about 7500-8000') and, on the north side, a very rapid dropoff from that ridgeline down a couple thousand feet, and then a combination of rockpiles, sand dunes, and flash-flood-prone gorges down to the high desert floor (the saving grace being that while the rise from the south footing to the ridge averaged about 6000' or more, the north side was about half that simply because the high desert floor sat between 3000' and 4000' above sea level).  But the entire mountain range is dominated by rocky outcroppings -- difficult for building conventional roads, much less 6/8-lane freeways.   Let's just say that any surveyor or engineer coming back from the mountains not disabused of the notion that deploying massive facilities across or through them would be anything but a nightmare was only fooling themselves. 

Eventually (early '80's on) a simplified freeway arrangement was proposed:  one freeway (2 & 249) from the La Canada area north to CA 14 near the Pearblossom Highway interchange and another (122) from that same point on CA 14 diagonally across the desert; the CA 196 connection to Angeles Crest Highway bit the dust  Only one other corridor was retained:  an eastern extension of CA 118 up Big Tujunga Canyon to provide access to and from the San Fernando Valley.  Like the first iterations, those were simply lines on a map; not one foot of San Gabriel Mountain freeway has ever been formally adopted much less considered for funding.  And with the push to curtail urban sprawl, it's likely these routes will remain unbuilt.       
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.