710 - Long Beach Freeway Gap

[The Ghostbuster]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

[707]

Wow. That's just selfish of La Canada. South Pasadena should just stop complaining. They won't get the freeway bulldozing their town and they'll hardly notice a thing since the construction and freeway will be 40 feet under ground.

[Henry]

Wow. That's just selfish of La Canada. South Pasadena should just stop complaining. They won't get the freeway bulldozing their town and they'll hardly notice a thing since the construction and freeway will be 40 feet under ground.

Even if the freeway was buried 100 feet underground, South Pasadena would still bitch about it.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe it's a good thing there will be no exits between the two portals of the tunnel. Drivers can just drive under the whining NIMBYs.

[emory]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.

[Bickendan]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.

The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.

[Henry]

Maybe it's a good thing there will be no exits between the two portals of the tunnel. Drivers can just drive under the whining NIMBYs.

There you go!

[emory]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.

The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.

I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.

[mrsman]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.

The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.

I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.

And don't forget that Caltrans is doing everything in their power to remove the freeway names from our consciousness.  So we will simply have 210/710 as opposed to Foothill Fwy, Ventura Fwy, Long Beach Fwy.

I agree on renumbering the 134 as part of the 210.  It helps with the continuity of having a nearly perfect E-W freeway along this latitude from US 101 to I-215.  (I have similarly proposed having CA-60 take over the numbering on the Santa Monica Fwy for similar reasons.)

But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill.  This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number.  It needs a new number.

[emory]

Here's a possible explanation to South Pasadena's and the other towns continued opposition to 710, even as a tunnel, from kurumi.com: "It's obvious why the City of South Pasadena doesn't want it. As for the City of La Canada, they feel that traffic will worsen because people will actually start using the northbound part of the 210. Up until now, it's been their own private little freeway, and they don't want that to change." -- Paul L. Talbot, Alhambra City Councilmember, discussing the two cities opposed to I-710, in May 2001 interview

I've always felt that, if the 710 gap was ever filled in, that the state should reassign the portion of I-210 through the hills as part of I-710 and renumber CA 134 as I-210/CA 210. Then you don't have I-210 "changing freeways" as it does at the 134 interchange in Pasadena.

The 210 would still be 'changing freeways' even if punching through onto the 134. Instead of being strictly the Foothill Freeway, it'd be the Ventura on the west, and Foothill on the east, and the 710 would be the Foothill on the north, and Long Beach on the south.

I don't mean named freeways. I drive across that interchange all the time, and if you want to stay on I-210, you have to keep right in what's basically an exit lane while the 4 main lanes take you straight into the 134.

And don't forget that Caltrans is doing everything in their power to remove the freeway names from our consciousness.  So we will simply have 210/710 as opposed to Foothill Fwy, Ventura Fwy, Long Beach Fwy.

I agree on renumbering the 134 as part of the 210.  It helps with the continuity of having a nearly perfect E-W freeway along this latitude from US 101 to I-215.  (I have similarly proposed having CA-60 take over the numbering on the Santa Monica Fwy for similar reasons.)

But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill.  This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number.  It needs a new number.

What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.

The signs on I-5 heading north from Los Angeles recently got changed and CA 2 and CA 134 are still bearing their respective Glendale Freeway and Ventura Freeway names on the new overhead signs.

[TheStranger]

What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.

I think what's being meant here is that 710 is primarily a north-south route for the Long Beach Freeway's entirety (including the still-proposed tunnel).

(Since you brought up the Glendale Freeway, IIRC Route 2 is signed north-south there but east-west on all other segments, as a comparison to the hypothetical 710/210 example being discussed.)

[mrsman]

What makes something a north/south number? I don't see a pattern with the other interstates.

I think what's being meant here is that 710 is primarily a north-south route for the Long Beach Freeway's entirety (including the still-proposed tunnel).

(Since you brought up the Glendale Freeway, IIRC Route 2 is signed north-south there but east-west on all other segments, as a comparison to the hypothetical 710/210 example being discussed.)

What I meant to say was that it is inherently confusing to sign 710, which is primarily north-south, along a corridor that is primarily east-west.  If you sign 710 as north-south over the western Foothill, then the cardinal direction doesn't match the compass direction very well.  Yes, there  are other corridors that do this (US 101 along the Ventura Fwy) but why introduce more confusion. 

It is also inherently confusing to sign 710 along the western Foothill as east-west when the 710 itself is known as a north-south freeway.  Yes it is done in some instances, especially with regard to Beltways, but it is probably less confusing if the western Foothill had a highway number that is not the same as the Long Beach Fwy.

With regard to the "2" designation, had the Beverly Hills Freeway gone through,  I believe the entire stretch of "2" from Santa Monica into the Mountains would be east-west.  The Glendale Freeway would be analogous to the 101 Ventura Freeway.  But since the existing stretch are really different segments: a north-south freeway and an east-west mountain 2-lane road, there is no confusion in the change in cardnial direction.

And it is even easier as the portions along US 101 and Santa Monica Blvd get decomissioned.

[ACSCmapcollector]

The Interstate 710/California 710 Long Beach Freeway 6.2 mile extension?

I think the process is being slowed down of having the extension of the Long Beach Freeway with its planned tunnels from Alhambra at Valley Blvd to Pasadena from Caltrans.  Many people do not want this freeway to go underground, when it is the best way to handle the needed traffic through stop and go traffic signals through the corridor.  I support this plan, as of now and it would take traffic off the Interstate 10/Interstate 5/California state route 2/California state route 134.  The San Bernardino Freeway-Golden State Freeway-Glendale Freeway-Ventura Freeway to Pasadena.

Does anyone know about this project and want to give their content and commentary of this much needed freeway project that has been delayed for almost 50 years?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[cahwyguy]

See http://cahighways.org/466-740.html#710 for loads of info.

[myosh_tino]

The gap in I-710 has been widely discussed here...

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9365.0

[The Ghostbuster]

The extension is likely to be scrapped. Too many people oppose it. Once the tunnel is canceled, I hope when tunnel opponents bitch about there being too much congestion, someone tells them this is what they wanted.

[ACSCmapcollector]

Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped.  Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[The Ghostbuster]

I am very much a proponent of building the 710 extension as a tunnel. I'd be very surprised if it actually is constructed, though.

[SeriesE]

Sure wish the original surface option was not scrapped...even better if it was actually built

[Exit58]

Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped.  Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

A direct connection to the 2 would be pointless. There is hardly any traffic on that freeway, except for the jam at the southern terminus of the Glendale. Any traffic that would need to go that way could take the San Bernardino (10) to the 5 or 101. The better route would still be taking it all the way to the 210, finally giving that freeway some purpose.

[silverback1065]

Let someone else comment about it, I don't think it would be scrapped.  Building tunnels however having the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway tunnel go diagonally towards the Glendale Freeway, California state 2 at my birthplace is a better route option, remember all the 5 or 6 options they have for each route, including the NIMBY route directly to Pasadena?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

A direct connection to the 2 would be pointless. There is hardly any traffic on that freeway, except for the jam at the southern terminus of the Glendale. Any traffic that would need to go that way could take the San Bernardino (10) to the 5 or 101. The better route would still be taking it all the way to the 210, finally giving that freeway some purpose.

adding this link would take pressure off i-5, 10 and us 101

[sparker]

OK -- let's assume the 710 extension is built (tunnels, surface, whatever) and it, as planned, distributes its traffic flow at the 210/134 interchange.  Where do you think the bulk of rush-hour (locally, between 2:30 and 7:30 p.m.) traffic will go?  If you said it would make a hard right onto east I-210 toward Arcadia, Azusa, and beyond you, as Don Rickles was prone to say, get a cookie!  I'm certain posters who are residing in or are at least familiar with the area would be concerned about dumping several thousand extra cars & trucks on 210 east in the late afternoon; it's miserable enough currently -- and capacity expansion along this section of 210 would be next to impossible.  The only thing that would partially mitigate this would be to install metering lights on the ramp from 710 north to 210 east (which would probably be done in any instance) -- but that would likely back the 710 traffic up into the tunnels (if that were the methodology adopted), requiring an exhaust-evacuation system of extraordinarily high capacity, not to mention an equally high level of expenditure.

IMHO -- regardless of how 710 is to be extended, the implications of the very existence of that corridor in that location, given its potential to impact an area far beyond its own alignment, require a reconsideration of the project as a whole.

[cahwyguy]

Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:

But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill.  This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number.  It needs a new number.

Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.

And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.

(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)

There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html

[TheStranger]

And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205)

205 actually fits the system in a strange way: while it is no loop route, both ends (580 & 5) are Interstates!  So the even first digit still works in that setup.

California and Illinois are the two states I know that have never minded using an odd first digit for a spur route that connects two different interstates, thus I-505 here and I-355 over there  (I-394 in Minnesota is another example).  I-580 used to qualify for that until it was extended west to US 101 in the 1980s.  (I think you've mentioned that I-980 came into existence when the Nimitz Freeway was still Route 17; only when I-880 was added about 3-4 years later afterwards was when 980 ended up with both ends at Interstate routes).

[Plutonic Panda]

Rereading this discussion, I noticed one comment that was never corrected:

But it would be harder to justify having I-710 on the western Foothill.  This freeway is still primarily east/west and should not be numbered with a north/south number.  It needs a new number.

Pay attention closely, boys and girls and those who decline to be identified: Both 210 and 710 are three digit interstates. The notion of odd being N/S and even being E/W is true for two digit interstates (5 is N/S, 10 is E/W, 80 is E/W, 15 is primarily N/S). When you get to the three digits, you need to do modulo arithmetic. Remember that? So, for a three digit interstate xyy (e.g., 710, 580, 280, 210), the last two digits (xx) represent the parent interstate that the route touches / goes near / goes through). The first digit (y) being even is generally a loop route around an area (405, 605, and even 210 are good examples of that). The first digit odd is generally a spur into an area (thus 710 is a spur into Long Beach, 110 a spur to the port, 780 a spur off of 680). For 3dis, there is no n/s or e/w rule to the numbering.

And before you say anything, yes, there are anomalies (like 205) and bad anomalies (like 238). Deal.

(ETA: For the number purests out there: If they ever connect 710 and 210, what would make sense would to make the route an x05 route, as it is a loop off the 405, but all the even x05s are taken (205, 405, 605, 805), and even most of the spur x05s are taken (105, 305 (assigned as FAI, but not signed), 505, 905). 705 would be the only open route, and most wouldn't think of it as a spur. As for the x10 numbers, well, I'm sure the discussion has been turned into a dead horse.)

There are similar rules for both US and state routes -- see all the gory details at http://www.cahighways.org/numberng.html

This might be a really dumb question but I am still learning a lot about interstates and highways. . . is it not possible to have a four digit interstate?