The 710 gap (Los Angeles, Pasadena, Whittier: how much, to live, zoning)

[sweetcityluvn]

UnidentifiedMale, thats interesting map from cahighways.org. I can not believe they actually thought of building a freeway through Malibu...LOL. Thats crazy.

[sweetcityluvn]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

It's like the old saying about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing but expecting a different result. The 405, as one example, is already 16 - 18 lanes wide -- yet the slowest freeway anywhere. I'm not convinced that widening it yet again -- this time sacrificing churches, homes and business -- is going to do anything to improve traffic flow. And, at somewhere around $2.5 million *per lane mile*, building more freeways must be the biggest waste of money in L.A. transportation.

As to the 710, "finishing" the connector would destroy one of the oldest neighborhoods in the area -- at huge public expense -- only to have yet one more clogged concrete behemoth freeway in L.A. Not my idea of the right thing to do.

Thats why its time to start building more HOV lanes...whahahahah!!! Although HOV lanes do decongest freeway traffic to some extent.

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

The last thing LA needs is a Robert Moses.

I agree with the others - the subway to the sea would do far more to alleviate local traffic problems. There are so many other better uses of the money involved in a tunnel, or an above-ground freeway that would just immediately fill with traffic the day it opened.

Times have changed. Robert Moses-style projects are, thank goodness, are starting to fade in popularity. (I admire his getting-it-done abilities, though - LA could use someone who could get that subway finished.)

All that will happen with a subway to the sea is that southeast LA county(which has a huge population) will get screwed again into paying more taxes for no major benefit, just like the recent tax increase voters approved.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by matt345

Let's say we spend billions and fill this gap and complete the system, as you put it. Exactly what good will that do? It won't fix our traffic problems, and that money is better spent on transit projects anyway. There's much more to what makes a city great than how many roads it has.

I grew up in Baltimore, a city with an incomplete freeway system. However, if you ask the residents of the city today, the vast majority of them are grateful that the originally planned freeway network was never completed. Plans had called for freeways which would have chopped up downtown and destroyed Federal Hill, Canton, and Fells Point (which today are 3 of Baltimore's most sought-after, treasured, and most visited neighborhoods). Baltimore is a better city today because the freeway system was never completed.

I find that the best cities are those which de-emphasize the freeway, not the other way around. For decades, San Francisco's eastern waterfront was cut off from the rest of the city by a freeway. After the 1989 earthquake, the city decided to tear down the freeway and replace it with a beautiful tree lined boulevard, the Embarcadero (which has now become an well-visited tourist attraction). Ask anybody in San Francisco and you'll have a hard time finding anyone who would rather still have a freeway along the waterfront.

Ask someone who commutes from Marin to the Peninsula, or even, from the Marina to the Peninsula / South Bay. They would want US-101 as a through Freeway according to the original plan, which would have only taken a few buildings along Gough and Geary, whoopteedoo.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

It's like the old saying about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing but expecting a different result. The 405, as one example, is already 16 - 18 lanes wide -- yet the slowest freeway anywhere. I'm not convinced that widening it yet again -- this time sacrificing churches, homes and business -- is going to do anything to improve traffic flow. And, at somewhere around $2.5 million *per lane mile*, building more freeways must be the biggest waste of money in L.A. transportation.

As to the 710, "finishing" the connector would destroy one of the oldest neighborhoods in the area -- at huge public expense -- only to have yet one more clogged concrete behemoth freeway in L.A. Not my idea of the right thing to do.

That’s exactly the point I’ve been trying to make. Right now we have the 405, 101, and 5 – three extremely wide freeways all connecting the San Fernando Valley with the LA basin. That should be more than enough. And yet all three are still ridiculously choked with traffic. So what’s our solution? Should we just build a fourth major freeway out of the Valley? Well what happens when that one inevitably gets backed up as well? At some point, you have to start providing multiple forms of transportation, rather than dedicating all your resources to just one form.

When you visit the other cities, they may have a network of freeways as well, but it’s nothing like it is here, where every single freeway is 10+ lanes wide. And it’s not just the freeways. Look at how wide our surface streets are. Major boulevards in every single direction. When I moved here, it was the first time I had ever seen “gridlock control” parking enforcement (no parking 7 AM – 10 AM and 4 PM – 7 PM on certain streets). My point is Los Angeles has dedicated more than enough to the automobile. Yes, there were freeway revolts here, but that was the case all over the country. There’s still no denying the fact that Los Angeles invested more in the automobile than perhaps 90% of all American cities; and yet our traffic is still the worst in the nation. Doesn’t that tell you something? That maybe, just maybe, having the vast majority of your population drive to 100% of their daily activities might not be the best idea?

[the one]

California Highways (www.cahighways.org): Southern California Freeway Development

i particularly like the 1957 map. most of those were just dreams. and since that point there has been oposition in south pas.

what do i say?

tear down them houses!!!
i am a lover of architecture. especially art deco in LA. but i think that everyone is forgetting that communities HAVE been split in two, as recently as the 105 freeway. another example of such is: if you drive down olympic in the east side, dont bother turning north on most of those streets. the 5 freeway blocks you from getting up to whittier blvd or 3rd or any other major thoroughfare. were those not historic COMMUNITIES? sure the houses were smaller, but they were also older than those in south pas.

i say this to show evidence of a double standard. the poor, neglected sections of town are criss crossed by freeways. they built the five over hollenbeck park!!!! the freeway goes over the LAKE!!!!!! look at the houses on boyle, they rival the ones in south pas. that didnt matter. they tore them down and built a freeway. freeways get built easier in areas where the community does not have the resources to stop it. south pas has fought this since day one. it has alwaye been a very selfish battle.

caltrans in fact own lots of houses were a proposed freeway would run. there are some holdouts but caltrans controls a lot of lots (which if a proposed study finds tunnelling feasible, will be sold to subsidize the cost of the project.)

it has happened before, it will happen again. south pas stands in the way of modernity and traffic solutions.

so, everyone keeps on saying that it will not alleviate traffic. i say bullocks! of course it will. all those people coming from long beach, lynwood, maywood, east LA, monterey park, alhambra will now be able to avoid driving into los angeles only to double back over to pasadena. these people will also avoid having to travel up the 5 to get out of town. the solution would be taking the 710 to the 210 if you want to head north. traffic would be spread out, not concentrated at the EAST LA INTERCHANGE. or thru downtown. that would help the traffic problem. sure there is traffic on the 210, but thats why it was built. that is obvious! how yall dont see it is beyond me.

BUild the freeway, make it easier for us on the south side and the east side to get out of town and up to toney pasadena.

if they dont want the freeway then i suppose a tunnel would do. a study is being conducted now. they are drilling in about 30 differnt spots (possibly more). they are trying to find the best tunnel route. here is an image.

http://www.latimes.com/media/mapimag...1/44591391.gif

its interesting that they are thinking of extending it not only north but to areas further east and west. the purpose is too connect the 710 to the 210.

[uptown_urbanist]

I think it's a double standard for people to complain (as they rightfully can) when poorer communities are destroyed, but are fine with wealthier neighborhoods are ripped apart. As the saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

I think communities have a right not to have what essentially would be their entire community destroyed. I think it's an obligation, really. Why should people just say, okay, this place has been around since the 19th century, people have long roots here, it's a great place to live, there's a strong sense of community and continuity, but hey, we can scatter to the wind because some people want to enable their continued auto-centric lives, even if it ruins our town and maybe our livelihoods, costs a fortune, and probably won't make that much of an impact, anyway. That goes for both poor and wealthier communties.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by matt345

I frequently use the rail system and there are thousands of others who do so everyday. So they didn't waste a ton of money in my opinion. What's wrong with providing alternate forms of transportation? Why should it be dictated that everyone is going to drive and that's the end of story? And don't say that public transportation will never work in LA. Los Angeles was built upon the most extensive rail transit system in the nation, long before the first freeway was ever built.

There's nothing wrong with providing alternatives as long as they are good alternatives. I'm glad you use the rail system, but it's been SO SLOW in being built, and I think some westside neighborhoods are STILL playing NIMBY with it.

Do you really believe that San Francisco's freeway system is larger than LA's? Plus, other cities may have more miles per capita of freeway, but usually, they're not nearly as wide as LA's freeways.

In freeway lanes per capita, yes, San Francisco's freeway system is larger than Los Angeles's. Also, the San Francisco Bay Area has had a coherent rail system in place since the early 1970s.

As for wide freeways, overall you'll find wider freeways in Orange County and San Diego County, and their populations are much smaller.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

It's like the old saying about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing but expecting a different result. The 405, as one example, is already 16 - 18 lanes wide -- yet the slowest freeway anywhere. I'm not convinced that widening it yet again -- this time sacrificing churches, homes and business -- is going to do anything to improve traffic flow.

If the Laurel Canyon/La Cienega Freeway had been built, the 405 wouldn't have the problems that it has today. The planners knew what they were doing. It was the residents of certain communities who screwed things up.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by sweetcityluvn

UnidentifiedMale, thats interesting map from cahighways.org. I can not believe they actually thought of building a freeway through Malibu...LOL. Thats crazy.

It does seem crazy now, but back then, there was much less concern from the general public about aesthetics and the environment. Back then, I imagine there was an enthusiasm about freeways that is similar to the enthusiasm for a rail system that many have today.