The 710 gap (Fremont, Pasadena, Alhambra: transporting, house, living)

[the one]

i just state the facts. thats why i think its fine for sections of south pas to be set aside for the good of all of us. its happened before. it will happen again. i have no problem with it happening in South pas the way its happened in the hood. we do need it.

and dont get me wrong, i take the bus and train daily (not so much on the weekends) but i see the benefits of having a freeway connection between the 710 and the 210. i would be happy for more rail. but in for the sake of long term and facilitated travel in the northeast LA area, a freeway connectior would be perfect. it just so happens to go between an area were people are more prepared to fight it off.

south pas stands in the way of progress.

and c'mon now, the whole community would not be destroyed. some parts would be demolished, but south pas would still remain.

Originally Posted by 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.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

If the homes are truly historical could they be moved to another area? Is their a solution to save them? Chaces are this has all been looked at many times over. With the current budget situation we will have many more years to discuss it.

[uptown_urbanist]

It's not just that the houses themselves are historic - it's that entire neighborhoods are historic.

I may be wrong about this, but I've read that early on in the 710 talk there was an acknowledgement that cutting right through the heart of South Pasadena as proposed would indeed destroy the city, so much so that there was talk about getting rid of it and folding in the various neighborhoods into surrounding cities.

Yes, there would still be houses, and there would be some businesses, but it would effectively be ruined as the community that it is today.

If you really want to stick it to the rich people put it through San Marino, which was the original plan, anyway. (not that I think that's a good solution, either.)

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

I don't see a way for everyone to get what they want. I am all for keeping historic homes and neighborhoods intact. I am all for developing a better freeway system. I am all for riding my bike to work. Just seems that what ever is tried brings conflict to someone else.

[drshang]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

I don't see a way for everyone to get what they want. I am all for keeping historic homes and neighborhoods intact. I am all for developing a better freeway system. I am all for riding my bike to work. Just seems that what ever is tried brings conflict to someone else.

I think this is exactly it. There is no good solution. Destroying South Pas would be really terrible. Not completing the highway is pretty terrible. Building a tunnel is somewhere between really expensive and unrealistic. Making some huge overpass over the hills where the poorer people live has its own issues too and the 710 in Pasadena is near some really nice, expensive and historic homes too.

[the one]

it aint about sticking it to nobody. its about moving forward and making mobility and transportation efficient.

LA is so built out that anywhere it goes it will take homes. it will take businesses. people will not be happy.

lets move forward.

[bhcompy]

Everything becomes historic over time. Anyways, older homes are money pits and inefficient compared to newer housing, much like older vehicles.

And it will alleviate traffic, much like the 105 alleviated the 10, 405, and 91. The 605 north of Whittier always sucks and is always full of commercial traffic that's moving over from the 710, and anything that can help alleviate some traffic in the East LA Interchange should be welcome.

[sweetcityluvn]

As much as I love development, why I love Phoenix, the days of Robert Moses planning are dead. There is too much litigation and bureaucratic politics in the planning process. Historical preservation zoning is VERY hard to overcome for new development. I actually thought CalTrans owned some of the South Pasadena neighborhoods though (the right of way). Anyways its almost unthinkable that the 710 would be built above ground. There is just too much development in that area and probably why South Pasadena has been able to win this long. The tunnel solution for the 710 is the ONLY feasible method to get around the zoning politics involved. I do not think eminent domain is an option in this case as I read more into the topic. It might be used however for some of the land rights below ground level. I want to mention what will be interesting to see is if they can somehow connect the 110 with the 710 underground, which will take alot of skilled civil engineering. If they are going to do this project they better do it right. For adequite traffic flows, connection with the 110 (part of the main freeway network) as well as some exits in South Pasadena would be needed. A direct route flow from the end of present 710 to the 210 could cause problems in itself if not networked properly within the area. As for building freeways in general. As someone who is in the transportation planning field (grad student) I admit freeways are a short term solution for traffic congestion. What happens is that a new freeway will alleviate current congestion for an area temporarily. As more people become aware of the "faster" route, new traffic patterns shape. The new freeway becomes more congested as more people take the initiative to travel the new route knowing it might make a faster commute. Eventually you get to square one where grid-lock (common in Los Angeles) expands due to the effect of higher auto capacity and more freeways become needed, adding to what is called the "peak load problem" during rush hour. Los Angeles is primarily an auto city, so it is hard to decongest the city using just public transportation. That is why HOV lanes and tollroads can be useful. I am a freeway lover and agree more with you bhcompy, but there are too many politics involved. The days of bulldozing entire neighborhoods is almost entirely gone. However that being said I believe that building more freeways is vital for short term decongestion and for long term implication.

[808n310]

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.

I think the problem with the 405 is that it is the only North-South artery for anyone from the coast all the way in to mid-wilshire....if La Cienega was a freeway, as it was supposed to be, and as you can see when passing through the oil fields by Ladera, you can imagine how many people would NOT take the 405 as it would be the 'long' way. Anyone coming from the South Bay to get up to say, the Miracle Mile area would totally use that instead....and imagine how much LESS traffic would be on Wilshire and SaMo Blvd since people two to three miles E of the 405 would just take the La Cienega freeway to go N / S instead of the 405....ahhh if only...haha.

But to a certain extent I do agree that more freeways / more lanes is only a temporary fix, until those new byways and lanes get clogged themselves...but, I don't think you can really increase density THAT much in the LA basin, so imagine in general, how much smoother a few key freeways would have made traffic overall.....plus they could have done it like the 210 in La Canada, kinda sub grade so you don't have some concrete overpass blowing through important areas.....oh well.

[uptown_urbanist]

I don't remember the statistics, and haven't read enough about this to really know what I'm talking about, but isn't port truck traffic coming from the port one of the biggest factors facing (and helping contribute to) LA traffic right now (especially on the east side of town)? If the state had a lot of money to throw at traffic problems I think they'd be able to do more long-term good by both finishing the subway-to-the-sea as well as coming up with a truly innovative solution to the truck issue. I think there have been some suggestions made, but don't know how things stand on that front. Completing the 710 extension might make things temporarily flow a little more smoothly, or shorten some people's rides, but the temporary relief would be very temporary, and I can't imagine it would be worth the cost, tunnel or no tunnel. Given the concerns of pollution, etc., especially in the LA basin, I'd like to see that kind of money being spent elsewhere and on more creative solutions (and hopefully more effective in the long run) than just more freeways.