Bill to Stymie 710 Tunnel Is Stymied by Asm Transportation Committee
Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) tried to bring an end to a long-stewing controversy over what to do about the 710 freeway through his district, but his efforts to have the state legislature weigh in seem to be falling short.
He introduced a bill, A.B. 287, that would have created an advisory committee to come up with solutions–and at the same time would have prohibited that committee from considering two proposals that have been the source of decades of dispute and study: a tunnel and a surface freeway through Pasadena.
A.B. 287 won a 3-1 vote in the Assembly Transportation Committee hearing on Monday, but that wasn’t enough for it to move ahead. Too many committee members, including chair Jim Frazier (D-Oakley), declined to vote on it, which prevented the bill from moving forward.
Kansen Chu (D-San Jose), told Holden why he would refrain from voting. “This is a local bill,” he said. “I would like to see locals come together on it.”
“That’s the spirit of the bill,” responded Holden. “To bring the communities together to come up with a solution.”
Both a surface freeway and a tunnel have been proposed, and both have been fought by local residents “for a very long time,” said Holden. The tunnel has been repeatedly condemned as a terrible idea. Nevertheless Caltrans is basically finished with an environmental review of its current proposals for the 710, which it will soon present to L.A. Metro for consideration. The tunnel is one of those proposals, even though heavy community opposition forced Metro to specifically exclude the North 710 tunnel project from the expenditure plan in its recent, successful, Measure M sales tax proposition.
“Caltrans is not listening to the community,” said Holden. “We need something in line with future transportation needs.”
“Extending our freeways only adds cars to our roads,” he added. “And there is no justifiable source of funds for the tunnel. It’s way too expensive. A tunnel would put billions of taxpayer money on the line, with no hard evidence [that it would provide] traffic relief in the San Gabriel Valley.”
Labor unions spoke in opposition to the bill; they see the tunnel as a job creator. Also opposed were representatives from nearby cities, including Rosemead and Alhambra, who have long sought a freeway connection northward, under the misguided assumption that it will reduce congestion.
Matthew Harper (R-Huntington Beach), said that the original intention of building the 710 was to solve traffic problems by connecting the Long Beach Port north to the 210 freeway, “so that traffic can go around downtown.” He complained that because it was never completed, “the entire L.A. area gums up when the freeway has an accident.”
“That’s the reason we need to move in another direction,” said Holden. “Under the best of circumstances, [a tunnel] doesn’t even address that. Trucks would not be allowed into the tunnel,” he said.
A tunnel would be like squeezing a balloon on one side, and having it popping up on the other side. And who wants to be stuck in traffic in a tunnel?
We need a different approach: a holistic, realistic approach.
In addition, amidst other state efforts to fight climate change by reducing driving, he said, “It would be hypocritical of me to push a solution that is part of the problem.” Transit like light rail, he said, would be a smart use of funds.
We made a commitment to the voters of L.A. County that we would find the most cost effective way to provide transportation, and digging this tunnel is not it.
This [bill] is an effort to bring harmony in communities that have been fighting forever.
Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) represents nearby communities that would be affected by whatever choice is made along the 710.
“Let me be clear: doing nothing is absolutely not a solution,” she said. “People who live in the area at the termination of the 710 are extremely affected by that freeway. But a tunnel is a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem.”
“It could cost $5 billion at least” for the tunnel, she added. “Imagine what that would do for a rail system for L.A. County and this area.”
“If cars terminating in an area is an issue, then the last thing we should do is . . . invite more cars into the system,” she said. “What we should be doing is investing in solutions that take cars off the road,” like mass transit and rail and alternative transportation.
Holden asked committee members to move his bill forward so he could keep the conversation going. If they passed it, legislative procedures would put it in the “suspense” file of the Appropriations Committee, where it would sit for the moment.
That would give L.A. Metro time to consider the issue at its May meeting, when the EIR on the tunnel is scheduled to be discussed.
“I’m up against a deadline,” he told committee members. “If I don’t get this bill out of this committee, the opportunity to have more conversations [about a solution] goes away. It could be a very successful tool in moving to consensus,” he added.
But committee members were not swayed. They backed away, and the bill, for now, is stalled.
Please explain more about the South Bay Expressway. I’d like to look into that.
Can you give me an example of another industry where induced demand is accepted?
Could you also kindly give me a link to an article that says induced demand is accepted and not just something that points to a guy getting an award? It isn’t that hard to figure out why freeways around one of the worlds most important cities clogged up pretty quick and induced demand seems to be a cop out for transit advocates against investing anything further for the people who want to drive.
“That’s that rah-rah “we can have everything we want” spirit I’m looking for! And tied up with good ole fashioned patriotic spirit. Genius.”
What are you trying to say here?
Obviously there is a budget, but we’ve come this far and shown we can do. There is no reason to go small and say we can’t afford it. That mentality doesn’t get us anywhere. Again, both parties exist. Urban and suburban. People have a choice. It’s clear the suburban party has won and is much larger.
Yes, I am for two reasons, one I listed above.
One because I personally have witnessed the improvements. Traffic does seem to flow much better at various times of the day with the exception of the 101 interchange. That in itself is easily fixed by several ways.
First one which is the long term and most expensive way is the widening of the 101 from the 134 to Ventura. This freeway needs a mix of anywhere from 14 to 12 lanes with express lanes taking a minimum of two lanes each way.
Secondly and hopefully this one won’t upset you as much or make you gasp, I propose a complete rework of the 101/405 interchange creating a five stack and moving all entrances and exits(minus express lanes) to the right side of the freeway. More auxiliary lanes need to be added at the junction.
Lets not forget Metro is yet again embarking on another widening project for the 405 in the Sepulveda Pass. This includes two express lanes and I believe another general purpose lane. Another project(which I support) includes a subway underneath.
The second reason I believe them is they are not a fan of freeways and favor rail over that. So unless you have statistics that say otherwise, what reason other than the fact they were the ones behind the widening do you have to prove they are lying about the improvements?
My point is neither one of our views is to blame for the driving deaths. Not me or my wide freeways and not you or you little rail and bike paths. It more likely to do with the fact driving is reaching record highs and it makes sense that if more people are on the road, there is more of a likelihood for accidents to occur. It’s numbers man. Any 3 year old could tell you that.
So lock the doors and stay in house? Your chances of being struck haven’t gone up because more people are driving regardless of whether or not it’s on wide road or small one, it’s just more people equals more incidents.
Yeah, there are. Have you seen the disrepair they’re in? The proposals to tear down heavily traveled commuter routes such as the Cross-bronx expressway? I wasn’t so much against the recent tear downs of some of the semi-quasi freeways built through Manhattan by Robert Moses, though I did like it and wish it would have stayed, I try my best to see both sides of the table, so I’ll accept those losses. Fair enough. But I am worried for the future of freeways around Manhattan while literally the entire area surrounding it(Boston, New Jersey, Delaware, etc.) shows promise in massive investments in freeways.
Though I do read of the occasional road diets(example New Jersey), I commend NYC of the investments it’s made in transit and support it. I want to see new subways built there and I want a subway to La Guardia. I also want the freeways preserved and promise shown towards improving them. They are expanding lanes with new bridges which I like.
It isn’t just auto and home credit, it’s credit cards and credit loans alike for common house hold appliances. It’s hard for me to even believe you’re making this into an issue about sprawl. I swear, sometimes I think new urbanists view sprawl the way religious people view the devil and think that all evil could be erased if sprawl is erased. One thing I find particularly interesting about new urbanists is they are a textbook example of the mindset of a grass is greener person.
Credit isn’t going anywhere. Have fun holding your breath if you think it is.
That’s that rah-rah “we can have everything we want” spirit I’m looking for! And tied up with good ole fashioned patriotic spirit. Genius.
Unfortunately, cities, towns, counties, states, etc can’t print their own money, so they have to be smart with the infrastrucure they fund. And literally demolishing the tax base, and then building something that degrades the remaining land values around it is a pretty shitty investment, especially when they have no effect on the congestion it’s claiming to solve. On the other hand, transit investments, slimming streets, making them safer, show positive returns.
So let me address the supposed “up-voting” my own comments. What are you talking about? I am not very familiar to Disqus, but lets point out a couple of things since you wanted to make this an issue.
1)I didn’t even know you could up vote your own comment 2)ironically enough, the comment you responded to has no up votes, so I couldn’t have up voted it 3)why are you even making this an issue? 4)tell me what comments I did that to and kindly tell me how I can undo it for you if it will make you happy
Now moving on to the actual topic: land values. So go check out Trulia land value maps(I will include a link at the end of this article). Explain to me if freeways are detrimental to land values why some land valus are higher in Highland Park right next to the freeway yet lower at Arapaho Rd. and Hill Crest which is much further away than land values the are abutting the North Dallas Tollway in Highland Park?
To Los Angeles, why are land values triple that in the areas around the Sepulveda Pass vs. those along the majority of the expo line?
Now I’m a reasonable person. I’m not going to sit here and pretend people want to live next to a freeway. But people don’t want to live next a light-rail line either. Reasons property values are higher next to light-rail stations would probably be the same reasons that property values are higher on roads strung deep into areas away from freeway noise that connect the homes to the freeways people want. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury.
Fortunately, in some situations like the 710 Tunnel or the Red Line, the city can build tunnels to mitigate the impact.
Here’s a price map for you: https://www.trulia.com/home_prices/
Notice how the home pricing in Calabasas gets lower the further south away from the freeway you go until you cross the mountain and receive ocean views. I’d like to see you try and blame that one on freeways.
Show me where I said I didn’t care about the costs? It depends on what we’re talking about here. You didn’t answer my question either. All you did was try and turn it on me. Classic bait and switch tactic.
Okay back up, you’re now broadly using the term repairs. If a massive earthquake hits and causes damages, it could need repairs a week after it opens.
If one wants to lump repair and maintenance into the same equation, everything needs maintenance almost immediately. Maintenance includes replacing bulbs, picking up trash, re striping lanes. etc.
Now if you’re asking me major repairs? Well go look at new construction. I don’t remember exactly which project it was, but I was reading an article about a bridge project(I believe it was either the new Tappan Zee, future Corpus Christi Bridge, or the new major bridge in Louisville) that said it won’t need any major maintenance for the next 50 years. So why would there be any reason to think this tunnel wouldn’t be the same way? Are you going to say that because it’s a tunnel for some reason it will need much more maintenance than a bridge? Look to the future SR-99 tunnel in Seattle? I don’t know. I’d assume this tunnel will be engineering to the maximum standards of today being that it will be smack dab in the middle of a large earthquake zone.
Going and spreading fear(the word I should have used instead of misinformation, though I still will say I do not think this road will need ‘massive’ reinvestment in 25-30 years) by your statement is not right.
Bernard, the tunnel has a variety of options that could pay for it. Private public partnerships(which I will admit I’m a tad skeptical of), tolls, and the same taxes that you pay for, for projects you might not ever use such as rail, freeways, water ports, etc.
It’s always fun to put staggering numbers to try and scare people such as the 36k per person figure. Yet care to take a guess how long tolls will take to pay that back? If and when you come back with some number like 20 years, or 50 years, tell me how long it would take for the other money figure such as the amount of money each person will contribute to the economy such as moving freight, going to work, going to eat, going to shop, buy a home, buy a car, etc. that will use this tunnel.
Now I’m almost positive your response to that statement will be something along the tune of “even if it wasn’t built they would have still did whatever it is that they were doing to contribute money to the economy” and true, it isn’t direct funds so it would likely still happen. However, this tunnel gave that person a more direct route and took stress off of the regional system.
The answer to your question is quite simple. We the people will pay for it. The ones who use it will pay for it. Just like everything else.
In this case, I favor the tunnel to lessen the impact of the freeway.
“Yes, let’s throw more tax payer money at something that doesn’t solve what it claims to do, ie reduce congestion. Great idea there.”
It does reduce congestion. In my hometown(OKC) they widened a freeway from four to six lanes which greatly reduced congestion. Widening and adding capacity does reduce congestion.
I’m not going to say getting people out of cars and giving them an ultimatum to use mass transit or suffer the consequences(ie horrid traffic) won’t cause ridership to go up nor will I argue that removing freeways and roads wouldn’t stop people from driving because it would. However those are absurd ideas. Keeping roads at two lanes & freeways to six lanes and not investing in them any further is bad government.
Look at how congested Paris is yet look at all of the absurd measures they have to try and prevent it. It seems like once a month or so I hear some insane idea like banning all non-ev cars, banning cars entirely in the city centre, banning cars within school zones, charging north of $1,000 to enter the city in a single occupant car; I can go on and on with this. Is that how you want the United States to be? Go ahead and give us your magic version of preventing traffic congestion and tell me the cities that you gathered your approach from.
My solution: the government needs to keep widening the freeways around and through the city while taking extra care to ensure the freeways in urban areas are attentive to pedestrians. Meaning more tunnels. More interaction and innovation such as caps. Still widening as necessary. Ensuring mass transit is adequate and not wasting money on building worthless lines such as the gold line when that money could go towards more rail on the west side and central areas instead of the foothills. When the urban areas have sufficient transit, then lets get to building special light-rail into city centers such as Pasadena, Azula, etc. . . and lets build HSR to San Bernardino, San Francisco, San Diego, Ventura, etc. I’m not against these things. I’m just for being smart about how we go about them.
I’m sure you’d be shocked to see my fantasy map of where I’d like to see rail go to, maybe even more so than my fantasy map of where I’d like to see freeways go to, but the majority of people choose to live the suburban car dominant lifestyle, as do I, and the infrastructure to support that such as freeway widenings and projects like the 710 tunnel need to come before a 100 billion dollar HSR to San Francisco, let alone have those projects scrutinized by a very small yet loud minority and have suggestions such as having those projects thrown out and disregarded completely. It’s disrespectful to the people who want to have a car.
They should be given the option of having wide freeways, plentiful, and direct, to and near their destinations. They shouldn’t have to suffer horrid traffic or pay extreme tolls. This is the United States of America. The suburban life is what many strive to have. Anecdotally, yes I know, I know many who come from South America, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East(me being an actor and very talkative, I interact with amazing people from all walks of life) and they love suburbia, They especially prefer Orange County and the Dallas suburbs over the concrete jungles of Los Angeles. It isn’t just me or the other majority of Americans who live in the suburbs.
The U.S. is the land of opportunity. You don’t nor should you have to be rich to own a car. Currently you have the opportunity to live the car free urban lifestyle and it gets better every day and can continue to do so without impeding those who CHOOSE to live their life in suburbia.
You’re taking the word of the agency that is trying to justify it’s own boondoggle project?
Auto, home, credit; they’re all tied to the same sprawl Ponzi scheme. Remember what happened after the 07/08 bust? No more easy credit means bye-bye to suburbs and auto-centric living.
Try looking at a map of NYC. There are a bunch of freeways and roads.
Yeah, all of those over glorified new safety features seem to be taking a good chunk out of that rising death toll.
I want to further touch on this comment
“Sorry, but metro areas actually grow in population. The new comers will CHOOSE the most convenient option for getting around. Most commuters in NYC get around via mass transit because it is the only robust transit system in the US.”
I don’t know exactly what point you’re trying to make there. Are you bringing a “what came first the chicken or the egg argument?” Because if so, I’ll just say that there are cities with no mass transit but there aren’t cities without roads and cars. If there are, they are an extreme anomaly.
As I said in my other comment regarding this point, NYC is the only other Alpha +++ city in the world. Not that I agree with that ranking(not NYC just the cities that aren’t included in that such as Tokyo), I don’t see how you’re going to compare that to Los Angeles. That has nothing to do with mass transit. It has to do with how the city is built. It has to do with the proximity of people in terms of where they live and work. Sprawl is equal and arguable much worse than Southern California as their geographical limitations are much less than that of SoCals given the mountains, deserts, oceans, etc. . . we have here.
Again, I ask, what point are you trying to make with that comment? I know you quoted my comment regarding induced demand, but I’m not understanding the correlation between the two.
“Metro points out the project did provide relief – just not at the peak of rush hour.”
“Congestion on surface streets around the pass, such as Sepulveda and Wilshire Boulevards dropped by 20 to 25 percent.
The rush hour window shrank seven hours to five. Before construction peak traffic lasted from 2 p.m. to 9 p.m. Now it lasts from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Shorter and more consistent drive times in the early afternoon and on weekends.
A reduction in accidents and associated traffic delays.
An overall increase in the number of cars moved through the pass from an average of 10,000 cars per hour to 11,700 cars per hour.”
Here is the article: http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/04/52176/stuck-in-gridlock-why-405-expansion-didn-t-reduce/
Thought the point of that article doesn’t back up my views, it does a good job of showing both sides of the picture. I appreciate articles like that.
So I was right about the 405 and I was right about cars getting safer. You want to acknowledge that? If not I can only assume you misinterpreted what I said or you’re just shut off to facts and don’t care either way.
No I am right on the 405 argument as well. It did reduce the rush hour window.
Even Metro, who is notoriously biased towards rail transit over freeway expansion has said there are great benefits. The only reason the 405 issue became such a big star in the New York Time ran a campaign ad against it targeting the same type of people that would be against the Second Ave. Subway in NYC. Shocker for you I’m sure, I support the Second Ave. subway and its future phases.
I’ll outline the benefits and give a link to the source in my next response for you.
Okay Expert blocker, your article about car crashes has nothing to do with my statement of new cars being safer which they are.
That has to do with the number of crashes. Ironically enough that information doesn’t help your argument as more and more cities have been lowering speed limits, reducing lanes, placing more emphasis on pedestrians in the name of safety and traffic deaths have gone up. Interesting.
Even though one could argue that has more to do with driving going up, it can also point to these investments in pedestrian oriented design don’t do much to protect pedestrians or reduce fatalities.
My statement “Cars are getting safer and safer at high speed crashes.” is not wrong.
I am right: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/automatic-braking-is-making-cars-the-safest-theyve-ever-been-2016-3
Loan defaults are hitting record numbers in general. Nice spin your trying to pull there. My point towards record number of driving miles and 80% of new homes sales being suburban speak for themselves.
Man where do I even start with you.
I guess I’ll have to start with the obsurd New York City comparison which is a city that almost no city in the US even comes close to in terms of urban density.
NYC is like that because they don’t have a choice. It’s the main city in the United States. Of course it’s going to be super dense and transit oriented though they should do more to accommodate cars, imo. So you’re argument with that is that because NYC is like that, Los Angeles should be too? Not to mention the recent massive road construction projects that ironically enough are dwarfed in cost by the improvements in mass transit. Need I mention the multi billion dollar 2 mile expansion of the second Ave. subway.
I’ll read the articles and get back with you on those.
Really? How long do you think it will hold without repairs?
…car loan defaults are hitting record numbers…
https://qz.com/913093/car-loans-in-the-us-have-hit-record-levels-and-delinquencies-are-rising-fast-too/
“For example the 405 argument. That widening did a ton of good. Reduced rush hour gridlock for hours compared to what it was before hand. Not to mention the 100,000 plus people that moved into the region while it was undergoing expansion”
Wrong. http://www.laweekly.com/news/11-billion-and-five-years-later-the-405-congestion-relief-project-is-a-fail-5415772
“No, let’s just throw the induced demand argument as if new cars magically sprouted up out of nowhere.”
Sorry, but metro areas actually grow in population. The new comers will CHOOSE the most convenient option for getting around. Most commuters in NYC get around via mass transit because it is the only robust transit system in the US.
“Cars are getting safer and safer at high speed crashes.”
Wrong. http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/
“The government did its job by giving one a better and wider freeway and if it’s packed again, when the funds come it’s time widen it even more.”
Yes, let’s throw more tax payer money at something that doesn’t solve what it claims to do, ie reduce congestion. Great idea there.
I thought you didn’t care about the cost? All of a sudden it’s an issue?
Explain why the the land values are lower next to the freeway in the very towns and neighobrhoods you’re pointing out.
Explain why you are up-voting your own comments.
Man you’re going after the Indiana Toll Road? Might as well point out the TxDOT fiasco. Things happen. A company would go bankrupt trying to pull a profit from Amtrak. That was doomed to fail from the beginning. Again, I have to go but I’ll respond to this later.
I’ll response to your inaccurate and quite frankly completely off based posts in response to BOB2 because you’re pulling numbers that are skewed and don’t show the whole picture.
I don’t know what happened to my last comment to you. It has magically disappeared. Amazing.
No. The freeways aren’t telling people how to live. Naturally car based transit will require more space and the benefits are ten fold that of mass transit.
Being as the majority choose to drive, being as the urban lifestyle exists yet people choose not to live it, being that the BRIC countries are pushing more towards auto based transit, being that car sales are hitting record numbers, suburban home sales are hitting record numbers, and all of that while the urban lifestyle is still hitting a boom yet is still dwarfed by the suburban growth, yes, I will say with great confidence people want the suburbs over the urban living experience.
I completely agree with you. This tunnel needs to be built.
Trains can go faster than automobile at about 10 times the cost. How much would it be to build high speed mag lev instead of the expo line rail?
So you think Beverly Hills is the way it is today because there isn’t a freeway next to it? So explain Calabasas… explain Highland Park in Dallas… explain every major wealthy area that is located next to a freeway.
The road will not need massive reinvestment in 25-30 years. Now you’re just flat out spreading misinformation.
Then with that being said I won’t even waste my time arguing with you anymore because our views are so far apart. I completely disagree that Pasadena is empty and it is nothing close to empty. You saying it is empty is an opinion. Me saying it is not is a fact because it is occupied by 150 thousand people.
“We would never build a freeway through Beverly Hills, it’s not necessary.”
Except that CA 2 was supposed to go threw BH in the early 70’s and they stood up to it much like the west SGV cities are standing up to the 710 expansion. Take a guess as to why BH is such a desirable place to live today.
“Connecting, and completing the 710 as it was originally envisioned is essential to making So.Cal less of a traffic nightmare to all of us who use the freeway system.”
It’ll make it more of a traffic nightmare. Search and read up on induced demand and induced traffic. The only opposition to the idea is the CATO institute BS that some commenters in this thread seem to believe or possibly work for.
“I don’t have three hours to travel on a metro train and bus, each way, everyday that I work.”
If you really feel that way, then I guess you’re on board to increase transit funding. Trains can go faster than an automobile.
I do not claim that the traffic will “magically disappear from doing nothing”. I am simply pointing out that you want other people to pay for your project.
50 years is too long because the road will need massive reinvestment in 20-30 years. So by the time you pay it off, your scheme will be deeper in debt than when it started.
Also the claim that drivers will be willing to pay the toll is extremely doubtful.
And if the best arguments you can muster are puerile insults, you must not have any good arguments.
And you accuse me of making accusations? Who said induced demand was about economics? Still waiting for that answer by the way…
I must confess, that prior to learning it from you, I was completely unaware that there was a Pulitzer awarded for economics…… Oh wait, when you actually look it up, that there isn’t a Pulitzer for economics……?
And, this economic “finding” which somehow proves that the theory of induced demand and documents it from observed travel behavior, from a biography which I’ve actually read, and is very fascinating, but has an openly anti-highway editorial bias, was peer reviewed, as to it’s authors economic methodology and findings, by which economic organization and/or academic publication? Did the Pulitzer committee do that? I doubt it.
You’re an amazing specimen of the incredibly predictable intellectual reasoning of the” true believer” mentality, when your beliefs are challenged by those inconvenient pesky contradictory facts. You grasp and clutch at whatever you can grab to justify and maintain your belief system, including attacking not the arguments but legitimacy of those who create a cognitive confusion in your belief system, just as our modern understanding of behavioral psychology would predict. Which make folks like you, just like Trump.. And, like “the Donald”. you’re also so easy to goad…
So is it true or not? What did you sign off on the numbers for? Are you afraid to answer?
Oh by the way, apparently induced demand has been an accepted theory since the 1930’s. Robert A. Caro won a Pulitzer for his biography of Robert Moses with the book “The Power Broker” where he describes how induced demand worked in NYC during the Moses era. You seem to be impressed by awards. Where are yours for your research?
Yep, you’re becoming emotional, and haven no real answers to any of the points I made, and now attack my credibility exactly because you are an emotionally driven, “true believer” in your existential “cause”. Because it’s become pretty clear that you really don’t have any factual arguments on which to base your opinion, and only deal in “soundbites” you’ve “heard” form the rest of the No 719 herd, which can’t seem to refute the key points I’ve made………. And, you’re getting very boring, with your usual line of ad hominem horse pucky……………..Ta-ta!
Wow, you seem to know me so well after a couple of posts. Do you gain so much knowledge about everything so quickly? So you’re a transportation economist? You mean one of those guys who greatly exaggerates traffic numbers to secure a bigger pot of financing and loans? You said you ran numbers for the project and had to sign off on them? It sounds like you have a big stake on whether or not the tunnel project gets approved.
You can spare me the condescending portions of your ranks. I’m not impressed.
So you want an example that’s more local? What happened to the South Bay Expressway? But that’s way down there in San Diego, that doesn’t count right?
I think you’ve managed to categorize yourself quite well, by your own line of sophistry….
Yes, I have heard of induced demand, and I have heard of suppressed demand, and I’ve heard of fail over and capacity loss from excess demand, and I’ve taken my calculus series and been internationally published and peer reviewed as a transportation economist, and the evidence of much “induced demand” in highly congested urban areas, like LA, is largely a myth. Folks don’t drive in LA traffic for the “pfarfegnuggin” (Volkswagen’s famous “joy of driving”).
Most folks just have to go to their job, get to school, or meet with clients, or go to their doctor, or take the kids to the zoo, or visit aunt Minnie, or a thousand other things they may choose to do in a free and mobile society. People drive for the utility they derive from access to another place, where they may conduct personal or business activities. And, more mobility does allow for folks to do that more efficiently, and at less cost. And, thus, the theory that this “induces more demand”. But, while it sounds good, there is little evidence for it in well developed and/or highly congested networks.
Most folks do not choose to suddenly and impulsively go out and drive, because there is suddenly available capacity, as this theory of induced demand imply, which we don’t seem to observe much at 3 a.m. when we have enough capacity for all of that spontaneous urge to drive…..
What I also understand is that when the 20% or more of the trips on the 210 in the pm peaks. are going to get to the 605 to access points south, that this extra traffic will lead to “fail over” when stop and go driving actually reduces freeway flow capacity from free flow 1800+ vehicles per lane per hour, to 1100 per hour as speed fall from above 55 mph, down to 20 mph. (as they do every day of the week now for up to 7 or 8 hours per day), that we also get huge spillover traffic in Pasadena on our parallel east west streets, that would be relieved if we built the 710 tunnel.
I also have the mathematical skills required to “know” that when I look at the travel forecasts with and without this missing link, that I see tens of thousands of daily trips that have to go out the 210 and down the 605, adding 23 miles, and a minimum of 23 more minutes, not to mention the additional gallon of fuel, and just over 19 pounds (8.8 KG for those who do real science) of CO2 to the atmosphere, for a conventional gasoline vehicle, to connect to any point southwest of this location, including nearly all of any location in South LA, all of Orange, San Diego, and most of Riverside County.
Shorter travel times, shorter travel distances, less energy consumption for gasoline powered vehicles, more range for electric vehicles, less future impacts to the 210, less traffic on our local streets, less CO2 in the atmosphere…..and, you would argue that this would all be just awful, right?
I’ve done extensive work on road pricing, and all I can say, is the willingness of folks to pay substantial sums to save time in traffic in LA is well documented, and has little to do with the economics of a rural Indiana road.. Maybe, a project like the 91 toll lanes, right here locally, that seem to attract a lot of users despite some mighty steep tolls, might just be a little better example……?
So much for flimsy “gainsay” arguments, and more of the same line of sophistry…….. ad nauseam……
So who is it that’s blowing smoke where? What would be so liberal about any of your points, you’re just about as anti-science as Trump, only unlike him, the soundbites you’ve “heard”, chosen to “believe”, and now seem to parrot, came from raving No 710 Nimby’s, and not Faux…. That’s really the only difference.
How did the “numbers” work out for the Indiana Toll road? The owners couldn’t even cover the cost of maintenance.
So your idea to relieve traffic congestion is to add more traffic? How did that work out for the recent 405 expansion? Perhaps you’ve never heard of induced demand.
You seem to be trying to categorize all the anti-highway opponents into Nimby’s and liberal elitists for some reason. Sounds like it’s your own head that’s way up there.
I actually ran some of these numbers for the 2nd largest private funder of highway tunnels in the world. I had to sign off on confidentiality….so you can do the math yourself.
And, no, almost nothing we do in our complex societies is ever completely guaranteed to spontaneously occur, so sometimes we have to get off of our increasingly lazy and spoiled rear ends, and actually take action to make things happen.
I will “guarantee” that the 210 and Pasadena traffic will suck today, it is a fact. I can tell you that up to 90% of trips generated from some of the new million dollar each condo projects in hip and cool downtown Pasadena will continue to drive their Prius,, Leafs, or really hip Tesla’s…..on our gridlocked streets and freeways.
Trump denies global warming, and the anti 710 Nimby mob somehow seem to believe that traffic will magically disappear. I find it interesting that both Trump and these Nimby’s seem to share the same fact free universe, based on whatever credulous nonsense that they’ve “heard” from the loudest shouting Nimby fool in the room or Faux News, not on easily observable facts or good peer reviewed science.
So maybe it’s really just you, getting way up in there, way too close and personal for my tastes, with that blowing smoke……?
The freeway tunnel will be privately financed? Someone is blowing a bunch of smoke up your ass. Tolling isn’t even guaranteed yet.
You can’t finance a 5 billion dollar investment over 50 years? I can do it using variable peak and off peak toll rates to assure free flow, with an 8% return on equity to the investors.
Of course, you need to realize that the toll would be collected from 220,000 users per day, 365 days per year, for 50 years……, 1/3 of those vehicle trips coming off of the gridlocked 210, and 100,000 of those trips coming off of our gridlocked local streets…..
And, using this kind of sophistry is evidence of what, other than your credulity, and apparent poor math skills?