[Note: Today I’ve actually been home sick with a bad headache… luckily, it finally seems to be abating. nsshere is also home sick — some form of fever, occasionally dizzyness — which seems to be something going around. So it’s been a fun day.]
In my last post, I presented the five alternatives that Caltrans offered for the I-405 NB HOV lane. It seems a lot of folks are choosing some alternatives that I think are problematic. Let’s explore the alternatives in more detail…
Alternative 1: No Build. Caltrans has to legally put this in, but I don’t think it will go anywhere. The stretch between the valley and West LA is already one of the most congested, and when currently initiated construction is completed, will be the only NB segment without HOV lanes between Orange County and Santa Clarita. SB already has completed HOV lanes “over the hill”, and will soon be complete to the southern I-5 junction.
Alternative 2: The widening of the existing facility to add a northbound HOV lane. From observations from driving, this is the most cost effective option. A few buildings might need to be taken, and some hills will need to be cut with retaining walls, but that should be it. There shouldn’t be the need to tear apart and rebuild significant recent work.
Alternative 3: The widening of the existing facility to add a northbound HOV lane and restore southbound freeway lane and shoulder widths to current design standards. This is one scare tactic option, for it involves widening the SB side as well. In doing so, at least an additional 10 ft will be required, meaning taking out major structures on the SB side, as well as ripping apart work that was done very recently. I don’t see this as cost effective, and I don’t believe there is a major problem with the 11 ft vs. 12 ft lanes.
Alternative 4: The widening of the existing facility to provide for four HOV lanes (two each, both northbound and southbound) on an elevated viaduct, within the freeway median. This one makes absolutely no sense. Yes, it is building more. But note the “elevated viaduct”. As this won’t run the entire length of the 405, whereever it does touch down, there will be a choke point. Further, it will require significant widening at the ingress and egress points. It will also require destruction of the existing SB HOV lanes during construction (waste of money), which will make traffic significantly worse for a long time. It will require reconstruction of numerous bridges — in particular, the Mulholland Overpass. Lastly, it will be extremely ugly.
Alternative 5: Transit Enhancement Alternative. This would involve design features that would facilitate increased transit use in the corridor. This one is vague about its intent. What do they mean: bike lanes? bus lanes? If they are referring to the construction of light rail, that could be good, but it depends to what that rail connects. Likely, it won’t have the flexibility to serve the bulk of the commuters. It also won’t meet the intent of the legislators or the FHWA, which wanted additional HOV lanes. More detail is needed on this one.
This is why I think the only true viable alternative is a simple HOV lane. The others are there simply to provoke discussion, but I believe they are there to provoke negative discussion. I’m not 100% sure that Caltrans wants these lanes — the MTA does, and commuters do — and this could be a way of creating negative public sentiment. It’s been done before.
P.S.: In terms of other polls, cats and cheese are currently tied.
