Many on-ramps have the driver come to a complete stop, and then have to wait for a break in traffic to "floor" it (punch the accelator all the way to the floor.) There are no modern on-ramps/off-ramps, and the transition to I-5 is one lane, which always backs up, because it seems like its there like an after-thought. How hard woudld it be to redo the transition, so that there would be 2 lanes to the 5? What a novel concept!! The CA 110 (Pasadena Fwy) is stuck in time, regardless of how fast cars go or how many people drive it a day.
2006-07-18 09:13:44 · 6 answers · asked by Nathan 1 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Commuting
Because California hates us.
2006-07-18 09:17:00 · answer #1 · answered by David G 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well being the first freeway built in California, they weren't expecting that much traffic.
To answer your question, I'm sorry to say that modernized (as in adding more lanes) may just be out of the questions. The lack of space to widen is out as there are many homes and streets that lie right next to the freeway. To widen, would mean to likely eliminate those houses. Also, the community of South Pasadena (which the Pasadena freeway lies mostly in) STRONGLY objects to freeway widening (because of the Sound). (Which is why the 710 isn't going to be continued all the way up to Pasadena).
The biggest reason is the lack of a California highway budget. With the California fiscal budget in already bad shape and LA mayor Villaragosa using the money to fill potholes, I'm sorry to say that the 110 will not be updated or modernized in our lifetime.
The good part of driving that freeway is probably the scenery and view in my opinion.
2006-07-18 19:30:57 · answer #2 · answered by MrSkagen 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is like that because there is to much traffic to just have people merge in to a lane + most dont know what a yield sign is and even if it was a new ramp it would still have a yield sign on so if there was any traffic coming you would have to stop any way and there is more to making a 1 lane road in to a 2 lane road there is just to much traffic to do it cause it isnt a job that is just gonna take a month or 2 it will take years and the cost of materials is so high now ( i.e. asphalt , concret , gravel, etc.) that it would cost more today to add a land and redo on & off ramps that it would cost more then they spent on they whole highway plus i have been to califonia and drove to and from cali and from what i have noticed it doesnt seem to bother to many people any they just shoot right out in to traffic plus it is better to wait for a break and punch it then it is to rick getting hit by another car isnt it ?
2006-07-19 03:33:19 · answer #3 · answered by rjm_333 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 110 is one of the original LA freeways built back in the day. The right of way is narrow passing through a canyon for much of the Pasadena end, and the cost to widen and improve the roadway would be staggering.
Not that 110 desparately needs updating, I just think the costs are prohibitive.
2006-07-18 16:19:34 · answer #4 · answered by MattCan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just be glad that you live in Ca. I lived there for 20 years and now I live in Va where they have NO CLUE how to build freeways. They don't even call them freeways. They call them interstates, lame.
2006-07-18 16:18:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ugggggg can you imagine the traffic if they did?!?
Not that I disagree that it needs it badly.
To answer Brad..... we also have interstates. (5 for example)
2006-07-18 16:18:52 · answer #6 · answered by Lindy357 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋