Talk:Interstate 710 and State Route 710 (California)/Archive 1

Interstate 710 history

 * {Copied from User talk:BlankVerse)

I am not sure where to find very good info on some of the Interstate 710's history. Mostly I have been relying on either some of CalTrans documents or http://www.cahighways.org. However, I know that:
 * 1) Exit #1 is designated as Anaheim Street, thus I assume that this is currently the highway's official southern terminus.
 * 2) 710 is a "Non-chargable" Interstate route . It never got federal funding, but is signed as an Interstate to provide continuity and connectivity. Most of 710 is signed as an Interstate because it already passes Interstate standards.
 * 3) But the portion from Hwy 1 South to Ocean Blvd is a type B "Non-chargable" Interstate. That segment technically cannot be signed as an Interstate until its upgraded to Interstate standards.

You can probably find a bit more information at http://www.cahighways.org/505-805.html#710 (Which reminds me, I have to check if the Interstate highway article does mention "chargable" v. "non-chargable" routes). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The part of the 710 from Willow to the terminus was funded, I think, by the Port of Long Beach. If you drive the freeway, you used to be able to see a noticable difference right at Willow, but they have been upgrading that end to Interstate standards so the change isn't as noticable anymore. Blank Verse 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Tunneling
Congress recently approved $2.4 million to study a five-mile, $2-billion tunnel that would help link the Long Beach and Foothill freeways in Pasadena and South Pasadena, and keep 100,000 cars a day off city streets. --Pelladon 23:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think saying the city government has given "grudging assent" to the tunnel proposal is an overly optimistic summary. As far as I know, only one council member has even come as far as agreeing to the tunnel study. This issue is predictably very contentious in the 2007 city council elections.AndyBoySouthPas 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Major junctions?
Shouldn't I-91 & I-60 also be listed as major junctions? Blank Verse 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * a) they're CA-91 and CA-60. b) yes they should but it's part of SPUI's ignoration of consensus that is being discussed at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are already four junctions listed - it's already looking rather long. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 04:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact the wrong template is used on this page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally prefere the cleaner, shorter template that SPUI has used, but it's obvious that he knows nothing about Southern California or he would have used the I-91 istead of the I-105. Blank Verse 13:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not I-91 and I-60, it's CA-91 and CA-60. In fact there is no I-60. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. There's no I-60 at all, and I-91 is on the East Coast.  Please keep in mind that the north-south Interstates generally increase in number as one moves from west to east (any road map will show this).  That's why 5 is on the West Coast and 95 is on the East Coast, and 15, 17, 25, 35, 55, etc. are in between.  Routes 91 and 60 are only state highways and have not been accepted into the Interstate system by AASHTO or USDOT.--Coolcaesar 05:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And the routebox template is per WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * CA SR 60, CA SR 91, CA SR 134 and I-210 should all be listed as major intersections with I-701.Don Williams 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

South Pasadena and Versailles
The paragraph that used to talk about "enchanting" SP that then goes on to compare it to the preservation of Versailles--isn't that really just a little ridiculous? I have no doubt that was written by an opponent of the 710 extension. It is a great example of bathos, and it undermines the credibility not only of the article, but of the position of those who oppose the 710 extension. They deserve better than that. InFairness 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I cut out a few paragraphs on the excessive discussion about other tunnels around the world if that helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the I-710 will ever be extend, amybe not even build a tunnel. People from Pasadena is very upset abot this project, becasue it damages thier communities, and city. Its worse the the 241 South extension in Orange County.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we say the NPOV dispute is finished on the South Pasadena Gap section? I know it needs more citations, but I don't see anything that is either factually incorrect or blatant opinion. If no one objects in a few weeks, I'm going to remove the NPOV section tag. Darkest tree (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and the Need for Citations
I edited the Future section. The section contained opinion, few citations to back up the assertions, and controversial statements. In addition, part of it was not neutral with how it was written.

I deleted some opinion, highlighted where citations are necessary, and removed a dead link that had been cited.

Please pay attention to the neutrality of your writing and provide citations if you wish to restore the deleted text.Geodanny (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In July, I edited the article and highlighted several statements that required citations. In addition, I noted my edits in this discussion area. Today, I followed up by deleting portions of the article dedicated to the South Pasadena Gap that continued to lack citations and that either a) appear disputed or b) taint the article's point of view (e.g. comparisons to Versailles -- the affected areas are better analogized to other suburban areas rather than world treasures. ). Please do not return material without providing citations. You may know more than 90% of us about the disputed highway segment, but please provide citations to back up your assertions so this article remains a reliable source of information regarding the I-710 freeway. Geodanny (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I should also note that I did run a few searches. I deleted information I was not easily able to find a source to support. Geodanny (talk) 12:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I-710 north terminus
Don't I-710 end in Valley Blvd. not I-210? There is no consensus the I-710 will ever be extend at all. The segment between Columbia St. and I-210 is actually spur I-210 Green plate just say to I-210 W, not SR 710 or I-710.-- Freewayguy  Msg USC 00:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The north end of the freeway is Valley Blvd in Alhambra. If you head north on the 710 from Long Beach the freeway ends at Valley. In addition, my understanding is that the section between California and the 210 is not actually part of a designated freeway. Geodanny (talk) 06:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone edited the article to say the freeway ends in L.A. as opposed to Alhambra. That is splitting hairs. The final northern segment between Hellman and Valley is entirely within Alhambra. The portion of Valley where the 710 intersects is within El Sereno. Thus, it terminates in both in Alhambra and in El Sereno. This is based on GIS data from L.A. County: [].

It really isn't worth debating in which city the freeway ends and I think it is better to avoid the debate as much as possible. For example, the Metro/Caltrans technical report for the 710 gap tunnel says the freeway ends near the border between the two cities. "This facility currently extends from its southern terminus in the City of Long Beach to Valley Boulevard, just north of the Interstate 10 (I-10) “San Bernardino” freeway near the boundary between Cities of Los Angeles and Alhambra." [] I've modified the article to follow the Metro/Caltrans approach. I opted to modify the article to say the ongoing 710 gap project is studying how to connect Valley Blvd to Pasadena. If you have an issue with these changes, let's talk about it here. Geodanny (talk) 06:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Official Study
Here's a link to the official January 14, 2013 study: •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  08:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/resources/envdocs/docs/710study/docs/Final_AA_report_2013-01-14_Low_Res.pdf

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Interstate 710. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060424144455/http://members.cox.net:80/mkpl2/hist/droz-laca42.jpg to http://members.cox.net/mkpl2/hist/droz-laca42.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051228101334/http://www.dot.ca.gov:80/dist07/aboutdist7/pubs/00achieve/2000%20Achievements.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/aboutdist7/pubs/00achieve/2000%20Achievements.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060517025738/http://laforum.org:80/forum_issue_0/the_life_and_death_of_great_american_freeways_the_710_case_study to http://laforum.org/forum_issue_0/the_life_and_death_of_great_american_freeways_the_710_case_study

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Interstate 710. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060517025738/http://laforum.org/forum_issue_0/the_life_and_death_of_great_american_freeways_the_710_case_study to http://laforum.org/forum_issue_0/the_life_and_death_of_great_american_freeways_the_710_case_study

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 710. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034335/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/Named_Freeways.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014034331/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=250-257

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Interstate 710. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006110038/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635 to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=shc&group=00001-01000&file=300-635
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212102023/http://www.fixtraffic.org/ to http://www.fixtraffic.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Route 7 markings still present on the current routing of Route 710
I am wondering if the Northern stub should technically be a concurrency with Route 710 and Route 7 since some post-mile markers indicate as such. Technically even if a route is not legislatively defined as a route as long as the route has not been relinquished to local authorities the route still exists as an unrelinquished portion of the highway system, as is evident with SR 14U and SR 103U. Now I'm wondering what the general consensus within this community is. Is the Route only CA 710? Or is CA 710 and CA 7U? Or just CA 710 and CA 7?

Here are the links to the images of the post-miles Route 710 Route 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Just chalk it up to Caltrans (especially District 7 there in the LA area) either being lazy, indifferent, having financial constraints, or whatever reason they have not removed/updated those postmile markers. Route 7 is now in Holtville and Calexico. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)