Talk:Interstate 710 and State Route 710 (California)

U.S. Roads: Interstates / California B‑class High‑importance

	U.S. roads portal This article is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Topics	Interstate Highways
Locations	California
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
	This article has a map. If the file has an error, please work with the Maps department to correct it.
	This article may or may not contain a junction list. Please check, then add `\|needs-jctint=` to this template accordingly.
	This article does not have a KML file. Please work with the Maps department to create and add a file for this article.

California B‑class High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in California may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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:

Exit #1 is designated as Anaheim Street, thus I assume that this is currently the highway's official southern terminus. [1]
710 is a "Non-chargable" Interstate route [2]. 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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Major junctions?

Shouldn't I-91 & I-60 also be listed as major junctions? ^Blank ^Verse 17:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In fact the wrong template is used on this page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And the routebox template is per WP:CASH. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]