Good bye mulholland - Page 2

slodave · slodave's Garage

David, I think it is a bit of a logistics issue to repave Mulholland. It is such an artery, that traffic to and from the Valley to the City would come to a stand still. Unfortunately, the road was not designed to handle the type of traffic it sees today. I imagine the city twiddling their thumbs over how to repave an fix Mulholland, without causing major traffic issues. I would not be surprised if they come to the same conclusion each time.... There is no way to repave Mul and keep traffic moving.

My thoughts, who knows...

cl8ton · 02-22-2010, 08:29 PM

Nice drive, too bad…
But hay Arnold is rich and he needs a nice road to wind out his Tesla?

speeder · 02-22-2010, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSB

My intended point (outside of my spelling prowess at o-dark thirty in the AM) being a Mulholland Racer from the '70's, was even if they fix it that corner, it will never be the same (you would have had to have been there).

I've been "there" for close to 30 years and believe me, Mulholland needs serious work these days, even before this last slide. Dave is right about the volume of traffic being heavier than the road was intended for but it's also just age and weather.

slodave · slodave's Garage

Whoops... The weather and age was implied. My bad.

speeder · 02-22-2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

CA is broke and I'm sure fixing a road in the middle of nowhere used by nobody (except some occasional rich weekenders winding out their boy toys) won't exactly be up there on CALTrans' priority list.

Too bad for sure - it was an awesome road. I've driven it many times.

I think that you are confusing the Mulholland in the article to Mulholland in Malibu which is a big weekend playground for sports cars and bikes. The stretch of road mentioned is between Coldwater and Laurel canyons and is used by thousands of commuters a day. It is not bumper-to-bumper by any means but it gets plenty of use.

You really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to L.A., do you?

dd74 · 02-23-2010, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slodave

David, I think it is a bit of a logistics issue to repave Mulholland. It is such an artery, that traffic to and from the Valley to the City would come to a stand still. Unfortunately, the road was not designed to handle the type of traffic it sees today. I imagine the city twiddling their thumbs over how to repave an fix Mulholland, without causing major traffic issues. I would not be surprised if they come to the same conclusion each time.... There is no way to repave Mul and keep traffic moving.

My thoughts, who knows...

Sunset Boulevard near W. Hollywood was closed for repaving. Tom LaBonge's district. He actually oversaw the work. It took about twelve hours, done over the course of a night.

Sure, Mulholland may take longer to repair/repave. But look at it now: it's already closed, and traffic still flows via other arteries. So I can't see how closing it for repair would be any different.

Motorists just need advance warning, or to be stunned once with horrific traffic. They learn afterward to find and take an alternate route.

Repair/repave is totally possible, IMO.

slodave · slodave's Garage

It just happens that the current damage is not at a critical part of Mulholland. You can't just repave that road. At some point, one or more critical areas of Mulholland will collapse and he City will be forced to deal with the problem. Mulholland is at the top of a mountain, mountains erode.