New thread for general California observations.
I'll begin with a column from the Sacramento Bee lamenting the slow down of highway construction in California over the past several decades, calling out the gap in SR 65, the gap in I-710 (SR 710), and the US 101 Eureka bypass.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article76114332.html
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
Dan Walters has been writing political analyses & columns for the Sacramento Bee for as long as I can remember; he was certainly doing so as a young reporter during the heyday of freeway construction during the later years of the Pat Brown gubernatorial administration ('59-'67). He's pretty much an "old-fashioned liberal", preferring projects that benefit the larger population rather than directed toward one contingent or another, regardless of any perception of being aggrieved. Excoriated on the right as a "tax-and-spend" proponent; and likewise on the left as insensitive & out of touch, he's been carrying on for about 50 years with no sign of slowing -- and there's hardly anyone who knows better how California government -- including the individual agencies -- really functions. I read his column every time it's published on the Bee website; and I'm certainly not surprised to see him tackle the issue of underfunded highway development.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment. Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route? Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59. Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway. I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness. I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one. I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs. It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks. But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens. But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida. Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.
I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage. Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time. California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment. Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route? Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59. Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway. I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness. I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one. I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs. It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks. But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens. But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida. Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.
I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage. Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time. California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built. However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing. We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.
I think one thing people forget -- especially people on the east coast -- is how big this state is. Driving I-5, from the southern to the northern border, without traffic, is at least a 10-12 hour drive (I know we did LA to Berkeley in about 5 hours). Going E - W is still about 4 hours, longer if you are crossing the Sierras or the deserts. That's a lot of road miles to maintain, many in areas that are expensive to maintain. Our maintenance workers and dollars are stretched to their limits.
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 20, 2016, 07:59:47 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 20, 2016, 04:31:06 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment. Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route? Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59. Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 10:06:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 20, 2016, 12:55:19 AM
I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway. I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness. I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one. I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs. It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks. But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens. But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida. Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.
I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage. Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time. California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built. However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing. We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.
I'm mainly just talking maintaining/improving theroutes that exist, not building something new that would plow through some lying Sierra foothills that isn't needed. Really the northern 65 ought to just be renumbered and call it a day. There is a surplus already that could be used for more road maintenance funding, things are certainly way better at least economically than they were when there was all that talk about shuttering most of the state parks. You already know my thoughts on a road usage tax....pretty hard to justify something like that with the income and gas taxes being as high as they are.
I think this thread provides an opportunity for me to provide some background on how Caltrans is funded. I see several people have issues with how my employer operates. But if you were to understand the funding constraints, you might be a little more understanding as to why we don't do all the things you think we should do.
Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California. This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties. The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects. There are some other splits and limitations that I won't get into here. But in essence, the counties dictate to Caltrans what projects will be built.
The primary source for transportation funding here is, like most other places, the excise tax on fuel. However, close to half of the State's counties have local sales taxes that are used for transportation. Combine that resource with their share of the STIP and that gives them a lot of leverage.
The STIP is used to fund road widening and major improvements. Another fund, also paid for out of the fuel excise tax, is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These funds are used to cover maintenance needs and operational improvements. SHOPP funds cannot be used to widen roads. Caltrans controls the SHOPP, and those funds can be mixed with STIP funds to address multiple needs in one project.
Here in California, the fuel excise tax has not been raised in more than 20 years. During that time, as vehicles have become more fuel efficient, people are filling up less, so there's less money coming into the coffers. And inflation has reduced the buying power of those dollars over time.
With limited funding, and restrictions on the funds it has available, Caltrans cannot do all that it would. It's been estimated that there's about $58 billion in unmet transportation needs in this State. In the past, there have been general obligation bonds that have helped fund improvements, but those bonds have been issued and so that resource is gone. The ARRA (Obama stimulus) funds are gone too. Given this bleak picture, the California Transportation Commission made severe cuts to the STIP a few months back. This affected both Caltrans' and the counties' shares. In fact, there's been talk from time to time of not funding the STIP at all and putting everything into SHOPP.
The system is broke and while a fuel excise tax increase might bring some additional funds in the short term, it still won't work in the long term given the federal mandates for improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The counties can cover some things with their sales taxes and at least two counties that I know of plan to put ballot measures up in November for additional sales taxes on top of what they already have. But it will never be enough. The issues with the excise tax are why there's the push for a road use charge as a replacement. I'm participating in the pilot and I am very interested in seeing what it leads to.
Bottom line - we don't have much to spend, and so we have to prioritize accordingly.
iPhone
Joe - The one thing this bbs lacks is a like button. Well said. I don't think most people understand how government funding and processes work. I support the DoD, and I see that all the time.
Quote from: jrouse on July 20, 2016, 10:29:53 PM
I think this thread provides an opportunity for me to provide some background on how Caltrans is funded. I see several people have issues with how my employer operates. But if you were to understand the funding constraints, you might be a little more understanding as to why we don't do all the things you think we should do.
Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California. This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties. The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects. There are some other splits and limitations that I won't get into here. But in essence, the counties dictate to Caltrans what projects will be built.
The primary source for transportation funding here is, like most other places, the excise tax on fuel. However, close to half of the State's counties have local sales taxes that are used for transportation. Combine that resource with their share of the STIP and that gives them a lot of leverage.
The STIP is used to fund road widening and major improvements. Another fund, also paid for out of the fuel excise tax, is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These funds are used to cover maintenance needs and operational improvements. SHOPP funds cannot be used to widen roads. Caltrans controls the SHOPP, and those funds can be mixed with STIP funds to address multiple needs in one project.
Here in California, the fuel excise tax has not been raised in more than 20 years. During that time, as vehicles have become more fuel efficient, people are filling up less, so there's less money coming into the coffers. And inflation has reduced the buying power of those dollars over time.
With limited funding, and restrictions on the funds it has available, Caltrans cannot do all that it would. It's been estimated that there's about $58 billion in unmet transportation needs in this State. In the past, there have been general obligation bonds that have helped fund improvements, but those bonds have been issued and so that resource is gone. The ARRA (Obama stimulus) funds are gone too. Given this bleak picture, the California Transportation Commission made severe cuts to the STIP a few months back. This affected both Caltrans' and the counties' shares. In fact, there's been talk from time to time of not funding the STIP at all and putting everything into SHOPP.
The system is broke and while a fuel excise tax increase might bring some additional funds in the short term, it still won't work in the long term given the federal mandates for improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The counties can cover some things with their sales taxes and at least two counties that I know of plan to put ballot measures up in November for additional sales taxes on top of what they already have. But it will never be enough. The issues with the excise tax are why there's the push for a road use charge as a replacement. I'm participating in the pilot and I am very interested in seeing what it leads to.
Bottom line - we don't have much to spend, and so we have to prioritize accordingly.
iPhone
Wow that's a lot to type on a iPhone....yikes. Anyways, my issue isn't with Caltrans operates it's with how Caltrans is funded versus how it COULD be funded. You mentioned some excellent points like local sales tax increases to help prioritize corridors that counties or localities may want help on quicker. I know the issue isn't as straight forward as many other states given the high volume of routes maintained at the state level rather than county or locality. Personally I would prefer some of the recent surplus be earmarked for highway improvements along with a increase (despite what I said earlier) in the gas tax, sales taxes or even corporate taxes....multi-pronged across the board that hits as many places as possible with a wide distribution. I know that tends to be a dirty word these days....."tax increases" but for me I would greatly prefer something like that to reinvest into infrastructure in general than say a usage tax which Scott has been touting like crazy in these threads. The problem goes back to what others have said....apathy...in the legislature and in the general public for which anything infrastructure (including roads) has generally fallen out of favor. So the question is...how to promote such a push for funding increases?...is it even possible in this modern climate when things like High Speed Rail are going to get much more positive reactions out of people? Even in states like Arizona and Nevada where there is this huge push to get a new Interstate like I-11 going you get a crap ton of push back from people when you tell them their taxes are going to increase. That's how the whole idea of a tolled I-11 came up and honestly given the brush back that those DOTs had it really isn't a bad idea.
I guess for me personally a usage fee just has too many questions associated with privacy concerns versus a more conventional means of generating revenue. The problem you run into with general tax increases be it gas, sales, property or commercial is you get just as much if not more push back from the parties involved. But then again, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has historically driven 30,000 to 80,000 miles a year throughout his adult life. There is actually an interesting thread in the General Section basically on highway usage taxes that I haven't opined on yet. Yes taxes need to be increased for funding general, I would just prefer that everyone get affected as about equally as possible. Then again I don't know why I'm so invested in the topic considering on my 9th state and likely I'll be on the 10th in the next three years. Anyways here is the thread from the General Section:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=18419.0
Quote from: jrouse on July 20, 2016, 10:29:53 PM
Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California. This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties. The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects.
From here at NYSDOT, I can't believe this insanity. NYSDOT thinks it already gives the locals/MPOs too much power and believes many other states dictate to counties/municipalities/MPOs what they will do in the STIP process. Never knew there was a state stupid enough to actually give them more power than NYSDOT does! :wow:
(personal opinion emphasized)
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already? It used to irritate me when I lived there, but now, not so much, and in fact, I can accept that the gap in South Pasadena may never be filled in.
Quote from: Henry on July 21, 2016, 11:10:08 AM
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?
Napoleon, like anyone could even know that.
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 11:40:38 AM
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?
Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 11:55:55 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 11:40:38 AM
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?
Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino.
I'm assuming it still exists, california is terrible at signing surface street state roads.
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Henry on July 21, 2016, 11:10:08 AM
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?
nothing new for above-ground routings is going to be built for the most part. That's not news and hasn't been since the 105 project was finished ca. 1993. (The tollways are in Orange County and even then 241 isn't going to reach 5 for the most part)
LA Metro has multiple light rail lines, several rapid bus lines (Silver Line in particular) and the two subway lines but the subway has only recently been given a green light to expand a modest distance west. There's no money to expand it any further than that. Light rail is a bit more flexible but also takes years to get anything done (LAX/Crenshaw for instance).
So there's no "enough" for infrastructure out there, only mitigating what existing traffic will be there regardless. That isn't to say that capacity increases don't make a difference: I-5 through Orange County at its widest is certainly more effective at traffic flow than the narrow portion through Norwalk (which is being expanded in a multi-year project).
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
The CA 66 signage at the CA 83 interchange has been there at least since the mid-80's; I remember first seeing it on a business trip down there circa 1984 or so. When I worked in Ontario in the early 2000's, my bank was on that corner, so I can attest that the signage was intact back then -- in fact, somewhere around 2005 or so there were actually square signs with printed green "spade" shields for both CA 66 and CA 83 posted westbound on CA 66/Foothill Blvd. at that time. Never took a picture of them; was always in a hurry during lunch break (missed opportunity). My immediate thoughts were that (a) the jigs for making cutout shields were starting to deteriorate, or (b) someone in District 8 got the bright idea to follow MUTCD specs to the letter! Sure would be nice if someone who had time to do so would have some pix of these shields -- I can't recall that square shield signage was duplicated anywhere else!
Re any future freeway development in greater L.A.: The CA 71 upgrade through Pomona is likely to be the last full freeway built in metro LA unless there's a significant change in regional transportation priorities -- and I don't see that occurring in the foreseeable future.
Quote from: djsekani on July 21, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
I'll have to look when I get home but I'm fairly certain the 66 I've seen was at H Street and 5th Street in San Bernardino.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: djsekani on July 21, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 21, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 11:57:36 AM
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
I'll have to look when I get home but I'm fairly certain the 66 I've seen was at H Street and 5th Street in San Bernardino.
And I was right:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.10833,-117.3006181,3a,75y,270h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sF7AORwpJpRtBiaYKb7CpLA!2e0!5s20120401T000000!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Only problem is that the last time it's seen is in April of 2012...what a freaking shame. :no:
Recently drove SR 66 and the only remaining shield is that one on the corner of Euclid. That sign was installed by the city of Upland fairly recently, IIRC. Sometime after the new Vons center was built on the northwest corner. Just before Upland requested, and received, relinquishment of both SR 66 and SR 83.
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago. They also just installed new guidance signs for I-15 in Rancho Cucamonga showing SR 66 spades for northbound traffic. Southbound doesn't have them for some reason. I believe the bridge log and pylons still have this marked as 15/66 Separation. Mile Markers and bridge pylons were also removed from LA County despite still being state maintained through La Verne and Pomona. Only two cities still have some posted: Upland and San Bernardino (SB portion is also still state maintained).
Quote from: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.
LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
I can agree with what you said here, even though I've hardly ever driven in California, and have just barely scratched the surface of this state's roads. I haven't really driven enough of the state to comment on the quality of the signs, but I do agree that there are places where you have no idea what the speed limit is. An example is that you are on a highway through a rural area, then you enter a town or something and the speed limit gets decreased to, say, 50 mph. Then, after you get through the town, there's a sign saying "END 50 MPH" and it doesn't ever tell you what the new speed limit is. An example can be found here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8440231,-123.9640335,3a,33.2y,129.37h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stuyt38SjKHSmGj_uW_v2WA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) (and also there's also at least one in Oregon on a county road north of Pacific City, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2230146,-123.9691474,3a,75y,23.91h,79.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl7ITsz8unxYNDpft3s0Ngw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)). This is literally
the dumbest sign in the world!!! It's a waste of metal. It doesn't tell you what new speed to drive at; all it tells you is what the old speed limit was, and nobody cares about that. I've never seen any of those stupid signs here in Washington where I live, so thank God I don't have to cringe at them on a daily basis. Sorry for the rant, but those signs are a BIG pet peeve of mine.
The reason that there are few 55 MPH signs in California is because, by state law, the speed limit on many rural roadways is 55 MPH (unless otherwise posted). Thus, when you see an "END 50 MPH" sign, the implication of that sign is that the speed reverts to 55 MPH. This practice is common on older roadways (say, those built prior to the 1960's) and can even appear on freeways (like on southbound CA 1 at Ocean Street in Santa Cruz).
However, I agree with you that not having 55 MPH signs creates ambiguity for drivers as to what the speed limit truly is. Ambiguity is NOT a good thing for drivers, as it can lead to inattention (while pondering the sign's message), and thus can cause collisions. Yet at the basis of the speed laws in California is a belief that drivers will adjust their speed to the conditions of the road, e.g. if a road has no shoulders, the law assumes that drivers will routinely reduce their speed accordingly. In my experience, this is occurring less and less frequently.
Note: The other two cases in California where an unsigned roadway has an unsigned speed limit are 1) local streets (such as those in neighborhoods), and 2) streets through denser business districts (such as a traditional downtown); in both cases, the speed limits are 25 MPH by state law.
Quote from: mapman on July 22, 2016, 01:35:49 AM
The reason that there are few 55 MPH signs in California is because, by state law, the speed limit on many rural roadways is 55 MPH (unless otherwise posted). Thus, when you see an "END 50 MPH" sign, the implication of that sign is that the speed reverts to 55 MPH. This practice is common on older roadways (say, those built prior to the 1960's) and can even appear on freeways (like on southbound CA 1 at Ocean Street in Santa Cruz).
However, I agree with you that not having 55 MPH signs creates ambiguity for drivers as to what the speed limit truly is. Ambiguity is NOT a good thing for drivers, as it can lead to inattention (while pondering the sign's message), and thus can cause collisions. Yet at the basis of the speed laws in California is a belief that drivers will adjust their speed to the conditions of the road, e.g. if a road has no shoulders, the law assumes that drivers will routinely reduce their speed accordingly. In my experience, this is occurring less and less frequently.
Note: The other two cases in California where an unsigned roadway has an unsigned speed limit are 1) local streets (such as those in neighborhoods), and 2) streets through denser business districts (such as a traditional downtown); in both cases, the speed limits are 25 MPH by state law.
I think that is referred to as a prima facie speed limit.
I would say the "End xx" signs are more common than the actual speed limit signs in California outside of cities. Any undivided, non-residential road is 55mph unless otherwise specified. So you mostly see speed limit signs in urban areas. You can find all the speed limits laid out in the California Vehicle Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=22001-23000&file=22348-22366
Prima facie seems to be common in Europe. When I was in Latvia a couple of months ago, that's all they had. I don't recall them ever signing the default speed limits, including when you entered into a town and that prima facie limit dropped to 50kmh. When you saw the town sign, you were supposed to slow down, and were supposed to speed back up when you saw the town sign with an "X" across it. It was weird. The only way I knew was that my GPS had the limits mapped out.
Quote from: compdude787 on July 22, 2016, 12:56:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 20, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
I can agree with what you said here, even though I've hardly ever driven in California, and have just barely scratched the surface of this state's roads. I haven't really driven enough of the state to comment on the quality of the signs, but I do agree that there are places where you have no idea what the speed limit is. An example is that you are on a highway through a rural area, then you enter a town or something and the speed limit gets decreased to, say, 50 mph. Then, after you get through the town, there's a sign saying "END 50 MPH" and it doesn't ever tell you what the new speed limit is. An example can be found here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8440231,-123.9640335,3a,33.2y,129.37h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stuyt38SjKHSmGj_uW_v2WA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) (and also there's also at least one in Oregon on a county road north of Pacific City, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2230146,-123.9691474,3a,75y,23.91h,79.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl7ITsz8unxYNDpft3s0Ngw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)). This is literally the dumbest sign in the world!!! It's a waste of metal. It doesn't tell you what new speed to drive at; all it tells you is what the old speed limit was, and nobody cares about that. I've never seen any of those stupid signs here in Washington where I live, so thank God I don't have to cringe at them on a daily basis. Sorry for the rant, but those signs are a BIG pet peeve of mine.
Quote from: mapman on July 22, 2016, 01:35:49 AM
The reason that there are few 55 MPH signs in California is because, by state law, the speed limit on many rural roadways is 55 MPH (unless otherwise posted). Thus, when you see an "END 50 MPH" sign, the implication of that sign is that the speed reverts to 55 MPH. This practice is common on older roadways (say, those built prior to the 1960's) and can even appear on freeways (like on southbound CA 1 at Ocean Street in Santa Cruz).
However, I agree with you that not having 55 MPH signs creates ambiguity for drivers as to what the speed limit truly is. Ambiguity is NOT a good thing for drivers, as it can lead to inattention (while pondering the sign's message), and thus can cause collisions. Yet at the basis of the speed laws in California is a belief that drivers will adjust their speed to the conditions of the road, e.g. if a road has no shoulders, the law assumes that drivers will routinely reduce their speed accordingly. In my experience, this is occurring less and less frequently.
Note: The other two cases in California where an unsigned roadway has an unsigned speed limit are 1) local streets (such as those in neighborhoods), and 2) streets through denser business districts (such as a traditional downtown); in both cases, the speed limits are 25 MPH by state law.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 02:09:07 AM
I would say the "End xx" signs are more common than the actual speed limit signs in California outside of cities. Any undivided, non-residential road is 55mph unless otherwise specified. So you mostly see speed limit signs in urban areas. You can find all the speed limits laid out in the California Vehicle Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=22001-23000&file=22348-22366
Prima facie seems to be common in Europe. When I was in Latvia a couple of months ago, that's all they had. I don't recall them ever signing the default speed limits, including when you entered into a town and that prima facie limit dropped to 50kmh. When you saw the town sign, you were supposed to slow down, and were supposed to speed back up when you saw the town sign with an "X" across it. It was weird. The only way I knew was that my GPS had the limits mapped out.
I'm sure back when this was a newer traffic code it made more sense given the actual ability of the cars to hold the road was much more lacking and in turn the driver had to be more skilled. Basically the problem you run into a straight highway like say 41 or 43 in the Central Valley is that road can hold more than 55 MPH no problem which leads to people leading due to lack of reassurance signs. On mountain roads you get the opposite effect where people drive excessively slow because the last thing that they see with a speed limit is a yellow advisory sign. It even took me awhile to figure out the End XX speed limit meant go back up to 55 MPH when I was working out here originally...turns out the GPS was actually right for once.
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:54:04 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.
LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:54:04 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.
LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
:-D that's the reason why I brought it up, I'd love to buy one of the shields, of all highways not to sign California! Nevada is worse at signage of their state routes though.
Interesting bit of info about the prima facie speed limit. I will keep that in mind when I drive in California again.
Also, re the discussion about CA 66, does it run along the former US 66 alignment?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:54:04 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.
LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
Caltrans has even been known to post the occasional US-99 shield on occasion.
Quote from: compdude787 on July 22, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
Interesting bit of info about the prima facie speed limit. I will keep that in mind when I drive in California again.
Also, re the discussion about CA 66, does it run along the former US 66 alignment?
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
That's not exactly true:
210 directly parallels 66 less than 1-1.5 miles away from Pasadena to about Claremont, then ends up 2 miles further north from there eastward to I-215.
66 never used any of the 210 alignment as far as I know (so it's not like say 60/70/99 using the San Bernardino Freeway or 99 on the Golden State Freeway). The only freeway portions of 66 that ever existed in California
- US 101/Hollywood Freeway from Santa Monica Boulevard to the Four-Level
- entirety of Arroyo Seco Parkway/Route 110 (Pasadena Freeway)
- a portion of the old Colorado Freeway/current Ventura Freeway (Route 134) just west of 210 was part of Alt US 66, from Exit 11 east to Exit 13A
- I-215 north of 5th Street in San Bernardino
- I-15 through Cajon Pass in the mid-1960s, alongside US 91 and US 395
I also recall that the 15/40 split in Barstow originally had the exit signed for 40 and 66, suggesting that those two were concurrent for a bit (albeit briefly).
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2016, 12:18:48 PM
I also recall that the 15/40 split in Barstow originally had the exit signed for 40 and 66, suggesting that those two were concurrent for a bit (albeit briefly).
The last image here claims that they were recently still there, although greened out.
http://socalregion.com/highways/la_highways/i-15/
Looking at GSV, the 40 sign has been replaced since the photo. Both appear way too new to also have the US shields, but who knows.
I'm taking the original thought for the topic of this thread and adding a general observation...
I saw this in the Monterey Herald:
Quote
Beginning July 25, a high-tension cable barrier and rumble strip will be constructed on a 1½-mile section of Highway 156 between Highway 1 and Castroville Boulevard.
The section between Highway 1 and Castroville Boulevard is already divided, 4-lane and - except for a small portion at the very eastern end - a freeway. However, there are currently no barriers in the median except for near bridges.
I find this interesting and a bit strange that they're doing it on just this section of 156 and not also on 1. I also find it interesting that they're doing it at all. I wasn't aware of any issues with vehicles crossing the median here. I also didn't realize that Caltrans typically installed these.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 12:36:42 PM
I find this interesting and a bit strange that they're doing it on just this section of 156 and not also on 1. I also find it interesting that they're doing it at all. I wasn't aware of any issues with vehicles crossing the median here. I also didn't realize that Caltrans typically installed these.
Having driven on this section and measuring the distance on Google Satellite maps, you can see that the median on CA-156 is about 44 feet wide, while on CA-1 it is 80 feet wide. The Caltrans "Freeway Median Barrier Study Warrant" calls for a study on medians of 75 feet or less. At 44 feet a median barrier is warranted at an Average Daily Traffic Volume of 40,000.
So the median on CA-1 is wide enough that it does not require a median barrier. However, there is some discussion of increasing the maximum to around 100 feet to match that of Oregon, Washington State, and Michigan. Source: http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/median_barriers_preliminary_investigation.pdf (http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/preliminary_investigations/docs/median_barriers_preliminary_investigation.pdf)
As for a cable barrier, Caltrans has started to use them in rural areas. There is a cable barrier on US-101 south of Soledad, and one on US-101 on the north coast as shown in this Caltrans video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Snz_9ySH0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Snz_9ySH0).
Quote from: compdude787 on July 22, 2016, 11:24:40 AM
Interesting bit of info about the prima facie speed limit. I will keep that in mind when I drive in California again.
Also, re the discussion about CA 66, does it run along the former US 66 alignment?
Yes it does.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 22, 2016, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 22, 2016, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:54:04 AM
Quote from: Exit58 on July 21, 2016, 11:17:34 PM
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.
LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
:-D that's the reason why I brought it up, I'd love to buy one of the shields, of all highways not to sign California! Nevada is worse at signage of their state routes though.
That would be some tall money on a CA 66 if it ever showed up on market on eBay, likely would be listed at $500 dollars. Most of the modern State Route shields get listed somewhere between $100 to $200....I guess people think that there is a California premium. That's probably why I only have three spade shields myself, US Routes are even worse but so long as "California" isn't on an Interstate shield they usually are more reasonably priced.
Back in early 2001, for some reason, Caltrans installed US 66 signs at some locations along Foothill in the Fontana area. These are probably long gone.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2Fus66sign-fontana_zpsq01xxu6k.jpg&hash=ca4b152d2fe2b8b3bd551458ea3dadfcb9ffe20c) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2Fus66-sign-600-adj%2520rsze_zps9rxy1hux.jpg&hash=9508d2b68f71d4b089afa39c7607b40918ca6d62)
This signage was deployed just before I moved out to the Inland Empire from Anaheim; I remember seeing it at the beginning of 2002. I actually called District 8 and asked what was up, and (after my call got "ping-ponged" around the office) got an answer to the effect that they were trying to get in on the historical signage of 66 because no parties out in the smaller towns west of San Bernardino wanted to pay for the traditional shield-on-tan "historical" signage -- and they had a bunch of NOS (new/unused old stock) US 66 signs laying around their corporate yard warehouse. They indicated at the time that they were going to cobble up some "HISTORICAL" banners to put above or below the shield itself when they could find the time to do so. Logic was simple -- they owned the road (pre-relinquishment), it was legally CA 66, and they could post it however they wanted. They never came up with the banners; the signs were gone circa 2004.
Always wondered since -- as only a few shields were posted, did collectors get them before the district could remove them? An authentic US 66 '57 spec shield, especially with a state property sticker or stencil, would be quite valuable.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 12:25:47 PM
Looking at GSV, the 40 sign has been replaced since the photo. Both appear way too new to also have the US shields, but who knows.
The older signs for the 15/40 split you are talking about did carry US 91 and US 66 shields. US 91 was kept for a short while until I-15 became the defacto number by locals. 66 shields were posted since the freeway was only a stub. It ended just outside Barstow IIRC, dumping travelers onto US 66/TEMP I-40. At most, US 66 and I-40 were only co-routed on modern I-40 from Barstow to Newberry Springs or Ludlow, and from the western end of the 95 overlap to state line. The old alignment was around long enough to be mile marked as Route 40.
Regarding the US 66 shields along SR 66, the last ones actually disappeared in 2009. Either city scrap or Caltrans removed them. I remember seeing one posted near the corner of Haven and Foothill until then (WB). Kinda funny Caltrans actually had left over signs. I wonder if they still have some left.
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2016, 04:33:24 AM
This signage was deployed just before I moved out to the Inland Empire from Anaheim; I remember seeing it at the beginning of 2002. I actually called District 8 and asked what was up, and (after my call got "ping-ponged" around the office) got an answer to the effect that they were trying to get in on the historical signage of 66 because no parties out in the smaller towns west of San Bernardino wanted to pay for the traditional shield-on-tan "historical" signage -- and they had a bunch of NOS (new/unused old stock) US 66 signs laying around their corporate yard warehouse. They indicated at the time that they were going to cobble up some "HISTORICAL" banners to put above or below the shield itself when they could find the time to do so. Logic was simple -- they owned the road (pre-relinquishment), it was legally CA 66, and they could post it however they wanted. They never came up with the banners; the signs were gone circa 2004.
Always wondered since -- as only a few shields were posted, did collectors get them before the district could remove them? An authentic US 66 '57 spec shield, especially with a state property sticker or stencil, would be quite valuable.
I would imagine every last single one they posted was probably stolen in short order. I've always been suspicious about how NICE some of the California Cut-Out US 66 signs that I see on eBay are...that's because they were probably NOS that was jacked from the roadway. There was online for $2,000 that I can't find the posting for now.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 22, 2016, 12:18:48 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 22, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
That's not exactly true:
210 directly parallels 66 less than 1-1.5 miles away from Pasadena to about Claremont, then ends up 2 miles further north from there eastward to I-215.
66 never used any of the 210 alignment as far as I know....
You are absolutely correct. 66 never was concurrent with 210 on any maps or other records that I have.
You're absolutely correct -- legislatively, the number 210 was never deployed over any of the previous US 66 (LRN 9 & LRN 161) alignment -- it was always a separate route along a similar trajectory. Before 1998, it dipped, with its I-210 signage, down to its original I-10/Pomona terminus on what is now signed as the northern end of CA 57; after that, the 210 designation replaced the previous CA 30 designation all the way out to Redlands.
Since they mention Washington state as one of the places where they have the cable median barriers, I thought I could provide some input here. Between five and ten years ago, WSDOT put in cable median barriers was on I-5 between Marysville and Smokey Point (roughly Exits 199 to 206) in order to reduce the amount of median crossover crashes that were happening here. However, the cable median barriers weren't tall enough, so they weren't all that effective in stopping big cars like SUVs and trucks. So finally, WSDOT put in a tall jersey barrier in the median (as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0608102,-122.1845263,3a,75y,351.26h,77.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.768478%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)) and that solved the problem. The cable median barriers are still there, but the jersey barrier has made them pretty much redundant.
So, if Caltrans is going to start using cable median barriers, they need to make sure they are tall enough to effectively stop big SUVs and pickup trucks from barreling through them.
Back in the late '80's, after some cross-median commercial-vehicle smash-throughs on the portion of CA 99 featuring closely spaced oleander bushes as a median barrier -- pretty during floral season, but not terribly effective safety-wise -- Caltrans started putting cable barriers alongside the bushes' base; the cables were about 3 1/2 feet (42") off the ground. While effective for smaller vehicles such as vans or small buses, it was less so for anything of bobtail size or larger; those would simply ride up the cables, bending them down with their weight, and still cross over (with the vehicle often leaning over at an angle!). By the early 2000's most had been replaced by much taller (about 5 ft. or slightly higher) dual thrie-beam assemblies with very closely spaced support risers (one on each side of the bushes and slightly closer to the lane itself). This seems to have done the job; reportedly median crossings in the affected area (between Delano and Tulare) were reduced considerably (I don't have the stats in front of me, but IIRC, the reduction figure exceeded 70%).
It would be interesting to determine if the major factor in the lessening of crossover incidents was due to the properties of the thrie-beam barrier or simply the height difference; I can't recall any studies being commissioned on this particular subject.
I remember seeing the cable barrier surrounded by plants, but I can't remember where. Maybe it was 99. I remember it being really hot, so I think that's what it was. Personally, I think it would be great if they put in some oleander or, better yet, something native but still capable of totaling a Range Rover. Like maybe oak trees that grew up instead of out.
I recall, as a kid, being enthralled with the aesthetics of So Cal highways. The median flora just makes things so much nicer.
It just surprised me to see that Caltrans was going to use cable barriers since they seem to love their sheet metal.
The one place I used to see it the most was in Phoenix, on Loop 101. And, as you may expect, there were always sections that were broken and not repaired. The thrice-daily wrecks on that road likely caused the state to give up.
Quote from: compdude787 on July 23, 2016, 05:27:49 PM
However, the cable median barriers weren't tall enough, so they weren't all that effective in stopping big cars like SUVs and trucks. So finally, WSDOT put in a tall jersey barrier in the median (as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0608102,-122.1845263,3a,75y,351.26h,77.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.768478%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)) and that solved the problem. The cable median barriers are still there, but the jersey barrier has made them pretty much redundant.
It looks like there are two types of cable barrier systems -- a three cable and a four cable system. The one shown there on I-5 looks like a three cable system and is rather short. Single Slope concrete barriers are are normally 36 inches tall to prevent headlight glare, but must be at least 32 inches tall to meet crash standards. This cable barrier looks like it is at most half the height of the concrete barrier, say 18 inches.
The ones used in California are four cable systems from the following companies:
Quote
The allowable HTCB must consist of one of the following or a Department-authorized equal:
- 1. TYPE BRIFEN - Type Brifen 4-Rope TL-4 Wire Rope Safety Fence System (WRSF) manufactured by
Brifen USA, Inc - 2. TYPE GIBRALTAR - Type Gibraltar TL-4-4 manufactured by Gibraltar Cable Barrier Systems
- 3. TYPE CASS - Type CASS TL-4 Cable Safety System manufactured by Trinity Industries
Source (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/11/11-406504/specs/11-406504sp.pdf)
The specification for the first manufacturer (http://www.brifenusa.com/files/presentation/19.html) has the top cable 36.5 inches high and the bottom cable 18 inches high. This means the cable barrier is taller than the standard 36 inch concrete barrier (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_US-customary-units_15/viewable_pdf/a76a.pdf) used in California as well as being taller than the 32 inch tall thrie beam (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/highway_plans/stdplans_US-customary-units_15/viewable_pdf/a78a.pdf).
Quote from: coatimundi on July 24, 2016, 02:27:22 AM
I remember seeing the cable barrier surrounded by plants, but I can't remember where. Maybe it was 99. I remember it being really hot, so I think that's what it was. Personally, I think it would be great if they put in some oleander or, better yet, something native but still capable of totaling a Range Rover. Like maybe oak trees that grew up instead of out.
I recall, as a kid, being enthralled with the aesthetics of So Cal highways. The median flora just makes things so much nicer.
It just surprised me to see that Caltrans was going to use cable barriers since they seem to love their sheet metal.
The one place I used to see it the most was in Phoenix, on Loop 101. And, as you may expect, there were always sections that were broken and not repaired. The thrice-daily wrecks on that road likely caused the state to give up.
Yeah those cable barriers went by the wayside on AZ 101 especially in the Salt River Tribal land. There was actually a dispute going when the freeway opened up between DPS and the Tribe on who would actually patrol the road. The consequence was that really nobody patrolled the freeway and if you didn't drive 90 MPH you would get run over, suffice to say it added to the wrecks big time....I remember watching a car careen into one of those cable barriers just north of Frank Lloyd Wright going south bound and just catching it perfect that the car pretty much shredded on impact.
I've seen that section of 99 before, I want to say it was between Fresno and Stockton. I'm fairly certain that's where a dog was found living in the trees after falling out of a truck.
Besides the Delano-Tulare section, oleander was a median feature on 99 along the former expressway section between Chowchilla and Merced that's just been bypassed by a freeway. Further north, other expressway sections -- between Atwater and Livingston, and between Delhi and Turlock -- were also the sites of oleander. There was some in and around Manteca (incidentally, the oldest CA 99 freeway section in the Valley, dating from about 1951-52), but that's gone since the widening of the last 5 years. The farthest north section of current 99 freeway with some oleander is around Galt. Although I haven't been on these "Business 99" sections in well over a decade, IIRC there's some in the segment around Kingsburg/Selma, as well as south of Turlock. They're certainly hardy plants, tolerating 60+ years of hydrocarbon exhaust! (they're also toxic to humans!)
Saw this posted on the Freeways of LA facebook page: a 1960 map of the area, complete with the infamous Long Beach Freeway gap in South Pasadena marked with dashed lines!
http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/see-l-eyes-newcomer-1960s-map/
Quote
Norman describes the old and the new with the eye of a man visiting a bewildering foreign country.
I don't see that here. I see descriptions of tourist attractions.
And don't you people in the Southland actually say "Cali"? I mean, people here roll their eyes at that, but I had always thought it was just one of many differences.
For a wide-eyed newcomer, as they seem to see him, the guy certainly had an obsession with freeways. Maybe that was just more reflective of the time. I love the "Freeway Information" up top. That's pretty useful, but obviously not overly reliable.
Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2016, 10:27:19 AM
Besides the Delano-Tulare section, oleander was a median feature on 99 along the former expressway section between Chowchilla and Merced that's just been bypassed by a freeway. Further north, other expressway sections -- between Atwater and Livingston, and between Delhi and Turlock -- were also the sites of oleander. There was some in and around Manteca (incidentally, the oldest CA 99 freeway section in the Valley, dating from about 1951-52), but that's gone since the widening of the last 5 years. The farthest north section of current 99 freeway with some oleander is around Galt. Although I haven't been on these "Business 99" sections in well over a decade, IIRC there's some in the segment around Kingsburg/Selma, as well as south of Turlock. They're certainly hardy plants, tolerating 60+ years of hydrocarbon exhaust! (they're also toxic to humans!)
Galt is where that dog was found. Apparently the coverage was thick enough for a dog to chill out there for several weeks with a broken leg....I want to say CHP called her Freeway Frida? I posted a thread in off-topic about awhile back that had a decent video that showed the plants in the median....and of course dog.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 09:37:07 AM
And don't you people in the Southland actually say "Cali"? I mean, people here roll their eyes at that, but I had always thought it was just one of many differences.
No, we don't. I'm native Southern California: born here, lived all my life here. We do "the" in front of the freeway numbers, a holdover from the named days (e.g., the San Diego to the Harbor became the 405 to the 110).
Cali? I"ve only see that on T-shirts made by non-locals.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 09:37:07 AM
And don't you people in the Southland actually say "Cali"? I mean, people here roll their eyes at that, but I had always thought it was just one of many differences.
No, we don't say "Cali" unless referring to a city in Columbia.
Up here in NorCal, you don't hear the term "Cali" unless it's uttered by a tourist -- or even an newbie. Since we get a regular influx of kids (at my age, I can refer to anyone under 35 as a "kid"!!!!) in the tech industry, there seems to be a smattering of "Cali" talk early in their residency; it generally gets "whipped" out of them by their senior associates in short order!
When I hear "Cali" my mind goes to "douchebag".
It's the same with the people who insist on saying "Frisco" or "San Fran". I don't know what they're trying to prove, but it just sounds dumb.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
When I hear "Cali" my mind goes to "douchebag".
It's the same with the people who insist on saying "Frisco" or "San Fran". I don't know what they're trying to prove, but it just sounds dumb.
A lot of yuppies in Arizona use that term when talking about California. I imagine they think the whole state is like a giant Los Angeles, makes me roll my eyes in disgust everytime I hear my brother's wife say that or surfer slang. Speaking of surfer slang I have yet to ever encounter anyone who was actually from here that spoke like that.
The only people in NorCal I've heard use "Cali" are the same sort who say "hella". I think it's a dying subculture.
Although they say "Nobody calls it Frisco", but there are San Francisco old timers who call it that, particularly African-americans. It's the new arrivals who quickly learn not to from other arrivals.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 08:30:17 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 03:02:54 PM
When I hear "Cali" my mind goes to "douchebag".
It's the same with the people who insist on saying "Frisco" or "San Fran". I don't know what they're trying to prove, but it just sounds dumb.
A lot of yuppies in Arizona use that term when talking about California. I imagine they think the whole state is like a giant Los Angeles, makes me roll my eyes in disgust everytime I hear my brother's wife say that or surfer slang. Speaking of surfer slang I have yet to ever encounter anyone who was actually from here that spoke like that.
Reminds me of people (I know a few) who think New York state is just a giant city, even though the vast majority of the state has forests, mountains, lakes, etc. Just like California.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 25, 2016, 10:50:32 PM
The only people in NorCal I've heard use "Cali" are the same sort who say "hella". I think it's a dying subculture.
Although they say "Nobody calls it Frisco", but there are San Francisco old timers who call it that, particularly African-americans. It's the new arrivals who quickly learn not to from other arrivals.
This is the only time I've ever heard "hella" ever be a thing:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 11:17:58 PM
This is the only time I've ever heard "hella" ever be a thing:
There's an argument to made that Cartman killed "hella". It was a word, but I really don't think I've heard it unironically in the 21st century.
Quote from: flowmotion on July 26, 2016, 03:01:41 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 25, 2016, 11:17:58 PM
This is the only time I've ever heard "hella" ever be a thing:
There's an argument to made that Cartman killed "hella". It was a word, but I really don't think I've heard it unironically in the 21st century.
"Hella" must've been hella lame. :rolleyes: I wanted the clip where Stan tells him to stop saying hella but couldn't find it.
This might be more of a routine thing for the California folks, but I-5 through Orange County has long been one of my favourite sections of freeway in California. With that said, I've uploaded a number of photos of the highway taken during various visits over the past few years.
Some I-5 SoCal goodness:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_108_south_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=d98256c6f73928ac5c5d2f6330965d62915f8dae)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_108-1_south_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=d06339af3b8cc06c3f0c9a6c5b39622571b08e2e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_109_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=7d5c9e3bb4175fea06718851c2a5f7dd0b6ce4fe)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_110-45_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=9750d0d12ca78295c0e975a649000349be2cf265)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_111_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=2055984b6d9de6eeed97ab662e5d3a27487d23ba)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_113-6_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=6182cacc15ced17bcbaec99424f3778abfbe1175)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_114-4_south_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=beb9dbeae80ef429d96fe61ebc535cf150edbc21)
I've put together a bunch of these photos on my website. Some of my I-5 photos are older and not very good, but I think some of them are all right, despite the rather dreary day a lot of them were taken on.
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/Page4.html
http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/index.html
Orange County tends to have nice-looking freeways in general. I think the 5 looks actually inviting after slogging through the East L.A. Interchange, Commerce, and Norwalk.
It'll be interesting to see how the presently under-construction segment between Buena Park and Downey looks when they're finally done with it; IIRC, there were some unique design features necessary to squeeze the expanded facility between existing businesses, rail lines, and the like. If anyone down there has some recent pictures or can get their hands on plans, posting those would be greatly appreciated!
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
This might be more of a routine thing for the California folks, but I-5 through Orange County has long been one of my favourite sections of freeway in California. With that said, I've uploaded a number of photos of the highway taken during various visits over the past few years.
Ever critical that I am, I can find some flaws.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
Some I-5 SoCal goodness:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_108_south_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=d98256c6f73928ac5c5d2f6330965d62915f8dae)
So the advance sign has an unnecessary slash between State College and The City Drive, and the placement of the mileage indicator for the 22 interchange is too far right. Also the mileage indicator for State College/The City Drive/Chapman doesn't conform to the sign manual requirements because it has the numerator and denominator on the same line and is the same size as the whole number mileage indicator below and as the rest of the sign text when it should be about half that size.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_110-45_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=9750d0d12ca78295c0e975a649000349be2cf265)
The "West" on the advance sign is not capitalized and La Palma is missing its Ave.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 16, 2016, 10:24:16 AM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asphaltplanet.ca%2FCA%2FI%2F5%2FI5_CA_dv_113-6_north_Dec14_forum.jpg&hash=6182cacc15ced17bcbaec99424f3778abfbe1175)
The infamous "Artesia" (population 14,000 with two offramps off the 91) as a control city for the 91 West.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2016, 01:57:05 PM
It'll be interesting to see how the presently under-construction segment between Buena Park and Downey looks when they're finally done with it; IIRC, there were some unique design features necessary to squeeze the expanded facility between existing businesses, rail lines, and the like. If anyone down there has some recent pictures or can get their hands on plans, posting those would be greatly appreciated!
Check out https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11848.0
I just updated it with a video of the construction zone from late June.
Here's some stills from the video:
At Alondra Blvd:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F5N%2520construction%252020160625-Alondra_zpshvh7v8wu.jpg&hash=435d0d1501204acccaad9170062d110ce8549e47)
At Carmenita Rd, all traffic (3 lanes each way) on the future northbound lanes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F5N%2520construction%252020160625-2-Carmenita_zps6bmwgkid.jpg&hash=acdeb6263313181a7cd22fbdaa5e1b3c09135867)
At Norwalk Blvd, transitioning to the original northbound lanes:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F5N%2520construction%252020160625-2_zpsfiwr3rom.jpg&hash=bfe2c6d820185f553f440135f07eca96729c49bf)
Much below the future roadway level near Imperial Hwy:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl200%2Fmrkf%2F5N%2520construction%252020160625-1_zpsgcxvwnj8.jpg&hash=683589e4e2161f16babe5c820ed8c43b8caf1546)
It certainly amazes me that Caltrans is managing to keep 3 lanes of traffic going in both directions during this expansion process, particularly the section through Norwalk! No surprise that this section was the last to be addressed between 605 and 22/57; the lack of easement area on either side of the original 1956-57 alignment would render it the most difficult to expand in both political and fiscal terms. It looks like most of the properties taken for the expansion are along the south side of the alignment (which makes sense considering the array of large-scale businesses and related facilities on the north side of the original freeway).
Thanks for the pix -- it'll be a while before I can get back down to the L.A. area to see all this for myself.
I get the sense that CalTrans was really hoping to have the 710 debacle figured out before it came time to widen the 5 Freeway any further north into LA County. An extension of the 710 Freeway would obviously have huge implications as to what form the interchange between the 5 and the 710 takes shape as.
I know this is a ways down the road... but i for one can't wait to see the East LA Interchange replaced with something modern.
Considering the topography, the transfer requirements of the freeways involved, and the land-use politics of East Los Angeles and environs, it's likely the East L.A. interchange (5/10/60/101) will remain largely as it is for the foreseeable future -- there's hardly enough room to expand the through-put lanes for I-5 much less a full revamping of the facility.
^ Yeah, I agree with that, but I am thinking that at some point in the future the structures that comprise the East LA Interchange complex will reach the end of their service life, and will need to be somehow replaced. I live in a northern climate, so structural replacement is probably something that afflicts our infrastructure sooner than it would in California, but I have to think eventually the East LA interchange will need to be remade into something that is really cool.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on August 19, 2016, 04:02:24 PM
^ Yeah, I agree with that, but I am thinking that at some point in the future the structures that comprise the East LA Interchange complex will reach the end of their service life, and will need to be somehow replaced. I live in a northern climate, so structural replacement is probably something that afflicts our infrastructure sooner than it would in California, but I have to think eventually the East LA interchange will need to be remade into something that is really cool.
Yeah. At this point it will probably take a discovery of some serious structural failure(s) before any plans to rebuild will even be considered.
Maybe someone will pull a fast one and declare the complex as historical, thus preventing any upgrades or rebuilds. :-D
Having used this interchange for most of its 55-year existence, I'm certain that most drivers would be glad to place it in a particular historical subsection -- the WTF Hall of Fame! This particularly pertains to drivers wishing to stay on I-5 in either direction through the complex -- and encountering a small-radius curve en route, not to mention the merges from hell! I'm guessing that the engineering effort contained numerous "plan-it-as-we-go" moments.
Quote from: sparker on August 20, 2016, 01:16:25 PM
Having used this interchange for most of its 55-year existence, I'm certain that most drivers would be glad to place it in a particular historical subsection -- the WTF Hall of Fame! This particularly pertains to drivers wishing to stay on I-5 in either direction through the complex -- and encountering a small-radius curve en route, not to mention the merges from hell! I'm guessing that the engineering effort contained numerous "plan-it-as-we-go" moments.
Technically what is now the 5 is running on two different freeway. The 101 was originally the through route, in this case the Hollywood and Santa Ana Freeways which are still a through route. The Golden State was US 99 which actually went east on the San Bernardino. The connection from the San Bernardino to the Santa Ana was probably treated like the western segment of the San Bernardino is today: a connector. My question is, when the interchange opened, did the Santa Monica even have a signed number? Or just temp I-10?
I think it was more poor future-planning on Caltrans part then anything else. They wanted the 101 to be the primary route through the interchange and didn't really care what the legislators were planning numbering wise.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 20, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
My question is, when the interchange opened, did the Santa Monica even have a signed number? Or just temp I-10?
IIRC, while the Olympic Parkway around that corridor had been planned as pre-1964 State Route 26, by the time the Santa Monica Freeway was built (including that part of the East Los Angeles Interchange), it was I-10 from the start.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 20, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
I think it was more poor future-planning on Caltrans part then anything else. They wanted the 101 to be the primary route through the interchange and didn't really care what the legislators were planning numbering wise.
I don't know if it was "want" so much as, as the Santa Ana Freeway was the first through the area, they didn't want to disrupt the one through route that had already been established. (If we were thinking simple lines-on-map layout, having 5 tie into the San Bernardino Split so that there was no need for that 2 miles of parallel north-south freeway routings would have been the most logical, but this could have been a matter of what right of way the state was able to acquire at the time)
Quote from: TheStranger on August 20, 2016, 08:38:53 PM
Quote from: Exit58 on August 20, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
My question is, when the interchange opened, did the Santa Monica even have a signed number? Or just temp I-10?
IIRC, while the Olympic Parkway around that corridor had been planned as pre-1964 State Route 26, by the time the Santa Monica Freeway was built (including that part of the East Los Angeles Interchange), it was I-10 from the start.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 20, 2016, 06:23:07 PM
I think it was more poor future-planning on Caltrans part then anything else. They wanted the 101 to be the primary route through the interchange and didn't really care what the legislators were planning numbering wise.
I don't know if it was "want" so much as, as the Santa Ana Freeway was the first through the area, they didn't want to disrupt the one through route that had already been established. (If we were thinking simple lines-on-map layout, having 5 tie into the San Bernardino Split so that there was no need for that 2 miles of parallel north-south freeway routings would have been the most logical, but this could have been a matter of what right of way the state was able to acquire at the time)
Yes, the whole ELA interchange and SB Split interchange would make a lot more sense if it were designed in a way that provided for three main freeway routings with ramps connecting the three. So for instance:
1) Hollywood <101> - San Bernardino <10>
2) Golden State <5> - Santa Ana <5>
3) Santa Monica <60> - Pomona <60>
To reinforce the point, the Santa Monica freeway would be 60 instead of 10.
(1) and (2) would interchange where the 5/10 interchange near County-USC Hospital. It would be designed as a regular interchange with movements in all directions. Since the interchange between (1) and (2) would provide the movement from Hollywood to Santa Ana, the 101 freeway between SB Split and the E LA interchange would be superflous and would be removed.
The interchange between (2) and (3) would now be much more simplified without the 101. Essentially an east-west freeway interchanging with a north-south freeway that makes a sharp turn to the southeast just south of the interchange. Again, movements in all directions would be provided.
There would be no direct interchange between (1) and (3). For the most part (1) and (3) are parallel to each other and remain about 3-10 miles apart from the 110 all the way to where they meet in Beaumont. Traffic between Hollywood and Pomona or between Santa Monica and San Bernardino could use any of the following freeways to connect between (1) and (3): 110, I-5, I-710, I-605, CA-57 or CA-71, I-15, or I-215. There is no good reason to funnel all of this traffic through I-5 as what is currently done by signing I-10 along the Golden State or on the 101 between SB Split and ELA interchange.
If this were done, there would be nothing special about the SB Split or ELA interchanges. Instead they would be two regular freeway interchanges that happen to lie about 2-3 miles east of Downtown LA.
Of course, historically the 101 as a through route from Hollywood to Santa Ana predated all of the interchanges, and the powers that be probably thought that it would be wasteful to rip up the 101 routing between SB Split and ELA interchange so we are left with what we have. There was no good way to connect I-5 Golden State Freeway to match up with this part of the 101 because the railroad yard was in the way.
I was 11-12 years old at the time the interchange opened; it was completed in phases. The first sections to be completed, in early 1961, were the ramps forming the direct I-5 connection, from the SE Santa Ana Freeway (at that time still signed as US 101) to the Golden State Freeway (I-5/10). The San Bernardino Freeway interchange a couple of miles north on the Golden State had been completed and opened in early 1960 (and, for a while, there was a BGS on westbound I-10 just before that interchange showing the through lanes of the San Bernardino Freeway as I-110; it was gone by 1963). Until the I-5 throughput ramps were opened, the freeway temporarily terminated at Boyle Ave. near Hollenbeck Lake. The I-10 through ramps from the Golden State to the westerly Santa Monica freeway opened right around Christmas of 1961; it simply directed traffic to Santa Fe Avenue (and, IIRC, was temporarily signed as such, minus any I-10 reference). The entire Santa Monica viaduct south of downtown LA was completed to the Harbor Freeway (then US 6/CA 11) in late 1962; the ramps from the SE Santa Ana Freeway to the Santa Monica were opened at that time as well; all signage clearly indicated I-10. The multiplex of I-5 and I-10 was acknowledged by a roadside BGS northbound; the only freestanding signage featuring both I-5 and I-10 shields was southbound immediately after the WB I-10 merge from the San Bernardino Freeway; that signage lasted several years but was gone by the late '60's.
California Highways & Public Works gave sparse coverage to the interchange itself, but the coverage of the I-10/Santa Monica Freeway viaduct (then the longest such structure on the state highway system) was the subject of articles as well as multiple photographs. Worth checking out!
Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2016, 02:10:28 PM
I was 11-12 years old at the time the interchange opened; it was completed in phases. The first sections to be completed, in early 1961, were the ramps forming the direct I-5 connection, from the SE Santa Ana Freeway (at that time still signed as US 101) to the Golden State Freeway (I-5/10).
Given that 101 and 5 remained concurrent in Orange County as late as 1967, I've always felt that the southbound 5/101 signage on the northernmost part of the Santa Ana Freeway was a vestige of that history. (Similarly, I've seen a 1984 video on Youtube of I-80 west in San Francisco where the mainline is signed as "I-80/US 101" - which doesn't make sense from a modern perspective at all, but which likely was one of the few remaining hints at the intended 80/101 concurrency along the existing Central Freeway segment to the never-constructed Western Freeway)
Quote from: sparker on August 21, 2016, 02:10:28 PM
The San Bernardino Freeway interchange a couple of miles north on the Golden State had been completed and opened in early 1960 (and, for a while, there was a BGS on westbound I-10 just before that interchange showing the through lanes of the San Bernardino Freeway as I-110; it was gone by 1963).
Wow,
I never knew that the 1960s I-110 was signed in any way! (Legislatively, it lasted until 1968; IIRC when the Century Freeway was added to the Interstate system, the Interstate mileage from this and from I-480 in San Francisco was transferred to the new project)
Was 1960s I-105 (the portion of US 101/Santa Ana Freeway between the San Bernardino Split and East Los Angeles Interchange) ever signed too?
Quote from: mrsman on August 21, 2016, 07:18:44 AM
Of course, historically the 101 as a through route from Hollywood to Santa Ana predated all of the interchanges, and the powers that be probably thought that it would be wasteful to rip up the 101 routing between SB Split and ELA interchange so we are left with what we have. There was no good way to connect I-5 Golden State Freeway to match up with this part of the 101 because the railroad yard was in the way.
Another thought that has come to mind in looking at the layouts:
The I-10 routing snaking through the Golden State Freeway to connect the San Bernardino Freeway and Santa Monica Freeway seems to be a product of two things, 1. that the San Bernardino Freeway is the oldest east-west controlled access route in the area (and thus could easily be given the I-10 signage right away) whereas the Pomona Freeway was mostly constructed decades after the San Bernardino had been completed, and 2. while the Santa Monica Freeway had been proposed as Route 26/Olympic Parkway beforehand, by the time it opened, it had become part of the extended I-10.
The other factor that came to mind: the limited capacity of the Four-Level Interchange, with its 35 MPH ramps, and of the downtown freeways in general. In theory, one can connect from the Santa Monica to San Bernardino freeways by staying on the left through lanes that connect 10 east to Harbor Freeway north, then head east on the Santa Ana Freeway to the San Bernardino Split (and vice versa westbound), but the heavy traffic that has plagued downtown since the 1950s makes this even less viable than going through a cramped, but Interstate-standard connection in East Los Angeles. Likewise, while the Hollywood Freeway extension north of Route 134 that had been proposed in the 1950s (as US 6) did create a through north-south route from the San Fernando Valley into downtown, the narrow right of way of the downtown slot segment of the Santa Ana Freeway limits any capacity expansion to this day.
(It's also important to remember that prior to the Golden State Freeway construction from Elysian Park to the San Bernardino Freeway, 99 and 6 had to continue southwest into downtown on the Arroyo Seco Parkway before reaching the San Bernardino Freeway rather indirectly via 101; the I-5/at-the-time US 99 routing between those two points saves about 4-5 miles of driving and bypasses the Four-Level entirely)
So much like the US 395/I-15 saga in the Inland Empire, or even the 1950s I-5/US 99 alignment planning in the San Joaquin Valley - where a bypass of an older through route was added to the Interstate system in order to fund new-build construction instead of in-place upgrades - it seems the Golden State Freeway south of today's Route 170 and the Santa Monica Freeway east of today's 110 both were intended as bypasses of already-existing through freeways that are even harder to widen/upgrade than the San Bernardino and Atwater/Merced examples I mentioned. Even if that made the East Los Angeles Interchange itself rather complex, it provided for alternates to having to slog through the civic center and Hollywood areas.
Quote from: TheStranger on August 22, 2016, 06:50:54 AM
(It's also important to remember that prior to the Golden State Freeway construction from Elysian Park to the San Bernardino Freeway, 99 and 6 had to continue southwest into downtown on the Arroyo Seco Parkway before reaching the San Bernardino Freeway rather indirectly via 101; the I-5/at-the-time US 99 routing between those two points saves about 4-5 miles of driving and bypasses the Four-Level entirely)
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
The first section of the Golden State Freeway (eventual I-5) to be constructed & opened was between Riverside Drive near the L.A. Zoo in Griffith Park and Alameda Ave. in Burbank; that was opened in early 1957. By the end of that year it had been extended south to between Glendale Blvd. and Los Feliz Blvd, using temporary ramps to empty out onto Riverside Drive. Included in that segment was the Colorado Blvd. extension (part of LRN 161/SSR 134). By mid-1958 US 99/6 had been rerouted onto the freeway using the Colorado extension (an arrangement that lasted for about 3 years). Northbound, US 99/6 remained on San Fernando Road (the original alignment) to the Colorado extension, then used that extension to the freeway mainline. It went north on the freeway to Alameda, where it turned west with SSR 134 to Victory Blvd. At Victory Blvd. the temporary routing turned north, using that street to the "Five Point" intersection of Victory Blvd., Burbank Blvd., and Victory Place. While Victory Blvd. turned due west at that intersection, the 99/6 temporary routing continued north on Victory Place, which merged with the original San Fernando Road alignment east of Lockheed (now Hollywood/Burbank) airport. This rerouting was necessary because northward construction on the Golden State Freeway used the alignment of Front Street, the former route, in central Burbank; the street was demolished in late 1957 to make room for the freeway, which was opened to traffic as far north as Burbank Blvd. in the spring of 1959.
The segment along Riverside Drive, which included the SSR 2/Glendale Freeway interchange, was opened to traffic in the spring of 1961; southbound, it emptied all US 99/6 traffic onto the southbound Pasadena Freeway over the present ramp system bordering Elysian Park. The first Golden State Freeway section to actually receive I-5 signage, between Broadway on the north and Boyle St. on the south (near Hollenbeck Lake, just north of Wilshire Blvd., and including the San Bernardino Freeway interchange), had opened in early 1960, with the I-5 ramps to the southbound Santa Ana Freeway (US 101) opening a year later. The final section, between Broadway and just north of the Pasadena Freeway (including the interchange with that freeway, then US 66, and the L.A. river bridge) opened in late 1962.
North of Burbank, the segment between Burbank Blvd. and Lankershim Blvd. in Sun Valley opened in the spring of 1961, extending north to Van Nuys Blvd. in early 1963 (this section included the inital ramps to the planned Hollywood Freeway -- originally intended to be part of US 6, but, after the '64 renumbering, becoming CA 170). The final I-5 segment between Van Nuys Blvd. and the existing Golden State Freeway alignment north of Sylmar was opened to traffic in the fall of 1963, essentially finishing the freeway from its inception at the E.L.A. interchange to the point where it departed the San Fernando Valley.
As a born & raised Glendale kid, I had front-row seating for the unfolding of this freeway -- I remember badgering my dad to drive me over the temporary Victory Blvd. alignment so I could see how it was signed (and as long as we were out that far in Burbank, to take me to Albin's Hobbies so I could see the new Lionel locomotives for '58 Xmas!). If it was anything that rolled along the ground, it interested me as a youngster (some things never change!).
Found an article that some of you have probably seen before talking about why Southern Californians add a "the" when talking about their freeways. Some cool old-school scans and photos in here too.
https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/the-5-the-101-the-405-why-southern-californians-love-saying-the-before-freeway-numbers
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:18:53 AM
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:18:53 AM
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
Also consider that large cliff is unstable, having slid quite substantially in the 1937. Yeah, it is a bit harrowing at times, but then it still somehow manages to carry that traffic. Caltrans has done some reworking of that ramp, mostly at the merge with SB 110 by adding a lane and reducing the amount of merging required for SB 5 to SB 110 traffic.
I'll have to admit that the (current) I-5 to SB CA 110 ramps have at least stood the test of time, despite the fact that the ramps contain two harrowing curves in each direction: the ones immediately prior to the 110 merge (SB) and the initial curve out of the tunnel (NB) -- and the parallel curves that snake along the hillside where the original ramps emptied out onto Riverside Drive, but were built in the present configuration to allow the relocated Riverside Drive to make an abrupt right-angle turn. IMO, these are at least as bad as the curves right at 110.
Just saw this on a tweet from Caltrans D7. It's a non-standard US shield and missing Freeway Entrance sign. This is NB 101 on ramp from Universal Studios. Never seen anything like this and strange that hey chose this anomaly for a public notice.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160825%2F07b46db7222a9a5fe9e42ffe2e1b7f95.jpg&hash=4912ca7b9b80c58a553325f979b20aa5d682e4e3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160825%2Fc5984bcddfad54408347931b03618cc7.jpg&hash=11f104bd8550017d831755a7d61c2047e5ded653)
Quote from: AndyMax25 on August 24, 2016, 08:42:40 PM
Just saw this on a tweet from Caltrans D7. It's a non-standard US shield and missing Freeway Entrance sign.
Stranger still, prior to November 2014 there were not any entrance assembly signs at this ramp at all, according to the pictures on Google Street View. The only indications for this ramp was the sign directing traffic to North and South 101.
The side without the Freeway Entrance sign is on a square metal post, as opposed to a wood post for the complete assembly. The City of Los Angeles uses square metal posts for all of their signs, so perhaps this is a City installation?
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3oDaK0Y.jpg&hash=26ec84c3f21902b6bcfa550d9ce51c29ac1fec0d)
Maybe the sign's from the prop department at Universal! :biggrin:
I used to frequent Universal and that interchange was always a mess. I didn't know that they (finally) added a direct connection from Universal Blvd to SB101. I remember always having to drive quite a way south on Cahuenga Blvd to get on.
Also, it looks like just north of the new SB101 onramp, there is a US 101 shield with green NORTH and directional arrow tabs. The northbound onramp from NB Universal is also using painted posts for it's entrance assembly.
Quote from: sparker on August 24, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 23, 2016, 01:18:53 AM
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
You could totally fix that old Riverside Drive set of ramps if you built a flyover on the right-hand side (south) of the 110 north for the traffic going to the 5 north and removed that left-hand exit that uses the lower part of old Riverside. Then the footprint from the old northbound-to-northbound lanes could be regraded to make the 5 south to 110 south ramp wider, include shoulders, and have better turning radii where it finally connects to the 110 south.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 26, 2016, 06:52:34 PM
You could totally fix that old Riverside Drive set of ramps if you built a flyover on the right-hand side (south) of the 110 north for the traffic going to the 5 north and removed that left-hand exit that uses the lower part of old Riverside. Then the footprint from the old northbound-to-northbound lanes could be regraded to make the 5 south to 110 south ramp wider, include shoulders, and have better turning radii where it finally connects to the 110 south.
Not quite -- NB 110 is coming out of a 4-lane-wide tunnel at that point, with the left lane dedicated to the turn to NB 5, and the 2nd lane splitting between the NB 5 ramp and the NB 110 main line. It segues directly onto the L.A. river bridge at that point; this is the original bridge constructed when the tunnels contained North Figueroa St., and were re-purposed for NB only when the SB lanes of the Arroyo Seco Parkway were constructed. Underneath the bridges are not only the L.A. River but several sets of railroad tracks; the Metrolink main service facility is directly north of the I-5 bridge, less than a half-mile to the northeast. There's just no room left for any sort of viable flyover, absent a complete reconstruction of the 1938 original bridge -- which is a concrete multiple arch with ornate railings and superstructure details -- and is below the grade of the adjacent southbound bridge, which would also have to be bridged by any flyover! Any such "modern" ramp facility would have had to be implemented in the late '50's and early '60's when I-5 was originally constructed.
Quote from: sparker on August 26, 2016, 09:41:29 PM
Not quite -- NB 110 is coming out of a 4-lane-wide tunnel at that point, with the left lane dedicated to the turn to NB 5, and the 2nd lane splitting between the NB 5 ramp and the NB 110 main line. It segues directly onto the L.A. river bridge at that point; this is the original bridge constructed when the tunnels contained North Figueroa St., and were re-purposed for NB only when the SB lanes of the Arroyo Seco Parkway were constructed. Underneath the bridges are not only the L.A. River but several sets of railroad tracks; the Metrolink main service facility is directly north of the I-5 bridge, less than a half-mile to the northeast. There's just no room left for any sort of viable flyover, absent a complete reconstruction of the 1938 original bridge -- which is a concrete multiple arch with ornate railings and superstructure details -- and is below the grade of the adjacent southbound bridge, which would also have to be bridged by any flyover! Any such "modern" ramp facility would have had to be implemented in the late '50's and early '60's when I-5 was originally constructed.
Just to correct... the bridge in question - the NB State 110 bridge, is NOT a concrete multiple arch bridge. It is a steel girder bridge and from 1937 (minor correction there). You also have the SB bridge, also steel girder (Bethlehem Steel at that) which is higher than the NB bridge. To do anything more than what is there would require even the tunnel to have work done on it, hence why things remain as they are.
Could have sworn the original NB bridge was an arch! Do recall the SB bridge as conventional girder. Guess the old memory isn't what it used to be :pan: -- been a long time (probably 25+ years) since I've actually been at ground level in that area -- pretty much up on I-5 since then on the way to somewhere else. My mention of the grade of NB 110 being lower than that of SB meant that the SB bridge was higher (it had to be to clear the NB 110>5 ramp!). Not many options for upgrades there, considering the topology, the tunnel, and the RR tracks below.
Come to think of it, I probably conflated the mistaken arches on the 110 crossing with the street bridges downstream. Mea culpa!
Wouldn't the riverbed be a perfect location for bridge bents? There's lots of places in the river and between roads, the Arroyo, and storm channels in the area for bridge bents. Here's just one roughed-out example of where you could place bridge bents that presumably conforms with Caltrans curve radii requirements for such a bridge.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1SKfmYZ.jpg&hash=0837be216167318dfa8bd4a6294a4982ef273c44)
I would think your two biggest engineering issues would be 1) relocating the power lines and telephone lines, and 2) whether the downgrade on the new offramp from the bridge to Riverside Drive was too steep such that you had to lose the Riverside Drive offramp.
I'm not an engineer, but to my knowledge there's nothing (other than historical preservation issues) that would stop being able to marry a seismically independent box girder bridge to the existing steel bridge.
The other thing to consider is that although the southbound lanes are higher than the northbound lanes coming out of the tunnel, by the time you get to the Avenue 19 overcrossing, both northbound and southbound lanes are dropping such that they are almost parallel in height. Any new bridge structure coming off the northbound 110 would be rising at a slight grade from the tunnel eastward, and should be able to easily clear both sets of lanes of the 110 as it curves northward at that point.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FaYdfbR9.jpg&hash=7027416370d22d01fa7cb9ef9cfb6eab095dfb21)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGrI37V1.jpg&hash=5e96375745be3f236d8cacf464f79e6423bf4586)
It's the drop down over the Golden State Freeway and into the current distributor road to the 5 North that concerns me. You'd probably have to raise that road significantly in order to marry it to the new bridge connection with an acceptable enough downgrade coming off the bridge. That in turn leaves you with a likely too steep of a drop in too short of a distance to Riverside Drive to keep that offramp.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfLPchs0.jpg&hash=937b1a98993d22126476293f27567de2a573e8e0)
That ramp alignment looks good! It would also allow for the "kink" in the South I-5 to CA-110 connector ramp to be removed. This ramp could also be widened to allow for a proper right shoulder and thus give better sight lines around the hill.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 29, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
I would think your two biggest engineering issues would be 1) relocating the power lines and telephone lines, and 2) whether the downgrade on the new offramp from the bridge to Riverside Drive was too steep such that you had to lose the Riverside Drive offramp.
1) Many of the power lines in this area were placed underground as part of the new traffic circle being built at the Figueroa and San Fernando intersection. There is that triple circuit transmission line, but the towers could be raised to provide enough clearance.
2) Yeah, the Riverside Drive ramp might be a bit steep, but the ramps could be pushed back to intersect Riverside at the Oros intersection if needed.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 29, 2016, 06:36:59 PM
I'm not an engineer, but to my knowledge there's nothing (other than historical preservation issues) that would stop being able to marry a seismically independent box girder bridge to the existing steel bridge.
Based on your diagram it looks like this ramp could actually split off at the earth embankment prior to the bridge. Thus, the two bridges would be completely separate structures.
====
There was a discussion about Freeway Entrance signs earlier in this thread. Here's one in Oakland where it looks like there were issues with illegal U-turns. The no U-turn sign should be an I-580 shield:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjWko172.png&hash=87e69e1c3573b4cec6f6cb87258f0f4835710077)
As there is a currently planned city effort (spearheaded by the architect Frank Gehry) to return the Los Angeles River, including the area in question here, to a more "natural" state (which would entail removing much of the concrete channelization), construction of flyovers that would encroach on the riverbed may be a non-starter, given the current sociopolitical climate in L.A. My guess would be that we'll all be living with the present cliff-hugging transitional ramps from 110 to 5 -- and vice-versa -- for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Exit58 on August 25, 2016, 11:30:15 PM
I used to frequent Universal and that interchange was always a mess. I didn't know that they (finally) added a direct connection from Universal Blvd to SB101. I remember always having to drive quite a way south on Cahuenga Blvd to get on.
Also, it looks like just north of the new SB101 onramp, there is a US 101 shield with green NORTH and directional arrow tabs. The northbound onramp from NB Universal is also using painted posts for it's entrance assembly.
Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.
The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
Quote from: mrsman on September 02, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.
The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
According to Google Maps that ramp has been closed for almost a decade though. The new on ramp was just built within the last two years.
Quote from: Exit58 on September 02, 2016, 03:36:28 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 02, 2016, 03:21:23 PM
Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.
The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
According to Google Maps that ramp has been closed for almost a decade though. The new on ramp was just built within the last two years.
He means this one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmeyEnSQ.jpg&hash=f49f1add07ad8a474981fe6f0211835e8e52ca15)
After they closed the old old diamond ramp, they partially replaced it with an on/off for southbound 101 traffic. When they opened the new Universal City ramp southbound, they closed the replacement Barham southbound offramp because of a weaving problem
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-universal-city-ramp-20141221-story.html
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 02, 2016, 04:00:32 PMHe means this one.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmeyEnSQ.jpg&hash=f49f1add07ad8a474981fe6f0211835e8e52ca15)
After they closed the old old diamond ramp, they partially replaced it with an on/off for southbound 101 traffic. When they opened the new Universal City ramp southbound, they closed the replacement Barham southbound offramp because of a weaving problem
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-universal-city-ramp-20141221-story.html
Wow they did such a great job of removing the off ramp it's practically gone! I forgot it was even there. I haven't been up that way in eons.
Quote from: jeffe on August 24, 2016, 10:56:19 PM
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3oDaK0Y.jpg&hash=26ec84c3f21902b6bcfa550d9ce51c29ac1fec0d)
Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
Quote from: andy3175 on September 05, 2016, 12:35:24 AM
Quote from: jeffe on August 24, 2016, 10:56:19 PM
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
Santa Nella just needed to get in on all that: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.057404,-121.0163755,3a,75y,218.94h,76.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4z_ygnKvpxh_V1lgzOnGcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: andy3175 on September 05, 2016, 12:35:24 AM
Quote from: jeffe on August 24, 2016, 10:56:19 PM
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3oDaK0Y.jpg&hash=26ec84c3f21902b6bcfa550d9ce51c29ac1fec0d)
Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
There is google... and there is this:
http://socalregion.com/brawley-bypass/ (http://socalregion.com/brawley-bypass/)
Noticed this fabulous 84 multiplex this morning on the way up to Sonoma where, IIRC, there is no multiplex. I had thought the definition had it end on both sides of 880. Google Maps shows it multiplexed too.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 02:28:09 PM
Noticed this fabulous 84 multiplex this morning on the way up to Sonoma where, IIRC, there is no multiplex. I had thought the definition had it end on both sides of 880. Google Maps shows it multiplexed too.
I figure Google's explanation for showing 84 and 880 as being multiplexed is because Caltrans' own signs seem to imply the same thing...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images084/ca-084_eb_exit_038_03.jpg)
Bonus points for anyone who noticed the "Craig County"-esque boo boo on this sign(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images880/i-880_sb_exit_019_01.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images084/ca-084_eb_thornton_ave_01.jpg)
FWIW, there's supposed to be another discontinuity of CA-84 at US 101 but once again, both routes are signed on freeway entrance assemblies and reassurance markers...
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images101/us-101_sb_exit_406_01.jpg)
Interesting. I could see the reasoning for it being on the entrance ramps from 84, as it would guide drivers to the corresponding segment, especially since the 880 section used to be continuous.
I don't really get why Caltrans is so against multiplexes. This is a situation where it could be quite useful.
And here's the Street View link that I copied but didnt post, but it may just go to the map. I'll have to stop posting on my phone because nothing works very well and my autocorrect makes poor decisions.
https://goo.gl/maps/VFRTc6pAK532
if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 05, 2016, 08:12:57 PM
if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Well, no, that's not true. That's the thing about it: Caltrans' definition of it does not include any of the several multiplexed sections. But I meant formerly continuous with regards to the fact that it used to be one, continuous roadway between the Dunbarton Bridge and the section of Thornton Avenue east of 880.
So it's no longer continuous, but it is contiguous, I s'pose.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 08:33:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 05, 2016, 08:12:57 PM
if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Well, no, that's not true. That's the thing about it: Caltrans' definition of it does not include any of the several multiplexed sections. But I meant formerly continuous with regards to the fact that it used to be one, continuous roadway between the Dunbarton Bridge and the section of Thornton Avenue east of 880.
So it's no longer continuous, but it is contiguous, I s'pose.
Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 05, 2016, 08:34:31 PM
Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.
It isn't Caltrans themselves per se but the actual legislative definitions of routes.
Weirdly enough, looking at Cahighways.org, Route 84 from Route 1 east to I-680 was the pre-1963 Legislatively Route Number 107 (including the concurrencies today with US 101, I-880, and Route 238), while the portion from I-680 east to I-580 (and then along the never built/signed Vasco Road corridor) was LRN 108, and the portion of somewhat-signed Route 84 today north of Route 12 was LRN 99.
There are only a couple of route definitions post-1964 that imply a concurrency, rather than breaking it into several segments; Route 271 is the one that immediately comes to mind (even though it is not signed along US 101 from Route 1 to the second segment a bit north).
I don't know much about the process that drew up the 1964-era route definitions - were some routes determined major and thus given legislative precedence in concurrency definitions, i.e. US 101 being defined in only two segments that corresponded to (mostly) LRN 1 and LRN 2?
Quote from: TheStranger on September 06, 2016, 05:01:22 AM
There are only a couple of route definitions post-1964 that imply a concurrency, rather than breaking it into several segments; Route 271 is the one that immediately comes to mind (even though it is not signed along US 101 from Route 1 to the second segment a bit north).
I don't know much about the process that drew up the 1964-era route definitions - were some routes determined major and thus given legislative precedence in concurrency definitions, i.e. US 101 being defined in only two segments that corresponded to (mostly) LRN 1 and LRN 2?
CA 271 is an "odd duck", intended to be a scenic alternative to US 101, which in the '60's and the '70's was being reconstructed as a limited-access facility generally uphill from the original route, which for the most part followed a series of canyons or narrow valleys containing redwood groves. As noted above, 271 was signed in 2 segments once the 101 freeway was in place; it was intended that once a freeway segment from Leggett north to Smithe Grove State Park was constructed, 271 would be signed over the original highway, connecting those separate segments. Environmental concerns have since halted any freeway development along that stretch of US 101, hence the "split" route on CA 271; the southern section traverses the redwood-filled valley between Cummings and Leggett, while the northern serves Smithe Grove. If/when completed, 271 was intended to function exactly like CA 254 (Avenue of the Giants) further north, as a scenic 101 alternative.
Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101) from the Mexican border to Oregon, and 3 & 4 covering US 99 (and 99E) from Oregon south to Los Angeles. The next batch of numbers were connectors from these north-south "spines" to other points, sometimes in two directions; 5 - 8 were scattered over Northern California, connecting to one or more of the "spines". 9 was more or less a rather strange "branch" from 2 in Ventura, extending east along the northern reaches of the Los Angeles basin to San Bernardino, while 10 crossed east-west on what is now CA 198. 11 extended two ways from Sacramento (SW and east along US 50), 12 connected 2 in San Diego with Imperial Valley via US 80, 13 connected 4 at Salida, north of Modesto, with the eastern Sierra slope (on what is now CA 219 and CA 108). 14 was a Bay Area connector from Oakland to Martinez (at the time, the US 40 Carquinez Bridge was privately owned and not part of the LRN network, so US 40 was discontinuous: LRN 14 south of the bridge and LRN 7 northward). LRN 15 connected LRN's 1 & 3 via CA 20, while LRN 16 was CA 175 from Hopland to Kelseyville, on Clear Lake (this must have been politically-motivated, as it partially duplicates LRN 15, only 20 miles to the north). LRN 17 connected LRN 3 at Roseville to Grass Valley, while LRN 18 was the "all-weather" Yosemite connection (CA 140) from LRN 4 at Merced. LRN 19 connected LRN 2 at Fullerton to the "Inland Empire" cities of Pomona and Riverside, while LRN 20 was a cross-state connector, originally CA 44 for its full length but later US 299 (CA 299) west of Redding. LRN 21 and above didn't follow the pattern of the first 20 as "branches" extending out from the spines, but were established in order statewide as roads were brought into the state system.
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)
I have always thought that LRN 1 being assigned along the combination of California US 199 and then the portion of 101 south of there to SF was because all of that is the named Redwood Highway altogether.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 06, 2016, 12:52:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)
I have always thought that LRN 1 being assigned along the combination of California US 199 and then the portion of 101 south of there to SF was because all of that is the named Redwood Highway altogether.
Since LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time. Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II. Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes. The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.
Quote from: sparker on September 06, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101) from the Mexican border to Oregon, and 3 & 4 covering US 99 (and 99E) from Oregon south to Los Angeles. The next batch of numbers were connectors from these north-south "spines" to other points, sometimes in two directions; 5 - 8 were scattered over Northern California, connecting to one or more of the "spines". 9 was more or less a rather strange "branch" from 2 in Ventura, extending east along the northern reaches of the Los Angeles basin to San Bernardino, while 10 crossed east-west on what is now CA 198. 11 extended two ways from Sacramento (SW and east along US 50), 12 connected 2 in San Diego with Imperial Valley via US 80, 13 connected 4 at Salida, north of Modesto, with the eastern Sierra slope (on what is now CA 219 and CA 108). 14 was a Bay Area connector from Oakland to Martinez (at the time, the US 40 Carquinez Bridge was privately owned and not part of the LRN network, so US 40 was discontinuous: LRN 14 south of the bridge and LRN 7 northward). LRN 15 connected LRN's 1 & 3 via CA 20, while LRN 16 was CA 175 from Hopland to Kelseyville, on Clear Lake (this must have been politically-motivated, as it partially duplicates LRN 15, only 20 miles to the north). LRN 17 connected LRN 3 at Roseville to Grass Valley, while LRN 18 was the "all-weather" Yosemite connection (CA 140) from LRN 4 at Merced. LRN 19 connected LRN 2 at Fullerton to the "Inland Empire" cities of Pomona and Riverside, while LRN 20 was a cross-state connector, originally CA 44 for its full length but later US 299 (CA 299) west of Redding. LRN 21 and above didn't follow the pattern of the first 20 as "branches" extending out from the spines, but were established in order statewide as roads were brought into the state system.
Note that I have a full chronology at http://www.cahighways.org/chronlgy.html (to which Sparker's observation, above, will be added with attribution). Note that a number of legislative routes were established long before the state got the bright idea to number them legislatively (and that was long before they, or more rightly, the auto club, decided to sign them with numbers). Interestingly enough, these earliest routes weren't the single digit LRNs -- they were portions of LRN 11 (eventual US 50), LRN 18 (Route 140), LRN 11 (adding parts of eventual Route 16, eventual Route 51 / BR 80), LRN 40 (Route 120 and Route 108), LRN 13 (Route 108), LRN 20 (US 299, later Route 44), LRN 41 (Route 180), LRN 35 and LRN 36 (Route 3, Route 36, Route 194) and LRN 37 (US 40, later, of course, I-80). It wasn't until the first bond issue in 1909 that you got LRN 1.
Further, and perhaps this explains Sparker's observation, the bond issue noted: "The route or routes of said state highways shall be selected by the department of engineering and said route shall be selected and said highways so laid out and constructed or acquired as to constitute a continuous and connected state highway system running north and south through the state traversing the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys and along the Pacific Coast by the most direct and practicable routes, connecting the county seats of the several counties through which it passes and joining the centers of population, together with such branch roads as may be necessary to connect therewith the several county seats lying east and west of said state highway."
QuoteSince LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time. Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II. Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes. The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.
Actually, LRN 1 was defined in the first bond issue in 1909 -- see http://www.cahighways.org/chrphas1.html . That gave you most of the first 34 legislatively defined routes. LRN1 was defined broadly: "From San Francisco to Crescent City, 371.2 mi". Similarly LRN 2 "From San Francisco to San Diego, 481.8 mi".
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 06, 2016, 09:21:47 PM
Actually, LRN 1 was defined in the first bond issue in 1909 -- see http://www.cahighways.org/chrphas1.html . That gave you most of the first 34 legislatively defined routes. LRN1 was defined broadly: "From San Francisco to Crescent City, 371.2 mi". Similarly LRN 2 "From San Francisco to San Diego, 481.8 mi".
Since the original "loose" definition of LRN 1 cited Crescent City as the terminus, it's likely that the decision to prioritize the inland US 199 corridor for the reasons I stated previously came at a later date -- possibly when the original multi-route highway system was formulated circa 1924. It might be useful to obtain a history of the deployment of US 101 along the Oregon coast to ascertain whether the northern extension of US 101 to the Oregon state line (LRN 71) was developed in conjunction with efforts north of the state line.
Coincidentally, the three U.S. routes that cross into Oregon, aside from US 199 (LRN 1) and US 99 (LRN 3) have successive numbers, west to east (US 101=LRN 71, US 97=LRN 72, and US 395=LRN 73), which suggests that they were commissioned at or near the same time -- although the original US 97 southern terminus used OR 66 from Klamath Falls to Ashland, and US 395 was SSR 7 until the late '30's, so their eventual status as US highways may well be a matter of later development regardless of the origin of the LRN "cluster". It's likely LRN 72 got its start as a parallel road to the rerouted Southern Pacific main line to Oregon via Dorris and Klamath Falls (the original closely paralleled US 99 but had the disadvantage of having to surmount a series of steep grades), which was opened in 1927, a few years prior to the LRN 71-73 commissioning.
So I'm a little curious on this one: why wouldn't LRN 1 and the Redwood Highway name be on 199?
The way I look at it is that the entire Redwood Highway was the most ideal routing from what were then some of the more populated parts of California into the more populated parts of Oregon. It's just an easier winter routing than US 99, so I think the idea was that it would be the primary north-south route in the state.
From what I understand also, most of what is now US 101 in Oregon didn't exist until more into the mid-20th century.
I don't know though: maybe I'm misunderstanding the discussion here.
Sparker: I dropped a note to the fellow who has been investigating the history of US highways in Oregon (we've been going back and forth on US 199), pointing him to this discussion. Hopefully, he'll chime in with the answer to your question.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 07, 2016, 06:07:12 PM
The way I look at it is that the entire Redwood Highway was the most ideal routing from what were then some of the more populated parts of California into the more populated parts of Oregon. It's just an easier winter routing than US 99, so I think the idea was that it would be the primary north-south route in the state.
From what I understand also, most of what is now US 101 in Oregon didn't exist until more into the mid-20th century.
I'm not in front of all my documents, so I can only speak to what I have access to and from off the top of my head.
Oregon was the last of the 3 Pacific states to create a highway department (1913), and until the start of the 1930s most roadbuilding was done under county jurisdiction, with assistance from the state. However, the state did define 36 state highways in 1917, presumably to be under state jurisdiction. Our Hwy #1 was the Pacific Highway from Washington to California mostly along what became US-99E and US-99; #2 was the Columbia River Highway from Astoria to Umatilla along what became US-30; and #3 was the Coast Highway, originally the Roosevelt Military Highway, along what became US-101 from Astoria to the California line just south of Brookings. By comparison, what would eventually become US-199, the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway, was #25 -- so if number is an indication of importance, Oregon clearly thought much more highly of the coastal route than the one through the redwoods. (Also, I imagine the state highway commission wanted to create a coastal highway with the same scenery and design standards as the Columbia River Highway, which had opened the previous year to great fanfare.)
I can't speak to the condition of the road in its early days, but I imagine that the quality was very poor around 1917. As previously mentioned, the counties and cities built roads back then; while segments of what became the Oregon Coast Highway did exist, they weren't considered a single highway with missing parts just yet. Therefore, the routes on the maps were considered temporary until properly surveyed. According to the 1920 state highway map, while the surveys were largely done for the other state highways, the Oregon Coast Highway (now #9) was the only one with sections marked as "under consideration". I imagine that the surveys simply took longer -- the terrain was difficult to traverse, the weather was largely unfavorable, and roads in coastal communities may not yet have connected to the rest of the state at all.
By 1920, the section from Gold Beach to the California line was marked as under consideration, then upgraded to "unimproved" in 1922 with a graded section around Cape Sebastian. By 1926, the Gold Beach-California section was either graded or rock- and gravel-surfaced, and by 1932 it was all oiled macadam. In fact, the 1930 state highway map shows roughly 95% of the highway being rock/gravel or better, with Florence still having graded and unimproved segments. (By comparison, Oregon's section of the Pacific Highway was paved border-to-border by 1922.) The Oregon Coast Highway became driveable from the state line to Astoria in 1936, when the last of five coastal ferries was replaced by a bridge (I forget which).
So I think it would be accurate to say that while a
paved US-101 didn't fully exist until the mid-20th century, it
did exist as a contiguous though tortuous route (save for the ferries) by 1922.
The Redwood Highway -- the current name for the Grants Pass-Crescent City Highway -- was similarly unimproved in 1922, save a graded section near the Illinois River -- probably for a bridge or in preparation of one. A roughly 5-mile section was graded from the California border northward by 1924, then made rock/gravel from the border to the Illinois River by 1926. The entirety of US-199 in Oregon was oiled macadam by 1930.
Thanks, Dan & Jason, for the info. According to Dan's info on the commission date of LRN 71-72-73 (1931, with full route codification in 1935), Jason's Oregon timeline dovetails right into that scenario, with the full paving of the Gold Beach - state line section occurring in 1932; LRN 71/US 101 was, more or less, there to meet it. LRN 1/US 199's completion a few years earlier also makes sense; Oregon would benefit, commerce-wise, from California redwood lumber being either milled and/or loaded onto railcars at Grants Pass or Medford, so expediting that coastal outlet would connect two areas with a mutual interest.
Quote from: sparker on September 07, 2016, 11:43:13 PM
LRN 1/US 199's completion a few years earlier also makes sense; Oregon would benefit, commerce-wise, from California redwood lumber being either milled and/or loaded onto railcars at Grants Pass or Medford, so expediting that coastal outlet would connect two areas with a mutual interest.
Oh that's very true. Also, on the recreational front, touring in cars was very popular in those days, and Oregon likely wanted to get coastal drivers to its new paved Pacific Highway traversing the backbone of the state. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from Oregonian articles at the time.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 05, 2016, 05:14:23 PM
Interesting. I could see the reasoning for it being on the entrance ramps from 84, as it would guide drivers to the corresponding segment, especially since the 880 section used to be continuous.
I don't really get why Caltrans is so against multiplexes. This is a situation where it could be quite useful.
There are multiplexes all over California, but they're usually not for long distances or for more than two routes. Whether or not Caltrans chooses to sign them appears to be based on whatever Caltrans feels like doing. They sign CA 2 down US 101 in Hollywood, but they don't sign I-10 down I-5 near downtown LA, nor did they sign CA 170 down US 101 before it was truncated. Just don't expect Caltrans to multiplex an interstate and a US highway for over 50 miles or have a freeway with three route designations.
CA 33 multiplexes several times on its near 300 mile trek Ventura to Tracy. None of them are in the definition of Route 33, but it's actively signed across them all.
33 is a funny road. If you go look at the area around Santa Nella, that I posted a StreetView link to earlier in the thread, it's signed onto 152 east but, if you look at the I-5 interchange, it's signed only for eastbound and is left off of the westbound sign for northbound I-5, while it's left out entirely for southbound I-5. Past that, it's really sparingly signed, even for reassurance markers. A lot of it seems like it should be turned over for county maintenance in several places, where it largely functions as a local road, but I would guess it's probably another instance of the county not wanting it. I use it sometimes on busy weekends to avoid I-5, when that road gets crowded with Angelenos in Chevy Tahoes.
But I wasn't trying to assert that California has no multiplexes. The 49/108 multiplex in Stanislaus is both signed and official, and there are a few others. It's just the question of what defines a multiplex? Is it a sign, or is it the legal definition? I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful. Most other states are not hesitant at all about keeping multiplexes both signed and defined, but California seems mostly adverse to the whole idea.
=====
So, back to the Redwood Highway, I wanted to sort of lead to the bias that we have now regarding routing decisions. I think we look at the choices made in that respect in a modern context as rational and reasoned, as in the way much of the interstate system was conceived. However, prior to about WWII, the country was much more corrupt. There are plenty of examples of railroads being routed based on bribes, lobbying or just favortism. Not that this didn't exist during the interstate system's planning, but it was certainly less extensive. My point was going to be that it's very possible that the Redwood Highway was put onto what is now 199 was either due to a town's or individual's or group's lobbying, and that could have even been the road's original owner. Maybe it was even some sort of spite against Oregon, if they had just completed their coastal route. But, then again, it could be that it was more reasoned than that; that California saw the benefit of bringing the highway into the more populated parts of Southern Oregon and away from the coast. Who knows.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful.
No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.
(i.e. US 101 is only in 2 segments statewide, while roads that are co-signed with it like Route and Route 84 break up into segments whenever they piggyback onto 101)
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.
Quote from: TheStranger on September 08, 2016, 02:29:35 PM
No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.
The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
I think it's probably an exception in that specific instance. Another example is with 33/166, I believe 166 mile markers are posted, as it's the original, older road, while 33 was tacked on as an extension to replace US-399.
Quote from: emory on September 08, 2016, 07:43:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 08, 2016, 02:29:35 PM
No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.
The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.
Well, it once did have that discontinuity. From my pages (you're seeing my raw format, folks):
Quote
%STARTSEG
From Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near San Dimas.
As of November 24, 2002, the portion from I-10 to I-210/Route 210 was signed as Route 57. Previously, this segment had been signed as part of I-210.
%HIST1964
In 1963, this segment was defined as the segment "Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona, passing near Industry." Note that the Route 210 referred to in this segment is the former I-10/I-210 junction in Pomona, not the current I-210/Route 57 junction in San Dimas.
In 1965, Section 1371 split this into two segments: "(b) Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 60 near Industry. (c) Route 60 near Industry to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona."
In 1998, AB 2388 (Chapter 221) recombined these segments, and renumbered former Route 210 between the I-10 (near Pomona) to the I-210/Former Route 30 jct (near San Dimas) portion as Route 57, creating the current definition.
So it did have the discontinuity when it was defined in the post 1964 numbering, but the legislature screwed that up when they adjusted it for the change in terminus of Route 210.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 08, 2016, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.
You're right.
I noticed in the 49/120 multiplex also, that 49 gets the break instead of 120.
I'm not sure about this "ascending number" rule.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 11, 2016, 12:09:05 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 08, 2016, 04:43:30 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on September 08, 2016, 04:16:53 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.
You're right.
I noticed in the 49/120 multiplex also, that 49 gets the break instead of 120.
I'm not sure about this "ascending number" rule.
My take is it's more of a guideline or a convention than any actual rule and thus it's frequently ignored. Perhaps the route that was signed/built first gets priority, who knows.
Quote from: emory on September 08, 2016, 07:43:28 PM
The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.
The Pomona Freeway was defined when US 60 was still in existence in California. US 60 also stuck around after the 1964 renumbering (although in that area not for very long). So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment (I can't recall if the milage along the freeway is realigned or not as I believe most/all routes still follow the post miles of their '64 routing) thus giving US (SR) 60 preference over SR 57.
Quote from: Exit58 on September 11, 2016, 03:27:18 PM
So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment
Good point, and I hadn't thought how that would affect it. But I think the point there was regarding the existence of a concurrency/multiplex in the state route system as opposed to one route having discontinuity as multiplexes seem to normally in the state. Obviously they wouldn't actually post both postmiles (that would be so confusing) though.
I was thinking about it yesterday, and I know I've seen dual milemarkers on an interstate before, but definitely not in California. It may have been either 75/640 in Knoxville or 74/465 in Indianapolis. But I would hope that California would never put up two sets of milemarkers or postmiles. It's just too much.
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
I haven't noticed. Interesting though... Perhaps it's another way Caltrans is starting to get a little more in conformance with the national MUTCD...?
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
I've noticed a couple of instances in the S.F. Bay Area where the directional banner is above the route shield on the Freeway Entrance assemblies but the vast majority of the ones I see, including some new ones at the I-880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange, follow the old/existing standard with the directional banner below the route shield.
Here's an assembly on eastbound Mission Blvd/CA-262 at the on-ramp to north I-680...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FFwyEntAsm-680n.png&hash=5446a2e1e6013288b42a92d5d9b2a1c06982ea05)
...that has the directional banner above the shield (note the oddly shaped neutered I-680 shield with larger than normal numerals).
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 16, 2016, 03:44:36 AM
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
I've noticed a couple of instances in the S.F. Bay Area where the directional banner is above the route shield on the Freeway Entrance assemblies but the vast majority of the ones I see, including some new ones at the I-880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange, follow the old/existing standard with the directional banner below the route shield.
Here's an assembly on eastbound Mission Blvd/CA-262 at the on-ramp to north I-680...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FFwyEntAsm-680n.png&hash=5446a2e1e6013288b42a92d5d9b2a1c06982ea05)
...that has the directional banner above the shield (note the oddly shaped neutered I-680 shield with larger than normal numerals).
Jesus, look at that messed-up shield!
Quote from: sdmichael on September 15, 2016, 09:03:00 PM
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.
I have seen this on I-15 in San Bernardino County; I think it is becoming increasingly common. I will have to remember to photograph one of these to share next time I see one.
FWIW, I think SDMichael is right about the aesthetics of banner placement for Interstate and US route markers vs. state markers.
With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:
- Contra Costa County (Measure X) - http://keepcontracostamoving.net/
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- Placer County (Measure M) - http://keepplacermoving.com/
- Sacramento County (Measure B) - http://www.sacramentogo.com/
- San Diego County (Measure A) - http://measure.sandag.org/
- San Luis Obispo County (Measure J-16)
- Santa Clara County (Measure B) - http://www.vta.org/envision-silicon-valley/envision-silicon-valley
- Santa Cruz County (Measure D) - http://www.votescount.com/Home/UpcomingElections/November8,2016PresidentialGeneralElection/LocalMeasuresontheballot/MeasureDCountyTransportationTaxMeasure.aspx
- Stanislaus County (Measure L) - http://www.stanislaus-localroadsfirst.com
- Ventura County (Measure AA) - http://keepvcmoving.org/
The web page links provide additional project information for each county. Notable items I noted in reviewing these pages include transit improvements (bus and rail), interchange upgrades, and additional road capacity in certain areas. Notable road projects in the list include (not a complete list):
- Vasco Road/Byron Highway Corridor
- I-680/SR 4 interchange improvements
- Improvements to multiple LA Freeways, including portions of I-5, I-105, I-405, I-710
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
- Placer Parkway (SR 70-99 to SR 65)
- Bus 80/SR 51 Capital City Fwy Bus/Carpool Lanes & Operational Improvements (P Street — Watt)
- Capital Southeast Connector (I-5 Hood-Franklin Road to SR 99 to US 50 Silva Valley Parkway)
- Express and Carpool Lanes on San Diego's I-5, SR 52, SR 78, and SR 94
- Carpool Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 78, I-15/SR 78, SR 52/I-805, SR 94/SR 15; SR 94/I-805, and I-805/SR 15
- Missing Freeway Connectors at San Diego's I-5/SR 56, I-5/SR 78, and SR 94/SR 125
- SR 85 Corridor Improvements
- Improvements to Santa Clara County Expressway Network (reference 2040 plan at: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rda/plans/expyplan2040/Pages/study.aspx)
- SR 132 Expressway from I-5 to Modesto
- Improvements to US 101 in SLO and Ventura Counties
- Improvements to SR 118
So I don't how I always missed this (probably it being shaded), but I just happened to notice it a couple of weeks ago on a burrito run and got the picture this morning. I don't think I've seen another shield on any of the other business routes in my area, but this seems to be one of the few overall shields for the state business routes.
It's on southbound Del Monte just past Highway 1, in northern Seaside.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8541/29636111122_9664512da4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/M9QPk9)
Speaking of shields on Business routes, this is literally the only fully signed "Historic State Highway" I ever recall seeing in the entire state:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2983551,-120.7053286,3a,37.5y,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9VZM30jovQfyGvI96MHhLQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en
Quote from: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 03:13:54 AM
With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
As this particular corridor has portions in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, does this measure address the corridor portion east of the L.A. county line as well -- since San Bernardino County is not at present considering a dedicated tax increase to address this project?
And -- although it's been attached to this corridor at least since the 2005 SAFETEA-LU act, exactly what is the significance -- or derivation of -- the "E-220" designation? Placeholder? PPP project number?.... or simply something as mundane as the order that the concept was formulated (e.g., Item #220 on someone's agenda). If anyone out there has a definitive answer, please supply it!
Quote from: andy3175 on September 17, 2016, 02:17:51 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 15, 2016, 09:03:00 PM
Quote from: jrouse on September 15, 2016, 08:57:45 PM
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.
I have seen this on I-15 in San Bernardino County; I think it is becoming increasingly common. I will have to remember to photograph one of these to share next time I see one.
FWIW, I think SDMichael is right about the aesthetics of banner placement for Interstate and US route markers vs. state markers.
One more confirmation about implementation by Caltrans. The new Freeway Entrance sign assembly for the entrance to the 22 Freeway from Studebaker Road in Long Beach has the directional banner above the shield.
Walking back to the hotel in Downtown Fresno this evening and spotted this gem. Obviously city maintained. If I'm not mistaken, we have:
- Wrong size
- Wrong font
- Wrong placement of "California"
https://flic.kr/p/LwkP5A
CalTrans just put up new entrance assemblies on the 57 South at Lambert Rd in Brea. IIRC, the shield is above the directional banner. Has anyone checked the assemblies on the 215 portion of the San Bernardino Fwy? I didn't really check going through there the last couple days, but I'm willing to bet it's swapped. Sections of the 101 in Ventura County too I believe.
Quote from: coatimundi on September 22, 2016, 05:22:48 AM
Walking back to the hotel in Downtown Fresno this evening and spotted this gem. Obviously city maintained. If I'm not mistaken, we have:
- Wrong size
- Wrong font
- Wrong placement of "California"
https://flic.kr/p/LwkP5A
Wrong font? Maybe the "99" which appears to be Series C but not the "41" which uses Series D.
Are there plans to fill in the many freeway quality gaps of us 101 between San Francisco and LA and make it a complete freeway between the 2 cities?
Nexus 9
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 22, 2016, 07:47:09 PM
Are there plans to fill in the many freeway quality gaps of us 101 between San Francisco and LA and make it a complete freeway between the 2 cities?
Nexus 9
Not at this time.
The gap at La Conchita was redesigned within the last decade to enhance safety, but the decision to not have a grade separation as part of those upgrades was made. I can't see that decision revisited any time soon unless the traffic backup during the morning commute to Santa Barbara gets bad enough to start impacting the beneficial effect of those recent changes.
There are likely lots of CEQA and Coastal Commission issues that would have to be addressed to upgrade the portion of 101 between Goleta and Gaviota Pass, and I don't think the money or political will is there to fight for such changes if there isn't a corresponding need for it based on traffic along that section of 101. And even if that section of 101 started having traffic issues, remember that 154 is always available as an alternate route, and its availability would likely further delay major costly upgrades to 101.
Between Gaviota Pass and Santa Maria, you'd have to determine how many local landowners (ranches, farms, and vineyards) who have easement access directly from the highway would be impacted before you could determine the likelihood of an upgrade. Same thing for the sections in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties.
I could see some of the section between Gilroy and Salinas being upgraded because of the increasing traffic on that section. However, nothing appears to be programmed right now.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 22, 2016, 08:19:24 PMI could see some of the section between Gilroy and Salinas being upgraded because of the increasing traffic on that section. However, nothing appears to be programmed right now.
Actually, there have been many upgrades and grade crossing eliminations between State 156 and Salinas. At this time, there may not even be any remaining grade crossings. Only the section between State 25 and Gilroy really need any sort of upgrade.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 22, 2016, 08:19:24 PM
Between Gaviota Pass and Santa Maria, you'd have to determine how many local landowners (ranches, farms, and vineyards) who have easement access directly from the highway would be impacted before you could determine the likelihood of an upgrade. Same thing for the sections in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties.
There is a proposed (and I believe designed) interchange at Wellsona Road in northern Paso. However it's not funded.
The Monterey County section would certainly fall into the landowners issue with all the farm side roads. I would guess there would push back on putting in frontage roads, and even more push back on closing some of them off.
Quote from: sdmichael on September 22, 2016, 09:02:26 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 22, 2016, 08:19:24 PMI could see some of the section between Gilroy and Salinas being upgraded because of the increasing traffic on that section. However, nothing appears to be programmed right now.
Actually, there have been many upgrades and grade crossing eliminations between State 156 and Salinas. At this time, there may not even be any remaining grade crossings. Only the section between State 25 and Gilroy really need any sort of upgrade.
The section between Salinas and 156 east has a grade crossing at Rocks Road, just before 156. There are also a couple of grade intersections without crossovers in Prunedale. But these are all very minor roads, and the last major crossover, at Dunbarton Road, was removed only a few months ago. The Cole Road crossover was blocked off at about that time also, but that was a lot less disruptive.
The section north of 129 seems to be mired in a funding jurisdictional hole. VTA wants to widen and improve it but has no money. Caltrans will pledge nothing. It's bad too: the railroad o/c and the Pajaro River bridges have terrible concrete separation, and the guardrail on the former looks like it's been hit at least 20 times.
Quote from: Exit58 on September 22, 2016, 01:08:19 PM
CalTrans just put up new entrance assemblies on the 57 South at Lambert Rd in Brea. IIRC, the shield is above the directional banner. Has anyone checked the assemblies on the 215 portion of the San Bernardino Fwy? I didn't really check going through there the last couple days, but I'm willing to bet it's swapped. Sections of the 101 in Ventura County too I believe.
There's a mix of both on the 215 if memory serves correctly. I'll check again this Sunday to be sure.
I shot some video of California's freeways on my last visit there in the spring:
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
Wildlife tunnel proposed for SR 17 ...
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/20/caltrans-commits-3-1-million-to-build-wildlife-tunnel-under-highway-17/
QuoteCaltrans has agreed to spend $3.1 million to help build a tunnel under Highway 17 in Santa Cruz County, a project expected to make the busy route safer for both wildlife and humans.
The state's commitment, announced on Thursday by its governing board, means that the design work at the site, called Laurel Curve, could begin in a few months.
More than 350 animals of 82 different species, including 13 pumas, have been hit on Highway 17 in the last eight years, according to CalTrans data. Collisions are a risk to people, as well.
If additional funding is secured through Measure D, a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Santa Cruz County on the Nov. 8 ballot, the tunnel could be built by 2020. ...
Laurel Curve region is a route for animals because it holds the largest undeveloped parcels along Highway 17. The route follows two major drainage basins. One, on the east, leads to a branch of Soquel Creek and the protected Forest of Nisene Marks State Park. The other, on the west, leads to Bean Creek and the San Lorenzo River, then the sea.
A second tunnel under Highway 17 is planned near Lexington Reservoir in Santa Clara County. Caltrans does not have funds to help at this site, but it supports its installation and is working closely to help tunnel proponents Pathways for Wildlife, MidPeninsula Open Space District and Peninsula Open Space Trust, according to Tanya Diamond of Pathways for Wildlife. ...
The Laurel Curve tunnel will be about 120 feet long. Fencing is also required, to funnel wildlife into safe passage.
The tunnel will cost $8 to $12 million to build. If Measure D passes, $5 million will be contributed to construction of the tunnel.
CaHighwayGuy mentioned the wildlife tunnel in his most recent update. Measure D did pass so, among many other things, it will be at least partially funded. I'm looking forward to seeing some designs.
If I'm not mistaken, this will be Northern California's first wildlife crossing. There are several in Southern California and in Arizona.
Here's a question.
If and when California petitions AASHTO to move Interstate 210 onto SR 210, will the interstate standard segment of CA 57 disappear? Or will they have to re-define it? If that's the case, we'll probably have another I-305 on our hands unless the state legislature wants to create a Route 410/610/810 and sign it.
57 is already signed as such between I-10 and I-210. The signs on I-10 say "To I-210" at the 57 interchange, and will probably continue to say so when SR 210 is renumbered to the interstate.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 10, 2016, 08:41:00 PM
57 is already signed as such between I-10 and I-210. The signs on I-10 say "To I-210" at the 57 interchange, and will probably continue to say so when SR 210 is renumbered to the interstate.
It's signed as CA 57 between those two points. My question was about federal definition since that portion of CA 57 is part of the Interstate Highway System. AASHTO isn't going allow two I-210s.
Quote from: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
So silly, it took Caltrans forever to re-post Venice Blvd with 187 shield. Just completed within the last 2 years. They even put overlays at the I-10 westbound off-ramp. Now they have to come down.
Quote from: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
So what surface streets does Caltrans still control in Los Angeles? There's SR 1 on Sepulveda Blvd and the PCH, SR 2 on Santa Monica Blvd/Alvarado Street/Glendale Blvd, SR 213 on Western Ave somehow still exists, SR 27 on Topanga Canyon Blvd. I think that's it.
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2016, 09:55:33 AM
So what surface streets does Caltrans still control in Los Angeles? There's SR 1 on Sepulveda Blvd and the PCH, SR 2 on Santa Monica Blvd/Alvarado Street/Glendale Blvd, SR 213 on Western Ave somehow still exists, SR 27 on Topanga Canyon Blvd. I think that's it.
Route 187 along Venice Boulevard (for now). Route 90 for the first block or so east of Route 1. Route 47 from Route 103 north to about Sepulveda Boulevard (the portion north up to Route 91 isn't in city limits). Could technically argue that Route 91 between Vermont Avenue and the Harbor Freeway/I-110 fits this, but barely.
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2016, 01:19:20 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
they're seriously giving away even the airport portion of 1 too? I feel like of all highways in california, 1 should never be decommissioned in any form. i hope they sign it still, it's so historic.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 12, 2016, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2016, 01:19:20 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
they're seriously giving away even the airport portion of 1 too? I feel like of all highways in california, 1 should never be decommissioned in any form. i hope they sign it still, it's so historic.
I was under the impression that the signage on 1 had been staying up with previously relinquished portions around L.A. and Long Beach? If that's the case, good for Caltrans if they can get a local body to maintain the roadways...I'm all good with that provided there isn't a signage gap.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 12, 2016, 04:41:30 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 12, 2016, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: emory on November 12, 2016, 01:19:20 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on November 10, 2016, 12:04:18 AM
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/
QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved "relinquishing" the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was "in the best interests of the state," according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
they're seriously giving away even the airport portion of 1 too? I feel like of all highways in california, 1 should never be decommissioned in any form. i hope they sign it still, it's so historic.
I was under the impression that the signage on 1 had been staying up with previously relinquished portions around L.A. and Long Beach? If that's the case, good for Caltrans if they can get a local body to maintain the roadways...I'm all good with that provided there isn't a signage gap.
I was on the relinquished Santa Monica section a few weeks ago, and the signs are definitely still up, though it's not what I would call "well-signed".
So many tourists want to "drive Highway 1" that they really need to keep signage up through Santa Monica and around LAX. Particularly the BGS at the Lincoln/Sepulveda split.
Since SR 47 has a traffic signal at Ness Avenue, you could (well, I am) make the point that that's a - albeit very brief - surface street.
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
Quote from: AndyMax25 on November 11, 2016, 11:57:32 PM
So silly, it took Caltrans forever to re-post Venice Blvd with 187 shield. Just completed within the last 2 years. They even put overlays at the I-10 westbound off-ramp. Now they have to come down.
As I continue to note the freshly-posted CA-42 sheld on the Long Beach Freeway on days I come back from court, I would bet you a good deal of money that those CA-187 shields are not coming down after relinquishment is official.
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
I dont know why I wrote Ness. I meant Navy Way. That's the traffic light before the Thomas Bridge on 47.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
I dont know why I wrote Ness. I meant Navy Way. That's the traffic light before the Thomas Bridge on 47.
I just went by what you said - the part just east of the Thomas Bridge is not listed as a state highway in the truck route list.
47 7 LA R 0.000 E 2.302 2.010 TA Jct 110 Begin Unconstructed - Seaside Ave.
47 7 LA 3.497 4.565 1.068 TA End Unconstructed - Terminal Island Fwy Jct Rte 103
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2016, 02:50:02 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 01:53:26 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 12, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
I dont know why I wrote Ness. I meant Navy Way. That's the traffic light before the Thomas Bridge on 47.
I just went by what you said - the part just east of the Thomas Bridge is not listed as a state highway in the truck route list.
47 7 LA R 0.000 E 2.302 2.010 TA Jct 110 Begin Unconstructed - Seaside Ave.
47 7 LA 3.497 4.565 1.068 TA End Unconstructed - Terminal Island Fwy Jct Rte 103
I mean, that's where the freeway ends, yes. It's the start of (one of) the unconstructed freeway section. The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 08:44:43 PM
The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.
Where? I can't find the following bridges on (signed) SR 47:
*SR 47 over railroads and Navy Way ramp
*SR 47 over railroads east of Navy Way
*I-710 over SR 47
*I-710 Desmond Bridge
*anything on SR 47 north of SR 103
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd07.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on November 13, 2016, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 13, 2016, 08:44:43 PM
The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.
Where? I can't find the following bridges on (signed) SR 47:
*SR 47 over railroads and Navy Way ramp
*SR 47 over railroads east of Navy Way
*I-710 over SR 47
*I-710 Desmond Bridge
*anything on SR 47 north of SR 103
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd07.pdf
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.
Quote from: coatimundi on November 14, 2016, 12:18:40 AM
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.
Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/divisions/planning/cm/SIGNEDTCR47.pdf
"The segment of Seaside Street PM 2.302 to PM 3.423 is unconstructed and is not part of the State Route 47, however, it will be part of Rte 47 when the Gerald Desmond Bridge (GDB) replacement is complete. The GDB replacement is anticipated be complete in 2018"
As of 2002 it was not state maintained: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/hseb/products/TravHwy02.pdf
7-LA-47 From Vincent Thomas Bridge to Route 103 1.2
When this segment is improved, it will be considered for assumption of maintenance.
why wasn't the freeway portion of CA 160 connected to I-5? it seems weird to have it just dump traffic onto city streets like that. Also, is the gap through downtown still signed at all? I thought you had to maintain signage when the state gives the road away.
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 14, 2016, 11:36:03 AM
why wasn't the freeway portion of CA 160 connected to I-5? it seems weird to have it just dump traffic onto city streets like that. Also, is the gap through downtown still signed at all? I thought you had to maintain signage when the state gives the road away.
Route 160 freeway (North Sacramento Freeway) predates I-5 by about 22-23 years, it was originally constructed as US 40 and US 99E (later just US 40).
160 itself in its original 1964-mid 2000s configuration is a hodgepodge of three pre-1964 routes:
- Route 4 in Antioch to Broadway in midtown Sacramento: former Route 24
- Broadway to Arden Way/Business 80: US 40
- N Street to Arden Way/Business 80: was US 99E until ca. 1959
There has never been any intention for the North Sacramento Freeway to connect on its west end in Alkali Flat to the rest of the freeway network, primarily serving as a spur for traffic heading downtown/midtown from Arden or Roseville or Citrus Heights.
And Route 160 signage was removed rather quickly between Freeport and Alkali Flat in the mid-2000s - no evidence of it now. An older overhead sign pointing to Reno and San Francisco destinations at 16th and P (dating to when US 40 temporarily used P and Q Streets in the mid-1960s) remained until a year or two ago.
Quote from: TheStranger on November 12, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2016, 01:25:09 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 14, 2016, 12:18:40 AM
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.
Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
I would guess so. The sign is still up and is quite prominent (you can see it clearly on GSV, at the northern part of the intersection). I noticed it when I was through there a few weeks ago.
Quote from: emory on November 16, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 12, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
I could absolutely be wrong, but I recall 170 being signed on Highland somewhere in 2003 or so. About how long ago were the signs removed? And was it ever signed on the 101 offramp?
Quote from: coatimundi on November 16, 2016, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2016, 01:25:09 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 14, 2016, 12:18:40 AM
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.
Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
I would guess so. The sign is still up and is quite prominent (you can see it clearly on GSV, at the northern part of the intersection). I noticed it when I was through there a few weeks ago.
Quote from: emory on November 16, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 12, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
I could absolutely be wrong, but I recall 170 being signed on Highland somewhere in 2003 or so. About how long ago were the signs removed? And was it ever signed on the 101 offramp?
170 was not signed from the offramp, but as recently as 2010, it was signed on Highland (sporadically). When I was in that area in May of this year, I couldn't find any remaining signage for the state route.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwwtl.info%2Fca-170-i.jpg&hash=fc21a3e57f715d624dd1da0179fbe392af905be0)
Quote from: coatimundi on November 16, 2016, 01:50:30 PM
Quote from: NE2 on November 14, 2016, 01:25:09 AM
Quote from: coatimundi on November 14, 2016, 12:18:40 AM
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.
Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
I would guess so. The sign is still up and is quite prominent (you can see it clearly on GSV, at the northern part of the intersection). I noticed it when I was through there a few weeks ago.
Quote from: emory on November 16, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 12, 2016, 11:12:30 AM
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
I could absolutely be wrong, but I recall 170 being signed on Highland somewhere in 2003 or so. About how long ago were the signs removed? And was it ever signed on the 101 offramp?
There may still be a 170 shield on the southbound lane near the Hollywood Bowl entrance. That was definitely the last shield.
I was looking at Bakersfield on OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/35.3628/-119.0402) and I noticed that a freeway connecting the Westside Parkway with the CA 58/ CA 99 interchange was shown as under construction. Any info on this? Is it actually under construction? I'd be surprised if it even was, since it goes straight through a residential area. The only conceivable way of it being built would be as a tunnel.
Mod Note: Replies to this post were merged to the existing thread, to keep discussion of that topic in one place. See Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor (CA 58 realignment, Bakersfield) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11312.msg2187919#msg2187919)
–Roadfro.
Quote from: emory on November 17, 2016, 01:35:27 PM
There may still be a 170 shield on the southbound lane near the Hollywood Bowl entrance. That was definitely the last shield.
Yes, there is. I drive down that stretch of Highland and it was still there as of last month, at least. It's southbound on Highland Avenue right after the Hollywood Bowl entrance. I think it's on the same block as all of the hotels a block or two north of the Franklin Avenue intersection. That's the last CA 170 shield I've seen on Highland.
Interstate 5 Stockton North project nears completion with opening of new HOV lane in September ...
http://www.recordnet.com/news/20160921/sjs-first-carpool-lane-opens-on-i-5-through-stockton
Quote from: andy3175 on December 03, 2016, 11:38:35 PM
Interstate 5 Stockton North project nears completion with opening of new HOV lane in September ...
http://www.recordnet.com/news/20160921/sjs-first-carpool-lane-opens-on-i-5-through-stockton
I never realized "SJ" was a colloquialism for "San Joaquin". I got really confused by that title at first.
I drove by this over Thanksgiving weekend, and I can just say that it was a tremendous relief to not see intense construction activity on this stretch for once. Though it seems like work is just never done on I-5 in Stockton, so I would expect to see something else within the next year or so.
Any stretches of CA freeways that have no more button copy on them? I hear I-10 is virtually button copy free.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on December 05, 2016, 03:07:33 PM
Any stretches of CA freeways that have no more button copy on them? I hear I-10 is virtually button copy free.
The Central Freeway in SF (short segment of US 101) hasn't had a single button copy sign since the mid-2000s if I'm not mistaken.
The Moorpark Freeway (CA-23) in Ventura County doesn't have any button copy either.
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 07:04:10 PM
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Bakersfield and the whole 99 corridor has a ton of them left. Even the surface routes or lesser expressways in San Joaquin Valley have button copy all over the place on guide signs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 10:08:42 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 07:04:10 PM
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Bakersfield and the whole 99 corridor has a ton of them left. Even the surface routes or lesser expressways in San Joaquin Valley have button copy all over the place on guide signs.
They'll never be replaced on the Crosstown Expressway. Eventually it will just be buttons, and no copy. I would fathom that some of the signs there are older than me. Eventually, the pavement there will be nominated for historic status. And Stockton will market it in their tourist brochures.
Quote from: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2016, 10:08:42 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on December 05, 2016, 07:04:10 PM
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Bakersfield and the whole 99 corridor has a ton of them left. Even the surface routes or lesser expressways in San Joaquin Valley have button copy all over the place on guide signs.
They'll never be replaced on the Crosstown Expressway. Eventually it will just be buttons, and no copy. I would fathom that some of the signs there are older than me. Eventually, the pavement there will be nominated for historic status. And Stockton will market it in their tourist brochures.
I'm usually surprised how reflective most of those signs still are even today. They really made signage that was built to stand the test of time back thirty years back. All those reflective paint and button-copy signs are basically bullet proof.....just don't look at them in the day, that's when they look their age.
I shot a video of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14) northerly from the Newhall Interchange back in April, 2016. I just uploaded it with some signs and what not. This is an awesome freeway through the mountains:
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on December 19, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
I shot a video of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14) northerly from the Newhall Interchange back in April, 2016. I just uploaded it with some signs and what not. This is an awesome freeway through the mountains:
Nice video sequence! When I lived out in Hesperia, I'd come back from the western part of L.A. via this route to avoid traffic on 10 or 210. If you avoid commute hours, it's a nice drive; you seem to have caught it off-peak. Question: was this part of a longer cross-country trip or simply an excursion while visiting the L.A. region? -- and do you have any more video from that trip to share with us?
I shot this last April, on a trip when I drove up the west coast. I started in Phoenix, AZ, where I rented a one way car which I dropped off in Portland, OR, twelve days later.
My route involved driving from Phoenix to San Diego along Interstate 8. I then spent a couple of days touring around San Diego and LA, before heading up to Reno on CA-14 and US-395. I spent the night outside of Lake Tahoe, and then took 80 across into Sacramento. From there, I went into San Francisco for part of the day, and then drove up the coast along SR-1 and US-101 all the way to Aberdeen, Washington. I spent a day and a half in Seattle, and then drove back down to Portland where I spend the day before flying back home later that evening.
So far, I have only uploaded a few videos from that trip. This was my third upload, which was preceded by videos of I-210 and SR-134 through suburban LA, and a short freeway tour of Phoenix. I took quite a few vids though, and plan to be uploading them more frequently in the next few weeks.
I-210 and 134 vid:
Phoenix Freeway tour:
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on December 20, 2016, 11:06:32 AM
I shot this last April, on a trip when I drove up the west coast. I started in Phoenix, AZ, where I rented a one way car which I dropped off in Portland, OR, twelve days later.
My route involved driving from Phoenix to San Diego along Interstate 8. I then spent a couple of days touring around San Diego and LA, before heading up to Reno on CA-14 and US-395. I spent the night outside of Lake Tahoe, and then took 80 across into Sacramento. From there, I went into San Francisco for part of the day, and then drove up the coast along SR-1 and US-101 all the way to Aberdeen, Washington. I spent a day and a half in Seattle, and then drove back down to Portland where I spend the day before flying back home later that evening.
So far, I have only uploaded a few videos from that trip. This was my third upload, which was preceded by videos of I-210 and SR-134 through suburban LA, and a short freeway tour of Phoenix. I took quite a few vids though, and plan to be uploading them more frequently in the next few weeks.
I-210 and 134 vid:
Phoenix Freeway tour:
Sounds like my kind of trip! Hope you enjoyed the coast northward from SF to WA -- I find it a spectacular drive. Seattle & Portland are definitely worth in-depth visits; I lived in the latter for 4 years and still have friends in Seattle as well. Look forward to as much video as you can provide -- thanks for what you've released so far! :colorful:
N.Y. Times: Los Angeles Drivers on the 405 Ask: Was $1.6 Billion Worth It? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/los-angeles-drivers-on-the-405-ask-was-1-6-billion-worth-it.html)
QuoteIt is the very symbol of traffic and congestion. Interstate 405, or the 405, as it is known by the 300,000 drivers who endure it morning and night, is the busiest highway in the nation, a 72-mile swerving stretch of pavement that crosses the sprawling metropolis of Los Angeles.
QuoteSo it was that many Angelenos applauded when officials embarked on one of the most ambitious construction projects in modern times here: a $1 billion initiative to widen the highway. And drivers and others put up with no shortage of disruption – detours and delays, highway shutdowns, neighborhood streets clogged with cars – in the hopes of relieving one of the most notorious bottlenecks anywhere.
QuoteSix years after the first bulldozer rolled in, the construction crews are gone. A new car pool lane has opened, along with a network of on- and offramps and three new earthquake-resistant bridges.
QuoteBut the question remains: Was it worth it?
The thing that strikes me the most with the Sepulveda Pass project, and it`s associated cost overruns, was now, given that the project ended up costing $1.6 billion, would it have been better value to widen the highway with two lanes, instead of simply the northbound carpool lane.
For such a project, the costs associated with widening the highway by a little, or by a lot would not increase in a linear maner. Given the substantial cost increase, it may have been better value to have selected a wider cross-section that may have given CalTrans more flexibility. Sepulveda Pass may have been a great candidate for the start of an express toll lane network, for example.
Plans to add HOV lane to US 101 in Santa Barbara County have advanced, with construction expected to begin in 2019 ...
https://www.noozhawk.com/article/caltrans_presents_revised_eir_highway_widening_project
QuoteNearly a year after a judge ruled that part of its final environmental impact report was inadequately done, Caltrans on Thursday night presented its revised draft EIR for the Highway 101 widening project between Santa Barbara and Carpinteria.
The document was released earlier this month, kicking off a 60-day public commenting period for the final phase of the long-awaited Highway 101 widening project.
The phase will add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction of the freeway along the 10.9-mile stretch between the Andree Clark Bird Refuge in Santa Barbara and just south of Bailard Avenue in Carpinteria.
Under the plan, the interchanges at Sheffield Drive in Montecito and at Cabrillo Boulevard and Hot Springs Road in Santa Barbara will also be reconstructed, eliminating the area's left-hand offramps.
The EIR revision came after a lawsuit challenged the document, arguing that Caltrans failed to adequately analyze the impacts to local intersections and cumulative traffic impacts from the project.
The original EIR was approved in August 2014, and Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle ordered the revision this past January. Only the intersections section of the original EIR had to be redone.
Also notable is this quote:
Quote"This project is going to be the last freeway lanes that we're going to build in this part of the corridor in any of our lifetimes," said Scott Eades, Caltrans' Highway 101 corridor manager. "We're not designing this project to build another lane at some point in the future. Literally, we're designing this project to be the ultimate capacity for this corridor."
SR 299 is closed due to earth movement at Big French Creek near Del Loma (between SR 3 and SR 96 on the way to the coast). Caltrans hopes to reopen the route to controlled one-way traffic next month. The detour/alternate route is SR 36.
http://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/caltrans-hwy-299-closed-again-at-big-french-creek-until-early-january/
Quote from: andy3175 on December 22, 2016, 01:57:20 AM
SR 299 is closed due to earth movement at Big French Creek near Del Loma (between SR 3 and SR 96 on the way to the coast). Caltrans hopes to reopen the route to controlled one-way traffic next month. The detour/alternate route is SR 36.
http://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/caltrans-hwy-299-closed-again-at-big-french-creek-until-early-january/
That's one hell of a detour if you had to head to Eureka, almost as bad as when 3 was shut down earlier in the year.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on December 19, 2016, 09:42:08 PM
I shot a video of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14) northerly from the Newhall Interchange back in April, 2016. I just uploaded it with some signs and what not. This is an awesome freeway through the mountains:
It's interesting that there are still stretches of that freeway that are only two-lane each way (not counting the carpool lanes) with the enormous population growth of the Palmdale/Lancaster area over the last thirty years.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on December 20, 2016, 11:06:32 AM
I shot this last April, on a trip when I drove up the west coast. I started in Phoenix, AZ, where I rented a one way car which I dropped off in Portland, OR, twelve days later.
My route involved driving from Phoenix to San Diego along Interstate 8. I then spent a couple of days touring around San Diego and LA, before heading up to Reno on CA-14 and US-395. I spent the night outside of Lake Tahoe, and then took 80 across into Sacramento. From there, I went into San Francisco for part of the day, and then drove up the coast along SR-1 and US-101 all the way to Aberdeen, Washington. I spent a day and a half in Seattle, and then drove back down to Portland where I spend the day before flying back home later that evening.
So far, I have only uploaded a few videos from that trip. This was my third upload, which was preceded by videos of I-210 and SR-134 through suburban LA, and a short freeway tour of Phoenix. I took quite a few vids though, and plan to be uploading them more frequently in the next few weeks.
I-210 and 134 vid:
Phoenix Freeway tour:
I grew up right near Pasadena; in fact, I'll be seeing the New Year's Day parade this January.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 20, 2016, 06:30:54 PM
N.Y. Times: Los Angeles Drivers on the 405 Ask: Was $1.6 Billion Worth It? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/los-angeles-drivers-on-the-405-ask-was-1-6-billion-worth-it.html)
QuoteIt is the very symbol of traffic and congestion. Interstate 405, or the 405, as it is known by the 300,000 drivers who endure it morning and night, is the busiest highway in the nation, a 72-mile swerving stretch of pavement that crosses the sprawling metropolis of Los Angeles.
QuoteSo it was that many Angelenos applauded when officials embarked on one of the most ambitious construction projects in modern times here: a $1 billion initiative to widen the highway. And drivers and others put up with no shortage of disruption – detours and delays, highway shutdowns, neighborhood streets clogged with cars – in the hopes of relieving one of the most notorious bottlenecks anywhere.
QuoteSix years after the first bulldozer rolled in, the construction crews are gone. A new car pool lane has opened, along with a network of on- and offramps and three new earthquake-resistant bridges.
QuoteBut the question remains: Was it worth it?
I would say that if the heavy traffic times are only five hours a day instead of seven, I would say that's a pretty nice improvement! Of course, the
peak hours from 4 to 6 PM or thereabouts are
always going to be problematical. You probably could expand the 405 to 20 lanes each way and there would still be issues in that regard.
Quote from: hm insulators on December 22, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
It's interesting that there are still stretches of that freeway that are only two-lane each way (not counting the carpool lanes) with the enormous population growth of the Palmdale/Lancaster area over the last thirty years.
I don't really like the idea of having a dedicated carpool lane on a freeway with only two or more general purpose lanes. Fortunately however, the carpool restriction is only in effect during peak hours on this freeway. Something that is very atypical of other LA area freeways.
Quote from: hm insulators on December 22, 2016, 12:25:23 PM
It's interesting that there are still stretches of that freeway that are only two-lane each way (not counting the carpool lanes) with the enormous population growth of the Palmdale/Lancaster area over the last thirty years.
There's no additional capacity downstream to accept the traffic from a widening upstream.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on December 22, 2016, 01:42:38 PM
I don't really like the idea of having a dedicated carpool lane on a freeway with only two or more general purpose lanes. Fortunately however, the carpool restriction is only in effect during peak hours on this freeway. Something that is very atypical of other LA area freeways.
Two general purpose plus 1 HOV lane is a pretty typical setup in northern California. Like the CA-14 HOV lane, the northern California HOV lanes only operate during commute hours.
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.
Quote from: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 06:17:49 PM
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.
Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 22, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 06:17:49 PM
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.
Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
Hey now....better careful if ASAC ever shows back up he won't get the sarcasm.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 22, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on December 22, 2016, 06:17:49 PM
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.
Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
Ugh, yet another reason not to like Jerry Brown. :rolleyes:
Video of I-5 through San Diego:
Video of the Moreno Valley Freeway in California taken during evening dusk last April:
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 09, 2017, 05:12:43 PM
Video of the Moreno Valley Freeway in California taken during evening dusk last April:
Man that brings back some memories for me. I used 60 all the time to get around Riverside County, for me it was always a short cut and better route than I-10 was. The odd thing is that the Badlands almost never back up east of Moreno Valley, I don't seem to recall traffic ever stopping there. On an early morning that road was a lot of fun to just blast through heading eastbound before the approach to I-10. Westbound had places for CHP to hide out but it was more difficult on the eastbound lanes.
^ Thanks for watching. I like the Moreno Valley Freeway. I generally like roads where you can drive fast, but that still twist and turn a lot. I drove this road a bunch of times on my first visit to California back in 2010, and hadn't driven it since, so it was nice to get to drive it again. (I drove it westbound after I shot this video, as my hotel for the night was in the Lake Elsinore area.
On my first visit to California, I spent a couple of days driving through the San Jacinto Mountains. The climb up the Seven Level Hill on SR-74 is quite the drive too.
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 10, 2017, 08:11:17 AM
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
Really the only one I can think of that has a car tunnel now would be the fallen redwood in Sequoia National Park just a couple miles east of Moro Rock.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 10, 2017, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 10, 2017, 08:11:17 AM
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
Really the only one I can think of that has a car tunnel now would be the fallen redwood in Sequoia National Park just a couple miles east of Moro Rock.
There's a few up by Redwood NAtional PArk
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2043
Quote from: D-Dey65 on January 10, 2017, 08:11:17 AM
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
There has been quite a bit of damage to the highway system in Northern California as a result of recent rains ("pineapple express" or "atmospheric river" are most commonly cited causes for the extensive rain and snow). Here is a short yet incomplete list of impacted highways:
- Interstate 80 at Donner Summit was closed a day or two ago due to a large mudslide and downed power lines (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-live-winter-weather-california-i-80-closed-in-both-directions-near-1483946038-htmlstory.html)
- SR 1 near Big Sur due to fallen trees and flooding (http://www.ksbw.com/article/storm-shuts-down-highway-1-in-big-sur/8580209)
- SR 17 at Vine Hill Road (between Santa Cruz and San Jose) closed for a time due to mudslide and fallen telephone pole; the same article also mentions temporary closures along sections of SR 152 and SR 9 (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/09/highway-17-northbound-in-scotts-valley-closed-because-of-mudslide/); an ABC7 news van was hit by a mudslide on SR 17 near Scotts Valley as well (http://abc30.com/weather/abc7-news-van-wrecked-by-mudslide-on-hwy-17-near-scotts-valley/1695675/)
- SR 269 was closed near Huron due to flooding (earlier this week) (http://abc30.com/traffic/main-roadway-to-huron-flooded-after-storm/1694601/). I was amused to see a quote in this article that referenced "the 269" in central California:
QuoteFor Chevron owner Manjit Multani Sing, drivers getting rerouted means customers going elsewhere to fuel up. "Since it's raining and business is pretty slow and last since yesterday with the good rain and the 269 is closed and business is pretty slow now," he said.
- SR 128 and SR 175 (among other routes) in Mendocino County have been affected by local flooding (https://www.mendovoice.com/2017/01/storm/)
A few more days of rain are still in the forecast for Northern California, so we'll see how the roads handle the additional rainfall.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 11, 2017, 12:08:47 AM
- Interstate 80 at Donner Summit was closed a day or two ago due to a large mudslide and downed power lines (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-live-winter-weather-california-i-80-closed-in-both-directions-near-1483946038-htmlstory.html)
It closed today too due to white out conditions. They had an avalanche at Alpine Meadows that closed 89 for a while, then US 50 east of Placerville was stopped for at least an hour due to avalanche danger.
Local to me, both the Carmel and Salinas Rivers have topped their banks. The Davis Road bridge over the Salinas River is flooded.
Wild stuff.
Quote from: coatimundi on January 11, 2017, 02:22:41 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on January 11, 2017, 12:08:47 AM
- Interstate 80 at Donner Summit was closed a day or two ago due to a large mudslide and downed power lines (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-live-winter-weather-california-i-80-closed-in-both-directions-near-1483946038-htmlstory.html)
It closed today too due to white out conditions. They had an avalanche at Alpine Meadows that closed 89 for a while, then US 50 east of Placerville was stopped for at least an hour due to avalanche danger.
I-80 was shut down late Monday night from Colfax to the California/Nevada border and has been closed ever since. Looking at the CHP logs, Caltrans is making an attempt to reopen the freeway sometime this afternoon depending on weather conditions. As I am writing this, it's still snowing over Donner Pass. (Update: I-80 has reopened as of 1 PM but chain controls are still in effect.)
US 50 was shut down Tuesday afternoon for avalanche control but apparently so much snow was falling, Caltrans keep it closed overnight.
The 152/156 junction closed earlier today due to flooding. The rain's stopped here for now, so that seems to have taken care of that issue. But, for a while, Pacheco Pass was basically shut down to high profile loads due to wind. Same happened to 395 this afternoon.
Ongoing from earlier today:
- SR 16 is closed east of SR 20
- SR 128 is closed west of Winters due to slide
- SR 113 is closed north of Rio Vista due to sinkhole
Looks like 50, I-80 and SR 89 are all back open tonight though. Probably be closed again tomorrow though, when the next system comes in.
Hollister was biting it pretty badly during the storm; CA 156 was closed west of town for some time, so westbound traffic had to detour via CA 25 and backtrack on US 101. This, of course, caused traffic to back up in both directions on CA 25 (which isn't a picnic normally in any case). To top it off, the flooding caused agricultural runoff to seep into the local groundwater, so the north side of town, which uses local wells for their normal supply, was without potable water for at least 2 days (and counting!).
Didn't realize the damage to the commute caused by a closure of Laurel Canyon Boulevard last week due to mudslide. The roadway partially reopened on 1/15/2017.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-laurel-canyon-mudslide-traffic-20170115-story.html
QuoteLos Angeles officials have restored limited access to Laurel Canyon Boulevard, unclogging a major north-south traffic artery that was shut down last week after a mudslide.
Southbound traffic can now use the full stretch of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, said Edward Yu, an engineer with the city's Department of Transportation. Northbound drivers will be detoured onto Laurel Canyon Road between Kirkwood and Mount Olympus drives, he said.
The announcement comes four days after a mudslide sent part of a home's patio down a hillside, pushing debris onto the busy boulevard. That, in turn, prompted officials to close a section of the street, which serves as a crucial north-south route between the Westside and Studio City in the San Fernando Valley.
On Saturday, building inspectors determined the hillside had been stabilized. Large concrete barriers have been installed on part of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. Truck traffic remains prohibited.
I'm not too familiar with this intersection, which was the subject of a recent $27.5 million jury award. This incident occurred at Pacific Coast Highway and Diamond Street near Redondo Beach City Hall, which is part of California SR 1 (along a segment still maintained by Caltrans, unlike certain other segments that have been transferred back to several local municipalities).
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20170114/whats-next-for-the-redondo-beach-intersection-blamed-in-275-million-crash-verdict
QuoteLast week, jurors found Caltrans negligent for failing to make the slightly inclined, diagonal intersection safer despite a history of collisions and complaints about visibility. They also found some blame on the part of the taxi driver who collided with Amir "Nick" Ekbatani, the former UCLA offensive lineman who lost a portion of his left leg in the crash.
Ekbatani was traveling northbound on PCH in the late evening of July 14, 2012, when he was struck by a southbound taxi making a left turn onto Diamond Street. ...
The striping of two double-double yellow lines to form a simulated median on the pavement would give left turners "positive guidance," Mardirossian said, and a left-turn signal would have prevented the accident. ...
Redondo Beach Mayor Steve Aspel said city engineers will meet with Caltrans officials to get the ball rolling on intersection improvements.
The city originally was named in the lawsuit, but was dropped from the case after successfully arguing it does not control the intersection at the west end of Redondo Union High School and has no liability.
"We are requesting meetings with Caltrans to see if we can help rectify it and speed up anything that needs to be done," Aspel said. "It's their final call, but it does concern me because so many kids from the high school cross right there. PCH is a highway and people travel too fast and they don't understand those intersections are at an angle."
Intersections are supposed to have 90-degree angles, Mardirossian said, but PCH and Diamond Street form a 60-degree angle.
That has actually been the driving force behind many Caltrans-controlled intersections being converted to roundabouts. (For example, CA-154 and CA-246 used to meet at a >90 degree angle, so it was rebuilt as a roundabout).
At the very least, there should be a left turn arrow.
Betty White Freeway
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2017, 01:19:14 AM
Betty White Freeway
Care to elaborate or provide a context...?
Another southern California video from me. This time it's the 71 and 60 freeways from Corona towards LA:
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 18, 2017, 07:58:49 PM
Another southern California video from me. This time it's the 71 and 60 freeways from Corona towards LA:
Another great video! Certainly shows what I
do and
don't miss about SoCal after moving north in 2012. Looks like the left-turn private access on 71 just north of the 91 interchange is still in place (guess they're still moving equipment in & out of the construction staging area west of 71). It would have been interesting if the trip would have continued NW on 71 just to see the level of freeway conversion progress between CA 60 and I-10.
Quesion to A.P. (the poster): Your captions indicate you made it up to Carson City that same day; did you use CA 14 north from the L.A. area or did you backtrack to US 395 via I-15 and Cajon Pass? -- and can we expect any further videos reflecting this portion of the trip (one can only hope!)?
^ Thanks for watching. So on this day, I drove northerly from this point, kind of bypassing Downtown LA, and then took the Glendale and Foothill Freeways to the Newhall interchange and then went northeasterly on SR-14 from there to US-395. I filmed the Glendale and Foothill Freeways, as well as SR-14 from Santa Clarita up to Palmdale. I also filmed a few sections of US-395 as well. This was my first time driving US-395, so I didn't know exactly what to film, but the footage generally looks alright.
So far, from this leg of of the trip, the only other video that I have put online is the SR-14 video:
This one is my favourite so far, as I think the music is really cool. It's not normally a genre that I listen to, so it's hard to find good tracks to go along with the road footage, but I really like how this one turned out.
I haven't been uploading the footage in the order that it was filmed, but there are a few other California videos on my YT Channel. I have linked everything that I have uploaded to this page, but here's the link to my YT channel for posterity.
https://www.youtube.com/user/AsphaltPlanet1/videos
I did drive the section of SR-71 a couple of days before this video was taken, but all I found at that time was a pretty significant traffic jam. There were still traffic signals between the 60 and 57 freeways back in April when this was filmed.
If you have never been on US-395 before, it's a pretty nice drive. Especially as soon as you pass Bishop, you start to rise dramatically into the Sierra. Then past Mammoth, you see Mono Lake on the horizon for miles. One of the best drives in the state, I think.
^ I drove US-395 last April when I took those videos. I was just saying that to try and capture video, I wasn't sure exactly which stretches would be the best to film, because at that time I'd never driven it before. Turned out though, that April was a great time to do the drive, because the Sierra's were still very much snow capped, but the valleys were warm and nice.
I'd like to drive some of the Trans-Sierra Highways at some point in the future, but I tend to go to California during the winter time when the passes are closed as a way to escape the cold and misery that is southern Ontario in the winter.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 19, 2017, 08:44:38 PM
^ I drove US-395 last April when I took those videos. I was just saying that to try and capture video, I wasn't sure exactly which stretches would be the best to film, because at that time I'd never driven it before. Turned out though, that April was a great time to do the drive, because the Sierra's were still very much snow capped, but the valleys were warm and nice.
I'd like to drive some of the Trans-Sierra Highways at some point in the future, but I tend to go to California during the winter time when the passes are closed as a way to escape the cold and misery that is southern Ontario in the winter.
Cool stuff! If you're ever in the Mono neck of the woods during spring or fall, be sure to make a side trip over CA 270 (and the following unimproved county road) to the ghost town of Bodie. Well worth the trip. The June Lake loop (CA 158) is also nice, but try to avoid it between June and September, when it's populated by -- well, I'll use a "nicer" term to describe them than I usually yell out the window --
unskilled drivers in massive RV's. A couple of them blocking the road because they can't turn their rig around can mess up a whole afternoon!
Don't blame you for wanting to escape Ontario in winter -- a good friend is originally from Sudbury -- and lived in Ottawa for many years -- and was eternally grateful when his company transferred him to their San Jose-area facility a few years ago (he's an EE). He certainly doesn't miss the snow -- but has been complaining nonstop about how CA drivers can't or won't adapt to adverse weather such as we've been having up here for the last week or so (double-edged sword and all that!).
Quote from: sparker on January 19, 2017, 09:02:48 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on January 19, 2017, 08:44:38 PM
^ I drove US-395 last April when I took those videos. I was just saying that to try and capture video, I wasn't sure exactly which stretches would be the best to film, because at that time I'd never driven it before. Turned out though, that April was a great time to do the drive, because the Sierra's were still very much snow capped, but the valleys were warm and nice.
I'd like to drive some of the Trans-Sierra Highways at some point in the future, but I tend to go to California during the winter time when the passes are closed as a way to escape the cold and misery that is southern Ontario in the winter.
Cool stuff! If you're ever in the Mono neck of the woods during spring or fall, be sure to make a side trip over CA 270 (and the following unimproved county road) to the ghost town of Bodie. Well worth the trip. The June Lake loop (CA 158) is also nice, but try to avoid it between June and September, when it's populated by -- well, I'll use a "nicer" term to describe them than I usually yell out the window -- unskilled drivers in massive RV's. A couple of them blocking the road because they can't turn their rig around can mess up a whole afternoon!
Don't blame you for wanting to escape Ontario in winter -- a good friend is originally from Sudbury -- and lived in Ottawa for many years -- and was eternally grateful when his company transferred him to their San Jose-area facility a few years ago (he's an EE). He certainly doesn't miss the snow -- but has been complaining nonstop about how CA drivers can't or won't adapt to adverse weather such as we've been having up here for the last week or so (double-edged sword and all that!).
I'll second the recommendation on CA 270 and Bodie. That is one of the "must see" things in California that would fall in the category of an absolute. Really CA 108, 4, and 120 all offer something unique....it is very hard to pick one that is wrong among the group....even Sherman Pass Road probably belongs in the top tier IMO. Some of the stuff I want to get to personally this year would be; Whitney Portal, Onion Valley Road, and White Mountain Road just to name a few
Another California Video from me. This time it's US-395 from Bishop northerly to Mammoth along the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range.
SR 74 (Ortega Hwy connecting Orange County with Riverside County) has a closure due to weather-related issues:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/caltrans-742193-highway-ortega.html
QuoteBecause of the recent storms, Ortega is now sagging in a stretch, which was noticed Wednesday. Geo-technical engineers for Caltrans, after getting a report that the road seemed to be dipping, were inspecting the roadway when they discovered large cracks in the eastbound lanes, Whitfield said.
Caltrans needs to deeply assess the damage before determine when Ortega can re-open.
Over five days ending Monday, three storms dropped 5.6 inches of rainwater onto the area, according to the National Weather Service. Nearly 12 inches have fallen there this month.
The 8,000-acre Caspers Wilderness Park, an Orange County-operated swath along Ortega, was shut as well until the highway re-opens.
The historic highway originated in the 1920s and now stretches 32 miles over the Santa Ana Mountains.
For years there had been discussions to widen Ortega beyond largely one lane in each direction, but the proposal was scrapped a year ago after locals complained that would attract more development and vehicles.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/highway-742287-county-caltrans.html
QuoteOrtega Highway, a link between south Orange County and Riverside County, was closed to commuters Wednesday after sagging in the road was discovered following this weekend's heavy storms.
The highway is blocked to traffic going east at Antonio Parkway, three miles from the I-5 freeway, and going west at Grand Avenue in Lake Elsinore. Residents of the area are being allowed in to get to their homes, but the families of about 30 children are having to exit the area via Lake Elsinore and drive around to their schools in Orange County.
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
Freeway tour of Interstate 805 in San Diego:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Probably a lot of people from Oroville are saying that right now.
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
74 has, out of necessity for many inland commuters, been functioning as a "relief route" for CA 91 from at least the turn of the century -- despite its complete inappropriateness as a mass traffic mover. I can't help but think that the wear & tear on that highway (even with its semi-truck prohibition) may have contributed to its structural issues, particularly on the segment deep in the canyon. The recent rains may have just been the "last straw", so to speak. CA 74 should have been at least realigned a decade ago, if not earlier.
Quote from: sparker on February 14, 2017, 11:29:57 AM
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
74 has, out of necessity for many inland commuters, been functioning as a "relief route" for CA 91 from at least the turn of the century -- despite its complete inappropriateness as a mass traffic mover. I can't help but think that the wear & tear on that highway (even with its semi-truck prohibition) may have contributed to its structural issues, particularly on the segment deep in the canyon. The recent rains may have just been the "last straw", so to speak. CA 74 should have been at least realigned a decade ago, if not earlier.
I saw something on the local news this morning in a similar vein. Soquel-San Jose Road outside Santa Cruz, which is used by some as a relief route for SR 17, has been closed by the county because one side has started to collapse at a curve. This was, in large part, due to it carrying more traffic than what it was designed for. No trucks, but enough vehicles to cause structural issues. It's possible that the recent closures of SR 17 exacerbated the problem.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 14, 2017, 01:13:46 PM
I saw something on the local news this morning in a similar vein. Soquel-San Jose Road outside Santa Cruz, which is used by some as a relief route for SR 17, has been closed by the county because one side has started to collapse at a curve. This was, in large part, due to it carrying more traffic than what it was designed for. No trucks, but enough vehicles to cause structural issues. It's possible that the recent closures of SR 17 exacerbated the problem.
Exactly right. Except in emergencies, the largest vehicles usually on San Jose-Soquel are UPS/FedEx trucks. It doesn't have the ballasting and underpinnings usually found on state highways, and certainly wasn't intended to serve as an alternative to CA 17; it just happens to be the closest (previously) unaffected route to that now-closed highway. Except for the Scotts Valley "loop", much of CA 17 south of the summit was constructed directly atop the original route alignment, so there's not a suitable "old road" to serve as an alternative -- and CA 9 has its own problems, so it's not a viable alternative. The Santa Cruz Mountains, in an extraordinary rainy season such as this one (and '82-'83, for that matter!) is essentially one large mass of mud looking to move downhill!
Oh, yeah. A friend of mine lost his car around Boulder Creek in a very exciting evening in the flood of '82. Fortunately he was able to walk out, and the car was only an old beater, but still.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2017, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Probably a lot of people from Oroville are saying that right now.
With all the increased releases from Oroville in an effort to lower the lake level, quite a few low lying areas downstream of there have taken on additional water and have flooded. It will be interesting to see how things hold up in the next few days through the storms that are coming through the end of the week. The Caltrans twitter feed (https://twitter.com/CaltransHQ) continues to provide updates on road closures, with SR 70, 99, and 162 being affected over the past few days to varying degrees.
Quote from: andy3175 on February 15, 2017, 11:40:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 14, 2017, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: bigdave on February 14, 2017, 11:09:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2017, 11:59:38 PM
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Probably a lot of people from Oroville are saying that right now.
With all the increased releases from Oroville in an effort to lower the lake level, quite a few low lying areas downstream of there have taken on additional water and have flooded. It will be interesting to see how things hold up in the next few days through the storms that are coming through the end of the week. The Caltrans twitter feed (https://twitter.com/CaltransHQ) continues to provide updates on road closures, with SR 70, 99, and 162 being affected over the past few days to varying degrees.
Upstream from Oroville, there's also been substantial damage to the main UP RR line through the Feather River Canyon (shared with CA 70). Trackage has been washed away by "feeder" creeks (that normally ducked under the tracks in culverts) to the point that the tracks, with their concrete ties still attached, are suspended in midair from the sides of the washouts. As this is their main container-train line from the east (Donner Pass, the alternative, has limited vertical clearance due to snowsheds), freight traffic in and out of CA has been severely curtailed or rerouted south via Bakersfield and Barstow. It's likely that the line won't be back in service until sometime in April at the earliest.
I'm curious if this genuinely surprises anyone. I mean, I remember most of the same shit going down in, I believe, '95 (I read this morning that the Salinas River is expected to hit its '95 level this weekend, so I assume that's the year), but I think that was more south because I recall a lot of video of Malibu homes relocating themselves. It's just that, thus far, I've been surprised by people being surprised by it. Who would have thought that the tallest dam in the country would have an issue during significant rain? Who would have thought that building a highway across erosion-prone hills would result in a portion being washed away?
Is this just me?
Quote from: coatimundi on February 16, 2017, 08:39:44 PM
I'm curious if this genuinely surprises anyone. I mean, I remember most of the same shit going down in, I believe, '95 (I read this morning that the Salinas River is expected to hit its '95 level this weekend, so I assume that's the year), but I think that was more south because I recall a lot of video of Malibu homes relocating themselves. It's just that, thus far, I've been surprised by people being surprised by it. Who would have thought that the tallest dam in the country would have an issue during significant rain? Who would have thought that building a highway across erosion-prone hills would result in a portion being washed away?
Is this just me?
I'm sure that it did catch people off guard. Don't forget all the local media in California has been doing is beating drought and reservoir levels into people's heads for the last decade. You'd swear that most of the state wasn't desert or as about close to from the way people always talk about water. Most Central Valley cities receive less than 15 inches of rain annually, really it is on the coast that gets anything significant....although cities like San Francisco don't pull annuals over 25.
And I-5 is totally shut down in Williams due to flooding. It has been for most of the day. Pretty serious, but at least there are alternative routes. Then SR 20 is currently closed just west of there.
Looks like fun:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.ca.gov%2Fcwwp2%2Fdata%2Fd3%2Fcctv%2Fimage%2Fhwy5atwilliamssb%2Fhwy5atwilliamssb.jpg%3F_%3D1487469411&hash=0c59e689d0ba7c47373f33d6297429df2bdc6f77)
Maybe this the state's initial attempt to separate from the rest of the country?
^^^^
I like how that picture is updating with a live feed. Right now it is pitch black asides from the mass of headlights facing the camera.
Based on the latest update of that photo, seems I-5 is open now. Traffic moving in both directions.
Caltrans' assessment of the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge is, apparently, "beyond repair." So the only way into southern Big Sur and Posts will be on foot or boat for a while, and heading south to there from Carmel will be impossible for the foreseeable future.
http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/food_blog/update-big-sur-landmark-restaurants-among-those-caught-in-landslide/article_346c78ea-f2df-11e6-83de-674dfa787e3d.html
This is likely going to be a death blow to a lot of businesses down there. It's normally really slow this time of year anyway (except for the golf tournament), but there's no way normalcy will return by summer.
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back. Should make for a more interesting trip once I can get up that way presumably in the next 30-45 days. I'd love to get a couple pictures of the Challenger at the Bixby Bridge with no crowds. Still sucks for the business owners, that will probably sink a ton of them. I'd say that tops the slide on 35/Skyline for road damage on the coast this year. Should be something pretty unique for anyone willing to go all that way and double back though.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 12:00:56 PM
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back.
You're right. I don't normally even get close to Pfeiffer park on weekends on the summer, but will probably go down there for hiking in a couple of months once it dries out a bit, just because I can't imagine the crowds are going to be very thick this year, and it'll certainly be nice and green. Maybe the restaurants in Big Sur will start running specials so that they'll just be in the "expensive" instead of the "WTF is this" range.
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge. Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 12:45:21 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 12:00:56 PM
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back.
You're right. I don't normally even get close to Pfeiffer park on weekends on the summer, but will probably go down there for hiking in a couple of months once it dries out a bit, just because I can't imagine the crowds are going to be very thick this year, and it'll certainly be nice and green. Maybe the restaurants in Big Sur will start running specials so that they'll just be in the "expensive" instead of the "WTF is this" range.
Yeah I'm trying to convince some family to come out here this year and that is one of the big carrots with Big Sur. Sure would be a lot more scenic and memorable if it is basically just local people on the coastline. Another plus is that it sounds like Monterey County Sheriff pretty much yanked everyone south of Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge. I always hated how the heavy law enforcement feel once you get north of Bixby Creek. Might be good for some camping too provided that doesn't get shut down on 1.
Really for me and my specific circumstance this could be a boon. A nice quiet coastal drive is something I'm always up for. Besides I already got G16 in this year so it isn't like I'm clamoring for anything up near Monterey. All I really care about this weekend is if 129 gets cleared by Friday.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2017, 01:04:31 PM
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge. Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
I do wonder if Caltrans has any Furgusson Slide style one-lane temporary bridges still available. Reopening 1 would probably be on the short list of when they would probably use a temporary solution given the economic and tourism hit.
I have to think that Caltrans could drop a temporary modular bridge into place in fairly short order. Perhaps not for the duration of the rainy season, due to concerns about erosion on the bridge embankments, but during the dry part of the year, a new bridge could be erected withing a few weeks if not sooner.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
I always hated how the heavy law enforcement feel once you get north of Bixby Creek.
What?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
Might be good for some camping too provided that doesn't get shut down on 1.
It should be a good year to go camping down there. Most of the spots are typically reserved well in advance, and the few walk-in spots that exist (don't remember if they're at Pfeiffer or at Garapata) require careful planning to snag, so all the news about Big Sur being closed has likely already made long-distance tourists alter their plans. I've been seeing that reflected on TripAdvisor. People don't know what's going to happen, so they don't want to book anything.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2017, 01:18:58 PM
I have to think that Caltrans could drop a temporary modular bridge into place in fairly short order. Perhaps not for the duration of the rainy season, due to concerns about erosion on the bridge embankments, but during the dry part of the year, a new bridge could be erected withing a few weeks if not sooner.
It'll be a while. The stability of the hill is going to have to be studied once the rain finally stops (it's supposed to rain again this weekend) and, even then, I don't think it'll be safe by summer. This isn't the Sierras. Even in dry years the ground is really unstable in that region.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 01:21:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
I always hated how the heavy law enforcement feel once you get north of Bixby Creek.
What?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:06:58 PM
Might be good for some camping too provided that doesn't get shut down on 1.
It should be a good year to go camping down there. Most of the spots are typically reserved well in advance, and the few walk-in spots that exist (don't remember if they're at Pfeiffer or at Garapata) require careful planning to snag, so all the news about Big Sur being closed has likely already made long-distance tourists alter their plans. I've been seeing that reflected on TripAdvisor. People don't know what's going to happen, so they don't want to book anything.
Every time I've taken 1 north through Big Sur there is a ton of Sheriff's and CHP presence north from the Bixby Bridge, through Carmel to where the freeway begins. Last time I counted 12 County Sheriff vehicles and two CHP. Granted tourism usually leads to problems with people misbehaving, other roads like 41 north of Fresno get like that during the season...especially with CHP. Definitely necessary to step up enforcement during tourist season but not the most inviting feeling to see so many squad cars.
Speaking of that those CHP patrols on 41 can be ruthless on weekends. I had one officer follow me all the way from the Sugarpine Railroad all the way to the boundary to Yosemite. It wasn't exactly easy to speed going uphill anyways north of Oakhurst, so really I'm not sure if he was even looking to tag me or get a downhill speeder?
I'm sure it would certainly be easier to find a spot. I'm sure reservations would be a cinch this year provided a camp ground doesn't close down. Might be worth the investment of time to do a couple days out there, especially if there is some decently priced rates due to the road closure.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 22, 2017, 01:23:21 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 22, 2017, 01:18:58 PM
I have to think that Caltrans could drop a temporary modular bridge into place in fairly short order. Perhaps not for the duration of the rainy season, due to concerns about erosion on the bridge embankments, but during the dry part of the year, a new bridge could be erected withing a few weeks if not sooner.
It'll be a while. The stability of the hill is going to have to be studied once the rain finally stops (it's supposed to rain again this weekend) and, even then, I don't think it'll be safe by summer. This isn't the Sierras. Even in dry years the ground is really unstable in that region.
I just had a look at the bridge site on google maps. It's a longer bridge than I was thinking, so I agree, replacement isn't as easy as I would have thought.
That said though, it can be surprising what kind of spans modular (bailey) bridges can make. I recall several years ago their was a partial deck failure of the Latchford Bridge in Ontario. The Latchford Bridge is a similar span length as this bridge, and is situated immediately downstream of a dam, which hampered the ability of the temporary bridge to have a central pier due to the fast flowing water. The Latchford Bridge failed within a record cold snap during the winter of 2003, and a temporary bailey bridge was brought into service within a few weeks.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 01:28:34 PM
Every time I've taken 1 north through Big Sur there is a ton of Sheriff's and CHP presence north from the Bixby Bridge, through Carmel to where the freeway begins. Last time I counted 12 County Sheriff vehicles and two CHP. Granted tourism usually leads to problems with people misbehaving, other roads like 41 north of Fresno get like that during the season...especially with CHP. Definitely necessary to step up enforcement during tourist season but not the most inviting feeling to see so many squad cars.
I go down there all the time, and I think I've seen one MCSO car total. CHP generally patrols that area and you do see them a lot, but more in the summer. They get a lot of calls there at that time though. People block the road, especially by Point Lobos and the Bixby Bridge overlook, and there's just a lot of stupid shit that people do in that area. Plus, the highway is just dangerous. When you have people creeping along trying to enjoy the scenery and then some douchebags come up trying to fly around them, then you have issues. I don't understand why people go down there if they're in a hurry. CHP also typically patrols at night, telling people to leave the pull-offs as they're trying to sleep there.
More on the bridge closure from the local daily: http://www.montereyherald.com/general-news/20170221/rain-takes-its-toll-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-condemned
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5SZ3agUcAAqOwR.jpg)
I'm surprised the bridge totally hasn't slid down the hill with that lean....
Speaking of 41, it is closed between Oakhurst and Yosemite because of a slide out:
http://dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/sr41
https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm
Quote from: Kniwt on February 22, 2017, 07:34:41 PM
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Ooo, that's not good. I'm surprised they're letting emergency vehicles cross.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2017, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on February 22, 2017, 07:34:41 PM
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Ooo, that's not good. I'm surprised they're letting emergency vehicles cross.
They aren't, read the second article Coatimundi posted in reply 267. I wouldn't even want to walk across that thing in that shape.
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2017, 01:04:31 PM
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge. Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
It looks like one built in the early-70s or something. So at least it wasn't like a really historic arch bridge from the 30s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 11:40:22 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 22, 2017, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on February 22, 2017, 07:34:41 PM
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Ooo, that's not good. I'm surprised they're letting emergency vehicles cross.
They aren't, read the second article Coatimundi posted in reply 267. I wouldn't even want to walk across that thing in that shape.
I see, I must have read the account from when they were still allowing emergency vehicles across earlier today.
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2017, 08:56:53 PM
I'm surprised the bridge totally hasn't slid down the hill with that lean....
That is apparently exactly what's going to happen.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/23/highway-1-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration-continues/
QuoteThe bridge sunk a couple of feet overnight due to active landslides created by historic amounts of rain. ... "Obviously it's going down by itself at a pretty good rate now," said David Galarza, Caltrans' structure representative for the project. "As time progresses, we will continue to assess if we want to assist it in it coming down to the ground."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Fmch-l-bigsur-0223_2_2.jpg&hash=5cbce66c4544605f89ece8b8eba2add737aa3713)
I would think that leaving it standing out just draw people out there to take pictures, probably best just to assist it falling over.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 23, 2017, 09:50:56 AM
I would think that leaving it standing out just draw people out there to take pictures, probably best just to assist it falling over.
The problem with an uncontrolled demolition (i.e. - letting it fall over by itself) is that, then, the pieces are scattered in places that may be hard to reach. Since this in the Coastal Commission's immediate realm and in such a high-profile area, there's a lot of spotlight on how Caltrans is handling it. Falling over on its own would be a pretty serious black-eye to them.
SR 156 between Castroville and Prunedale is closed today from 9am to 5pm. My co-worker who lives in Prunedale mentioned that the eucalyptus grove near 101 saw a lot of downed trees, so the tree removal and trimming what is happening out there. The news mentioned that Oak Hills residents (who can only reach their homes via 156) are going to be allowed in and out during the closure.
Blackie Road, the local secret alternative, is also closed.
A lot of people in Prunedale also still have no power.
SR 68 was also at one lane near Corral de Tierra yesterday for work on a damaged culvert.
I can't find the actual story online, but the news had video of Soquel-Santa Cruz Road this morning and it's reportedly sunk an additional four feet. Santa Cruz County is saying they have something like 130 road damage reports with repairs estimated now at $30 million. In Monterey County, including the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge, it's estimated at $45 million.
http://www.kion546.com/news/cleaning-up-winter-storms-in-santa-cruz-county-will-not-be-cheap/352543398
^ It would be difficult to stage a controlled demolition at this point though. Because of the advanced rate of deterioration on the bridge, it doesn't look like it would be safe to drive any sort of equipment either on top of, or underneath of, the existing bridge. Doesn't look like they'll be an easy way to retrieve the rubble from the canyon floor regardless of how it's removed.
Crazy picture.
Quote from: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:41:36 AM
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Yes, coastal California is difficult country, bedrock is usually way too far down, the hills are often steep, and the area is subject to heavy floods.
Landslides do a lot of damage in lots of places, though. A lot of people don't realize it because it's usually a little damage here and there instead of all in a few seconds.
I also noticed that 33 north of Ojai has been closed for several days. I could only find one vague article on it in the VC Star, but no pictures: http://www.vcstar.com/story/news/2017/02/20/traffic-highway-33-closed-mudslides/98155274/
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:41:36 AM
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Yes, coastal California is difficult country, bedrock is usually way too far down, the hills are often steep, and the area is subject to heavy floods.
Landslides do a lot of damage in lots of places, though. A lot of people don't realize it because it's usually a little damage here and there instead of all in a few seconds.
Even the Sierras have a ton of rock fall due to all the water and sheer terrain. That is the big difference between states in the Rockies where the mountains are more eroded down and make road building much easier do since the terrain lends itself more towards stability. I figure anywhere I go this time of year I'll be at minimum encountering moderate rock fall and landslides even on open roadways.
The northern coast during a much drier time:
I shot this last year. What a spectacular drive it is.
Some observations today out in the Santa Cruz Range with post-weather issues:
CA 129: Some of the canyon face was in bad shape with slides dumping out onto the roadway. Nothing too major but definitely a surprise to see so much rockfall on a lower elevation route.
CA 17: Surprisingly no issues with 17 today, it was running smooth...even though I jumped off of it fairly quick.
CA 9: Major closures north of 1 and at the CA 35 junction. Lots of slides and a lot of active Caltrans crews working.
CA 236: The road was clear but was heavily dumped on with tree debris north out of Big Basin. I'm actually surprised additional trees didn't fall down.
CA 35: Obviously CA 35 is closed south of the junction of 9 to 17. The rest of the road north to San Francisco was in pretty good shape with only one flagging operation that I saw.
Really all things considered with the weather things could have been much worse. The nice thing was that it was very quiet on Skyline since it was very difficult to reach with the closures of 9. I've never had a more placid day getting into San Franciso. I'm working on the photos with a new thread but the Wi Fi is very slow here, I'll probably start posting tomorrow maybe?...no maps and alignment stuff until I get home.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 24, 2017, 04:24:21 PM
The northern coast during a much drier time:
I shot this last year. What a spectacular drive it is.
Got that section of 1 on my list for later this year when the slides are a little more cleared out. I did 299 last March and it was more of a toss-up between that and the north terminus of 1. I have about 20-30 miles...something like that to clinch the entire highway, I would love to check that one off my list.
It's definitely worth driving. I'd never been north of San Francisco in California before I did this trip last year. I really enjoyed myself. I followed the Coast all the way up to Aberdeen, Washington. If I were to do it again, I would bother with it north of Astoria.
I've done the coast through Big Sur twice. Once was in December, 2014. The road was marked closed due to slides. I drove through (after I asked an oncoming car if it was passable), and saw a few minor slides along the route. Looking back, I was pretty naive about just how much damage a rain storm can do to the coast road.
There are a lot of great drives in California.
Stunningly beautiful.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 25, 2017, 10:15:52 AM
It's definitely worth driving. I'd never been north of San Francisco in California before I did this trip last year. I really enjoyed myself. I followed the Coast all the way up to Aberdeen, Washington. If I were to do it again, I would bother with it north of Astoria.
I've done the coast through Big Sur twice. Once was in December, 2014. The road was marked closed due to slides. I drove through (after I asked an oncoming car if it was passable), and saw a few minor slides along the route. Looking back, I was pretty naive about just how much damage a rain storm can do to the coast road.
There are a lot of great drives in California.
I was surprised to see how much active floods were on 1 today from Stinson Beach north to Point Reyes Station. With the closures from 101 to Stinson it had me thinking the road was more clear...definitely was not. The guy in front of me hit a flooded area too fast and steamed up his muffler...reminded me of Florida after a big storm. :-D I've done all of 101 over the years a piece at a time, really I would enjoy going back to do the whole thing in one shot...someday.
Monterey Count Weekly posted an update on the Big Sur situation today: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/construction-to-begin-on-nacimiento-fergusson-road-re-opening-access/article_392fb784-fae6-11e6-826a-0f323a4dc806.html
QuoteFor a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
I like the "11:30-noon". I believe it takes over an hour to drive it from 101. Maybe they mean from a point in the mountains, which is where I believe the closure currently starts. But I wouldn't want to be the delivery guy bringing a box truck through that.
Highway 1 is still closed at Palo Colorado. They had slides and are only allowing residents through to the more serious closure at Pfeiffer Canyon. Otherwise, I may have tried to go down to the bridge this weekend. Personally, I think the slides are minor and are just used as an excuse to keep people the F out of there. But that's for the best. The Palo Colorado community itself is really messed up.
Well that would be interesting to see delivery trucks trying to use the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road...especially the last 7 miles to the coast, hope the drivers know what low gear is and aren't afraid of huge drop-offs. I guess that really put things out to April or May if I want to try the road along with Big Sur up to the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge closure.
Quote from: coatimundi on February 27, 2017, 12:32:42 AM
Monterey Count Weekly posted an update on the Big Sur situation today: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/construction-to-begin-on-nacimiento-fergusson-road-re-opening-access/article_392fb784-fae6-11e6-826a-0f323a4dc806.html
QuoteFor a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
I like the "11:30-noon". I believe it takes over an hour to drive it from 101. Maybe they mean from a point in the mountains, which is where I believe the closure currently starts. But I wouldn't want to be the delivery guy bringing a box truck through that.
Highway 1 is still closed at Palo Colorado. They had slides and are only allowing residents through to the more serious closure at Pfeiffer Canyon. Otherwise, I may have tried to go down to the bridge this weekend. Personally, I think the slides are minor and are just used as an excuse to keep people the F out of there. But that's for the best. The Palo Colorado community itself is really messed up.
What's wrong with it?
Quote from: Quillz on February 28, 2017, 07:04:36 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on February 27, 2017, 12:32:42 AM
Monterey Count Weekly posted an update on the Big Sur situation today: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/construction-to-begin-on-nacimiento-fergusson-road-re-opening-access/article_392fb784-fae6-11e6-826a-0f323a4dc806.html
QuoteFor a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
I like the "11:30-noon". I believe it takes over an hour to drive it from 101. Maybe they mean from a point in the mountains, which is where I believe the closure currently starts. But I wouldn't want to be the delivery guy bringing a box truck through that.
Highway 1 is still closed at Palo Colorado. They had slides and are only allowing residents through to the more serious closure at Pfeiffer Canyon. Otherwise, I may have tried to go down to the bridge this weekend. Personally, I think the slides are minor and are just used as an excuse to keep people the F out of there. But that's for the best. The Palo Colorado community itself is really messed up.
What's wrong with it?
The road has a lot of damage. It didn't help that the area was hard hit by the fire this summer also. Like Prunedale, they had some eucalyptus grove damage that caused issues with homes.
Here's a fresh look, taken yesterday, of the Pfeiffer Canyon bridge (Caltrans photo) continuing to fall:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fskqSVAAAWCRV.jpg)
http://abc7news.com/news/warning-issued-over-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration/1793506/
QuoteAccording to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
Might be high time to use some sort of explosive to help that along. I'm surprised that it is standing after all these weeks. Seems like the rain has dwindled down finally, so the weather might do the job after all.
100 feet away doesn't seem like enough on the downhill side.
Quote from: kkt on February 23, 2017, 01:51:50 PM
Quote from: Henry on February 23, 2017, 09:41:36 AM
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Yes, coastal California is difficult country, bedrock is usually way too far down, the hills are often steep, and the area is subject to heavy floods.
Landslides do a lot of damage in lots of places, though. A lot of people don't realize it because it's usually a little damage here and there instead of all in a few seconds.
Much of California, the land is of poor quality because of all the earthquake faulting action. Over millions of years, the rock that makes up the land gets chewed up, spit out and chewed up again.
Quote from: Kniwt on March 09, 2017, 08:27:28 PM
Here's a fresh look, taken yesterday, of the Pfeiffer Canyon bridge (Caltrans photo) continuing to fall:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fskqSVAAAWCRV.jpg)
http://abc7news.com/news/warning-issued-over-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration/1793506/
QuoteAccording to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
Just needs a little duct tape, is all. :-D
Quote from: hm insulators on March 10, 2017, 03:00:18 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on March 09, 2017, 08:27:28 PM
Here's a fresh look, taken yesterday, of the Pfeiffer Canyon bridge (Caltrans photo) continuing to fall:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fskqSVAAAWCRV.jpg)
http://abc7news.com/news/warning-issued-over-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration/1793506/
QuoteAccording to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
Just needs a little duct tape, is all. :-D
Already addressed this in another thread, but this bridge is supposed to be demolished during the week of March 12-18. Nothing yet re temporary replacement.
41 north of Oakhurst to Yosemite reopened two days ago and I went through today. Really there wasn't much in the way of mud or landslides to be see, lots downed trees though. The delays were about 15 minutes through the work zone; I even got yelled at by a flag guy for getting a bottle of water out of my trunk. I can't imagine that is a fun job having to deal with all those tourists trying to get to Yosemite Valley.
The Pfeiffer Canyon bridge was demolished Friday.
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-demolishes-big-sur-bridge/9152581
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhips.htvapps.com%2Fhtv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimages%2Fbig-sur-bridge-1489888487.jpg&hash=302d6de9dceaee1165b293f30570ca0f239d832a)
Quote from: Kniwt on March 19, 2017, 06:19:47 PM
The Pfeiffer Canyon bridge was demolished Friday.
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-demolishes-big-sur-bridge/9152581
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhips.htvapps.com%2Fhtv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fimages%2Fbig-sur-bridge-1489888487.jpg&hash=302d6de9dceaee1165b293f30570ca0f239d832a)
So much for the wrecking ball -- looks like they had to pick at it with the backhoe. Hate to be the crew that has to break up the remains and retrieve the rubble from the canyon (at least they'll probably get overtime -- and/or hazard pay!). Fun terrain for recreation -- not so much for work!
Six months for a replacement bridge seems incredibly optimistic even in the optimal scenario. At least they got it knocked down before the foul weather starts up again.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 25, 2017, 10:15:52 AM
It's definitely worth driving. I'd never been north of San Francisco in California before I did this trip last year. I really enjoyed myself. I followed the Coast all the way up to Aberdeen, Washington. If I were to do it again, I would bother with it north of Astoria.
I've done the coast through Big Sur twice. Once was in December, 2014. The road was marked closed due to slides. I drove through (after I asked an oncoming car if it was passable), and saw a few minor slides along the route. Looking back, I was pretty naive about just how much damage a rain storm can do to the coast road.
There are a lot of great drives in California.
What you missed: The temperate rain forest area on the west side of the Olympic National Park. Seeing the way vegetation changes quickly along the E/W section of 101 as it heads toward Port Angeles and Sequim as the mountains cause the annual precipitation levels to drop close to a Great Plateau level. Looking at the Hood Canal, vast enough to hold all the ships on our planet, set in a heavily forested area but very low on population. Ending the 101 trip in Olympia. Bonus points for Forks as it was featured in a vampire teen romance movie series called "Twilight".
What you did not mention: Willapa Bay. Other than SF Bay, there is no larger estuary on the Pacific Coast. Despite the size, no major or medium sized cities are here. There's a lot to explore in this region. In a way this section of 101 can be considered Washington's Lost Coast.
I have driven every inch of 101 over the years. Taken together it truly is a remarkable highway for scenes seen, cities to visit, climate changes, water views and of course the usual tourist traps...LOL! From narrow slideprone 2 lane sections to massive urban freeways and everything in between, then add in all the old sections to explore, they make 101 a road lover's dream to nominate to their bucket list.
Besides, the weather is cool when it is hot inland and temperate when those other areas are freezing and snowbound. Watch whales in the winter, watch the people in the summer!
Rick
Olympic is incredible. The variety of ecosystems is an absolute national treasure.
Quote from: Rothman on March 20, 2017, 09:26:01 AM
Olympic is incredible. The variety of ecosystems is an absolute national treasure.
Hell since we're off on a side tangent I'll throw in on the Olympic Peninsula and US 101:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskSy4qHz
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/th7Hwa
Last time I was out that way I stayed in Sequim since it offers such a huge relief from the rain. The further west you go the more rainy it gets. Really it was probably better than Mount Rainier because of the diverse range of differing climates and lack of people.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
Last time I was out that way I stayed in Sequim since it offers such a huge relief from the rain. The further west you go the more rainy it gets. Really it was probably better than Mount Rainier because of the diverse range of differing climates and lack of people.
Sequim, unusual for a NW town, is a "mecca" for "snowbird" RV'ers who seek out warmer-than-usual places to spend the winter. Back in the early '90's when I lived in Portland, a number of St. Louis-based relatives who fit that category dropped by on their way to Sequim -- usually just after the holiday season. Having spent several Christmases in StL, I can hardly fault them for wanting to head toward a more benign climate!
Quote from: sparker on March 21, 2017, 03:55:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2017, 10:33:45 AM
Last time I was out that way I stayed in Sequim since it offers such a huge relief from the rain. The further west you go the more rainy it gets. Really it was probably better than Mount Rainier because of the diverse range of differing climates and lack of people.
Sequim, unusual for a NW town, is a "mecca" for "snowbird" RV'ers who seek out warmer-than-usual places to spend the winter. Back in the early '90's when I lived in Portland, a number of St. Louis-based relatives who fit that category dropped by on their way to Sequim -- usually just after the holiday season. Having spend several Christmases in StL, I can hardly fault them for wanting to head toward a more benign climate!
Hell I'm from Detroit originally, before I moved out west there was a time I lived in Connecticut and Chicago. Talk about winter misery, on occasion one of the younger people that works for me asks me how it was like. I tell them that it gets dark out around 4 PM, is constantly cold, and there isn't anything fun to do. The cabin fever in Michigan specifically coupled with the culture of the area is probably why there was so many smokers, alcoholics, and problems with being overweight....at least when I lived there. I couldn't wait to get out there, I literally saved enough money in high school and moved out on my own the week after my graduation. I drove across the country in a packed Chevy Silverado of the course of two days to the Phoenix Area....basically one of the meccas of the Snow Bird crowd.
So to that end I certainly understand why so many older folks bail for warmer climates during the winter. What I never go really is, why go back? I know that isn't an option for some, but I have an Aunt and Uncle who go back to Michigan from Florida every year despite not really having much family. What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.
But in regards to Sequim, that rain shadow is pretty friggin nice. Even Port Angeles had a substantially higher amount of rain despite being so close. Washington is weird in general with the climate being like it is, the perception is that it is constant rain. Places like Florida and Louisiana get way more rain than Washington state...it just comes down in buckets as opposed to being a slow drizzle. Hell there are some places in central Washington like Omak that are pretty close to being a desert.
"Why go back?"
I'm not a snowbird, but I dislike hot weather (and hot humid weather especially) way more than disliking the cold overcast weather of the pacific northwest. If it's cold, you can bundle up in warm clothes. If it's hot, you can't really do much about that but stay inside where there's AC. And I hate being stuck inside.
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2017, 11:40:38 AM
"Why go back?"
I'm not a snowbird, but I dislike hot weather (and hot humid weather especially) way more than disliking the cold overcast weather of the pacific northwest. If it's cold, you can bundle up in warm clothes. If it's hot, you can't really do much about that but stay inside where there's AC. And I hate being stuck inside.
Yeah I'm taking the rust belt though. Maybe it's just me but what is left really to cling to unless you just have a crap ton of family? I guess maybe I'm speaking to my own negative experiences I've associated with the Midwest. It really just felt like the whole region didn't have a future growing up in the 1980s and 1990s. Nothing I've seen since has really changed my opinion on that on frequent visits over the years. Don't get me wrong, I've lived in nine different states so suffice to say I've never really looked at any place I've lived as permanent...more a means to an end. I guess to each their own, I would certainly assume that the way I've bounced around the country isn't for the majority of people.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.
California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 23, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.
California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
That really depends, I spent 13 years in Phoenix and watched home prices sky rocket out of control to Los Angeles/San Diego levels. The market had the whole housing bubble which has been gradually building back up over time ever since with the population increases. The sad thing that when the metro area was in it's prime before people started moving there in droves that it truly was a wonderful place to live and honestly my favorite of anywhere I've ever resided. But the increasing housing costs and in general cost of living were primary drivers of why I ended up leaving for Florida which has obviously yielded a move back to California...albeit in San Joaquin Valley.
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.
I would be remiss not to mention custom built communities in Maricopa County like Sun City, Sun City West, and Sun City Grand. All of them seem to be oriented towards a concept not unlike what the Villages did out in Florida. Granted it would seem a lot of those folks actually own property and a home instead of parking an RV. The big retiree communities for the RV crowd in the Phoenix Area seem to always have been in Mesa, Apache Junction, and Gold Canyon way out on the outskirts where prices are still relatively low. Pinal County seems to be going through something of a boom in recent decades in general with urban sprawl spreading out of Maricopa County.
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 23, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.
California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
In California, I see snowbirds hanging out on BLM land in the Imperial Valley, until it gets too hot and they meander their way back to Canada. No hookups or other services, but it's hard to beat the price (nothing).
Quote from: oscar on March 23, 2017, 11:38:43 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 23, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 21, 2017, 08:09:42 AM
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.
California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
In California, I see snowbirds hanging out on BLM land in the Imperial Valley, until it gets too hot and they meander their way back to Canada. No hookups or other services, but it's hard to beat the price (nothing).
Isn't that the whole deal that draws people to places like Slab City out near 111? I have some family that still does Palm Springs semi-regularly for a week or two. Coachella Valley in general has some RV parks but it seems like they are being pushed out by urban sprawl from the big cities to the west.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:35:49 PM
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.
Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 24, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:35:49 PM
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.
Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
Not really in regards to travel comparison to say the Villages which would be near Ocala and Gainsville with major airports being at Tampa International or OIA. John Wayne has plenty of flights and it wouldn't be that much of a drive up I-15 to get out into the Mojave or I-10 to get to the Sonoran Desert. People who camp out in Quartzsite, Yuma, Parker, Havasu, Bullhead City, and Laughlin are all at minimum 2 to 4 hours from a major airport destination either with Sky Harbor or McCarran. Victorville itself is well over 100, 000 residents and would likely be able to fill any moderate to possibly major medical concern with said population base.
With that all in mind, here is something vexing....the Florida Keys. That place is expensive as all hell, even for the RV crowd. There is little access without a significant drive to anything like a grocery store much less a doctor. Something down there is drawing an appeal towards retires, for certain Florida being easy on pursuing income taxes would probably high on the list.
Quoting:
"Dan Walters has been writing political analyses & columns for the Sacramento Bee for as long as I can remember; he was certainly doing so as a young reporter during the heyday of freeway construction during the later years of the Pat Brown gubernatorial administration ('59-'67). He's pretty much an "old-fashioned liberal", preferring projects that benefit the larger population rather than directed toward one contingent or another, regardless of any perception of being aggrieved. Excoriated on the right as a "tax-and-spend" proponent; and likewise on the left as insensitive & out of touch, he's been carrying on for about 50 years with no sign of slowing -- and there's hardly anyone who knows better how California government -- including the individual agencies -- really functions. I read his column every time it's published on the Bee website; and I'm certainly not surprised to see him tackle the issue of underfunded highway development."
----
I am a rock-hard right wing conservative but I always say that in 1950s / 1960s California, I would have been a Pat Brown liberal. At least as far as the infrastructure building was concerned. IMO, his son has completely ruined the state and why voters let him in for a second set of two terms I never will understand.
Loved Reagan (though he was governor before I was born), but one regret is that he beat out Pat Brown over the issue of spending too much. Sure, a lot was spent but it was GOOD SPENDING. Not like the junk today of high-speed rail and endless EIR reports and studies to tell us the obvious: "YES, the road really needs to be widened."
Just throwing this out there, but wasn't it the Reagan administration that reorganized The Division of Highways into Caltrans? Didn't that not open the door along with the Californian Environmental Quality Act for a lot of the cut backs seen from the 1960s through to today? Of course I'm just saying spit ball saying that without really digging all that far in, politics tend to make for boring and inflammatory conversation as of late on Forum. But if there is a historical slant to all this I'm all in for reasonable conversation...if it can stay that way.
Quoting:
"Just throwing this out there, but wasn't it the Reagan administration that reorganized The Division of Highways into Caltrans? Didn't that not open the door along with the Californian Environmental Quality Act for a lot of the cut backs seen from the 1960s through to today? Of course I'm just saying spit ball saying that without really digging all that far in, politics tend to make for boring and inflammatory conversation as of late on Forum. But if there is a historical slant to all this I'm all in for reasonable conversation...if it can stay that way."
--
You are right on all counts. I am sure when it came to Division of Highways --> Caltrans, that Reagan was going for efficiency in government. I am sure he did not foresee the Caltrans of today that spends more time on bicycle and pedestrian plans instead of building roads that move goods and people.
As for CEQA, I always wondered if Reagan realized what a Pandora's box he opened. I am sure it was passed with good intentions but then most legislation is. Few people foresee government action taking on a life of its own, far beyond what was intended.
I agree on not making things to politically heavy, except to note that the concept of building roads has become all too political over the past 4 decades. I am most interested to see if there comes a turning point in California such that building roads and infrastructure becomes the in-thing to do again. Jerry Brown is a dinosaur as are many in the California Legislature and nothing lasts forever.
I keep hoping that new blood comes in, casts off the chains that have kept the once Golden State from building, and makes this state a golden beacon again. Once the State of California used to be pro-active - anticipating problems and working to build ahead of time to keep the problem from occurring. Now we hem and haw until it is far too late and the solution is nothing more than an ill-fitting band-aid, unable to work. Adding one or two lanes to a freeway that is has been congested for more than 50 years (think I-5 in Norwalk) is better than nothing but is not enough.
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 24, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:35:49 PM
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.
Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
When I was living in Hesperia from 2009 to 2012, many of the folks I came across were military retirees; neighboring Apple Valley seemed to be a "mecca" for ex-USAF personnel (the proximity of 3 former and present bases: Edwards, George, and Norton, likely accounted for much of that phenomenon). That, despite a distinct lack of extensive medical facilities (St. Mary's in AV and Valley Med in Victorville, both mid-sized facilities, comprised what was available); from conversations I had with local residents concerning this discrepancy, a substantial number of these -- dominated by folks over 55 -- simply went "over the hill" (i.e., Cajon Pass) for their major medical needs, either to Arrowhead Medical Center in Rialto or the Loma Linda complex. Also, many of them were "grandfathered-in" Kaiser members who schlepped down the nearest facility in Fontana as their primary site.
Quote from: sparker on March 25, 2017, 03:20:37 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on March 24, 2017, 12:00:58 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 23, 2017, 11:35:49 PM
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.
Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
When I was living in Hesperia from 2009 to 2012, many of the folks I came across were military retirees; neighboring Apple Valley seemed to be a "mecca" for ex-USAF personnel (the proximity of 3 former and present bases: Edwards, George, and Norton, likely accounted for much of that phenomenon). That, despite a distinct lack of extensive medical facilities (St. Mary's in AV and Valley Med in Victorville, both mid-sized facilities, comprised what was available); from conversations I had with local residents concerning this discrepancy, a substantial number of these -- dominated by folks over 55 -- simply went "over the hill" (i.e., Cajon Pass) for their major medical needs, either to Arrowhead Medical Center in Rialto or the Loma Linda complex. Also, many of them were "grandfathered-in" Kaiser members who schlepped down the nearest facility in Fontana as their primary site.
Military bases in general attract a ton of retirees since there is usually an RV site somewhere and access to things like cheap food at a commissary or PX. I've found that the majority of those guys who spent a full twenty years for a retirement tend to travel even more than other elderly folks, I always assumed it was because they were used to moving around from their careers. Kind of funny to think of Hesperia and Victorville really as another part of the outward urban Sprawl from Los Angeles....but its really true. A 30 mile drive over Cajon Pass doesn't seem all that bad to get the doctor compared what it really could be.
Quote from: don1991 on March 24, 2017, 08:23:43 PM
Quoting:
You are right on all counts. I am sure when it came to Division of Highways --> Caltrans, that Reagan was going for efficiency in government. I am sure he did not foresee the Caltrans of today that spends more time on bicycle and pedestrian plans instead of building roads that move goods and people.
As for CEQA, I always wondered if Reagan realized what a Pandora's box he opened. I am sure it was passed with good intentions but then most legislation is. Few people foresee government action taking on a life of its own, far beyond what was intended.
I agree on not making things to politically heavy, except to note that the concept of building roads has become all too political over the past 4 decades. I am most interested to see if there comes a turning point in California such that building roads and infrastructure becomes the in-thing to do again. Jerry Brown is a dinosaur as are many in the California Legislature and nothing lasts forever.
I keep hoping that new blood comes in, casts off the chains that have kept the once Golden State from building, and makes this state a golden beacon again. Once the State of California used to be pro-active - anticipating problems and working to build ahead of time to keep the problem from occurring. Now we hem and haw until it is far too late and the solution is nothing more than an ill-fitting band-aid, unable to work. Adding one or two lanes to a freeway that is has been congested for more than 50 years (think I-5 in Norwalk) is better than nothing but is not enough.
Really it is impossible to anticipate what the ramifications a passage of legislation might have 30, 40, 50, ect years down the line. It isn't just California though, infrastructure redevelopment is largely a national level issue. The primary issue is that you have a lot competing issues like the EPA Act that make it more difficult to construct anything new or invest money back into a pre-existing project that could use some enhancements. My take on it is that California more or less comes to the forefront because there are simply way more notable examples of expressways and freeways showing age here than most other places. A lot of that could be surmised from the fact that California was largely ahead of the curve in the mid-20th century in terms of road building upgrades to modern standards. Its funny to think that most of the freeways and expressways used to day were largely present back in times like the 1950s and 60s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 25, 2017, 10:28:30 AM
Kind of funny to think of Hesperia and Victorville really as another part of the outward urban Sprawl from Los Angeles....but its really true. A 30 mile drive over Cajon Pass doesn't seem all that bad to get the doctor compared what it really could be.
Believe it! When I moved there in '09, there were tracts south of Main St. between I-15 and central Hesperia with quite a number of half-finished homes that were, for a time, functionally abandoned when the housing bubble burst in '07-'08 (eventually the developers finished them off, although according to my friends in the area, many of them remain unoccupied). That area, along with Beaumont/Banning along I-10 and Perris/Menifee south of Riverside, was among the last in the area to feature under-$250K homes at the "bubble's" peak in 2005-06; neighboring Adelanto, to the west, had smaller new "ranch" homes averaging about 1600-1700 square feet that remained a bit under $200K -- and which were specifically marketed to workers in the distribution centers from Pomona east to Redlands. The "high desert" was indeed the last frontier in terms of greater LA/Inland Empire housing development. When I left in the fall of 2012, the "new thing" was the development of densely-packed row houses, primarily in the east part of Victorville and along Highway 18 in Apple Valley. It seems vestiges of the "new urban" theory are taking hold even in the desert!
I'm not sure the Division of Highways to Caltrans transition was motivated primarily by efficiency. At that time California was fairly flush and not really feeling pinched. However, the urban areas felt they were approaching the end of where freeways could reasonably be built, but there was no state agency building the mass transit projects that would be more appropriate for urban areas. Caltrans was to be the agency charged with both.
Yes, Reagan did slash the state colleges budget, but that wasn't motivated by saving money, that was a way to punish those damn hippy students who thought they could protest any way they wanted to and their colleges weren't kicking them out.
At least look into it further before assuming it was budget cuts.
Quote from: kkt on March 27, 2017, 01:46:30 PM
I'm not sure the Division of Highways to Caltrans transition was motivated primarily by efficiency. At that time California was fairly flush and not really feeling pinched. However, the urban areas felt they were approaching the end of where freeways could reasonably be built, but there was no state agency building the mass transit projects that would be more appropriate for urban areas. Caltrans was to be the agency charged with both.
Yes, Reagan did slash the state colleges budget, but that wasn't motivated by saving money, that was a way to punish those damn hippy students who thought they could protest any way they wanted to and their colleges weren't kicking them out.
At least look into it further before assuming it was budget cuts.
At the time ('73) of the Caltrans consolidation -- at least according to my cousin, who was working at the Division of Highways HQ during the transition -- one of the principal considerations prompting the consolidation was the notion that genuine feasibility and engineering vetting could and would be applied to not only highway projects but also transit concepts as well -- and that "pie in the sky" mass-transit projects would be brought "down to earth" in terms of both budget and scope so they could be incorporated into state and district plans more or less seamlessly.
Of course, that was turned on its ear when the 1st Jerry Brown administration took over less than 2 years later; his selection as Caltrans chief, Adriana Gianturco (aka "Giant Turkey" to "lifer" Division of Highways personnel), who made no effort to mask her dislike of private automobile usage, slashed the roadbuilding budget drastically while increasing funds for initial transit studies in urbanized regions. About 30% of the state's previously adopted freeway alignments were decommissioned and properties acquired for such either sold or leased out. Of course, the majority of these were urban routes, many of which were in fact superfluous or even gratuitous -- but the axe fell on needed rural and outlying facilities as well -- she didn't know how to work a scalpel but certainly wielded a mean machete! (Max & Bako, if you're wondering why WB 58 drops to 2 lanes once into Bakersfield, look no further than Gianturco's 1977 decision to cut back in-progress freeway construction to minimum requirements!). She had a new omnibus agency toy with which to play -- and used it to further her personal agenda.
Ironically, in 1983, when the Brown/Gianturco reign was history and Deukmejian was governor, construction indeed picked up -- but George D, being the cheapskate that he was, retained, for budgetary reasons, the "minimalist" approach to freeway and/or highway projects that was instituted by the previous administration -- a lot of projects that should have been 6+ lanes from the start were constructed as 4 lanes (US 101 from Morgan Hill to San Jose being one of these, opening in late '84) as a cost-cutting measure.
Re Reagan and the colleges: the mid-60's enmity between Reagan and his backers and Clark Kerr, UC chancellor, was not only palpable but red-hot; Reagan's '66 gubernatorial platform featured a promise to sack Kerr, who was to the Reagan cohort responsible for what they considered the collegiate capitulation to the likes of Mario Savio and his fellow social protestors.
Personally -- after 50 years I still find it difficult to forgive the Reagan administration for getting rid of California Highways & Public Works (which folded in early '67). :-(
Thanks for the history.
By 1983, California's budgets were much tighter. Prop. 13 passed in 1978 greatly reducing property tax receipts. The Serrano-Priest decisions in the 1970s stopped allowing school districts with lots of expensive properties on their tax rolls to charge lower tax rates than poor districts and still get more revenue per student. The state tended to equalize upwards, using the general fund to raise poor districts rather than cutting the rich ones. So there was less money available for road projects and they were underbuilt.
Driving on I-10 towards the western end, Caltrans has changed the overhead signs for Lincoln Blvd to say "TO SR 1 SOUTH." Rarely do I see them change signs on freeways to acknowledge a local relinquishment of a state highway.
Quote from: emory on March 30, 2017, 06:23:41 AM
Driving on I-10 towards the western end, Caltrans has changed the overhead signs for Lincoln Blvd to say "TO SR 1 SOUTH." Rarely do I see them change signs on freeways to acknowledge a local relinquishment of a state highway.
At least the route continuation
is mentioned! Let's hope they followed up at the end of the ramp at Lincoln Blvd. with a directional trailblazer as well (even if it also has a "TO" banner attached).
Quote from: sparker on March 30, 2017, 04:09:59 PM
Quote from: emory on March 30, 2017, 06:23:41 AM
Driving on I-10 towards the western end, Caltrans has changed the overhead signs for Lincoln Blvd to say "TO SR 1 SOUTH." Rarely do I see them change signs on freeways to acknowledge a local relinquishment of a state highway.
At least the route continuation is mentioned! Let's hope they followed up at the end of the ramp at Lincoln Blvd. with a directional trailblazer as well (even if it also has a "TO" banner attached).
ya if it were indiana, the signs would just disappear, then reappear on the portion that they maintain.
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Quote from: kkt on March 30, 2017, 05:28:53 PM
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Bingo! I had a very hard time getting through Ventura on 1 back in 2013. Reassurance signs being MIA is not reassuring!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on March 30, 2017, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 30, 2017, 05:28:53 PM
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Bingo! I had a very hard time getting through Ventura on 1 back in 2013. Reassurance signs being MIA is not reassuring!
Rick
Yeah -- over the last couple of decades Caltrans has turned into
"Lapses In Continuity R US"! I'm old enough to remember when their signage was among the best in the nation. It is to weep...............
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 30, 2017, 04:29:58 PM
ya if it were indiana, the signs would just disappear, then reappear on the portion that they maintain.
That's routine for Caltrans. Them changing the overheads on I-10 is the exception to the rule. They made new signs for I-405 and I-710 that label Firestone Blvd/Manchester Ave as SR 42, which has been gone since 2000.
Quote from: nexus73 on March 30, 2017, 06:47:47 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 30, 2017, 05:28:53 PM
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Bingo! I had a very hard time getting through Ventura on 1 back in 2013. Reassurance signs being MIA is not reassuring!
Rick
Good luck convincing the state. They sign their state highways first and foremost for databases.
The funny thing about Ventura is they are inconsistent on their signage of CA-1... and wrong in both instances. For example, removed signage referencing CA-1 on Oxnard Boulevard is correct, yet signage pointing out that CA-1 is now on Rice Avenue does not exist. This might be because CA-1 has not "officially" moved yet. Then you've got subsequent guide signs on the 101 near the 33/126 junctions. One shows "101/1," the other just shows "101," with the "1" green-out'd. Technically, CA-1 does not exist here at all, so it shouldn't be referenced. Of course, I believe it should be (again, because routes should first and foremost be for navigation). So... Decide. Either sign CA-1, or don't.
Note: 4 posts about passing of Jacob Dekema (the longstanding former director of Caltrans District 11) merged to a dedicated thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20221.0).
–Roadfro
Article on 50 years of ramp meters in Southern California ...
http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20170413/50-years-ago-la-got-its-first-freeway-onramp-meter-heres-how-they-changed-traffic
QuoteEAGLE ROCK >> Caltrans transportation engineer Wahib Jreij fixed his gaze on a live jumbo screen of infamous Los Angeles traffic, then zeroed in on some grainy insets of the northbound Hollywood Freeway.
Cars flowed freely at the end of morning rush hour past traffic merging in from Sunset Boulevard – held back to one car at a time for half a century by California's first freeway onramp light meter.
"Los Angeles, without ramp meters, would have more accidents, more pollution and definitely more congestion," declared Jreij, the Caltrans District 7 transportation engineer in charge of ramp metering. "They work."
It was 50 years ago this week that the state Division of Highways, a forerunner of Caltrans, installed the first fixed freeway ramp meters in Hollywood. Los Angeles, now home to 1,000, can now lay claim to the Ramp Meter Capital of the nation.
At 4:15 p.m. on April 11, 1967, two strange stop lights flickered on at the northbound onramp at Sunset Boulevard and the 101 Freeway.
Drivers of the latest Chevy Camaro SS muscle cars who had once gunned it up the ramp now had to wait for a green in order to merge into the third traffic lane.
At the same time, transportation engineers closed the nearby onramp at nearby Hollywood Boulevard – preventing more than 900 cars from entering the freeway before 6 p.m.
The idea, born a few years earlier on an expressway outside Chicago, was to limit packs of cars from suddenly entering and slowing down the freeway. ...
Of the nearly 3,000 metering sites in California, some 1,024 ramp meters are spread across Los Angeles and Ventura counties, transportation officials say, making Caltrans District 7 the largest ramp metering region in the nation. Of those, roughly 30 meters control connecting freeways.
And at its heart is the Los Angeles County Regional Transportation Management Center, home to Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol offices in Eagle Rock. ...
There are no statistics that measure ramp measure effectiveness in Los Angeles, Caltrans officials say. But they cite an independent study in Minnesota that demonstrated they keep traffic moving.
Nearly two decades ago, residents of the Twin Cities questioned whether 430 freeway ramp meters worked. So for six weeks, the Minnesota Department of Transportation turned them off.
The result: freeway volume fell 9 percent; speeds dropped 7 percent; travel times increased 22 percent; crashes increased 26 percent, including a 200 percent increase in side-swipe hits.
Caltrans District 7 now plans to install more ramp meters, funds permitting, on the northbound 170 Freeway near Mission Hills, along the 101 Freeway in Camarillo, and on Highway 14 into the Antelope Valley.
why doesn't california 261 have a direct connection with i-5? and why does it stop just short of i-405? where does it officially begin?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 11, 2017, 08:37:48 PM
why doesn't california 261 have a direct connection with i-5? and why does it stop just short of i-405? where does it officially begin?
The lack of connection is quite deliberate; 261 was & is intended to be a server from Irvine jobs to Corona/Inland Empire residences (via its CA 241 connection) and
not a "shortcut" from 5 to 91 and vice-versa; that job is done by CA 133 a few miles to the southeast. 261 officially ends at the Metrolink RR overpass south of I-5; the "freeway" south of there is just an extension of Jamboree Road. It doesn't extend to 405 for (a) the same reason it doesn't interchange with I-5 and (b) the cost of land acquisition in that neck of the woods would have been astronomical when 261 was deployed in the late '90's.
News that a portion of SR 134 may be named in honor of former President Barack Obama...
http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20170516/this-stretch-of-la-county-freeway-could-soon-be-renamed-barack-obama-freeway
QuoteA resolution authored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino to name a segment of the 134 Freeway between Eagle Rock and Pasadena after President Barack Obama advanced one step closer to becoming official this week.
The state Senate approved the resolution on Monday by a vote of 35-1. Previously, it had been adopted by the Senate Transportation Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. ...
The resolution would require Caltrans to erect a sign between the 2 Freeway and the 210 Freeway declaring that segment the "President Barack H. Obama Freeway."
The portion of the 134 Freeway lies just north of Occidental College in Eagle Rock, the small, private, liberal arts college Barack "Barry" Obama attended from 1979 to 1981. Obama lived in the dorms as a freshman and then in an apartment at 253 E. Glenarm St., in Pasadena as a sophomore.
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-highway-construction-20170515-story.html
QuoteIt's taken more than two decades of intermittent highway construction, but motorists now can drive from Interstate 5 in Oceanside all the way to Interstate 15 in Fallbrook along a four-lane split highway with a lifesaving barrier in the middle.
The roughly $400 million state Route 76 improvement project has transformed the highway from a once curvy two-lane road – clogged by rush-hour traffic and occasionally scarred by head-on collisions – to a wider, straighter thoroughfare. ...
Crews recently wrapped up the final five-mile stretch – from South Mission Road in Fallbrook to Interstate 15 – months ahead of schedule at a cost of $201 million. That phase began in 2013 with the complete reconfiguration of the I-15 interchange. All work that remains is extensive landscaping of the highway using drought-tolerant plants.
The entire state Route 76 corridor project was divided into three segments: west, middle and east. The western segment through Oceanside was completed in 1999. The second phase, stretching from Melrose Drive to South Mission Road, was finished in 2012 at a cost of $171 million. ...
The highway was first built in the 1930s and over the decades has been the site of several fatal crashes. Bettencourt said it wasn't necessarily because the road was unsafe, but because people would drive too fast, or while they were intoxicated, or would try to unsafely pass slower vehicles by crossing over double-yellow lines.
State Route 76 is a vital artery linking coastal North County to inland communities, including Southwest Riverside County. As the population has grown – and Indian casinos have proliferated east of Interstate 15 – traffic on the two-lane road has skyrocketed.
Traffic along the most recently completed five-mile stretch today averages more than 20,000 daily vehicle trips, a number that is expected to more than double by 2030, state transportation officials have said. ...
Throughout the project, Caltrans has been working closely with the county, which has been buying land and slowly developing a park along the banks of nearby San Luis Rey River.
The regional park one day will be 1,700 acres and 9 miles long, beginning in Oceanside and ending near I-15, The dream is to offer active and passive recreational opportunities along 20 miles of trails, while preserving the river corridor.
The reconfiguration of the highway required the acquisition of adjoining parcels of land along the route, nearly 1,600 acres in all, before construction began. Some of the land will either become part of the regional park or will buffer it.
Highway 76 actually continues as a four-lane highway for another mile and a half east of the interchange. A separate construction project, paid for by the owner's of a rock quarry several years ago, paid for that work.
Quote from: andy3175 on May 18, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:
Good news! Now I can take it off the list of SoCal 2-lane congested highways cited in a different thread. This'll probably save a lot of lives in the long run -- 76 was one of the most dangerous roads in the region.
what is the point of ca 103? why doesnt it go further north and connect with 405 or 710?
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 07:03:03 PM
what is the point of ca 103? why doesnt it go further north and connect with 405 or 710?
SR 103 exists between SR 47 and SR 1; the portion of freeway north of there is now maintained by the City of Long Beach. SR 103 was transferred to Long Beach on August 25, 2000 in exchange for the extension of I-710 between SR 1 and Ocean Boulevard. Now that the city controls the former SR 103 freeway north of SR 1, the plans call for removal of the freeway in accordance with the 2015 Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan (see http://www.lbds.info/green_ti/). I don't know if the plan is funded, but the decommissioned segment of SR 103 will be significantly reduced in size.
For more on the transfer of routes 103 and 710, reference page 32 of this document: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist07/news/reports/docs/2000%20Achievements.pdf
QuoteCalifornia Transportation Commission Transfers Route 710 Section to the California
Department of Transportation: On August 25, 2000 a one-and-a-half mile segment of the Long Beach Freeway (710), between Pacific Coast Highway and Ocean Boulevard was adopted into the State Highway System from the City and Port of Long Beach. At the same time, the state relinquished a one mile portion of the Terminal Island Freeway (Route 103U) to the City of Long Beach. Future improvements to the pavement, median barrier and landscape are planned for the newly adopted portion of Route 710. Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal sponsored a press conference regarding the Department's takeover of Route 710 in May 2000 in Long Beach.
For more on the Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan for the decommissioned segment of SR 103:
http://www.presstelegram.com/environment-and-nature/20151024/plans-to-decommission-terminal-island-freeway-in-west-long-beach-unveiled
QuoteThe future can't come soon enough for West Long Beach residents like Evelyn Knight.
Like other residents of Long Beach's furthest western boundary, she has spent decades living in the shadow of one of the area's most contested and vilified roadways: the Terminal Island Freeway, State Route 103.
The 1.6-mile stretch is both a vital route for trucks carrying goods from the Port of Long Beach, and is blamed for a host of health issues in area residents, everything from asthma to cancer.
On Saturday, the city hosted an event showcasing conceptual plans to decommission SR 103 that have been in development for two years. It was the first time the plans, developed from a series of community meetings, have been shown publicly.
The city plans to decommission one side of the freeway, leaving a reduced set of lanes to serve as a local access road. There will be green park space, a small section of wetland, pedestrian bridges and walking trails, among other features. ...
The Long Beach-owned section of the freeway from Pacific Coast Highway to Willow Street is set to be decommissioned. Though that day is still years away, residents got a first-time look at what that future could look like.
Seventh District Councilman Roberto Uranga, who represents the neighborhoods affected by the freeway, city urban planners and representatives from Meléndrez, a Los Angeles-based landscape architecture and urban design firm consulting for the city, organized the event to unveil the plans, which will be presented to the Long Beach Planning Commission Nov. 19 and to the City Council Dec. 1. ...
The Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan, as it is known in project parlance, began in October 2013, when Caltrans awarded Long Beach a $225,000 environmental justice grant. The project is considered one of Southern California's largest freeway-removal projects.
The freeway plan is also part of a broader initiative called Livable West Long Beach, which would build on existing plans and seek funding for a series of community-driven improvement projects. The broader West Long Beach plan will focus on neighborhoods near the 710 Freeway and Los Angeles River from the 405 Freeway south to Anaheim Street.
Funded by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners with a $300,000 grant, which governs the Long Beach port, the livability plan pulls projects and policies from seven existing plans and creates a master document that prioritizes those projects based on community feedback.
As far as I know, there are no plans to remove or decommission SR 103 between SR 47 and SR 1.
Was it supposed to go further north originally?
Nexus 6P
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 18, 2017, 11:19:36 PM
Was it supposed to go further north originally?
Nexus 6P
Originally the Terminal Island (partial CA 103) freeway was intended to go to the I-405/I-710 interchange; the SB 710>NB 405 and SB 405>NB 710 ramps were configured the way they are to accommodate the ramps from 710 to the Terminal Island freeway. The freeway was originally the property of the Port of Long Beach, not the Division of Highways and later Caltrans; the portion south of CA 1 was transferred to Caltrans in the '80's while the northern portion remained under local control but was signed originally as CA 47 and later as CA 103.
Quote from: sparker on May 18, 2017, 12:53:36 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on May 18, 2017, 12:27:01 AM
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:
Good news! Now I can take it off the list of SoCal 2-lane congested highways cited in a different thread. This'll probably save a lot of lives in the long run -- 76 was one of the most dangerous roads in the region.
I remember 76 as a two-lane rural highway. In 1973, my family and I took a day trip to Palomar Observatory from La Canada Flintridge, and we used I-5 to Oceanside, then 76 to get to the mountain.
Quick news hit on a proposed yet never built bridge along California SR 89 over Emerald Bay in Lake Tahoe:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/back-seat-driver/article153171109.html#storylink=indep
QuoteLake Tahoe's Emerald Bay is perhaps the most spectacular nook in one of the world's beautiful alpine basins. But it can be an elusive nook. This winter, avalanches closed the highway above the bay for weeks, severing the loop road around the lake.
What is the highway didn't have to make that tightrope walk across the steep mountainside behind the bay? What if it simply ran straight and low along the lakeshore instead, like it does elsewhere in the basin? Of course, that would mean a bridge across the mouth of Emerald Bay. ...
The fight over the Emerald Bay Bridge, little remembered today, represents a pivotal moment in Tahoe history. It took place as California's relationship to its natural environment was undergoing a seismic shift.
It began during a heavy winter like the one California just experienced. In late 1955, a massive rock and earth slide engulfed Highway 89 and tumbled all the way down to Emerald Bay, forcing an 11-month road closure.
The route there is listed as a state highway, but that's misleading. It's a winding, two-lane mountain road built in the 1920s with stone wall buttresses. Most winters it would be closed for months, buried in snow. That winter of 1955-56, Tahoe business leaders had enough. They wanted to expand the Tahoe year-round economy. Some talked of a San Francisco-sized population in the basin. ...
The state Division of Highways, the precursor to today's Caltrans, hired geologists, studied alignments, drew up engineering plans, and built a scale model of an arched bridge, low to the water, to show at community meetings. Officials even commissioned a serene watercolor artwork of the bay fronted by a bridge that looked almost dainty on the landscape. ...
Proponents had precedent to point to. The Golden Gate Bridge.
Of course the Golden Gate Bridge itself is beautiful, but eastern Marin County changed enormously because of the bridge, and not for the better. I'm glad Lake Tahoe didn't build the Emerald Bay bridge.
Quote from: kkt on May 31, 2017, 01:40:58 PM
Of course the Golden Gate Bridge itself is beautiful, but eastern Marin County changed enormously because of the bridge, and not for the better. I'm glad Lake Tahoe didn't build the Emerald Bay bridge.
Now that there's a bi-state Lake Tahoe governing body that deals with essentially every modification to the area proposed in both public and private sectors (and is the bane of property owners who wish to make additions to their houses, add pools, and the like), any notion of an Emerald Bay bridge -- or any sizeable bridge affecting any part of the lake, including the waterways that flow in or out -- would be a non-starter. The only reason a US 50 bypass of Stateline has been even considered is the fact that the casino businesses there have a seat on the board -- and they've wanted to relieve the traffic issues along present US 50 for some time now; but as is usually the case, both funding and local politics have "back-burnered" such a project for what is now decades. Tahoe and environs will likely not see significant road-related changes in the foreseeable future.
Does anyone have any evidence that the following business routes of US 101 exist or previously existed? I found either signage or AASHTO approval of the others.
Garberville-Redway
Templeton
Atascadero
San Luis Obispo
Also, is there one now in Willits?
edit: found SLO here: https://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf
Quote from: NE2 on June 01, 2017, 12:07:39 PM
Does anyone have any evidence that the following business routes of US 101 exist or previously existed? I found either signage or AASHTO approval of the others.
Garberville-Redway
Templeton
Atascadero
San Luis Obispo
Also, is there one now in Willits?
edit: found SLO here: https://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf
I didn't see one in Atascadero passing through today on CA 41.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 02, 2017, 11:04:02 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 01, 2017, 12:07:39 PM
Does anyone have any evidence that the following business routes of US 101 exist or previously existed? I found either signage or AASHTO approval of the others.
Garberville-Redway
Templeton
Atascadero
San Luis Obispo
Also, is there one now in Willits?
edit: found SLO here: https://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf
I didn't see one in Atascadero passing through today on CA 41.
I haven't seen any signage for a business route in Atascadero, Templeton, or Garberville/Redway. I'm not even sure of the exact old alignment routing through Atascadro.
The approved business route in San Luis Obispo is not currently signed near as I can tell.
I don't know about whether there is a signed business route for former US 101 through Willits. I know the southern half of the old route is still in the state highway system as part of SR 20.
Finding evidence of a business route (or, to be more precise, a former routing that has been bypassed) is often easier than finding signage. BR signage often gets placed once -- when the route is first bypassed as a sop to the business community -- and then is never updated or maintained. But evidence, it remains. It remains in the configuration of the on and off ramps, which are often curving away from what once was the main line and curves back. It remains in the nature of the businesses along the route -- often look for main streets, U-court motels, and car dealers. There is often evidence in local signage and road names. If one pays attention, there is often a lot of evidence.
I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
QuoteI'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
Most signed (or formerly signed) business routes represent former routes that have been bypassed. They are created as business routes so as to drive traffic back to the businesses on the bypassed portions. About the only exception to this, which was created as a business route for completely different reasons (sort-of) is BR 80 in Sacramento, but even that is in many ways the former I-80 routing that was bypassed when the new I-80 routing was created (which was to be I-180, but, hell, that's another can of works. See my pages if you want to open it).
But not every former route that has been bypassed is a business route...
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2017, 08:10:05 PM
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.
'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
Quote from: NE2 on June 11, 2017, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2017, 08:10:05 PM
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.
'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
This is the only CA-170 shield I ever recall seeing on Highland:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1094484,-118.3365203,3a,75y,197.97h,77.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUGoQkLpG-Rn2jWGj5LgTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's there up until the November 2014 image, then gone in the December 2016 image.
Quote from: DTComposer on June 11, 2017, 11:23:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 11, 2017, 11:02:56 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 11, 2017, 08:10:05 PM
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.
'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
This is the only CA-170 shield I ever recall seeing on Highland:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1094484,-118.3365203,3a,75y,197.97h,77.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUGoQkLpG-Rn2jWGj5LgTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's there up until the November 2014 image, then gone in the December 2016 image.
As late as 2012 there was a second CA 170 shield, placed on NB Highland Ave. just north of Santa Monica Blvd./CA 2 on a streetlamp standard. Curiously, there was
never, to my knowledge, any trailblazer signage in either direction of CA 2 indicating the presence of CA 170 at Highland. It's like at one point there was a signage order for that now-relinquished segment of CA 170 that specified a couple of reassurance signs at either end of the segment but nothing else. If anyone can cast some light on how this came about it certainly would be appreciated!
Quote from: cahwyguy on June 09, 2017, 01:26:23 PM
QuoteI'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
Most signed (or formerly signed) business routes represent former routes that have been bypassed. They are created as business routes so as to drive traffic back to the businesses on the bypassed portions. About the only exception to this, which was created as a business route for completely different reasons (sort-of) is BR 80 in Sacramento, but even that is in many ways the former I-80 routing that was bypassed when the new I-80 routing was created (which was to be I-180, but, hell, that's another can of works. See my pages if you want to open it).
Just checking that you meant I-880 and not I-180 for this, right? Here are the facts as I understand them: I-80 in Sacramento was relocated onto old I-880 to the north of the city because a project to upgrade what is now SR 51 to Interstate standards was replaced with a light rail project (there's more to that story, but just at a very high level). Old I-80 became part of US 50 and SR 51, signed as Business 80 until recently. Now Business 80 is mostly signed on SR 51 only, and the US 50 portion is signed as US 50.
The Interstate-standard section of US 50 and SR 51 was also given the FHWA designation of I-305, which has not ever been signed and is not legislatively designated in the Streets and Highways Code.
I-180 was considered for the section of I-580 between US 101 in San Rafael and I-80 in Richmond.
I was going from memory; I could very easily have stated the wrong one. You got the idea.
Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/
QuoteBig changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:
- California's first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.
Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month's San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.
More on the proposed diverging diamond interchange:
QuoteManteca opted to pursue a diverging diamond interchange for Union Road instead of upgrading the existing structure to a partial cloverleaf. It means motorists getting on and off Union Road at the 120 Bypass will never have to worry about their turn movements being stopped by a red light when Manteca becomes the first California city to employ a diverging diamond interchange.
The diverging diamond design calls for traffic lanes crossing on either side of the bridge structure so northbound traffic would cross the bridge on the west side instead of the east side with the southbound lanes on the east side instead of the west side. Once they clear the bridge they are switched back.
The on and off ramps along with the flipping of the lanes creates two semi-diamond shaped intersections on either side of the bridge. This eliminates the need for traffic from both directions on Union Road as well as that coming from the 120 Bypass to pass through traffic signals to exit an off ramp or to get into an on ramp. The project will also include ramp meter signals such as now are in place on the Lathrop Road/Highway 99 interchange.
The project will also include Manteca's first separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the 120 Bypass to address growing concerns about safety as more and more walkers head across Main Street, Union Road, and Airport Way as housing develops south of the 120 Bypass. None of the existing overpasses have sidewalks or protected bicycle lanes. The diverging diamond design as employed in other states require pedestrians to cross into the middle of the bridge and then cross back to the edge at two signalized intersection.
It would involve building a tunnel under off and on ramps on the east side of the bridge and looping a shared two-lane bicycle/pedestrian path up to the overcrossing where a wall would separate it from the traffic lanes. The Class I bicycle path would be American with Disabilities compliant. It also would have stairs that would allow walkers wanting to – and able to do so– to take a shortcut bypassing the loop to reach the bridge deck
More on the McKinley interchange ($40 million cost to begin in 2018), which interestingly mentions how a cloverleaf interchange does not require any stops but does not mention weaving and other issues that can cause problems at cloverleaf interchanges:
QuoteManteca's fourth interchange on the 120 Bypass being pursued at McKinley Avenue will be the city's first partial cloverleaf. But in order to save money the city is considering an option that would allow the interior loop onramps to be built at a later date.
That means the initial construction would have all left turns from McKinley Avenue to 120 Bypass onramps go through signalized intersections just as they currently do at the Airport, Union, and Main interchanges. When the loops are completed northbound McKinley Avenue traffic will be able to get onto westbound 120 without going through a traffic signal as would southbound McKinley to eastbound 120.
A full cloverleaf interchange – which is not being proposed – eliminates the need for any traffic signals.
More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:
QuoteSan Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.
There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.
The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.
The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.
While looking for something else, I found an older (2016) San Jose Mercury News Mr. Roadshow article about the ongoing replacements of guide signs to reflective. I think this has already been posted, but in case anyone missed it, for those who haven't seen the article, here is the link and quote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/17/roadshow-why-are-so-many-south-bay-freeway-signs-dark-at-night/
QuoteWorkers have begun installing hundreds of new retro-reflective signs above Bay Area freeways that throw back the light from headlights of oncoming vehicles much better than the older green reflective signs. (Many of these older signs are dark now for a variety of reasons ranging from copper thieves to burned-out bulbs to state officials not wanting to spend additional money with new signs coming.)
All highways in the South Bay will be covered – 439 new signs are planned – starting with Highway 17 from Highway 9 to I-280 and Highway 85 from 101 to Middlefield Road.
Similar signs are going in at 164 locations on Interstate 80, I-580 and I-680 in Contra Costa County. Ditto 880 in Alameda County and 101 in San Mateo County.
I've passed along Roadshow readers' requests that Caltrans illuminate the dark corridors first.
The move to retro-reflective signs follows tests on Interstate 80 in Sacramento where some drivers complained the new signs were almost too bright.
This new illumination will cost $10,000 per sign on average and should be ready by summer. Crews will also do lighting work on the ramps, closing them from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., but crews will never close two consecutive ramps.
To view a video, go to https://youtu.be/za_thqHA92I or search for "Caltrans News Flash #60 — Retro-Reflective Signs Increase Safety, Reduce Costs."
At the risk of being pedantic, here's another pair of articles, the first related to a new sign misspelling:
http://www.kcra.com/article/oops-new-california-highway-signs-misspelled-on-central-coast/10226004
(https://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/del-ray-oaks-sign-1498507100.jpg?crop=1.00xw:0.846xh;0,0.0711xh&resize=900:*)
QuoteA new sign along Highway 1 in Monterey County, near Sand City, tells drivers that the exit for Seaside and Del "Ray" Oaks is coming up in 1 1/4 miles.
Caltrans officials did not notice the misspelling of Del Rey Oaks until the day after the sign was installed in mid-June.
Another new sign at the exit itself was also misspelled as "Del Ray Oaks."
Fixing the spelling errors will be pricey.
Changing the "a" to an "e" will costs several hundred dollars, Caltrans spokesperson Susanna Cruz said.
To entirely replace the signs, it could cost thousands of dollars.
And the other one shows a green-out overlay to a porcelain-enamel sign that resulted in an error (and is slated for eventual replacement): http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/did-you-catch-the-typo-on-the-freeway-sign-in-san-dimas-caltrans-eventually-did/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2Ftypo.jpg%3Fw%3D612&hash=cd2e59b589969d5f1c5147d41cc5a74f3420a0c4)
QuoteIf you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for “Corona na Fwy.”
That’s because when a new “Corona” was put up a year ago, a portion of the old “Corona” remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, “Corona na Fwy.”
A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think “it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na.”
Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency “wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed,” spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn’t know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.
Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don’t seem to look at their signs once they’re done.
What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs? the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does? When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 10:36:50 AM
What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs? the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does? When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!
They probably have been around since then, you're likely looking at either button copy signs or signs with reflective paint.
I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!
Nexus 6P
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 11:08:20 AM
I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!
Nexus 6P
Yeah, they are often pretty burnt out looking three decades on. Basically my understanding was that they were designed to last a couple decades and probably should have been recoated or had vinyl applied maybe 10-20 years ago. I have some of the older shields that have the enamel reflective paint with the vinyl numerals. Usually you can tell because the shield still slightly reflects but the numeral is burnt out.
Daniel hits on this in way more detail why things are different in California on his site, I think it has the answers you are looking for:
http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html
You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!
Nexus 6P
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 11:12:45 AM
You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!
Nexus 6P
:-D Just missed you with my edit on the previous post. Check out the link to Daniel's page on cahighways the signage topic, it is actually a pretty interesting read as to why things are the way they are:
http://www.cahighways.org/num-signing.html
Quote from: silverback1065 on June 28, 2017, 10:36:50 AMWhat is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs? the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does? When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!
Whole-signface retroreflectorization has been the standard for warning, regulatory, construction, and independent-mounted route marker signs since at least the 1980's, but for guide signs only since 1998 or so.
Exit numbering has been implemented statewide only since 2002 and initially each exit was considered to be numbered if just one sign in the sequence--advance guide, exit direction, gore--had the exit number. There are ongoing sign refurbishment contracts that are putting exit numbers on all signs in the sequence, but it will take a while to do all 5,000+ miles of freeway in California.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 12:50:36 AM
Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/
QuoteBig changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:
- California's first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.
Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month's San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.
More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:
QuoteSan Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.
There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.
The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.
The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.
The backup on EB CA 120 is only one of many problems facing this interchange, which was done "on the cheap" back in 1980 when the bypass was configured as a super-2 with alternating passing lanes. Essentially a trumpet (but looking more like a French horn!) favoring NB 99>WB 120 traffic, it utilizes a single 2-lane bridge for both NB>WB and EB>NB movements with a K-rail down the middle and relatively narrow lanes (I'd guess 10.5-11 feet w/minimal shoulders) -- and one of the wickedest diminishing-radius loops in the state highway system -- which also serves as the continuation of EB CA 120, which jogs one exit north on CA 99. As this is my normal route when visiting a business partner in Folsom, I've seen more than one truck rollover on this loop (marked at 25 mph suggested speed). :-o A direct ramp would be more appropriate -- but it seems that an extension of the CA 120 Manteca bypass eastward around the commercial area east of CA 99 is still on the books, so apparently there's been no hurry to upgrade the interchange until a decision is made regarding
that potential project, which certainly would affect interchange design.
But it looks like the traffic issues posed by the interchange's present configuration are pressing enough to prompt some sort of modification action; I would hope that at least improving the loop connection to allow safe traversal at higher speeds would be included within the project plans, if not a directional ramp replacement.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 01:00:29 AM
And the other one shows a green-out overlay to a porcelain-enamel sign that resulted in an error (and is slated for eventual replacement): http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/did-you-catch-the-typo-on-the-freeway-sign-in-san-dimas-caltrans-eventually-did/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F06%2Ftypo.jpg%3Fw%3D612&hash=cd2e59b589969d5f1c5147d41cc5a74f3420a0c4)
QuoteIf you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for "Corona na Fwy."
That's because when a new "Corona" was put up a year ago, a portion of the old "Corona" remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, "Corona na Fwy."
A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think "it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na."
Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency "wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed," spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn't know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.
Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don't seem to look at their signs once they're done.
Mistakes can happen, but my issue with this is for taking down the 71 and leaving in the freeway name. I thought the trend in Dist. 7 was to remove the freeway names and only keep the numbers, and now they've done the opposite.
In my view, freeway names, numbers, directions, and control cities are all helpful to the motoring public and should all be used to the extent possible.
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:40:31 PM
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention.
I find the names more memorable and longer-lasting than the numbers.
Quote from: kkt on July 07, 2017, 03:43:44 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 06, 2017, 09:40:31 PM
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention.
I find the names more memorable and longer-lasting than the numbers.
In the case of the original (pre-Interstate) Los Angeles freeway layout, the
names of the freeways indicated its ultimate (or penultimate) destination: Pasadena, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, (the) Harbor, Hollywood, Ventura -- which made sense. Even the original Bay Area freeways followed suit in a way: Bayshore, Eastshore, Southern (across the southern tier of S.F. proper). When other considerations: honorific, memorialization, etc. came into use, that lessened the impact of names: OK, Nimitz was applied to the southern Eastshore because it (more or less) provided access to Oakland/Alameda naval facilities -- and MacArthur was applied because it basically traced old MacArthur Blvd., the original US 50 alignment in east Oakland. But those names didn't assist in delineating [/i]where[/i] the freeway was heading. OK, the Ronald Reagan Freeway (CA 118) goes somewhere near the Reagan museum, but that's somewhat of an oddity. The nail in the coffin, at least out here in CA, came when the newscasters, both radio and TV, starter using numbers exclusively to report on traffic conditions and incidents in the early '80's. And now that they're signing short freeway segments as memorials to fallen LEO's and other local figures, the whole naming concept has been dissipated to the point where it's functionally meaningless. Route numbers will likely remain the default for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2017, 04:20:03 PM
In the case of the original (pre-Interstate) Los Angeles freeway layout, the names of the freeways indicated its ultimate (or penultimate) destination: Pasadena, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, (the) Harbor, Hollywood, Ventura -- which made sense. Even the original Bay Area freeways followed suit in a way: Bayshore, Eastshore, Southern (across the southern tier of S.F. proper). When other considerations: honorific, memorialization, etc. came into use, that lessened the impact of names: OK, Nimitz was applied to the southern Eastshore because it (more or less) provided access to Oakland/Alameda naval facilities -- and MacArthur was applied because it basically traced old MacArthur Blvd., the original US 50 alignment in east Oakland. But those names didn't assist in delineating [/i]where[/i] the freeway was heading. OK, the Ronald Reagan Freeway (CA 118) goes somewhere near the Reagan museum, but that's somewhat of an oddity. The nail in the coffin, at least out here in CA, came when the newscasters, both radio and TV, starter using numbers exclusively to report on traffic conditions and incidents in the early '80's. And now that they're signing short freeway segments as memorials to fallen LEO's and other local figures, the whole naming concept has been dissipated to the point where it's functionally meaningless. Route numbers will likely remain the default for the foreseeable future.
Post-1970s, the only two new route names I can think of that got emphasized were rather intentionally so:
Martin Luther King Jr. Freeway (for Route 94 in San Diego, starting in the early 1990s)
Capital City Freeway (Business 80 in Sacramento, ca. 1996)
What is interesting though is in driving around LA the past week, I saw a surprising amount of new retroreflective signage that has retained freeway name mention in LA County at least. Not a massive amount, but enough where "replace in kind" continues unabated (to my delight at least). (Most common named routes that have received new signage that I recall - Harbor Freeway, Long Beach Freeway, Santa Ana Freeway in at least one example, and Ventura Freeway to a degree. Hollywood Freeway still has plenty of scattered signage but not sure if any of it is newer.)
For the Bay Area named freeways, several got theirs based on parallel street/highway (Bayshore, Junipero Serra, Eastshore, MacArthur, Embarcadero, Warren). the Central Freeway is the only one of the cardinal-direction names that stuck in SF, while the Nimitz is the one freeway-only honorary name that has remained to this day.
Article on the infamous caution signs in San Diego...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-immigrants-running-road-sign-20170614-htmlstory.html
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-595faa43%2Fturbine%2Fla-1499441727-yy0nnpptpn-snap-image%2F850%2F850x478&hash=9c4e196f0896cfd385b6a619726024717b0309e5)
Quote
With only one left, iconic yellow road sign showing running immigrants now borders on the extinct
By Cindy Carcamo
So many immigrants crossing illegally into the United States through California were killed by cars and trucks along the 5 Freeway that John Hood was given an assignment.
In the early 1990s, the Caltrans worker was tasked with creating a road sign to alert drivers to the possible danger.
Silhouetted against a yellow background and the word "CAUTION," the sign featured a father, waist bent, head down, running hard. Behind him, a mother in a knee-length dress pulls on the slight wrist of a girl – her pigtails flying, her feet barely touching the ground.
Ten signs once dotted the shoulders of the 5 Freeway, just north of the Mexican border. They became iconic markers of the perils of the immigrant journey north. But they began to disappear – victims of crashes, storms, vandalism and the fame conferred on them by popular culture.
Today, one sign remains. And when it's gone, it won't be replaced – the result of California's diminished role as a crossing point for immigrants striving to make it to America. ...
A generation after they were installed, the last of the "running immigrants" signs stands on two wooden posts in a concrete median of northbound Interstate 5, just before a "Welcome to California" sign. ...
In the 1980s, more than 100 people were killed as they tried to cross freeway lanes in the San Ysidro area and between San Clemente and Oceanside. Caltrans wanted to do something about the problem and asked Hood, a California Department of Transportation employee and Vietnam War veteran who grew up on a Navajo reservation in New Mexico, to come up with a sign that would alert drivers and could reduce the number of deaths.
He eventually settled on using the image of a family in an effort to tug at the heart in a way a typical road sign might not. A little girl with pigtails, he thought, would convey the idea of motion, of running.
The sign was inspired by photographs of people crossing at the time, including those taken by former Los Angeles Times staff photographer Don Bartletti.
Caltrans first installed the signs in late 1990 and early 1991. After workers erected a median fence along the freeway's trouble spots in 1994, officials decided not to replace any future signs that were lost. Around that time, federal officials launched Operation Gatekeeper, which fenced off the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego – pushing illegal immigration east, toward Arizona and Texas. That helped reduce the number of freeway-crossing deaths, Caltrans officials said.
"You create your work, and that's the extent of it. You never envision something like that to happen," Hood said about the sign's evolution. "It's become an iconic element. It lives on."
I thought those were all gone, I'm amazed the last one hasn't been stolen yet. I always thought it looked like the kid was going to end up biting it or having a dislocated shoulder from the way the sign depicts the family.
Recent article regarding Historic US 101 signing efforts in San Diego...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-101-history-20170818-story.html
QuoteNearly a century ago when automobiles were a relatively new invention, roadsters and open-air sedans made their way from the Mexican border to Orange County along a patchwork of paved and unpaved surface streets.
They included Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street, Garnet Avenue, Morena Boulevard, San Diego Avenue, India Street, Harbor Drive, Broadway in Chula Vista and Beyer Boulevard in Otay Mesa.
To help tourists and even locals avoid getting lost, the federal government in 1926 began formally designating a series of signed roadways that included U.S. Highway 101 – the first official north-south route through San Diego.
And those well-known surface streets and several others in San Diego County were part of the route, which had developed erratically since just after 1900 based on where roads were paved and a wide variety of other factors.
The original Highway 101 was replaced relatively quickly in 1933 by the more modern and direct Pacific Highway featuring bridges and ramps, which kept the name Highway 101 despite following a significantly different route than the original version.
And Pacific Highway gave way in 1964 to Interstate 5, an even more modern road following a similar path that is the third, and possibly final, official north-south highway route along San Diego's coast.
QuoteBefore the original Highway 101 and the already existing roads it included, there was a stagecoach route from Old Town to Los Angeles in the late 1800s that followed mostly the same semi-coastal route as the famous El Camino Real charted by Father Juniperro Serra.
When people began driving cars in San Diego around 1900, there was a dearth of paved roads and a trip to Los Angeles could take nearly 10 hours.
City officials debated for several years whether to build a north-south route along the coast through Pacific Beach and La Jolla, or to build a more direct route through the rugged and hilly terrain of Rose Canyon to the east.
They eventually chose the coastal route based on its flatness and scenic beauty, and paving was completed in 1920 of La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street and Garnet Avenue.
But the shorter Rose Canyon route, which some travelers had used before the Pacific Beach route had been paved, was flattened a bit and rerouted in 1930 with a big plan on mind.
City officials decided to create a new Highway 101 by grading and extending Atlantic Street from Barnett Avenue to the Rose Canyon highway at Balboa Avenue, and re-naming it Pacific Highway.
The road was designated as the new Highway 101 in San Diego when it opened in late 1933, and it was connected to the state's portion of Highway 101 that had been completed all the way to just south of Del Mar.
In 1935 the city officially changed the names of Atlantic Street, West Atlantic Street, Rose Canyon Highway, Torrey Pines Mesa Road and Torrey Pines Road to Pacific Highway.
The road was eventually connected to the South Bay and the border in the 1950s with construction of the Montgomery Freeway.
Thirty years later, Interstate 5 was built on essentially the same path as Pacific Highway and the Montgomery Freeway, except where it veers toward Sorrento Valley on its way into North County.
But a few sections of the old Pacific Highway still exist, including a long stretch from downtown up to Mission Bay Park where you can see the road's old-fashioned highway interchanges.
The road also still exists from where it began near present-day Seaport Village through the northern edge of downtown.
And a few other sections have survived, such as North Torrey Pines Road between UC-San Diego and Del Mar, Gilman Drive between Interstate 5 and the university, and Mission Bay Drive in Pacific Beach.
In contrast, nearly all of the original Highway 101 has survived, of course, because it was essentially surface streets.
Missing portions, however, include a chunk that became part of the UCSD campus and a stretch eliminated to create the National City Mile of Cars. In addition, part of the original 101 isn't open to the public because it's within Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
There is evidence the original Highway 101 split into two separate routes for a few years because of congestion concerns, but details of that are disputed. The western route may have included Ingraham Street and Foothill Boulevard.
And the later version of 101 was divided into two routes in North County, between Palomar Airport Road and State Route 76, for the same reason in the 1950s.
Highway 101 still exists north of San Diego as a major freeway running from Los Angeles all the way to Washington State.
But other than the historic markers, the 101 name has essentially been wiped out in San Diego County, except in a few North County cities where the road remains mostly unchanged from decades ago.
And more info on our page at https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-101ha_ca.html.
Caltrans Marking, Removing Dead Trees Along State Highways
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/08/22/caltrans-marking,-removing-dead-trees-along-state-highways/
QuotePotential road hazards posed by dead trees along some California highways, especially in the sierra, have prompted Caltrans to get rid of them. That includes trees on private land - at no cost.
Caltrans has already removed 107,000 trees near California highways, trees that were killed by drought and bark beetle infestation.
"We're now addressing those that may be off of state property," says Patrick Olsen with Caltrans.
He says hazardous trees are being marked with orange paint by certified Caltrans arborists. Then Permission to Enter forms will be sent to affected property owners one to six months after trees are marked.
"We are sending out notices via mail," says Olsen. "We're also having a door-hanging campaign. If you have a tree on your property that may be suspect, you'll be receiving a notice there."
The agency expects to take out another 54,000 trees by next summer. Removal work will begin after the Labor Day Holiday.
Had a US 99 and blue guide sign sighting leaving Fresno-Yosemite International Airport tonight:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4336/36074677354_0fe4230386_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL)IMG_6613 (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Interesting that 180 isn't listed but not surprising considering it was far from being a freeway when this guide sign was new. 168 would have been on Shaw and Clovis.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2017, 12:56:28 AM
Had a US 99 and blue guide sign sighting leaving Fresno-Yosemite International Airport tonight:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4336/36074677354_0fe4230386_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL)IMG_6613 (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Interesting that 180 isn't listed but not surprising considering it was far from being a freeway when this guide sign was new. 168 would have been on Shaw and Clovis.
Nice to see old historic signs that serve as reminders to what once was. It's also interesting that after all those years they've kept it up for as long as they have.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 24, 2017, 01:04:09 AM
Recent article regarding Historic US 101 signing efforts in San Diego...
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-101-history-20170818-story.html
QuoteNearly a century ago when automobiles were a relatively new invention, roadsters and open-air sedans made their way from the Mexican border to Orange County along a patchwork of paved and unpaved surface streets.
They included Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street, Garnet Avenue, Morena Boulevard, San Diego Avenue, India Street, Harbor Drive, Broadway in Chula Vista and Beyer Boulevard in Otay Mesa.
To help tourists and even locals avoid getting lost, the federal government in 1926 began formally designating a series of signed roadways that included U.S. Highway 101 — the first official north-south route through San Diego.
And those well-known surface streets and several others in San Diego County were part of the route, which had developed erratically since just after 1900 based on where roads were paved and a wide variety of other factors.
The original Highway 101 was replaced relatively quickly in 1933 by the more modern and direct Pacific Highway featuring bridges and ramps, which kept the name Highway 101 despite following a significantly different route than the original version.
And Pacific Highway gave way in 1964 to Interstate 5, an even more modern road following a similar path that is the third, and possibly final, official north-south highway route along San Diego’s coast.
QuoteBefore the original Highway 101 and the already existing roads it included, there was a stagecoach route from Old Town to Los Angeles in the late 1800s that followed mostly the same semi-coastal route as the famous El Camino Real charted by Father Juniperro Serra.
When people began driving cars in San Diego around 1900, there was a dearth of paved roads and a trip to Los Angeles could take nearly 10 hours.
City officials debated for several years whether to build a north-south route along the coast through Pacific Beach and La Jolla, or to build a more direct route through the rugged and hilly terrain of Rose Canyon to the east.
They eventually chose the coastal route based on its flatness and scenic beauty, and paving was completed in 1920 of La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street and Garnet Avenue.
But the shorter Rose Canyon route, which some travelers had used before the Pacific Beach route had been paved, was flattened a bit and rerouted in 1930 with a big plan on mind.
City officials decided to create a new Highway 101 by grading and extending Atlantic Street from Barnett Avenue to the Rose Canyon highway at Balboa Avenue, and re-naming it Pacific Highway.
The road was designated as the new Highway 101 in San Diego when it opened in late 1933, and it was connected to the state’s portion of Highway 101 that had been completed all the way to just south of Del Mar.
In 1935 the city officially changed the names of Atlantic Street, West Atlantic Street, Rose Canyon Highway, Torrey Pines Mesa Road and Torrey Pines Road to Pacific Highway.
The road was eventually connected to the South Bay and the border in the 1950s with construction of the Montgomery Freeway.
Thirty years later, Interstate 5 was built on essentially the same path as Pacific Highway and the Montgomery Freeway, except where it veers toward Sorrento Valley on its way into North County.
But a few sections of the old Pacific Highway still exist, including a long stretch from downtown up to Mission Bay Park where you can see the road’s old-fashioned highway interchanges.
The road also still exists from where it began near present-day Seaport Village through the northern edge of downtown.
And a few other sections have survived, such as North Torrey Pines Road between UC-San Diego and Del Mar, Gilman Drive between Interstate 5 and the university, and Mission Bay Drive in Pacific Beach.
In contrast, nearly all of the original Highway 101 has survived, of course, because it was essentially surface streets.
Missing portions, however, include a chunk that became part of the UCSD campus and a stretch eliminated to create the National City Mile of Cars. In addition, part of the original 101 isn’t open to the public because it’s within Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
There is evidence the original Highway 101 split into two separate routes for a few years because of congestion concerns, but details of that are disputed. The western route may have included Ingraham Street and Foothill Boulevard.
And the later version of 101 was divided into two routes in North County, between Palomar Airport Road and State Route 76, for the same reason in the 1950s.
Highway 101 still exists north of San Diego as a major freeway running from Los Angeles all the way to Washington State.
But other than the historic markers, the 101 name has essentially been wiped out in San Diego County, except in a few North County cities where the road remains mostly unchanged from decades ago.
And more info on our page at https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-101ha_ca.html.
I applaud the fact that the old US 101 route is finally getting some recognition in San Diego. I wish OR and WA would acknowledge their own portions of US 99 like CA does, and not with state route shields either!
^^^
Kind of makes me question the quality of the operation at Fresno-Yosemite if they have had the same sign hanging up since the 1960s. One would think that the budget would allow for that sign to be replaced with something a little more informative as to the nearby freeways, 180 is the most accessible and isn't even mentioned.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2017, 11:21:33 PM
^^^
Kind of makes me question the quality of the operation at Fresno-Yosemite if they have had the same sign hanging up since the 1960s. One would think that the budget would allow for that sign to be replaced with something a little more informative as to the nearby freeways, 180 is the most accessible and isn't even mentioned.
I think the "US 99" error shield was just a sign contractor mistake; since the CA 168 freeway wasn't even opened until about 1992, and that sign likely dates from around that period. US 99 would have been officially 28 years gone by that time (and 26 years since the U.S. shields were taken down in the summer of 1966). Besides, it's blue --
no shield on that sign is technically/MUTCD correct. If you're gonna make a mistake, might as well make it big!
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2017, 01:34:13 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2017, 11:21:33 PM
^^^
Kind of makes me question the quality of the operation at Fresno-Yosemite if they have had the same sign hanging up since the 1960s. One would think that the budget would allow for that sign to be replaced with something a little more informative as to the nearby freeways, 180 is the most accessible and isn't even mentioned.
I think the "US 99" error shield was just a sign contractor mistake; since the CA 168 freeway wasn't even opened until about 1992, and that sign likely dates from around that period. US 99 would have been officially 28 years gone by that time (and 26 years since the U.S. shields were taken down in the summer of 1966). Besides, it's blue -- no shield on that sign is technically/MUTCD correct. If you're gonna make a mistake, might as well make it big!
Looking at the history of the airport the last major renovations/updates were in the early 2000s. Just off camera there is a green guide sign showing all the correct shields and all routes:
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7704225,-119.721763,3a,75y,337.77h,89.51t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZAY5-CSlaf5Eab_vXj2O4Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Blue signs for freeways...must be Europe...LOL! Neat to see an US 99 shield on such isn't it?
Rick
i thought airport signs were always blue
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 31, 2017, 12:51:44 PM
i thought airport signs were always blue
They are, after reading what Sparker said and looking at the street view I tend to agree that the US 99 is likely a fairly recent contractor goof. I'll have to swing over that way and maybe get a closer look this next week if I get an opportunity. Surprised the hell out me while I was sitting in the passenger seat being picked up, I literally took that photo standing up through the sun roof. :-D
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
The new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge on CA 1 in Big Sur is opening by the end of the day on Friday the 13th:
https://bigsurkate.blog/2017/10/03/pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-to-open-end-of-day-on-friday-101317/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm)
However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading. Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring". In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend. But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm. October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.
I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.
The spring reopening dates are more accurate. Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017. It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement. There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
The new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge on CA 1 in Big Sur is opening by the end of the day on Friday the 13th:
https://bigsurkate.blog/2017/10/03/pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-to-open-end-of-day-on-friday-101317/
Some additional resources on the 10/13/2017 opening date of the new SR 1 Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge from last week:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-20171006-story.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/big-sur-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-to-open-oct-13/
QuoteCaltrans says the new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge will open Oct. 13, eight months after the transportation agency shut down the bridge along Highway 1 just south of Big Sur Station.
"There is some bridge rail work to be done and some guard rail work to be done," said Jim Shivers, a Caltrans spokesman.
Caltrans will pave the roadway this weekend, which will be followed by lane striping. Among the other work yet to be done is trenching to improve drainage on the existing roadway and grinding down the road as it approaches the bridge to make for a smooth transition. Crews will also have to remove the large machinery currently in place as part of construction work.
"It's a full opening," Shivers said, explaining both lanes will be open to the public Oct. 13 by 5 p.m. ...
The single-span, steel girder structure was built without the columns that made the previous configuration vulnerable to landslides at an estimated cost of $24 million.
"We did seven years of work in about seven months," Shivers said. "It's pretty remarkable what work has been done here, it's really amazing." ...
Highway 1 remains closed at the massive Mud Creek slide on the southern end of the Big Sur coast, about 10 miles north from the San Luis Obispo County border. Crews are working on building a new road atop the quarter-mile slide at a cost of $40 million. The highway is expected to reopen in late summer 2018.
Update on SR 1 reopening between Muir Woods and Stinson Beach:
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20171003/caltrans-targets-december-for-highway-1-reopening
QuoteCaltrans plans to reopen storm-damaged Highway 1 between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach by December – if the weather cooperates.
"We are hoping to give the residents out there a Christmas present," said Steve Williams, Caltrans spokesman. "But it is complicated work and we don't know what the weather will be like."
Last winter's record rains caused significant problems on the coastal highway. Caltrans officials said there were 17 storm-related work sites in Marin, most of those on Highway 1. The work has an estimated cost of more than $75 million.
A section of Highway 1 in Muir Beach opened in early May after being closed since January after parts of the road washed away and down a hillside.
But another key section of Highway 1 to the north, between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach, where the highway has dipped, cracked and slipped, has yet to see through-traffic. The reopening date was initially pegged at early September, then October, and now December is the new target. ...
To get to Stinson Beach from the south now, drivers need to use a detour on Panoramic Highway, which extends the trip about 13 miles.
Other work is also set to start on Highway 1. That construction will include shoring up retaining walls at several locations.
Even once it opens, Caltrans plans to keep signs up with traffic warnings that encourage people to use the Panoramic detour so Highway 1 does not get backed up, county officials said.
The road closures, detours and one-way controls brought by the winter storms made West Marin difficult to navigate on busy weekends over the summer.
Locals are familiar with closures of the highway, seeing major shutdowns in 2005, 2006, 2014 and again this year.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 10, 2017, 12:31:27 AM
Update on SR 1 reopening between Muir Woods and Stinson Beach:
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20171003/caltrans-targets-december-for-highway-1-reopening
QuoteCaltrans plans to reopen storm-damaged Highway 1 between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach by December – if the weather cooperates.
"We are hoping to give the residents out there a Christmas present," said Steve Williams, Caltrans spokesman. "But it is complicated work and we don't know what the weather will be like."
Last winter's record rains caused significant problems on the coastal highway. Caltrans officials said there were 17 storm-related work sites in Marin, most of those on Highway 1. The work has an estimated cost of more than $75 million.
A section of Highway 1 in Muir Beach opened in early May after being closed since January after parts of the road washed away and down a hillside.
But another key section of Highway 1 to the north, between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach, where the highway has dipped, cracked and slipped, has yet to see through-traffic. The reopening date was initially pegged at early September, then October, and now December is the new target. ...
To get to Stinson Beach from the south now, drivers need to use a detour on Panoramic Highway, which extends the trip about 13 miles.
Other work is also set to start on Highway 1. That construction will include shoring up retaining walls at several locations.
Even once it opens, Caltrans plans to keep signs up with traffic warnings that encourage people to use the Panoramic detour so Highway 1 does not get backed up, county officials said.
The road closures, detours and one-way controls brought by the winter storms made West Marin difficult to navigate on busy weekends over the summer.
Locals are familiar with closures of the highway, seeing major shutdowns in 2005, 2006, 2014 and again this year.
Back in the mid-70's, when I had just moved up to the Bay Area for the first time, I was living in Redwood City but had changed jobs and was working in Mill Valley. Had a good friend living in Bolinas, so to avoid commuting between Marin and RC every day I stayed in a guest house behind my friend's place during the week and went home south on the weekends. I started out the daily Mill Valley-Bolinas commute right along CA 1 via Muir Beach, but switched to Panoramic as the "default" route because it was actually less treacherous. Also, I figured out some back roads in MV so I could cut off the last mile or so of Panoramic. IMO, through drivers are actually getting something of a break by having to detour over Panoramic -- besides the jaunt through Muir Beach, the scenery on CA 1 can only be appreciated if one pulls off the road -- traveling it requires a driver's full concentration! And it seemed, at least back in '76, that the few commercial vehicles heading toward Stinson, Bolinas, or points north of there preferred Panoramic as well; I had regular truck companions on that road!
Photo I took today of a damaged sign on US 101 in Santa Rosa
(https://i.imgur.com/TMfqEXW.jpg)
Quote from: TheStranger on October 10, 2017, 06:53:11 PM
Photo I took today of a damaged sign on US 101 in Santa Rosa
(https://i.imgur.com/TMfqEXW.jpg)
Sad. The damage to that part of Santa Rosa is unfathomable and on a par with damage from other major firestorms in the history of California. The aerial views of destroyed neighborhoods are truly stunning and saddening, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in the inferno. That said, and bringing this back to roads, I wonder if they will replace that U.S. 101 Business route sign or watch it disappear forever. Sometimes, these old business route signs on California highways get damaged or removed... and they never come back.
Pictures from the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge grand opening on CA 1:
https://bigsurkate.blog/2017/10/14/bridge-opening-photo/
(Incidentally I'll have some of my own this coming week)
Accompanying article from the San Francisco Gate:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Big-Sur-back-in-business-with-opening-of-Pfeiffer-12277324.php
Really the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road coupled with CA 1 north of Lime Kiln State Park to County Route G16 is a pretty damn worthwhile little drive IMO.
Quote from: andy3175 on October 12, 2017, 11:20:01 PM
Sad. The damage to that part of Santa Rosa is unfathomable and on a par with damage from other major firestorms in the history of California. The aerial views of destroyed neighborhoods are truly stunning and saddening, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in the inferno. That said, and bringing this back to roads, I wonder if they will replace that U.S. 101 Business route sign or watch it disappear forever. Sometimes, these old business route signs on California highways get damaged or removed... and they never come back.
The damage to Santa Rosa and the Sonoma Valley is on a par with the 2003 firestorms that ravaged San Diego County as well as the San Bernardino mountains (as a then Redlands resident I witnessed the latter up-close!). Unfortunately, the massive expansion of housing into formerly rural regions in this state has rendered such destruction almost inevitable; the warming trend has only served to accelerate the timetable for such occurrences. One can only hope that this latest batch of disasters will serve as a limiting factor -- or even consideration -- when suburban and exurban developments are proposed in the years to come.
Quote from: sparker on October 15, 2017, 09:45:20 PM
Unfortunately, the massive expansion of housing into formerly rural regions in this state has rendered such destruction almost inevitable; the warming trend has only served to accelerate the timetable for such occurrences. One can only hope that this latest batch of disasters will serve as a limiting factor -- or even consideration -- when suburban and exurban developments are proposed in the years to come.
I doubt it. Some news outlets here are already speculating on the impact the Wine Country fires will have on already-astronomical Bay Area home prices. I suspect most, if not all, of the destroyed homes in Santa Rosa will be rebuilt.
Quote from: myosh_tino on October 16, 2017, 01:03:18 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 15, 2017, 09:45:20 PM
Unfortunately, the massive expansion of housing into formerly rural regions in this state has rendered such destruction almost inevitable; the warming trend has only served to accelerate the timetable for such occurrences. One can only hope that this latest batch of disasters will serve as a limiting factor -- or even consideration -- when suburban and exurban developments are proposed in the years to come.
I doubt it. Some news outlets here are already speculating on the impact the Wine Country fires will have on already-astronomical Bay Area home prices. I suspect most, if not all, of the destroyed homes in Santa Rosa will be rebuilt.
Since most of the homes destroyed in the affected Santa Rosa neighborhoods had been exempted from current fire-resistant standards -- and, at least according to TV news reports from the area, most former residents expect to rebuild -- the builders of the new homes won't repeat that type of mistake. I lived in Windsor, about 10 miles north of there, back in the late '80's, and passed that tract almost daily -- and it was in the "flatlands" immediately west of the US 101 freeway -- which this fire readily jumped! Quite obviously, no one in the fire-control field had any idea that Cooley Park would be in jeopardy because of its physical location (even though the ridge that formed the fire's pathway came right up to Old Redwood Highway, just east of the freeway). In this instance, the combination of winds and the fire's momentum resulted in the destruction of essentially the whole tract. But it's the isolated houses scattered throughout the hills that provokes my concern; the lore of "wine country" has rendered Napa & Sonoma Counties (as well as Lake and southern Mendocino counties) a desirable place to put a vacation, retirement, or, if circumstances permit, a main residence. I don't see that situation changing despite the number of such residences destroyed in this most recent fire event. But the prospect of large-scale tract development up in the hills might be given second looks in light of the fires -- although because of the Cooley Park circumstances (i.e., the lack of fire standards), expansion in historically less fire-prone areas will likely continue unabated -- but with higher standards (and higher prices) applied.
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while. A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time! But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions. One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.
The subdivisions burning is more scary. Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc. And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.
Quote from: kkt on October 16, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while. A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time! But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions. One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.
The subdivisions burning is more scary. Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc. And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.
Related to this, and IMHO a major precedent for ordering that buildings be built with less flammable materials, were the building codes that were adopted by the City of Chicago after the seriously devastating firestorm that blew through it on 1871-10-08/10. It's why the city's neighborhoods look the way that they do to this day.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on October 16, 2017, 05:59:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 16, 2017, 04:48:29 PM
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while. A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time! But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions. One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.
The subdivisions burning is more scary. Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc. And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.
Related to this, and IMHO a major precedent for ordering that buildings be built with less flammable materials, were the building codes that were adopted by the City of Chicago after the seriously devastating firestorm that blew through it on 1871-10-08/10. It's why the city's neighborhoods look the way that they do to this day.
Mike
It's more than likely that the insurance companies, particularly here in CA, will continue to insure outlying residences -- but the fire(s) will certainly be used as a rationale for substantially raising premiums. A friend who has a house in Redwood Estates, up in the coast range off CA 17 between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz, saw his rates go up close to 15% last year after a fire about 25 miles SE near Watsonville took out several $1M+ properties. If you live up in the hills around here, you invariably end up paying for your privileges (he
does have a fantastic view of the whole "Silicon Valley" from his perch!)
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...
:hmmm:
Quote from: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 12:02:41 AM
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...
Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.
Quote from: NE2 on October 19, 2017, 01:38:29 AM
Quote from: mrpablue on October 19, 2017, 12:02:41 AM
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes...
Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.
Yeah, good point. That was pretty obvious. I'm sorta new, so I forget stuff.
Checked out the new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge today out on 1. The bridge is so new that the frame work is actually still in place and there was a ton of Caltrans workers scurrying about to remove it. I'll have some pictures up tonight but it was actually kind of cool to see Big Sur lively again.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 05, 2017, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm)
However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading. Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring". In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend. But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm. October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.
I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.
The spring reopening dates are more accurate. Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017. It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement. There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.
Updating this: Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga Passes were all preemptively closed yesterday, Nov. 2, in anticipation of a storm coming through over the next couple days. It looks like there will be more snow next week, so there's a good chance they won't be reopened until the spring. However, the Caltrans highway conditions site has them labeled "Closed due to snow" for now; eventually they will give in and change that to "Closed for the winter".
Quote from: gonealookin on November 03, 2017, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on October 05, 2017, 02:28:12 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm)
However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading. Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring". In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend. But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm. October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.
I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.
The spring reopening dates are more accurate. Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017. It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement. There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.
Updating this: Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga Passes were all preemptively closed yesterday, Nov. 2, in anticipation of a storm coming through over the next couple days. It looks like there will be more snow next week, so there's a good chance they won't be reopened until the spring. However, the Caltrans highway conditions site has them labeled "Closed due to snow" for now; eventually they will give in and change that to "Closed for the winter".
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength. 120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed. 89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 05, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength. 120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed. 89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.
I have to remember every year to take the storm forecasts, especially the early ones, with a few grains of salt. :rolleyes: This storm was what is sometimes locally known as a "fizzard". The process I described is correct, but it looks like I jumped the gun on the timing and there is probably still some opportunity to drive over those passes in 2017.
Quote from: gonealookin on November 05, 2017, 01:46:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 05, 2017, 11:07:46 AM
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength. 120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed. 89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.
I have to remember every year to take the storm forecasts, especially the early ones, with a few grains of salt. :rolleyes: This storm was what is sometimes locally known as a "fizzard". The process I described is correct, but it looks like I jumped the gun on the timing and there is probably still some opportunity to drive over those passes in 2017.
Today on the quick map Tioga Pass and Monitor are showing open by Sonora in addition to Ebbetts are closed down. I wonder if that really more to do with Caltrans really just doesn't want people on 24-26% grades with a possibility of a storm in high elevations. Tioga and Monitor are both only 8% grades.
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure. No doubt it'd include some form of cable-stay design for at least the portion over the designated shipping channel. But the likelihood of this surviving the multi-level vetting process required for any new-terrain facilities in CA have never looked particularly good. One good thing: it could actually be an eastern extension of I-280 all the way to I-580 (kill 2 birds with one stone: actually connect I-280's northern end back to the Interstate system -- and say adios to I-238!). Always an intriguing idea that eventually runs up against fiscal and logistic reality -- but if someone wants to fund yet another study, I say go for it!
Interstate 80 improvements are planned between Kidwell Road near Dixon and the interchange between I-80 meets I-5 (including the Yolo Bypass bridge) ... this project would add an extra carpool lane that would widening the freeway from three to four lanes in each direction. Goal is to begin construction in 2021.
http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/caltrans-has-plan-to-ease-congestion-on-stretch-of-i-80-through-davis/497189381
101 and 880 are just as much bottlenecks as the bridges are.
BART, Caltrain, ACE, and other commuter services still leave a lot to be desired. They don't cover enough territory out into the suburbs where people with ordinary jobs can afford to live. They have long headways (except BART, and Caltrain at rush hour). Express busses are operated by the counties, and don't cross county lines, while commutes in the Bay Area can easily cross two, three, or four counties. Their schedules don't coordinate; if they even meet at a stop you must wait 20-30 minutes for the next bus to continue in the same direction.
Quote from: andy3175 on December 07, 2017, 12:34:55 AM
Interstate 80 improvements are planned between Kidwell Road near Dixon and the interchange between I-80 meets I-5 (including the Yolo Bypass bridge) ... this project would add an extra carpool lane that would widening the freeway from three to four lanes in each direction. Goal is to begin construction in 2021.
http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/caltrans-has-plan-to-ease-congestion-on-stretch-of-i-80-through-davis/497189381
I wonder if the I-80/US 50 interchange in West Sac will be rebuilt with one of the HOV lane splits continuing northeast with I-80 on a separate flyover structure, since from the map in the cite
both I-80 and US 50 will have those lanes added; this is presuming the HOV lanes will be located in the current freeway median. Actually, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see
all of I-80 from Emeryville to at least Roseville built out to 8 lanes within 20 years as the Sacramento exurban spread, now a bit west of Dixon, meets the North Bay suburbs via Fairfield and Vacaville, with housing flanking most stretches of that highway.
Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure.
From the 1960s planning maps I've seen on Flickr (and posted on the AARoads forums) I recall the original Southern Crossing plan was a connection from today's I-280 at Cesar Chavez (Army) Street (where small stubs exist for the unbuilt Route 87 extension, later today's unbuilt Route 230) east to Alameda to a connection with today's I-980 and the unbuilt Route 61 freeway:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894
On that map, 61/112 seems to correspond to the connection to today's I-238 though not a direct linkage between the two. (IIRC, there is an unbuilt extension of the 238 freeway west to the unconstructed 61 freeway that had been proposed)
Quote from: TheStranger on December 07, 2017, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 07, 2017, 12:00:32 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on December 06, 2017, 06:50:28 PM
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure.
From the 1960s planning maps I've seen on Flickr (and posted on the AARoads forums) I recall the original Southern Crossing plan was a connection from today's I-280 at Cesar Chavez (Army) Street (where small stubs exist for the unbuilt Route 87 extension, later today's unbuilt Route 230) east to Alameda to a connection with today's I-980 and the unbuilt Route 61 freeway:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894
On that map, 61/112 seems to correspond to the connection to today's I-238 though not a direct linkage between the two. (IIRC, there is an unbuilt extension of the 238 freeway west to the unconstructed 61 freeway that had been proposed)
Originally, there were freeways (87 on the west side and 61 on the east) that were to flank the bay; as construction of them (particularly 87 from SF to Alviso) would have required considerably bayfill, they were, within a couple of decades or so, deleted from the system (the 61 freeway only went as far south as far as the Dumbarton/CA 84 bridge). Most of the 61 alignment was far more "doable" than its CA 87 counterpart; much of that route is now newer industrial parks. Under both the original 1959 freeway plan and its 1965 update, pretty much every planned freeway perpendicular to either bay shore terminated at one of these; as the corridors were deleted, so were the various extensions serving them. Unsigned CA 112 always went out to the 61 corridor, but that route was never part of the freeway network, just a surface street connecting to central San Leandro. These days, placing a freeway along 112 (Davis Street) would be a highly unlikely prospect due to the intense adjacent industrial and residential development. If a serious bridge proposal were to hit the formal route selection process, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a connection skirting Oakland International Airport and intersecting I-880 near the present Coliseum in conjunction with plans for a new A's stadium, possibly on or near the present site. Still, though, the odds-on favorite alignment remains one that would function as a I-238 extension.
I think that the southern crossing is a non-starter. As much as many of us would like to see another crossing, even if they were able to get over the environmental hurdles, the cost would be exorbitant. Look at the overruns on the new Benicia Bridge and the Bay Bridge east span vs the original estimates. The best option, as unpopular as it may seem around here, is to try and build another transbay BART tube and add bypass BART tracks to some of the closer-in stations to allow express trains.
That said, I am very happy to see that there are finally plans to expand I-80 between Dixon and Sacramento. The congestion on that road is horrific on the weekends. I only wish it had been done 10 years ago.
Quote from: jdbx on December 08, 2017, 02:27:35 PM
The best option, as unpopular as it may seem around here, is to try and build another transbay BART tube and add bypass BART tracks to some of the closer-in stations to allow express trains.
There was an Examiner article on that concept a few years ago that noted it wouldn't be until the late 2030s before any second transbay tube would actually be projected to happen.
Additional article on Feinstein's comments, which encompass both the bridge and trans-bay tube:
https://sf.curbed.com/2017/12/8/16751814/feinstein-san-francisco-transportation-second-bay-bridge
QuoteCalifornia Sen. Dianne Feinstein and East Bay Congressperson Mark DeSaulnier penned a letter to the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission this week, urging the agency to build an additional bay bridge, a new east-west transbay connection, and–while they're at it–a second Transbay Tube.
The California lawmakers cite "intolerable" traffic throughout the region.
"Quality of life is suffering; and our economy is not nearly thriving as much as it could be if these transportation challenges were addressed," reads the request.
The solution? "An additional route across the Bay for both BART and vehicular traffic."
The letter continues: "The most congested freeway segments in the Bay Area for the second year in a row are the afternoon commutes northbound and eastbound on U.S. 101 and Interstate 80 from the I-280 interchange in San Francisco to the Bay Bridge's Yerba Buena Island Tunnel. Moreover, the next most congested route is the westbound direction on I-80, through the Bay Bridge, to Fremont Street. A second crossing would alleviate this traffic through San Francisco and the East Bay, would better connect the entire Bay Area, and would provide significant benefits for toll payers."
The letter, addressed to MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger, references Regional Measure III (RM3), calling it inadequate to solve transit problems., If passed by voters next year, RM3 will raise bridge tolls and put the money toward transit. DeSaulnier previously called RM3 unfair. He told East Bay Times that it "disproportionately put the burden of financing [transit] investment on East Bay residents."
The idea of a second bay crossing is as old as the Bay Bridge itself. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright even created a design for an additional span. (Wright hated the idea of a second steel design, and partnered with engineer Jaroslav J. Polivka to propose the concrete "Butterfly Bridge," which would have spanned from Cesar Chavez and Third Street to its eastern terminus on Bay Farm Island, just north of the Oakland Airport.) Back in 2000, Feinstein sent a similar letter urging then governor Gray Davis to start planning on a southern bridge project. Similar to Wright's vision, the new bridge's price tag sunk the idea.
Here's a copy of the press release and letter: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=BDA14490-FB58-45D6-95FC-4F90A9453A82
Quote from: sparker on December 08, 2017, 05:00:41 AM
Originally, there were freeways (87 on the west side and 61 on the east) that were to flank the bay; as construction of them (particularly 87 from SF to Alviso) would have required considerably bayfill, they were, within a couple of decades or so, deleted from the system (the 61 freeway only went as far south as far as the Dumbarton/CA 84 bridge). Most of the 61 alignment was far more "doable" than its CA 87 counterpart; much of that route is now newer industrial parks. Under both the original 1959 freeway plan and its 1965 update, pretty much every planned freeway perpendicular to either bay shore terminated at one of these; as the corridors were deleted, so were the various extensions serving them. Unsigned CA 112 always went out to the 61 corridor, but that route was never part of the freeway network, just a surface street connecting to central San Leandro. These days, placing a freeway along 112 (Davis Street) would be a highly unlikely prospect due to the intense adjacent industrial and residential development. If a serious bridge proposal were to hit the formal route selection process, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a connection skirting Oakland International Airport and intersecting I-880 near the present Coliseum in conjunction with plans for a new A's stadium, possibly on or near the present site. Still, though, the odds-on favorite alignment remains one that would function as a I-238 extension.
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
In addition to the problem of plowing through housing stock, an alignment directing Southern Crossing traffic specifically to I-238 is that there would be no direct freeway connection to either Oakland or Berkeley, both of which would be likely destinations for cross-bay traffic; a 238-serving routing would be to shoot traffic to and from east I-580, meaning Dublin/Livermore and beyond. Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980). Something more or less along Hegenberger Road (the main Oakland Airport access to I-880) would probably suffice as a reasonable if not direct substitute for a cross-Alameda alignment; but a spur down to San Leandro and the 238/880 junction in addition to the Hegenberger "branch" would serve to split traffic going north/northeast (to NB I-880, I-980/CA 24, or even EB I-80) and south or due east (EB I-580, SB I-880). The housing stock in west San Leandro along the "main drag", Lewelling Blvd., is mostly smaller postwar single-family units mixed in with the occasional small apartment complex; while objections would almost certainly be made to the use of eminent domain to acquire properties, if a Southern Crossing developmental process gained traction via public support it may well overcome such obstacles.
Quote from: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:42:35 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).
Interesting you mention that (given that the 980 extension has been shown as part of real proposals for the Southern Crossing in the past). Is the former Alameda naval air station land empty enough to be useful as potential right of way? Not sure there is any aviation activity there these days.
Yes. From existing 980, into a tube under the ship channel (like the existing Webster and Posey tubes to Alameda), then tunnel under Alameda, possibly one exit, then bridge across the bay to 280 near the Islais Creek Ship Channel. Possible exits at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.
Quote from: TheStranger on December 18, 2017, 02:16:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 17, 2017, 05:42:35 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 11, 2017, 08:50:49 PM
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).
Interesting you mention that (given that the 980 extension has been shown as part of real proposals for the Southern Crossing in the past). Is the former Alameda naval air station land empty enough to be useful as potential right of way? Not sure there is any aviation activity there these days.
Funny you should mention the ex-NAS; was just up there today; the woodworking company that does my speaker cabinets set up shop in the old base wood shop. A development company, in concert with the City of Alameda, has taken over management of the site and has already leased out about 70% of the buildings for industrial or warehousing facilities. About a quarter-mile on the bayward side of the site was originally the old N-S runway -- and its pavement is in such bad shape that it can't even be used as a parking lot these days! That would be a reasonable location for a freeway, but it's pretty much due south of the big curve on I-880 (the replacement for the former earthquake-destroyed Cypress viaduct).
Quote from: kkt on December 18, 2017, 04:40:53 PM
Yes. From existing 980, into a tube under the ship channel (like the existing Webster and Posey tubes to Alameda), then tunnel under Alameda, possibly one exit, then bridge across the bay to 280 near the Islais Creek Ship Channel. Possible exits at Army Caesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.
A very long curved tube would be needed to access the unused NAS portion from I-980; a more likely candidate would be an interchange along I-880 west of there. Perhaps slip lanes from I-980 could be utilized -- but that would involve additional property taking in an area that almost certainly would be a political "hot potato" (i.e., West Oakland). I don't know the specific geological makeup of the Alameda island, but if it's anything like the rest of the eastern Bay shoreline, much of it will be packed mud; tunneling might be problematic (at least keeping said tunnel intact). Unfortunately, since the density of Alameda itself is similar to the west side of S.F., there's not much place to put a surface -- or even a cut-and-cover -- facility (no wide streets paralleling the Bay). It's more than likely anything on the Alameda island won't prove conducive to a freeway approach to a southern crossing.
Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on December 18, 2017, 08:18:21 PM
Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.
Which has already seen some development in the form of row-type individual residences just west of the College of Alameda; more housing development is under way at the SE corner of the former NAS station. Apparently the plan is mixed-use in nature, with industry occupying what's left of the former base facilities (there's still an old fighter plane on a pedestal at the site entrance!) -- which gives Alameda Point some needed cash flow to pursue their other interests, including a significant amount of low-income housing in the aforementioned SE side nearest the existing city neighborhoods near Central Ave.
What happened to this thread?
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
But there are many other, more specific threads on California topics -- a dozen and a half with activity this month so far. This thread is just a catch-all for things not covered elsewhere.
If mrpablue wants more activity in this thread, he can always post something substantive and on-topic.
Quote from: oscar on February 22, 2018, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
But there are many other, more specific threads on California topics -- a dozen and a half with activity this month so far. This thread is just a catch-all for things not covered elsewhere.
If mrpablue wants more activity in this thread, he can always post something substantive and on-topic.
True, at least for me there is only so much I can talk about CA 58 and I-11 so I don't tend to notice the activity there unless something substantial happens. Usually this the dead season for anything other than the major projects in California. I'm honestly surprised I've had as much to post this winter given how bad the weather was last year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
I don't even think that this thread is necessary. 80% of the threads in PSW have to do with California, why should things be singled out here?
Likewise, NV and HI do deserve their own state threads though.
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2018, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
I don't even think that this thread is necessary. 80% of the threads in PSW have to do with California, why should things be singled out here?
Likewise, NV and HI do deserve their own state threads though.
When Andy started it up the thread was about general California observations and was meant to be a catch-all for just general discussion. It kept chugging along for quite a long time but seems to have been shifted out of the way in favor of more topic dedicated threads. But to your point about 80-90% of the discussion on this board is oriented towards California with the rest coming from Nevada. Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.
It seems as if one of the major activities within the California transportation scene -- besides HSR and its controversies -- is relinquishments of state-maintained routes, mostly urban arterials. A question was raised in the CA 130 thread about "orphaned" state highway segments not connected to any other routes; with the recent rash of relinquishment, it is almost certain that more and more of these "orphans" will crop up over time. I'd suggest that if any posters happen across this situation with any particular route, this thread might well be the appropriate place to mention it.
Speaking of catch-all, I think this is a good thread to share nice videos of California Highways. Here's one of Interstate 5 through the Grapevine. I was last at this corridor a few years back on the way to Pasadena, so it was refreshing for me. I love the music too!
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 12:38:38 AM
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
Growing up in the L.A. area in the '50's, I noticed that the terms (for the divided US 99 at the time) were pretty much interchangeable; but older folks who may have traveled upon or been told about the "Ridge Route" tended to use that term. As a kid, I thought that everything south of Gorman was the "Ridge Route" (although a sizeable portion of the pre-I-5 alignment went through the upper reaches of Piru Gorge before it was dammed off for Pyramid Lake), and the part north of there through Lebec, Tejon, and its namesake town was the "Grapevine". It's possible that when the reversed-lanes section of I-5 was completed circa 1970, the term "Grapevine" may have been reapplied, since the configuration of the lanes -- at least in an aerial view -- looks a bit like an actual grapevine wrapping around a supporting post: the original (NB) lanes followed the US 99 expressway alignment, and the new straighter SB lanes hug the ridge immediately to the east, with the lanes crossing at the top and bottom of the downhill SB gradient. It's a bit of a stretch, but possible!
Two thoughts from my weekend excursion:
1) I-80 east of Auburn, CA belongs in Oregon. Four-lane, winding, pine forests. Suddenly it becomes Californian in nature in Auburn, growing lanes and deciduous trees.
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Quote from: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 AM
Two thoughts from my weekend excursion:
1) I-80 east of Auburn, CA belongs in Oregon. Four-lane, winding, pine forests. Suddenly it becomes Californian in nature in Auburn, growing lanes and deciduous trees.
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Probably due to the multiplex that would be required on US 101 to do it which isn't exactly something Division of Highways liked to do post-1964. A shorter multiplex to I-280 and assuming the entirety of that route to I-680 probably would have been much more workable. But with that said, it would require a sudden north/south shift in I-80 and I think San Francisco seems to be a more logical point for 2d Interstate. We've talked about consolidating I-280 and I-680 into one route before which would serve as an almost full beltway on a single designation. It would also free up a number to resolve the I-238 designation...but that ought to be a state highway or leaving CA 24 on the I-980 could have fixed that issue as well.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Quote from: mrsman on February 24, 2018, 09:41:42 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 22, 2018, 06:51:49 PM
Quote from: mrpablue on February 22, 2018, 06:36:22 PM
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
I don't even think that this thread is necessary. 80% of the threads in PSW have to do with California, why should things be singled out here?
Likewise, NV and HI do deserve their own state threads though.
When Andy started it up the thread was about general California observations and was meant to be a catch-all for just general discussion. It kept chugging along for quite a long time but seems to have been shifted out of the way in favor of more topic dedicated threads. But to your point about 80-90% of the discussion on this board is oriented towards California with the rest coming from Nevada. Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.
That is exactly right. My intention when creating this thread was to catch items that don't necessary warrant their own thread or are of general interest for California highways. Examples may include general Caltrans news, specific route updates that are minor in nature (minor construction, realignments, relinquishments, etc.), highway politics news (for example, opponents to a recent gas tax hike are mounting a repeal effort), etc. So I'd say this thread has some merit. But if you have something about a highway issue that is significant and will likely warrant multiple replies (such as High Desert Corridor E-220 or I-405 improvements), in my opinion those would make and have made great standalone threads.
Is anyone noticing a considerable uptick in construction activity? I have only been out here for 3 years, but I'm seeing more construction projects now more than I have since moving out here. Most of them being resurfacing and utility projects like what I'm guessing is going on at Malibu Canyon RD.
I'm wanting to guess this is a result of SB1, and while I hate to say this, I'm starting to become more anti SB-1 the more and more I learn about it. I am against a single penny of this going to HSR and bike infrastructure, yet they've already announced over a billion dollars of SB-1 money going towards HSR. I am not against the HSR concept, but I am not 100% behind it either and I certainly do NOT advocate for taxes from cars going towards anything related to mass transit. Especially when those people who support transit bitch about cars yet tolls and fees collected from them go to support transit, it's bats in the belfry to me.
Quote from: sparker on February 26, 2018, 01:33:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 12:38:38 AM
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
Growing up in the L.A. area in the '50's, I noticed that the terms (for the divided US 99 at the time) were pretty much interchangeable; but older folks who may have traveled upon or been told about the "Ridge Route" tended to use that term. As a kid, I thought that everything south of Gorman was the "Ridge Route" (although a sizeable portion of the pre-I-5 alignment went through the upper reaches of Piru Gorge before it was dammed off for Pyramid Lake), and the part north of there through Lebec, Tejon, and its namesake town was the "Grapevine". It's possible that when the reversed-lanes section of I-5 was completed circa 1970, the term "Grapevine" may have been reapplied, since the configuration of the lanes -- at least in an aerial view -- looks a bit like an actual grapevine wrapping around a supporting post: the original (NB) lanes followed the US 99 expressway alignment, and the new straighter SB lanes hug the ridge immediately to the east, with the lanes crossing at the top and bottom of the downhill SB gradient. It's a bit of a stretch, but possible!
Seems like in modern times both the Ridge Route and Ridge Route Alternate are almost completely forgotten. The original Ridge Route is actually a hell of a hiking trail now while Ridge Route Alternate essentially is a derelict road leading up to Pryamid Lake. For what it's worth "The Ridge Route" always sounded cooler than "The Grapevine." At the very least I've been trying to make sure my significant other has it right. She seems to want to call it just "5" because she doesn't like the old name.
Quote from: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 AM
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Why should I-80 turn left and head south for a while before ending? I'm thinking of the big picture, US 101 a N-S route that goes up and down the entire Pacific coast, and I-80 an E-W route that extended all the way from coast to coast.
Several possible west ends of I-80 have been considered: where cancelled I-480 and the cancelled northern spur of SOMA I-280 would have met at the Bay Bridge approaches; at a new western freeway along the Golden Gate Park panhandle meeting a new N-S route to be built at about 17th Ave. in western S.F.; and southward to the junction with US 101.
The Bayshore Freeway in S.F. is below current interstate standards, in curves, design speed, and lack of shoulders. It's fine for typical use where you're lucky if you can go faster than 50 mph anyway, and Caltrans isn't interested in spending the money to upgrade it when there are other projects needed even worse. Turning US 101 into an interstate from L.A. to S.F. was proposed at one time, but was denied.
80, 280, and 680 put together make an almost full loop. I personally feel that numbering the two sides and top of the oval with different numbers makes it more straightforward to identify where you are and where this stretch of road goes next, compared with one number for a whole beltway.
ya that's a terrible idea, 80 is fine where it is, they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2018, 03:52:00 PMIs anyone noticing a considerable uptick in construction activity? I have only been out here for 3 years, but I'm seeing more construction projects now more than I have since moving out here. Most of them being resurfacing and utility projects like what I'm guessing is going on at Malibu Canyon RD.
I'm wanting to guess this is a result of SB1 . . .
I follow Caltrans lettings, and volumes have been high for the past two or three years. I don't know how much of that is attributable to SB 1 versus the state's generally better fiscal position, however. It was only two weeks ago that I encountered my first project with a SB 1 funding sign.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 26, 2018, 03:52:00 PM. . . and while I hate to say this, I'm starting to become more anti SB-1 the more and more I learn about it. I am against a single penny of this going to HSR and bike infrastructure, yet they've already announced over a billion dollars of SB-1 money going towards HSR. I am not against the HSR concept, but I am not 100% behind it either and I certainly do NOT advocate for taxes from cars going towards anything related to mass transit. Especially when those people who support transit bitch about cars yet tolls and fees collected from them go to support transit, it's bats in the belfry to me.
I take a philosophical attitude to all of this, which is pretty easy since I don't actually live in California. I remember the ballot initiative in (I think) 2003 calling for fuel tax revenues to be hypothecated for transportation, not just highways. In urban California, which notwithstanding its autopia reputation is very congested and transit-dependent, this is the centrist position. My recollection is that this initiative passed, but in terms of highway lettings it seemed to have no perceptible effect--there was a drought that lasted for years. Transportation finance in California is very complex, so I'm still not sure if this drought had to do with the Bay Bridge (east span main contract estimated at $700 million, sole bid--twice--came in at $1.4 billion), funding splits transiently favorable to transit capital construction, or some kind of loophole allowing temporary raids on the transportation fund lockbox for budget-balancing purposes.
Quote from: kkt on February 26, 2018, 07:39:08 PM
Quote from: Alps on February 26, 2018, 07:12:46 AM
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Why should I-80 turn left and head south for a while before ending? I'm thinking of the big picture, US 101 a N-S route that goes up and down the entire Pacific coast, and I-80 an E-W route that extended all the way from coast to coast.
Several possible west ends of I-80 have been considered: where cancelled I-480 and the cancelled northern spur of SOMA I-280 would have met at the Bay Bridge approaches; at a new western freeway along the Golden Gate Park panhandle meeting a new N-S route to be built at about 17th Ave. in western S.F.; and southward to the junction with US 101.
The Bayshore Freeway in S.F. is below current interstate standards, in curves, design speed, and lack of shoulders. It's fine for typical use where you're lucky if you can go faster than 50 mph anyway, and Caltrans isn't interested in spending the money to upgrade it when there are other projects needed even worse. Turning US 101 into an interstate from L.A. to S.F. was proposed at one time, but was denied.
80, 280, and 680 put together make an almost full loop. I personally feel that numbering the two sides and top of the oval with different numbers makes it more straightforward to identify where you are and where this stretch of road goes next, compared with one number for a whole beltway.
Agreed. SF was for a long time the biggest city in northern CA. When I-80 reached SF, it arrived at its destination. No need to go any further.
Regarding 280 and 680, the two highways make a sensible bypass of the 101-80 corridor around the bay. It's easier to understand the purpose of the two highways as two separate routes. We don't want to combine them into one number. Cross-reference: the new plans for I-295 in the Trenton-Philadelphia area. When I-95 gap is closed when the Delaware Expy and Penn Turnpike interchange is completed, you will have a N-S highway that loops around and becomes another N-S higway on the other side of the river. I find this to be confusing and would prefer if they followed the successful model of 280-680 in CA.
Extending I-80 by multiplexing with US-101 would allow I-280 and I-680 to connect both of their ends with its parent interstate, which sounds good from an Interstate Highway system perspective. But, kkt is correct about parts of the US-101 being in inadequate quality in San Francisco, for example the exit to Vermont Street right before the I-80 junction and inadequate shoulders in the Central Freeway portion.
If I-280 were to be renamed as I-80 from the Alemany Interchange (US-101/I-280 junction), then that would involve changing a lot of exit signs and would still require a two mile multiplex with US-101, but wouldn't achieve much more. I think the current numbering is fine as it is. I-280 is a good bypass of US-101 from SF to SJ (I take it all the time even!), and I-680 is an important corridor in its own right, and serves as a bypass of I-80 past the Carquinez Bridge.
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.
101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
The late mayor Ed Lee did propose a downgrading of 280 north of 16th Street a few years ago. (Commute traffic still uses that portion on a regular basis during the workweek, and it is the primary route to reach the Embarcadero corridor and Mission Bay/Dogpatch districts from all points south)
Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2018, 05:38:52 PM
Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?
I believe that is something that Mayor Lee was championing before he passed away. I don't expect any movement on this in any direction until after the election in June.
Interesting LA Times article about LA and its freeways...
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-ca-cm-building-type-high-desert-corridor-20180225-story.html
Quote
If no one in 2018 would argue, as a young writer named David Brodsly did in 1981, that the "L.A. freeway is the cathedral of its time and place," or that it's the spot where Angelenos "spend the two calmest and most rewarding hours of their daily lives," as British architectural historian Reyner Banham put it with almost laughable enthusiasm a decade earlier, there's no doubt that both the practical and metaphorical meanings of the freeway continue to preoccupy Southern Californians.
Any sense that we've put freeway-building behind us, in fact, could be squashed by spending even a few minutes looking at recent headlines, which in the last few weeks have included items on plans to widen the 710 through Long Beach and an Orange County stretch of the 405.
Then came a report from my colleague Louis Sahagun on plans by Caltrans, the state's once-imperious road-making agency, to build a freeway linking Palmdale and Victorville. Carrying a price tag of $8 billion and part of a larger project called the High Desert Corridor, it would stretch through the Mojave Desert from the northeastern corner of L.A. County into San Bernardino County. It would be the first freeway completed in L.A. County since the controversial, much-delayed and highly litigated Century Freeway opened in 1993.
The plan suggests that Caltrans hasn't quite given up the hope of someday completing the perfect, all-encompassing freeway network, a fantasyland Banham dubbed "Autopia" in 1971. It also suggests that when we talk about growth, especially along the desert fringe of the L.A. metropolitan behemoth, we almost always talk in the next breath about freeways.
Would a California-specific game similar to the nationwide ones in Traffic Control be welcome here?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2018, 10:24:29 PM
Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.
Because not much happens in Hawaii, at least for new construction, given a shift away from that to maintaining the existing system. But there's a new highway segment scheduled to open this month in west Maui, which I'll discuss in its own thread once the segment opens or at least there is a firm opening date.
Today I had the opportunity to drive through US 101 for work. It was raining a lot and there were some brief heavy showers but as usual it's not too bad as long as you don't speed.
For those not familiar, for years after Pinnacles National Monument became upgraded to a National Park, the signs that directed one to what was the national monument was still there. This sign may be found while going southbound right before the CA-25 intersection past Gilroy. Well guess what, the sign has been replaced! It is now a brown sign that says Pinnacles Nat'l Park! I couldn't take a photo but I believe there is another brown sign at the end of CA-25. I might be able to take a photo of it later today
Quote from: Techknow on March 02, 2018, 01:21:46 PM
Today I had the opportunity to drive through US 101 for work. It was raining a lot and there were some brief heavy showers but as usual it's not too bad as long as you don't speed.
For those not familiar, for years after Pinnacles National Monument became upgraded to a National Park, the signs that directed one to what was the national monument was still there. This sign may be found while going southbound right before the CA-25 intersection past Gilroy. Well guess what, the sign has been replaced! It is now a brown sign that says Pinnacles Nat'l Park! I couldn't take a photo but I believe there is another brown sign at the end of CA-25. I might be able to take a photo of it later today
Only took from early 2013 to change it. Shame I never got a photo of the old sign.
Driving back to SF (and through a rough storm), I noticed two more signs of Pinnacles National Park, one on US 101 North right before the interchange of CA-25, and on the nearby frontage road. Here's the latter sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/T7jo1Ja.jpg)
What the sign doesn't tell you (and I don't know if there's distance signage for Pinnacles as there is for Yosemite on CA-59 and CA-140), is that the park entrance is at least 40 miles away!
Quote from: Techknow on March 02, 2018, 11:07:03 PM
Driving back to SF (and through a rough storm), I noticed two more signs of Pinnacles National Park, one on US 101 North right before the interchange of CA-25, and on the nearby frontage road. Here's the latter sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/T7jo1Ja.jpg)
What the sign doesn't tell you (and I don't know if there's distance signage for Pinnacles as there is for Yosemite on CA-59 and CA-140), is that the park entrance is at least 40 miles away!
That wasn't up 3 weeks ago when we went down to Hollister. Unfortunately, park visitors must endure the purgatory that is the commuter-heavy CA 25 between US 101 and Hollister itself. Take a deep breath -- and watch out for tailgaters! :angry:
BTW, that's a nice-looking sign!
^^^
Probably just better to go to West Pinnacles anyways since the road is more scenic and its closer to the cooler trails like the Balconies Cave. The new sign is pretty solid looking though.
Caltrans has a new director: https://www.enr.com/blogs/12-california-views/post/44099-qa-with-new-caltrans-director-laurie-berman
Laurie Berman a former San Diego District Director. I sure hope she is more pro-car then the last one who has been quoted saying he wants to make traffic miserable to "encourage" people to find alternative forms of transportation.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 05, 2018, 02:40:04 PM
Caltrans has a new director: https://www.enr.com/blogs/12-california-views/post/44099-qa-with-new-caltrans-director-laurie-berman
Laurie Berman a former San Diego District Director. I sure hope she is more pro-car then the last one who has been quoted saying he wants to make traffic miserable to "encourage" people to find alternative forms of transportation.
One time, about four years ago, at an event for the seismic retrofit of the Cabrillo Bridge over CA-163, I asked Ms. Berman whether changing the signs on CA 15 to I-15 and CA-905 to I-905. She basically responded by asking me why would that be necessary. I mumbled something about numbering and benefits of Interstate shields and so forth, but the discussion really went nowhere. Ms. Berman was clearly more interested in the improved roadways and freeways brought about by construction projects on both roads, and the numbering and shield shape were of less importance. I then realized I was dwelling in a detail-oriented corner of our hobby, acknowledged how much better both routes have been with improvements, and left it at that. So at that time, it finally gave me clarity that we probably won't see Interstate sign upgrades for a long time if ever on those two roadways, regardless if the freeway is built to Interstate standards (which 905 is and 15 mostly is except for the area around the CA-94 interchange). And that was basically when I more or less stopped caring if it happens or not. With that said, I think Ms. Berman will do a fine job leading Caltrans. She has done quite a few good things here in San Diego. Now if I can just get Caltrans District 11 to quit posting those neutered Interstate 5 and 15 shields that have popped up over the past seven or eight years ... ha ha, there I go again in another detail-oriented corner of our hobby!
Found another planned implementation of Arrow-per-Lane signage in California. This time, the sign is to be installed as part of a project to rehab/replace the concrete pavement of CA-58 east of the 58-99 interchange in Bakersfield. What's different time around was the plans gave height and width dimensions of the thru, option and exit arrows. As a result, I was able to duplicate them and add them to my sign-making library. Here's the sign according to the plans...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL.png&hash=5d35e63183fd9867bb752b2635b5e6f9aa3f3076)
The through and option lane arrows are 42 inches tall while the exit arrow is 36 inches tall. The arrowhead used follows the FHWA spec (Standard Arrow Details) with an 8-inch shaft. Also of note is the fact that this is the first example of Caltrans using an APL where there are two closely spaced exits (West 58/North 99 and South 99). IMO, the circumstances made using an APL easier because the option lane becomes a dropped lane for 99 South. The two left lanes are the only "through" lanes.
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Quote from: compdude787 on March 10, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Looking at the project plans, the existing signs could not be reused because the lane configuration is going to change upon completion of the paving project necessitating the need to install new signs.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 10, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Looking at the project plans, the existing signs could not be reused because the lane configuration is going to change upon completion of the paving project necessitating the need to install new signs.
It's also disappointing that the sign doesn't include a control city bor 58 west like Buttonwillow or McKittrick.
Quote from: mrsman on March 11, 2018, 11:23:56 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 10, 2018, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on March 10, 2018, 12:41:29 PM
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Looking at the project plans, the existing signs could not be reused because the lane configuration is going to change upon completion of the paving project necessitating the need to install new signs.
It's also disappointing that the sign doesn't include a control city bor 58 west like Buttonwillow or McKittrick.
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see "TO I-5" as a control on the pull-through signs on WB 58 and the ramp signage on NB CA 99. Buttonwillow wouldn't likely be mentioned because it's not served by Stockdale Blvd., which ostensibly will replace current CA 58 to west I-5 once the Westside freeway connects to the 58/99 interchange -- or at least until that freeway is eventually extended to I-5.
Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2018, 02:29:42 PM
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see "TO I-5" as a control on the pull-through signs on WB 58 and the ramp signage on NB CA 99. Buttonwillow wouldn't likely be mentioned because it's not served by Stockdale Blvd., which ostensibly will replace current CA 58 to west I-5 once the Westside freeway connects to the 58/99 interchange -- or at least until that freeway is eventually extended to I-5.
I'd take it a step further by using Sacramento as the control city for CA-58 but only on the pull-through portion of the APL sign. I suspect Caltrans would prefer all traffic bound for Sacramento use I-5 rather than CA-99. Once the Westside Pkwy is complete all the way to I-5, CA-58 west would carry all that thru traffic. Here is the modified APL signage...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL_58thru.png&hash=8c8ea618b07fad661d6915cc772ff169ce7cc863)
The panel size is the same but everything is shifted to the right to accommodate the additional legend on the pull-through portion of the sign.
As for using "TO I-5" as the control point for CA-58 west on northbound 99 signs, I would argue that it wouldn't be terribly helpful. Keep in mind that the 99/58 interchange is only 24 miles from the I-5/99 split near the Grapevine so the percentage of vehicles on north 99 wanting to get to I-5 should be pretty low. With that said, here's my idea for what that sign should look like (although I suspect Caltrans will want to try to use an APL here as well)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F99-58w_wp.png&hash=af1e5351fbd20e227595905a087e9ad1aa8595bd)
Spent the day out in Big Sur and got a clean shot of the CA 1 BGS closure sign at the Carmel River:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/40760236871_442906fb54_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/256QSmF)1CAa (https://flic.kr/p/256QSmF) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Found a leftover CA 156 Business shield while driving through Hollister on the way home:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4801/40760233691_83b6f0d4b0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/256QRpR)156CABLa (https://flic.kr/p/256QRpR) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 11, 2018, 09:40:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2018, 02:29:42 PM
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see "TO I-5" as a control on the pull-through signs on WB 58 and the ramp signage on NB CA 99. Buttonwillow wouldn't likely be mentioned because it's not served by Stockdale Blvd., which ostensibly will replace current CA 58 to west I-5 once the Westside freeway connects to the 58/99 interchange -- or at least until that freeway is eventually extended to I-5.
I'd take it a step further by using Sacramento as the control city for CA-58 but only on the pull-through portion of the APL sign. I suspect Caltrans would prefer all traffic bound for Sacramento use I-5 rather than CA-99. Once the Westside Pkwy is complete all the way to I-5, CA-58 west would carry all that thru traffic. Here is the modified APL signage...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL_58thru.png&hash=8c8ea618b07fad661d6915cc772ff169ce7cc863)
The panel size is the same but everything is shifted to the right to accommodate the additional legend on the pull-through portion of the sign.
As for using "TO I-5" as the control point for CA-58 west on northbound 99 signs, I would argue that it wouldn't be terribly helpful. Keep in mind that the 99/58 interchange is only 24 miles from the I-5/99 split near the Grapevine so the percentage of vehicles on north 99 wanting to get to I-5 should be pretty low. With that said, here's my idea for what that sign should look like (although I suspect Caltrans will want to try to use an APL here as well)...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F99-58w_wp.png&hash=af1e5351fbd20e227595905a087e9ad1aa8595bd)
In the interests of saving taxpayer money, my hope is that the sign above is actually signed when they replace the signage, but that they use greenout and temporary shields to make the sign look like Reply 460 until such time as the Westside Pkwy is completed to the 99 interchange.
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
Quote from: mrsman on March 12, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 12, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Possibly secondary signage on CA 58 west at or near CA 99 might state "Paso Robles/use CA 58 west to I-5 north"; once on I-5 the signage for the CA 46 exit at Lost Hills should suffice.
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 02:31:35 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 12, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Possibly secondary signage on CA 58 west at or near CA 99 might state "Paso Robles/use CA 58 west to I-5 north"; once on I-5 the signage for the CA 46 exit at Lost Hills should suffice.
You'd need something clearly directing traffic away from 58 if you want Paso Robles as a control city. Taking 58 west to US 101 would add at least a solid 40 minutes to the trip given the indirect path it takes west of I-5. Santa Maria would be a much better control city for 58 west IMO. Buttonwillow is just a glorified collection of gas stations off of I-5 for the most part nowadays, might as well convey the lengthy distance to US 101 to deter anyone who isn't serious about taking 58.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 27, 2018, 03:03:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.
101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
The late mayor Ed Lee did propose a downgrading of 280 north of 16th Street a few years ago. (Commute traffic still uses that portion on a regular basis during the workweek, and it is the primary route to reach the Embarcadero corridor and Mission Bay/Dogpatch districts from all points south)
what i meant was for it to be a continuous movement, no getting off, so instead of the stub tying directly into octavia blvd, it does with van ness instead.
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 13, 2018, 07:49:16 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 27, 2018, 03:03:33 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on February 26, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.
101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
The late mayor Ed Lee did propose a downgrading of 280 north of 16th Street a few years ago. (Commute traffic still uses that portion on a regular basis during the workweek, and it is the primary route to reach the Embarcadero corridor and Mission Bay/Dogpatch districts from all points south)
what i meant was for it to be a continuous movement, no getting off, so instead of the stub tying directly into octavia blvd, it does with van ness instead.
The configuration at the Duboce exit (where 101 splits off to reach Van Ness) really precludes that from happening - too many buildings in that area would need to be removed and the intersection with Mission would also have to be reworked entirely.
The Octavia route also serves two purposes: maintaining the access to Fell Street that had existed prior to 2005, and increasing the accessibility of the Hayes Valley boutiques and restaurants (Smitten Ice Cream and a beer garden each take up space in the old Central Freeway right of way along Octavia)
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 13, 2018, 07:46:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 02:31:35 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 01:50:56 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 12, 2018, 07:41:53 PM
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Possibly secondary signage on CA 58 west at or near CA 99 might state "Paso Robles/use CA 58 west to I-5 north"; once on I-5 the signage for the CA 46 exit at Lost Hills should suffice.
You'd need something clearly directing traffic away from 58 if you want Paso Robles as a control city. Taking 58 west to US 101 would add at least a solid 40 minutes to the trip given the indirect path it takes west of I-5. Santa Maria would be a much better control city for 58 west IMO. Buttonwillow is just a glorified collection of gas stations off of I-5 for the most part nowadays, might as well convey the lengthy distance to US 101 to deter anyone who isn't serious about taking 58.
I think signage will depend upon the configuration of the eventual 5/58 freeway interchange. If it's a straight directional merge with I-5 NB, then what would be appropriate there would be a mileage sign after the merge with Paso Robles as one of the destinations (possibly citing "Via CA 46" between the city name and the mileage). If, however, it's a trumpet or directional interchange, it would be germane to put "To CA 46/Paso Robles" on the BGS's directing traffic to NB I-5. And if one wanted to nail the point down, a sign (even a secondary type) could be placed prior to the CA 58 West Buttonwillow exit stating "Paso Robles/CA 46....Use I-5 North". For the record, I'd omit Santa Maria from anything not directing traffic to CA 119 or CA 166; CA 58 west of I-5 certainly isn't a viable route to that destination; the only major central coast city even remotely appropriate for that road (possibly not the wisest choice of thoroughfares) would be SLO.
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 12:25:47 PM
I think signage will depend upon the configuration of the eventual 5/58 freeway interchange. If it's a straight directional merge with I-5 NB, then what would be appropriate there would be a mileage sign after the merge with Paso Robles as one of the destinations (possibly citing "Via CA 46" between the city name and the mileage). If, however, it's a trumpet or directional interchange, it would be germane to put "To CA 46/Paso Robles" on the BGS's directing traffic to NB I-5. And if one wanted to nail the point down, a sign (even a secondary type) could be placed prior to the CA 58 West Buttonwillow exit stating "Paso Robles/CA 46....Use I-5 North". For the record, I'd omit Santa Maria from anything not directing traffic to CA 119 or CA 166; CA 58 west of I-5 certainly isn't a viable route to that destination; the only major central coast city even remotely appropriate for that road (possibly not the wisest choice of thoroughfares) would be SLO.
This is why I do not support listing Paso Robles on any CA-58 related signage on CA-99. Trying to kludge together mileage signs on I-5 to justify putting Paso Robles on exit signs for CA-58 just seems silly to me. I would go so far as to retract my original thoughts and support using Buttonwillow on CA-58 related signs on 99. Looking at Google Maps, Buttonwillow is not just the collection of gas stations on I-5 but there appears to be a sizable community about 4 miles west of the 5/58 interchange.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 13, 2018, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 12:25:47 PM
I think signage will depend upon the configuration of the eventual 5/58 freeway interchange. If it's a straight directional merge with I-5 NB, then what would be appropriate there would be a mileage sign after the merge with Paso Robles as one of the destinations (possibly citing "Via CA 46" between the city name and the mileage). If, however, it's a trumpet or directional interchange, it would be germane to put "To CA 46/Paso Robles" on the BGS's directing traffic to NB I-5. And if one wanted to nail the point down, a sign (even a secondary type) could be placed prior to the CA 58 West Buttonwillow exit stating "Paso Robles/CA 46....Use I-5 North". For the record, I'd omit Santa Maria from anything not directing traffic to CA 119 or CA 166; CA 58 west of I-5 certainly isn't a viable route to that destination; the only major central coast city even remotely appropriate for that road (possibly not the wisest choice of thoroughfares) would be SLO.
This is why I do not support listing Paso Robles on any CA-58 related signage on CA-99. Trying to kludge together mileage signs on I-5 to justify putting Paso Robles on exit signs for CA-58 just seems silly to me. I would go so far as to retract my original thoughts and support using Buttonwillow on CA-58 related signs on 99. Looking at Google Maps, Buttonwillow is not just the collection of gas stations on I-5 but there appears to be a sizable community about 4 miles west of the 5/58 interchange.
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic
is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
You can't use I-5 as a control point until west of CA 99. Otherwise, traffic going south to LA might be confused and drive well out of their way instead of just taking CA 99 south to I-5 to get to LA.
Buttonwillow is a perfectly good control point. The town is the collection of buildings a few miles west of the interstate. The gas stations and restaurants are at the Buttonwillow Interchange.
I agree Paso Robles should not be mentioned.
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
You can't use I-5 as a control point until west of CA 99. Otherwise, traffic going south to LA might be confused and drive well out of their way instead of just taking CA 99 south to I-5 to get to LA.
Buttonwillow is a perfectly good control point. The town is the collection of buildings a few miles west of the interstate. The gas stations and restaurants are at the Buttonwillow Interchange.
I agree Paso Robles should not be mentioned.
Simple: amend the control sign to "West CA 58 to North I-5". Although anyone who's actually driven I-5 is familiar with Buttonwillow as a landmark and possible refueling (car & person) location, it's really not a control point as such; travelers heading west on CA 58 into the Bakersfield area will more likely be looking for a way over to I-5 than a farm town west of that freeway. Besides, the CA 99 South ramp signage prominently mentions Los Angeles as the control city at
that interchange. And if a trumpet or directional interchange is eventually deployed at the future 5/58 junction site, there will be additional signage for I-5 south to L.A. there for those poor souls who missed the CA 99 South exit. Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
Quote
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
I think that is the best solution. I'd be fine with the CA 58 west to I-5 control point being any of Buttonwillow, Tracy, Sacramento, Oakland, or SF. The left part of the sign posted earlier with Sacramento as the control point would be great.
Quote from: sparker on March 14, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 14, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 13, 2018, 05:53:49 PM
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
You can't use I-5 as a control point until west of CA 99. Otherwise, traffic going south to LA might be confused and drive well out of their way instead of just taking CA 99 south to I-5 to get to LA.
Buttonwillow is a perfectly good control point. The town is the collection of buildings a few miles west of the interstate. The gas stations and restaurants are at the Buttonwillow Interchange.
I agree Paso Robles should not be mentioned.
Simple: amend the control sign to "West CA 58 to North I-5". Although anyone who's actually driven I-5 is familiar with Buttonwillow as a landmark and possible refueling (car & person) location, it's really not a control point as such; travelers heading west on CA 58 into the Bakersfield area will more likely be looking for a way over to I-5 than a farm town west of that freeway. Besides, the CA 99 South ramp signage prominently mentions Los Angeles as the control city at that interchange. And if a trumpet or directional interchange is eventually deployed at the future 5/58 junction site, there will be additional signage for I-5 south to L.A. there for those poor souls who missed the CA 99 South exit.
I agree with the above sentiment for pull-through signage on west 58 in Bakersfield approaching the 58/99 interchange hence the APL illustration I posted earlier.
I still do not agree with the idea of using "TO I-5" on exit signs for west 58 on north 99. Long distance travelers would already be on I-5 as the split between the two routes is a mere 24 miles from the 99/58 interchange. I stand by idea of using either the road's name, "Westside Pkwy", or "Buttonwillow" on these signs.
Quote from: sparker on March 14, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
It's not a bad idea. In fact it's a pretty good idea. The only problem is, it runs into one of the limitations of Arrow-per-Lane signs... there's not enough room to put "(99) SOUTH TO (5) SOUTH" because it's sandwiched between the pull-through portion of the APL and the north 99 exit portion. There's barely enough room to squeeze in "Los Angeles" on the sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL.png&hash=5d35e63183fd9867bb752b2635b5e6f9aa3f3076)
Question on the Westside Parkway. Will traffic continue to use the current CA 58 to reach I-5 or will they use the more convenient Stockdale Highway once the Westside Parkway is complete? I can't see through traffic using CA 58 west of Bakersfield once a better option is available, unless truck traffic is prohibited on Stockdale Highway.
I'm back to supporting Buttonwillow as the control city. Another sign can be posted stating I-5 Northbound should follow CA 58 West. This keeps the sign from becoming too cluttered.
Quote from: skluth on March 16, 2018, 10:40:45 AM
Question on the Westside Parkway. Will traffic continue to use the current CA 58 to reach I-5 or will they use the more convenient Stockdale Highway once the Westside Parkway is complete? I can't see through traffic using CA 58 west of Bakersfield once a better option is available, unless truck traffic is prohibited on Stockdale Highway.
I'm back to supporting Buttonwillow as the control city. Another sign can be posted stating I-5 Northbound should follow CA 58 West. This keeps the sign from becoming too cluttered.
The logical choice for Caltrans would be simply to move the CA 58 designation from its current alignment down to Stockdale as far as I-5. But that's often not the method used; they might just use the next N-S artery to the west (or even CA 43) to get back to the original alignment; this is often done to avoid adding county maintenance information to the Caltrans local district compendium. It'll probably all depend upon any schedule for completing the Westside Freeway out all the way to I-5; if it's 7-10 years or so maximum (wishful thinking!), they'll probably go ahead and take over maintenance of Stockdale and relinquish all of current CA 58 east of I-5; if the timeframe is considerably longer, they'll just shunt 58 back to the current alignment until the freeway is actually completed. On a longer-term basis, they'd rather maintain the facilities they have on file rather than take on new ones and have to go to the bother of swapping out records with Kern County.
Mudslide in Topanga Canyon closes SR 27 through the weekend of March 17-18:
http://ktla.com/2018/03/15/heavy-rain-returns-to-socal-prompts-road-closure-in-malibu/
QuoteRain and snow fell in Southern California Thursday morning, making for difficult driving conditions and prompting a mudslide that has forced the dayslong closure of Topanga Canyon Boulevard east of Malibu. ...
In Topanga, South Topanga Canyon Boulevard had to be shut down in both directions from Pacific Coast Highway to Grand View Drive due to a mud and rock slide that occurred about 2 a.m. at mile marker 1.5.
One vehicle got stuck in the mud but there were no injuries, Caltrans said.
It's the third slide along the winding roadway through the Santa Monica Mountains since a fire burned in the area in January, the agency said.
"After the ground became saturated in a former burn area, large rocks, mud, debris, and ash slid down the slope and over the gully and roadway shoulder," Caltrans said in a news release. "A drainage pipe at that location became clogged with mud and debris and the overflow spilled onto the roadway."
The debris came down near a slide that occurred the previous week — an incident that prompted the installation of K-rail and fencing to catch future slides. Thursday's slide fell just outside the K-rail, in three spots along a 1,000-foot span, Caltrans said.
With more rain expected over the weekend, the stretch of roadway — nearly 4 miles long — will be closed until at least Sunday night, Caltrans said. No homes or businesses are on the stretch, which Caltrans referred to as a "rural area."
Caltrans advised use of PCH, the 101 and 405 freeways, and State Route 23 as alternate routes.
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 14, 2018, 05:24:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 14, 2018, 02:39:03 PM
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
It's not a bad idea. In fact it's a pretty good idea. The only problem is, it runs into one of the limitations of Arrow-per-Lane signs... there's not enough room to put "(99) SOUTH TO (5) SOUTH" because it's sandwiched between the pull-through portion of the APL and the north 99 exit portion. There's barely enough room to squeeze in "Los Angeles" on the sign...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2F58-99_caAPL.png&hash=5d35e63183fd9867bb752b2635b5e6f9aa3f3076)
Has there been any discussion to increase the standard height of Caltrans APL signs ? It seems to me that the APLs in California are too congested and short to fit the volume of information, even when we're talking about just one route number and one destination. I know Caltrans has specifications for sign heights; I just don't know if there is any intent to allow taller signs when APLs are called for in the sign design process. (My suspicion of course is that there would be no change to the sign heights, but I figure it can't hurt to ask.) If the sign heights can't change, then I wonder if APLs are really that effective in applications along California roads. I like the mock-up you prepared Myosh, but the overall application just looks cluttered to me. And that is without adding the exit numbers that arguably should also be inserted within this sign somewhere.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article202402354.html
Spend gas tax money ASAP, new Caltrans leader says of directive from Gov. Jerry Brown
By Tony Bizjak And Adam Ashton, tbizjak@sacbee.com and aashton@sacbee.com
March 01, 2018 12:01 AM and Updated March 08, 2018 06:10 PM
QuoteCaltrans' new director takes her seat this week with immediate marching orders: Spend money, and spend it fast.
Gov. Jerry Brown has asked new Caltrans head Laurie Berman and new Transportation Secretary Brian Annis to turn the state's gas tax hike into quick and visible highway improvements.
The pair describe it as a historic opportunity and a major challenge. "Right now is a great time to be in transportation," Berman said. "With (gas tax legislation) SB 1 we've got a lot to deliver, which is exciting. For a long time we did not have the funding to adequately maintain our system."
State transportation accounts are expected to see $5.4 billion annually as a result of Senate Bill 1, a Brown initiative that raised the gas tax 12 cents per gallon and increased vehicle registration fees. ...
Caltrans oversees state highways and rails, while the Transportation Agency acts as umbrella organization for Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, DMV, CHP, High-Speed Rail Authority and other transportation-related departments.
The state's stewardship of the gas tax already has come under attack from conservatives who hope to place a repeal measure on the November ballot. Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argues that state leaders have neglected transportation infrastructure for years, leaving him skeptical about the Brown administration's current intentions.
"I think it is transparent what they are trying to do," he said. "Look, see we are building projects like we promised. Their motivation is that this rollback is pending."
In interviews last week, Berman and Annis deflected questions about the repeal effort, but acknowledged they must show that the state is spending the tax money efficiently and effectively. ...
SB 1 funds have been flowing into state coffers since November. Caltrans has published a list of 13 projects that it has started and finished with SB 1 funds. The largest was a $10 million highway resurfacing near Needles in rural San Bernardino County. The smallest was a $1.5 million resurfacing of Highway 113 near Dixon in Solano County.
Berman said the state faces a host of logistical tasks, including the need to hire engineers, staff and consultants. The unions that represent Caltrans workers say the department fell behind on hiring in the lead-up to the gas tax. More engineers retired or left the department last year than Caltrans hired, for instance. ...
Caltrans also has begun reaching out to local governments, private contractors and utility companies to coordinate efforts where possible, Berman said.
"Caltrans is getting money, the locals are getting money, there is a shortage of materials, there is going to shortage of labor. We don't want to be tripping over each other, fighting over scarce resources," she said. "We are working with the construction industry to make sure everybody is ready."
Last month, the California Transportation Commission allocated $1.5 billion in SB 1 funds to 479 cities and 58 counties for local road work.
The next two months will see a flurry of spending decisions. In April, the Transportation Agency will make $2.4 billion in grants available to transit agencies for large projects on a competitive basis, mixing cap-and-trade and gas tax funds. In May, the CTC will award $300 million for freight corridor improvements and a like amount for improvements on congested highways.
Update on Interstate 15 temporary rest area closures in Mojave Desert:
https://www.pe.com/2018/03/11/why-are-the-i-15-rest-stops-closed-on-the-route-to-las-vegas/
(https://www.pe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/reststops24mzf_7475103.jpg?w=826)
QuoteWater and electrical problems are to blame for the closures of rest stops on 1-15 between Riverside and Las Vegas, said Caltrans spokeswoman Terri Kasinga. The rest stops outside of Barstow and Baker are just old and need major repairs or rehabilitation work, which is why they are closed. Kasinga gave the following updates on their statuses:
I-15 at Valley Wells (outside of Baker): This rest area was rebuilt about 10 years ago, but the well was not replaced during the rehabilitation project due to the cost, Kasinga said. The well is about 50 years old and has started showing signs of failure, with sediment in the water and other problems, and it is collapsing. Caltrans is looking into an emergency project to build a new well. If Caltrans rebuilds at the same site of the current well, the agency would not have to get permits to do the work, Kasinga said. Caltrans still needs the engineering staff to determine whether they can rebuild in the same spot. If Caltrans builds a new well, it will need to get permits from multiple agencies, and that would delay the time needed to start the work. An early estimate for reopening this rest area is approximately June at the earliest.
I-15 at C.V. Kane (outside of Barstow): The rest area on the northbound I-15 is fairly new and was rebuilt four or five years ago, Kasinga said. The southbound I-15 rest area is currently under construction and being rebuilt and is expected to open this summer. The pump on the northbound I-15 broke and was repaired. Caltrans is awaiting water test results and once they are cleared, the rest area will reopen soon.
Caltrans has projects planned to rebuild rest areas on I-40 and I-10, according to Kasinga, who noted that water (well or pump) and electrical issues routinely plague the rest areas. Vandalism also causes closures, she said.
During closure periods, Caltrans asks that motorists and truckers use facilities and restrooms in local towns along their route and find safe places to rest. Caltrans wishes to apologize for the inconveniences, said Kasinga, adding, "But we also are not able to open the rest areas under the existing conditions until the repairs are made and the rest areas are safe for public use."
^^^
Only problem is that the only locale between Barstow and the state line is Baker...most people probably rather just do their business out in the desert than stop there. :-D
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
It's just a nasty and dingy unincorporated Town out in the desert. There are facilities but they are pretty haggard and really poor shape. Everyone I've stopped there with heading to Las Vegas or Death Valley complains about how awful it is. I'm pretty indifferent, the Arco has a really good selection of food items for what it's worth.
"If Caltrans builds a new well, it will need to get permits from multiple agencies, and that would delay the time needed to start the work. An early estimate for reopening this rest area is approximately June at the earliest."
Gotta keep the bureaucrats busy with make-work...LOL! Seriously, how much impact can drilling a well in the desert have? This is why we cannot have nice things.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on March 17, 2018, 11:43:28 AM
"If Caltrans builds a new well, it will need to get permits from multiple agencies, and that would delay the time needed to start the work. An early estimate for reopening this rest area is approximately June at the earliest."
Gotta keep the bureaucrats busy with make-work...LOL! Seriously, how much impact can drilling a well in the desert have? This is why we cannot have nice things.
Rick
Didn't the California Environmental Quallity Act become law even before the EPA was created? You need an impact survey and permits for pretty much any new construction in California. But then again there isn't much stopping someone from pulling off on Zzyxz Road, Nipton Road, or even Kelbaker Road to take care of business while those permits for the rest area wells are in the work.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
Quote from: roadfro on March 17, 2018, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
I really wish that I remembered that was there when I did my CA 127 photo album.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 12:54:09 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 17, 2018, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
I really wish that I remembered that was there when I did my CA 127 photo album.
When I was back in college in the late '60's and was driving an old beater ('61 Chevy), spring break trips to Vegas involved stopping at Baker and filling up jugs of water for the climb up the hill (water was free at gas stations back then).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2018, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2018, 09:22:00 AM
What's up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can't remember why I remember it if that isn't crazy enough.
It's just a nasty and dingy unincorporated Town out in the desert. There are facilities but they are pretty haggard and really poor shape. Everyone I've stopped there with heading to Las Vegas or Death Valley complains about how awful it is. I'm pretty indifferent, the Arco has a really good selection of food items for what it's worth.
I remember now. It was so fucking hot. But it was much hotter than the other locales along the route being 10-15 hotter than anywhere else. Of course with a name like Baker I should have known.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:37:01 AM
Has there been any discussion to increase the standard height of Caltrans APL signs ? It seems to me that the APLs in California are too congested and short to fit the volume of information, even when we're talking about just one route number and one destination. I know Caltrans has specifications for sign heights; I just don't know if there is any intent to allow taller signs when APLs are called for in the sign design process. (My suspicion of course is that there would be no change to the sign heights, but I figure it can't hurt to ask.) If the sign heights can't change, then I wonder if APLs are really that effective in applications along California roads. I like the mock-up you prepared Myosh, but the overall application just looks cluttered to me. And that is without adding the exit numbers that arguably should also be inserted within this sign somewhere.
While I suspect there has been some internal discussions at Caltrans I don't have any information supporting my opinion *however* the new Express Lane signage on I-580 through the Livermore Valley and on I-680 through the San Ramon Valley is taller than 120 inches, perhaps as tall as 160 inches.
With all that said, I think the 120-inch max height is more than sufficient for overhead APL signs *IF* there isn't a second closely-spaced exit like the situation on westbound 58 approaching the 99 interchange in Bakersfield. Here are a few examples of how APLs could work in California using the reduced height arrows...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FcaAPL_5-99.png&hash=ca7eeb7b5dc8c2f936f33f23110df5d3e7bca477)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FcaAPL_99-152.png&hash=3372d94952370bf076e83155f20412b8038b3a89)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.markyville.com%2Faaroads%2FcaAPL_180-41.png&hash=b7896e81c9a40d34d1b06b09b4093872152b47e5)
The only snag is when a distance message (i.e. "1 MILE") is needed on an advanced APL sign.
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 19, 2018, 07:47:41 AM
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.
To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 19, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 19, 2018, 07:47:41 AM
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.
To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...
Myosh, you really are a talent! I wonder if anyone who does videogames with highways could use them? At least with you on the job, the signs would be accurate in all aspects!
Rick
Hi everyone who is more familiar with California than I. I am putting together a map of places where I can most efficiently snap a photo of a standalone shield for every state, federal, and Interstate highway in California. California signs its numbered highways so poorly that I need to check on Google StreetView to find a standing example of a sign before I even can start thinking of photographing one in the wild. My idea of "conquering"/"clinching" a state is to take a photo of every state, federal, or Interstate highway, so this fits my modus operandae.
I'm encountering a problem, though--I can't find any standalone spade shields for a number of state highways. I wanted to enlist the help of people who know their way around California, in trying to determine if any signs for these routes still exist in the wild. Is anyone aware of any standalone cutout shields for the following California highways? (BGS's and unisigns are not what I'm looking for.)
CA-66, CA-83, CA-112, CA-114, CA-130, CA-153, CA-200, CA-222, CA-259 & CA-710.
This is the map I'm putting together, by the way https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Sfrrmdkzj0UPkJDkVS4V4LAKpo8fh3va&usp=sharing
Quote from: paulthemapguy on March 21, 2018, 04:11:27 PM
Hi everyone who is more familiar with California than I. I am putting together a map of places where I can most efficiently snap a photo of a standalone shield for every state, federal, and Interstate highway in California. California signs its numbered highways so poorly that I need to check on Google StreetView to find a standing example of a sign before I even can start thinking of photographing one in the wild. My idea of "conquering"/"clinching" a state is to take a photo of every state, federal, or Interstate highway, so this fits my modus operandae.
I'm encountering a problem, though--I can't find any standalone spade shields for a number of state highways. I wanted to enlist the help of people who know their way around California, in trying to determine if any signs for these routes still exist in the wild. Is anyone aware of any standalone cutout shields for the following California highways? (BGS's and unisigns are not what I'm looking for.)
CA-66, CA-83, CA-112, CA-114, CA-130, CA-153, CA-200, CA-222, CA-259 & CA-710.
This is the map I'm putting together, by the way https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Sfrrmdkzj0UPkJDkVS4V4LAKpo8fh3va&usp=sharing
Addressing your list: I'm unaware of any remaining CA 66 shields; the victim of relinquishment fever. You may find some CA 83 shields in central Ontario; check at the intersections of Holt (old US 70/99) and Mission Blvd. to the south of there (old US/CA 60). There might be some straggler reassurance shields (83 was always sporadic at best), but also some approach shields on Mission Blvd. itself. You won't find any CA 112 shields at all; it was originally signed as CA 61 -- but most of
those shields have disappeared as well. CA 114 never had any reassurance shields, just trailblazers from US 101 (which seem to have come & gone). There may be a few actual Caltrans-posted CA 130 shields up on Mt. Hamilton Road near the Lick Observatory; none are left down in San Jose (again, relinquishment). There was a single CA 153 shield on state park grounds right after the CA 49 junction a few years back; whether it's still there today is unknown to me. CA 200: can't tell you if any reassurance and/or trailblazer shields still exist. CA 222: never any shields or BGS reference, just white paddle mileposts. CA 259: AFAIK, one shield SB right after the overpass from WB 210. And I don't think D7 ever minted any "CA 710" shields for the north (Pasadena) stub-end of the I-710 freeway; the south (Alhambra) stub-end references I-710 only. Hope that at least partially answers your questions.
I don't think CA 66 exists anymore.
CA 83 - southbound just south of the CA 60 interchange
CA-112 - allegedly unsigned route
CA-114 - ?
CA-130 - eastbound just before Quimby Road (near Jos Grant Park)
CA-15 - ?
CA-200 - possibly hidden
CA-222 - unsigned
CA-259 - unsigned
CA-710 - ?
You might try the California Highways site at https://www.cahighways.org. They have some pics of CA 112 signs, though no standalone shields.
I have photographed Route 112 shields before, back in 2012:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6339.msg139285#msg139285
There was a CA 114 shield at the Willow Road/US 101 junction in Menlo Park a couple of years ago, I think it's now gone.
Quote from: skluth on March 21, 2018, 04:49:08 PM
I don't think CA 66 exists anymore.
CA 83 - southbound just south of the CA 60 interchange
CA-112 - allegedly unsigned route
CA-114 - ?
CA-130 - eastbound just before Quimby Road (near Jos Grant Park)
CA-15 - ?
CA-200 - possibly hidden
CA-222 - unsigned
CA-259 - unsigned
CA-710 - ?
You might try the California Highways site at https://www.cahighways.org. They have some pics of CA 112 signs, though no standalone shields.
I was returning to San Jose from Alameda on that very section of unsigned 112 Monday (3/12/18) right where the pictured overhead CA 112 sign was located -- and it isn't there any longer; the only signage is new reflective signage for I-880; nothing referencing CA 112 or even CA 61. That sign was likely D4 taking things literally, as they do from time to time (e.g., the trailblazer signage on US 101 referencing CA 114 in Menlo Park). Historically, such signage tends to stay up for a couple of years before removal (usually when maintenance is required).
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 22, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn't worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it's a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2018, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 22, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn't worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it's a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Starting back in 1994, Caltrans seems to have quite deliberately endeavored to de-emphasize (including removal or non-replacement of signage) urban routes, arterial or not (not too many of the latter in greater L.A.); instead steering through traffic to the nearest freeway by default. I would bet that by 2025 most of the CA 1 surface mileage south of I-10 in D7 will be relinquished -- with the exception of the airport tunnel and possibly the L.A. River crossings; the local jurisdictions, including L.A. County, have shown reluctance to assume maintenance of structures. About the only surface facility that will likely remain state-maintained will be CA 47 along Alameda Avenue, as part of the port access program (that includes any and all Terminal Island approaches).
Part of CA 132 washed out near Coulterville during heavy rain today:
http://www.fresnobee.com/news/state/california/article206403404.html
CA 120 in Groveland was flowing like a river:
https://www.facebook.com/pgiedt/videos/2035997756414938/?fref=gs&dti=555758981241965&hc_location=group
QuoteAll of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Visio is a nice drawing program. You can create your own library of shapes, and resize them easily.
Quote
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
It was the Bun Boy thermometer. The restaurant has closed, and I don't think anything has opened up in its place. The thermometer itself was working long after, but I don't think it is now.
The Mad Greek Cafe is a pretty good lunch place, if you're passing through. There was a Starbucks in Baker for a while, but it closed. Somehow three of them have survived in Barstow, though. Go figure.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:53:08 AM
(https://www.pe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/reststops24mzf_7475103.jpg?w=826)
As usual with newspapers, the picture is unrelated. That's I-10 WB just before the White Water rest area near Palm Springs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 12:38:38 AM
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
I know this is a bit stale, but it's interesting. I don't know when the term Grapevine started, but back in the 19th century the Spanish referred to that canyon going down into the Central Valley as Cañada de las Uvas, which roughly means Glen of Grapes. It was clogged with desert wild grape, and a few patches of them still remain. I think people started associating the name with what's really the Five Mile Grade above Castaic because they didn't know where the Grapevine was and just figured it was probably where the two sides of the road got twisted across each other.
I've driven the old Ridge Route a couple of times, before it was closed by a slide in 2005. Last I was up there, a year ago, the northern gate was open, but it has about a foot of deeply rutted dried mud on part of the road, so I didn't dare tackle it with my 2wd car.
is california 1 still closed from last yrs mud slides?
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 23, 2018, 07:43:53 AM
is california 1 still closed from last yrs mud slides?
Yes the Mud Creek Slide is still being repaired. Essentially you can loop back to G14 via the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road to completed a quasi-through route.
I'm watching the news right now and looking at the Caltrans Quick Map. So far I've seen the following closures related to the storms the past three days:
- CA 140 is closed on the El Portal Road due to a rock slide.
- CA 59 is closed between El Nido and Merced due to a washout.
- CA 49 is closed between Bear Valley and Moccasin due to a washout.
- CA 269 is flooded south of CA 198.
- CA 1 has several new slides but I don't know how serious any of them are.
Quote from: pderocco on March 23, 2018, 03:55:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 26, 2018, 12:38:38 AM
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
I know this is a bit stale, but it's interesting. I don't know when the term Grapevine started, but back in the 19th century the Spanish referred to that canyon going down into the Central Valley as Cañada de las Uvas, which roughly means Glen of Grapes. It was clogged with desert wild grape, and a few patches of them still remain. I think people started associating the name with what's really the Five Mile Grade above Castaic because they didn't know where the Grapevine was and just figured it was probably where the two sides of the road got twisted across each other.
I've driven the old Ridge Route a couple of times, before it was closed by a slide in 2005. Last I was up there, a year ago, the northern gate was open, but it has about a foot of deeply rutted dried mud on part of the road, so I didn't dare tackle it with my 2wd car.
I ran the Old Ridge Route and Ridge Route Alternate back in late 2016. You'd definitely would need something with high clearance and wide tires to make through slide sections of the Old Ridge Route.
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2400/32963610685_4681224ca8_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SdT82g)IMG_2025 (https://flic.kr/p/SdT82g) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/13/californias-highways-rank-poorly-in-condition-traffic-and-cost-effectiveness/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2018, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2018, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 22, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn't worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it's a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Starting back in 1994, Caltrans seems to have quite deliberately endeavored to de-emphasize (including removal or non-replacement of signage) urban routes, arterial or not (not too many of the latter in greater L.A.); instead steering through traffic to the nearest freeway by default. I would bet that by 2025 most of the CA 1 surface mileage south of I-10 in D7 will be relinquished -- with the exception of the airport tunnel and possibly the L.A. River crossings; the local jurisdictions, including L.A. County, have shown reluctance to assume maintenance of structures. About the only surface facility that will likely remain state-maintained will be CA 47 along Alameda Avenue, as part of the port access program (that includes any and all Terminal Island approaches).
Since when is Alameda Avenue state maintained?
Quote from: NE2 on March 24, 2018, 02:02:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 22, 2018, 10:12:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2018, 11:54:18 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 22, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn't worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it's a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Starting back in 1994, Caltrans seems to have quite deliberately endeavored to de-emphasize (including removal or non-replacement of signage) urban routes, arterial or not (not too many of the latter in greater L.A.); instead steering through traffic to the nearest freeway by default. I would bet that by 2025 most of the CA 1 surface mileage south of I-10 in D7 will be relinquished -- with the exception of the airport tunnel and possibly the L.A. River crossings; the local jurisdictions, including L.A. County, have shown reluctance to assume maintenance of structures. About the only surface facility that will likely remain state-maintained will be CA 47 along Alameda Avenue, as part of the port access program (that includes any and all Terminal Island approaches).
Since when is Alameda Avenue state maintained?
According to cahighways.org:
"In 1982, the language was added to note that Route 47 shall also include that portion of Henry Ford Avenue from Route 47 to Alameda Street and that portion of Alameda Street from Henry Ford Avenue to Route 91........."The portion of Alameda St. from PCH (CA 1) to CA 91 was improved to a multilane arterial by 2002, at which time it was signed as CA 47; all this was done as part of a demonstration project between the Port of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and Caltrans. The portion of Route 47 north of CA 91 was supplanted by the Alameda Corridor rail project; the southern end of that project, where the tracks descend into the trench extending to just south of downtown L.A., is almost directly beneath the CA 91 freeway overpass. Caltrans performs the maintenance of the CA 47 section of Alameda Avenue; the cost is split between the three entities (port, city, Caltrans).
The last time I was in the area was 2011; at that time the expressway segment from just north of PCH south to the CA 47/103 merge just north of the Heim Bridge was in the initial stages of construction, as was the bridge replacement itself. It would be useful if current L.A. area posters could update the forum as to the current status of the project.
I'm pretty sure that part of SR 47 isn't included in Caltrans GIS data. It is signed but that doesn't always translate to maintenance.
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2018, 03:38:20 AM
The last time I was in the area was 2011; at that time the expressway segment from just north of PCH south to the CA 47/103 merge just north of the Heim Bridge was in the initial stages of construction, as was the bridge replacement itself. It would be useful if current L.A. area posters could update the forum as to the current status of the project.
The northbound viaduct, roadway, and bridge are completed and carrying both directions of traffic as of a couple of months ago.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 28, 2018, 10:16:20 AM
Quote from: sparker on March 24, 2018, 03:38:20 AM
The last time I was in the area was 2011; at that time the expressway segment from just north of PCH south to the CA 47/103 merge just north of the Heim Bridge was in the initial stages of construction, as was the bridge replacement itself. It would be useful if current L.A. area posters could update the forum as to the current status of the project.
The northbound viaduct, roadway, and bridge are completed and carrying both directions of traffic as of a couple of months ago.
Thanks! I'll have to check it out when I'm down there this fall.
Looks like the initial phase of the CA 132 freeway project in Modesto, extending west from CA 99 north of the present 99/108/132 interchange, got FHWA approval (a FONSI) and is slated to break ground in a bit over a year. Interestingly -- as anyone who's driven NB on CA 99 through the area has likely observed, this project uses much of the grading done when the 132 was originally planned and when the 99 freeway was constructed through Modesto in the early '60's. Prior to the 1957 relocation of I-5 to the Westside/LRN 238 freeway, where it resides today, this interchange would have functioned as the southern split between I-5E and I-5W, with the latter branch turning west parallel to existing CA 132.
The plans for the new freeway (which will be constructed further west as an expressway in phase 2)are interesting in that they call for an extension of the new freeway east across the UP tracks to Needham Street north of downtown Modesto -- but it appears that CA 132 will not actually merge with the main CA 99 carriageways but parallel them on the outside and merge with the existing N-S couplet flanking the existing freeway and forming the present access from 99 to 108/132. Since the project includes revising much of CA 99 in the area, one wonders if that includes raising or rebuilding the lower-than-standard overcrossings (a common thing for CA freeways designed and built in the late '50's and early '60's), some of which are well below 15' clearance.
The project specs can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/d10/x-project-sr132west.html
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
Quote from: NE2 on April 02, 2018, 03:21:07 PM
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
I imagine future GPS apps will route traffic along the Needham to Downey to 19th to La Loma to Yosemite. Who knows what California will do?
Quote from: skluth on April 02, 2018, 03:34:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on April 02, 2018, 03:21:07 PM
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
I imagine future GPS apps will route traffic along the Needham to Downey to 19th to La Loma to Yosemite. Who knows what California will do?
Caltrans is loath to assume maintenance of any streets it's currently not maintaining; and the city of Modesto would also probably balk at assuming maintenance of the structures along the current CA 132 alignment. Thus the path of least resistance for Caltrans is to plop eastward 132 traffic right onto the existing facility. If GPS/Waze apps select another and possibly more efficient path, then that's what'll occur regardless of
who maintains the routing. The Needham cutoff would be more applicable to eastbound 108 traffic than 132 in any case, since 132 multiplexes SSE with Biz 99 around the city center before eventually reaching Yosemite Ave.
Quote from: nexus73 on March 19, 2018, 07:17:03 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 19, 2018, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on March 19, 2018, 07:47:41 AM
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.
To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...
Myosh, you really are a talent! I wonder if anyone who does videogames with highways could use them? At least with you on the job, the signs would be accurate in all aspects!
Rick
I'm pretty sure there are enough road geeks playing Cities Skylines that would be interested in this.
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Quote from: emory on July 01, 2018, 06:33:11 AM
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Great! Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2018, 01:56:25 AM
Quote from: emory on July 01, 2018, 06:33:11 AM
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Great! Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" :sombrero:
At the end of the road is a sign saying "You should have bought a squirrel!"...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: sparker on July 02, 2018, 01:56:25 AM
Quote from: emory on July 01, 2018, 06:33:11 AM
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Great! Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" :sombrero:
:-D
CA 1 at Mud Creek will reopen at July 20 at 11 AM. The ribbon cutting ceremony will take place at Ragged Point Inn.
It took 14 months to rebuild the road there after the May mudslide, and over 18 months since it closed around February or March last year. Hooray!
Announcement Link (http://blogbigsur.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/caltrans-announces-plan-to-re-open-state-route-1-at-mud-creek-after-massive-landslide-highway-opening-set-for-july-20-restores-full-access-to-the-big-sur-coast/)
Quote from: Techknow on July 05, 2018, 08:57:34 PM
CA 1 at Mud Creek will reopen at July 20 at 11 AM. The ribbon cutting ceremony will take place at Ragged Point Inn.
It took 14 months to rebuild the road there after the May mudslide, and over 18 months since it closed around February or March last year. Hooray!
Announcement Link (http://blogbigsur.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/caltrans-announces-plan-to-re-open-state-route-1-at-mud-creek-after-massive-landslide-highway-opening-set-for-july-20-restores-full-access-to-the-big-sur-coast/)
I'm planning on being out there that weekend or some time the week after. I'm planning on heading northward from Cambria.
Just announced by Caltrans today, CA 1 will actually open tomorrow at 10 AM! The ribbon cutting ceremony will still take place on Friday.
http://dot.ca.gov/dist05/paffairs/monterey/traffic_advisory_mud_creek_roadway_reopens_wednesday_7.18.18.pdf
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Yes, it's been relinquished between Industrial Parkway and I-580
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*. But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles. From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont. Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs. For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.
*
thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*. But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles. From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont. Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs. For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.
*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info
In comparison...as of last month when I drove through there, the signage for Route 238 from I-238 in Castro Valley is still up! (Compare to, as an example, former Route 160 through midtown/downtown Sacramento, no longer acknowledged on the BGSes along US 50)
Yeah -- Exit BGS's from both ends of original CA 238, at I-238/580 on the north and at I-680 at the south end, still feature CA 238 shields; it's the actual facility in between that lacks signage. :confused:
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*. But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles. From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont. Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs. For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.
*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info
What is also weird is when signage is maintained, how it's maintained. Sometimes I'll see something like "TO CA-x," other times I'll just see the shield. The latter is preferred, because again, navigation is most important, and whether or not Caltrans maintains the actual routing is unnecessary. Must be based on the district. CA-1 through Santa Monica often has the "TO" banner, some other routes are signed in places that I know the local governments maintain them.
Quote from: sparker on July 20, 2018, 12:22:28 AM
Yeah -- Exit BGS's from both ends of original CA 238, at I-238/580 on the north and at I-680 at the south end, still feature CA 238 shields; it's the actual facility in between that lacks signage. :confused:
it's california, they're terrible at signing their highways
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained.
But the language of the codicil in the Streets and Highway Code is unusual:
Quote
For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.
So the requirement is not for continuity of CA 238 signage, but rather for pointers directing Hayward travelers to return to some part of the state highway system. "To" I-880, I-680, I-580, CA 84, or CA 92 signs would serve that purpose.
There is similar language for the authorized relinquishments within Hayward of parts of CA 92 and CA 185.
Quote from: oscar on July 22, 2018, 09:53:07 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2018, 04:21:39 PM
Quote from: Alex on July 19, 2018, 08:55:31 AM
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained.
But the language of the codicil in the Streets and Highway Code is unusual:
Quote
For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.
So the requirement is not for continuity of CA 238 signage, but rather for pointers directing Hayward travelers to return to some part of the state highway system. "To" I-880, I-680, I-580, CA 84, or CA 92 signs would serve that purpose.
There is similar language for the authorized relinquishments within Hayward of parts of CA 92 and CA 185.
Yikes! Southbound, that would, if taken at its linguistic extreme, mean directing traffic to SB I-880, adding to the congestion that's pretty much granted from 6 a.m. to at least 8 p.m. weekdays. Just to provide an alternate route, it would seem fitting to actually direct traffic south along Mission to the existing section of CA 238 that starts at the Hayward city limits at Industrial Parkway just to avoid shunting it over to I-880. But the failure to do so, along with the lack of reassurance shields on CA 238 in the city of Fremont, seems to indicate that this segment of state highway will be the next to be relinquished, consigning the non-Interstate part of 238 to the "dustbin". If this indeed occurs, it'll be ironic that the single most inappropriately-numbered Interstate segment will be the last portion of its numerical route to survive!
As I was working on the map for Route 185 in the last day or two (look online; I've uploaded through 189, and done through 190), if you were on Mission, that's Route 185 not 238. I've got some detail on that on the Route 185 map. Route 185 was relinquished back to Hayward from Route 92 to A street (if memory serves correct), and then just last year, from A street for a few blocks more.
Historically, the Mission/Jackson/Foothill intersection at the south end of downtown Hayward was the junction point of CA 92, CA 185, and CA 238; the first two terminated at that intersection as well. 238, north-to-south, came down Foothill, traversed downtown and curved SW to the intersection; there it turned SE onto Mission toward Fremont. CA 92 proceeded SW on Jackson toward the San Mateo bridge, while CA 185 came in on the northern extension of Mission that eventually became East 14th Street in San Leandro and Oakland. CA 92 was relinquished east of I-880 several years ago after the rebuilding of the 92/880 interchange -- part of the rationale for that rebuild was to expedite/shunt through traffic intended for I-580 east onto I-880 north and thence to I-238 east so as to remove any through traffic from Hayward streets. The last CA 185 relinquishment truncated the route just south of its interchange with I-238 (at the San Lorenzo/Hayward city line), taking it completely off Hayward arterials. And, as has been cited earlier, CA 238 no longer exists along Foothill and Mission boulevards within Hayward city limits. It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity: Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop). The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working. At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.
Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2018, 04:10:57 PM
It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity: Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop). The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working. At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.
I'm not disputing that the goal is to get through traffic off Hayward streets to help downtown revitalization, but why then did they leave Foothill and Mission as 4 to 6-lane arterials? The one-way portion of Foothill is 5 lanes, plus turn lanes! When I have used Jackson/Foothill as a shortcut between the San Mateo Bridge and I-580, the portion through downtown is actually the freest-flowing (many cars going 45-50 mph) - that's not conducive to a downtown district. Heck, Foothill is still enough of a through route that it took me several trips before I even noticed the real downtown is along B Street.
I feel like what they really should do is make both streets 4 lanes max (2 each way) in the downtown district, use the extra room for landscaping/bike lanes/parklets/etc., beef up the alternative routes into/out of downtown (A Street/Redwood Road, D Street/Winton Avenue), then encourage/force all CSUEB traffic out Harder Road to Jackson/I-880 (I'm assuming the student traffic is not high from the Castro Valley area, and students from points northeast are now being directed to the Contra Costa campus).
IMO not building out CA-238 as a freeway is one of the biggest blunders in Bay Area highway history. There's not much more they can do to the Nimitz and its continual congestion has reached L.A.-type levels.
Quote from: DTComposer on July 24, 2018, 08:25:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 24, 2018, 04:10:57 PM
It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity: Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop). The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working. At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.
I'm not disputing that the goal is to get through traffic off Hayward streets to help downtown revitalization, but why then did they leave Foothill and Mission as 4 to 6-lane arterials? The one-way portion of Foothill is 5 lanes, plus turn lanes! When I have used Jackson/Foothill as a shortcut between the San Mateo Bridge and I-580, the portion through downtown is actually the freest-flowing (many cars going 45-50 mph) - that's not conducive to a downtown district. Heck, Foothill is still enough of a through route that it took me several trips before I even noticed the real downtown is along B Street.
I feel like what they really should do is make both streets 4 lanes max (2 each way) in the downtown district, use the extra room for landscaping/bike lanes/parklets/etc., beef up the alternative routes into/out of downtown (A Street/Redwood Road, D Street/Winton Avenue), then encourage/force all CSUEB traffic out Harder Road to Jackson/I-880 (I'm assuming the student traffic is not high from the Castro Valley area, and students from points northeast are now being directed to the Contra Costa campus).
IMO not building out CA-238 as a freeway is one of the biggest blunders in Bay Area highway history. There's not much more they can do to the Nimitz and its continual congestion has reached L.A.-type levels.
The originally adopted CA 238 freeway alignment (adopted back when it was still SSR 9) was about 2 blocks east of Foothill, essentially behind the rear-parking area for the downtown businesses along Foothill and would have isolated the residential area to the east from the business district. Heading south, it sat at the bottom of the hill below (then) CSUH before cutting across Mission Blvd and angling SSE through the eastern portion of Union City before assuming a pathway directly alongside BART, eventually ending at I-680 at the bottom of the Sunol Grade hill. The downtown Hayward and Union City sections were the most controversial circa 1971-72; both residents of the east side of Hayward and Latino activists in Union City sued the then-Division of Highways; initially to force a relocation of the freeway but, when the Division demurred, claiming the adopted route was the only reasonable alternative, to permanently enjoin the freeway's construction and rescind the adopted route. The Hayward suit was dropped in favor of the Union City one, which cited discrimination against minorities among its complaints; it eventually won in court with a permanent injunction against construction in the general CA 238 corridor. While the adoption recission wasn't a part of the court order, the Division -- by this time embedded within the new Caltrans -- saw the "writing on the wall" and rescinded the alignment themselves. Although there were properties acquired -- primarily in southwest Hayward and Union City -- for the construction (originally slated for lettings in 1975-76), they were eventually sold under the Gianturco management of Caltrans. The combination of a
very disruptive alignment and, well, being in the wrong place at the wrong time vis-a-vis the '70's freeway backlash (spreading east from S.F.) doomed CA 238 -- which, IMO, if fully constructed would have likely gained Interstate status at a later date (probably a I-480 relocation).
As far as the physical configuration of the former state alignments through Hayward are concerned, it's likely that what's on the ground now won't last; "road diets" on both Foothill and Mission (at least north of the "5-point"/Jackson intersection) will likely be deployed in the next 5 years or so, depending upon availability of funds. The last time I was through there a few months back the downtown shopping area along Foothill had undergone a major "facelift" (it dated from the early '50's); I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the existing Foothill/Mission one-way couplet extended several blocks north prior to instituting some sort of physical overhaul including dedicated bus lanes.
When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.
After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct. The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline. However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
https://goo.gl/maps/cN87esW6KT12
The parapet though remains as it did in 1963 over 55 years ago.
One thing that the producers did then is took a bunch of location shots from various places in Southern California and made it all look like it was in one place. The park scenes were filmed at Palos Verdes, several miles away, but when edited in the film, the California Incline was looked to be the entrance to the park in the film. Other notes are that the boat marina located less than five minutes away from the fictional Santa Rosita Park was in Oxnard some two hours away from Santa Monica.
I am guessing that the old building in the finale where the male cast members all were trapped on the runaway ladder was in Downtown Long Beach with the building being used as a back drop is long demolished. I cannot find any record of where that was filmed, but some of the other shots with it were indeed in Long Beach.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:19:57 PM
When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.
After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct. The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline. However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
https://goo.gl/maps/cN87esW6KT12
The parapet though remains as it did in 1963 over 55 years ago.
One thing that the producers did then is took a bunch of location shots from various places in Southern California and made it all look like it was in one place. The park scenes were filmed at Palos Verdes, several miles away, but when edited in the film, the California Incline was looked to be the entrance to the park in the film. Other notes are that the boat marina located less than five minutes away from the fictional Santa Rosita Park was in Oxnard some two hours away from Santa Monica.
I am guessing that the old building in the finale where the male cast members all were trapped on the runaway ladder was in Downtown Long Beach with the building being used as a back drop is long demolished. I cannot find any record of where that was filmed, but some of the other shots with it were indeed in Long Beach.
And the opening "speeding car" scene with the late Jimmy Durante (that ends when he literally "kicks the bucket") was filmed on the series of horseshoe curves on CA 74 as it rises into the San Jacinto mountains southwest of Palm Desert and La Quinta. Actually, not a hell of a lot has changed with that highway over the years (the guardrails have been improved, but the alignment is essentially the same).
Yellow lines now are the norm as back in the 60's white center lines were seen in the 1963 movie. Another thread is current about white lines. Goes to show how the MUTCD has changed over the decades. In the 70's Skyline Drive in VA and other park roads were allowed then to use the white center which now all roads must use yellow.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 25, 2018, 08:19:57 PM
When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.
After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct. The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline. However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
There are several sites that have lots of then/now pictures from that movie. Here's one:
http://www.themoviedistrict.com/its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-1963/ (http://www.themoviedistrict.com/its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-1963/)
Photographed some signage oddities today.
CA 152 Westbound Detour on CA 152 West/CA 33 North. Oddly CA 33 had a detour in the same place last year also signed on the route:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1897/29292063567_a0deff0981_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LCrtYK)152CAa (https://flic.kr/p/LCrtYK) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Signed County Route G12 without the "G" on US 101/CA 156 in Prunedale:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1839/43321844575_5a219b753a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K)12GCRa (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
CA 1 Business on Fremont Street in Monterey:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1839/43321844575_5a219b753a_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K)12GCRa (https://flic.kr/p/291cM5K) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14. Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.
https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14. Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.
https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s
Ouch! The boys down in SLO must be slipping! -- if they're making the penta county shields themselves, they're screwing up; or if they're letting the counties make the shields, they're not "proofreading" them before sending out the signing crews. Let's hope it's not because they just don't give a shit these days!
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2018, 09:22:53 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 25, 2018, 02:57:24 AM
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14. Not only was the G omitted but they didn't even get the right route signed on the BGS.
https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s
Ouch! The boys down in SLO must be slipping! -- if they're making the penta county shields themselves, they're screwing up; or if they're letting the counties make the shields, they're not "proofreading" them before sending out the signing crews. Let's hope it's not because they just don't give a shit these days!
Come to think of it I might try to give D5 a call on the County Route 18 sign. It seems like a simple error that could lead to a navigational issue. For what it's worth D5 tends to sign it's County Routes very well from state maintained roadways, that seems like an oversight to me.
Check out this dimwit (http://southtahoenow.com/story/08/29/2018/extra-long-big-rig-gets-stuck-sr-4-after-driver-told-take-i-80) who was instructed to use I-80 rather than CA 88 to cross the Sierras, and decided the 20-mile-long no-center-stripe stretch of CA 4 would be a better option for his 73-foot rig.
Quote from: gonealookin on August 31, 2018, 11:23:02 AM
Check out this dimwit (http://southtahoenow.com/story/08/29/2018/extra-long-big-rig-gets-stuck-sr-4-after-driver-told-take-i-80) who was instructed to use I-80 rather than CA 88 to cross the Sierras, and decided the 20-mile-long no-center-stripe stretch of CA 4 would be a better option for his 73-foot rig.
Didn't he wreck at Cadillac Curve? The twists and turns alone should have deterred that decision (much less the one-lane and 24% downhill grades).
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.
For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?
To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.
For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?
To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.
As far as the Anaheim pavement marking goes, that was probably done by a Disneyland crew (the ones responsible for painting markings on their various parking facilities); I've seen those crews working on the roadway outside the Disneyland Hotel on the numerous occasions I've had to stay there (I used to live in Anaheim, and the city is only too happy to let Disney handle the traffic situation in & around the park as long as they don't overstep their bounds). Calling it the "5 Freeway" is simply shorthand for the prevailing regional vernacular. Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me! Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference. Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.
Quote from: sparker on September 16, 2018, 01:32:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me! Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference. Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.
Given that the newer 110 signs at this interchange on I-5 now refer to CA-110 as a "parkway" (it is the Arroyo Seco Parkway north of downtown LA), perhaps the distinction here is to remind people that 5 is a freeway and at this point 110 is a parkway, which implies a different level of quality.
I'm certain that I saw other uses of "FWY" next to interstate shields in LA, but I cannot remember where at the moment. Somewhere along the 5, 60, or 710.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 16, 2018, 11:45:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 16, 2018, 01:32:31 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
Re the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me! Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference. Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.
Given that the newer 110 signs at this interchange on I-5 now refer to CA-110 as a "parkway" (it is the Arroyo Seco Parkway north of downtown LA), perhaps the distinction here is to remind people that 5 is a freeway and at this point 110 is a parkway, which implies a different level of quality.
That makes sense. All it takes is a trip up the Arroyo Seco to make a driver think "gee -- I'm not on a freeway anymore", particularly when they have to drop to 40 or so to make it around one of the curves. Likely the only folks who would consider it a "real" freeway would be those who are accustomed to either NYC's BQE (I-278) or Philly's "Surekill" (I-76), both of which feature in part similar curvature and lines of sight.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2018, 02:46:05 PM
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.
For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?
To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.
I believe there are some instances of state highways in California where a portion of the signed route is on surface streets while another portion is freeway. It wouldn't surprise me if terms like "the 60 freeway" made it local vernacular and subsequently have appeared on signage...
There was some discussion on this board a little while ago about a mass signing projects undertaken in a Caltrans district, wherein it seemed many of the new BGSs removed freeway names and (confusingly) control cities in favor of legends like "10 Freeway". Not sure if that was the LA district or not–there were a couple threads for different Caltrans district signing projects happening concurrently.
The part-freeway/part-surface L.A. area state highway routes (of all types) are rapidly disappearing; much of this is due to relinquishments. The most obvious remaining transition is at the south end of the CA 2 ("Glendale") freeway, where it segues into Glendale Blvd. and subsequently onto Alvarado St., which it uses south to US 101/Hollywood Freeway, where it multiplexes north/west. And Long Beach has its 7th Street surface west extension of CA 22 to CA 1. But CA 110 was relinquished along its Pasadena surface stretch as well as its southern extension along Gaffey Street in San Pedro; it only currently exists on the Harbor Freeway and Arroyo Seco Parkway. And CA 71 is gradually (and excruciatingly!) being upgraded to freeway standards through Pomona, so its situation is (hopefully) temporary. Otherwise, the routes that are deployed over freeways are strictly freeway, while the routes (as of yet unrelinquished) remaining on surface streets do so exclusively, with the exceptions cited above.
Common local vernacular (like the infamous "THE 57", "THE 134", and so forth) seems to have started with local radio traffic reports looking for descriptive shortcuts. When a driver hears that talk every 10 minutes during commute hours, it tends to embed itself in the lexicon -- and that vernacular has been happening since the mid-'70's, when reporters were starting to substitute route numbers for the old freeway names. But the word "THE", in that context, has yet to appear on BGS's or as bannering! -- so far! :cheers:
Just saw this posted in the SF Bay Area Roads, Freeways and Bridges group on FB, a video about how the Bayshore Freeway ended up routed directly through East Palo Alto in the 1950s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjv2sHSKoNE&feature=youtu.be
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
I remember when I lived in St Louis, the MoDOT rep who would sit in on the Post-Dispatch chats said they were general not permitted in Missouri with more than one turn lane and would require special exemption from MoDOT. Don't know if that is true elsewhere. In the meantime, enjoy this dual 3-lane roundabout near my youngest brother's home in Green Bay.
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5383961,-88.0774825,365m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Granted I don't live in California, but I'm hard pressed to think of any permissive left turns
period, let alone any across three or four lanes. I imagine there are some out there, but they seem to be a rarity...
Quote from: roadfro on October 03, 2018, 06:13:24 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 01, 2018, 02:13:04 PM
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Granted I don't live in California, but I'm hard pressed to think of any permissive left turns period, let alone any across three or four lanes. I imagine there are some out there, but they seem to be a rarity...
Besides the very few cities who have adopted FYAs on a very limited basis, the only place I see permissive lefts is Los Angeles, where many left turns are yield-only or yield-on-green. You do see permissive lefts in CA, but more often than not, they're at small neighborhood signals with only one lane in each direction. I suspect any permissive left across three or four lanes would be in LA-proper.
^^^^^^^^
Jake's on to something there; the few instances of permissive lefts I can recall remaining on anything over a single lane per direction were in L.A. on some of the N-S arterials, particularly Vermont and Western Avenues, plus much of Normandie Avenue outside the Wilshire district, which has largely been channelized with dedicated lefts due to the exceptionally high level of traffic (much of it looking for parking spots!) in that zone. Those arterials traverse some of the older neighborhoods in the city; expansion of the streets to accommodate left-turn lanes would be all but impossible, particularly since doing so would likely disturb long-standing bus stops at major intersections, forcing them to move to a mid-block area and drawing the ire of riders who want to transfer between bus lines. And having seen what happens when the L.A. "Bus Riders' Union" gets its dander up over lesser offenses, this is an occurrence to be avoided. So the streets in these areas remain as they have been for decades.
Quote from: sparker on October 04, 2018, 01:25:05 AM
^^^^^^^^
Jake's on to something there; the few instances of permissive lefts I can recall remaining on anything over a single lane per direction were in L.A. on some of the N-S arterials, particularly Vermont and Western Avenues, plus much of Normandie Avenue outside the Wilshire district, which has largely been channelized with dedicated lefts due to the exceptionally high level of traffic (much of it looking for parking spots!) in that zone. Those arterials traverse some of the older neighborhoods in the city; expansion of the streets to accommodate left-turn lanes would be all but impossible, particularly since doing so would likely disturb long-standing bus stops at major intersections, forcing them to move to a mid-block area and drawing the ire of riders who want to transfer between bus lines. And having seen what happens when the L.A. "Bus Riders' Union" gets its dander up over lesser offenses, this is an occurrence to be avoided. So the streets in these areas remain as they have been for decades.
Based on the question, is a street considered to be 2 lanes or 3 lanes per direction if there are 2 lanes at all times, but parking restrictions allow for a 3rd lane during rush hours? In that case, I know of several.
Within the city of Los Angeles, there are many pretty wide streets that allow for permissive lefts. Many of the signals in the city have long had an aversion to any type of left turn signal, let alone protected only lefts. Venice Blvd. is 3 lanes in each direction, plus bike lanes, and many permissive lefts are allowed. Example: Venice/Cattaurugs. Olympic is 3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound during rush hours, in the stretch between Century City and Sepulveda - most of those intersections are permissive lefts as well, example: Olympic/Veteran.
For nearby suburbs, outside of LA proper, the above notion is generally correct. But there are many exceptions. Many cases where a major street (3 lanes at rush hour in each direction) intersects a minor street without protected only left turns. Examples: Wilshire/Doheny Beverly Hills, Century/Inglwood in Inglewood, Washington/Commerce Way in Commerce. I also discovered that the major intersection of El Segundo/Crenshaw in Hawthorne has doghouses in each direction (20 years ago, when I drove by there they even employed simultaneous lagging lefts which is quite rare in LA).
At the same time, many quiet suburbs seem to be exclusively protected only at major streets. You can wait along time at traffic signals traveling through the SG Valley and the Inland Empire. Let's hope that the adoption of FYA's will change this outcome.
Thanks for that, mrsman. I realized surfing street view around LA proper, permissive lefts are far more common than not, but the suburbs seem almost frightened to use them. Or, their traffic engineers were trained by Caltrans!
Of the three suburban signals you mentioned, the Commerce one is the most impressive, as it's also by far the newest. Basically, a bit out of character!
That Inglewood signal is rather strange (beyond the lagging left, if that's still a thing), with the mast arm extending to the left past the doghouse (https://goo.gl/nmteVB). Such a sight is rather unusual in CA. In fact, I don't know of any other situations where that happens. Opposite situation in virtually every other state.
L.A. got a bit of a windfall in terms of street configuration and capacity when much of the former Pacific Electric interurban empire was removed in the '50's and early '60's. Streets such as Venice Blvd., Culver, Blvd., and even Santa Monica and San Vicente boulevards originally featured tracks in either the median or embedded in the centers of multilane streets. As such, these streets exhibited more lateral ROW than usual -- and were among the first to be channelized,, simply because there was the room available to do so. But in the L.A. basin from downtown out to the beaches at Venice and Santa Monica, most trackage was generally arrayed E-W (with occasional diagonal segments); these are the streets that were "modernized" in terms of pavement marking and signalization. The one street that featured quite a bit of channelization was Olympic Blvd.; not surprising, as that street was built (as LRN 173) well after most of the other E-W arterials -- and Division of Highways standards prevailed. However, dedicated (non-permissive) lefts weren't common even there until the late '60's.
I came across the following pdf from the City of Los Angeles DOT website:
http://basic.cityofla.acsitefactory.com/sites/g/files/wph266/f/lacityp_021726.pdf
(It has lead to some confusion on my part about the historic routings of 101 and 66 discussed on another thread, see pp 19-21).
For purposes of this discussion, there is talk of left turn pockets and left turn signalization at pages 77 and 92.
QuoteAs discussed in Part 1, left-turn phasing in Los Angeles was a novelty, in the 1950's and 1960's, due to signal
equipment restrictions and the limited number of continuous raised median islands. By the early
1970's, left-turn phasing became a routine design on State highways and suburban boulevards in areas adjacent
to Los Angeles. However, it would not become a standard feature on Los Angeles' more urban streets due to
the traffic signal operating philosophy that prevailed throughout most of the 1970's.
The philosophy reflected the distinct signal system that
the City of Los Angeles operated. Unlike the Division
of Highways, which operated signals along a few, widely
spaced State Highways, the City of Los Angeles operated
signals throughout a network with signal spacing at approximately
1/4-mile intervals. This type of signal network
allowed 30 mile-per-hour progression to be maintained
in all directions with short (50 to 70 second) cycle
lengths. However, the addition of left turn arrows
would require longer cycle lengths, which, in turn, would
severely compromise progression. This degradation in
progression was avoided by resisting requests to install
left turn arrows.
^^^^^^^^^
Reading the cited PDF about the early ('26) US 66 routing between Pasadena and Los Angeles, it seemed that before it was finally (pre-parkway) routed along LRN 165/North Figueroa to Colorado in Eagle Rock, then east to Pasadena, some entity other than the Division of Highways (possibly ACSC, the SoCal AAA affiliate, which signed a lot of routes (official & otherwise) back then prior to comprehensive state signage) signed the Fair Oaks/Huntington/Mission/Broadway route as US 66 (with ACSC-tagged shields) between 1926 and about 1930-31. There are no archival Division records recognizing that route as a state-maintained highway; North Figueroa St. was the closest such facility.
Reading by the latest posts on this thread, it seems that there was a lot of realignment of routings between 1926 and 1939. It's surprising, because I assumed that any us highway essentially followed one routing until the freeways were built. But it seems like 101, 99, 60, and 66 kept changing their routings.
Nexus 5X
^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively). Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds! To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon! And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.
Quote from: sparker on October 09, 2018, 03:14:47 AM
^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively). Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds! To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon! And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.
Looking at historic maps, wasn't US 50 always on the MacArthur corridor in Oakland with few changes, with US 40 always following Eastshore (and the San Pablo Avenue business route) beyond the Maze area?
SF's history, I'll create a seperate post for that
Quote from: TheStranger on October 09, 2018, 07:20:24 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 09, 2018, 03:14:47 AM
^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively). Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds! To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon! And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.
Looking at historic maps, wasn't US 50 always on the MacArthur corridor in Oakland with few changes, with US 40 always following Eastshore (and the San Pablo Avenue business route) beyond the Maze area?
SF's history, I'll create a seperate post for that
It was always on the basic MacArthur corridor (which used to be called Foothill in the San Leandro area) west to Grand Ave.; prior to the Bay Bridge's construction it turned southwest on Grand to Broadway, then turned SSW on Broadway to the ferry terminal located near Jack London Square (also used by US 40 coming in down San Pablo Avenue). It was rerouted over MacArthur to the old Distribution Structure (the forerunner of the 80/580/880 interchange) in 1936 when the bridge opened.
I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.
I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2018, 09:19:52 PM
I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.
https://youtu.be/F7862KBukvs
I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.
Very nice! Couple spelling errors but nothing that can be changed now :-P
it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2018, 09:35:16 PM
it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.
:-D humility is a good trait.
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on October 27, 2018, 09:19:52 PM
I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.
I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.
I don't think I've ever not had thick traffic in the section north of LAX to I-10, or coming up on the 405-101 interchange.
The lightest traffic I usually see in L.A is on a Sunday when the following Monday is a holiday.
I shot a video of that stretch on a Sunday afternoon last June, didn't have your luck with traffic.
Yeah, I was lucky to have good traffic when I filmed it. I did deliberately choose to film on a Sunday morning in hopes for finding the best traffic, but you never know with construction and traffic accidents what kind of traffic you're actually going to encounter.
Picked up an unused G28-1 spec California State Route 14 shield:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4903/45110139825_45c4e879e0_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2bJefXt)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2bJefXt) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
I run into this shield type now and then out on the State Highways. Generally I've founded them to be somewhat common in Southern California mostly. The G28-1 spec shield is substantially smaller than the G28-2 shield that is a far more common variant. Personally I think the G28-1 is pretty ugly but it fits well in my garage with the bigger shields. Below I linked over the California MUTCD specs for G28-1 and G28-2 shields.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-1.pdf
http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/tcd/docs/G28-2.pdf
MOD NOTE: Taking a cue from the Northwest and Mountain West boards, I've set this thread as a sticky for random observations or questions relating to California. Moving forward, if a topic in this thread starts delving into detailed/extended conversation, I'll likely split that discussion off to a more dedicated thread. –Roadfro
^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment). From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).
Quote from: sparker on November 28, 2018, 12:44:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment). From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).
I've only seen a couple real world examples myself with a CA 180 in D6 and a D5 with the CA 227 that I've mentioned several times. Yosemite National Park has a grouping of CA 120/CA 140 G28-1 style shields but considering their US Route shields at MUTCD compliant I would hardly call those official. The AAroads shield gallery has a CA 14 and CA 178 pair of G28-1 shields that was at some sort of swap meet:
https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19751781
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2018, 01:46:16 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 28, 2018, 12:44:50 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment). From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).
I've only seen a couple real world examples myself with a CA 180 in D6 and a D5 with the CA 227 that I've mentioned several times. Yosemite National Park has a grouping of CA 120/CA 140 G28-1 style shields but considering their US Route shields at MUTCD compliant I would hardly call those official. The AAroads shield gallery has a CA 14 and CA 178 pair of G28-1 shields that was at some sort of swap meet:
https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19751781
Most of my D5 sojourns are in Santa Cruz, San Benito, and northern Monterey counties; the state-name-less shields just don't seem to have been deployed up there; the next time I go south to L.A. -- if I use US 101 -- I'll look for the CA 227 shields Max mentioned. It's probably as simple as some of Caltrans' corporate yards stocking one shield type or another; SLO may have some "neutered" shields while Salinas doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vGNk8dfOdU
Cool Ride on the CA-2 and former US-66 by Interstate 411
Had a weird sign find yesterday with a co-signed CR J6-7 Shield:
https://flic.kr/p/2dAjdqH
Hmmm.......J6-7; that would make J-1! Seriously, that must be SB; I've taken J7 all the way NB and don't recall seeing that sign -- it certainly would have made an impression! I suppose we Californians should be damn lucky that there are still some county pentagons out there in the field!
That one's southbound, but there is an equivalent northbound:
(https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/29468199_1954573884873383_3981420488525086720_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_ht=scontent.ftpa1-1.fna&oh=6d960f135015fcf8592acfc06a5fa9e6&oe=5CAE26E3)
Regarding the J7-6 shield I saw it at the last second hence the crappy pic on my end. To that end J7 has a ton of signage but I would consider much of it to be "good" given the placement. Most of the J7 shields were mounted below Signs for road junctions, especially on Mariposa Road in San Joaquin County. It would have been easy to lose J7 had I not be already aware what the routing actually was. In Riverbank J7 traffic is routed onto CA 108 eastbound, there is no reassurance shield at all at Claus Road.
IMO what CA needs is a good county-maintained "secondary" system to replace the inconsistent and occasionally just weird signed county networks (but with the current state criteria, Caltrans will end up paying for a good chunk of those roads as well) a la NJ. Many years ago I took a bunch of county-level ACSC/CSAA maps and laid out a system (mostly rural except for a couple of suburban connectors) -- a Jersey-like (#500 and up) system starting in the San Diego area and working north. Lots of shield concepts; but few retaining the pentagon standard or color scheme. One of these days I'll get it recreated and post it (but don't hold your breath; it'll come when I can find the time).
Just got back from a short round-trip down to Hollister. US 101 north from the end of the freeway south of Gilroy to Cochrane Road in Morgan Hill (where it expands from 6 to 8 lanes) has recently been restriped with 6-inch lines; the southern section (as far north as the San Martin truck scales) still has raised reflective wedges in between the lane stripes; but they're more sporadic the farther north one gets. I'm guessing that if the wedges detach themselves, D4 isn't replacing them -- but somehow the ones around Gilroy are pretty much all intact. Light rain was occurring during my trip north (well after dark), but the stripes lacked any reflective element; at night, the reflective dots were much more useful. The combination of the wider stripes plus the dots seems to work exceptionally well at night to delineate the lanes; IMO it's a mistake to get rid of the dots/wedges.
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under
their jurisdiction.
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Somewhat like that, but a bit more rectangular favoring the horizontal. White where the green is, green where the white is, with black numbers and the route type ID top & bottom. Chances are to get 3 numbers onto the shield, the stick-on black digits would be series "A" or "B". Overall, probably about 3.0' (horizontal) x 2.5' (vertical). Could be posted on existing light standards, parking signs, etc. without too much trouble.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2018, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
nice sign the original 99 was the golden state boulevard now golden stae frontage road. it is full of historic places such as the abandoned california motel
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6839501,-119.74137,3a,50.7y,179.82h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59a2xQv93JhioJBAd7bPLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or the abandoned motor in theatre drive-in screen a block south
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6760032,-119.7324552,3a,49.1y,240.79h,96.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdK2-UXKaNB5ozqFT_uP1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
these vintage motels and cafe are still open!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7143205,-119.7752718,3a,75y,314.84h,79.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.464439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7158998,-119.7777165,3a,21.5y,336.32h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se2K51C4PfTHDy1FGBgkxvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or these vintage still operating motels in selma
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5698147,-119.6176653,3a,90y,230.17h,81.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.98666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.571203,-119.618985,3a,75y,60.46h,89.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixdC3HKPv42YMHY3uz9lPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5745367,-119.6228742,3a,48.5y,192.28h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swUAg2Rmx53bBDB6PmHImsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
this one is open i think though i'm not sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5690506,-119.6166293,3a,70.7y,54.74h,85.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D47.54219%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i though i was missing a motel when i found this abandoned drive-in restraunt!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5672812,-119.6146758,3a,73.6y,356.47h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxASqiErsCYaKnIoRG_OfPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i listed these places for people to use as landmarks wen driving down the old highway because it can be easy to get lost.
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 05, 2019, 09:13:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2018, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
nice sign the original 99 was the golden state boulevard now golden stae frontage road. it is full of historic places such as the abandoned california motel
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6839501,-119.74137,3a,50.7y,179.82h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59a2xQv93JhioJBAd7bPLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or the abandoned motor in theatre drive-in screen a block south
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6760032,-119.7324552,3a,49.1y,240.79h,96.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdK2-UXKaNB5ozqFT_uP1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
these vintage motels and cafe are still open!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7143205,-119.7752718,3a,75y,314.84h,79.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.464439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7158998,-119.7777165,3a,21.5y,336.32h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se2K51C4PfTHDy1FGBgkxvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or these vintage still operating motels in selma
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5698147,-119.6176653,3a,90y,230.17h,81.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.98666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.571203,-119.618985,3a,75y,60.46h,89.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixdC3HKPv42YMHY3uz9lPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5745367,-119.6228742,3a,48.5y,192.28h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swUAg2Rmx53bBDB6PmHImsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
this one is open i think though i'm not sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5690506,-119.6166293,3a,70.7y,54.74h,85.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D47.54219%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i though i was missing a motel when i found this abandoned drive-in restraunt!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5672812,-119.6146758,3a,73.6y,356.47h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxASqiErsCYaKnIoRG_OfPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i listed these places for people to use as landmarks wen driving down the old highway because it can be easy to get lost.
The alignments of US 99 are even stranger than you might realize starting with Railroad Avenue in Fresno. Front Street in Selma for sure was part of LRN 4 during the 1920s but I haven't fully confirmed if it is early vintage US 99. Given the High Speed Rail is obliterating the former surface path of US 99 in Fresno I went out last year and took a bunch of pictures and made custom maps before it was too late. Below is my blog post regarding US 99 in Fresno County:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html
Interestingly after I wrote the above blog I confirmed 8th Street in Fowler was the original alignment of US 99 before Golden State Boulevard was built. There was a major rail switch located where Golden State Boulevard is now in Fowler.
BTW welcome to the forum.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 05, 2019, 09:22:31 PM
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 05, 2019, 09:13:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2018, 12:00:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 18, 2018, 07:36:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 18, 2018, 07:32:54 AM
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I'd like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying "County" in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
nice sign the original 99 was the golden state boulevard now golden stae frontage road. it is full of historic places such as the abandoned california motel
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6839501,-119.74137,3a,50.7y,179.82h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59a2xQv93JhioJBAd7bPLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or the abandoned motor in theatre drive-in screen a block south
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6760032,-119.7324552,3a,49.1y,240.79h,96.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdK2-UXKaNB5ozqFT_uP1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
these vintage motels and cafe are still open!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7143205,-119.7752718,3a,75y,314.84h,79.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.464439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7158998,-119.7777165,3a,21.5y,336.32h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se2K51C4PfTHDy1FGBgkxvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or these vintage still operating motels in selma
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5698147,-119.6176653,3a,90y,230.17h,81.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.98666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.571203,-119.618985,3a,75y,60.46h,89.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixdC3HKPv42YMHY3uz9lPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5745367,-119.6228742,3a,48.5y,192.28h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swUAg2Rmx53bBDB6PmHImsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
this one is open i think though i'm not sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5690506,-119.6166293,3a,70.7y,54.74h,85.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D47.54219%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i though i was missing a motel when i found this abandoned drive-in restraunt!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5672812,-119.6146758,3a,73.6y,356.47h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxASqiErsCYaKnIoRG_OfPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i listed these places for people to use as landmarks wen driving down the old highway because it can be easy to get lost.
The alignments of US 99 are even stranger than you might realize starting with Railroad Avenue in Fresno. Front Street in Selma for sure was part of LRN 4 during the 1920s but I haven't fully confirmed if it is early vintage US 99. Given the High Speed Rail is obliterating the former surface path of US 99 in Fresno I went out last year and took a bunch of pictures and made custom maps before it was too late. Below is my blog post regarding US 99 in Fresno County:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html
Interestingly after I wrote the above blog I confirmed 8th Street in Fowler was the original alignment of US 99 before Golden State Boulevard was built. There was a major rail switch located where Golden State Boulevard is now in Fowler.
BTW welcome to the forum.
also many people think the ca 99 goes from bakersfield to sacramento. it doesn't it goes from wheeler ridge to los minos. also caltrans supposedly has plans to turn this into an interstate. it would be either i-7 or i-9. but but it lost a lot of it's traffic when i-5 was built. i hope it doesn't get turned into an interstate highway as i just don't see the need for it.
https://www.interstate-guide.com/i-009.html
apparently for a breif time from los minos to stockton was a temorary i-5. i did not know that and i will look for other sites that also list this.
here's a sign of the past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7931588,-119.7543949,3a,17.2y,142h,82.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfQ-SG-2kRY-P6rBoMeO18g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
any body know anything esle about dead mans curve in lebec ca other than people have crashed and died here, was built in 1915, and that the founder of MGM stduios was on of the people who died here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man%27s_Curve#/media/File:Dead-Man%27s_Curve_in_Lebec,_California,_2010.jpg
also i found it!
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8866313,-118.9046627,396m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8865517,-118.9043962,3a,34.7y,246.24h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblya_hJjloRKEvltt_armA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8871335,-118.9055547,3a,41.3y,248.67h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8QG1Ze8JBb0wGIkZcIYskA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
also if there other remains of the orignal route i would love to know!
i know almoast nothing about the old routes of southern ca. well except for us 66.
i find other remains which i am certain of the old route i will post them here.
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 02:07:57 PM
any body know anything esle about dead mans curve in lebec ca other than people have crashed and died here, was built in 1915, and that the founder of MGM stduios was on of the people who died here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man%27s_Curve#/media/File:Dead-Man%27s_Curve_in_Lebec,_California,_2010.jpg
also i found it!
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8866313,-118.9046627,396m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8865517,-118.9043962,3a,34.7y,246.24h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblya_hJjloRKEvltt_armA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8871335,-118.9055547,3a,41.3y,248.67h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8QG1Ze8JBb0wGIkZcIYskA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
also if there other remains of the orignal route i would love to know!
i know almoast nothing about the old routes of southern ca. well except for us 66.
i find other remains which i am certain of the old route i will post them here.
could this be it to?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8497039,-118.8713005,1182m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
although the other slab of pavement is one lane this is two lane google says it's old ridge route so i want some answers!
is this part of the old route!
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 02:12:17 PM
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 02:07:57 PM
any body know anything esle about dead mans curve in lebec ca other than people have crashed and died here, was built in 1915, and that the founder of MGM stduios was on of the people who died here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man%27s_Curve#/media/File:Dead-Man%27s_Curve_in_Lebec,_California,_2010.jpg
also i found it!
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8866313,-118.9046627,396m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8865517,-118.9043962,3a,34.7y,246.24h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblya_hJjloRKEvltt_armA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8871335,-118.9055547,3a,41.3y,248.67h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8QG1Ze8JBb0wGIkZcIYskA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
also if there other remains of the orignal route i would love to know!
i know almoast nothing about the old routes of southern ca. well except for us 66.
i find other remains which i am certain of the old route i will post them here.
could this be it to?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8497039,-118.8713005,1182m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
although the other slab of pavement is one lane this is two lane google says it's old ridge route so i want some answers!
is this part of the old route!
Deadmans Curve is part of the original Ridge Route alignment. Check out the Ridge Route, El Camino Viejo or CA 138/Old CA 138 threads since the blog link has the information you are looking for.
One of the old CA 69 shields popped up on Ebay. I'd love to have given my affinity for CA 245 but I'm not paying anywhere near what the asking price is:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Highway-Sign-69-California-Road-Street-hot-rat-rod/153342192974?hash=item23b3e82d4e:g:KPMAAOSwVAtcPwYt:rk:10:pf:0
^^^^^^^^
Hmmmm....straight vertical edges near the bottom of the side arc, a bit darker green than found on current issue signs.....this looks like one of the 1964 originals. I wonder if it came from the "collection" of that friend of a friend from the University of Redlands who had his wall plastered with them ca. 1969. If so, there might be a couple dozen more coming along. I'd buy one if it were $75-100, but no more than that (it would end up in the garage anyway; I have no interest in enduring my GF's "death by a thousand glares" if I attempted to put it anywhere in the house!).
Google Maps now shows Western Avenue in Los Angeles as CA 258, which is defined in the code, but as far as I can tell has never been adopted or made official. Either way, it's shown as running from the US 101 exit ramp near Hollywood to the I-405 exit where Western becomes CA 213.
(https://i.imgur.com/OUSJMa9.png)
Quote from: emory on January 28, 2019, 03:38:05 AM
Google Maps now shows Western Avenue in Los Angeles as CA 258, which is defined in the code, but as far as I can tell has never been adopted or made official. Either way, it's shown as running from the US 101 exit ramp near Hollywood to the I-405 exit where Western becomes CA 213.
Google also displays CA 122 near Palmdale which was never built either.
Quote from: danthecatrafficlightfan on January 14, 2019, 01:38:30 PM
here's a sign of the past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7931588,-119.7543949,3a,17.2y,142h,82.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfQ-SG-2kRY-P6rBoMeO18g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
sadly within the past month it was removed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 28, 2019, 07:24:04 AM
Quote from: emory on January 28, 2019, 03:38:05 AM
Google Maps now shows Western Avenue in Los Angeles as CA 258, which is defined in the code, but as far as I can tell has never been adopted or made official. Either way, it's shown as running from the US 101 exit ramp near Hollywood to the I-405 exit where Western becomes CA 213.
Google also displays CA 122 near Palmdale which was never built either.
Simple "mistaken identity" in the case of CA 258 -- that was one freeway proposed back in '59 that was
never going to be built (the property acquisition costs along would have been more than prohibitive); and with Caltrans' zeal in offloading urban surface streets, the notion that they'd assume maintenance of Western Avenue is just plain silly! As far as CA 122 is concerned, Google Maps shows the section of Pearblossom Highway between CA 14 and CA 138 as its signed/adopted location; AFAIK D7 has no intent of taking over ownership of that section of highway -- although that's something I personally suggested to them back in the '90's, since it
is a major area connector and functionally traces the more recent trajectory of the never-actually-adopted 122. Someone is engaging in wishful thinking!
Picked up a Lassen County Route A25 shield on the cheap off eBay the other day. I haven't driven this one but I've driven by it several times on US 395 near Honey Lake on the way to Reno and/or Susanville. I'd prefer a J1 or J16 but its rare enough these become available:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4869/46945257561_879c34fdaa_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ewoHwr)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2ewoHwr) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
We're trying "e-closures" to make Waze tell people to stay on US 50 as they exit the Tahoe Basin westbound, rather than using the side roads to avoid 50 until the last point before it starts ascending Echo Summit.
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local-officials-make-plea-to-navigation-app-company/ (https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/local-officials-make-plea-to-navigation-app-company/)
QuoteAs a short-term solution, California Highway Patrol has proposed using the agriculture inspection station in Meyers and a state law that prohibits vehicles from circumventing such inspection stations as a tool to enact electronic closures.
The closures would work much the same way as when a car crash closes a road. The notice is uploaded and then detected by the navigation companies, which direct traffic to a different route.
The electronic closure would be applied to side streets that could be used to circumnavigate the inspection station.
Apparently the first test of this strategy, this past weekend, was not too successful.
http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/17/2019/chp-continue-testing-electronic-closure-roads-meyers (http://southtahoenow.com/story/02/17/2019/chp-continue-testing-electronic-closure-roads-meyers)
QuoteAccording to CHP Lt. Terry Lowther they were able to upload closures into the system and found them to work on State Routes to divert travel with using directional apps.
"The current issue is that when closures are uploaded to County roads, the directional APPS are not diverting the routes," said Lt. Lowther.
He said residents should expect heavy traffic on the side streets Sunday and Monday because of this glitch. There is still a lot of snow on all roads, especially those in the side neighborhoods, which could cause issues for unprepared drivers.
Are people heading up Johnson Pass because Waze told them to? Some of those roads next to US 50 are pretty dicey even in favorable weather.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 06:25:05 PM
Are people heading up Johnson Pass because Waze told them to? Some of those roads next to US 50 are pretty dicey even in favorable weather.
No, the problem isn't Johnson Pass Road, it's the residential streets down near Meyers. On Sunday (or Monday of three-day weekends), 50 gets backed up solid past the airport all the way to the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89). So drivers leave 50 and use Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Sawmill Road to get over to North Upper Truckee Road, which runs along the west side of Washoe Meadows State Park and reconnects to 50 just before the ascent to Echo Summit begins.
(https://i.imgur.com/3ZWDxCY.png?1)
North Upper Truckee Road is just a residential street which ends at a stop sign at that US 50 junction. So people have to merge back into the westbound 50 traffic at the stop sign. Traffic gets backed up horribly through the residential neighborhood, and it's worse when it's snowing because the county can't plow the residential streets up to Caltrans standards on US 50. Residents can't get in and out of their homes, emergency vehicle access is blocked, and when traffic isn't moving people in the stopped cars who gotta go, gotta go, so that happens in the residents' front yards.
The notion is to force people through the bug station on US 50; the bug station is between the intersection of 50 and Pioneer Trail and that south junction of 50 and 89.
Quote from: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 07:04:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 06:25:05 PM
Are people heading up Johnson Pass because Waze told them to? Some of those roads next to US 50 are pretty dicey even in favorable weather.
No, the problem isn't Johnson Pass Road, it's the residential streets down near Meyers. On Sunday (or Monday of three-day weekends), 50 gets backed up solid past the airport all the way to the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89). So drivers leave 50 and use Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Sawmill Road to get over to North Upper Truckee Road, which runs along the west side of Washoe Meadows State Park and reconnects to 50 just before the ascent to Echo Summit begins.
(https://i.imgur.com/3ZWDxCY.png?1)
North Upper Truckee Road is just a residential street which ends at a stop sign at that US 50 junction. So people have to merge back into the westbound 50 traffic at the stop sign. Traffic gets backed up horribly through the residential neighborhood, and it's worse when it's snowing because the county can't plow the residential streets up to Caltrans standards on US 50. Residents can't get in and out of their homes, emergency vehicle access is blocked, and when traffic isn't moving people in the stopped cars who gotta go, gotta go, so that happens in the residents' front yards.
The notion is to force people through the bug station on US 50; the bug station is between the intersection of 50 and Pioneer Trail and that south junction of 50 and 89.
I see, I would imagine Pioneer Trail probably gets some use too. I've diverted onto it plenty of times on weekends heading to State Line.
But to your point that agriculture station doesn't do anyone any favors where it is located near South Lake Tahoe. Really it's one of the prime examples why the agriculture inspection ought to be commercial vehicle only with a turn off like most states do. There is such minimal truck traffic headed up CA 88 or E16 that the station could be moved closer to Placerville where US 50 can handle more of a traffic load. It might be worthwhile to restrict Lake Tahoe Boulevard West of the US 50/CA 89 junction to resident/business access only...or just simply bisect the road so it can't be used for direct trough access anymore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:06:41 PM
I see, I would imagine Pioneer Trail probably gets some use too. I've diverted onto it plenty of times on weekends heading to State Line.
Pioneer Trail isn't the problem North Upper Truckee Road is. Pioneer Trail is built pretty much to state highway standards, there's a signal at that intersection of 50 and Pioneer Trail so drivers entering 50 at that point don't have to force their way into jammed traffic the way they do at the North Upper Truckee Road stop sign, and you can see from the map there are a few more alternate routes over in that neighborhood so the residents' and emergency vehicle access isn't as problematic on that side.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:14:59 PM
...It might be worthwhile to restrict Lake Tahoe Boulevard West of the US 50/CA 89 junction to resident/business access only...or just simply bisect the road so it can't be used for direct through access anymore.
The locals would love that solution, but California state law states you can't say only certain people can use a public road. If residents can use it, anyone can use it.
Personally I would put a gate at the intersection of North Upper Truckee Road and US 50, close it for these weekend hours when this is a problem and give the key code only to police/fire/ambulance. I'm not sure what state law says about that idea.
Either way I'm not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you'll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I've found. Personally I've found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Either way I'm not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you'll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I've found. Personally I've found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
Getting across Oregon on the whole is easier in the Cascades I've found opposed to the Sierras. I've done Crater Lake and OR 62 a couple times in the winter and didn't have much trouble. The 20 something feet of snow on the south rim of Crater Lake in particular was quite the sight to behold and just to hang out for the day back in 2016.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now. Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:
CA 88: Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope. Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.
US 50: The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road. It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours. This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.
I-80: Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours. When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.
CA-70: As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours. This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.
CA-49: Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic. If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.
Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.
Quote from: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now. Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:
CA 88: Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope. Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.
US 50: The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road. It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours. This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.
I-80: Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours. When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.
CA-70: As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours. This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.
CA-49: Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic. If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.
Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.
So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley? Is it I-80 or US 50?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 10:29:02 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on February 19, 2019, 09:51:56 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 08:25:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 19, 2019, 07:47:57 PM
Either way I'm not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you'll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I've found. Personally I've found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now. Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:
CA 88: Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope. Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.
US 50: The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road. It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours. This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.
I-80: Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours. When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.
CA-70: As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours. This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.
CA-49: Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic. If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.
Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.
So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley? Is it I-80 or US 50?
Rick
I-80 is faster while US 50 is more scenic. Granted I-80 has close access to Donner Pass, really it depends what you want out travel between the two locales. Best for me usually means most scenic, that being the case it's hard beating Cave Rock on US 50.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 19, 2019, 10:29:02 PM
So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley? Is it I-80 or US 50?
Rick
If you're going fron Sacramento to the Nevada valleys east of Tahoe...fastest to Carson City and points north of there would be I-80 to Reno, then I-580 south to Carson. To Minden/Gardnerville I'd use US 50 to Meyers, the Pioneer Trail shortcut to Stateline, briefly back on US 50 and then NV 207 over to Carson Valley.
From Sacramento to the east shore of Tahoe...fastest is I-80 to CA 267 to CA/NV 28 to points north of the junction of US 50 and NV 28. US 50 to Pioneer Trail to US 50 to points south of that junction.
Wasn't sure where to put this, but I've noticed that most BGS on SB 5 and 805 in San Diego have "Chula Vista" and "San Ysidro" listed as control cities instead of just "SOUTH." Must have been a fairly recent thing.
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
So CA 39 is slated to open 31+ years from now -- right at the beginning of the snow season? Either someone is being disingenuous, or D7 is simply pulling the info right out of their collective ass! Seriously, the Valley HSR section will be opened -- if only as an Amtrak alternative route -- well before the ill-fated CA 39 ( :ded:) reaches CA 2 again!
Quote from: JustDrive on March 03, 2019, 10:47:15 AM
Wasn't sure where to put this, but I've noticed that most BGS on SB 5 and 805 in San Diego have "Chula Vista" and "San Ysidro" listed as control cities instead of just "SOUTH." Must have been a fairly recent thing.
Yeah, that's relatively new. You did see it on some older signage (the enamel-on-steel I-805 overheads at the I-8 junction said National City and Chula Vista) but most of the signage actually on I-5 itself didn't, for example. As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).
It's called a placeholder...
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on March 06, 2019, 09:24:29 AM
As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).
Interesting, because I can think of at least two states (Minnesota and Washington) that have used this shield/direction arrangement intentionally, even when there was only one signed route.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
I'm just curious as to why Caltrans has not thought of re-opening this section with snow/slide sheds in the most slide-prone areas? It's not like that hasn't been done in other states...
Quote from: Mark68 on March 07, 2019, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 04, 2019, 08:49:51 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
I'm just curious as to why Caltrans has not thought of re-opening this section with snow/slide sheds in the most slide-prone areas? It's not like that hasn't been done in other states...
The problem likely is cost versus benefit. Considering how long it had been since 39 was open it is clear the expenditure isn't worth investing for Caltrans. To that end I can't say that I blame them, a rock shed would be a little inordinate in terms of price for the amount of traffic 39 would get. If it wasn't for potential fire evacuation I suspect 39 would have been abandoned in the same manner the dirt part of 173 has.
^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system. That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system. That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.
Didn't 39 briefly open as an evacuation route this past year? Really the Forest Service assuming maintenance probably serve the corridor better at this point.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 07, 2019, 11:11:17 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 07, 2019, 07:03:36 PM
^^^^^^^^
Seeing as how Caltrans has been busy relinquishing the "flatland" portion of CA 39 from the San Gabriel Canyon south through Azusa and Covina, it's hard to imagine them prioritizing a topographically problematic section of mountain highway disconnected from the remainder of the system. That stretch of functionally "dead end" state highway is principally utilized for mountain recreation by locals; with or without the connection to CA 2 or southward to I-210 and/or I-10, it'll still be utilized by those same locals regardless of status -- but L.A. County and or the Forest Service would probably balk at any attempt to relinquish CA 39 in the canyon itself since that would mean a shift of maintenance expenses to either or both of those parties.
Didn't 39 briefly open as an evacuation route this past year? Really the Forest Service assuming maintenance probably serve the corridor better at this point.
With the outsized rainstorms most of CA has received over the past couple of years, keeping San Gabriel Canyon Road open and clear, regardless of who is responsible for maintenance, is definitely a major regional concern. AFAIK, Caltrans hasn't slacked off maintenance of their CA 39 section to date, so it's unclear that the Forest Service would do the job more effectively. Since CA 39 and the upper San Gabriel River, which drains everything east of Mt. Wilson and south of the San Gabriel Mountain ridgeline all the way to Mt. Baldy (aka San Antonio), share the narrow gap north of Azusa, whoever maintains the roadway will likely have to perform regular debris clearance; if that's being done regularly and competently by Caltrans -- and there's no calls for relinquishment from any quarter -- there's no pressing reason to cede the canyon road to another party.
What about the control city for 91, 605 and 710?
I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:
http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up
Some observations I had that caught my eye:
- US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.
- CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.
- Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras.
With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:
http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up
Some observations I had that caught my eye:
- US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.
- CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.
- Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras.
With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range.
There's CA 120 and CA 108 on that map too, though?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on March 28, 2019, 11:03:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2019, 12:20:40 PM
I was flipping through some of the map links on CAhighways, specifically the 1934 California Highway and Public Works guide from 1934 showing the initial run of signed State Routes:
http://archive.org/stream/californiahighwa193436calirich#page/n275/mode/2up
Some observations I had that caught my eye:
- US 50 is shown all the way west to Hayward over what was US 48.
- CA 168 is shown as a planned route crossing the Sierras.
- Like wise CA 180 is shown as a planned highway crossing the Sierras.
With 168 and 180 that's the first time I've ever seen a State publications a clear or even proposed alignment crossing the Sierra Nevada Range.
There's CA 120 and CA 108 on that map too, though?
Yes, interesting both those roads were well built up by the time the Signed State Highways came around. The National Park Service essentially connected the Big Oak Flat Road to the Tioga Mine Road via Tioga Pass. Sonora Pass had been a Route of travel back to the Gold Rush era and the present route of CA 108 doesn't deviate from the old wagon road.
The biggest issue CA 168, CA 180, CA 190 and even CA 203 faced is that they were brand new corridors over the highest parts of the Sierras. The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road. CA 190 has origins in the whole Lone Pine-Porterville Highway which was partially built as Balch Camp Road/J37. CA 168 had been built on the backbone of the Big Creek Project but getting over that final hump of the Sierras from the end of Kaiser Pass Road essentially was impossible. CA 203 was at least realistic following the San Joaquin River Canyon but by the time it was proposed there was too much environmental red tape.
It's somewhat amusing that the newest trans-Sierra Highway is Sherman Pass Road which was built by the Forest Service.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2019, 11:07:02 PM
The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road.
This fragment of a 1941 Automobile Club of SoCal map (the second map here: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/)) shows Onion Valley Road as route 180. I wonder if it was actually signed as such.
Quote from: pderocco on March 31, 2019, 11:43:32 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2019, 11:07:02 PM
The route of CA 180 is laughable at best since it would have dumped out onto Onion Valley Road.
This fragment of a 1941 Automobile Club of SoCal map (the second map here: http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/ (http://www.historicalroadmaps.com/CaliforniaPage/DeathValleyPage/)) shows Onion Valley Road as route 180. I wonder if it was actually signed as such.
Its possible given the State didn't sign the early era State Routes but rather the CSAA and ACSC. What is known for certain is that the state never maintained Onion Valley Road as part of LRN 41. Essentially the planned crossing of the Sierras via Kings Canyon was killed off by the creation of Kings Canyon National Park out of former General Grant National Park in 1940.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8-_b6r-gVQ
101not5 does a segment on CA-241, 91 and 71
I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 07, 2019, 05:48:05 PM
I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...
Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2019, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 07, 2019, 05:48:05 PM
I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...
Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?
Bingo! Besides, the hilly topology around the 5/405 "split" mitigates against a direct connection of that sort. Incidentally, at the
southern I-5/405 divergence in east Irvine, CA 133 functionally mimics CA 118 as a
de facto connection between the two facilities -- although with less overall capacity.
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2019, 08:00:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 07, 2019, 07:01:00 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 07, 2019, 05:48:05 PM
I have a question: how come there is no direct access from northbound I-5 to I-405 south. I-405 is one of the busiest freeways in Los Angeles, so...
Wouldn't the 118 serve that purpose?
Bingo! Besides, the hilly topology around the 5/405 "split" mitigates against a direct connection of that sort. Incidentally, at the southern I-5/405 divergence in east Irvine, CA 133 functionally mimics CA 118 as a de facto connection between the two facilities -- although with less overall capacity.
As I was typing, i felt like the answer has hovering above me. Thanks lol
Do we have a saboteur working at Google? Noticing a lot of made up or just wrong route numbers lately in SoCal, like CA-258 along Western Avenue or CA-164 on Rosemead Blvd.
Quote from: djsekani on April 09, 2019, 12:15:06 PM
Do we have a saboteur working at Google? Noticing a lot of made up or just wrong route numbers lately in SoCal, like CA-258 along Western Avenue or CA-164 on Rosemead Blvd.
Both numbers are derived from the California legislative route definitions - but are not signed in the field (164 is the official but entirely pointless unsigned designation of 1934-present signed Route 19 north of Pico Rivera, 258 was a planned freeway corridor along Western between US 101 near Koreatown and I-405).
Now that it has (mostly) stopped snowing and we're getting warmer days, it's avalanche season in the Sierra. I was out the other day and heard the booms as they were trying to control the situation on US 50 east of Echo Summit. Evidently they reopened the road but didn't realize the job wasn't quite complete.
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/multiple-slides-in-course-of-days-at-lake-tahoe-serve-as-safety-reminder/ (https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/multiple-slides-in-course-of-days-at-lake-tahoe-serve-as-safety-reminder/)
QuoteSunday's slide, the second naturally occurring avalanche on U.S. 50 in less than a week, trapped two vehicles in roughly 5 feet of snow.
The snow actually pushed a vehicle traveling westbound, a Nissan Xterra, into the eastbound lane where it collided with a Jeep Grand Cherokee, according to Brown.
...
The avalanche occurred naturally in the area known as Frogs Pond, east of Echo Summit, about 30 minutes after crews had cleaned up snow from avalanche control efforts.
As mentioned in the article, CA 89 at Emerald Bay has a lot of problems with that issue; also CA 88 at Carson Spur, west of the Kirkwood ski area.
Always loved the avalanche signs on US 395 after the snows.
https://www.floodgap.com/iv/837
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 12, 2019, 02:01:33 PM
Always loved the avalanche signs on US 395 after the snows.
https://www.floodgap.com/iv/837
CA 89 and CA 88 have those signs as well.
Caltrans shoots for opening Ebbetts Pass/CA 4 and Sonora Pass/CA 108 for Memorial Day weekend. Same with the National Park Service for opening Tioga Pass Road across Yosemite which connects the two segments of CA 120. It's not just clearing the snow off the roads though. In addition to mitigating avalanche dangers they have other jobs such as getting rid of damaged trees which are in danger of falling across the road. Also if they find damage to the road once they've scraped the snow off, it has to be repaired. A couple years ago there was slide damage on CA 4 east of Ebbetts Pass and it was into the summer before the road was reopened. With the heavy snow season this year, Memorial Day is a nice target date but maybe mid-June is a better idea of a date when you'd be more certain of them being open.
I was hoping to go up to the bristlecone pines this year but that probably won't happen until the summer (CA 168).
Drove through the new Minkler/Centerville bypass for CA 180 being currently constructed. The project is slated to be finished in 2020 and will extend the current 180 expressway slightly east of Frankwood Avenue:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47655756672_aa60910356_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fBbda7)IMG_5191 (https://flic.kr/p/2fBbda7) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Looking east towards the end of the new bypass route:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/32765470027_ca153ba88e_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/RVnAH2)IMG_5197 (https://flic.kr/p/RVnAH2) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Looking west towards Minkler:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40742361363_b1ac8042f4_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/255gfAg)IMG_5200 (https://flic.kr/p/255gfAg) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 13, 2019, 01:43:47 PM
I was hoping to go up to the bristlecone pines this year but that probably won't happen until the summer (CA 168).
I'm assuming you meant the western CA 168. If that's the case send me a PM before you head out, I'm out of the Fresno area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 26, 2019, 09:58:38 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 13, 2019, 01:43:47 PM
I was hoping to go up to the bristlecone pines this year but that probably won't happen until the summer (CA 168).
I'm assuming you meant the western CA 168. If that's the case send me a PM before you head out, I'm out of the Fresno area.
Alas, no, the eastern (US 395 is the easier access for me), though I do bip through Fresno quite a bit on my monthly Sacramento run.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 26, 2019, 11:38:57 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 26, 2019, 09:58:38 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 13, 2019, 01:43:47 PM
I was hoping to go up to the bristlecone pines this year but that probably won't happen until the summer (CA 168).
I'm assuming you meant the western CA 168. If that's the case send me a PM before you head out, I'm out of the Fresno area.
Alas, no, the eastern (US 395 is the easier access for me), though I do bip through Fresno quite a bit on my monthly Sacramento run.
Well if you're ever in town let me know. I was looking at your website the other day, seems we have featured several of the same highways.
^^
Right on, I'll see how the schedule works out :)
Big travel week for me in Southern California. Had some pretty choice routes on my path:
I-5 Grapevine Grade southbound
https://flic.kr/s/aHskUcgsK3
Drove the entirety of I-405. I must have hit the Devil's luck since I didn't encounter a single stoppage in traffic
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmD6EBCW
I-805 from I-5 to CA 163
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmD6EPrf
CA 163 (Old US 395) from I-805 to I-5 (yes I got the Cabrillo Bridge)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmbZUn8i
CA 75 and CA 282
https://flic.kr/s/aHskUcmERY
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmD6GEXY
The old section of 163 is the most beautiful section of freeway in California IMO. When I saw it for the first time in 1974, when there still was a US 395, it was like stepping into the Wayback Machine. Wish you had taken more photos of it than the modern section in that sequence you posted on Flickr.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 30, 2019, 12:19:35 AM
The old section of 163 is the most beautiful section of freeway in California IMO. When I saw it for the first time in 1974, when there still was a US 395, it was like stepping into the Wayback Machine. Wish you had taken more photos of it than the modern section in that sequence you posted on Flickr.
Rick
The oldest part is south of I-8 which is actually very short.. Unfortunately heading into downtown San Diego wasn't an option.
Well, I did enjoy seeing the "modern" freeway, I-405, covered so thoroughly. Feast or famine I guess...LOL! The OC section that has been modernized sure looks sweet although it probably winds up as congested as the part in LA County. Like you said, luck was with you that day!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 30, 2019, 10:01:33 AM
Well, I did enjoy seeing the "modern" freeway, I-405, covered so thoroughly. Feast or famine I guess...LOL! The OC section that has been modernized sure looks sweet although it probably winds up as congested as the part in LA County. Like you said, luck was with you that day!
Rick
It was my first time driving 405 since 2013 suffice to say I feel as though the route has improved substantially. Granted I'm saying that a couple weeks removed from the Kennedy and Dan Ryan Expressways in Chicago...
The project in Tahoe City to build a new bridge to carry CA 89 over the Truckee River has gone much slower than planned. It's expected that the new bridge and new CA 89 alignment which were supposed to open in 2018 *should* be completed and opened to traffic late this year. That includes the two roundabouts where the new alignment connects to the existing alignment. The rebuild of the Fanny Bridge and the construction of the third roundabout, which will be at the current intersection of CA 28 and CA 89, have been pulled from the contract with new bids in 2020 and construction in 2021. Project information here. (http://www.tahoetransportation.org/fanny-new-1)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 30, 2019, 09:54:22 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 30, 2019, 12:19:35 AM
The old section of 163 is the most beautiful section of freeway in California IMO. When I saw it for the first time in 1974, when there still was a US 395, it was like stepping into the Wayback Machine. Wish you had taken more photos of it than the modern section in that sequence you posted on Flickr.
Rick
The oldest part is south of I-8 which is actually very short.. Unfortunately heading into downtown San Diego wasn't an option.
It's actually 3 miles long, so it's not very short.
I heard the freeway portion of US 50 in/near Sacramento is also unsigned Interstate 305.
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 02, 2019, 09:57:29 PM
I heard the freeway portion of US 50 in/near Sacramento is also unsigned Interstate 305.
Sort of, I-305 is an FHWA designation and not state level legislative one.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2019, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 02, 2019, 09:57:29 PM
I heard the freeway portion of US 50 in/near Sacramento is also unsigned Interstate 305.
Sort of, I-305 is an FHWA designation and not state level legislative one.
I-305 is there because chargeable Interstate funds were used to construct the old I-80 through central Sacramento. What is now US 50 (and, to Caltrans, CASR 50) between I-80 and CA 99 was the E-W part of that route, while present Biz 80/unsigned CASR 51 from US 50 north to the "C" street overpass, completed in 1967, is the N-S "leg". CASR 51 northeast of there, which features a multitude of substandard features, was originally "grandfathered" into the Interstate system, having been constructed prior to the beginning of Interstate fund dispersal on 1/1/57. After the Gianturco administration within Caltrans, in concert with the City of Sacramento, cancelled the I-80 bypass freeway in 1982, I-80 was rerouted over the former 1st iteration of I-880 around the north end of the city; the E-W portion (the old "X-Y" freeway + the Pioneer Bridge and the West Sacramento Freeway) was redesignated as US/CASR 50, while the then-unused CASR 51 number was assigned to the N-S portion. Since the Interstate-pool-funded portion still retained Federal Interstate status, it remained on the FHWA books and was renumbered I-305. The whole former I-80 "inner loop" was signed in 1982 as Business Loop 80; lately, that signage primarily pertains to CASR 51; current field reference of the E-W portion is as US 50, although a few Biz 80 green shields remain on that section. As a state-maintained route, Caltrans does not make any mention of the I-305 status; as far as it's concerned the former I-80 loop is now US 50 and CA 51 -- although there is a codicil in the Caltrans bylaws that states that CA 51 shall be field-signed as Business Loop 80.
In other words, this is one of the more byzantine situations within the Caltrans compendium. Whether it'll ever be worked out rationally is yet TBD -- perhaps if & when CA 99 gains Interstate status some changes may occur as a result. But for the present it is just plain weird.
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2019, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2019, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 02, 2019, 09:57:29 PM
I heard the freeway portion of US 50 in/near Sacramento is also unsigned Interstate 305.
Sort of, I-305 is an FHWA designation and not state level legislative one.
I-305 is there because chargeable Interstate funds were used to construct the old I-80 through central Sacramento. What is now US 50 (and, to Caltrans, CASR 50) between I-80 and CA 99 was the E-W part of that route, while present Biz 80/unsigned CASR 51 from US 50 north to the "C" street overpass, completed in 1967, is the N-S "leg". CASR 51 northeast of there, which features a multitude of substandard features, was originally "grandfathered" into the Interstate system, having been constructed prior to the beginning of Interstate fund dispersal on 1/1/57. After the Gianturco administration within Caltrans, in concert with the City of Sacramento, cancelled the I-80 bypass freeway in 1982, I-80 was rerouted over the former 1st iteration of I-880 around the north end of the city; the E-W portion (the old "X-Y" freeway + the Pioneer Bridge and the West Sacramento Freeway) was redesignated as US/CASR 50, while the then-unused CASR 51 number was assigned to the N-S portion. Since the Interstate-pool-funded portion still retained Federal Interstate status, it remained on the FHWA books and was renumbered I-305. The whole former I-80 "inner loop" was signed in 1982 as Business Loop 80; lately, that signage primarily pertains to CASR 51; current field reference of the E-W portion is as US 50, although a few Biz 80 green shields remain on that section. As a state-maintained route, Caltrans does not make any mention of the I-305 status; as far as it's concerned the former I-80 loop is now US 50 and CA 51 -- although there is a codicil in the Caltrans bylaws that states that CA 51 shall be field-signed as Business Loop 80.
In other words, this is one of the more byzantine situations within the Caltrans compendium. Whether it'll ever be worked out rationally is yet TBD -- perhaps if & when CA 99 gains Interstate status some changes may occur as a result. But for the present it is just plain weird.
Correct and accurate summary as usual sparker. I know that many have discussed the Biz-80 situation on this forum before, but I do hope they get rid of it and replace Biz-80 with CA-51 or some other number. I have to think that the reason for even signing Biz-80 in the first place was to help guide people from the main I-80 into Downtown Sac and then back to I-80, I don't believe the number is helpful. It's just plain confusing having two 80's. And, of course, with good use of "Sacramento", "Reno", and "San Francisco" as control cities on US 50 and CA-51 to/from both of the I-80 interchanges, not to mention GPS-based direction systems, I-80 traffic can easily find its way back and forth from Downtown without Biz-80.
Quote from: mrsman on May 03, 2019, 09:02:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 03, 2019, 01:07:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2019, 12:18:02 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 02, 2019, 09:57:29 PM
I heard the freeway portion of US 50 in/near Sacramento is also unsigned Interstate 305.
Sort of, I-305 is an FHWA designation and not state level legislative one.
I-305 is there because chargeable Interstate funds were used to construct the old I-80 through central Sacramento. What is now US 50 (and, to Caltrans, CASR 50) between I-80 and CA 99 was the E-W part of that route, while present Biz 80/unsigned CASR 51 from US 50 north to the "C" street overpass, completed in 1967, is the N-S "leg". CASR 51 northeast of there, which features a multitude of substandard features, was originally "grandfathered" into the Interstate system, having been constructed prior to the beginning of Interstate fund dispersal on 1/1/57. After the Gianturco administration within Caltrans, in concert with the City of Sacramento, cancelled the I-80 bypass freeway in 1982, I-80 was rerouted over the former 1st iteration of I-880 around the north end of the city; the E-W portion (the old "X-Y" freeway + the Pioneer Bridge and the West Sacramento Freeway) was redesignated as US/CASR 50, while the then-unused CASR 51 number was assigned to the N-S portion. Since the Interstate-pool-funded portion still retained Federal Interstate status, it remained on the FHWA books and was renumbered I-305. The whole former I-80 "inner loop" was signed in 1982 as Business Loop 80; lately, that signage primarily pertains to CASR 51; current field reference of the E-W portion is as US 50, although a few Biz 80 green shields remain on that section. As a state-maintained route, Caltrans does not make any mention of the I-305 status; as far as it's concerned the former I-80 loop is now US 50 and CA 51 -- although there is a codicil in the Caltrans bylaws that states that CA 51 shall be field-signed as Business Loop 80.
In other words, this is one of the more byzantine situations within the Caltrans compendium. Whether it'll ever be worked out rationally is yet TBD -- perhaps if & when CA 99 gains Interstate status some changes may occur as a result. But for the present it is just plain weird.
Correct and accurate summary as usual sparker. I know that many have discussed the Biz-80 situation on this forum before, but I do hope they get rid of it and replace Biz-80 with CA-51 or some other number. I have to think that the reason for even signing Biz-80 in the first place was to help guide people from the main I-80 into Downtown Sac and then back to I-80, I don't believe the number is helpful. It's just plain confusing having two 80's. And, of course, with good use of "Sacramento", "Reno", and "San Francisco" as control cities on US 50 and CA-51 to/from both of the I-80 interchanges, not to mention GPS-based direction systems, I-80 traffic can easily find its way back and forth from Downtown without Biz-80.
Actually we do have a CA 51 topic thread from last year.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23773.msg2373330#msg2373330
Pop quiz! Choose all the squares with a car in it
What state was this picture taken at? Bonus points if you can figure out where in the state!
(https://i.imgur.com/tRTR1qk.jpg)
Quote from: Techknow on May 03, 2019, 11:46:46 PM
Pop quiz! Choose all the squares with a car in it
What state was this picture taken at? Bonus points if you can figure out where in the state!
(https://i.imgur.com/tRTR1qk.jpg)
Haha seen that meme before, but not sure about the location of the photo. But cool Dodge Journey
Quote from: Techknow on May 03, 2019, 11:46:46 PM
Pop quiz! Choose all the squares with a car in it
What state was this picture taken at? Bonus points if you can figure out where in the state!
(https://i.imgur.com/tRTR1qk.jpg)
Hey, I got that one once too! EB CA 58 at the Broome Rd exit crossing the Tehachapis. I know the exit well; this picture was taken off the overpass: https://www.floodgap.com/iv/3714
Finished up my last two photo albums from the recent San Diego trip. I unexpectedly found myself headed to the west terminus of I-8 and onward to part of former CA 209 headed to Point Loma. I also ended up driving I-5 from CA 54 north to CA 99:
I-5 from CA 54 to CA 99
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmxX5qX1
Former CA 209 and Cabrillo National Monument
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmc5nZFv
I-8 west terminus
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDbGzhu
I'm way behind on blogs on Gribblenation but I do have existing articles for CA 209, CA 75 and Ridge Route/Grapevine part of I-5. I'm hoping to have everything updated within the next 10 days but I have some Mid West stuff I still need to go through. Long term I'm debating the viability of I-5 series given I frequent it so often. The second section would definitely would be from CA 99 north to CA 152.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 04, 2019, 11:17:59 PM
Finished up my last two photo albums from the recent San Diego trip. I unexpectedly found myself headed to the west terminus of I-8 and onward to part of former CA 209 headed to Point Loma. I also ended up driving I-5 from CA 54 north to CA 99:
I-5 from CA 54 to CA 99
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmxX5qX1
Former CA 209 and Cabrillo National Monument
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmc5nZFv
I-8 west terminus
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDbGzhu
I'm way behind on blogs on Gribblenation but I do have existing articles for CA 209, CA 75 and Ridge Route/Grapevine part of I-5. I'm hoping to have everything updated within the next 10 days but I have some Mid West stuff I still need to go through. Long term I'm debating the viability of I-5 series given I frequent it so often. The second section would definitely would be from CA 99 north to CA 152.
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 04, 2019, 01:40:27 AM
Hey, I got that one once too! EB CA 58 at the Broome Rd exit crossing the Tehachapis. I know the exit well; this picture was taken off the overpass: https://www.floodgap.com/iv/3714
I haven't got this Captcha yet, found the picture in a Slack channel. I did point out the picture was definitely taken in California because of the exit tab is inside not outside of the sign
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 01:10:09 AM
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Just be glad they didn't say
"other Beach cities"! :biggrin:
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 04:27:43 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 01:10:09 AM
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Just be glad they didn't say "other Beach cities"! :biggrin:
Is that stupid sign still on I-10? I always thought was amusing when I was leaving the Riverside area headed home to Phoenix.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 04:27:43 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 01:10:09 AM
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Just be glad they didn't say "other Beach cities"! :biggrin:
Is that stupid sign still on I-10? I always thought was amusing when I was leaving the Riverside area headed home to Phoenix.
Last time I was through there (disclaimer: back in the fall of 2012) the sign, located at the CA 111 EB divergence near Whitewater, was still, along with that particular strange syntax, intact. At least it's a remaining example of the old Caltrans "button copy on porcelain" sign standard. If any SoCal posters know different, please chime in!
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 04:27:43 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 01:10:09 AM
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Just be glad they didn't say "other Beach cities"! :biggrin:
Is that stupid sign still on I-10? I always thought was amusing when I was leaving the Riverside area headed home to Phoenix.
Last time I was through there (disclaimer: back in the fall of 2012) the sign, located at the CA 111 EB divergence near Whitewater, was still, along with that particular strange syntax, intact. At least it's a remaining example of the old Caltrans "button copy on porcelain" sign standard. If any SoCal posters know different, please chime in!
I can confirm that it was there by early 2013 as well. After that I haven't been on any part of I-10 west of Box Canyon Road.
As of two weeks ago it was still there. I'll check tomorrow (out in Coachella on business).
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2019, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 05, 2019, 04:27:43 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 05, 2019, 01:10:09 AM
Nice! Still annoyed at the Beaches control city at the western terminus. Could've been "Oceanside Communities" or "Beach Communities". Then again, could that fit on that sign?
Just be glad they didn't say "other Beach cities"! :biggrin:
Is that stupid sign still on I-10? I always thought was amusing when I was leaving the Riverside area headed home to Phoenix.
Last time I was through there (disclaimer: back in the fall of 2012) the sign, located at the CA 111 EB divergence near Whitewater, was still, along with that particular strange syntax, intact. At least it's a remaining example of the old Caltrans "button copy on porcelain" sign standard. If any SoCal posters know different, please chime in!
Yes, the sign says "Indio other Desert Cities." It's where I turn off for Palm Springs when I go home any time I need to head through the pass.
As of 7am this morning, both "other Desert Cities" signs are still up on the original enamel. You can all breathe again. :)
Last night I saw an orange detour sign at Daly City and I just managed to take a photo of it.
I love making these kinds of discoveries (a year ago I posted a Pinnacles NP sign when the dirt for the post holes were there), but I'll let others theorize how they sign even got made...
(https://i.imgur.com/KoIL46T.jpg)
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 06, 2019, 09:05:27 PM
As of 7am this morning, both "other Desert Cities" signs are still up on the original enamel. You can all breathe again. :)
There are also brown (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8239935,-116.5097597,3a,32.9y,213.01h,93.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDLBKwFeojerXtNi1X4W5-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) information (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8195117,-116.5099261,3a,75y,62.18h,91.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swSFxxERqGWFZaakljJP48A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) signs (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8194537,-116.509164,3a,67y,91.84h,106.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdmH-oDrNtRzUoEBYfFwCVQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) around the Palm Springs airport directing drivers to "Other Resort Cities (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.820064,-116.5102312,3a,75y,166.06h,113.14t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfrvCkLlxkvT1xPwPXtsoYw!2e0!7i3328!8i1664)" meaning any Coachella Valley city besides Palm Springs.
Quote from: Techknow on May 07, 2019, 10:50:24 AM
Last night I saw an orange detour sign at Daly City and I just managed to take a photo of it.
I love making these kinds of discoveries (a year ago I posted a Pinnacles NP sign when the dirt for the post holes were there), but I'll let others theorize how they sign even got made...
(https://i.imgur.com/KoIL46T.jpg)
Error aside, Caltrans has been using those signs for construction detours as of late. There a ton of similar signs all over District 6, they make me miss the Orange cut-outs that were popular a couple years back. It makes me curious how many will hit the scrap market, I'd love to pick up a few if they become available.
I couldn't get a shot of it, but at the widening of the CA 46/I-5 junction (very, very needed), they have a SOUTH banner in orange and a 5 without the California on a misshapen state route shield. Yuck.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 07, 2019, 12:45:56 PM
I couldn't get a shot of it, but at the widening of the CA 46/I-5 junction (very, very needed), they have a SOUTH banner in orange and a 5 without the California on a misshapen state route shield. Yuck.
I'll see if I can get a picture later today, but in San Clemente there's a DETOUR sign for I-5 where they just used a regular CA-5 shield instead of the interstate one.
Quote from: Techknow on May 07, 2019, 10:50:24 AM
Last night I saw an orange detour sign at Daly City and I just managed to take a photo of it.
I love making these kinds of discoveries (a year ago I posted a Pinnacles NP sign when the dirt for the post holes were there), but I'll let others theorize how they sign even got made...
(https://i.imgur.com/KoIL46T.jpg)
IDK why, but one of my biggest pet-peeves has grown to be misused shields, especially the SH/SR-for-Interstate swap.
Actually, now thinking about where I split time the most (Utah and California), it checks out.
The newly redone ramp to southbound I-405 from southbound Culver Drive in Irvine uses two posts for its freeway entrance sign, I think I've only seen single post versions of this up to now in California.
(https://i.imgur.com/ta6jf3A.jpg)
^ It appears to be a larger than normal sign assembly, which could explain the double posts.
It's also unusual in that the freeway entrance sign is below the shield, and the assembly is missing the white-on-blue down arrow at the bottom that typically signifies where the entrance actually is.
Kind of a weird typeface on the shield, too.
Picked up an old I-5 button copy shield from a recycled BGS:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33988981208_350bea1147_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TMupXo)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/TMupXo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47866276771_19f6a61548_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fVMbrZ)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2fVMbrZ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2019, 11:04:51 PM
Picked up an old I-5 button copy shield from a recycled BGS:
Is it now permanently stuck to the old guide sign? I see what appears to be the old guide sign, cut around the edges.
I also don't know how guide signs are constructed; for all I know, the guide sign is the only thing holding the shield together!
In any case, gorgeous shield. Would love one of those myself.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2019, 11:04:51 PM
Picked up an old I-5 button copy shield from a recycled BGS:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33988981208_350bea1147_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/TMupXo)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/TMupXo) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47866276771_19f6a61548_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fVMbrZ)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/2fVMbrZ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Beautiful I-5 sign and one of a good size too. You did a good job illuminating it. Imagine this one at night when it was new!
Rick
Quote from: jakeroot on May 16, 2019, 11:43:57 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 16, 2019, 11:04:51 PM
Picked up an old I-5 button copy shield from a recycled BGS:
Is it now permanently stuck to the old guide sign? I see what appears to be the old guide sign, cut around the edges.
I also don't know how guide signs are constructed; for all I know, the guide sign is the only thing holding the shield together!
In any case, gorgeous shield. Would love one of those myself.
It might be possible to remove what is left of the guide sign but don't know what that would do to the rivets holding everything together. For now I left it as is, I was surprised to find a button-copy that had so many reflectors and clean paint on it.
Very nice. I've got an I-8 myself with the glued-on buttons.
Drove CA 58 from CA 99 east to US 395 in Kramer Junction. Not my best photos given the sun glare but a caught a lot of the Kramer Junction Bypass project:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskUEJRRs
Today I went on a road trip through heavy rain from San Francisco to Point Arena Lighthouse. The propose of the trip is not to see the lighthouse in windy and wet weather but rather to play an augmented reality video game there... but that's another story. My route there was CA 1 to the Golden Gate Bridge, US 101 to the River Road exit north of Santa Rosa (going through the Sonoma-Marin Narrows), River Road to CA 116 at Guerneville, CA 116 to CA 1 near Jenner, and finally CA 1 all the way to Point Arena Lighthouse. Unfortunately I have no pictures to share, I was driving all there way there and back, and it was so rainy, foggy, and windy that taking pictures was impractical, even though a friend was going with me.
Here are some observations I like to point out:
CA 116: I knew this was a good detour for CA 1 at Bodega Bay, except for a lack of signage. The road intersects the Bohemian Highway at Monte Rio, and turns northwest. Either there was no CA 116 West sign or I couldn't see it due to the rain, so I ended up going the wrong way. My friend had Google Maps on and instructed me to take Moscow Road, which was parallel to CA 116 and would end there. I drove it a couple miles until we got to a road closure! I knew it was closed actually because it was mentioned in Sonoma County's road conditions website. What surprises me is that although the road was closed mid-March, Google Maps still thinks it is open! We had to turn back to that intersection and back onto CA 116. On the way back home, when I got to the intersection again, there is a CA 116 East reassurance sign, but I looked for a spade outline for the west sign and couldn't find it.
CA 1: There was a few places where the asphalt was loose but overall the road held up well to the weather, no portion I drove was closed, had rocks, or flooded. Not much else to say about that, except for the portion between Meyers Grade road and Fort Ross, east of Mill Gulch, with gates in between. There's lots of switchbacks that require one to turn at 20 to 30 miles per hour, and whoever is not driving is subject to motion sickness! I was here last year and it happened to me, and today it happened to my friend. I know there's a sign that says "Prevent boil-over, turn off air conditioning" on CA 17 - there should be a sign at that section of CA 1 that says "Prevent motion sickness, take it slow". Even then it still might not be enough!
US 101: I'm guess I can say that the Sonoma Narrows improvement project(s) is just progressing along, where the 4-lane section north of Novato to Petaluma is supposed to be upgraded to six lanes. The section at Petaluma is still 4-lane freeway, and there's plenty of dried up grass growing in the median. But from the Petaluma Blvd South exit to north of the county line, there is room for six lanes and the shoulder had lane closed signs with markings that indicate you can't drive on it of course. Some of the construction shown in a Google Maps Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2132511,-122.6020635,3a,75y,165.58h,81.69t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3H6WUnEgJO4n_Q3syfgG5w!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D3H6WUnEgJO4n_Q3syfgG5w%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D69.1493%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656) seems to be finished, but the shoulder was closed at portions south of the county line.
Drove US 395 south from Kramer Junction to I-15 yesterday. Not much has changed with 395 aside from the long over due passing zone immediately south of Kramer Junction almost being completed:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/i654Xe
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 05:06:51 PM
Drove US 395 south from Kramer Junction to I-15 yesterday. Not much has changed with 395 aside from the long over due passing zone immediately south of Kramer Junction almost being completed:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/i654Xe
A complete upgrade of that US 395 section is way past its sell-by date! But every bit helps; that construction was in progress when I came through there in the other direction over New Years'. But if D8 can't get an expressway funded in the next decade or so, a continuously alternating passing lane on the current alignment would definitely be a real improvement considering the seemingly ever-increasing truck volume.
:poke:
Quote from: sparker on May 19, 2019, 06:55:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2019, 05:06:51 PM
Drove US 395 south from Kramer Junction to I-15 yesterday. Not much has changed with 395 aside from the long over due passing zone immediately south of Kramer Junction almost being completed:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/i654Xe
A complete upgrade of that US 395 section is way past its sell-by date! But every bit helps; that construction was in progress when I came through there in the other direction over New Years'. But if D8 can't get an expressway funded in the next decade or so, a continuously alternating passing lane on the current alignment would definitely be a real improvement considering the seemingly ever-increasing truck volume.
At minimum the upgrade is needed north of CA 18 and has been that way for decades. The worst part is that there a lot of quarry trucks in that area that can't really maintain a speed above 55 MPH. Perhaps things will get some attention once the Kramer Junction Bypass is complete.
A couple more road albums from yesterday:
I-215 from I-15 to CA 210
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDp764r
- This was my first time through I-215 into San Bernardino since the CA 210 interchange was completed. I didn't drive very far into San Bernardino but I did catch one of the new guide signs that shows CA 66 (I never thought I'd see new signage).
CA 259
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDp7BTc
- This is a short stub freeway that essentially is a connect route between CA 210 and I-215. What I've always found odd about this route is that it does have several exits which ought to justify it getting actual route signage instead of "To CA 210" or "To I-215."
CA 18; Rim of the World Highway to CA 138
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDCxuDJ
- This probably is the coolest expressway in California from a design standpoint as it maintains four lanes from San Bernardino to CA 138 in Crestline. I had good sight lines for once given the recent rains...at least I could see I-215 to the west near the junction with CA 138.
CA 173 west segment
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmBmnU2z
- I drove CA 173 east from CA 138 to the closure gate at the unpaved portion. I noted only one reassurance shield on CA 173 aside from the trailblazer at the junction at CA 138. The dirt segment from what I could see appears to have eroded badly and has started to wash out at the western closure gate. The real shame is that I'd be interested in driving this segment given dirt highways were something of a common occurrence when I lived in Arizona.
^^^^^^^^^
I'm just as surprised to see CA 66 mentioned on any BGS' on I-215 -- although, AFAIK, the section of that highway along 5th Street in San Bernardino hasn't been relinquished as of yet (even though the segment through Fontana to the west was relinquished about 2012). I guess Caltrans is maintaining their policy of signing things they own regardless of present utility.
The last time I was on SB CA 259 (ca. 2012), there was a standalone 259 reassurance shield after the end of the flyover from WB CA 210. Since the pix above were from the opposite direction, no surprise that it wasn't shown. "TO 210" signage has been common NB since that number was applied in 2007 when that older section through San Bernardino was connected to the rest of that freeway (it retained the CA 30 number up to that time).
The main purpose of the west section of CA 173 is simply as a connector from CA 138 to the East Main Street extension toward the east side of Hesperia; it gets some use as a commute route (except during flash flood incidents; locals know to avoid it during rainy periods). If Caltrans were in the business of adopting & signing surface routes for navigational purposes rather than agency title, that isolated section of 173, along with Main Street in Hesperia, would make a useful regional route if renumbered (and Caltrans is literally sitting on a pile of "dead" numbers!). They could revive 106 or 206 -- the shields are probably sitting in their Colton corporate yard collecting dust & rust! Oh well; one can speculate!
^^^^
I assume you mean one of these CA 259 shields:
http://www.floodgap.com/roadgap/30-18-259/1/#img_45
It was up for probably all of a year, maybe. The one going your direction I think survived a little longer. I'm intentionally keeping that page with the old photographs since it's a memorial to old CA 30.
One more album from this past weekend; the entirety of CA 138.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcwtBDM
The eastern section of 138 in the mountains reminded me of 1 north of Mill Valley as that highway wends its way to Fort Bragg. All that is missing is an ocean view!
Oregon has a 138. It is incredibly scenic as it crosses the Cascades from US 97 to Roseburg with the western section running from Sutherlin to Elkton. 138 must be a magic number for a road!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 22, 2019, 10:45:05 AM
The eastern section of 138 in the mountains reminded me of 1 north of Mill Valley as that highway wends its way to Fort Bragg. All that is missing is an ocean view!
Oregon has a 138. It is incredibly scenic as it crosses the Cascades from US 97 to Roseburg with the western section running from Sutherlin to Elkton. 138 must be a magic number for a road!
Rick
The real interesting thing is that CA 138 from CA 2 east to CA 173 was originally part of CA 2. CA 2 continued east to CA 18 over what is now the last segment of dirt State Highway. It seems like that the ridge line motif was something planners were going for with CA 2, too bad it never really panned out aside from Angeles Crest.
The real interesting thing about CA 138 is that it is close to the San Andreas Fault for the majority of its alignment. Some of those rock formations near Cajon Pass really remind me of Pinnacles National Park.
Quote from: gonealookin on April 12, 2019, 02:32:14 PM
Caltrans shoots for opening Ebbetts Pass/CA 4 and Sonora Pass/CA 108 for Memorial Day weekend. Same with the National Park Service for opening Tioga Pass Road across Yosemite which connects the two segments of CA 120. It's not just clearing the snow off the roads though. In addition to mitigating avalanche dangers they have other jobs such as getting rid of damaged trees which are in danger of falling across the road. Also if they find damage to the road once they've scraped the snow off, it has to be repaired. A couple years ago there was slide damage on CA 4 east of Ebbetts Pass and it was into the summer before the road was reopened. With the heavy snow season this year, Memorial Day is a nice target date but maybe mid-June is a better idea of a date when you'd be more certain of them being open.
Follow up: It's Memorial Day weekend and Caltrans still shows CA 4 and CA 108 as closed for the winter with no estimated reopening date shown. Usually the Highway Conditions site shows a couple days in advance "Will reopen May 24 at noon" if that's the case. This week's update on the National Park Service specifically says "no estimated date for opening" of the Tioga Road. Along with the well above average snow over the winter we've had a number of storms which have added snow at the high elevations the last couple weeks; I'm at 6500 feet and I woke up to a fresh 5 inches of snow a couple days ago.
Quote from: gonealookin on May 24, 2019, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on April 12, 2019, 02:32:14 PM
Caltrans shoots for opening Ebbetts Pass/CA 4 and Sonora Pass/CA 108 for Memorial Day weekend. Same with the National Park Service for opening Tioga Pass Road across Yosemite which connects the two segments of CA 120. It's not just clearing the snow off the roads though. In addition to mitigating avalanche dangers they have other jobs such as getting rid of damaged trees which are in danger of falling across the road. Also if they find damage to the road once they've scraped the snow off, it has to be repaired. A couple years ago there was slide damage on CA 4 east of Ebbetts Pass and it was into the summer before the road was reopened. With the heavy snow season this year, Memorial Day is a nice target date but maybe mid-June is a better idea of a date when you'd be more certain of them being open.
Follow up: It's Memorial Day weekend and Caltrans still shows CA 4 and CA 108 as closed for the winter with no estimated reopening date shown. Usually the Highway Conditions site shows a couple days in advance "Will reopen May 24 at noon" if that's the case. This week's update on the National Park Service specifically says "no estimated date for opening" of the Tioga Road. Along with the well above average snow over the winter we've had a number of storms which have added snow at the high elevations the last couple weeks; I'm at 6500 feet and I woke up to a fresh 5 inches of snow a couple days ago.
I'd speculate mid-late June for a lot of the passes. On the western side of the Sierras there was 1-2 feet of snow in places reported. My yard actually flooded in Fresno which I've never seen happen even in a stormy winter. Suffice to say some of those storms were quite large and unusual for a May.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 24, 2019, 01:17:16 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on May 24, 2019, 12:13:52 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on April 12, 2019, 02:32:14 PM
Caltrans shoots for opening Ebbetts Pass/CA 4 and Sonora Pass/CA 108 for Memorial Day weekend. Same with the National Park Service for opening Tioga Pass Road across Yosemite which connects the two segments of CA 120. It's not just clearing the snow off the roads though. In addition to mitigating avalanche dangers they have other jobs such as getting rid of damaged trees which are in danger of falling across the road. Also if they find damage to the road once they've scraped the snow off, it has to be repaired. A couple years ago there was slide damage on CA 4 east of Ebbetts Pass and it was into the summer before the road was reopened. With the heavy snow season this year, Memorial Day is a nice target date but maybe mid-June is a better idea of a date when you'd be more certain of them being open.
Follow up: It's Memorial Day weekend and Caltrans still shows CA 4 and CA 108 as closed for the winter with no estimated reopening date shown. Usually the Highway Conditions site shows a couple days in advance "Will reopen May 24 at noon" if that's the case. This week's update on the National Park Service specifically says "no estimated date for opening" of the Tioga Road. Along with the well above average snow over the winter we've had a number of storms which have added snow at the high elevations the last couple weeks; I'm at 6500 feet and I woke up to a fresh 5 inches of snow a couple days ago.
I’d speculate mid-late June for a lot of the passes. On the western side of the Sierras there was 1-2 feet of snow in places reported. My yard actually flooded in Fresno which I’ve never seen happen even in a stormy winter. Suffice to say some of those storms were quite large and unusual for a May.
No lie! On the Oregon coast it felt like we had returned to what one would expect for early April weather. Oregon State had a baseball series at Stanford see a game rained out so only two games were played. Rain was falling in LA around the same time.
The good news is that a cool wet spell pushes back the fire season some. My friend and I are going to Boise, Reno and back to here in mid-June. It would be nice to not have to reroute the trip due to massive blazes.
Rick
^^^^^^^^^^
The downside of the recent rains is that all that precipitation is enhancing the growth of underbrush in fire-prone areas -- stuff that'll be dried out by September or October, when the most devastating fires tend to occur as of late. After Paradise/Camp Fire; USFS and CalFire, along with the counties, will likely have to spend serious $$ on massive cutting or even removal of excess grass and shrub growth. But they probably won't be able to address every potential fire area -- and the ones they don't get to will probably be the ones that cause the most problems!
Quote from: sparker on May 25, 2019, 03:34:30 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
The downside of the recent rains is that all that precipitation is enhancing the growth of underbrush in fire-prone areas -- stuff that'll be dried out by September or October, when the most devastating fires tend to occur as of late. After Paradise/Camp Fire; USFS and CalFire, along with the counties, will likely have to spend serious $$ on massive cutting or even removal of excess grass and shrub growth. But they probably won't be able to address every potential fire area -- and the ones they don't get to will probably be the ones that cause the most problems!
The additional underbrush has me quite worried as well. We've already had a few wildfires just north of the Salton Sea in the last couple weeks. We actually had measurable rain in Palm Springs earlier this week and several inches of snow fell around Mts San Gorgonio and San Jacinto. Tahquitz Creek had dried up past El Cielo a few weeks ago and now it's been recharged and is flowing nicely again. I only moved here last year, but even longtime residents have never seen a winter/spring as wet as this.
Visiting the Los Angeles area this weekend, therefore as usual that means I'll be hitting a couple highways. I ended up taking N2 and CA 14 on the Antelope Valley Freeway getting here:
County Route N2
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/
CA 14 Antelope Valley Freeway
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157708769054651
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 11:43:48 AM
Visiting the Los Angeles area this weekend, therefore as usual that means I'll be hitting a couple highways. I ended up taking N2 and CA 14 on the Antelope Valley Freeway getting here:
County Route N2
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/
CA 14 Antelope Valley Freeway
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157708769054651
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 11:43:48 AM
Visiting the Los Angeles area this weekend, therefore as usual that means I'll be hitting a couple highways. I ended up taking N2 and CA 14 on the Antelope Valley Freeway getting here:
County Route N2
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/
CA 14 Antelope Valley Freeway
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157708769054651
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Which incidentally is on the old alignment of CA 138 on Lancaster Road.
Sorry for this extremely late reply, but was the two CA 259 shields put up by accident? Caltrans has signed state routes as Interstates before by accident, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Which incidentally is on the old alignment of CA 138 on Lancaster Road.
Now, which strip of road is that? Around what point?
A long time ago Joel found a CA 48 postmile on "Lancaster Road" but I've been unable to locate it since and I don't think it was removed, so I'm assuming I just picked the wrong old alignment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 11:43:48 AM
Visiting the Los Angeles area this weekend, therefore as usual that means I’ll be hitting a couple highways. I ended up taking N2 and CA 14 on the Antelope Valley Freeway getting here:
County Route N2
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/
CA 14 Antelope Valley Freeway
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157708769054651
"Take The Old Road" literally came to life in that sign on the southern end of 14. That was fun to see! Never having driven the Antelope Valley Freeway, the only memory it has for me is when the CHP officer died in the 1971 quake when an overpass collapsed, leaving him feeling like Wile E. Coyote in a Roadrunner cartoon. Thanks again for another fine photo essay!
Rick
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 26, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Which incidentally is on the old alignment of CA 138 on Lancaster Road.
Now, which strip of road is that? Around what point?
A long time ago Joel found a CA 48 postmile on "Lancaster Road" but I've been unable to locate it since and I don't think it was removed, so I'm assuming I just picked the wrong old alignment.
From 245th Street West from Neenach all the way into Lancaster. The alignment switched to D Street crica 1955/1956:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-138.html?m=1
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 01:24:40 PM
Sorry for this extremely late reply, but was the two CA 259 shields put up by accident? Caltrans has signed state routes as Interstates before by accident, so I wouldn't be surprised.
It's more a matter of D8 (Caltrans District 8, which covers San Bernardino & Riverside counties) getting a bit literal-minded with signage. Since that stretch of road is legally CA 259, someone within the district hierarchy probably ordered the signage at some point; the field crews just put up the signs as directed. Generally, when that happens, unless the signage as placed is completely misleading, the signs tend to stick around until (a) at a later date someone orders their removal, or (b) they're taken down as part of a maintenance or rebuild project. While there are agency-wide general guidelines, the districts are given relatively broad latitude regarding such things as signage -- and some districts are a bit more OCD about such things than others. D8, within which I lived for about a decade, falls in between lax and exacting -- probably depends upon the whims of individual district management at any given time. That 259 signage originally appeared in the early 2000's (IIRC, about 2003-04) and was still around when I left the area in 2012, so in the interim it appears that no one in the district HQ had any serious objections to its presence. That being said, it
is something of an anomaly, seeing as how that short freeway connector is signed as "TO SOUTH I-215" at one end and "TO EAST CA 210" on the other, with secondary reference to control points along CA 18. Put it this way -- we roadgeeks are probably the only people who care about that signage -- probably more than any collection of D8 personnel at any given time. If it's gone by now, it won't be missed -- and if it's still there, it'll only be noted by few.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 04:39:23 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 26, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Which incidentally is on the old alignment of CA 138 on Lancaster Road.
Now, which strip of road is that? Around what point?
A long time ago Joel found a CA 48 postmile on "Lancaster Road" but I've been unable to locate it since and I don't think it was removed, so I'm assuming I just picked the wrong old alignment.
From 245th Street West from Neenach all the way into Lancaster. The alignment switched to D Street crica 1955/1956:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-138.html?m=1
Thanks (though minor pedantry: Avenue D, not D St). Looks like that wobbles through Fairmont and comes out as Avenue I. I'll add that to my list to investigate; maybe it's still there.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 26, 2019, 10:10:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 04:39:23 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 26, 2019, 02:04:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 26, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 26, 2019, 12:53:49 PM
CA 14 has decent scenery and is a very useful route to the Poppy Reserver
Which incidentally is on the old alignment of CA 138 on Lancaster Road.
Now, which strip of road is that? Around what point?
A long time ago Joel found a CA 48 postmile on "Lancaster Road" but I've been unable to locate it since and I don't think it was removed, so I'm assuming I just picked the wrong old alignment.
From 245th Street West from Neenach all the way into Lancaster. The alignment switched to D Street crica 1955/1956:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/05/california-state-route-138.html?m=1
Thanks (though minor pedantry: Avenue D, not D St). Looks like that wobbles through Fairmont and comes out as Avenue I. I'll add that to my list to investigate; maybe it's still there.
Indeed it does, I actually drove it tracking the route of El Camino Viejo and the Stockton-Los Angeles Road this past year.
More Los Angeles area highway stuff from from this weekend. Suffice to say I'll be filling in more of the Southern California feature gaps on Gribblenation this week.
Hollywood Freeway (CA 170/US 101/CA 2)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDN8NGK
The original US 66 west terminus at 7th and Broadway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDN8Uxr
Arroyo Seco Parkway (Current CA 110/Old US 66/6/99 and CA 11)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDNaQbv
CA 134/Ventura Freeway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDNccGk
I-5 over the Grapevine Grade northbound had a shut down due to a hazwaste spill:
https://abc30.com/traffic/nb-5-jammed-for-miles-in-castaic-after-hazmat-spill/5319150/
I had planned on taking 33 home but didn't stick to the plan. Luckily San Francisquito Canyon didn't have any traffic.
You got stuck in that? Ugly business. It's been all over the radio this afternoon.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 27, 2019, 09:48:52 PM
You got stuck in that? Ugly business. It's been all over the radio this afternoon.
Nope, saw it before it was too late and bailed in Castaic. Ended up taking San Francisquito Canyon Road and Munz Ranch to Antelope Valley. It was a ghost town in Grapevine when I got there for dinner.
Is CA 111 the original US 99 along the Salton Sea or is CA 86 along the west bank of the below sea level lake?
I know in Palm Springs CA 111 is part of US 99 along with old US 60 and 70, but CA 86 is built to better standards along its alignment where CA 111 is only two lanes for most part, so I wonder if CA 86 is the old 99.
Apparently there wasn't a crash associated with the Grapevine closure of I-5, it was just a tanker leak:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/27/memorial-day-monday-tanker-crash-closes-all-lanes-of-i-5-near-castaic/amp/
I'd be curious to find out if anyone tried to make it up the Old Ridge Route to get around the closure. The closure gate near Lebrie Summit was open just a couple months back.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2019, 11:18:17 PM
Is CA 111 the original US 99 along the Salton Sea or is CA 86 along the west bank of the below sea level lake?
I know in Palm Springs CA 111 is part of US 99 along with old US 60 and 70, but CA 86 is built to better standards along its alignment where CA 111 is only two lanes for most part, so I wonder if CA 86 is the old 99.
Absolutely correct; CA 86 was and is the original route of US 99, along with the short section of CA 111 south of the southern CA 86 terminus to the Mexican border (pre-'64, that section was co-signed as US 99 and SSR 111). Also -- and this is an ironic coincidence -- pre-renumbering, a short section of the divided US 99 et. al facility along the (former) SP tracks in the south part of Indio was signed for
four highways: three US routes (60, 70, 99) and one state route (111). The first time I saw one of those shield assemblies as a kid, it reminded me of the Pasadena Freeway from the 4-level interchange NE to the N. Figueroa/Ave. 26 exit -- also with 3 US routes (6, 66, 99) and SSR 11. 11 in L.A. and 111 in Indio with similar multiplexes -- who'da thunk it?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 27, 2019, 11:18:17 PM
Is CA 111 the original US 99 along the Salton Sea or is CA 86 along the west bank of the below sea level lake?
I know in Palm Springs CA 111 is part of US 99 along with old US 60 and 70, but CA 86 is built to better standards along its alignment where CA 111 is only two lanes for most part, so I wonder if CA 86 is the old 99.
111 in Palm Springs was never a part of US 60/70/99. The highway version of US 60/70/99 always stayed north of the railroad tracks and followed the Whitewater routing. Basically the current I-10 routing from the 111 junction near Cabazon to the Jefferson Street exit in Indio is the old US 60/70/99 routing. From there it followed what is now Indio Blvd to Harrison St. 99 went south on Harrison Street to pickup what is now the 86 routing along the west shore of the Salton Sea.
Until the more direct route east of Dillon Road was built, US 60/70 continued southeast to 66th Ave in Mecca, then turned east and took Box Canyon to pick up the current routing to Chiriaco Summit.
There might have been a brief concurrency between 111 and US 60/70 or 60/70/99 through Indio, Coachella and Mecca, but that would have been it. West of Indio, 111 was a separate routing.
^^^^^^^^^^
I believe I was misunderstood regarding my comment about the multiplex. West of Indio, SSR 111 was indeed a separate route (LRN 187); until '64, it was cosigned with SSR 74 to the split at La Quinta. The multiplex occurred between the north junction of SSR 111 (and the eastern signed terminus of SSR 74) in Indio and Dillon Road, where US 60/70 turned east (on LRN 64), crossing the RR tracks (which were northeast of US 60/70/99 in central Indio; the facility crossed the tracks on an overpass north of town and stayed north of the tracks all the way to Colton! The multiplex, part of LRN 26, was only a few miles, and was indeed signed with reassurance assemblies with all four shields.
Picked up a couple more routes and highway related things on my way out of the Los Angeles Area this weekend.
2nd Street and 3rd Street Tunnels:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDNMKRm
- The 2nd Street Tunnel is the one that is always in movies and part of the old "Boomer will live" internet meme. I particularly like the design of the 2nd Street Tunnel over 3rd Street. Either way its interesting to read the back story on how much Bunker Hill was lowered in the 20th Century.
Mulholland Drive from Cahuenga Boulevard west to the Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDQREx5
- I wanted to take an alternate route that wasn't a freeway west towards Sherman Oaks. I think my wife got more of a kick out of Mulholland than I did given all the tour buses were out in force. I wanted to see the new I-405 bridge and at least climb the grade above the Sepulveda Boulevard Tunnel.
Sepulveda Bouelvard Tunnel
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDQRFGq
- Just for kicks I backed tracked to Old CA 7 in Sepulveda Pass to drive through the tunnel. Sepulveda Boulevard is surprisingly still an efficient way to drive as an alternate (at least it felt like it) way to get into Sherman Oaks over I-405.
CA 27 south of US 101
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDR2nwr
- I took CA 27 south of US 101 through Topganga Canyon to the coast and CA 1. Topganga Canyon was packed with festival goers but the last couple miles dropping the coast made the drive worth it.
CA 23
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDR4mSy
- I've been waiting for awhile to clinch CA 23 and it didn't disappoint. The portion of CA 23 on Decker Canyon Road, Mulholland Highway and Westlake Boulevard in particular was a fun as hell drive up on some really narrow grades. CA 23 north from CA 1 to Mulholland Highway in particular had some very severe fire damage from last year. North of CA 118 the route of CA 23 through Grimes Canyon was also very worthwhile, this was definitely my favorite of the weekend.
CA 126 east to Santa Clarita
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmDR4sZH
- I ended up taking CA 126 from Fillmore into Santa Clarita to hook up with San Francisquito Road to avoid the closures on I-5 and CA 14 (found out that was a thing today). Nothing really all that special, but I did note the route is substantially prettier headed eastbound given the coast mountains get higher closer to Santa Clarita. There was also several abandoned bridges and road deck alongside CA 126 that pre-date the expressway that I never noticed before.
^^^^^^^^^
Trust me on this -- Sepulveda Blvd. over the Santa Monica Mountains through the tunnel is anything but efficient between 2:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays (NB) and 5:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. (SB). Since I-405 was opened to I-5 in late '63, the old SSR 7 was re-discovered quite early on by frustrated commuters. One of my old college buddies lived up the hill in Sherman Oaks; his back balcony overlooked 405 -- and sections of Sepulveda on the north side of the tunnel could be seen as well -- and back circa '69-'70, both were packed to the brim during commute hours. The spillover extended east to Beverly Glen and Coldwater Canyon as well.
Wholeheartedly agree about CA 23/Grimes Canyon -- one of my favorite mountain drives in SoCal. Also -- if you have yet to do so, give Soledad Canyon between Santa Clarita and Acton a shot sometime -- it tracks the old SP (now Metrolink w/UP trackage rights) through the canyon, including tunnels -- and is also the location of much of the old but classic TV movie Duel -- aka Spielberg's directorial debut for a standalone work.
To see a movie showing Bunker Hill before it was no longer a hill, watch "The Exiles".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exiles_(film)
Mulholland Drive you say? Then we have "Mulholland Falls"...LOL! I love that movie. "There are no falls in Mullholland!" says the mobster as he is being carried along in a 1948 Buick Roadmaster convertible by some LA detectives. They chuckle.
27, Topanga Canyon Highway, is a gorgeous if curvy route. My first time on it was 1974. During the 2013 trip, my friend and I took 1 to 27 to Olympic as we wended our way to Burbank, where we stayed at the Safari Motel. Their Googie sign is spectacular. That kind of routing beat being on the freeways, which were packed solid. In a way, LA traffic from 2013 reminded me of what I do when going to any sort of fast food place. If the driveup is clogged, go inside and maybe one will find an easier time getting an order in. Should the parking lot be filled and the driveup is not, then I will go that way!
Burbank's surface streets were amazingly calm compared to the freeways around that city.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 28, 2019, 06:29:44 PM
In a way, LA traffic from 2013 reminded me of what I do when going to any sort of fast food place. If the driveup is clogged, go inside and maybe one will find an easier time getting an order in. Should the parking lot be filled and the driveup is not, then I will go that way!
You have just described the insiders' method of dealing with In-N-Out!
Quote
Burbank's surface streets were amazingly calm compared to the freeways around that city.
Rick
Except for Olive Ave./Barham Blvd. down by Warner Bros., Burbank
is generally free of major traffic annoyances. If you're ever down there, try Finocchio's Italian restaurant (w/attached deli) on Magnolia a few blocks east of Hollywood Way. Very reasonably priced -- and great -- food, served in a cafeteria-line style manner. One of my "must" stops when in town.
The real trick to In'n'Out is to go at 10 AM when they "unofficially" open.
Speaking of surface streets, I spent a large amount of time this past weekend on Colorado between I-5 and Pasadena. I'm always surprised how little traffic there really on Colorado, but then again CA 134 is immediately to the north. I'm starting to feel that spending so much time in Chicago recently has really skewed my perspective on had the Los Angeles area is to drive in during rush hour...really nothing seems quite as terrible as the Kennedy Expressway. Either it way it feels weird to drive roads like I-405, the Hollywood Freeway or even Sepulveda Boulevard like they aren't a big deal.
Regarding Soledad Canyon, I've done parts of it before but never the whole thing in one shot. Some of the early state highway history associated with Soledad Canyon is definitely interesting for sure.
2nd Street tunnel used to be the best way from Downtown to surface streets to the west and northwest like Beverly and Glendale. The bike lane has significantly reduced capacity. Imo a bike lane would fit better on 1st Street, which is wider.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on May 29, 2019, 12:26:27 AM
2nd Street tunnel used to be the best way from Downtown to surface streets to the west and northwest like Beverly and Glendale. The bike lane has significantly reduced capacity. Imo a bike lane would fit better on 1st Street, which is wider.
Nexus 5X
I suspect it has a lot to do with 1st Street having to climb over part of Bunker Hill.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2019, 11:42:44 PM
The real trick to In'n'Out is to go at 10 AM when they "unofficially" open.
Speaking of surface streets, I spent a large amount of time this past weekend on Colorado between I-5 and Pasadena. I'm always surprised how little traffic there really on Colorado, but then again CA 134 is immediately to the north. I'm starting to feel that spending so much time in Chicago recently has really skewed my perspective on had the Los Angeles area is to drive in during rush hour...really nothing seems quite as terrible as the Kennedy Expressway. Either it way it feels weird to drive roads like I-405, the Hollywood Freeway or even Sepulveda Boulevard like they aren't a big deal.
Regarding Soledad Canyon, I've done parts of it before but never the whole thing in one shot. Some of the early state highway history associated with Soledad Canyon is definitely interesting for sure.
Never have "jonesed" for a burger that early; generally still in breakfast mode. Re Colorado St. -- lotsa personal memories: my grandfather had his last barber shop on that street right at the top of the little hill between Glendale and Eagle Rock, and the original Bob's Big Boy was in Glendale, at 900 East Colorado St. (a building next door was their corporate HQ until the late '50's). It was a drive-in/"carhop" restaurant (besides the usual inside dining). Bob Wian started the restaurant back in the late '30's; my late uncle was one of his original line cooks!
Definitely Colorado St. is a piece of history -- and never has seemed to be overrun with traffic -- gets a little overflow coming off CA 2 heading east toward Pasadena during the afternoon commute, but it never seemed enough to cause serious problems.
The 134 freeway through Glendale sits in a bit of a sweet spot traffic-wise. With regards to the am commute most of the eastbound the Ventura freeway traffic will merge South onto 101 or 5 towards downtown LA so the part that remains on the 134 generally move at a reasonable pace. And as far as the westbound traffic on the foothill freeway most of those people are heading towards Pasadena so the traffic begins to open up once past the to 210/134 interchange. And of course we can see the opposite phenomenon in the p.m. commute. Traffic westbound doesn't really come to a standstill until passing by the Burbank studios, eastbound it doesn't come to a standstill until about Orange Grove. if traffic on the 134 is generally content and you won't see too many people leaving the freeway and attempting to use Colorado Street. Thus, Colorado Street does not get overrun with traffic through Glendale.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on May 29, 2019, 08:22:56 PM
The 134 freeway through Glendale sits in a bit of a sweet spot traffic-wise. With regards to the am commute most of the eastbound the Ventura freeway traffic will merge South onto 101 or 5 towards downtown LA so the part that remains on the 134 generally move at a reasonable pace. And as far as the westbound traffic on the foothill freeway most of those people are heading towards Pasadena so the traffic begins to open up once past the to 210/134 interchange. And of course we can see the opposite phenomenon in the p.m. commute. Traffic westbound doesn't really come to a standstill until passing by the Burbank studios, eastbound it doesn't come to a standstill until about Orange Grove. if traffic on the 134 is generally content and you won't see too many people leaving the freeway and attempting to use Colorado Street. Thus, Colorado Street does not get overrun with traffic through Glendale.
Nexus 5X
Since one of the favored commute routes to Pasadena is CA 2 NB to CA 134 EB, the latter
does regularly back up somewhat over the Eagle Rock hillside segment and over the Arroyo Seco bridge -- but the latter can be attributed to the perennial afternoon congestion on EB I-210 in east Pasadena where it sheds lanes down from 7 to 4. But usually, even at peak (5 p.m., give or take), EB 134's still moving, albeit at about 30-35mph (it's like Colorado Blvd. minus the signals!). Still, that's a hell of a lot better than most outbound freeways in the area. But the last time I was on Colorado Blvd. during that time of day (circa 2011), there was a bit more traffic east of Eagle Rock Blvd. than I had anticipated -- but that segment of Colorado has turned into a subregional "restaurant row" -- a lot of the traffic was pulling off into the parking lots or just looking for street parking, which in itself did tend to slow things down. My guess is that in that regard Eagle Rock is pulling away some business from Old Town Pasadena east across the bridge (also centered on Colorado)-- where parking is either distant or ultra-expensive!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2019, 12:23:46 AM
Apparently there wasn't a crash associated with the Grapevine closure of I-5, it was just a tanker leak:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/27/memorial-day-monday-tanker-crash-closes-all-lanes-of-i-5-near-castaic/amp/
I'd be curious to find out if anyone tried to make it up the Old Ridge Route to get around the closure. The closure gate near Lebrie Summit was open just a couple months back.
Some madlad was driving their minivan on the hill beside I-5 in that clip. Must've really been in a hurry! :)
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 31, 2019, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2019, 12:23:46 AM
Apparently there wasn't a crash associated with the Grapevine closure of I-5, it was just a tanker leak:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/27/memorial-day-monday-tanker-crash-closes-all-lanes-of-i-5-near-castaic/amp/
I'd be curious to find out if anyone tried to make it up the Old Ridge Route to get around the closure. The closure gate near Lebrie Summit was open just a couple months back.
Some madlad was driving their minivan on the hill beside I-5 in that clip. Must've really been in a hurry! :)
I wouldn't (and didn't) want to be stuck there for 3 plus hours like those other folks were Interestingly you couldn't get past the spill anyways from that dirt road. It accesses an paved turn around just below that radio tower that heads back to the southbound lanes. I'm still not sure if taking the Old Ridge Route up to Templin Highway would have gotten you north of that spill, it looks like it would have been really close.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 31, 2019, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2019, 12:23:46 AM
Apparently there wasn't a crash associated with the Grapevine closure of I-5, it was just a tanker leak:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/27/memorial-day-monday-tanker-crash-closes-all-lanes-of-i-5-near-castaic/amp/
I'd be curious to find out if anyone tried to make it up the Old Ridge Route to get around the closure. The closure gate near Lebrie Summit was open just a couple months back.
Some madlad was driving their minivan on the hill beside I-5 in that clip. Must've really been in a hurry! :)
I wouldn't (and didn't) want to be stuck there for 3 plus hours like those other folks were Interestingly you couldn't get past the spill anyways from that dirt road. It accesses an paved turn around just below that radio tower that heads back to the southbound lanes. I'm still not sure if taking the Old Ridge Route up to Templin Highway would have gotten you north of that spill, it looks like it would have been really close.
At least if one accessed the SB lanes, if one knew the terrain & alternate corridors (San Francisquito, Bouquet Canyon, etc.) either N2/CA 138 or the long way around via Tehachapi could be a way to avoid sitting in the NB 5 lanes twiddling one's thumbs for three or more hours! Ask Max about that! Even if such an alternate adds 90-100 minutes to the overall trip, it is (at least to my POV) vastly superior to sitting still in traffic!
Quote from: sparker on June 01, 2019, 02:40:43 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 31, 2019, 11:06:35 PM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on May 31, 2019, 10:45:52 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 28, 2019, 12:23:46 AM
Apparently there wasn't a crash associated with the Grapevine closure of I-5, it was just a tanker leak:
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2019/05/27/memorial-day-monday-tanker-crash-closes-all-lanes-of-i-5-near-castaic/amp/
I'd be curious to find out if anyone tried to make it up the Old Ridge Route to get around the closure. The closure gate near Lebrie Summit was open just a couple months back.
Some madlad was driving their minivan on the hill beside I-5 in that clip. Must've really been in a hurry! :)
I wouldn't (and didn't) want to be stuck there for 3 plus hours like those other folks were Interestingly you couldn't get past the spill anyways from that dirt road. It accesses an paved turn around just below that radio tower that heads back to the southbound lanes. I'm still not sure if taking the Old Ridge Route up to Templin Highway would have gotten you north of that spill, it looks like it would have been really close.
At least if one accessed the SB lanes, if one knew the terrain & alternate corridors (San Francisquito, Bouquet Canyon, etc.) either N2/CA 138 or the long way around via Tehachapi could be a way to avoid sitting in the NB 5 lanes twiddling one's thumbs for three or more hours! Ask Max about that! Even if such an alternate adds 90-100 minutes to the overall trip, it is (at least to my POV) vastly superior to sitting still in traffic!
My bail out route was up San Francisquito Canyon Road north to N2 on Elizabeth Lake Road. I noticed there was about 20 cars trying to use N2 so I bailed out on Munz Ranch Road and took the original alignment of CA 138 by way the State Poppy Reserve. Most cars were emerging from Three Points Road, it was pretty satisfying to blow by the giant line by way of CA 138. I even took Gorman Post Road since at the time I wasn't sure where the closure on I-5. I figured if it was really bad I could head out via Frazier Mountain Park if need be.
Had a family oriented graduation weekend out in Monterey County. That being the case I decided on some driving interesting alternates to the main line highways:
Pre-1932 US 101 on the San Juan Grade. We did a feature on this road awhile back on Gribblenation, it's essentially a miniature Ridge Route:
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157708993454276
Panoche Road which is part of J1 and was briefly signed by the ACSC as CA 180 before the 1940s. Unfortunately the ford of Panoche Creek was over a foot deep on the dirt segment which meant back tracking to J1 on Little Panoche Road:
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157709002251272
^^^^^^^^^^
Nice pix per usual, Max. Noticed something interesting (and not connected to Panoche) with the map segment shown: it appears that the southern access to Yosemite (today's CA 41) originally curved west onto what is now CA 145 toward Madera, and that the connection south over the San Joaquin River likely occurred at a later date. Would be informative to do some research on this -- to see if the Yosemite road was originally part of LRN 126 passing through Madera and if LRN 125 originally had its northern terminus in Fresno (with LRN 76 using Blackstone, later LRN 125, to get out to Shaw Ave. before turning east toward the foothills). Probably need to access some maps from '26-'29 to determine the above.
In any case, there's the interesting aside about using Gorman Post Road to circumvent potential I-5 traffic issues; there used to be a nice coffee shop called "Flames" in Gorman right at Gorman Post and the center-of-town interchange; it seems to have closed in the mid-80's, but served a mean breakfast up until that time!
During the Signed State Highway era I have it sorted out with the San Joaquin River crossings. With CA 41 it was originally routed on the 1889 Lanes Bridge until a trucker destroyed it:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/04/1889-lanes-bridge-location-old.html?m=1
While the 1941 Lanes Bridge was being built CA 41 had a temporarily alignment through Friant over the 1906 North Fork Bridge:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/10/1906-north-fork-road-bridge-ruins.html?m=1
The 1941 Lanes Bridge is still part of CA 41 post mileage and was recently retrofitted:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2017/10/1941-lanes-bridge-renovations-old.html?m=1
LRN 125 and 126 were 1933 State Highway adoptions. LRN 76 I believe was circa 1931? Going into the way back machine it appears that most Yosemite Stage Routes from the south originated in Madera and Raymond in Wawona:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/02/history-of-wawona-road-yosemite.html?m=1
Gorman Post is still handy if you want get some fast to eat and don't care if it's Carl's Jr. or McDonalds. Most people skip Gorman and Grapevine in favor of the fancy pants modern stuff up in Wheeler Ridge.
Yeah, Wheeler Ridge is certainly in somewhat of a growth pattern, what with the warehousing/distribution facilities next to I-5 as well as the expansion of roadside convenience facilities. Similar in several ways to the north side of Cajon Pass/I-5; distribution facilities have taken hold around the US 395 divergence -- although one still has to get to the Main Street exit in Hesperia before extensive road-related amenities are found (probably due to the multi-acre higher-end housing straddling the freeway in Oak Hill). Still miss Summit Inn, though! -- apparently the owners elected not to rebuild (maybe a wise decision; no matter what they put up, it wouldn't have been the same!).
I did enjoy the Summit Inn quite a bit. I used to stop there on my way from San Bernanrdino on the way to Clark County, NV and Mohave County, AZ. Really all that's left of the Summit Inn is just the marque which wasn't heavily damaged in the fire. While it wouldn't be the same it would still could be something with ties to US 66/91/395 and be a welcome change of pace to all the chains in the area. It can be done right with care, it worked for Tortilla Flat on AZ 88 when it burned down.
Unfortunately, most of the US 66 memorabilia contained in the restaurant went up in flames with the building; that was one fast-moving wall of fire! I'm surprise it didn't take more of Oak Hill than it did -- but according to a friend who still lives in Hesperia, most properties there had cleared out a lot of open space around their houses -- and almost all had tile roofs. So only a few places right along the hillside were affected. Starting to play (music) again; some friends and I are having regular jam sessions (myself on keyboards for the time being), so as to broaden my contribution I'll probably be doing another brief trip down there in order to retrieve my guitars and amps in storage. Might just make a bit of a detour via Barstow on the return trip in order to drive the Hinkley upgrades on CA 58.
I'm going to hit 70 later this year -- but what the hell, rock & roll never dies!
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1220086,-117.3137447,3a,15y,176.75h,98.64t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.62036%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Noticed that arrow sign, it's black with a white background, not white with a blue background. I guess that arrow was from when US 101 went to San Diego and Caltrans never replaced it. To confirm, I was there this weekend and was the same as in this street view.
Quote from: SoCal Kid on June 10, 2019, 11:07:21 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1220086,-117.3137447,3a,15y,176.75h,98.64t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.62036%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Noticed that arrow sign, it's black with a white background, not white with a blue background. I guess that arrow was from when US 101 went to San Diego and Caltrans never replaced it. To confirm, I was there this weekend and was the same as in this street view.
It can't be that old. What's Caltrans doing there anyway?
Quote from: NE2 on June 11, 2019, 12:07:59 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on June 10, 2019, 11:07:21 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1220086,-117.3137447,3a,15y,176.75h,98.64t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.62036%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Noticed that arrow sign, it's black with a white background, not white with a blue background. I guess that arrow was from when US 101 went to San Diego and Caltrans never replaced it. To confirm, I was there this weekend and was the same as in this street view.
It can't be that old. What's Caltrans doing there anyway?
Palomar Airport Road is part of County Route S12, likely the signage comes from San Diego County.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 12:19:02 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 11, 2019, 12:07:59 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on June 10, 2019, 11:07:21 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1220086,-117.3137447,3a,15y,176.75h,98.64t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.62036%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Noticed that arrow sign, it's black with a white background, not white with a blue background. I guess that arrow was from when US 101 went to San Diego and Caltrans never replaced it. To confirm, I was there this weekend and was the same as in this street view.
It can't be that old. What's Caltrans doing there anyway?
Palomar Airport Road is part of County Route S12, likely the signage comes from San Diego County.
I agree that the signage can't be that old, because the signal structure is likely not that old. Those types of signal stantions are not older than early 1990's.
One my friends from AZ said that it was likely used when blue-white arrows ran out. Apparently thats a thing AZ does.
Quote from: mrsman on June 11, 2019, 12:23:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2019, 12:19:02 AM
Quote from: NE2 on June 11, 2019, 12:07:59 AM
Quote from: SoCal Kid on June 10, 2019, 11:07:21 PM
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.1220086,-117.3137447,3a,15y,176.75h,98.64t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1sk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dk9QpGuWYxRC3ejzbTV7kJQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D105.62036%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100
Noticed that arrow sign, it's black with a white background, not white with a blue background. I guess that arrow was from when US 101 went to San Diego and Caltrans never replaced it. To confirm, I was there this weekend and was the same as in this street view.
It can't be that old. What's Caltrans doing there anyway?
Palomar Airport Road is part of County Route S12, likely the signage comes from San Diego County.
I agree that the signage can't be that old, because the signal structure is likely not that old. Those types of signal stantions are not older than early 1990's.
Quote from: SoCal Kid on June 11, 2019, 12:32:50 AM
One my friends from AZ said that it was likely used when blue-white arrows ran out. Apparently thats a thing AZ does.
Pretty much every agency that posts signage has done that at one time or another. If the corporate yard is out of one color scheme, they'll utilize another -- even if it is mismatched -- as long as the information conveyed is correct. And they won't be in any particular hurry to replace it with a matching directional indicator -- it probably won't be "corrected" until the entire sign assembly is replaced or removed. Not considered an earthshaking issue by any means!
Put together something on Gribblenation regarding the location of the fictional Hill Valley on US 8/US 395:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/where-hell-is-hill-valley-us-route-8.html?m=1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 12, 2019, 12:30:58 AM
Put together something on Gribblenation regarding the location of the fictional Hill Valley on US 8/US 395:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/06/where-hell-is-hill-valley-us-route-8.html?m=1
FYI, much of the film was shot in Huntington Beach, CA -- including scenes on the then-SP (former Pacific Electric) HB branch line paralleling Western Ave. That would put it about 40-45 miles west of the last iteration of US 395 in SoCal (I'm not going to try to calculate how much west of US 8 it would be!). And you think
our Fictional can be a bit ridiculous at times.............
What parts were shot in Huntington Beach?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on June 12, 2019, 04:18:56 PM
What parts were shot in Huntington Beach?
To be honest,
all the
Back to the Future films run together to me -- since the only times that I've seen them was with friends who had the boxed set of DVD's -- and we "binge-watched" all three original movies. The last time I saw them was in the late '90's, so I'm uncertain if the segment filmed on the HB tracks (which the Michael J. Fox character used to get the DeLorean up to speed) was in the first ('85) film; it could have been within one of the two immediate sequels (I'm sure there are more exacting fans of these who could pinpoint the precise sequence). I do know that I recognized the tracks immediately -- they immediately parallel a high-tension transmission line and have a cinder-block wall separating the corridor from adjacent housing (otherwise looks like a generic OC "flatland" housing tract). At some point I'll have to watch them again and see just where in the 3-film sequence the RR track segment occurs.
Question for those who might be more familiar with this regarding I-8 in California.
CalTrans is showing (http://www.dot.ca.gov/cgi-bin/roads.cgi?roadnumber=8&submit=Search) a road closure with detour for I-8:
QuoteIS CLOSED TO WESTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM THE JCT OF SR 98 TO 9.3 MI WEST OF THE JCT OF SR 98 (IMPERIAL CO) 24 HRS A DAY THRU 1700 HRS ON 8/30/19 - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION - A DETOUR IS AVAILABLE
and
QuoteIS CLOSED TO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM 6.3 MI EAST OF THE JCT OF SR 115 TO THE JCT OF SR 98 (IMPERIAL CO) 24 HRS A DAY THRU 1700 HRS ON 8/30/19 - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION - A DETOUR IS AVAILABLE
These advisories have been up for a while, yet I cannot find any news stories on this (you'd think such a major closure would be news worth), not any other information on them. Google Maps also is not re-routing on its routes here, so I'm questioning what this "road closure" might actually be.
I remember seeing something similar for I-15 last year, and I believe it turned out to be frontage roads or something.
Any thoughts?
The 1985 railroad track scenes were shot in Port Hueneme. The link has a street view of the railroad crossing.
https://backtothefuture.fandom.com/wiki/Railroad_crossing
Scenes from the three movies were shot at various locations in the Valley, in Oxnard, in Whittier, in Pasadena, at the Puente Hills Mall, at Griffith Park, on the Universal Backlot, in Monument Valley, and at an old west town set built near the town of Sonora. I don't believe any scenes were shot in Orange County.
I don't have as much as a problem as others regarding 395 being E-W and 8 being N-S.
For one thing, if you take a close look at the map of Bishop, CA, you will see that at the junction at the north end of town, US 395 is E-W and it merges into a N-S US 6. (following compass direction).
Of course, we now have US 395 as the dominant highway to the south of there, post 1964. But it was certainly feasible to pick US 6 instead as the road that continues south, since more traffic will head toward L.A. then San Bernardino at the southern split in Indian Wells. Also, the joint US6-US 395 is part of Sierra Highway and was once part of CA-7 (which continued toward L.A., not SB). Even though in practice, US 6 was signed as an E-W route in California, a higway from Bishop to Long Beach would make sense as being signed N-S.
So in an alternate post-1964 universe, US 395 will terminate in Bishop. The road from Indian Wells to Hesperia is renumbered as another state highway. US 6 is signed as a N-S highway in all of California, from Nevada, through Bishop and along the Sierra Highway until it reaches I-5 in Santa Clarita.
Quote from: chays on June 13, 2019, 10:20:30 AM
Question for those who might be more familiar with this regarding I-8 in California.
CalTrans is showing (http://www.dot.ca.gov/cgi-bin/roads.cgi?roadnumber=8&submit=Search) a road closure with detour for I-8:
QuoteIS CLOSED TO WESTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM THE JCT OF SR 98 TO 9.3 MI WEST OF THE JCT OF SR 98 (IMPERIAL CO) 24 HRS A DAY THRU 1700 HRS ON 8/30/19 - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION - A DETOUR IS AVAILABLE
and
QuoteIS CLOSED TO EASTBOUND TRAFFIC FROM 6.3 MI EAST OF THE JCT OF SR 115 TO THE JCT OF SR 98 (IMPERIAL CO) 24 HRS A DAY THRU 1700 HRS ON 8/30/19 - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION - A DETOUR IS AVAILABLE
These advisories have been up for a while, yet I cannot find any news stories on this (you'd think such a major closure would be news worth), not any other information on them. Google Maps also is not re-routing on its routes here, so I'm questioning what this "road closure" might actually be.
I remember seeing something similar for I-15 last year, and I believe it turned out to be frontage roads or something.
Any thoughts?
Just a few years ago, they completely rebuilt I-8 between CA-98 and Felicity, using the old US-80 Evan Hewes Hwy for WB traffic. You can see shoeflies and empty pieces of road in some of the '16 and '17 aerial imagery. So now there's one stretch of the old US-80 that has really nice pavement, instead of fifty-year-old washboard. It sounds like they are getting ready to do the same thing for the next ten miles to the west.
The Freeways of Los Angeles Facebook group posted a publication regarding the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. What I found interesting was the publication cited 1934 as the year the Division of Highways took over signage responsibilities from the Auto Clubs:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/permalink/1358158047665003?sfns=mo
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2019, 03:35:57 PM
The Freeways of Los Angeles Facebook group posted a publication regarding the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. What I found interesting was the publication cited 1934 as the year the Division of Highways took over signage responsibilities from the Auto Clubs:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/permalink/1358158047665003?sfns=mo
Ooh, would that mean - if this is correct - the CSAA/ACSC era of signage was the 1928-1934 US route era in California only? I had always been under the impression that the auto clubs were involved throughout the bear shield era, with the white version of the modern spade (1956) being under Division of Highways and everything else thereafter.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 19, 2019, 03:45:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2019, 03:35:57 PM
The Freeways of Los Angeles Facebook group posted a publication regarding the 1964 State Highway Renumbering. What I found interesting was the publication cited 1934 as the year the Division of Highways took over signage responsibilities from the Auto Clubs:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/permalink/1358158047665003?sfns=mo
Ooh, would that mean - if this is correct - the CSAA/ACSC era of signage was the 1928-1934 US route era in California only? I had always been under the impression that the auto clubs were involved throughout the bear shield era, with the white version of the modern spade (1956) being under Division of Highways and everything else thereafter.
I could be wrong but I believe they were involved in the production of the signage until abbot then. This is kind where I would normally consult some of the signage experts that used to be here but it seems there are a lot of people in the know that have dropped off the radar.
They may not have been producing route markers, but they definitely still produced signs. This is a nice timeline: http://www.caltrafficsigns.com/chronology.php
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 19, 2019, 09:31:48 PM
They may not have been producing route markers, but they definitely still produced signs. This is a nice timeline: http://www.caltrafficsigns.com/chronology.php
That's interesting, way more in line with what I thought the timeline would really look like. I always wonder how long the ACSC and CSAA were allowed to go off the reservation signing state highways on non-state maintained roads. The practice appeared at least on paper until circa 1938 state Highway maps.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2019, 10:44:32 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 19, 2019, 09:31:48 PM
They may not have been producing route markers, but they definitely still produced signs. This is a nice timeline: http://www.caltrafficsigns.com/chronology.php
That's interesting, way more in line with what I thought the timeline would really look like. I always wonder how long the ACSC and CSAA were allowed to go off the reservation signing state highways on non-state maintained roads. The practice appeared at least on paper until circa 1938 state Highway maps.
The signage chronology omits one detail: the smaller "bear" shields, by that time all white enamel/porcelain on steel with button copy numerals, were no longer produced after 1953; instead a larger and wider shield with only "California" arched over the number -- but still black on white -- started to be deployed. Earlier versions maintained the white enamel and button copy; around 1959 the switch was made to reflective signs rather than button copy, maintaining the larger size. These signs displayed an "off-white" or "eggshell" background color rather than the bright white of the previous button-copy shields. The size and format continued after 1964 for state highways, but with green replacing the off-white and white replacing black for the state name and route number.
Quote from: sparker on June 20, 2019, 05:18:30 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2019, 10:44:32 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 19, 2019, 09:31:48 PM
They may not have been producing route markers, but they definitely still produced signs. This is a nice timeline: http://www.caltrafficsigns.com/chronology.php
That's interesting, way more in line with what I thought the timeline would really look like. I always wonder how long the ACSC and CSAA were allowed to go off the reservation signing state highways on non-state maintained roads. The practice appeared at least on paper until circa 1938 state Highway maps.
The signage chronology omits one detail: the smaller "bear" shields, by that time all white enamel/porcelain on steel with button copy numerals, were no longer produced after 1953; instead a larger and wider shield with only "California" arched over the number -- but still black on white -- started to be deployed. Earlier versions maintained the white enamel and button copy; around 1959 the switch was made to reflective signs rather than button copy, maintaining the larger size. These signs displayed an "off-white" or "eggshell" background color rather than the bright white of the previous button-copy shields. The size and format continued after 1964 for state highways, but with green replacing the off-white and white replacing black for the state name and route number.
I feel like I've seen several mid-1950s photos of the Four-Level where Route 11 was signed with the bear shield at the ramps off US 101.
It's actually amazing how few photographs exist of the 1953-1964 white version of the modern shield layout. I know MarkF's profile photo here is a late-50s Route 78 sign in that style, that's one of the few photos of the design that come to mind.
^^^^^^^^
There were plenty of sign assemblies along the older L.A. freeways in the mid-50's that did feature the older shields -- both the "bear" shields for SSR's and the state-name shields for US routes; both the Arroyo Seco PArkway/Pasadena Freeway and the Hollywood Freeway had plenty of these for all the routes feeding into the 4-level. While the new sans-bear larger shields were introduced in 1953 (the same year the 4-level opened), including the US highway version, there were obviously plenty of the older shields in stock, since they were prominent on not only the freeways cited above but also the older sections of the Santa Ana and San Bernardino freeways (out to about Lakewood Blvd. on the former and the Garvey Ave. exit on the latter, onto which US 60/70/99 diverged for years until the freeway was completed each of there. I don't think there was a BYPASS US 101 shield assembly on the Santa Ana Freeway (US 101 was shifted to that freeway after its extension beyond Lakewood/SSR 19) that used anything but the old state-named signs. The first freeway I can remember to regularly feature the new signs was the southern extension of the Harbor Freeway beyond about Adams Blvd. ca. 1957; the new bright-white/button copy US 6 shields started showing up there and on the remainder of the freeway as it was built toward San Pedro. The new signage format was applied to the Golden State Freeway on its first section around Glendale; here, there was nothing but new-format signage for US 6 and US 99 -- and SSR 134 as well on the multiplexed section between Colorado St. and Alameda Ave. This included the Colorado Street freeway extension, which carried US 99/6/SSR 134 signage from 1957 to early 1961, when the freeway was opened south to US 66. When the freeway was extended through downtown Burbank up to Burbank Blvd., the new US 99 & US 6 shields continued there as well. I-5 shields didn't appear on that freeway until the northern extension out to Lankershim Blvd. was opened in late '60, about 6 months prior to the southern extension to US 66, which also got I-5 shields. The Glendale/Burbank section wasn't retrofitted with I-5 shields until late 1963, when the entire freeway had been completed from the ELA interchange to the original 1955 4-lane section in Newhall Pass. It should be noted that the sections of that freeway that originally got I-5 shields were also posted with the newest US 99 shields -- off-white and reflectorized. When I-5 was posted on the Glendale/Burbank section, US 99 got the new-style shields as well -- but US 6 retained the old button-copy larger format -- but remember that this was 1963, after it had been decided (pre-renumbering, of course) to shift US 6 over to the Hollywood Freeway extension (prompting the US 6 designation on Lankershim Blvd. on '63 Gousha maps) -- so D7 elected not to put new-style US 6 shields on a freeway segment that wouldn't be carrying that route number for much longer. New reflectorized US 6 shields were prominently displayed on sign assemblies north of the future Hollywood Freeway merge in Arleta, though -- the part that if renumbering hadn't interfered, would have retained US 6 within the multiplex.
Since the whole "new white shield" deployment was over an approximately 10-year period ('53-'63), D7 -- and likely the other 10 districts as well -- probably had plenty of the old shields left in their corporate-yard inventories and didn't hesitate to deploy them as needed until they ran out of stock, at which time they simply shifted to the new style. But they probably were under instruction to apply the new shield style to new freeways, where the larger format could be more readily seen at speed. Eventually even the older central L.A. "radial" freeways were retrofitted with the large shields by 1959-60, but stragglers remained, particularly on the Hollywood Freeway (I saw old state-named US 101 shields over Cahuenga Pass as late as 1963). BTW, it was rare for surface streets to see retrofitting with either variation of the '53-spec signs; if they were signed with state-named US shields or "bear" SSR signage, those mostly stayed up until the renumbering, when the "green" state signs became standard. Even then, if the designation of a particular surface route had not changed, replacement with new shields took some time; some old shields remained intact until into the early '70's.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html (https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html)
California to have the high gas tax due to the new law.
News that the Badlands section of SR60 is getting widened. I think cahighways had some articles about this project in one of his earlier blog posts but wanted to call it out for what could be a significant change to this combination expressway-freeway.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Traffic-Stops-to-Be-Expected-on-60-Freeway-Due-to-Expansion-Project--511315172.html%3famp=y
Quote from the article:
Drivers using the Moreno Valley (60) Freeway between Beaumont and Moreno Valley next week should be prepared for nightly delays as crews set up safety barriers for a two-year expansion project along a 4.5-mile stretch of the freeway. ...
The $106 million State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project, overseen by Skanska USA, is slated to continue until the end of 2021 and will entail installing specially designated truck lanes for safety and to reduce congestion through a sparsely populated area known as the Badlands, marked by steep hills and no freeway frontage roads.
A single collision on either side of the narrow four-lane segment has been known to tie up traffic for hours, forcing the CHP to divert motorists back into Beaumont or Moreno Valley, depending on which way they're headed.
In addition to adding a truck lane on each side of the freeway, crews will flatten several of the most curvy road sections to improve motorists' visibility, and will widen freeway shoulders to 12 feet along the outside lanes, and 11 feet on the inside lanes, adjacent to the center divider.
The contract further calls for construction of 23 wildlife crossings beneath the corridor, as well as fencing on either side to prevent animals from straying into traffic.
Regards,
Andy
www.aaroads.com
Quote from: bing101 on July 01, 2019, 07:16:16 PM
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html (https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html)
California to have the high gas tax due to the new law.
I'm surprised that it took so long for news agencies to pick up stories on the increase, the response has more less from I observed has been "meh, that's California." At minimum things could be way worse when gas prices were approaching $5 dollars a gallon earlier in the decade. Prices now factoring inflation are still less than they were during the height of the gas/oil crunches of the 1980s.
Quote from: andy3175 on July 01, 2019, 07:54:01 PM
News that the Badlands section of SR60 is getting widened. I think cahighways had some articles about this project in one of his earlier blog posts but wanted to call it out for what could be a significant change to this combination expressway-freeway.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Traffic-Stops-to-Be-Expected-on-60-Freeway-Due-to-Expansion-Project--511315172.html%3famp=y
Quote from the article:
Drivers using the Moreno Valley (60) Freeway between Beaumont and Moreno Valley next week should be prepared for nightly delays as crews set up safety barriers for a two-year expansion project along a 4.5-mile stretch of the freeway. ...
The $106 million State Route 60 Truck Lanes Project, overseen by Skanska USA, is slated to continue until the end of 2021 and will entail installing specially designated truck lanes for safety and to reduce congestion through a sparsely populated area known as the Badlands, marked by steep hills and no freeway frontage roads.
A single collision on either side of the narrow four-lane segment has been known to tie up traffic for hours, forcing the CHP to divert motorists back into Beaumont or Moreno Valley, depending on which way they're headed.
In addition to adding a truck lane on each side of the freeway, crews will flatten several of the most curvy road sections to improve motorists' visibility, and will widen freeway shoulders to 12 feet along the outside lanes, and 11 feet on the inside lanes, adjacent to the center divider.
The contract further calls for construction of 23 wildlife crossings beneath the corridor, as well as fencing on either side to prevent animals from straying into traffic.
Regards,
Andy
www.aaroads.com
Well that's well overdue, any word if that last at-grade segment near I-10 is finally getting sealed up or converted to full limited access?
Quote from: bing101 on July 01, 2019, 07:16:16 PM
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html (https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article232147612.html)
California to have the high gas tax due to the new law.
There was no new law passed that caused gas taxes to rise 5.6 cents today. The law in question is the original Senate Bill 1 approved in 2017 that first rose the excise tax by 12 cents in November that year. According to the bill text (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1), the rate is now 18 cents instead (7360. (a) (1)) and will increase further when July 1 comes again.
Quote from: andy3175 on July 01, 2019, 07:54:01 PM
News that the Badlands section of SR60 is getting widened. I think cahighways had some articles about this project in one of his earlier blog posts but wanted to call it out for what could be a significant change to this combination expressway-freeway.
As a Palm Springs resident, this can't happen soon enough. It's already being covered in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16864.0)
Visited a ton of stuff today:
- The Lodi Mission Arch
- CA 104
- The 1910 Newcastle Subway and 1932 Newcastle Tunnel
- CA 193
- CA 244
- CA 160 (even the relinquished parts in Sacramento)
- County Route J4
So far I only have two albums up and ready to go:
Lodi Mission Arch
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157709458738316
CA 104
https://flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/sets/72157709458818191
The Lodi Arch is a pretty grand design. I find it surprising that something like that has only been restored once since 1907. CA 104 is a quiet route that goes through Ione which just happens to be one of the most chilled out of the Gold Rush Towns. There is no signed multiplex on CA 88 but signage does pick up again in Martell. Too bad 104 never made it on East Ridge Road, it already serves as the de facto bypass of Jackson.
Here are the other photo albums from yesterday:
CA 193
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmERVDLD
- This was the most interesting route of the day by far. The alignment through the South Fork American River is crazy steep on both ends of the river. Georgetown was a nice place to visit, I find the whole story about the entire downtown being moved pretty intriguing. I noticed that the Georgetown Divide segment of CA 193 has a lot of streets with animal themed names. CA 193 multiplexes CA 49 and I-80 to Newcastle but isn't signed. The CA 49 multiple through the Middle Fork American River is always nice and has views of the Forest Hill Bridge. Newcastle is unique in that it has the 1910 Newcastle Subway which was the route of the North Lincoln Highway and early US 40. The nearby 1932 Newcastle Tunnel was the later replacement US 40 utilized to bypass the community. The terminus of CA 193 is extremely odd since it dead ends in the middle of nowhere in Lincoln. All and all I think CA 193 is extremely underrated as a scenic state highway.
CA 244
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmERUN4D
- CA 244 is a tiny mile long freeway connecting to I-80 and CA 51. CA 244 was never completed to full planned scope but nonetheless is a fully fledged freeway with post miles.
CA 160
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmES2MuC
- I drove the entire route of CA 160 including the relinquished segment in Sacramento. The North Sacramento Freeway has a unique old US Route look to it which makes sense since it was part of US 40/99E. The former through route though Sacramento is well organized and flows traffic good for an urban highway...too bad it isn't signed anymore. For reference heading south the last alignment of CA 160 in Sacramento was; 12th Street, F Street, 15th Street, Broadway and Freeport Boulevard. CA 160 in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is one of the most unique highways in the state with lots of draw spans and levees. CA 24 still seems like it would have been a better fit here than in the Bay Area.
CR J4
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmES4VpB
- This route is a total mess and I'd thought it would be way more interesting after visiting Banta. A small segment of J4 through Banta was the early alignment of the Lincoln Highway. I suppose the Southern Pacific rail car was worth the effort to stop. All and all I'm left with the opinion that CA 239 was one of those routes that warranted actually being built.
CA 49 Plymouth Roundabout
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmES4VpB
- This roundabout was just completed in Plymouth at J16. The design is a little off and didn't appear to be much of an improvement to the conventional conjunction which existed previously.
There was obviously road damage from the Ridgecrest quake. I'm hoping there won't be enough damage to warrant its own thread.
From KTLA - Rockslide Forces Closure of Kern County Highway Following Magnitude 7.1 Quake (https://ktla.com/2019/07/05/powerful-7-1-quake-closes-highway-in-kern-county-scattered-reports-of-damage-in-ridgecrest-region/). The worst damage was on Highway 178 which is closed between Bakersfield and Lake Isabella. I don't know of any other closures.
Quote from: skluth on July 07, 2019, 08:58:10 PM
There was obviously road damage from the Ridgecrest quake. I'm hoping there won't be enough damage to warrant its own thread.
From KTLA - Rockslide Forces Closure of Kern County Highway Following Magnitude 7.1 Quake (https://ktla.com/2019/07/05/powerful-7-1-quake-closes-highway-in-kern-county-scattered-reports-of-damage-in-ridgecrest-region/). The worst damage was on Highway 178 which is closed between Bakersfield and Lake Isabella. I don't know of any other closures.
There was another section of 178 near Trona which had some damage also. Looking at the Quickmap it appears that CA 178 Kern River Canyon has reopened already. Aside from some damaged Navy Station roads in China Lake I haven't seen much remarkable damage.
Here's a random thought that I felt fit this thread:
What is the most important California state route that was never a US route (or Interstate)?
Obviously Route 99 and Route 58 are high up on the importance list for state routes but both are former US route corridors so it made me curious what the most important state-only corridor has been.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 08, 2019, 11:24:49 PM
Here's a random thought that I felt fit this thread:
What is the most important California state route that was never a US route (or Interstate)?
Obviously Route 99 and Route 58 are high up on the importance list for state routes but both are former US route corridors so it made me curious what the most important state-only corridor has been.
Some that come to mind for me which might include some multiplexes of US Routes/Interstate:
- CA 49 for the scenic and historic value in addition to a pretty rural but reasonable crossing of the Sierras via Yuba Pass.
- CA 88 (I don't count the temporary US 50 stuff as official) for the all-year weather pass in the Sierras.
- CA 41 always had a huge length and was the primary road into Yosemite National Park from the south.
- CA 89 for the length and access to places Lake Tahoe, Monitor Pass in addition to Lassen Volcanic National Park.
- CA 152 for the important crossing via Pacheco Pass and major roadway in San Joaquin Valley.
- CA 198 due to access for Sequoia National Park and becoming a major limited access roadway in San Joaquin Valley.
- CA 178 has huge significance importance with Walker Pass and all-year mountain crossing access. CA 178 was even more important when it extended all the way to San Margarita.
- CA 180 for being a major arterial road in Fresno, a planned Trans-Sierra Highway and primary access to Kings Canyon National Park.
- CA 140 for all year access to Yosemite on one of the newer corridors in the Sierras.
- CA 18 for access to places like Big Bear and being highly scenic.
- CA 138 was already an important State Highway before it extended through Cajon Pass over what was CA 2.
- CA 190 has a massive scale as a planned Trans-Sierra Highway on the Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road but even the constructed segment east of the Sierras is a primary access point for Mojave Desert.
^^
I'd certainly add the original section of CA-1 (Las Cruces to Leggett) to that list (short multiplexes of US-101 notwithstanding).
I think it isn't really possible to declare one the "most important", since the major N-S corridors are all current or former US or Interstate routes and, because of the shape of the state, the E-W corridors are all basically laterals, important to that section of California, but not to other sections several hundred miles to the north or south. Also, there are very few E-W single-route corridors that make it all the way from the coast, over the Coast Ranges, across the valley, over the Sierra, and into Nevada/Arizona.
But for the ones Max listed, I'd narrow them down to CA-88, CA-41, CA-152. I'd add CA-180 if it was ever completed to I-5.
I think CA 1, despite having a signed concurrency with I-280 and plans to make Park Presidio Blvd a freeway. Except for Point Reyes and its north end it follows much of the state coast and provides access to countless towns, beaches and parks. Economical and tourism wise, I'd say it's the most important. Definitely among the most scenic, and certainly the longest!
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2019, 11:59:18 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 08, 2019, 11:24:49 PM
Here's a random thought that I felt fit this thread:
What is the most important California state route that was never a US route (or Interstate)?
Obviously Route 99 and Route 58 are high up on the importance list for state routes but both are former US route corridors so it made me curious what the most important state-only corridor has been.
Some that come to mind for me which might include some multiplexes of US Routes/Interstate:
- CA 49 for the scenic and historic value in addition to a pretty rural but reasonable crossing of the Sierras via Yuba Pass.
- CA 88 (I don't count the temporary US 50 stuff as official) for the all-year weather pass in the Sierras.
- CA 41 always had a huge length and was the primary road into Yosemite National Park from the south.
- CA 89 for the length and access to places Lake Tahoe, Monitor Pass in addition to Lassen Volcanic National Park.
- CA 152 for the important crossing via Pacheco Pass and major roadway in San Joaquin Valley.
- CA 198 due to access for Sequoia National Park and becoming a major limited access roadway in San Joaquin Valley.
- CA 178 has huge significance importance with Walker Pass and all-year mountain crossing access. CA 178 was even more important when it extended all the way to San Margarita.
- CA 180 for being a major arterial road in Fresno, a planned Trans-Sierra Highway and primary access to Kings Canyon National Park.
- CA 140 for all year access to Yosemite on one of the newer corridors in the Sierras.
- CA 18 for access to places like Big Bear and being highly scenic.
- CA 138 was already an important State Highway before it extended through Cajon Pass over what was CA 2.
- CA 190 has a massive scale as a planned Trans-Sierra Highway on the Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road but even the constructed segment east of the Sierras is a primary access point for Mojave Desert.
I'd add CA 20 to that list; it comes close to making it clear across the state; provides egress from I-80 to much of the Sacramento Valley, serves several smaller population centers: Grass Valley/Nevada City, Marysville/Yuba City, Clear Lake, and Willits (and comes damn close to Ukiah).
CA 36 maybe as well? It hits some lonely areas but it gets across most of the state too.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 08, 2019, 11:24:49 PM
Here's a random thought that I felt fit this thread:
What is the most important California state route that was never a US route (or Interstate)?
Obviously Route 99 and Route 58 are high up on the importance list for state routes but both are former US route corridors so it made me curious what the most important state-only corridor has been.
CA 17 between San Jose and Santa Cruz.
Probably CA 152 between US 101 and I-5.
CA-76 and/or CA-78, perhaps.
Would CA 134 count? There are a few other SoCal freeways that qualify and might or might not be considered "important".
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2019, 11:08:31 AM
Would CA 134 count? There are a few other SoCal freeways that qualify and might or might not be considered "important".
State route freeways in general are an interesting case - outside of 99/58, most of them are not particularly lengthy, but certainly 134 is important, as is 55, 57, 24, 22, to name a few others.
29 is the main street of wine country pretty much, and 37 covers an important North Bay commute corridor.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2019, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2019, 11:08:31 AM
Would CA 134 count? There are a few other SoCal freeways that qualify and might or might not be considered "important".
State route freeways in general are an interesting case - outside of 99/58, most of them are not particularly lengthy, but certainly 134 is important, as is 55, 57, 24, 22, to name a few others.
29 is the main street of wine country pretty much, and 37 covers an important North Bay commute corridor.
I'd add the San Mateo Bridge portion of CA 92 -- probably also the Dumbarton Bridge portion of CA 84.
CA 49, more for the symbolic and tourist value. CA 1 from SLO to SF could also be included for those.
Gary
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 09, 2019, 08:48:05 AM
CA 36 maybe as well? It hits some lonely areas but it gets across most of the state too.
Between US 101 and I-5 CA 36's AADT is virtually negligible; but the remainder of the route is a main E-W path across the NE portion of the state. If taken in combination with CA 44 to the north, it's the pathway for much of the traffic from Reno to I-5. Interestingly, the 36/44/89 combination route from Susanville to I-5 at Mt. Shasta is a primary path for Reno-bound travelers from OR and WA, particularly non-adventurous types who want to stay on I-5 for as long as practical. The times I've used that corridor I observed plenty of WA and OR plates on vehicles -- especially RV's. Once particular Cadillac actually rear-ended me at the 89/299 intersection (on SB 89) back in the late '80's; it was a retired Navy noncom from the Bangor (WA) area who was, with his wife, heading toward Reno for some gambling & shows. Fortunately he was well insured!
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2019, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2019, 11:08:31 AM
Would CA 134 count? There are a few other SoCal freeways that qualify and might or might not be considered "important".
State route freeways in general are an interesting case - outside of 99/58, most of them are not particularly lengthy, but certainly 134 is important, as is 55, 57, 24, 22, to name a few others.
29 is the main street of wine country pretty much, and 37 covers an important North Bay commute corridor.
Colorado Street between figueroa and Pasadena was once part of us 66 so I think it's disqualified.
Nexus 5X
Quote from: mrsman on July 09, 2019, 08:13:50 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 09, 2019, 12:41:06 PM
Quote from: GaryA on July 09, 2019, 11:08:31 AM
Would CA 134 count? There are a few other SoCal freeways that qualify and might or might not be considered "important".
State route freeways in general are an interesting case - outside of 99/58, most of them are not particularly lengthy, but certainly 134 is important, as is 55, 57, 24, 22, to name a few others.
29 is the main street of wine country pretty much, and 37 covers an important North Bay commute corridor.
Colorado Street between figueroa and Pasadena was once part of us 66 so I think it's disqualified.
Nexus 5X
Yes, 66 would have been there first. Supposedly 134 was signed first in 1935 but I can't find it on any map publication until 1938.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 07:28:57 PM
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing. SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland. SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 07:28:57 PM
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing. SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland. SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.
You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip). Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond. By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state. Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras. Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line. I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 11:30:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 07:28:57 PM
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing. SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland. SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.
You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip). Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond. By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state. Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras. Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line. I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86
The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era. LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez. When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield. Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route. The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end. When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span. At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany. At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County. US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff. LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento.
Quote from: sparker on July 10, 2019, 03:26:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 11:30:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 07:28:57 PM
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing. SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland. SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.
You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip). Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond. By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state. Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras. Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line. I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86
The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era. LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez. When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield. Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route. The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end. When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span. At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany. At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County. US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff. LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento.
What was the approximate routing of LRN 14 east of today's Carquinez bridge - Pomona Street through Crockett and the Carquinez Scenic Road?
Quote from: TheStranger on July 10, 2019, 12:53:34 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 10, 2019, 03:26:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 11:30:12 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 09, 2019, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2019, 07:28:57 PM
I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built. CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it.
Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing. SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland. SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.
You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip). Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond. By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state. Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras. Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line. I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86
The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era. LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez. When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield. Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route. The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end. When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span. At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany. At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County. US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff. LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento.
What was the approximate routing of LRN 14 east of today's Carquinez bridge - Pomona Street through Crockett and the Carquinez Scenic Road?
Shown below on the 1935 Division of Highways map of Contra Costa County:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCalifornia%20Division%20of%20Highways%20contra%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2182%2C1636%2C619%2C1096
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
Interesting.
One example of a diverging diamond interchange is the interchange betwen I-15/84 and 1100 South near Brigham City, Utah.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4857482,-112.0524264,335m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2019, 06:45:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.
I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one. That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!). But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards! As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats!
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2019, 07:11:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2019, 06:45:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.
I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one. That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!). But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards! As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats!
Looking at Historic Aerials, the original junction here (between Eastshore Highway/US 40/Route 17 and Ashby Avenue/what was then Route 24) was a T intersection in 1946! By 1958 the current free-flowing ramp setup was in place; I wonder if this was designed to tie into the never-built portion of the Route 13 freeway between there and the Caldecott Tunnel area.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 19, 2019, 07:11:54 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 19, 2019, 06:45:27 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 19, 2019, 01:26:54 PM
San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php
I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.
I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one. That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!). But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards! As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats!
Looking at Historic Aerials, the original junction here (between Eastshore Highway/US 40/Route 17 and Ashby Avenue/what was then Route 24) was a T intersection in 1946! By 1958 the current free-flowing ramp setup was in place; I wonder if this was designed to tie into the never-built portion of the Route 13 freeway between there and the Caldecott Tunnel area.
The original free-flow interchange (the bridges carry a 1956 date) was probably intended to complement the divided "semi-expressway" nature of the west end of Ashby Ave., including its RIRO arrangement with intersecting streets as well as the underpass under the UP (former SP) rail line, which is constantly in use; a grade crossing would mean backups. Also, directly west of the interchange is the bay and directly south of that was & is the 80/580/880 interchange (back then 40/50/17), originally with a lot of merges that required changing lanes to stay on course, so the higher speeds intrinsic to the free-flow interchange meant that merging onto then-US 40 would be at a speed more optimal to getting across 2-4 lanes of freeway to get onto EB US 50 or SB CA 17. That's still a problem, particularly considering the fact that the intervening diamond exit to Emeryville gets a lot of use these days due to commercial growth adjacent to I-80, so there's a
lot of weaving and lane-changing involved from University Avenue south to the system interchange -- one of the contributing factors to the present almost 24/7 backup in that direction (that, and the metering lights on the Bay Bridge).
IIRC, the Berkeley section of CA 13 was only a part of the Freeway & Expressway system, unconstructed of course, until the early '80's; only the Warren Freeway segment south of CA 24 was limited access. If you've ever been around or dealt with Berkeley and its citizens, that would have been a moot point in any case -- to them, I-80 along their western edge is all the freeway they'll ever need or want! Even the Division of Highways in their '59-era "if it moves, pave it!" mode likely recognized the futility of trying to punch anything of the sort through that city.
A couple of Caltrans projects, one in D7, the other in D8, have received DEIS's and are set to proceed. One is a HUGE undertaking that will likely disrupt I-5 traffic north of L.A. for its duration: raising many of the underheight bridges along I-5 from CA 134 north all the way to the Templin (north) carriage-reversal bridge up on the Grapevine. They're going for 16'6" on the overcrossings, which will mean mostly teardown/rebuilds rather than RIP methods. Also included is beefing up some additional freeway-lane bridges, particularly the one over the L.A. River and WB CA 134 near Griffith Park. The details can be found at:
https:/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-22/html/2019-15500.htm
The second -- and this is something in the works for a while -- are connecting flyover ramps between the CA 91 express lanes and the planned express lanes on I-15 north from Corona to Ontario; this includes some modification of the 91 express lanes at and east of the 91/15 interchange. Details:
https:/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-22/html/2019-15499.htm
If these don't provide direct connections, they're in today's (7/22) AASHTO DTU in the Federal listings section at the end.
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
Article on a potential transportation tax in South San Francisco mentions two projects along US 101/Bayshore Freeway that are proposed:
- Utah Avenue overpass
- new flyover connecting 101 and 380, not sure which movement this covers as EB 380 to NB 101 and NB 101 to WB 380 are already flyovers, as is North Access Road to SB 101.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/businesses-criticize-south-city-transporation-tax-plan/article_4539352c-ac29-11e9-abe7-bba90c965e85.html
Found this related link too:
http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=13848
Quote from: skluth on July 23, 2019, 07:09:37 PM
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
It's going to be a big freaking mess. It's also going to be a big problem for the City of Jurupa Valley. Its tax base has always been iffy and now its biggest E-W arterial is being intermittently severed. Can't be good for their economy.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 23, 2019, 09:14:41 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 23, 2019, 07:09:37 PM
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
It's going to be a big freaking mess. It's also going to be a big problem for the City of Jurupa Valley. Its tax base has always been iffy and now its biggest E-W arterial is being intermittently severed. Can't be good for their economy.
It shouldn't be TOO bad, with the freeway only being shut down completely on weekends. This project is overdue anyway, with the high truck volume that's ruined the pavement.
QuoteThis project is overdue anyway
Of course, Caltrans, to justify the gas tax, is now scheduling all of the maintenance and upgrades they should have been doing over the last couple decades all at once. Thanks, state legislature!
I hope you're right, but I fear it will be a bigger concern for that region than it would have been if they'd been doing the upgrades along the way as they should have been.
Quote from: skluth on July 23, 2019, 07:09:37 PM
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.
In the last week or so, with the Warriors' move back to SF imminent, new signage for the San Francisco sports venues has been placed:
"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Use I-280 North" signage right after the Candlestick Park exit off US 101 north
"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Next 2 Exits" on the right side of 280 right where the ramp from 101 north meets it, albeit a bit hidden due to bridge supports for the double-deck viaduct. This is about a half mile before the ramp to Cesar Chavez Street, and an older AT&T Park Next 2 Exits sign remains on the left side of the roadway.
"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Next Exit" right before the offramp to Mariposa Street from 280 north
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 23, 2019, 07:09:37 PM
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.
Not many places where additional lanes would be practical outside of massive property taking -- the only relatively "open" territory CA 60 travels through between the San Gabriel Valley and Riverside are over the hill between Diamond Bar and Pomona (which feature truck-climbing lanes in addition to both GP and express lanes) and well east of I-15 in the Mira Loma/Jurupa Valley area. Between I-15 and the Santa Ana River crossing there would be a possibility of adding lanes on the north side of the freeway (and moving the median north to even out the WB and EB lanes); but while that stretch
does see congestion, the major problem on CA 60 is west of I-15, where it is hemmed in by residential & commercial development.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2019, 04:29:41 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2019, 05:42:52 PM
Quote from: skluth on July 23, 2019, 07:09:37 PM
CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM (https://www.chinohills.org/DocumentCenter/View/18595). West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.
They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.
Not many places where additional lanes would be practical outside of massive property taking -- the only relatively "open" territory CA 60 travels through between the San Gabriel Valley and Riverside are over the hill between Diamond Bar and Pomona (which feature truck-climbing lanes in addition to both GP and express lanes) and well east of I-15 in the Mira Loma/Jurupa Valley area. Between I-15 and the Santa Ana River crossing there would be a possibility of adding lanes on the north side of the freeway (and moving the median north to even out the WB and EB lanes); but while that stretch does see congestion, the major problem on CA 60 is west of I-15, where it is hemmed in by residential & commercial development.
True and real estate is prohibitively expensive. This is why elevated or below grade options need to be explored like the Dallas area freeways and notably 635. I would be in favor of toll lanes. It should also be noted this area is severely lacking in terms of mass transit.
^^^^^^^^^
Most of CA 60 between CA 71 and Archibald Ave. is either up on a berm or down in a trench; extensive surface running doesn't start until east of there; there are enough crossing arterials south of Pomona, Montclair, and west/central Ontario to have rendered a basic surface alignment largely infeasible.
Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.
https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs
LOS ANGELES (FOX 11) - Caltrans says it is actively working to have catwalks removed from freeway signs across District 7 -- Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
Standstill traffic is no surprise in Los Angeles. But it is a shock when it's caused by a shirtless protester. That's what happened in June 2018 when a dancing man protested by hanging posters from the 110 freeway sign's catwalk. It snarled morning traffic for hours.
It happens to be the exact same sign that someone tagged and spray-painted sometime before Monday morning, covering all the arrows and exits for drivers on a vital sign during the morning rush hour.
"We have the four-level connector there," said Eric Menjivar from Caltrans. "So that's one of our most important connectors."
The sign is so important, while Caltrans usually prefers to clean them at night, it was forced to clean up the graffiti before the afternoon rush.
"The sign up there is actually one of our newer signs with a protective film that we can easily clean off, depending on the paint that's been used," said Menjivar. "Usually we can get that done in a few hours and go about our day."
But sometimes that's only a temporary solution. So Caltrans wants to try something new.
Using money collected from the SB1 gas tax, the department plans to hire contractors to remove catwalks from those newer signs. They are highly reflective, so they don't require attached lights. It saves the California DOT money on utilities, but it also prevents anyone from climbing onto signs in the first place.
"The main motivation for us to upgrade signs is a sustainability practice," Menjivar added, "But the trade-off is that it becomes a graffiti deterrent."
It's a win for the environment and taxpayers' pockets.
The department still needs to bid the contract, but officials estimate the project should be completed within two years.
Caltrans says they send about $2 million each year to remove graffiti.
Regards,
Andy
www.aaroads.com
Quote from: andy3175 on August 02, 2019, 09:30:47 AM
Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.
https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs
LOS ANGELES (FOX 11) - Caltrans says it is actively working to have catwalks removed from freeway signs across District 7 -- Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
Standstill traffic is no surprise in Los Angeles. But it is a shock when it's caused by a shirtless protester. That's what happened in June 2018 when a dancing man protested by hanging posters from the 110 freeway sign's catwalk. It snarled morning traffic for hours.
It happens to be the exact same sign that someone tagged and spray-painted sometime before Monday morning, covering all the arrows and exits for drivers on a vital sign during the morning rush hour.
"We have the four-level connector there," said Eric Menjivar from Caltrans. "So that's one of our most important connectors."
The sign is so important, while Caltrans usually prefers to clean them at night, it was forced to clean up the graffiti before the afternoon rush.
"The sign up there is actually one of our newer signs with a protective film that we can easily clean off, depending on the paint that's been used," said Menjivar. "Usually we can get that done in a few hours and go about our day."
But sometimes that's only a temporary solution. So Caltrans wants to try something new.
Using money collected from the SB1 gas tax, the department plans to hire contractors to remove catwalks from those newer signs. They are highly reflective, so they don't require attached lights. It saves the California DOT money on utilities, but it also prevents anyone from climbing onto signs in the first place.
"The main motivation for us to upgrade signs is a sustainability practice," Menjivar added, "But the trade-off is that it becomes a graffiti deterrent."
It's a win for the environment and taxpayers' pockets.
The department still needs to bid the contract, but officials estimate the project should be completed within two years.
Caltrans says they send about $2 million each year to remove graffiti.
Regards,
Andy
www.aaroads.com
It's about time. The level of graffiti on highway signs in California is so bad. I've driven through bad neighborhoods in other states, that have graffiti all over the walls, but the highway signs are untouched. I'm glad CA is finally doing something about it.
Random: had cause on my way over to the Bay Area via I-80 to look for my favourite remainder postmile and it's still there, a holdover I-880 on present I-80 in north Sacramento at the I-5/I-80 interchange. I'll have to dig a picture of it out.
Quote from: mrsman on August 02, 2019, 11:09:00 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 02, 2019, 09:30:47 AM
Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.
https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs
<snipped article text>
It's about time. The level of graffiti on highway signs in California is so bad. I've driven through bad neighborhoods in other states, that have graffiti all over the walls, but the highway signs are untouched. I'm glad CA is finally doing something about it.
I'm surprised it's taken Caltrans this long to do start doing this...
In southern Nevada, NDOT removed catwalks from most sign bridges years ago for the very reason of deterring vandalism. Since most signs are still lit down there, they have installed a luminaire retrieval system so that workers can bring light fixtures over to the side of the road for maintenance instead of walking out over traffic to a light in a fixed position. The tracks used for these systems are fairly narrow, leaving vandals with less convenient walking access to the front of signs.
In northern Nevada, NDOT is increasingly using highly reflective signs that do not need separate lighting. As they install such signs, the bridge catwalks are removed.
EDIT: A youtube video showing how a luminaire retrieval system works.
https://youtu.be/Rwec269wyv4
Just a quick observation regarding Caltrans contract 08-1F3724, which was advertised this Monday, and is a very large sign replacement with about 166 sheets of sign panel details. There are, unfortunately, many misspellings (sheet numbers in parentheses):
Catheral City (15)
Aqua Caliente Indian Reservation (16)
Thousand Palm (22)
Bod Hope Dr (23)
Joshua Tree Natinal Park (35)
Ford Dry lake Rd (40)
Messa Drive (41-42)
Chiriaco Sumnit (57)
Elsinor (93)
Murrieta Hot Spring Rd (105, 134)
NEXT 2 EXIT (108)
I am a little perplexed as to how these errors have arisen since in most cases correct spellings are used for signs in the other direction. (The signs are grouped in a way that suggests progression in one direction to a turnaround point, then return along the other direction.)
This contract calls for in-kind replacement of "other Desert Cities" (capitalization revised to "Other . . .") and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 07, 2019, 01:06:03 AM
and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.
Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?
Quote from: SeriesE on August 07, 2019, 11:15:30 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on August 07, 2019, 01:06:03 AM. . . and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.
Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?
It is not. The sign to be replaced is located on northbound I-15 at postmile Riv-6.00, mounted to the SR 79 overpass. StreetView imagery from May 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5222659,-117.1625865,3a,63.7y,319.39h,89.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssGZfUeEWIqcQYA_w7JpsJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows framed button copy, so it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 08, 2019, 12:07:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 07, 2019, 11:15:30 PMQuote from: J N Winkler on August 07, 2019, 01:06:03 AM. . . and a stippled-arrow diagrammatic (without actual stippling) for the I-15/I-215 split.
Why is Caltrans replacing a practically brand new sign?
It is not. The sign to be replaced is located on northbound I-15 at postmile Riv-6.00, mounted to the SR 79 overpass. StreetView imagery from May 2019 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5222659,-117.1625865,3a,63.7y,319.39h,89.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssGZfUeEWIqcQYA_w7JpsJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) shows framed button copy, so it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.
Ahh I see. I thought it was referring to the sign right at the northern split.
Quoteso it presumably dates from the mid-1970's to about 2000.
That sign dates back to at least the first signage of I-215 (in those days it was "TO I-215") and I'm pretty sure it didn't have a 15E on it, so my guess is no earlier than 1982.
The errors in 08-1F3724 have been referenced in a bidder inquiry (http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/des/oe/inquiry/view.php?p=08-1F3724) and now addressed by Addendum 2. Each sign sketch that has been corrected has the incorrect legend off to the side (next to the addendum marker, consisting of "2" within an inverted triangle) to show what has changed.
Found a 1926 Rand McNally Map on David Rumsey browsing around which shows the early planned US Routes. US 48 is shown as US 42 and US 66 is shown as US 60:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~214296~5501628:California-Nevada,-City-of-Santa-An?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=233&trs=402
Interestingly it looks like US 99 was planned to be routed through Visalia (I think we have discussed this before) and there is no E/W split north of Sacramento. The route of US 50 isn't clearly marked west of Fallon but I don't buy that wasn't ever intended to follow the South Lincoln Highway to Sacramento. US 91 is shown ending at US 60 near Bannock out in the Mojave Desert.
By comparison the 1927 Rand McNally Map is much more familiar. US 99 is still shown as a singular route north of Sacramento and being routed through Sacramento:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~33770~1171486:California,-Nevada-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=312&trs=402
Jumping back to more well known State Highway Maps the 1918 addition clearly shows LRN 4 routed through Visalia.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239613~5511905:Road-Map-of-the-State-of-California?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20road;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=379&trs=402
BUT...the 1926 State Highway map shows a jump in LRN 4 away from Visalia south from Goshen to Tulare:
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239604~5511901:Map-Showing-State-Highway-System--C?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=79&trs=86
So begs an interesting question, did the ACSC initially route US 99 through Visalia? The ACSC certainly wasn't bound to sign routes on State Maintained Highways at the time (as evidenced by the fact the Division of Highways couldn't even maintain roads in cities until 1933) and there certainly seems to be some evidence that it was at least "planned" to go through Visalia.
^^^^^^^^^^^
If so, it would be the only instance where US 99 alignment deviated from the Southern Pacific Fresno Division tracks south of Manteca. The map does show the Tulare-Goshen direct trackside alignment as a secondary highway in any case; but state ownership/maintenance isn't indicated on these earlier maps, so there's no indication whether the direct route was to become a "bypass" or other bannered facility. Speaking of non-state routes being "promoted" with these maps, up through 1927 it looks like the Modesto-Crows Landing route (aka the CA 108 extension that has never been adopted or built on new alignment) was shown as part of a major route from Modesto to Pacheco Pass. Nevertheless, Visalia was one of the fastest-growing cities in the Valley back then due to being the center of the orange-growing region; it's not surprising that plans at the state system's inception included it as part of LRN 4; but it may be the same dynamic that later prompted the new-alignment I-5 on the west side of the valley that rerouted US 99 direct from Tulare to Goshen -- the notion of the major Valley route functioning more as a long-distance artery than as a local server; Visalia had to be content to be the junction of SSR's 63 & 198.
A lot of maps of the era promoted the route through Crows Landing. From Crow's Landing southward to CA 152 part of that highway did make it into the early alignment of LRN 41/CA 33. It can even be see on the 1934 State Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201918%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3425%2C6120%2C1039%2C1841
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2019, 09:43:21 PM
A lot of maps of the era promoted the route through Crows Landing. From Crow's Landing southward to CA 152 part of that highway did make it into the early alignment of LRN 41/CA 33. It can even be see on the 1934 State Highway Map:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201918%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=3425%2C6120%2C1039%2C1841
Actually, in that edition of the state map, roads marked as red were considered "high-grade improved" (likely meaning fully paved) regardless of who was responsible for maintenance. The current CA 33 (old LRN 41) is shown as a slightly heavier line intersecting (then) US 48 near Tracy; this would have been the original LRN 41 (at least according to the definition accompanying the map). While an early example of an intraregional paved road, there's no indication that in '34 Modesto to Crows Landing was ever under state maintenance or was at the time considered for inclusion in the state system. What it
did show was that the U.S. highways (the only ones cited on the map; this was published prior to the state numbering systems' finalization) were shown as the thickest of the red lines (and some "yellow", or suboptimal standard), separating them from "lesser" roads regardless of ownership or maintenance status; by that time, the main LRN 4 route had bypassed Visalia in favor of the direct Tulare-Goshen route generally followed today.
One hell of a haul this past weekend for road photos in Southern California. Some of the Gribblenation blogs will just be updated (such as CA 18 today) but I'll have a ton coming up on Riverside/San Bernardino Counties.
Old US 466 on Tehachapi Boulevard through Monolith
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHkX7CJ
- Cool section of former US Route, too bad the Sand Canyon Exit was closed to CA 58 eastbound traffic.
CA 14 from Mojave to Palmdale (this extends the previous album which was from Palmdale to I-5)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHm1hCD
- This gets a full photo clinch of the Antelope Valley Freeway. Really Mojave didn't feel like the slog I've remembered it to be...but it could be me just being irked by CA 138 in Palmdale.
Rebuilt Cajon Boulevard (Old US 66/91/395) south of Kenwood Avenue
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHmfKSb
- The alignment isn't exact to how the US Routes were but I can see a functional Cajon Boulevard as being extremely handy.
I-215 from CA 210 to I-15 (this extends the previous I-215 album from I-15 south to CA 210)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHmjmvy
- Its been years since I've been on the full route I-215. It feels surreal to see a full six lanes south of CA 60 to I-15.
CA 79 from I-15 to CA 371
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnoREz
- I needed a new way to get to CA 74 on the Pines to Palms Highway due to the closures east of Hemet and this was the ticket.
CA 371
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnqd5v
- Likewise it was nice to try out a full route I've never been on before this past trip. Somewhat scenic highway with what appeared to be an overload of traffic trying to get to Coachella Valley.
CA 74 Pines to Palms Highway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHnuurr
- This highway never disappoints with the huge drop into Coachella Valley. I don't know why it isn't valued more for it's scenery.
CA 111 Palm Springs
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMkE3
- I hit what is left of CA 111 in Palm Springs, most of my thoughts can be found in the Palm Springs thread.
CA 62 from I-10 to Joshua Tree
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMGZn
- I always enjoyed the climb over Morongo Valley through the San Bernardino Mountains. Its too bad I barely have recovered any of my older photos east of 29 Palms.
Pinto Basin Road (Joshua Tree National Park)
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/3214u2
- The latter part of the album below has all of Pinto Basin Road from Park Boulevard to Box Canyon Road. Pinto Basin Road is kind of a neat transition between the Mojave and Sonoran Deserts.
Box Canyon Road (Old US 60/70 and CA 195 II)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoMJzR
- Box Canyon Road was washed out this past winter and has been repaved. It was nice to have a smooth ride through Box Canyon for once on fresh pavement, it made it way easier to appreciate the obvious uplift in the rock formations. Interestingly I did notice the newer CA 111 signage on 66th Avenue in Mecca tends to imply that CA 111 is continuous through to Palm Springs when it clear isn't anymore.
Former CA 231
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5fgV
- Really nothing too exciting, just a straight line jog on 66th Avenue between what was CA 195 and CA 86.
CA 86 Coachella Valley Expressway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5pcL
- This alignment is highly functional to what CA 86 and CA 111 used to be. CA 111 is briefly co-signed north of 66th Avenue before disappearing before 62nd Avenue.
1923 Whitewater Bridge
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHp5v83
- I wasn't able to cross the Whitewater Bridge due to a BLM ordered closure but did get some photos of it along with the old US 60/70/99 early era concrete road surface in Whitewater.
I-10 from CA 86 to CA 60
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/4N9881
- Really not much has changed with I-10. I did stop to see the Cabazon Dinosaurs in an attempt to replicate Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Wizard (my wife has the video).
CA 243 Banning
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoUHZ4
- I was hoping to get a couple miles up the Panoramic Highway but Caltrans has a gate manned to filter local traffic only.
CA 60/Old US 60 from I-10 to CA 91
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpaWe5
- The covered US 60 shield at I-10 west is still present. Right now the Moreno Valley Badlands are going through a widening so a lot of the terrain is being worked over with some pretty strictly enforced 55 MPH zones.
CA 18 from CA 138 to CA 138 (continuation of my CA 18 from CA 210 to CA 138 album)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpNmPe
- CA 18 really speaks for itself with the Rim of the World Highway segment and drop to the Mojave Desert from Bear Valley. I made a stop at the California Route 66 Museum in Victorville for good measure.
CA 189
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHpbeLz
- CA 189 has a neat story given it was LRN 189 before 1964. There isn't much more to find here, interestingly the route isn't signed from either CA 18 or CA 173.
CA 173 in Lake Arrowhead
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHoWoXY
- I just took CA 173 from CA 18 to Lake Arrowhead Village. In retrospect I should have gone all the way to the dirt surface closure but I did get it from the other side via CA 138 in May.
Ah, memories...I used to live off of the Box Springs/Fair Isle exit on the 60 in MoVal.
My brother & parents still live in the area.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php
QuoteCaltrans officials have one word to describe the planned rebuild of a deck of Highway 101 at Alemany Circle, north of the interchange with I-280: "Carmageddon."
The $25 million project, scheduled to take place in July, affects a spaghetti tangle of freeway often called the "Alemany Maze," with spiraling ramps to connect 101 with 280. Like a tentacled octopus, it stretches north to the Bay Bridge and south to Daly City and San Francisco International Airport, with prongs swooshing in every direction.
Built in 1950, it's starting to decay, with rebar rusting and concrete crumbling beneath the roadbed. Caltrans workers say they can't keep doing one patch job after another.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/06/04/32/18368185/9/640x0.jpg)
Quote from: Kniwt on October 03, 2019, 01:23:08 PM
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php
Caltrans has a project page about this:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-101alemanyproject
As well as a video simulation of the closure stages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Xe8Gl-UEE
Jesus, can we stop with the "Carmageddon" taglines? It never happens: WA-99 in Seattle, the 405 in Los Angeles, etc.
Oh, and inb4 "this is different".
Quote from: Kniwt on October 03, 2019, 01:23:08 PM
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Caltrans will remove and rebuild part of US 101 in San Francisco next July, almost certainly leading to huge backups:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/You-ve-been-warned-Carmageddon-is-coming-14487298.php
QuoteCaltrans officials have one word to describe the planned rebuild of a deck of Highway 101 at Alemany Circle, north of the interchange with I-280: "Carmageddon."
The $25 million project, scheduled to take place in July, affects a spaghetti tangle of freeway often called the "Alemany Maze," with spiraling ramps to connect 101 with 280. Like a tentacled octopus, it stretches north to the Bay Bridge and south to Daly City and San Francisco International Airport, with prongs swooshing in every direction.
Built in 1950, it's starting to decay, with rebar rusting and concrete crumbling beneath the roadbed. Caltrans workers say they can't keep doing one patch job after another.
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/06/04/32/18368185/9/640x0.jpg)
So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on... :sombrero:
Quote from: SeriesE on October 07, 2019, 08:41:35 PM
So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on... :sombrero:
I wouldn't say that NB 280 to US 101 as a left exit is "terrible" for two reasons:
- This was the original US 101 mainline route before 1964, but more importantly...
- This is generally the flow of traffic anyway for those heading from Daly City and Pacifica to the Bay Bridge (as not everyone knows to use 280 to 6th and then to Bryant, which actually can be easier at many times of day).
As for the actual circle where Alemany Boulevard and 101 meet up, yeah, that set of ramps is messy (I'm surprised this isn't being converted to a more conventional design).
Quote from: TheStranger on October 07, 2019, 08:46:32 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 07, 2019, 08:41:35 PM
So the terrible left exits and other tight ramps in the area are staying the same. Nothing to see, moving on... :sombrero:
I wouldn't say that NB 280 to US 101 as a left exit is "terrible" for two reasons:
- This was the original US 101 mainline route before 1964, but more importantly...
- This is generally the flow of traffic anyway for those heading from Daly City and Pacifica to the Bay Bridge (as not everyone knows to use 280 to 6th and then to Bryant, which actually can be easier at many times of day).
As for the actual circle where Alemany Boulevard and 101 meet up, yeah, that set of ramps is messy (I'm surprised this isn't being converted to a more conventional design).
Well I'd say ramp reconfigurations are outside the scope of this project anyway. They're really just replacing those two mainline bridges due to structural deficiencies, as opposed to looking at a redesign of the whole interchange...
The Daily Post of Palo Alto reports that city officials in East Palo Alto are considering imposing congestion pricing on University Avenue (part of which is unsigned CA 109).
https://padailypost.com/2019/10/21/east-palo-alto-looking-into-making-university-avenue-a-toll-road/
QuoteCommuters who use University Avenue in East Palo Alto may have to pay to use the road if city officials decide to continue down the path of a toll for the road.
East Palo Alto's City Council last week discussed ways to reduce and manage traffic in the town, and one of the options discussed was whether to have a type of toll, called congestion pricing, on University Avenue as a way to deter commuters.
... East Palo Alto officials have not picked which option they would like to pursue, but many obstacles still stand in the way of being able to enact such a plan.
... According to consultant Michelle Hunt, local agencies cannot charge for people to use a public road unless given permission by the legislature.
Quote from: Kniwt on October 23, 2019, 11:12:23 PM
The Daily Post of Palo Alto reports that city officials in East Palo Alto are considering imposing congestion pricing on University Avenue (part of which is unsigned CA 109).
https://padailypost.com/2019/10/21/east-palo-alto-looking-into-making-university-avenue-a-toll-road/
QuoteCommuters who use University Avenue in East Palo Alto may have to pay to use the road if city officials decide to continue down the path of a toll for the road.
East Palo Alto's City Council last week discussed ways to reduce and manage traffic in the town, and one of the options discussed was whether to have a type of toll, called congestion pricing, on University Avenue as a way to deter commuters.
... East Palo Alto officials have not picked which option they would like to pursue, but many obstacles still stand in the way of being able to enact such a plan.
... According to consultant Michelle Hunt, local agencies cannot charge for people to use a public road unless given permission by the legislature.
If that's the case then East Palo Alto really ought to take over the Caltrans maintained portion of the roadway which technically isn't even their city limits.
^^^^^^^^
The only part of the whole University Avenue facility that is state-maintained as CA 109 is the portion just south of CA 84 down through the old RR crossing; once it exits open land into housing it passes into local jurisdiction. 109 wouldn't exist in the field without the state-constructed University extension, intended to provide access to the Dumbarton Bridge from the south. D4 has no intention of assuming ownership/maintenance of University Avenue down to US 101 -- and it's pretty clear the city of East Palo Alto wasn't too keen about the extension to begin with; they never liked the idea of through traffic traipsing through their town. And since the CA 114 extension to El Camino Real/CA 82 was NIMBY'd to death back in the '80's, a lot of the traffic headed for Stanford and the business area south of the university along Page Mill Road (where HP has their HQ as well as numerous administrative and design facilities) now takes the "shortcut" through EPA. And since it's arguably cheaper to live on the east side of the bay compared with the Peninsula, Dumbarton has become one of the more notorious chokepoints in the region. So the fact that a quarter-mile or so of University Avenue is actually CA 109 is in reality irrelevant; that corridor simply provides the shortest way from employment centers to what is marginally more affordable housing (but a location where the housing supply is actually increasing, particularly right along the east side of the bay in Newark and Union City -- but nevertheless few bargains are to be found!). So EPA is currently SOL -- and legally there's little they can do about it aside from even more drastic traffic-calming measures along East University Avenue.
Nonetheless if another agency went to Caltrans dangling the carrot of removing more urban surface mileage I'm sure that is one they would gladly try to take the legislature. Congestion pricing isn't going to solve the traffic problem on University but it would fund it's maintenance. As much as I disagree with rolling surface roads (Lombard Street being a major exception) it seems like it is really just inevitable now in the Bay Area with all the limited capacity and even more limited capacity to do anything about it. Of course East Palo Alto would need to annex the rest of University up to CA 84... And let's not forget a certain internet company sure hasn't helped traffic flow on CA 109, 84, and 114 by sticking their headquarters there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 24, 2019, 08:09:14 AM
Nonetheless if another agency went to Caltrans dangling the carrot of removing more urban surface mileage I'm sure that is one they would gladly try to take the legislature. Congestion pricing isn't going to solve the traffic problem on University but it would fund it's maintenance. As much as I disagree with rolling surface roads (Lombard Street being a major exception) it seems like it is really just inevitable now in the Bay Area with all the limited capacity and even more limited capacity to do anything about it. Of course East Palo Alto would need to annex the rest of University up to CA 84... And let's not forget a certain internet company sure hasn't helped traffic flow on CA 109, 84, and 114 by sticking their headquarters there.
Under "normal" circumstances Caltrans would have zero issues with ceding their surface-street property to whatever local jurisdiction that applied for the "privilege" of assuming maintenance --
as long as that jurisdiction also assumed any transitional costs such as exchange of technical information, inspections, certifications -- things that combined can sometimes run into the millions, depending upon the size of the transferred property -- one thing that has in some cases stopped the transfer in its tracks. Cities and counties that aren't in dire financial straits can take this in stride (like L.A. assuming maintenance of Lincoln Ave./former CA 1 in Venice) -- but this certainly doesn't apply to EPA, which has one of the lowest tax bases in San Mateo County. Since the sole reason CA 109 was commissioned in the first place was as a Dumbarton-Palo Alto connecting piece as part of the reconfiguration of the west Dumbarton approach network -- and the state-maintained length is only a few hundred yards, this would be one of those exceptions where Caltrans would simply do the necessary paperwork and hand title over to EPA or San Mateo County, depending upon the city boundaries (haven't been up there for a couple or years, so I don't know precisely where EPA's city limits are delineated in relation to CA 109 -- that wasn't on my radar at the time). In any case, it would be Caltrans who would make the first move regarding relinquishment; no "carrot" necessary here. The issue with tolling of a surface street deals with both logistics and access
plus having the necessary funds to implement -- and enforce -- the concept. Locals, of course, would need to be exempt from the tolling; because of the relative ease of "shunstreeting", so to speak, some sort of access control to University Ave. would need to be installed (which may arouse the ire of local residents). The only relatively simple way to implement some sort of "congestion pricing" would be to set up a transponder/plate-reader system
on the former CA 109 connector from the city up to CA 84! -- essentially a "commuter gauntlet" intended to put tariffs on those who actually use that stretch of road to get to the Dumbarton Bridge (with locals still being exempted). It could be operative during the same peak periods applied to express/HOV lanes in the area: 5-9 am and 3-7 pm; FasTrack responders could be utilized; otherwise one's plate would be read and a bill sent out. But the installation of this would likely have to be heavily subsidized by Caltrans or other state entity; doing so on its own would likely put a big and untenable hole in EPA's budget. As I see it, something like this is the only realistic way of implementing any form of controls -- punitive or pricing -- in this particular situation.
Notre Dame Avenue is the present point where Caltrans owner CA 109 begins north to CA 84. What's interesting rereading the back story of 109 is that there has been a recommendation to EPA at least once that they relinquish the rest of University to US 101 to Caltrans, talk about a deviation from the regular norm. Regardless of there was congestion pricing or whoever maintains University it is now a route to the Dumbarton Bridge. The only real solution would be to get a fully limited access connection between US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge. That said 84, 109 and 114 lie on some very expensive developed land that which wouldn't fit the criteria for acquisition. Looking at the surrounding terrain there doesn't appear to be an answer to relieving the traffic woes to any community with access to the Dumbarton Bridge.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 24, 2019, 12:27:11 PM
Notre Dame Avenue is the present point where Caltrans owner CA 109 begins north to CA 84. What's interesting rereading the back story of 109 is that there has been a recommendation to EPA at least once that they relinquish the rest of University to US 101 to Caltrans, talk about a deviation from the regular norm. Regardless of there was congestion pricing or whoever maintains University it is now a route to the Dumbarton Bridge. The only real solution would be to get a fully limited access connection between US 101 and the Dumbarton Bridge. That said 84, 109 and 114 lie on some very expensive developed land that which wouldn't fit the criteria for acquisition. Looking at the surrounding terrain there doesn't appear to be an answer to relieving the traffic woes to any community with access to the Dumbarton Bridge.
At this point, the only feasible route for a limited-access route to US 101 would be essentially an upgrade of CA 84 -- but that would only expedite traffic heading for Redwood City and points north and west of there; it wouldn't relieve any traffic heading to Palo Alto or points directly south. Of course, a southeast bypass of EPA connecting with US 101 at the Oregon Expressway (county G3) would be optimal for that traffic pattern -- but AFAIK nothing of the sort has ever been proposed; the deletion, decades ago, of the basic CA 87 corridor up the west side of the bay gave an indication that Caltrans isn't particularly interested in any facility that requires construction in the bay's wetlands -- and a bypass around the east and south sides of EPA would certainly be an incursion into that territory. And the observation as to the placement of "Zuckerbergland" along East Willow (CA 114) has created a problem inasmuch as the facility is an employment magnet that just happens to be located at the collection point of a regional chokepoint (Dumbarton, of course). But it seems Mark Z. had the $$ to essentially locate where he wanted, regardless of the consequences. And yes, it's convenient to Facebook employees who locate in the East Bay for those relatively smallish savings in housing.
This observation only takes into account current attitudes by the parties involved -- but down the line, it may be increasingly difficult to
not plan some sort of additional access to Dumbarton from the major employment centers (after all, Google is located between 101 and the bay only a couple of exits south of Palo Alto). And since many of the major regional employers (besides the two already cited) seem to have staked out territory east of US 101 (the "classic Silicon Valley" area flanking Central Expressway was functionally built out decades ago and that swath of land features much of the remaining open space), there might be pressure for more access corridors along the bay's southern reaches, wetland incursions or not. This is something that may take decades to shake out -- and there's likely to be well-publicized conflicts between environmentalists and the tech firms dangling their feet in the Bay.
https://abc7news.com/grass-fire-closes-i-80-in-vallejo-at-carquinez-bridge/5651188/ (https://abc7news.com/grass-fire-closes-i-80-in-vallejo-at-carquinez-bridge/5651188/)
A fire is reported at the Carquinez Bridge.
https://twitter.com/USDOTFHWA/status/1188900792905932800
http://southtahoenow.com/story/10/29/2019/new-segment-state-route-89-tahoe-city-opens (http://southtahoenow.com/story/10/29/2019/new-segment-state-route-89-tahoe-city-opens)
Next up, the replacement of the old 1920s Fanny Bridge upstream, a project that's now scheduled for work in 2021.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 30, 2019, 02:36:37 PM
https://twitter.com/USDOTFHWA/status/1188900792905932800
http://southtahoenow.com/story/10/29/2019/new-segment-state-route-89-tahoe-city-opens (http://southtahoenow.com/story/10/29/2019/new-segment-state-route-89-tahoe-city-opens)
Next up, the replacement of the old 1920s Fanny Bridge upstream, a project that's now scheduled for work in 2021.
Is the Fanny Bridge being rebuilt or is it a completely new structure? On the Tahoe Transportion website they use the term "rebuilt" which I took to mean the existing bridge would be still be utilized.
The FHWA project page (https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/ca/truckee/) uses the word "replacement" and I've understood that to mean complete removal of the existing structure.
QuoteWork to construct a new roundabout at the wye intersection, replacement of the Fanny Bridge, and rebuilding SR 89 between the Fanny Bridge and new Transit Center entrance may begin in Spring 2021 and completed by Fall 2022. FLAP funds have been programmed to complete the remaining work and require a 21.5% local match to be provided. This work will be repackaged in a new contract pending the availability of funding.
As stated there, that's a separate contract, and I suppose if any portion of the existing bridge is to remain that will be stated in that contract.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 30, 2019, 03:15:21 PM
The FHWA project page (https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/projects/ca/truckee/) uses the word "replacement" and I've understood that to mean complete removal of the existing structure.
QuoteWork to construct a new roundabout at the wye intersection, replacement of the Fanny Bridge, and rebuilding SR 89 between the Fanny Bridge and new Transit Center entrance may begin in Spring 2021 and completed by Fall 2022. FLAP funds have been programmed to complete the remaining work and require a 21.5% local match to be provided. This work will be repackaged in a new contract pending the availability of funding.
As stated there, that's a separate contract, and I suppose if any portion of the existing bridge is to remain that will be stated in that contract.
The "Fanny Bridge" is unique in that the weir that regulates the Lake Tahoe outflow into the Truckee River is immediately adjacent to the bridge. I wonder if a pedestrian (and possibly bike) facility will be rebuilt in that location, which would retain the tourist attraction to the location.
Here are some observations I've made after being in California for several months:
- There seem to be a lot of "undulations" and "speed tables" in the Sacramento area.
- Most left turn signals I've encountered are protected. Most multi-lane roads I've been on have one signal controlling multiple lanes
- California loves standalone signals on the left and right side of a road
- Most signals I've seen around Sacramento are pole mounted. In Buffalo they're usually string mounted.
- There are almost always reflector bumps on the road
- The infrastructure in general feels cleaner, but then I remind myself that CA doesn't take the same kind of abuse that roads in Upstate NY do
- The street blades are always informative and decorative no matter where you go. They'll say the street name, neighborhood, etc., and they're not just a standard green or blue
I'm missing a lot, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head.
Also, these are the most interesting signal heads I've ever seen:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watt+Ave,+North+Highlands,+CA+95660/@38.6567596,-121.3827586,3a,75y,26.99h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbYYpIjiMY0cb_Z1j_RaYbg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x809ad8e21d80dc0b:0x5812a0cd7cb77b7b
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 10, 2019, 12:41:18 AM
- Most left turn signals I've encountered are protected. Most multi-lane roads I've been on have one signal controlling multiple lanes
- California loves standalone signals on the left and right side of a road
- Most signals I've seen around Sacramento are pole mounted. In Buffalo they're usually string mounted.
To address these in order,
*(1a) I don't know why CA is so obsessed with protected-only lefts. There are many in WA as well, but far less than CA. It's really quite strange.
*(1b) CA generally prefers to spread out their signals, placing them on corners more often that most states, and generally using only one or two overhead signals, even with 2, 3, or 4+ through lanes. But there's almost always at least three through signals so it evens out just fine.
*(2) as I said above, the signals are more spread out. Many states cram everything overhead, but CA prefers spacing them out from left to right. Very few spots where you can't see a signal, which is the goal.
*(3) CA has used "mast arm" signals for a very long time. Span-wire signals are exceedingly rare. Of all states, they may have been using mast arms the longest.
Does anyone know what the status is of Mulholland HGWY in Malibu between Cornell Rd. And Kanan? It has been closed for a year now. No doubt due to the storms and fires last season but why has it taken this long?
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 10, 2019, 12:41:18 AM
Also, these are the most interesting signal heads I've ever seen:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watt+Ave,+North+Highlands,+CA+95660/@38.6567596,-121.3827586,3a,75y,26.99h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbYYpIjiMY0cb_Z1j_RaYbg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x809ad8e21d80dc0b:0x5812a0cd7cb77b7b
For me, it's an interesting array of mast arms and other signal mountings.
I've always been curious about these mast arms that curve down for the overhead left turn signals to hang lower above the median. There's a couple areas in northern California I've seen this (possibly just in or around Sacramento). It's very unique, but also seems like these would be more susceptible to damage. I guess I just am curious about that design choice.
Quote from: roadfro on November 10, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 10, 2019, 12:41:18 AM
Also, these are the most interesting signal heads I've ever seen:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watt+Ave,+North+Highlands,+CA+95660/@38.6567596,-121.3827586,3a,75y,26.99h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbYYpIjiMY0cb_Z1j_RaYbg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x809ad8e21d80dc0b:0x5812a0cd7cb77b7b
For me, it's an interesting array of mast arms and other signal mountings.
I've always been curious about these mast arms that curve down for the overhead left turn signals to hang lower above the median. There's a couple areas in northern California I've seen this (possibly just in or around Sacramento). It's very unique, but also seems like these would be more susceptible to damage. I guess I just am curious about that design choice.
It is unique. I think the reason for this type of design was that it was an improvement over the old design of putting the turn signal in the median. This was very common throughout CA, but it got phased out as they saw that too many cars and trucks were striking them. I think the signal designers understand that straight traffic will need a higer signal than turning traffic, since straight traffic is going faster and they need to see the signal from further away. So in a way, this is a way to have the signal low without being mounted in the median.
Later designs proved that this wasn't necessary, so most left turn signals are on regular mast arms. But for whatever reason, there are quite a few remaining in Sacramento.
Quote from: roadfro on November 10, 2019, 03:21:32 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on November 10, 2019, 12:41:18 AM
Also, these are the most interesting signal heads I've ever seen:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Watt+Ave,+North+Highlands,+CA+95660/@38.6567596,-121.3827586,3a,75y,26.99h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sbYYpIjiMY0cb_Z1j_RaYbg!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x809ad8e21d80dc0b:0x5812a0cd7cb77b7b
For me, it's an interesting array of mast arms and other signal mountings.
I've always been curious about these mast arms that curve down for the overhead left turn signals to hang lower above the median. There's a couple areas in northern California I've seen this (possibly ju st in or around Sacramento). It's very unique, but also seems like these would be more susceptible to damage. I guess I just am curious about that design choice.
Yes I've seen those as well. Very unique.
Spent some time updating and/or expanding my photo logs in the Bay Area this weekend:
CA 37
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJid49X
- Two years ago I didn't really have a full chance at Blood Alley when I last drove CA 37. Really this highway might be the absolute worst in the Bay Area and really needs at minimum a full resurfacing. The causeway west of the Napa River west to Sears Point is always interesting north of San Pablo Bay.
I-80 east from CA 4 over the 1958 Carquinez Bridge to CA 37
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJi6nVx
I-80 west from CA 29 over 2003 Carquinez Bridge to Cummings Skyway
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJjru2J
- No more active fires, lots of burn damage and cool bridge views. I'll have something coming up for US 40 and the Benecia-Martinez Ferry soon.
CA 4 west of I-680 to I-80
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJi4LJX
- I'll be fleshing this one out from I-5 in Stockton in a week or two.
I-680 from I-580 to CA 4
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJigszt
- This was a fleshing out of a previous blog I did on the Martinez Bridges.
I-580 west from I-5 to the I-580 Truck Bypass Lanes
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJi74sx
- Again this is an expansion of a previous blog I started from I-205.
I-5 West Side Freeway from CA 152 to I-580
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJjnvUb
- I've been gradually working on getting a complete photolog from CA 99 northbound to I-580. I'll probably start the blog on the history of the West Side Freeway since I have the northbound photos from CA 198 to I-580.
1938 Western Pacific Overpass of I-580 in Altamont Pass
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJjCGc5
- I've been looking into doing a rail history of Altamont Pass to go along with the Lincoln Highway/US 48/US 50 stuff I did earlier on Gribblenation.
CA 116 from US 101 to CA 121
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJjD3uV
- I wanted to try something new that didn't include a rush hour commute in the Bay Area or involved CA 37. Nothing too special here but the portion on Stage Gulch Road is neat to look at.
CA 221
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmJjtFVz
- This one is a photo expansion for the existing CA 221 blog already upon Gribblenation. I got a couple better shots of the CA 221 shield on CA 121 eastbound.
I also have a short album for CA 29 from Napa south to I-80 that I'll be adding by year end. I want to say after that I'll really haven't covered in the Bay Area (aside from briefly in the CA 17 blog) will be I-880.
Caltrans will be closing gates on CA 1 at a couple spots in Monterey County (https://www.montereyherald.com/2019/11/12/caltrans-to-resume-preemptive-closures-of-highway-1-south-of-big-sur-during-large-storms/) when significant storms are approaching this winter. Check before you go!
QuoteCaltrans will notify the public 48 hours before any potential closure to give the public time to prepare, stock up on necessary supplies and make alternate travel plans before then either confirming the closure 24 hours prior or providing new information.
The closures will take place at Mud Creek, about 9 miles north of the Monterey/San Luis Obispo county border, and Paul's Slide, which is about 13 miles north of Mud Creek.
...
"It might be another couple years (before the end of the preemptive closures)," Cruz said. "We're just kind of taking it a year at a time, or a winter at a time, to see how the slope settles."
Quote from: gonealookin on November 13, 2019, 04:54:10 PM
Caltrans will be closing gates on CA 1 at a couple spots in Monterey County (https://www.montereyherald.com/2019/11/12/caltrans-to-resume-preemptive-closures-of-highway-1-south-of-big-sur-during-large-storms/) when significant storms are approaching this winter. Check before you go!
QuoteCaltrans will notify the public 48 hours before any potential closure to give the public time to prepare, stock up on necessary supplies and make alternate travel plans before then either confirming the closure 24 hours prior or providing new information.
The closures will take place at Mud Creek, about 9 miles north of the Monterey/San Luis Obispo county border, and Paul's Slide, which is about 13 miles north of Mud Creek.
...
"It might be another couple years (before the end of the preemptive closures)," Cruz said. "We're just kind of taking it a year at a time, or a winter at a time, to see how the slope settles."
That's what the Nacimiento-Fergusson Road is for. Southbound out of Monterey you get the best part of CA 1 in Big Sur plus the kick ass ascent to Jolon over the Santa Lucia Mountains.
The Desert Sun of Palm Springs reports that the Roy's sign in Amboy (Old US 66) will be relit for the first time since the 1980s.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/2019/11/14/roys-motel-and-cafe-sign-again-light-up-amboy-off-route-66/2581173001/
QuoteThe ghost town is anchored by Roy's, a service station for tourists traveling along the highway. After it opened in 1938, owner Roy Crawl teamed up with Herman "Buster" Burris to grow the business to a 24-hour motel with six cottages, a café and a gas station. Amboy grew to 700 with a school and a post office.
But after Interstate 40 opened in 1973, it was the beginning of the end for the small town.
... Albert Okura spent $100,000 to restore the Roy's Motel and Café buildings and reopened the gas station in 2008. Five years later, he began seeking donations through Kickstarter to restore the famous neon sign that lit up the night sky in Amboy for miles.
On Saturday, there will be a relighting celebration for the sign that has not been turned on since the '80s.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/1ebfb9d4bcf112be4fa0e0375f0a404aebe6bcba/c=222-0-1978-1320/local/-/media/2018/09/17/USATODAY/USATODAY/636727748409013367-calif-p.106-107-ItsaGas-RalphGraef--rs.jpg)
While they're at it maybe they can light up that rusting embossed US 66 shield on the white support beam below "Roy's."
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 10, 2019, 05:55:59 AM
Does anyone know what the status is of Mulholland HGWY in Malibu between Cornell Rd. And Kanan? It has been closed for a year now. No doubt due to the storms and fires last season but why has it taken this long?
They lost a bridge in the area of Troutdale -- see http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_f8c4e4d4-8559-11e9-9cbb-2b76e59516a6.html . It just reopened, but is one lane with phase control. But that looks to be temporary, and is likely just for residents. There's an article dated 10 days ago that indicates there will be a permanent replacement: https://supervisorkuehl.com/bridge-destroyed-by-2018-woolsey-fire-to-be-replaced/ . My guess is that the affected portion of Mulholland will be closed to general traffic until there is that permanent replacement.
According to https://dpw.lacounty.gov/roadclosures/, Kanan Dume appears to be open.
Also, according to that site, Mulholland is closed from Little Sycamore to PCH. That's some of the worst hit areas, and I'm guessing the road was undermined. I went to a summer camp in that area (at Yerba Buena and PCH) that was 98% destroyed by the fire; they don't expect to be rebuilt for another 3 years! (Temporary camp is at CSUCI). I did some searching, but couldn't find any articles with the specifics on the closures.
^^^ Thank you for the information. That certainly makes to keep the road closed off until the full bridge opens. I am in this area all the time and I'm watching this bridge construction closely. For some reason I had assumed the bridge would be partially built and traffic shifted to the half built bridge. It doesn't look like there is room but I will drive back by there and have a look.
They seem to be taking their sweet time. The projects on Kanan south of Mulholland still are not finished either.
Today I noticed some newly installed Interstate signs, I figure it would be worth sharing.
I believe the old signs were graffitied as opposed to a large signing project. What I noticed about these new signs is the numbers are larger and the state name is printed differently. This was at the Ocean Ave interchange for I-280 at SF. To compare this, I also took a photo of the freeway entrance sign at the Bosworth Street interchange a mile north and sure enough it has not been replaced recently. Are these signs the kind that Caltrans are installing throughout the state or a one-off?
(https://i.imgur.com/Mk3S86o.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pbryUtR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uTcwxWF.jpg)
Quote from: Techknow on November 18, 2019, 09:23:24 PM
Today I noticed some newly installed Interstate signs, I figure it would be worth sharing.
I believe the old signs were graffitied as opposed to a large signing project. What I noticed about these new signs is the numbers are larger and the state name is printed differently. This was at the Ocean Ave interchange for I-280 at SF. To compare this, I also took a photo of the freeway entrance sign at the Bosworth Street interchange a mile north and sure enough it has not been replaced recently. Are these signs the kind that Caltrans are installing throughout the state or a one-off?
(https://i.imgur.com/Mk3S86o.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pbryUtR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uTcwxWF.jpg)
Those jumbo interstate signs are in Fairfield, CA on I-80 entrance ramps at the Air Base Parkway entrance.
The top two are probably local install jobs. They lack the "property of the State of California" at the bottom.
I noticed this flashing yellow arrow-equipped intersection in Burbank just recently:
https://goo.gl/maps/4z6YSWCpmN6PQPUQ7 (only two of the four approaches....quite strange).
Are there any other flashing yellow arrows in the Valley? This one has been in-place for some time, and both replaced protected-only left turns.
EDIT: Found this webpage (https://www.burbankca.gov/what-s-new/yellow-flashing-arrow-turn-signals) from the city of Burbank. Looks like the city has quite a few, and the above FYA was the very first.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 19, 2019, 08:51:47 PM
The top two are probably local install jobs. They lack the "property of the State of California" at the bottom.
Ah that's a good point, I forgot about that tag/inscription. According to GSV the shields that were replaced did have it, perhaps the city decided to take initiative in replacing them.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2019, 06:55:24 PM
I noticed this flashing yellow arrow-equipped intersection in Burbank just recently:
https://goo.gl/maps/4z6YSWCpmN6PQPUQ7 (only two of the four approaches....quite strange).
Are there any other flashing yellow arrows in the Valley? This one has been in-place for some time, and both replaced protected-only left turns.
EDIT: Found this webpage (https://www.burbankca.gov/what-s-new/yellow-flashing-arrow-turn-signals) from the city of Burbank. Looks like the city has quite a few, and the above FYA was the very first.
A couple of months ago, I was driving on Ralston Avenue in Belmont in San Mateo county coming from CA 92, and I saw a flashing yellow at an intersection. It's this one in GSV. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5123545,-122.3133716,3a,75y,267.39h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPUwsys6TaLwOn7mnmfY00Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) Here's an article (https://www.belmont.gov/departments/public-works/transportation/ralston-ave-at-tahoe-drive-signalization) about it from the city website.
EDIT: Fixed GSV
Quote from: Techknow on November 22, 2019, 11:08:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 19, 2019, 08:51:47 PM
The top two are probably local install jobs. They lack the "property of the State of California" at the bottom.
Ah that's a good point, I forgot about that tag/inscription. According to GSV the shields that were replaced did have it, perhaps the city decided to take initiative in replacing them.
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2019, 06:55:24 PM
I noticed this flashing yellow arrow-equipped intersection in Burbank just recently:
https://goo.gl/maps/4z6YSWCpmN6PQPUQ7 (only two of the four approaches....quite strange).
Are there any other flashing yellow arrows in the Valley? This one has been in-place for some time, and both replaced protected-only left turns.
EDIT: Found this webpage (https://www.burbankca.gov/what-s-new/yellow-flashing-arrow-turn-signals) from the city of Burbank. Looks like the city has quite a few, and the above FYA was the very first.
I was driving once on Ralston Avenue in Belmont in San Mateo county coming from CA 92, and I saw a flashing yellow at an intersection. It's this one in GSV. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5123734,-122.3044426,3a,75y,105.42h,81.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDDC3OE7cQ6ktKLclLNupIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) Here's an article (https://www.belmont.gov/departments/public-works/transportation/ralston-ave-at-tahoe-drive-signalization) about it from the city website.
Regarding I-280 on collateral facilities someone local had to take on sign replacement. Its kind of amusing to see brand new I-280 shields slapped on BGSs like this:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/7889/32197533797_80b261d2eb_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/R4bM44)280Ia (https://flic.kr/p/R4bM44) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Techknow on November 22, 2019, 11:08:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 22, 2019, 06:55:24 PM
I noticed this flashing yellow arrow-equipped intersection in Burbank just recently:
https://goo.gl/maps/4z6YSWCpmN6PQPUQ7 (only two of the four approaches....quite strange).
Are there any other flashing yellow arrows in the Valley? This one has been in-place for some time, and both replaced protected-only left turns.
EDIT: Found this webpage (https://www.burbankca.gov/what-s-new/yellow-flashing-arrow-turn-signals) from the city of Burbank. Looks like the city has quite a few, and the above FYA was the very first.
I was driving once on Ralston Avenue in Belmont in San Mateo county coming from CA 92, and I saw a flashing yellow at an intersection. It's this one in GSV. (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.5123734,-122.3044426,3a,75y,105.42h,81.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDDC3OE7cQ6ktKLclLNupIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) Here's an article (https://www.belmont.gov/departments/public-works/transportation/ralston-ave-at-tahoe-drive-signalization) about it from the city website.
Did you mean
this intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/9BMMVGWCrCTJjAqn6)? The one you posted doesn't (and never had) a flashing yellow signal, but just up the road, there is a brand-new FYA that was installed at Tahoe Drive (according to your linked article).
Oops, I didn't double check the GSV link. When I went through there westbound I only noticed the flashing yellow but not the white sign so I thought it was at the next traffic light stop over. Seems weird to me the flashing yellow is at a school entrance, but ofc I'm not used to them
Quote from: Techknow on November 23, 2019, 01:17:40 PM
Oops, I didn't double check the GSV link. When I went through there westbound I only noticed the flashing yellow but not the white sign so I thought it was at the next traffic light stop over. Seems weird to me the flashing yellow is at a school entrance, but ofc I'm not used to them
No worries. It's quite an unusual setup. The left turn into the school has the FYA, but the actual left turn onto Tahoe Drive appears to use a protected-left. If you're ever in the area again, you'll have to go check it out and see what the setup is. I'm quite curious to know, especially since the article from the city suggests that Tahoe Drive should have an FYA (even though in GSV, it's only the school entrance).
Caltrans is closing CA 4 Ebbetts Pass and CA 108 Sonora Pass at noon today, and CA 89 Monitor Pass at 1 PM. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the upper part of CA 120 east of the park entrance have been closed for a week or so. Based on the weather forecast I would say that's it for these roads until spring, though in a dry winter Monitor Pass sometimes reopens, being on the dry side of the Sierra. Last year's official closing date for these passes was November 28, so about the same.
Quote from: gonealookin on November 26, 2019, 02:00:13 PM
Caltrans is closing CA 4 Ebbetts Pass and CA 108 Sonora Pass at noon today, and CA 89 Monitor Pass at 1 PM. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the upper part of CA 120 east of the park entrance have been closed for a week or so. Based on the weather forecast I would say that's it for these roads until spring, though in a dry winter Monitor Pass sometimes reopens, being on the dry side of the Sierra. Last year's official closing date for these passes was November 28, so about the same.
Word is even placed like Oakhurst (2,300 feet above sea level) are getting possibly a foot tonight and tomorrow. I'd say a good couple solid feet of snow is likely at 7,000 feet in the Western Sierras, I suspect you're probably right about 4, 108 and Tioga being done for the year.
Supposedly the Central Valley is even getting an inch of rain. Good thing I dug up my wet weather running gear.
Heavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14. CA 58 had a wreck which is causing heavy back ups with the already foul weather. CA 33 over the Maricopa Highway is closed, I didn't see closures of CA 58 and CA 166 west of I-5. CA 178 is alternative for those who don't mind chain controls east of Lake Isabella. Really the only alternated that isn't impacted from the Central Valley is CA 41 to US 101.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2019, 01:15:16 PM
Heavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14. CA 58 had a wreck which is causing heavy back ups with the already foul weather. CA 33 over the Maricopa Highway is closed, I didn't see closures of CA 58 and CA 166 west of I-5. CA 178 is alternative for those who don't mind chain controls east of Lake Isabella. Really the only alternated that isn't impacted from the Central Valley is CA 41 to US 101.
Reasons #15-20 inclusive why a CA 14/Antelope Valley freeway extension directly to CA 58 is sorely needed. But at least SoCal didn't get the "bomb cyclone" that affected the northern reaches of I-5 near Dunsmuir! Apparently it affected both US 101 and US 199 near the CA/OR state line as well before shooting SE. I remember back in the late '80's and early '90's when I was making several trips a year from Northern CA to Seattle and/or Portland prior to moving up there in '93, winter conditions on I-5 often prompted me to stay on 101 north until at least OR 126 before turning inland -- but if reports are accurate, just about every CA to OR artery has been affected this time.
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2019, 04:52:57 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2019, 01:15:16 PM
Heavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14. CA 58 had a wreck which is causing heavy back ups with the already foul weather. CA 33 over the Maricopa Highway is closed, I didn't see closures of CA 58 and CA 166 west of I-5. CA 178 is alternative for those who don't mind chain controls east of Lake Isabella. Really the only alternated that isn't impacted from the Central Valley is CA 41 to US 101.
Reasons #15-20 inclusive why a CA 14/Antelope Valley freeway extension directly to CA 58 is sorely needed. But at least SoCal didn't get the "bomb cyclone" that affected the northern reaches of I-5 near Dunsmuir! Apparently it affected both US 101 and US 199 near the CA/OR state line as well before shooting SE. I remember back in the late '80's and early '90's when I was making several trips a year from Northern CA to Seattle and/or Portland prior to moving up there in '93, winter conditions on I-5 often prompted me to stay on 101 north until at least OR 126 before turning inland -- but if reports are accurate, just about every CA to OR artery has been affected this time.
Yes, I've been trying to explain to my wife why travel on I-5 over US 101 in January isn't the best route to the northern coast near Eureka. I've run into hellish winter storms from Redding northward. US 101 on the other hand usually is just rainy at worst but you never really know what is going to happen on 36 or 299.
Is it just me or does it feel like nobody was paying attention to weather forecasts at all? These winter storms had been expected for about a week prior but really not a lot of people listened. I'd be curious to find out what percentage of non-commercials drivers even carry snow chains/cables this time of year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 29, 2019, 05:00:18 AM
Quote from: sparker on November 29, 2019, 04:52:57 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2019, 01:15:16 PM
Heavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14. CA 58 had a wreck which is causing heavy back ups with the already foul weather. CA 33 over the Maricopa Highway is closed, I didn't see closures of CA 58 and CA 166 west of I-5. CA 178 is alternative for those who don't mind chain controls east of Lake Isabella. Really the only alternated that isn't impacted from the Central Valley is CA 41 to US 101.
Reasons #15-20 inclusive why a CA 14/Antelope Valley freeway extension directly to CA 58 is sorely needed. But at least SoCal didn't get the "bomb cyclone" that affected the northern reaches of I-5 near Dunsmuir! Apparently it affected both US 101 and US 199 near the CA/OR state line as well before shooting SE. I remember back in the late '80's and early '90's when I was making several trips a year from Northern CA to Seattle and/or Portland prior to moving up there in '93, winter conditions on I-5 often prompted me to stay on 101 north until at least OR 126 before turning inland -- but if reports are accurate, just about every CA to OR artery has been affected this time.
Yes, I've been trying to explain to my wife why travel on I-5 over US 101 in January isn't the best route to the northern coast near Eureka. I've run into hellish winter storms from Redding northward. US 101 on the other hand usually is just rainy at worst but you never really know what is going to happen on 36 or 299.
Is it just me or does it feel like nobody was paying attention to weather forecasts at all? These winter storms had been expected for about a week prior but really not a lot of people listened. I'd be curious to find out what percentage of non-commercials drivers even carry snow chains/cables this time of year.
Cable chains reside permanently in the back of my Camry; likewise with our 4-runner (residing in a plastic milk carton wedged into the rear corner) -- but those would be heavier chains. If we're going up into the Sierras or over to visit friends in Reno or Carson City, we generally take the SUV anyway. If it were me, I'd have the radio tuned to stations with regular weather reports full-time, but she likes keeping the CD tray fed! I can usually win that conflict if bad weather is readily apparent -- but not without some sort of argument! Fortunately this Thanksgiving we stayed home and cooked for ourselves and a few friends and didn't have to travel any farther than the local Safeway!
Yep, I'm always crossing passes in winter, so there's chains in the back too. It's among the first things I buy for a new car. Ditto for a spare tire, since you can't count on cars coming with those anymore.
Quote from: Kniwt on November 16, 2019, 12:29:40 PM
The Desert Sun of Palm Springs reports that the Roy's sign in Amboy (Old US 66) will be relit for the first time since the 1980s.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/2019/11/14/roys-motel-and-cafe-sign-again-light-up-amboy-off-route-66/2581173001/
QuoteThe ghost town is anchored by Roy's, a service station for tourists traveling along the highway. After it opened in 1938, owner Roy Crawl teamed up with Herman "Buster" Burris to grow the business to a 24-hour motel with six cottages, a café and a gas station. Amboy grew to 700 with a school and a post office.
But after Interstate 40 opened in 1973, it was the beginning of the end for the small town.
... Albert Okura spent $100,000 to restore the Roy's Motel and Café buildings and reopened the gas station in 2008. Five years later, he began seeking donations through Kickstarter to restore the famous neon sign that lit up the night sky in Amboy for miles.
On Saturday, there will be a relighting celebration for the sign that has not been turned on since the '80s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2019, 01:16:48 PM
While they're at it maybe they can light up that rusting embossed US 66 shield on the white support beam below "Roy's."
They did at least do a new paint job on that. I don't think it's lit up though.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wu5SI9V.jpg)
East of Amboy, Historic US 66 remains in a long-term closure due to flood damage. You can only drive east as far as Kelbaker Road, then north from there to I-40.
Quote from: gonealookin on November 29, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on November 16, 2019, 12:29:40 PM
The Desert Sun of Palm Springs reports that the Roy's sign in Amboy (Old US 66) will be relit for the first time since the 1980s.
https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/2019/11/14/roys-motel-and-cafe-sign-again-light-up-amboy-off-route-66/2581173001/
QuoteThe ghost town is anchored by Roy's, a service station for tourists traveling along the highway. After it opened in 1938, owner Roy Crawl teamed up with Herman "Buster" Burris to grow the business to a 24-hour motel with six cottages, a café and a gas station. Amboy grew to 700 with a school and a post office.
But after Interstate 40 opened in 1973, it was the beginning of the end for the small town.
... Albert Okura spent $100,000 to restore the Roy's Motel and Café buildings and reopened the gas station in 2008. Five years later, he began seeking donations through Kickstarter to restore the famous neon sign that lit up the night sky in Amboy for miles.
On Saturday, there will be a relighting celebration for the sign that has not been turned on since the '80s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2019, 01:16:48 PM
While they're at it maybe they can light up that rusting embossed US 66 shield on the white support beam below "Roy's."
They did at least do a new paint job on that. I don't think it's lit up though.
(https://i.imgur.com/Wu5SI9V.jpg)
East of Amboy, Historic US 66 remains in a long-term closure due to flood damage. You can only drive east as far as Kelbaker Road, then north from there to I-40.
Actually that shield is new. The older shield was an embossed US 66 shield which was probably sourced by CrossRoad Signs out of Oregon. I took this photo of it in 2016:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/596/33475837855_7c388f7a33_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/T19qjc)4160764910011 (https://flic.kr/p/T19qjc) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2019, 01:15:16 PMHeavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14.
Interestingly enough, Caltrans prepared a traffic turnaround gate near the Lake Hughes Road exit which allows traffic to make a U-Turn on the freeway if closed ahead. According to a news article (https://ktla.com/2019/11/28/new-snow-gate-helps-drivers-turn-around-on-5-fwy-for-1st-time-during-grapevine-closure/) it was installed last month and used for the first time.
Quote from: Techknow on November 30, 2019, 01:48:30 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 28, 2019, 01:15:16 PMHeavy snow closed I-5 over Tejon Pass, the signed detour route is CA 58 and CA 14.
Interestingly enough, Caltrans prepared a traffic turnaround gate near the Lake Hughes Road exit which allows traffic to make a U-Turn on the freeway if closed ahead. According to a news article (https://ktla.com/2019/11/28/new-snow-gate-helps-drivers-turn-around-on-5-fwy-for-1st-time-during-grapevine-closure/) it was installed last month and used for the first time.
They could have used that during the peroxide spill debacle back in the summer.
Made a quick trip San Jose-Galt for business purposes yesterday -- and noticed that the "extended" interchange of I-5, I-205, and CA 120 near Manteca now features pavement markings indicated which lane will exit onto another route. But there was a (assumed) contractor error -- the pavement markings on NB 5 past the I-205 merge show the two right lanes exiting onto "US 120", complete with painted white shields! SB, there are color-correct I-205 markings on the two right lanes right after the 120 merge point. It'll be interesting to see if that error is corrected in the near future or simply continues to exist as is.
Seems like there was a large resignage project in San Diego. I hadn't been down to visit my folks in a number of months and found that most of I-8, CA 94, CA 125 and I-805 had been replaced. There were also painted shields in the lanes which were new.
I visited Los Angeles this weekend, that being the case the somewhat foul weather offered some cool photo opportunities.
I-210 eastbound heading towards La Canada Flintridge
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49225412753_54d62947d5_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hZT7dZ)0 (https://flic.kr/p/2hZT7dZ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
I-5 northbound descending Grapevine Canyon into San Joaquin Valley
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49225849496_27d28c5b86_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hZVm43)IMG_9420 (https://flic.kr/p/2hZVm43) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
The Fresno Bee reports on how, because of the lack of a good east-west route across north Fresno (Herndon now apparently has
22 signals between Cedar and CA 99), Avenue 9 in Madera County has become a busy, high-speed, low-enforcement, and dangerous connection between CA 41 and CA 99.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/marek-warszawski/article238439948.html
QuoteBased on traffic studies, interviews with residents, business owners and public officials and my own driving experiences, Avenue 9 is used as a cutoff between Highways 99 and 41 by increasing numbers of Fresno and Clovis residents. (They also use Avenue 12 and, to a lesser extent, Avenue 15.)
"Years ago I'd be the only car out there," said Fresno County Supervisor Steve Brandau, who frequently traveled Avenue 9 to service clients of his carpet-cleaning business in Madera. "Now you see Fresnans driving on Avenue 9 all the time."
Unfortunately, many of them don't obey the posted 55 mph speed limit. Increased traffic and excessive speed along the rural two-lane roadway have contributed to crashes resulting in at least eight fatalities since 2018, including a horrific accident in July of that year that resulted in five deaths.
... CHP officers made a concerted effort to enforce speeds on Avenue 9. Except there was so much traffic and roadway conditions so unsafe they quickly cut bait.
... Fresno's freeway system leaves them with little choice. The city has three north-south highways (99, 41, 168) but only one east-west (180) that is inconvenient for anyone living on the north side of town.
What Fresno really needs is an outer loop. I don't think anything's even in the planning stages for that.
But meanwhile, HSR! :pan:
Herndon Avenue moves plenty fast even with all those lights. An expressway version of CA 145 west of CA 41 or even part of the unconstructed CA 65 would be way more useful. Avenue is about the most direct route to/from 99 and 41 north of Fresno to Madera as is. None of those farm roads are really enforced by anyone aside from stray CHP coverage when there is a problem spot.
The HSR essentially is going to raze and replace all of North Golden State Boulevard and a good portion downtown and the Warehouse District. The City essentially bought in big with the concept of the HSR being an urban renewal project, I'm skeptical how much development it will draw.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 28, 2019, 12:19:09 AM
What Fresno really needs is an outer loop. I don't think anything's even in the planning stages for that.
But meanwhile, HSR! :pan:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2019, 01:36:45 AM
Herndon Avenue moves plenty fast even with all those lights. An expressway version of CA 145 west of CA 41 or even part of the unconstructed CA 65 would be way more useful. Avenue is about the most direct route to/from 99 and 41 north of Fresno to Madera as is. None of those farm roads are really enforced by anyone aside from stray CHP coverage when there is a problem spot.
The HSR essentially is going to raze and replace all of North Golden State Boulevard and a good portion downtown and the Warehouse District. The City essentially bought in big with the concept of the HSR being an urban renewal project, I'm skeptical how much development it will draw.
About 20 years ago a plan featuring the unbuilt (and, actually,
unadopted inasmuch as an exact alignment is concerned) CA 65 was run up the flagpole as a functional east/north Fresno bypass. It used a version of the 65 alignment from CA 198 north to CA 41 about 2-3 miles north of the CA 145 junction, and then the eastward extension of CA 152 shown (since '59) on the projected CA Freeway & Expressway system as the connection back to CA 99. Of course, like most large-scale Caltrans plans, it got plenty of local support in the Fresno area (and, from what I understand, D6 engineers & managers) -- but the cold shoulder from Sacramento. Some opposition from the larger orange growers in the Orosi area emerged -- but, as could be expected, housing developers in the eastern Fresno area readily signed on to the initial effort. IIRC, eventually the concept was cut back to north of CA 180, leaving it as an elongated arc around the northeast side of the city. But by 2005 the idea had lost legs, largely since without a southward connection it would have limited value except as a developmental tool. But even if CA 65 is as a whole never developed, a version of that including a connection back to CA 99 near the Kings River crossing might be a future consideration -- especially given the growth of Fresno in the last few decades.
Quote from: sparker on December 28, 2019, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 28, 2019, 12:19:09 AM
What Fresno really needs is an outer loop. I don't think anything's even in the planning stages for that.
But meanwhile, HSR! :pan:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 28, 2019, 01:36:45 AM
Herndon Avenue moves plenty fast even with all those lights. An expressway version of CA 145 west of CA 41 or even part of the unconstructed CA 65 would be way more useful. Avenue is about the most direct route to/from 99 and 41 north of Fresno to Madera as is. None of those farm roads are really enforced by anyone aside from stray CHP coverage when there is a problem spot.
The HSR essentially is going to raze and replace all of North Golden State Boulevard and a good portion downtown and the Warehouse District. The City essentially bought in big with the concept of the HSR being an urban renewal project, I'm skeptical how much development it will draw.
About 20 years ago a plan featuring the unbuilt (and, actually, unadopted inasmuch as an exact alignment is concerned) CA 65 was run up the flagpole as a functional east/north Fresno bypass. It used a version of the 65 alignment from CA 198 north to CA 41 about 2-3 miles north of the CA 145 junction, and then the eastward extension of CA 152 shown (since '59) on the projected CA Freeway & Expressway system as the connection back to CA 99. Of course, like most large-scale Caltrans plans, it got plenty of local support in the Fresno area (and, from what I understand, D6 engineers & managers) -- but the cold shoulder from Sacramento. Some opposition from the larger orange growers in the Orosi area emerged -- but, as could be expected, housing developers in the eastern Fresno area readily signed on to the initial effort. IIRC, eventually the concept was cut back to north of CA 180, leaving it as an elongated arc around the northeast side of the city. But by 2005 the idea had lost legs, largely since without a southward connection it would have limited value except as a developmental tool. But even if CA 65 is as a whole never developed, a version of that including a connection back to CA 99 near the Kings River crossing might be a future consideration -- especially given the growth of Fresno in the last few decades.
A connecting leg for CA 43 north of Selma to the corridor of CA 65 would form the optimal route of a bypass since it would shoot the gap between East Fresno/Clovis and Sanger. Some of the arterial roadways like Jensen Avenue and Academy Avenue have largely been expanded to high speed expressways. Most of the growth of the Fresno Area seems to be tracking eastward and northward. The Madera County side of CA 41 is seeing some high level real estate development but the Highway capacity isn't increasing to meet the demand (hence the problem cited with Avenue 9). If I was allowed a wish list for the Fresno Area it would be as follows:
- Convert CA 43 to an expressway from CA 198 north to CA 99 with a bypass of Selma. Continue said expressway via the corridor of McCall Avenue to CA 168.
- Build the corridor of CA 65 between CA 168 and CA 145.
- Build CA 145 from CA 41 west to Madera as an expressway along with a bypass route.
- Build CA 41 from the Madera County north to CA 145 to expressway standards. Continue gradual expressway expansion north to Deadwood Gulch near Oakhurst.
^^^^^^^^^
In agreement with essentially all of the above -- but would substitute the eastern extension of CA 152 to the CA 65 projected alignment (for all intents and purposes at or near CA 41 at the junction point) for a CA 145 expressway; it would serve as a Madera bypass, since it would parallel 145 about 5-6 miles to the north. CA 145 will likely be upgraded (5-lane arterial?) in due course because of regional development. I do like the notion of a CA 43 Selma bypass and extension up to the Clovis area -- with area growth, it's long overdue!
QuoteI'm skeptical how much development it will draw.
Going with zilch here. :sombrero:
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 29, 2019, 01:45:10 AM
QuoteI'm skeptical how much development it will draw.
Going with zilch here. :sombrero:
Even Fulton Street reopening to traffic in downtown really hasn't drawn a ton of interest commercially. The City doesn't really seem to know how to encourage businesses (or really how incentivize them) to return to older areas. The China Town district was essentially razed to build the HSR depot in downtown. What gets me is that some of the oldest segments of what was US 99 like the Belmont Subway and Railroad Avenue are going to be razed. It's too bad that a historic route was never like it was in Bakersfield, but then again Broadway was gapped was a baseball field and government buildings long ago.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports today on Assemblyman Marc Levine's push to start design now for a replacement Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, noting that -- even with the seismic retrofits already done -- the bridge would be unusable after a major earthquake.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Assemblyman-s-crusade-for-a-new-Richmond-San-14950654.php
QuoteAlthough state and regional transportation agencies have sunk more than a billion dollars into maintenance — which includes a new road deck, piers and a trestle at the San Rafael approach — the bridge wouldn’t survive a major disaster, Levine noted. It’s had enough seismic retrofits to remain standing and not cause any deaths during the next big earthquake, but it wouldn’t function afterward.
“And we don’t even have a drawing on a shelf as to what the next bridge should look like,” Levine said.
... Caltrans recently began a deck analysis and load-rating study to determine whether it’s time to develop a new structure. Agency staff estimated it could come to $8.2 billion, said Caltrans spokesman Bart Ney.
... “It’s a remarkably old-looking structure — almost like something built during World War II by the Army Corps of Engineers, instead of in 1956,” said El Sobrante resident Greg Stevens.
... He’s aware that such a monumental project won’t happen immediately. But he’s adamant that the Bay Area start planning now, considering the glacial pace of transportation projects: It took 25 years to rebuild the east span of the Bay Bridge after the Loma Prieta earthquake.
^^^^^^^^^^
Happy to see a politician be proactive about what appears to be a much needed replacement bridge. Given what all is being considered, is it possible to build a bridge with three decks? I'd want one each for WB and EB traffic and one for mass transit, bikes, and pedestrians.
Quote from: skluth on January 06, 2020, 09:24:53 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Happy to see a politician be proactive about what appears to be a much needed replacement bridge. Given what all is being considered, is it possible to build a bridge with three decks? I'd want one each for WB and EB traffic and one for mass transit, bikes, and pedestrians.
More than likely at least the main span will be a cable-stay design -- maybe a scaled-down (6/8 lanes) version of the Bay Bridge east of the island -- the design is now well-seasoned and adaptable to various physical requirements. Certainly the present "double-hump" design can be described as a manifestation of pure function over form (it's not all that attractive unless one is into industrial art!) -- classic "
bauhaus" if even that! But the chances of a multi-deck approach unless the through-truss format is retained (unlikely) isn't terribly good; it'll probably be single deck, with the likelihood of 6 GP lanes + 2 HOV with reduced toll (unless the usual suspects try to whittle it down to 4+2!).
Quote from: skluth on January 06, 2020, 09:24:53 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Happy to see a politician be proactive about what appears to be a much needed replacement bridge. Given what all is being considered, is it possible to build a bridge with three decks? I'd want one each for WB and EB traffic and one for mass transit, bikes, and pedestrians.
Any railed transit use is much more sensative to grades and vibration than cars and trucks. Building to accommodating rail would mean a much more expensive bridge. There are other rail corridors that would get more use for the same money.
Bike and pedestrian should definitely be part of it though. I am not sure there would be that many pedestrians because it's such a long bridge, but it doesn't add much cost.
Asphalt Planet released a video on CA-210 and I-210
Went out for a drive on CA 1 through Big Sur and some hiking. I wanted to try out my new camera phone on CA 1 so I tried a new album which will probably end up on Gribblenation at some point. The crowds were surprisingly light for a holiday weekend and I was probably averaging 45-60 MPH most of the way north from CA 46. I grabbed some photos of CA 1 in Monterey north to Castroville so I can work on something regarding for the surface routings in Monterey.
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmKQUdCf
Drove the 5 up to Sacramento and I noticed the pavement markings at the 5/120 approach in Lathrop had US shields instead of the miners spade. I get it, 120 ends near the Nevada state line, but come on
Quote from: JustDrive on January 20, 2020, 02:57:53 AM
Drove the 5 up to Sacramento and I noticed the pavement markings at the 5/120 approach in Lathrop had US shields instead of the miners spade. I get it, 120 ends near the Nevada state line, but come on
It's probably a contractor error. May or may not be corrected promptly; likely the latter. This sort of pavement marking is a relatively new thing with Caltrans; this is the first such installation in D10. I noticed this last month and emailed D10 with the info; have yet to receive a reply. Stay tuned -- I may yet "go upstairs" and do likewise with Caltrans HQ in Sacramento. Unfortunately, with their recent relatively cavalier attitude toward signage, this may be relegated to low priority.
I'm sure at least a few people have seen this video, but I found it really cool. "Dashcam" footage from 1988 showing someone driving from Glendon Ave in Culver City, down Venice to the "San Diego", then north to the Ventura Fwy to Van Nuys Blvd:
https://youtu.be/SUh0PsW7XyI
My favorite bits are that the traffic reports, which you can hear repeatedly throughout the video, which almost never mention freeway numbers ("the San Diego [Fwy]", "the Pomona", the "Ventura Freeway". The only number I recall hearing was the 57 and the 134 (though usually "134 Ventura Fwy"). Also repeated references to the "four level".
For any LA locals, is this still the style of traffic reports? Mostly just freeway names (apart from some)?
And for our older and/or more tasteful users, the video is chock-full of really great music from the era.
It did used to be normal to refer to SoCal freeways by name. That's one reason the BGSs included freeway names. However, they have gradually been dropped from the BGSs and traffic reports, and are used much less now than they used to be. A lot of people were unhappy at first.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2020, 04:37:03 PM
I'm sure at least a few people have seen this video, but I found it really cool. "Dashcam" footage from 1988 showing someone driving from Glendon Ave in Culver City, down Venice to the "San Diego", then north to the Ventura Fwy to Van Nuys Blvd:
https://youtu.be/SUh0PsW7XyI
My favorite bits are that the traffic reports, which you can hear repeatedly throughout the video, which almost never mention freeway numbers ("the San Diego [Fwy]", "the Pomona", the "Ventura Freeway". The only number I recall hearing was the 57 and the 134 (though usually "134 Ventura Fwy"). Also repeated references to the "four level".
For any LA locals, is this still the style of traffic reports? Mostly just freeway names (apart from some)?
And for our older and/or more tasteful users, the video is chock-full of really great music from the era.
Saw two Rollers. The oldest car spotted by me was a 1967 Ford full-sized 4-door. It was either a Galaxie 500 or LTD. A low fidelity factory radio in the car in which the video was shot combined with no HD made for a cool period piece. Notice how the 405 was actually drivable back in 1988? Loved the music too.
There was a time when driving in LA was fun!
Thanks for the memories of those times to whoever actually made the video and thank you to Jakeroot for rooting it out for us to see.
Rick
Quote from: kkt on January 31, 2020, 11:32:41 PM
It did used to be normal to refer to SoCal freeways by name. That's one reason the BGSs included freeway names. However, they have gradually been dropped from the BGSs and traffic reports, and are used much less now than they used to be. A lot of people were unhappy at first.
I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
Quote from: dbz77 on February 01, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 31, 2020, 11:32:41 PM
It did used to be normal to refer to SoCal freeways by name. That's one reason the BGSs included freeway names. However, they have gradually been dropped from the BGSs and traffic reports, and are used much less now than they used to be. A lot of people were unhappy at first.
I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.
The same thing has pretty much happened elsewhere too in other states. When I was growing up in Michigan the freeway names around Detroit were used more than the route numbers. Say you're jumping on US 101 in downtown Los Angeles and you're headed west to Ventura. It's way more simplistic to tell people you're heading north on US 101 than saying you're heading north on the; Santa Ana Freeway, Hollywood Freeway, and Ventura Freeway.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 01, 2020, 12:29:10 AM
Saw two Rollers. The oldest car spotted by me was a 1967 Ford full-sized 4-door. It was either a Galaxie 500 or LTD. A low fidelity factory radio in the car in which the video was shot combined with no HD made for a cool period piece. Notice how the 405 was actually drivable back in 1988? Loved the music too.
There was a time when driving in LA was fun!
Thanks for the memories of those times to whoever actually made the video and thank you to Jakeroot for rooting it out for us to see.
I don't know a lot about older cars, but I've been told that it's more normal to see "older" cars on the road today than it would have been back then,
everywhere except LA!
Very happy to share. I agree, great music. Very authentic video, and his occasional comments made it funny too (like at the end when the car runs the red turning left, and he murmurs "no officer, the light wasn't red" haha).
Quote from: kkt on January 31, 2020, 11:32:41 PM
It did used to be normal to refer to SoCal freeways by name. That's one reason the BGSs included freeway names. However, they have gradually been dropped from the BGSs and traffic reports, and are used much less now than they used to be. A lot of people were unhappy at first.
I can understand, especially when for many southern Californians, that video is how they've always understood the freeways. It's not like they didn't have numbers in the 1980s, but the freeway names were always there.
I will say, compared to other places, Los Angeles still has quite a lot of freeway name signs up. Some are getting old, but some are new too.
^^^^^^^^^^
There are no posted -- BGS or otherwise -- freeway names -- outside the sporadic "memorial" or "dedicated" sections -- in the Bay Area; the historic names: Eastshore (for I-80 north of the 580/880 junction), Nimitz (I-880 in Alameda County), Bayshore (US 101 San Jose-San Francisco), Serra (I-280 from Cupertino to S.F.), et cetera -- are sporadically mentioned in traffic reports (particularly on KCBS, which features them every 10 minutes during the day). But numbers are almost always cited -- physically and over the air -- just like in L.A. Fortunately, Caltrans' current lax attitude toward signage hasn't extended to the freeway network -- or more than a few drivers would be S.O.L.!
But it's easy to understand the L.A. longstanding attachment to actual names; pre-Interstate the original network radiating from downtown featured names describing the various destinations -- Santa Ana, San Bernardino, Harbor (although a bit generic, it served both the Port of L.A. as well as San Pedro), Hollywood, Ventura, etc. Pasadena even found itself in the mix in the mid-'50's when the now-as-then Arroyo Seco Parkway was renamed to follow the destination idiom. The other names: Colorado, Foothill, etc. -- duplicated the parallel streets that formed the original alignment. It wasn't until the advent of the Interstates that more distant or even obscure names started popping up -- Golden State for the corridor north, the cryptically named San Diego freeway for a destination 120+ miles distant -- although some Interstate as well as other freeways post-'56 retained the close-in destination theme: Santa Monica, Glendale, et. al. But by the late '70's it seemed the over-the-air traffic reports emphasized route numbers over names, probably since in the '60's the freeway names seemed to be deemphasized, signage-wise, in favor of both route numbers and specified control cities. That set of identifiers seems to have prevailed ever since.
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2020, 04:44:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
There are no posted -- BGS or otherwise -- freeway names -- outside the sporadic "memorial" or "dedicated" sections -- in the Bay Area; the historic names: Eastshore (for I-80 north of the 580/880 junction), Nimitz (I-880 in Alameda County), Bayshore (US 101 San Jose-San Francisco), Serra (I-280 from Cupertino to S.F.), et cetera -- are sporadically mentioned in traffic reports (particularly on KCBS, which features them every 10 minutes during the day). But numbers are almost always cited -- physically and over the air -- just like in L.A. Fortunately, Caltrans' current lax attitude toward signage hasn't extended to the freeway network -- or more than a few drivers would be S.O.L.!
But it's easy to understand the L.A. longstanding attachment to actual names; pre-Interstate the original network radiating from downtown featured names describing the various destinations -- Santa Ana, San Bernardino, Harbor (although a bit generic, it served both the Port of L.A. as well as San Pedro), Hollywood, Ventura, etc. Pasadena even found itself in the mix in the mid-'50's when the now-as-then Arroyo Seco Parkway was renamed to follow the destination idiom. The other names: Colorado, Foothill, etc. -- duplicated the parallel streets that formed the original alignment. It wasn't until the advent of the Interstates that more distant or even obscure names started popping up -- Golden State for the corridor north, the cryptically named San Diego freeway for a destination 120+ miles distant -- although some Interstate as well as other freeways post-'56 retained the close-in destination theme: Santa Monica, Glendale, et. al. But by the late '70's it seemed the over-the-air traffic reports emphasized route numbers over names, probably since in the '60's the freeway names seemed to be deemphasized, signage-wise, in favor of both route numbers and specified control cities. That set of identifiers seems to have prevailed ever since.
I know there are a few signs pointing out the MacArthur Freeway in Emeryville and Oakland, and the Guadalupe Parkway/Route 87 sometimes has name based signage.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2020, 04:37:03 PM
I'm sure at least a few people have seen this video, but I found it really cool. "Dashcam" footage from 1988 showing someone driving from Glendon Ave in Culver City, down Venice to the "San Diego", then north to the Ventura Fwy to Van Nuys Blvd:
https://youtu.be/SUh0PsW7XyI
My favorite bits are that the traffic reports, which you can hear repeatedly throughout the video, which almost never mention freeway numbers ("the San Diego [Fwy]", "the Pomona", the "Ventura Freeway". The only number I recall hearing was the 57 and the 134 (though usually "134 Ventura Fwy"). Also repeated references to the "four level".
For any LA locals, is this still the style of traffic reports? Mostly just freeway names (apart from some)?
And for our older and/or more tasteful users, the video is chock-full of really great music from the era.
About 18:30 in it, a Miller Lite beer ad with Bob Uecker (33 years after that video was recorded, he's still the radio play-by-play guy for the Brewers, BTW, but only doing home games now). I also noted that shortly before it, the radio announcer only mentioned call-in phone numbers for the 213, 818 and 714 area codes. :-o
Also no internet, no satellite radio and NO CELL PHONES! :wow: (I truly miss THOSE days!)
Mike
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What "MacArthur Freeway" signage there is are locally-posted trailblazers (I know of at least one in Piedmont); the BGS's intersecting and along the route simply refer to I-580 plus control cities. The "Guadalupe Parkway" signage certainly exists, primarily at the I-280 junction -- but that is a unique situation, with the CA 87 freeway overlaying a longstanding arterial of the same name north of downtown San Jose. The endpoints of CA 87, per usual Caltrans practice, cite the route number and control location (from CA 85, that would be "Downtown San Jose"). The ramp from SB US 101 to CA 87 originally contained the Guadalupe Parkway name along with the 87 shield, but that sign was replaced by 2015 with one simply referring to "SOUTH CA 87". As that interchange is slated for reconstruction in the next couple of years, the signage will undoubtedly change -- it'll be interesting to see if the Guadalupe name is applied there as it was back in late 1986 when CA 87 signage from US 101 was first posted; my guess is no -- that like with CA 85 to the south, "Downtown San Jose" will be the control reference. Curiously, the name Guadalupe Parkway is still signed on the frontage road extending from the Coleman Ave. underpass of 87 north to Hedding St.; it's one of the principal access points from downtown San Jose to the County Center along Hedding from CA 87 east to First Street.
Quote from: sparker on February 02, 2020, 04:07:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What "MacArthur Freeway" signage there is are locally-posted trailblazers (I know of at least one in Piedmont); the BGS's intersecting and along the route simply refer to I-580 plus control cities.
This is the MacArthur Freeway sign I'm actually most familiar with, on I-80 west/I-580 east along the Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8505276,-122.2994312,3a,37.2y,197.23h,89.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3QOxKAe3BKwUmzB424tloQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I wonder if it is signed here though specifically due to the 80/580/880 interchange being known for decades as the Macarthur Maze.
(The only other named interchange I can think of whose moniker is in common usage in the Bay Area is the Alemany Maze where 280 and 101 meet up in SF)
In common speech among L.A. people these days is to only refer to the freeway by the number. Older LA natives will still refer to the freeway by names.
The radio reporters these days seem to do a hybrid. The freeways that are radial from Downtown are still largely referred by name. And it is helpful to know what part of town it is from. Harbor vs Arroyo Seco. Santa Ana vs Golden State. etc. But for many of the non-radial freeways the numbers are the sole identifier: 405, 605, 91, etc.
Someone else can verify what goes on with the 101, I believe that it is known as the Hollywood Freeway south of NoHo, and the 101 freeway in the Valley. Ventura fwy is not used so that it doesn't confuse with the 134 fwy.
Quote from: mrsman on February 03, 2020, 10:07:19 PM
In common speech among L.A. people these days is to only refer to the freeway by the number. Older LA natives will still refer to the freeway by names.
The radio reporters these days seem to do a hybrid. The freeways that are radial from Downtown are still largely referred by name. And it is helpful to know what part of town it is from. Harbor vs Arroyo Seco. Santa Ana vs Golden State. etc. But for many of the non-radial freeways the numbers are the sole identifier: 405, 605, 91, etc.
Someone else can verify what goes on with the 101, I believe that it is known as the Hollywood Freeway south of NoHo, and the 101 freeway in the Valley. Ventura fwy is not used so that it doesn't confuse with the 134 fwy.
I hear US 101 referred to the Ventura Freeway west of North Hollywood just as much as the route number. Or at least that's what I used to observe whenever I worked in Los Angeles and the topic Ventura or Santa Barbara came up. Oddly I can't recall hearing anyone ever use the number CA 170 while referring to the Hollywood Freeway.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 03, 2020, 11:43:39 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 02, 2020, 04:07:08 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
What "MacArthur Freeway" signage there is are locally-posted trailblazers (I know of at least one in Piedmont); the BGS's intersecting and along the route simply refer to I-580 plus control cities.
This is the MacArthur Freeway sign I'm actually most familiar with, on I-80 west/I-580 east along the Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley:
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8505276,-122.2994312,3a,37.2y,197.23h,89.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s3QOxKAe3BKwUmzB424tloQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I wonder if it is signed here though specifically due to the 80/580/880 interchange being known for decades as the Macarthur Maze.
(The only other named interchange I can think of whose moniker is in common usage in the Bay Area is the Alemany Maze where 280 and 101 meet up in SF)
Didn't realize that was there; haven't been WB on 80 in that area for several years. The suggestion that the so-called "MacArthur Maze" has something to do with its presence is probably spot-on. But I do remember riding with family as a kid on several trips to S.F. while visiting my uncle in Sacramento during the time that I-80 was being constructed from the Maze up to the Carquinez Bridge and seeing the old BBS's (Big Black Signs, the forbears of the current BGS's) that actually cited the freeway names (Eastshore, Nimitz, et. al.). It's likely one or more of these made it into the pages of CH&PW at some point; unless other archival photos are available, that's where pix of BBS's would most likely be preserved.
Quote from: sparker on February 02, 2020, 04:07:08 PM
Curiously, the name Guadalupe Parkway is still signed on the frontage road extending from the Coleman Ave. underpass of 87 north to Hedding St.; it's one of the principal access points from downtown San Jose to the County Center along Hedding from CA 87 east to First Street.
Actually, that is the last remnant of the old surface-street version of Guadalupe Parkway prior to construction of the CA 87 freeway. Caltrans apparently just lifted the name for the freeway.
Quote from: mapman on February 10, 2020, 11:26:20 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 02, 2020, 04:07:08 PM
Curiously, the name Guadalupe Parkway is still signed on the frontage road extending from the Coleman Ave. underpass of 87 north to Hedding St.; it's one of the principal access points from downtown San Jose to the County Center along Hedding from CA 87 east to First Street.
Actually, that is the last remnant of the old surface-street version of Guadalupe Parkway prior to construction of the CA 87 freeway. Caltrans apparently just lifted the name for the freeway.
Not quite -- the old Guadalupe Parkway started at the north end of the Coleman St. overpass over the UP Milpitas RR line and several local streets north of downtown SJ and curved north via a directional interchange prior to the freeway's construction. Current CA 87 sits atop the original Guadalupe Parkway; the current street bearing that name was constructed to serve local traffic -- as stated above, primarily serving the Santa Clara County office complex -- as part of the overall freeway construction and parallels the original alignment a couple hundred yards east of the former Parkway. Both Taylor and Hedding intersected the original parkway at signalized grade intersections.
While trying to look up why BART parking is randomly free today, I discovered this recent article on a Hayward local who was instrumental in blocking the Route 238 freeway project in that city and wants to see a suburban high density development with very little parking space:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Suburban-homes-with-no-parking-Utopian-vision-in-14999949.php
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on February 12, 2020, 12:09:34 PM
While trying to look up why BART parking is randomly free today, I discovered this recent article on a Hayward local who was instrumental in blocking the Route 238 freeway project in that city and wants to see a suburban high density development with very little parking space:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Suburban-homes-with-no-parking-Utopian-vision-in-14999949.php
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
So basically just more of the same for the Bay Area just with a Walt Disney/Epcot style dystopian twist to it?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 12, 2020, 12:42:21 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on February 12, 2020, 12:09:34 PM
While trying to look up why BART parking is randomly free today, I discovered this recent article on a Hayward local who was instrumental in blocking the Route 238 freeway project in that city and wants to see a suburban high density development with very little parking space:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Suburban-homes-with-no-parking-Utopian-vision-in-14999949.php
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
So basically just more of the same for the Bay Area just with a Walt Disney/Epcot style dystopian twist to it?
I found the website for the development (http://www.quarryvillage.org/rent_buy/index.html), since the article is behind a paywall. The only real difference is parking will be leased. Housing prices and HOA fees seem relatively decent for the Bay Area, so I don't think charging for parking is that out of line. The development is between a BART station and a CSU campus, so many of the residents can probably get by with Uber and mass transit. It's probably not a model that will work in many locations, but it may work here.
Some of the expectations are unreasonable. They plan on a bus stop within the development. This would require the bus to take a one block detour off the main drag (Carlos Bee Blvd) specifically to serve this development. I don't know if this was actually promised or the developers have a "if we build it they will come" Pollyanna mentality, but in either case I expect the bus stop to ultimately be on Carlos Bee. The land was recently a quarry site. I'd be very worried about land subsidence on the site, especially during earthquakes. But that may be something California homeowners tolerate, like building on fire-prone hillsides.
I expect residents mainly will come from CSUEB, which is within walking distance of the development. Some may be students, but staff may find the combination of location and housing cost unbeatable. The money savings mostly come from not needing additional land for cars; New Urbanists do have a point that there is a cost to providing infrastructure (roads, garages) for cars. I'm sure the vegan-granola crowd will love it. To repeat my opinion, this development model may work here but I really don't think it's something that can work elsewhere in the US except in very specific circumstances.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2020, 04:37:03 PM
I'm sure at least a few people have seen this video, but I found it really cool. "Dashcam" footage from 1988 showing someone driving from Glendon Ave in Culver City, down Venice to the "San Diego", then north to the Ventura Fwy to Van Nuys Blvd:
https://youtu.be/SUh0PsW7XyI
My favorite bits are that the traffic reports, which you can hear repeatedly throughout the video, which almost never mention freeway numbers ("the San Diego [Fwy]", "the Pomona", the "Ventura Freeway". The only number I recall hearing was the 57 and the 134 (though usually "134 Ventura Fwy"). Also repeated references to the "four level".
For any LA locals, is this still the style of traffic reports? Mostly just freeway names (apart from some)?
And for our older and/or more tasteful users, the video is chock-full of really great music from the era.
One thing I remember from the 405 of the 80s is that before the Getty was opened, Getty Center Drive was originally signed as "Chalon Road." Oh, and the Montana Avenue exit was still around
https://ktla.com/news/5-freeway-in-burbank-to-close-for-36-hours-starting-april-25/
Update I-5 in Burbank to be closed in April for the I-5 widening.
Quote from: bing101 on March 05, 2020, 11:27:35 PM
https://ktla.com/news/5-freeway-in-burbank-to-close-for-36-hours-starting-april-25/
Update I-5 in Burbank to be closed in April for the I-5 widening.
The Burbank Blvd. ovecrossing/interchange was always underpowered from its 1960 construction; originally I-5 narrowed down to 3+3 lanes through there and was only "widened out" by restriping a couple of decades later. That whole section through Glendale and Burbank from the CA 134 junction up to San Fernando Road north of downtown Burbank had some questionable design standards, which
did involve dropping the outer (#4) lane onto single-lane C/D facilities through the Western Ave. and Alameda Ave. interchanges (along the stretch opened in late 1957), while the Burbank Blvd. facility mentioned here simply peeled the right lanes off onto exit ramps. Vivid memories -- that was the closest section of I-5 to my boyhood home in northwest Glendale!
So I just had a thought regarding something that never crossed my mind until now. Old US 99 on "The Old Road" near Santa Clarita, is that a reference to "El Camino Viejo" and it just went over my head until now? Granted El Camino Viejo and even early US 99 were aligned through Newhall Pass...but still it's the general vicinity. Does anyone have any insight onto why "The Old Road" was chosen as a road name for Old US 99?
Because it's the ... old road? (Not trying to be obtuse here ... :D )
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 13, 2020, 11:14:20 PM
Because it's the ... old road? (Not trying to be obtuse here ... :D )
Yes, but given there was a historic roadway nearby that actually had that name in Spanish is that a total coincidence or tongue and cheek intentional? Essentially that would be akin to old parts of US 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco being named "The Royal Road." I'm kind of surprised that nobody ever tried to push Caltrans to designate CA 33 as El Camino Viejo.
Open question, how well known is "El Camino Viejo" in the California road community. El Camino Viejo essentially was the alternate to El Camino Real through San Joaquin Valley and was the first real European path north over the mountains from Los Angeles. El Camino Viejo was replaced by the Stockton-Los Angeles Road in the 1850s which in turn was eventually replaced by the Old Ridge Route in the 1910s. The literal translation of "El Camino Viejo" would be "The Old Road" or "The Old Way" which got my gears grinding on the "The Old Road" which happens to be part of former US 99.
Regardless I've kind of found that knowledge of El Camino Real in the general road world is sparse at best. A lot of people tend to assume the Old Ridge Route was created in a vacuum when that wasn't even close to being the case.
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around San Diego, CA, one of California's largest cities and one of the more interesting urban centers on the west coast. Coverage will begin on Saturday (4/18) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2020, 02:11:49 AM
The suggestion that the so-called "MacArthur Maze" has something to do with its presence is probably spot-on.
That is a nickname, the official and original name seems to be Distribution Structure, and I have seen that in some CalTrans publications.
The MacArthur Maze (or simply the Maze, also called the Distribution Structure) is a large freeway interchange near the east end of the San Francisco—Oakland Bay Bridge in Oakland, California. It splits Bay Bridge traffic into three freeways–the Eastshore (I-80/I-580), MacArthur (I-580) and Nimitz (I-880).
The maze was constructed along with the Bay Bridge in the 1930s; construction of the Distribution Structure itself started on April 8, 1934. Although the official name was the East Bay Distribution Structure, the media and public nicknamed it the "Maze" as early as 1939. The site, wholly contained within the city of Oakland, was chosen as it was a key point where tracks from the Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, and Key System railroads intersected. The first configuration was relatively simple: westbound traffic from 38th St (later MacArthur Blvd) merged with northbound traffic from Cypress St and crossed above the Southern Pacific tracks, then split into ramps north to the Eastshore Highway (US 40) and west to the Bay Bridge. A parallel set of ramps handled eastward/southward traffic. Film footage of the early Maze can be seen in the 1941 movie Shadow of the Thin Man, as Nick and Nora Charles drive off the Bay Bridge on their way to Golden Gate Fields in Albany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze
Quote from: Beltway on April 15, 2020, 10:16:25 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 04, 2020, 02:11:49 AM
The suggestion that the so-called "MacArthur Maze" has something to do with its presence is probably spot-on.
That is a nickname, the official and original name seems to be Distribution Structure, and I have seen that in some CalTrans publications.
The MacArthur Maze (or simply the Maze, also called the Distribution Structure) is a large freeway interchange near the east end of the San Francisco—Oakland Bay Bridge in Oakland, California. It splits Bay Bridge traffic into three freeways–the Eastshore (I-80/I-580), MacArthur (I-580) and Nimitz (I-880).
The maze was constructed along with the Bay Bridge in the 1930s; construction of the Distribution Structure itself started on April 8, 1934. Although the official name was the East Bay Distribution Structure, the media and public nicknamed it the "Maze" as early as 1939. The site, wholly contained within the city of Oakland, was chosen as it was a key point where tracks from the Southern Pacific, Santa Fe, and Key System railroads intersected. The first configuration was relatively simple: westbound traffic from 38th St (later MacArthur Blvd) merged with northbound traffic from Cypress St and crossed above the Southern Pacific tracks, then split into ramps north to the Eastshore Highway (US 40) and west to the Bay Bridge. A parallel set of ramps handled eastward/southward traffic. Film footage of the early Maze can be seen in the 1941 movie Shadow of the Thin Man, as Nick and Nora Charles drive off the Bay Bridge on their way to Golden Gate Fields in Albany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Maze
The original Distribution Structure/"Maze" became a traffic nightmare soon after it was completed. Essentially configured as two directional interchanges connected by the bridge over the combined SP, Santa Fe, and Key System rail lines, which converged in south Emeryville, it required US 50 traffic, which emptied out onto now-MacArthur Blvd., to make a leftward lane shift over a short distance -- in both directions -- to stay on the route. By the early '50's, the situation became untenable, particularly when the Eastshore/US 40 highway was upgraded to a freeway and started carrying much more traffic than previously, a lot of it heading to Oakland rather than over the Bay Bridge. So once Interstate funds were available in early 1957, the structure was modified with direct ramps between the Bay Bridge approach and US 50 east (which was to have originally become I-5W). The original structure was still used for traffic from US 40/I-80 westbound to both US 50 and south SSR 17 (Cypress Street); it remained in service even after the Cypress Viaduct on the Nimitz Freeway was completed in 1958. Direct ramps to
that freeway from both directions of I-80 were completed in the late '60's, fully eliminating the drastic lane-shifting aspects of the interchange. Of course, the whole thing was revamped when the Cypress viaduct collapsed with the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake and now-I-880 was rebuilt on a new alignment to the southwest; in the process eliminating the Bay Bridge-to-I-880 movements within the interchange and replacing them with new ramps above West Grand Avenue. Arguably the "epicenter" of the Bay Area freeway system, it's likely the Maze hasn't seen its last revamping (later HOV/HOT modifications have taken place since the 1997 I-880 reopening).
Freewayjim does a tour of CA-27 in a 2013 roadgeek video. Yes its a nice scenic drive around the Santa Monica Mountains.
Quote from: bing101 on April 20, 2020, 10:54:21 AM
Freewayjim does a tour of CA-27 in a 2013 roadgeek video. Yes its a nice scenic drive around the Santa Monica Mountains.
Seeing a few large clumps of vehicles parked on the roadside made me wonder what was going on at those locations? Do you have any idea?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 20, 2020, 05:41:45 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 20, 2020, 10:54:21 AM
Freewayjim does a tour of CA-27 in a 2013 roadgeek video. Yes its a nice scenic drive around the Santa Monica Mountains.
Seeing a few large clumps of vehicles parked on the roadside made me wonder what was going on at those locations? Do you have any idea?
Rick
Lots of hiking and festivals in Topanga Canyon. You have to be there at the crack of dawn on a weekend to get good parking.
Crack of dawn when facing a county population of 9 million means you had better beat the sunrise! Thanks for the explanation Max.
Rick
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (4/25) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile Interstate 8 across southern California and discuss the history and features of this highway, all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of the freeway Yuma, AZ and San Diego, CA.
A link to the event location can be found below:
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2020, 08:42:22 PM
So I just had a thought regarding something that never crossed my mind until now. Old US 99 on "The Old Road" near Santa Clarita, is that a reference to "El Camino Viejo" and it just went over my head until now?
Ironically, quite a bit of The Old Road in Santa Clarita, from about Calgrove to Magic Mountain, isn't actually the old road, because that's completely buried under I-5.
Quote from: pderocco on April 27, 2020, 03:17:02 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 13, 2020, 08:42:22 PM
So I just had a thought regarding something that never crossed my mind until now. Old US 99 on "The Old Road" near Santa Clarita, is that a reference to "El Camino Viejo" and it just went over my head until now?
Ironically, quite a bit of The Old Road in Santa Clarita, from about Calgrove to Magic Mountain, isn't actually the old road, because that's completely buried under I-5.
Yeah -- what's marked as the "Old Road" south of Magic Mountain Parkway is essentially a series of parallel/frontage roads functioning as local servers, with no actual semblance of the old 4-lane highway, which from the Weldon Canyon section north of the CA 14 interchange down the hill, was directly overlaid by I-5 back in the late '60's. The earliest freeway section, opening in early '63, was from Magic Mountain to north of CA 126, which was originally a freeway stub fed by a trumpet interchange on I-5 --
that was on all-new alignment east of the old road and included the truck scale facility. The next to be built was the high bridge over Weldon Canyon itself, with the old road at the bottom of the canyon; that dates from about 1965. Those two segments were connected bit by bit until 1970, when both the current Newhall Pass alignment
and the reverse-carriageway segment north of Castaic were opened to traffic.
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system (at least the sections I managed to cover in February 2020) in and around Los Angeles, CA, one of America's largest cities and one of the more interesting urban centers on the west coast. Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/2) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/caltrans-eyes-alternatives-for-albion-river-bridge-project/48349
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 06, 2020, 08:15:57 PM
https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/caltrans-eyes-alternatives-for-albion-river-bridge-project/48349
I certainly hope that they choose an arch-series design and make every effort to render it as attractive as the Big Sur bridges. But it is likely that actual construction will see some postponement because of the detritus of the certain COVID-related dip in revenue -- which actually has its pros and cons. The "pros" are a longer lead time to design a physcially attractive structure; the "cons" are potential pressure to do the job as economically as possible, which would likely result in a cookie-cutter prestressed-girder-on-bents type of design, which would certainly make the locals pissed off! This is one instance regarding highways where the Coastal Commission, which has expressed preference for the Big Sur-type arch design, may actually provide some measure of benefit rather than being an obstacle.
Man I'm really torn. I do wish they would preserve this bridge but I can see the argument against that.
I should make a point of getting down there and taking some pictures.
Quote from: kkt on May 07, 2020, 01:57:00 PM
I should make a point of getting down there and taking some pictures.
Me too...oh wait that was part of my plans for two weeks ago...
This is a silly idea that would cost extra money but is it possible to build an arch and add a non load bearing design element recreating the current bridge?
So about the cost of that... if the town is so set on keeping it I wonder if they'd be willing to raise their taxes to contribute to it and the maintenance. :evilgrin:
I trust Caltrans would not build a new structure in which the wood is treated with arsenic that leaches into the environment.
A handsome arch would be fine.
Quote from: kkt on May 08, 2020, 09:04:47 PM
I trust Caltrans would not build a new structure in which the wood is treated with arsenic that leaches into the environment.
A handsome arch would be fine.
Some of the new bridges in Big Sur (Pfeiffer Canyon) are completely hideous and don't match the environment.
A bit plain. I wouldn't call it hideous. I'd rather have a big arch.
Quote from: kkt on May 09, 2020, 09:22:30 PM
A bit plain. I wouldn't call it hideous. I'd rather have a big arch.
Granted that specific example is a rush job and pretty much just the typical Caltrans stock aesthetic design. Some of the new bridges between Rocky Point and San Simeon look far better by comparison. Either way the look of the original concrete arch bridges is something I've yet to see Caltrans really even come close to matching during modern times. I know the budget for it really doesn't exist but I really wish that Caltrans could take aesthetics into account like they used to and how other agencies like ADOT do today.
Here's the story (https://youtu.be/IEggaNymcgM) on the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge replacement. Max is right when he says it was a rush job.
Quote from: skluth on May 12, 2020, 02:36:45 AM
Here's the story (https://youtu.be/IEggaNymcgM) on the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge replacement. Max is right when he says it was a rush job.
I think that I have a photo of the original bridge somewhere in one of my articles. If I remember right the new bridge is the third structure at Pfeiffer Canyon.
Our next installment in the *weekly* live broadcast over on 'roadwaywiz' will be this double-header Virtual Tour presentation, where we dissect and enjoy a full-length trip along the belt highway encircling Phoenix, AZ and the infamous 405 Freeway around Los Angeles in real time, complete with commentary and contributions from admins/moderators/members of this forum.
The event will kick off on Saturday (5/16) at 6 PM ET and we look forward to seeing you there!
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on May 13, 2020, 09:13:26 PM
Our next installment in the *weekly* live broadcast over on 'roadwaywiz' will be this double-header Virtual Tour presentation, where we dissect and enjoy a full-length trip along the belt highway encircling Phoenix, AZ and the infamous 405 Freeway around Los Angeles in real time, complete with commentary and contributions from admins/moderators/members of this forum.
The event will kick off on Saturday (5/16) at 6 PM ET and we look forward to seeing you there!
Barring unforeseen circumstances I'll one of the forum members on there. Maybe I'll even bring up the crazy legacy of CA 7 and Sepulveda Pass...definitely the Photo Radar Wars of Loop 101 in Scottsdale.
California highways and road signs for some reason just look different from the ones used elsewhere. Like the caltrans signs have a distinctive look to them.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:12:38 AM
California highways and road signs for some reason just look different from the ones used elsewhere. Like the caltrans signs have a distinctive look to them.
They are often different, the highway shields definitely are. Almost all the older signage comes from the 1960s-1970s and is far from removed from current MUTCD. For someone like me who likes cool signs (button copy and reflective painted shields) and doesn't give a crap about MUTCD it is often quite the boon for photo opportunities.
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
It's a shame that California accomplished so many US highways, the shield would look sick on CA 99.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:33:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
It's a shame that California accomplished so many US highways, the shield would look sick on CA 99.
Yes, even the guide style shield looks pretty good:
https://flic.kr/p/2h41ukQ
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It’s clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and “US” in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
Do I ever agree with that sentiment! It would be nice to see Oregon return to the shield style for their US and state routes.
Rick
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
That design dates from 1953, when a lot of the old smaller "divided" shields (state name above the line) started becoming the worse for wear. Early ones had whiter-than-white enamel and button copy numbers; those were amazing-looking -- but quickly seemed to get rusty around the sides and thus didn't have much field longevity. The large state shields, keeping the very white format, were introduced about 1954-55 for much the same reason -- but with the same issues. The current reflectorized series started showing up about 1960 along with the state "spade" equivalents; but for some reason (likely the reflective sheeting of the day) looked somewhat beige rather than white. That design has remained consistent for 60 years, although fonts, kerning, and other details have varied. Of course, the state shields went in another direction in 1964 with the white-on-green scheme; while the "official" reason for that choice was stated at the time as visibility, one of the principal reasons for it was so BGS's on Interstate highways, which were required to show all routes as per their shield format/color, wouldn't have to be changed
en masse (although replacement and new BGS's fabricated from 1961 to 1963 were actually displaying the white state shields).
Having grown up with cutout shields, my various ventures north and east have invariably brought a tinge of pity for those states with cookie-cutter square signs containing "shields" -- particularly square or circular types (although the economist in me understands the rationale there). Back around 2004 I cringed in horror when I saw, at the corner of Foothill Blvd. and Euclid Ave. in Upland (where my bank was located at the time) black square signs indicating the junction of CA 66 (those shields being themselves a rarity) and CA 83 -- with the shields printed/painted on the signs. Fortunately, that lapse of judgment on the part of D8 hasn't been repeated (IIRC, that signage was gone by 2012).
One thing I've noticed about Californian signs is their heavier usage of alternative versions of the standard Highway Gothic typeface. For example, their freeway entrance signs utilize FHWA Series D Modified (aka D(M)) rather than the standard Series D; Caltrans' variation has a wider spacing. They also seem to use Series D or E where other states might use Series C, such as on some regulatory signs. The "LEFT TURN YIELD ON GREEN" signs tend to have a wider "YIELD" than typical.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
Although California tends to use slightly different versions of almost every standard sign, it's never bothered me because A) they're ridiculously consistent when it comes to the usage of their personal variant, and B) the California variant, to me, just looks better and is easier to read. They're usually bigger and far more often utilize modified Series D or E which I think look better than unmodified variants.
California, alongside Washington State (IIRC) was either the first or one of the first to dump all-caps legends in favor of mixed-case legends (at least for destinations), and you can see mixed-case legends on many of their smaller ground-mounted signs such as county signs, where many other places might use all-caps.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:43:34 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:33:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
It's a shame that California accomplished so many US highways, the shield would look sick on CA 99.
Yes, even the guide style shield looks pretty good:
https://flic.kr/p/2h41ukQ
To be fair, the linked photo is not a Caltrans standard US shield for a guide sign. If it weren't for the fact that you can see the seam of the whole sign cutting through that shield, I would have thought that that was a US shield cutout bolted to the overall sign.
The BGS versions of US shields usually don't have the "US" in the shield, and it has only been the more recent BGS installs/replacements that include an inset black border on the US shield. (At least, this has been my casual observation--you certainly travel through California way more than I do.) I do really like the more recent BGS US shields with the inset borders though, as it is a closer match to their cutout counterparts.
Quote from: roadfro on May 20, 2020, 11:56:09 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:43:34 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 20, 2020, 12:33:33 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 20, 2020, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2020, 12:24:22 AM
I know, when I return home suddenly the road signs suddenly look more "right".
Part of it's the cutout shields.
The California variant of the US Route Shield is one of the best looking highway shields out there. It's clean looking but still kind of ornate with the cool border and "US" in the crown. The worst thing that ever happened to highway shields was putting them on square blanks.
It's a shame that California accomplished so many US highways, the shield would look sick on CA 99.
Yes, even the guide style shield looks pretty good:
https://flic.kr/p/2h41ukQ
To be fair, the linked photo is not a Caltrans standard US shield for a guide sign. If it weren't for the fact that you can see the seam of the whole sign cutting through that shield, I would have thought that that was a US shield cutout bolted to the overall sign.
The BGS versions of US shields usually don't have the "US" in the shield, and it has only been the more recent BGS installs/replacements that include an inset black border on the US shield. (At least, this has been my casual observation--you certainly travel through California way more than I do.) I do really like the more recent BGS US shields with the inset borders though, as it is a closer match to their cutout counterparts.
Heh...yes that's at Fresno-Yosemite International Airport. I've had a sneaking suspicion that whoever did that was a US 99 fan of some kind, there is a fairly decent following in the area. The amusing thing was that it wasn't repeated on the other signs in the background which I think were later installs.
A bit of Valley news: The EIS for the CA 108 Modesto bypass expressway, the first phase of which extends from the CA 108/219 junction north of Modesto to a terminus at present CA 108/120 east of Oakdale, has been approved. Stanislaus County has a corridor design simulator posted on their website; a little under 4 minutes, it follows the facility, which is being designed as a combination freeway/expressway, from west to east. And guess what, folks? There are no less than three roundabouts right on the main expressway lanes (3+3 on the west end; 2+2 east of Riverbank), along with several interchanges at major arterials. Two of these are multi-lane; the last one is at the eastern terminus as the connector to CA 120 (I know, they just can't help themselves!!!!). Looks like the whole shooting match is upgradeable to full freeway (likely with bridges over the circles); also, in a future phase this corridor will follow CA 219 west to CA 99 near Salida.
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 12:43:34 PM
A bit of Valley news: The EIS for the CA 108 Modesto bypass expressway, the first phase of which extends from the CA 108/219 junction north of Modesto to a terminus at present CA 108/120 east of Oakdale, has been approved. Stanislaus County has a corridor design simulator posted on their website; a little under 4 minutes, it follows the facility, which is being designed as a combination freeway/expressway, from west to east. And guess what, folks? There are no less than three roundabouts right on the main expressway lanes (3+3 on the west end; 2+2 east of Riverbank), along with several interchanges at major arterials. Two of these are multi-lane; the last one is at the eastern terminus as the connector to CA 120 (I know, they just can't help themselves!!!!). Looks like the whole shooting match is upgradeable to full freeway (likely with bridges over the circles); also, in a future phase this corridor will follow CA 219 west to CA 99 near Salida.
I was excited to see "expressway" in that corridor until the roundabouts came in. They seem all fine and dandy on low capacity two lane roads, but an expressway?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2020, 12:53:24 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 11, 2020, 12:43:34 PM
A bit of Valley news: The EIS for the CA 108 Modesto bypass expressway, the first phase of which extends from the CA 108/219 junction north of Modesto to a terminus at present CA 108/120 east of Oakdale, has been approved. Stanislaus County has a corridor design simulator posted on their website; a little under 4 minutes, it follows the facility, which is being designed as a combination freeway/expressway, from west to east. And guess what, folks? There are no less than three roundabouts right on the main expressway lanes (3+3 on the west end; 2+2 east of Riverbank), along with several interchanges at major arterials. Two of these are multi-lane; the last one is at the eastern terminus as the connector to CA 120 (I know, they just can't help themselves!!!!). Looks like the whole shooting match is upgradeable to full freeway (likely with bridges over the circles); also, in a future phase this corridor will follow CA 219 west to CA 99 near Salida.
I was excited to see "expressway" in that corridor until the roundabouts came in. They seem all fine and dandy on low capacity two lane roads, but an expressway?
As I've said before (and repeatedly!) -- a solution in search of a problem, the
mode du jour of facility design. That portion of the valley is rife with ag trucks hurrying to the loading/processing plants in Empire or Modesto; when this thing gets built, it's only a matter of time before someone in a real rush is unable to negotiate the turns and plows right through the "eye" (hopefully not into other drivers in the circle). From the sim shown, the road is built for speed -- adding the functional equivalent of "speed bumps" seems at minimum silly and at worst dangerous!
Why won't California consider building overpasses then at this point given by previous posts they have done so in Bakersfield.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 11, 2020, 06:53:50 PM
Why won't California consider building overpasses then at this point given by previous posts they have done so in Bakersfield.
The Bakersfield circle/bridge was specifically configured that way -- it was originally simply a circle right on US 99 -- when, wonder of wonders, oil trucks coming and going from refinery facilities in Oildale (obviously) to the north on LRN 142 regularly had close encounters of the worst kind with US 99 traffic within the circle. Separating the two movements was appropriately deemed the way to go. I would anticipate that in time the roundabouts on the new CA 108 bypass will be similarly addressed -- particularly after the extension to CA 99 is built. It's likely that much of the Bay Area traffic to Sonora and Yosemite will eventually shift down CA 99 slightly south to the 108 expressway rather than slog through Escalon and Riverbank on CA 120.
Newbie to the boondoggle that is California highways - but one of the strangest things I've noticed on the system are unrelinquished highways. I know that they're old alignments and that they've never been transferred to county/local control, but it raises the question - why bother defining them? And, in the case of CA 14U - signing them? I think it'd be easier to strike these alignments off the books versus keeping them in maintenance limbo - or heck even abandon them - but it's Caltrans and nothing has to make sense.
Same thing with temporary postmiles. In some cases they make sense (a future alignment of a route) but in others - like the north end of I-280 - it's clear that those arrangements aren't temporary. How hard would it be to accept those postmiles as part of a realignment of a route, or that route's actual postmileage?
Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals. On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected. Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 10:51:09 PM
Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals. On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected. Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.
That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this (http://corcohighways.org/?p=6869) where CalTrans is sending
someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?
I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 24, 2020, 11:20:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 10:51:09 PM
Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals. On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected. Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.
That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this (http://corcohighways.org/?p=6869) where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?
I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.
Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route. I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes. The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory. I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function. There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years. I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.
Asphalt Planet does a tour on Bayshore Freeway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 11:34:03 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 24, 2020, 11:20:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 10:51:09 PM
Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals. On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected. Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.
That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this (http://corcohighways.org/?p=6869) where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?
I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.
Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route. I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes. The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory. I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function. There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years. I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.
In the CA Highways update thread, there is now mention of an official proposal to rebuild the north part of Roure 39 in...2027. Wow!
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on June 27, 2020, 03:52:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 11:34:03 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on June 24, 2020, 11:20:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2020, 10:51:09 PM
Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals. On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected. Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.
That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this (http://corcohighways.org/?p=6869) where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?
I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.
Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route. I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes. The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory. I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function. There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years. I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.
In the CA Highways update thread, there is now mention of an official proposal to rebuild the north part of Roure 39 in...2027. Wow!
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
I'll believe it when Caltrans actually breaks ground.
Video of kid driving around LA in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylhHckM3wYY
Young Hispanic teen riding shotgun with his mom in front and siblings in the backseat, listening to 60s music (David Bowie, the Byrds, Bob Dylan, etc.) on a vintage radio in a Mercury Grand Marquis while driving the freeways in the sunset. It makes me nostalgic for a time I wasn't alive in.
He starts at San Pedro Ave/30th St and gets on 10 west. It's interesting to note how little some of the signs/lights have changed. At the 2:29 timestamp a distance sign is shown referring to freeways not by number but by name, like this.
Santa Fe Ave 1/4
Golden State Fwy 3/4
Santa Ana Fwy 1 1/4
The current sign has "[5 shield] Fwy NORTH" and "[5 shield] Fwy SOUTH."
Some of the older button copy shields in the vid can still be seen on 2009 GSV
Cesar Chavez Ave is shown as Brooklyn Ave at 3:39.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 27, 2020, 09:11:54 PM
Video of kid driving around LA in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylhHckM3wYY
Young Hispanic teen riding shotgun with his mom in front and siblings in the backseat, listening to 60s music (David Bowie, the Byrds, Bob Dylan, etc.) on a vintage radio in a Mercury Grand Marquis while driving the freeways in the sunset. It makes me nostalgic for a time I wasn't alive in.
He starts at San Pedro Ave/30th St and gets on 10 west. It's interesting to note how little some of the signs/lights have changed. At the 2:29 timestamp a distance sign is shown referring to freeways not by number but by name, like this.
Santa Fe Ave 1/4
Golden State Fwy 3/4
Santa Ana Fwy 1 1/4
The current sign has "[5 shield] Fwy NORTH" and "[5 shield] Fwy SOUTH."
Some of the older button copy shields in the vid can still be seen on 2009 GSV
Cesar Chavez Ave is shown as Brooklyn Ave at 3:39.
By the way, the car is a Marquis as opposed to a Grand Marquis. What is the difference? The Grand Marquis was full-sized while the Marquis was an intermediate-sized car. My sister-in-law had one. They were nice in their day but the odds of seeing one in the present are practically nil, so it would be hard for someone who was young to know the difference. The Ford LTD also did the same thing by having an LTD II.
Listening to the music reminds me of my time in the Southland in the mid-70's. There was so much smog then! Still, I enjoyed driving the freeways, especially at night, with tunes blasting away. Life was fun when I was young! Hope you can find that kind of magic to build memories with too.
Rick
Los Angeles roadgeek tour in 1989. Yes this includes the US Bank Tower under construction. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a5xDAUNBUA)
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
Quote from: M3100 on July 12, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
And that's a good thing. Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction. Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.
Quote from: mrsman on July 13, 2020, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: M3100 on July 12, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
And that's a good thing. Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction. Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.
We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard. And they're just now noticing?
Quote from: jrouse on July 13, 2020, 11:14:53 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 13, 2020, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: M3100 on July 12, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
And that's a good thing. Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction. Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.
We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard. And they're just now noticing?
Well, they are based in the Southland. How many quadruple white facilities are there in Greater LA? I know (or believe) white is the only style used up north.
Quote from: M3100 on July 12, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
In places with wider buffer areas, it's really 4 yellow lines to 4 white lines. Why not 2 white lines like an invisible gore area?
Quote from: jakeroot on July 14, 2020, 01:38:54 PM
Quote from: jrouse on July 13, 2020, 11:14:53 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 13, 2020, 07:53:58 AM
Quote from: M3100 on July 12, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.
And that's a good thing. Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction. Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.
We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard. And they're just now noticing?
Well, they are based in the Southland. How many quadruple white facilities are there in Greater LA? I know (or believe) white is the only style used up north.
There's a decent amount now, seems like they've just been replacing yellow with white when the lanes need to be restriped as it was a bit patchy on the sections I drove last year. Example on I-5 in OC: https://goo.gl/maps/7Axwb3r2eryZoCHp8
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very
north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and
exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91. Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133. IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!). But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2020, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91. Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133. IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!). But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.
That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north. It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5. But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.
While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y. While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.
Quote from: mrsman on August 02, 2020, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2020, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91. Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133. IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!). But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.
That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north. It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5. But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.
While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y. While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.
But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway. We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer........................... :poke: :eyebrow:
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2020, 09:44:51 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 02, 2020, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2020, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91. Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133. IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!). But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.
That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north. It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5. But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.
While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y. While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.
But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway. We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer........................... :poke: :eyebrow:
I used CA-73 quite a bit during my years there, but I agree that it's mostly redundant (and was even before the El Toro Y improvements).
I would have liked Caltrans to build out CA-73 as originally intended - freeway from I-405 to CA-1 using the MacArthur Boulevard corridor (or perhaps Newport Coast Drive). On the southern end, they could have built Laguna Canyon Road as a freeway from I-405 to CA-73, then used current CA-73 southeast to I-5.
The section of CA-73 between Newport Coast and Laguna Canyon could have remained unbuilt (preserving a lot of wilderness land), or at most could have been like the other Parkways in the area (Crown Valley, Antonio, etc.).
Quote from: DTComposer on August 03, 2020, 12:23:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 02, 2020, 09:44:51 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 02, 2020, 08:07:26 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 01, 2020, 03:20:16 AM
Quote from: mrsman on July 31, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 04:24:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2020, 11:24:59 AM
Quote from: bing101 on July 30, 2020, 11:20:25 AM
Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73
[/youtube]
Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road. I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going. The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway.
One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north). The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion. Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex). It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity. And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination. Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.
Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y" (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road? It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability.
But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.
Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91. Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133. IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!). But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.
That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north. It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5. But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.
While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y. While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.
But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway. We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer........................... :poke: :eyebrow:
I used CA-73 quite a bit during my years there, but I agree that it's mostly redundant (and was even before the El Toro Y improvements).
I would have liked Caltrans to build out CA-73 as originally intended - freeway from I-405 to CA-1 using the MacArthur Boulevard corridor (or perhaps Newport Coast Drive). On the southern end, they could have built Laguna Canyon Road as a freeway from I-405 to CA-73, then used current CA-73 southeast to I-5.
The section of CA-73 between Newport Coast and Laguna Canyon could have remained unbuilt (preserving a lot of wilderness land), or at most could have been like the other Parkways in the area (Crown Valley, Antonio, etc.).
Believe me -- if the CA 73 tollway hadn't been constructed, that land -- at least north of the coastal hills ridgeline where the tollway exists currently -- would have been filled with more housing and any number of multilane arterials connecting them. The concept of taking a CA 73 freeway down MacArthur to the coast was dashed once the Coastal Commission came into existence; any notion of an uphill CA 1 bypass was sunk some 43 years ago when the combined actions of Caltrans under then-director Gianturco (the freeway was deleted from plans) and the Commission (which effectively forbade any freeway development on the seaward side of the watershed divide) wiped out most of the CA 1 freeway plans in both OC and L.A./Ventura counties.
The saving grace of the hillside area north of Newport Coast is the fact that UC Irvine owns much of the land and has no intention of opening it up for development -- but the adjacent properties have, in fact, been developed with largely luxury housing (although there have been a number of multi-unit facilities built as well, primarily to accommodate university-related needs).
I always enjoy the western view of Newport Beach and the Pacific Ocean, that CA-73 shows at top of the hillside on a clear day
Highway Heaven does a tour on PCH.
Here is a cool drive from 1994 from Irvine to Indio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az0ypEjBE80)
(https://i.imgur.com/vG0LWRI.png)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5774902,-122.3602355,3a,28.6y,7.26h,90.22t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sWFew8fgzer1WRz4iiaOclg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DWFew8fgzer1WRz4iiaOclg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D63.755016%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
I knew the exit gore signs were going vanilla MUTCD in California, but they're shifting from their famous 'EXIT ONLY' plaques too?
Yes, FHWA recently asked Caltrans to make changes to the EXIT ONLY plaques to be in compliance with the MUTCD requirements. I am not sure what led to this request, but I can tell you that the FHWA California division's MUTCD lead is a big stickler for conformance with the national MUTCD.
Also a random observation: This sign has a "TO" that doesn't seem entirely necessary.
I'm guessing the TO is meant to imply that one gets to Eureka by following SR 44 west then transitioning to SR 299 in downtown Redding. Even still, the "TO" is not needed, although if desired it should probably have "TO 299 west".
Quote from: roadfro on September 14, 2020, 12:20:59 PM
Also a random observation: This sign has a "TO" that doesn't seem entirely necessary.
I'm guessing the TO is meant to imply that one gets to Eureka by following SR 44 west then transitioning to SR 299 in downtown Redding. Even still, the "TO" is not needed, although if desired it should probably have "TO 299 west".
That
is a bit weird -- the first time I've seen the "TO" prefix applied to a city on a BGS rather than a route number. Wonder what D2 was thinking when they fabricated the sign? I agree that a referential "TO WEST CA 299" should have been posted on the exit sign(s), and that an "EAST" notation should be applied to the pull-through advance notice of the CA 299 exit. The 44/299 reconfiguration occurred several years ago; this indicates that D2 remains up in the air regarding how to handle the logistics of the situation.
Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2020, 01:10:18 PM
Wonder what D2 was thinking when they fabricated the sign?
I would guess they were so focused on a national MUTCD-spec EXIT ONLY plaque that they screwed something else up in the process.
"Hey Bill, did you get the Exit Only plaque to national standards"
"Yeah mate, looks good"
"Cool. Rest of the sign?"
"Probably good. Spent most of my time on the plaque since it takes up a third of the sign"
Quote from: jakeroot on September 15, 2020, 02:32:27 AM
Quote from: sparker on September 14, 2020, 01:10:18 PM
Wonder what D2 was thinking when they fabricated the sign?
I would guess they were so focused on a national MUTCD-spec EXIT ONLY plaque that they screwed something else up in the process.
"Hey Bill, did you get the Exit Only plaque to national standards"
"Yeah mate, looks good"
"Cool. Rest of the sign?"
"Probably good. Spent most of my time on the plaque since it takes up a third of the sign"
Knowing people who are or who have worked for Caltrans (and DOH before that), that exchange is probably more accurate than one might think. When a supervisor (or a memo from "upstairs") is weighing heavily on the work, whatever aspect of the work cited in the memo that is being drilled up one's ass is front & center; everything else can be a little off, as long as it's not really critical (like the CA 44 trailblazer signs pictured, which are technically accurate but don't convey all the relevant info). It may get corrected in a few years; then again, it might sit untouched until the sign ages out -- depending upon if down the line someone in D2 gets a bug up their nether regions about such things.
Is the above sign a change of the control city from Lassen Nat'l Park to Susanville?
Is there any guidance to Downtown Redding? It seems like this would be the best way to reach Downtown from I-5 NB.
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
Is the above sign a change of the control city from Lassen Nat'l Park to Susanville?
Is there any guidance to Downtown Redding? It seems like this would be the best way to reach Downtown from I-5 NB.
D2 decided to make CA 36, which intersects NB I-5 at Red Bluff, the favored route to Lassen Park (the BGS' there reflect that), while CA 44 was deemed a quicker way to get to Susanville because of the slog along the north shore of Lake Almanor on CA 36. In reality, with the additional mileage north to Redding, the CA 44 route is pretty much a wash compared with CA 36. Also, by favoring CA 36,the main tourist attraction in those parts (Lassen) got about 20 minutes cut off the drive for the heavier traffic flow coming north from the Bay Area and Sacramento. To Caltrans, that's a "win-win" (although Susanville folks might disagree).
Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2020, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
Is the above sign a change of the control city from Lassen Nat'l Park to Susanville?
Is there any guidance to Downtown Redding? It seems like this would be the best way to reach Downtown from I-5 NB.
D2 decided to make CA 36, which intersects NB I-5 at Red Bluff, the favored route to Lassen Park (the BGS' there reflect that), while CA 44 was deemed a quicker way to get to Susanville because of the slog along the north shore of Lake Almanor on CA 36. In reality, with the additional mileage north to Redding, the CA 44 route is pretty much a wash compared with CA 36. Also, by favoring CA 36,the main tourist attraction in those parts (Lassen) got about 20 minutes cut off the drive for the heavier traffic flow coming north from the Bay Area and Sacramento. To Caltrans, that's a "win-win" (although Susanville folks might disagree).
The amusing thing is most people take 44 to Lassen because of Lake Manzanita. 36 is usually slow even on holidays weekends to 89. I would argue 44 is better constructed of the two routes also. 36 has a couple very old grad still in use in the vicinity of Mineral.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2020, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
Is the above sign a change of the control city from Lassen Nat'l Park to Susanville?
Is there any guidance to Downtown Redding? It seems like this would be the best way to reach Downtown from I-5 NB.
D2 decided to make CA 36, which intersects NB I-5 at Red Bluff, the favored route to Lassen Park (the BGS' there reflect that), while CA 44 was deemed a quicker way to get to Susanville because of the slog along the north shore of Lake Almanor on CA 36. In reality, with the additional mileage north to Redding, the CA 44 route is pretty much a wash compared with CA 36. Also, by favoring CA 36,the main tourist attraction in those parts (Lassen) got about 20 minutes cut off the drive for the heavier traffic flow coming north from the Bay Area and Sacramento. To Caltrans, that's a "win-win" (although Susanville folks might disagree).
The amusing thing is most people take 44 to Lassen because of Lake Manzanita. 36 is usually slow even on holidays weekends to 89. I would argue 44 is better constructed of the two routes also. 36 has a couple very old grad still in use in the vicinity of Mineral.
CA 44 is considerably newer than 36; the alignment is functionally constructed as a 2-lane expressway. However, it gets a lot of use as a shortcut to Reno from the PNW for traffic who prefer to stay on I-5 as long as possible. Quite a bit of that exits onto CA 89 at Mt. Shasta City; with the revamped signage (if indeed the BGS modifications extend to SB as well), one may see some "stragglers" who missed the 89 turn simply turn east at Redding.
Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2020, 06:24:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 15, 2020, 06:09:03 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 15, 2020, 05:55:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 15, 2020, 06:54:54 AM
Is the above sign a change of the control city from Lassen Nat'l Park to Susanville?
Is there any guidance to Downtown Redding? It seems like this would be the best way to reach Downtown from I-5 NB.
D2 decided to make CA 36, which intersects NB I-5 at Red Bluff, the favored route to Lassen Park (the BGS' there reflect that), while CA 44 was deemed a quicker way to get to Susanville because of the slog along the north shore of Lake Almanor on CA 36. In reality, with the additional mileage north to Redding, the CA 44 route is pretty much a wash compared with CA 36. Also, by favoring CA 36,the main tourist attraction in those parts (Lassen) got about 20 minutes cut off the drive for the heavier traffic flow coming north from the Bay Area and Sacramento. To Caltrans, that's a "win-win" (although Susanville folks might disagree).
The amusing thing is most people take 44 to Lassen because of Lake Manzanita. 36 is usually slow even on holidays weekends to 89. I would argue 44 is better constructed of the two routes also. 36 has a couple very old grad still in use in the vicinity of Mineral.
CA 44 is considerably newer than 36; the alignment is functionally constructed as a 2-lane expressway. However, it gets a lot of use as a shortcut to Reno from the PNW for traffic who prefer to stay on I-5 as long as possible. Quite a bit of that exits onto CA 89 at Mt. Shasta City; with the revamped signage (if indeed the BGS modifications extend to SB as well), one may see some "stragglers" who missed the 89 turn simply turn east at Redding.
The fastest route to Susanville from points south in the Central Valley is actually to take CA 32 out of Chico, though that road is very windy and closed in the winter so I would agree with not signing that as the way to get there.
I do question signing CA 44 over CA 36 though, that "slog" on the North shore of Lake Almanor is only about a mile of 30 mph speed limit through Chester, and the road even helpfully widens to four lanes through town so you won't get stuck behind turning traffic. Plus, CA 44 adds quite a bit of extra mileage, so the travel time ends up being about 20 minutes longer according to Google maps. I was just in the area for a couple weeks and drove both highways and this sounds about right from my experience.
However, right now there is a big realignment project happening on CA 36 over Fredonyer Pass between Westwood and the 44/36 junction with about 20-30 minute delays, so CA 44 is probably faster currently. Here's a bunch of photos I got of that project while driving through it: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmQXkNgo
As for Lassen, the advance sign still mentions the park, as well as a new brown sign at the split down the exit ramp for CA 44 west/east, so it's still covered here.
Also Re: Max Rockatansky, there has been some work on 36 around Mineral, most recently a realignment project that Caltrans did this spring on the east side of Morgan summit, which I got a couple (https://flic.kr/p/2jKTaTL) photos (https://flic.kr/p/2jKTaTA) of (you'll have to excuse my dirty windshield). There was also a less recent realignment about 5 miles west of Mineral that can be seen under construction on Google's imagery: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.3468515,-121.6931231,1010m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en. These projects, along with the Fredonyer Pass realignment, bring 36 up to a much more modern standard.
^^^^^^^^^^^
While there are sporadic closures on CA 32 between CA 36/89 and Chico during high-wind and/or fire danger periods, it is decidedly not subject to annual winter closure. As far as preferential signage treatment for both Lassen Park and Susanville is concerned, most Caltrans districts attempt to equalize the traffic flow among separate facilities serving largely common points (here, Lassen via its north/44 and south/36 entrances); if AADT figures show skewing toward one route or another, they'll expedite signage over the lesser-utilized corridor,all else being more or less the same. But the fact that there are currently multiple realignment and/or repaving projects ongoing along CA 36 might be prompting at least a temporal deemphasis on that route; if the Freedonyer realignment (long overdue, IMO!) is particularly disrupting, D2 may simply be attempting to redirect through Susanville traffic over CA 44, since at least the eastern end of that route is new enough to withstand additional traffic flow -- and after the various 36 rebuilds are completed, given funding availability shifting construction to 44 (the portion near the county A21 junction certainly needs additional passing lanes!) would be the likely follow-up. Then "Susanville" can get a green patch subbing "Lassen NP" until that road has been upgraded. Caltrans has done this sort of thing before, especially in regards to NP's and other tourist destinations. Fortunately, Lassen's entrances are close by the E-W lateral highways, so the manipulation of traffic flow among the "uphill" access routes is relatively straightforward. True, Manzanita Lake is a camping attraction of its own independent of cross-park "touristry" -- but as a stand-alone destination, it's marginal compared with the park's throughput traffic during the open season. Nevertheless that whole area has been a recreational destination for much of the last century; I remember first using CA 44 in the early '60's as a kid when the road seemed to duck around every tree between Redding and Lassen! When I first drove the newer section east of CA 89 in the mid-70's, it was like night & day compared with the original segment -- almost like half of a 4-lane expressway! Hard to believe that most of that road sits around 6K foot elevation! That segment of 44 is one of my favorite roads in the state.
The weather was cooperative, even the smoke cleared for most of the time, and we have a new bridge on US 50 just east of Echo Summit. It will be opening tomorrow, 9/27, with one lane traffic at times for a few weeks while the project is finished. The full closure of US 50 will have lasted about 10 days.
(https://i.imgur.com/cCAosKK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/wQldixD.jpg)
(Caltrans photos; more here (https://www.way2tahoe.com/daily-updates))
Very nice! Fast work, Caltrans!
That opens the door to taking US 50 during what I have in mind for Veterans Day.
Archived article about the background of Sepulevda Tunnel in the LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-05-me-surround5_-story.html
QuoteFrancisco Sepulveda became wealthy as one of the founding inhabitants of the Pueblo de Los Angeles in 1781. But his offspring had difficulty continuing in his path.
These days, his namesake Sepulveda Boulevard is Los Angeles' longest city street. And motorists trying to travel its length find that isn't easy to do either.
Stretching 40 miles between Long Beach and the San Fernando Valley's Mission Hills, Sepulveda Boulevard also is considered the longest street in the county.
The above archived article was linked in this morning's daily headlines newsletter from the LA Times. The newsletter noted:
QuoteOn Sept. 27, 1930, a procession of cars, horses and wagons marked the opening of the Sepulveda Boulevard tunnel, five years before the roadway itself was completed to provide a direct link between the San Fernando Valley and the Westside.
In 1980, reporter Bob Pool wrote about the boulevard, which stretches 40 miles between Long Beach and Mission Hills, and the man for whom it was named: Francisco Sepulveda.
"As it meanders from the mountains toward the sea and from leafy suburbs through the region's most robust industrial area, it also passes through some of the most diverse sections of the county. In a way, the roadway is a perfect tribute to Sepulveda."
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well. The albums can be viewed at these links below:
I-5 from CA 151 to US 97
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRtmd4g
US 97 and CA 265 in Weed
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRtbNpH
Sign County Route A28
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRtakZJ
CA 3 Montage-Yreka
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRt9yKf
CA 263
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRtaau7
US 199
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRt4q11
CA 197
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRteXxF
CA 169 West
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRsPDQy
Douglas Memorial Bridge (Old US 101 over the Klamath River)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRsP4je
Newton B. Drury Parkway (Old US 101)
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/bRaUuC
CA 200
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRsLkL8
CA 255
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRsKyc7
CA 211
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRsKqrj
CA 283 Rio Dell Bridge (Old US 101)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRr6UD1
CA 254 Avenue of the Giants (Old US 101)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRr6rDj
US 101 Richardson Grove
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRr4YwT
CA 271 (Old US 101)
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRr4xFf
CA 222
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRrokNJ
CA 175
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRrnWha
CA 281
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRqZwX2
CA 53
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRqZiya
CA 16 West
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRqXvX5
US 50/FHWA I-305
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmRqUy2r
"Montage" should be "Montague". The only reason I even know about that place is due to KOBI-TV listing this location as one where a TV translator is.
For humor, how about being a cop in Weed, so if you were, you could tell people that you were the Weed Police...LOL! Someone should take a pix of their badge to put it on an album and use it as the name of their musical group.
For a scenic drive on a highway in great shape, try SR 96. It has been driven by me one time and was I ever surprised by seeing both of those aforementioned qualities being present in abundance.
Rick
I can attest to CA 96 being an underrated gem, I drove the whole thing about a decade ago. 96 was my back up plan if something went wrong with US 199 this past weekend. 299 looked like a complete mess on the QuickMap.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 15, 2020, 08:33:44 PM
I can attest to CA 96 being an underrated gem, I drove the whole thing about a decade ago. 96 was my back up plan if something went wrong with US 199 this past weekend. 299 looked like a complete mess on the QuickMap.
Fully in agreement here. Back in 2014 I traveled from San Jose to Ashland, OR for a lecture series at Southern Oregon University; to mix things up a bit (and to clinch CA 96) I overnighted in Arcata, then headed east on 299 and then north/east on 96, with the last leg on I-5 over Siskiyou. First time on 96 north of 169; one of the more enjoyable journeys in far north CA I've had lately. There was a bit of repaving going on then up by Horse Creek, but otherwise the road was in good shape. BTW, this was the same trip I saw the CA 211 trailblazer NB on US 101 at the Ferndale exit, mentioned in the "Lost Coast" thread.
The Port of San Diego is conducting a study to address needs along southern Harbor Drive between Barrio Logan and National City to improve circulation, reduce truck traffic from nearby residential streets, and increase safety.
https://www.portofsandiego.org/harbordrivestudy
A list of possible projects is found here, including dedicated truck lanes from the port to the freeway network and a bridge at Vesta Street:
https://pantheonstorage.blob.core.windows.net/waterfront-development/Harbor-Drive-proposed-projects-and-map.pdf
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169.
I'm the reverse. Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169.
I'm the reverse. Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.
I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly. My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree, l said no but the right answer was "yes."
But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge. I've tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I've never had much luck.
Haven't done the CA 169 one. The CA 271 one is always fun, though.
Unless I'm wrong I believe the one on 271 is the only tunnel tree that you can walk or drive through that I haven't done. I haven't really seen a master list of Redwood Tunnel trees nor would I have described it as a stated goal. Some of the had some pretty significant road and transportation lore attached to them such as the Wawona Tree (which has long fallen).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169.
I'm the reverse. Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.
I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly. My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree, l said no but the right answer was “yes.”
But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge. I’ve tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I’ve never had much luck.
It is neat seeing the original bears on the south end of what was a bridge before the 1964 floods wiped it out. Thankfully Caltrans made sure to put those bears on the replacement bridge, which would probably not happen in these times.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on October 17, 2020, 08:21:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 04:20:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:43:55 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 17, 2020, 03:23:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on October 17, 2020, 03:09:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 14, 2020, 11:35:49 PM
I recently finished up a trip to the northernmost counties in California. That being the case I took the opportunity to cut some new photo albums for the Gribblenation blog series. The existing articles will updated in the next couple months and there will be a lot of new ones as well.
Did you drive through the drive-through tree In Leggett?
Skipped the one on 271 but did the one on 169.
I'm the reverse. Maybe next time I'll do the Klamath one.
I should have done them both and would have if I was thinking more clearly. My wife actually asked me if we needed another tunnel tree, l said no but the right answer was "yes."
But man Klamath sure is a road side delight between three things; Trees of Mystery, the Tour Thru Tree, and the ruins of the Douglas Memorial Bridge. I've tried to find foundations of the original Klamath but I've never had much luck.
It is neat seeing the original bears on the south end of what was a bridge before the 1964 floods wiped it out. Thankfully Caltrans made sure to put those bears on the replacement bridge, which would probably not happen in these times.
Rick
Those bears and how they were preserved and moved to the new 101 bridge were well documented in the early 1965 issues of CHPW, which focused on that winter's flooding in the NW corner of the state. The abject destruction, particularly in the lower Eel River valley, was evident via both the articles and plentiful photos taken by both DOH personnel and locals. The extensive use of deployable military-style truss/girder bridges was also covered in depth; it was not only US 101 but intersecting roads such as CA 36 as well as local facilities pressed into service as detours that got the temporary-structure treatment. But in the midst of all that, the Ferndale bridge remained intact and in fact served, with the road on the west Eel bank, as the 101 detour for quite some time until bridges were replaced and washouts filled. Starting with the Jan/Feb CHPW issue, the series continued in segments for most of 1965 -- coincidentally, the last year to retain the original engineering/informational format. Definitely worth looking up and thoroughly reading.
So now the anti car crowd is at it again whining and moaning about the 605 widening which might require a couple hundred homes.
The 710 tunnel canceled. The HDC canceled. The 710 expansion canceled.
Over hundred billion dollars for transit with over 70 percent of it going to mass and active transit. But yet the RE/T cross is still oppressed. Give me a break.
Oh and Joe Linton decided to ban me from streetsblog for "repeated ad hominem attacks" yet he never gave me a single warning or can produce a shred of evidence where I did so. Go figure.
https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/17/metro-board-looks-to-rein-in-605-and-5-freeway-widening-home-demolitions/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2020, 04:58:54 PM
So now the anti car crowd is at it again whining and moaning about the 605 widening which might require a couple hundred homes.
The 710 tunnel canceled. The HDC canceled. The 710 expansion canceled.
Over hundred billion dollars for transit with over 70 percent of it going to mass and active transit. But yet the RE/T cross is still oppressed. Give me a break.
Oh and Joe Linton decided to ban me from streetsblog for "repeated ad hominem attacks" yet he never gave me a single warning or can produce a shred of evidence where I did so. Go figure.
https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/17/metro-board-looks-to-rein-in-605-and-5-freeway-widening-home-demolitions/
At the minimum, I-605 over I-5 should be widened by 2 lanes to match the number of through lanes beyond the interchange on both ends.
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
Quote from: heynow415 on October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
[/quote]
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
[/quote]
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy. My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.
Rather than plowing through Norwalk, could additional capacity not be added to the 605 and 91? I don't see why traffic on the 105, trying to continue south/east into Orange County, wouldn't go south on 605 towards the 91. The connection between the 91 and 5 is already very high capacity. Certainly much higher than the equivalent movement between the 5 and 605. There is a loop ramp between the southbound 605 and eastbound 91 freeways, but it's two lanes and there is room for a flyover.
Quote from: jdbx on October 26, 2020, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy. My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.
Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk: the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration. The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW. At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time. Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).
Quote from: sparker on October 27, 2020, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: jdbx on October 26, 2020, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy. My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.
Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk: the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration. The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW. At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time. Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).
The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north. 605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.
That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built. At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.
Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo. As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor. I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway. [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]
CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all. Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down. There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.
Dept. of What On Earth Took So Long:
In Kings Beach, CA, on the north shore of Lake Tahoe, the north-south streets are named for animals (Wolf Street, Deer Street, Bear Street, etc.).
Sadly, one of them is "Coon Street". Every time I drive by there I shake my head. :no: It even has a Caltrans sign at its intersection with CA 28 (https://goo.gl/maps/q4Fwv9nAM3X7tHT6A).
But now there's good news! The Placer County Board of Supervisors has voted to change the name of "Coon Street" to "Raccoon Street" (https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article246749861.html). It's about time.
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2020, 07:10:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 27, 2020, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: jdbx on October 26, 2020, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy. My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.
Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk: the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration. The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW. At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time. Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).
The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north. 605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.
That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built. At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.
Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo. As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor. I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway. [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]
CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all. Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down. There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.
The east end of the Green Line looks to be planned to continue underground from the imagery. The tracks stay at the same elevation while the highway elevates to the Studebaker Road exit. I don't know if there would be a need to continue it past the Norwalk/ Santa Fe Springs train station, but I don't see one.
I'm not typically in favor of new highways, but the HDC should have been built. The highway would give the area a focus for development rather than the haphazard development we currently see between Palmdale and Victorville. It also would have provided a high-speed transit corridor between the area's access points on CA 14 and I-15, speeding commuters to the LA Basin and Inland Empire. It would have been a great beginning to an integrated transportation system for the High Desert.
Quote from: skluth on October 27, 2020, 04:22:54 PM
Quote from: mrsman on October 27, 2020, 07:10:09 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 27, 2020, 04:49:01 AM
Quote from: jdbx on October 26, 2020, 04:53:19 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on October 26, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 26, 2020, 02:14:05 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 24, 2020, 11:57:48 PM
Agreed. That bottleneck's needed fixing for a very long time.
And it got much worse after I-105 was completed in 1993, which deposited considerably more traffic on NB I-605 in order to access I-5.
I know the 105 was very controversial overall but it still baffles me that it was not extended to I-5. Perhaps at the time when 5 was still mostly six lanes that would have been nuts to add the 105 flow into it but subsequent widenings don't seem to make any accommodation for a future connection, such as at the Firestone/Rosecrans interchange. So close, yet so far . . .
I think you hit the nail on the head regarding controversy. My understanding is that the people of Norwalk were *very* opposed to extending I-105 through town to I-5, and unlike a lot of LA neighborhoods that were cut through by I-105, they had quite a bit more clout and were able to get it truncated to I-605.
Two factors mitigated against any I-105 extension through Norwalk: the substandard status of I-5 (the original narrow 3+3 lanes) in the area -- several STIP's before the actual plans now on the ground were under consideration. The second was, as speculated above, opposition within Norwalk to any large-scale property acquisition for the necessary ROW. At the time I-105 fully opened to traffic in '93, Caltrans had just gone through 20+ years of litigation, settlements, and the subsequent cost overruns imposed by mandated mitigation regarding the I-105 project in general, and had zero intention of revisiting those circumstances a second time. Thus I-105 ends at I-605 for the foreseeable future (although periodically a "Green Line" LR extension to Santa Fe Springs is brought up).
The 105 traffic seems to split relatively evenly between 605 south to 91 and 405 and 605 north to 5, 60, and possibly even further north. 605 is not strictly a N-S highway, it does angle enough that it does seem like SB goes a little bit in the SE direction and NB goes significantly in the NE direction with the westernmost point along the highway being basically at the 105 interchange.
That being said, spot-widening of the 605 between Whittier Blvd and the 91 would better accommodate the infusion of traffic from the 105 and should have been done when the 105 was built. At the very least, the lane drop by I-5 should have been eliminated.
Green line extension makes sense as a way of allowing for a transfer from the OC and 91 Metrolink commuter rail lines toward LAX and El Segundo. As the ROW is narrower, fewer homes would need to be taken than if a freeway were planned along the corridor. I imagine that the easiest way to accomplish this would be an elevated line along Imperial Highway. [I hope it is elevated, surface level light rail would just get stuck in traffic.]
CA is in such a state in its politics that we are unlikely to see new freeways at all. Even the High Desert corridor, which can alleviate a lot of traffic in LA Basin and Inland Empire, and with very few homes along the ROW, was voted down. There is no appetite for any project that would demolish homes, even if it is worthy from a traffic standpoint.
The east end of the Green Line looks to be planned to continue underground from the imagery. The tracks stay at the same elevation while the highway elevates to the Studebaker Road exit. I don't know if there would be a need to continue it past the Norwalk/ Santa Fe Springs train station, but I don't see one.
I'm not typically in favor of new highways, but the HDC should have been built. The highway would give the area a focus for development rather than the haphazard development we currently see between Palmdale and Victorville. It also would have provided a high-speed transit corridor between the area's access points on CA 14 and I-15, speeding commuters to the LA Basin and Inland Empire. It would have been a great beginning to an integrated transportation system for the High Desert.
One of the issues regarding the High Desert can be boiled down to one thing -- the L.A./S.B. county line which bisects the desert area between Palmdale/Lancaster and the Victorville region. Two counties, two metro planning agencies, two vastly differing sets of priorities. Some L.A. county planners seem intent on extending the L.A. basin's effective "freeway moratorium" out into the desert -- hence the push to delete the tollway from the HDC's near-term plans. L.A. County-initiated policies are inured to the "induced demand" concept, coupled with the "if you build it, it will cause sprawl" credo. Not so much out in San Bernardino County; what they've been doing in west Victorville and Adelanto, which would be the areas affected by the HDC's presence, is to build the outer tracts initially and then infill eastward back to US 395 and I-15; in that way, they initially cater to those who are seeking relative suburban isolation and then following that up with folks who would rather be closer to the amenities found along the arterials. The other thing on the S.B. side is that most of the High Desert cities are stretched to the max regarding service provision, including municipal utilities, policing, sewers, etc. (hard to sell a tract home without a sewage system -- few new residents want their shit processed on-site!). So authorizing more outlying tracts to the west isn't considered a practical option in any case. Also, the way the HDC was configured when it featured the tollway was with only one interchange between Avenue 50 on the east side of Palmdale and US 395 (about a 35-mile stretch); that interchange was to service Lake Los Angeles, a largely retirement community along the corridor that is already extensively developed. The HDC was specifically designed to
not promote development along its length -- but L.A. planners put the kibosh on it anyway -- which seems more a symbolic gesture than getting rid of a potential conduit for sprawl.
Also, there is precious little "cross-hatch" action regarding commutes from the Palmdale/Lancaster/CA 14 corridor and the Victorville/Hesperia/I-15 area; the level of commute from the former to the Inland Empire is vanishingly miniscule, as is the analogous commute from the I-15 desert corridor to central/west L.A. Most of the E-W traffic, even on CA 138 and CA 18, is either commercial or sporadic/incidental rather than part of a consistent and repeating pattern. Part of that is the lack of extensive employment centers in either area save Edwards AFB and the SoCal Wal-Mart distribution center off I-15 north of Victorville. Inter-county commute travel just doesn't exist at any appreciable level in the high desert area -- another obstacle to "sprawl" between the regions. Any "haphazard" development in that interim area are simply self-isolated desert residences; something that's been there for at least a century.
Quote from: andy3175 on September 28, 2020, 09:41:35 PM
Archived article about the background of Sepulevda Tunnel in the LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-feb-05-me-surround5_-story.html
QuoteFrancisco Sepulveda became wealthy as one of the founding inhabitants of the Pueblo de Los Angeles in 1781. But his offspring had difficulty continuing in his path.
These days, his namesake Sepulveda Boulevard is Los Angeles' longest city street. And motorists trying to travel its length find that isn't easy to do either.
Stretching 40 miles between Long Beach and the San Fernando Valley's Mission Hills, Sepulveda Boulevard also is considered the longest street in the county.
It's not. Sierra Highway is almost 70 miles, 55 of which are in LA county. And Foothill Blvd is roughly the same, with about 50 in LA county, although it has a few gaps in it.
Oddly, the ends of Sierra and Foothill are only about 250 yards apart, and Sepulveda comes within 400 yards of Foothill.
Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday. Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Txb5j3W.jpg)
Quote from: gonealookin on October 29, 2020, 01:25:15 PM
Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday. Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Txb5j3W.jpg)
Weather permitting I'll be by on November 5th to see it for myself (and hopefully Johnson Pass Road).
Quote from: gonealookin on October 29, 2020, 01:25:15 PM
Final cleanup work on the Echo Summit bridge replacement project was completed yesterday. Here's a photo of the finished product from the Caltrans District 3 Twitter feed:
(https://i.imgur.com/Txb5j3W.jpg)
That's some of the most attractive stonework I've seen on a public project in some time! That official D3 pic might be the only chance a lot of folks (without binoculars from down on CA 89!) have to see the whole structure, since most of them will be driving atop it, of course.
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Quote from: fungus on October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
Here is a tour of the I-5 Widening project. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfqUT65Xd2w)
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: fungus on October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
Could this be a district preference sort of thing? In San Jose, there are two or so SPUIs along the Guadalupe Parkway (Route 87) north of downtown.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
Quote from: jrouse on October 30, 2020, 09:56:42 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
I acknowledge that SPUIs typically necessitate a wider/longer structure, so understand the cost factor. But could you elaborate on how a SPUI is not accommodating to bicyclists and pedestrians? Seems like it would have the same number of conflict points for bikes and same number of pedestrian crossings (signalized or not) when compared to a standard diamond with right turn slip lanes onto the freeway. Only thing I can think of is it's a large intersection to cross, which may initiate conflict if a bicyclist enters later in the arterial green.
DDIs do save on that cost factor. I've seen commentary that the center-running sidewalks are not as pedestrian friendly (and can be less intuitive for people with low vision ability).
Quote from: jrouse on October 30, 2020, 09:56:42 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
I wonder if the more costly structure is offset by the reduced cost in property acquisitions for urban situations, like this Lakewood Blvd interchange?
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: fungus on October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Here's a cool video on Caltrans wrong-way signs and two-way pavement reflectors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tcgZlYNUus&ab_channel=CaltransVideo
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2020, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: fungus on October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Since the concern here is the large number of properties affected, the interchange design with moderate capacity but least right of way required should be the preferred design. SPUI or DDI both fits these requirements.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2020, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Keep in mind that these ramps are going to be metered and they need adequate storage to keep traffic contained on the ramp. That is probably why they are designed the way they are. Ramp metering is another challenge with SPUIs and DDIs because the ramps cannot always be designed to handle the storage needs.
Quote from: roadfro on October 30, 2020, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 30, 2020, 09:56:42 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
I acknowledge that SPUIs typically necessitate a wider/longer structure, so understand the cost factor. But could you elaborate on how a SPUI is not accommodating to bicyclists and pedestrians? Seems like it would have the same number of conflict points for bikes and same number of pedestrian crossings (signalized or not) when compared to a standard diamond with right turn slip lanes onto the freeway. Only thing I can think of is it's a large intersection to cross, which may initiate conflict if a bicyclist enters later in the arterial green.
DDIs do save on that cost factor. I've seen commentary that the center-running sidewalks are not as pedestrian friendly (and can be less intuitive for people with low vision ability).
Webinar with FHA slides (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Webinar_DPS_100510_6a.pdf) describing pedestrian/highway conflicts. SPUI starts on page 26. Traveling along the road crossing the freeway takes time and involves four crossings, but can be done. The main conflict, which is crossing the road itself anywhere near the interchange, can be seen on page 43. It doesn't discuss DDIs.
Quote from: jrouse on November 01, 2020, 12:13:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2020, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Keep in mind that these ramps are going to be metered and they need adequate storage to keep traffic contained on the ramp. That is probably why they are designed the way they are. Ramp metering is another challenge with SPUIs and DDIs because the ramps cannot always be designed to handle the storage needs.
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
My major concern would actually be with the right turn on-ramp from northbound to southbound. I can understand having to redesign loops, especially if that loop has to accommodate more cars if another ramp is not built, but the slip lane ramp as designed has less capacity than if it were curved (which could begin as a single lane for the pedestrian crossing, and then widen to two or three lanes). I can understand the pedestrian argument as well, although a more curved design that begins prior to the off-ramp signal (for "A4 Parclos") isn't an uncommon design in California (westbound Jeffrey Ave to northbound 5 fwy in Irvine as an example), and I don't have any reason to believe the design is even slightly worse than a regular right turn. At least majorly.
Here is a drawing showing a similar on-ramp here in WA compared to how it could be curved to make it longer. The blue lines represent roughly where the extra length is:
(https://i.imgur.com/es78l6W.jpg)
Quote from: jakeroot on November 02, 2020, 05:35:59 PM
Quote from: jrouse on November 01, 2020, 12:13:06 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2020, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Keep in mind that these ramps are going to be metered and they need adequate storage to keep traffic contained on the ramp. That is probably why they are designed the way they are. Ramp metering is another challenge with SPUIs and DDIs because the ramps cannot always be designed to handle the storage needs.
I see. Thank you for the explanation.
My major concern would actually be with the right turn on-ramp from northbound to southbound. I can understand having to redesign loops, especially if that loop has to accommodate more cars if another ramp is not built, but the slip lane ramp as designed has less capacity than if it were curved (which could begin as a single lane for the pedestrian crossing, and then widen to two or three lanes). I can understand the pedestrian argument as well, although a more curved design that begins prior to the off-ramp signal (for "A4 Parclos") isn't an uncommon design in California (westbound Jeffrey Ave to northbound 5 fwy in Irvine as an example), and I don't have any reason to believe the design is even slightly worse than a regular right turn. At least majorly.
Here is a drawing showing a similar on-ramp here in WA compared to how it could be curved to make it longer. The blue lines represent roughly where the extra length is:
(https://i.imgur.com/es78l6W.jpg)
You don't understand the pedestrian argument. Your desire for a smoother curve is incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. Just because you've seen it elsewhere doesn't make it less dangerous. This isn't a freeway-to-freeway connection where you are trying to maintain high speeds. I see no advantage to a smoother curve there other than it's more fun to drive because drivers can test how fast they can take the curve.
Quote from: skluth on November 03, 2020, 04:00:16 PM
You don't understand the pedestrian argument. Your desire for a smoother curve is incredibly dangerous for pedestrians. Just because you've seen it elsewhere doesn't make it less dangerous. This isn't a freeway-to-freeway connection where you are trying to maintain high speeds. I see no advantage to a smoother curve there other than it's more fun to drive because drivers can test how fast they can take the curve.
The smoother curve would allow for more ramp meter storage capacity, an issue raised by
jrouse as being one of the reasons on-ramps are sometimes designed to be longer than necessary or positioned more strangely than a traditional non-metered ramp.
Here's my preferred design (1): https://goo.gl/maps/KsNkXK165Y1VBt2VA (in nearby Irvine)
Here's the Caltrans design (2): https://goo.gl/maps/qF1RrPcdHYixbhj58 (example from WA)
Design (1) is the type preferred by Caltrans by a large margin, whereas design (2) is less common and largely used when there are bus stations on the ramps or to allow oversize/overweight vehicles to safely proceed through the interchange without using the mainline carriageway.
The pedestrian argument is there. However, I feel it is primarily a case of "perception of danger" over actual danger. The general perception is that free-flow (either yield or add-lane) movements are considered dangerous, irrespective of their design, and that right turns via signals are far safer. I feel this is a gross generalization, and that free-flow movements can actually be far superior:
(1) free flow movements are typically single-lane yield situations, much like right turns via a signal;
(2) it is easier to incorporate signage for a free-flow crossing where drivers and pedestrians meet at right or shallower angles;
(3) signalized crossings are much longer, as the intersection must have a large enough corner radius to allow right turns for larger vehicles (note length of crossing in #1 vs #2);
(4) right turns, especially those onto an on-ramp that is busy, can sometimes turn into double turns as drivers attempt to fill both lanes of a meter or access an HOV lane;
(5) turns onto a ramp with no other interfering movements (left turns, primarily) often turn into "California stop" situations where drivers barely observe the red light (it's not "protecting" them from anything);
(5.5) related to above, these signalized right turns cannot use green arrows because the on-ramp typically has a straight-ahead option. This reduces driver obedience of red lights.
The best setup, in my mind, is free-flow ramps with part-time signalized crossings (RRFBs, HAWKs, the standard LADOT flashing red crossing, etc). They have the highest traffic capacity as is often desired by DOTs thanks to their more gradual curves, but pedestrians can still have full protection
if they so desire. It would be superior to a standard right turn because the crossing would be shorter, with the shorter minimum walk time allowing easier adaption into a coordinated corridor. As well, an RYG signal (as opposed to an RRFB setup) would not allow movements on red like at signalized right turns, as the crossing is more straight-on than a right turn. This is better for pedestrians, as they can cross without fear of traffic turning into them as they might at a traditional intersection with a "right turn yield to pedestrians on green" setup (the setup at the proposed Lakewood Blvd interchange).
From an urban design perspective, free-flow crossings also break up the intersection a bit, into more manageable "chunks", versus the more typical
huge intersection with extraordinarily-long crossings that you see across LA (which aren't exactly bastions of safety anyways); these large intersections also have very long pedestrian walk cycles, resulting in the pedestrian phase being activated only when called for. Shorter crossings (
this off-ramp for instance (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6646776,-117.7933515,65m/data=!3m1!1e3)) can institute automatic walk phasing without destroying traffic flow. They would compliment the other crossings to the point where the "average" pedestrian could proceed through the entire intersection without hitting any beg buttons (a feature that Caltrans would certainly implement at an upgraded Lakewood Blvd interchange). Pedestrians with disabilities could activate the part-time crossings and would be afforded full protection without worrying about traffic turning or moving on red.
I'm not trying to craft together some Goldilocks scenario here, but it is incorrect to assume that "free flow" movements are always inferior to right turns.
Quote from: skluth on November 01, 2020, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 30, 2020, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 30, 2020, 09:56:42 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
I acknowledge that SPUIs typically necessitate a wider/longer structure, so understand the cost factor. But could you elaborate on how a SPUI is not accommodating to bicyclists and pedestrians? Seems like it would have the same number of conflict points for bikes and same number of pedestrian crossings (signalized or not) when compared to a standard diamond with right turn slip lanes onto the freeway. Only thing I can think of is it's a large intersection to cross, which may initiate conflict if a bicyclist enters later in the arterial green.
DDIs do save on that cost factor. I've seen commentary that the center-running sidewalks are not as pedestrian friendly (and can be less intuitive for people with low vision ability).
Webinar with FHA slides (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Webinar_DPS_100510_6a.pdf) describing pedestrian/highway conflicts. SPUI starts on page 26. Traveling along the road crossing the freeway takes time and involves four crossings, but can be done. The main conflict, which is crossing the road itself anywhere near the interchange, can be seen on page 43. It doesn't discuss DDIs.
Okay, I guess that's valid. But perhaps another question would be why a pedestrian would need to cross the road at the SPUI? In many cases, SPUIs are situated between closely-adjacent signalized intersections where crossing is more likely to occur (making crossing in between at the SPUI itself irrelevant/unnecessary). The FHWA slides do mention nearby crossings and two-stage crossing as alternatives if that crossing movement is actually needed.
Quote from: roadfro on November 05, 2020, 11:15:35 AM
Quote from: skluth on November 01, 2020, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 30, 2020, 12:22:36 PM
Quote from: jrouse on October 30, 2020, 09:56:42 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
The SPUI is not a preferred alternative for interchange design in California because it is a bit more costly and it also does not accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians very well. It is more "car-centric" and Caltrans is trying to be more ped and bike friendly in its designs. A better alternative might be the diverging diamond interchange. I know there were proposals for several DDIs on I-710 as part of the plans for that corridor. I can't speak as to why DDIs are not an option for I-605.
I acknowledge that SPUIs typically necessitate a wider/longer structure, so understand the cost factor. But could you elaborate on how a SPUI is not accommodating to bicyclists and pedestrians? Seems like it would have the same number of conflict points for bikes and same number of pedestrian crossings (signalized or not) when compared to a standard diamond with right turn slip lanes onto the freeway. Only thing I can think of is it's a large intersection to cross, which may initiate conflict if a bicyclist enters later in the arterial green.
DDIs do save on that cost factor. I've seen commentary that the center-running sidewalks are not as pedestrian friendly (and can be less intuitive for people with low vision ability).
Webinar with FHA slides (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/Webinar_DPS_100510_6a.pdf) describing pedestrian/highway conflicts. SPUI starts on page 26. Traveling along the road crossing the freeway takes time and involves four crossings, but can be done. The main conflict, which is crossing the road itself anywhere near the interchange, can be seen on page 43. It doesn't discuss DDIs.
Okay, I guess that's valid. But perhaps another question would be why a pedestrian would need to cross the road at the SPUI? In many cases, SPUIs are situated between closely-adjacent signalized intersections where crossing is more likely to occur (making crossing in between at the SPUI itself irrelevant/unnecessary). The FHWA slides do mention nearby crossings and two-stage crossing as alternatives if that crossing movement is actually needed.
I used this interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.5110486,-90.3360285,620m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) daily for several years when I lived in St Louis. I don't recall any pedestrians crossing between Rusty Road and I-55 west of the interchange; I frequently saw foot traffic between the former Toys R Us/ JoAnn Fabrics and Marshall's, etc. It a dangerous area generally; I can't tell you how many near-miss accidents (along with a few actual accidents) I saw at the Lindbergh/ Crescent Drive intersection from the cross-traffic. This SPUI on I-70 at Florissant Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.7203238,-90.3066267,979m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) also has pedestrian issues north of the interchange. The other STL (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6305049,-90.2652903,602m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en)SPUIs are better (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6357527,-90.4051304,600m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) and like you describe or have other strategies (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.631989,-90.2858758,349m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en) to mitigate pedestrian conflicts.
MOD NOTE: I split off the few posts about wrong-way driver warning systems and moved that over to the Traffic Control board at Wrong-way driver warning systems (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=27940.0), as I thought it might generate some broader discussion there. –Roadfro
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Quote from: TJS23 on November 08, 2020, 03:27:10 AM
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Yes, and 89 over Monitor Pass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2020, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on November 08, 2020, 03:27:10 AM
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Yes, and 89 over Monitor Pass.
Definitely -- and I remember the days when Carson (88) and Luther (89 up to Tahoe) were included in that group until the late '60's; in those days the only winter road access to Alpine County was through NV!
Quote from: sparker on November 08, 2020, 08:28:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2020, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on November 08, 2020, 03:27:10 AM
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Yes, and 89 over Monitor Pass.
Definitely -- and I remember the days when Carson (88) and Luther (89 up to Tahoe) were included in that group until the late '60's; in those days the only winter road access to Alpine County was through NV!
It is kind of interesting to me to see how big of a deal that road over Monitor Pass was in the early 20th Century in terms of getting a direct road between Bridgeport and Markleeville. The latter had not declined so much over the 20th Century I would venture a guess that there would be a greater push to keep Monitor open all year.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2020, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on November 08, 2020, 03:27:10 AM
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Yes, and 89 over Monitor Pass.
This past week, me and my friend actually got to do 120, 108, 88 and 50. We were planning on going up 4 but that closed Friday morning.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
Quote from: TheStranger on November 08, 2020, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 08, 2020, 10:25:45 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on November 08, 2020, 03:27:10 AM
With the first Winter Storm Warning in the Sierra's this weekend, is that all she wrote for the 4,108, and 120 passes?
Yes, and 89 over Monitor Pass.
This past week, me and my friend actually got to do 120, 108, 88 and 50. We were planning on going up 4 but that closed Friday morning.
SAMSUNG-SM-G930A
I got 4, 89, and 108 in on a single day a back in September. I did Tioga the week prior and planned for Sherman Pass but the Golden Trout fire started around then. We bailed from Tahoe this weekend (I wanted to check out the new Bridge on US 50 over Echo Summit) because the snow was going to negate the plans to do some cycling.
The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf
I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 11:52:31 PM
The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf
I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.
I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding. Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Indeed! This was a pretty good round of funding I must say. I am pleased with a lot of the projects.
Quote from: mapman on November 17, 2020, 01:35:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 11:52:31 PM
The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf
I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.
I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding. Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint: CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta). Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project. But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 06:12:03 AM
Quote from: mapman on November 17, 2020, 01:35:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 11:52:31 PM
The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf
I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.
I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding. Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint: CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta). Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project. But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!
Maybe I am mistaken but are those dates proposed start dates or just the year the money will be allocated from this fund?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 17, 2020, 03:00:13 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 17, 2020, 06:12:03 AM
Quote from: mapman on November 17, 2020, 01:35:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2020, 11:52:31 PM
The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf
https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf
I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.
I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding. Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties. :clap: :clap: :clap:
Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint: CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta). Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project. But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!
Maybe I am mistaken but are those dates proposed start dates or just the year the money will be allocated from this fund?
If the design of the project has been completed -- at which point the district (in this case D4, but only by a couple of miles) knows how much ROW is necessary -- property acquisition commences when the funds are disbursed. When construction actually begins is, of course, dependent upon a list of other factors (and COVID has certainly affected such scheduling). But at least the preliminary steps generally occur in the initial funding year. But this particular project is likely to be at least in some fashion coordinated with the CA 25 expansion, most of which is in San Benito County -- within District 5. So the overall schedule for the 101/25 interchange may well be dependent upon the schedule for the adjoining project(s).
A report on the progress made by SB-1:
Quote
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) has passed a major timeline milestone, one-fifth of the way through a promised 10-year transformation of California's transportation network.
A recent progress report presented to the California Transportation Commission shows that Caltrans, to this point, is meeting or making significant strides on key SB 1 performance targets set for pavement, bridges, drainages, its signals, signs and sensors system.
But challenges remain in the pace of improvements to the bridges that Caltrans maintains, although solid progress has been made to that critical part of the State Highway System (SHS).
Caltrans analyzed the condition of its major highway components as part of an annual progress report required by the CTC. In addition to the SB 1 targets, the report measured Caltrans' performance in the same categories established in its 2018 Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) that counted and assessed the condition of the highway system's many physical components, and set objectives to preserve and improve those assets.
The progress report noted that Caltrans was on track, at current and projected rates of repair and rehabilitation, to meet SB 1 performance standards for pavement overall, bridges, and culverts by the end of the 10-year reporting period. The interconnected grid of electrical devices and hardware known as TMS (transportation management system) was placed on monitor status, meaning it's still uncertain whether the pace of improvements will be enough to achieve 2027 goals. That same rating was accorded for a separate SB 1 category, pavement maintenance based on the number of potholes, cracks and concrete corrosion found on state routes.
Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/projects-in-golden-state-making-significant-progress/50430
Here is an update on the I-405 construction in Orange County by 101not5
Quote from: bing101 on November 21, 2020, 10:48:54 AM
Here is an update on the I-405 construction in Orange County by 101not5
Yowza! With all the flyovers for the express lanes, this project's budget must be approaching $1B if not substantially more. Can't imagine that the folks living next to 405 are particularly thrilled with the upgrades -- or at least the installation process!
The Los Angeles Times reports on a project to realign part of CA 1 near Gleason Beach in Sonoma County, as part of a "managed retreat" effort to move the highway inland and away from the rapidly encroaching coastline.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-27/gleason-beach-managed-retreat
QuoteHere at Gleason Beach, once referred to as Malibu North, the beach gets drowned during high tide. Bits of concrete and rebar are all that remain of 11 clifftop homes that have already surrendered to the sea. A graveyard of seawalls, smashed into pieces, litters the shore.
Highway 1 now hangs inches from what seems like the edge of the world. For decades, officials have scrambled to save the road from the ocean – pouring millions of tax dollars into a vicious cycle of sudden collapses and emergency repairs. Last year, this critical lifeline for the region was reduced to one lane.
With the realities of climate change looming ever closer, California transportation officials are now moving a key stretch of highway more than 350 feet inland – one of the first major efforts by the state to relocate, or "manage retreat," critical infrastructure far enough away from the coast to make room for the next 100 years of sea level rise.
The ambitious project Рapproved this month after more than a decade of planning Рcomes at a time when city and state leaders across California are waking up to the social and economic disasters of sea level rise. At least $8 billion in property could be underwater by 2050, according to recent legislative reports, with an additional $10 billion at risk during high tides. Heavier storms and more intense cycles of El Ni̱o could make things even worse.
(https://gleasonbeachrealignment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/overview2c.jpg)
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that widening of US 101 through Richardson Grove State Park is still on, after a federal appeals court overruled a 2019 lower court ruling against Caltrans' environmental impact analysis.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Humbolt-County-road-lined-with-old-growth-15770723.php
QuoteThe state's long-standing proposal to widen part of Highway 101 in Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County, to make room for bigger trucks, took a step forward Wednesday when a federal appeals court said Caltrans had adequately considered any likely impact on towering, ancient redwoods living alongside the highway.
The project, originally proposed in 2007, hit a roadblock in May 2019 when U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco rejected the state Department of Transportation's conclusion from 2017 that it would cause "no significant impact" to the environment. Alsup said there was evidence that the road-widening could suffocate some of the 300-foot redwoods – some of them 3,000 years old – cause root disease in others and worsen damage to trees hit by trucks that skidded off the highway.
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Caltrans had conducted an adequate review, with assistance from a staff arborist, and found that the construction would not threaten the life of any old-growth redwoods. The court also accepted the department's findings that the project would not diminish visitors' enjoyment of the park by increasing traffic or noise from the highway.
Quote from: Kniwt on December 02, 2020, 10:07:56 PM
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that widening of US 101 through Richardson Grove State Park is still on, after a federal appeals court overruled a 2019 lower court ruling against Caltrans' environmental impact analysis.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Humbolt-County-road-lined-with-old-growth-15770723.php
QuoteThe state's long-standing proposal to widen part of Highway 101 in Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County, to make room for bigger trucks, took a step forward Wednesday when a federal appeals court said Caltrans had adequately considered any likely impact on towering, ancient redwoods living alongside the highway.
The project, originally proposed in 2007, hit a roadblock in May 2019 when U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco rejected the state Department of Transportation's conclusion from 2017 that it would cause "no significant impact" to the environment. Alsup said there was evidence that the road-widening could suffocate some of the 300-foot redwoods – some of them 3,000 years old – cause root disease in others and worsen damage to trees hit by trucks that skidded off the highway.
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Caltrans had conducted an adequate review, with assistance from a staff arborist, and found that the construction would not threaten the life of any old-growth redwoods. The court also accepted the department's findings that the project would not diminish visitors' enjoyment of the park by increasing traffic or noise from the highway.
Ran into a paywall about two paragraphs in. I guess the original plan included removal of 54 non-old growth Redwoods and now that's down to 38? CAhighways has a summary of the legal battle:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html
Today's appellate court decision is at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/02/19-16478.pdf
I haven't reviewed it in detail, but the concurring opinion seems to give some hope to both sides. On the one hand, it says that changes to the project, or new data gathered during preparation for construction, might require a "do-over" on the environmental review. On the other hand, construction might generate new information that might help Caltrans on any additional projects it might propose in redwood country. (I suspect such additional projects are purely hypothetical.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still, widening of a 2-lane facility remains a "band-aid" approach; a full new alignment bypass, which would have obviated the need for any widening of the current facility, would still be the optimal approach -- albeit with the terrain to deal with, a decidedly expensive one. Both the commercial needs of northern Mendocino and Humboldt Counties and the environmental needs of Richardson Grove itself deserve better than a simple widening of a substandard roadway. However, longstanding emotional factors have mitigated against a permanent solution -- and Caltrans has simply elected to take the path of least resistance rather than press for a long-term approach.
Yes. In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove. As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves. Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove. But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long. For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road. Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.
Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park. And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2020, 06:11:59 PM
Yes. In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove. As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves. Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove. But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long. For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road. Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.
Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park. And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.
Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants. Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2020, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2020, 06:11:59 PM
Yes. In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove. As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves. Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove. But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long. For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road. Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.
Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park. And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.
Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants. Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101.
The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed.
Quote from: sparker on December 04, 2020, 04:16:06 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2020, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2020, 06:11:59 PM
Yes. In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove. As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves. Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove. But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long. For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road. Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.
Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park. And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.
Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants. Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101.
The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed.
Which I would assume would be promoted as another touring alternate to 101 like 254 is. 271 is kinda like that already but doesn't quite have the same impact 254 has given it doesn't have a state park. Interestingly I do think 271 probably has the more expensive bridge structures to maintain as there is a couple concrete arches and a truss span.
Quote from: sparker on December 04, 2020, 04:16:06 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 03, 2020, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 03, 2020, 06:11:59 PM
Yes. In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove. As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves. Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove. But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long. For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road. Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.
Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park. And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.
Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants. Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101.
The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed.
Perhaps, however there would probably be a segment where 271 and existing 101 run in parallel, requiring a new number for one of them.
I thought the obvious route for a bypass would be to depart from 101 just south of Cook's Valley Campground and climb up the east side of the valley. The Park extends part way up the east side of the valley, so the bypass would need some distance to gain the elevation. But 271 parallels 101 to north of Cook's Valley Campground.
Even if a Richardson Grove bypass were to become reality, that still leaves the curvy 2-lane section north of Leggett as an obstacle to efficient N-S movement in the area; that would itself require bypassing; whether on the opposite slope west of the current facility or a more ambitious mountain-climber to the east, likely veering off from the existing limited-access section between Cummings and Leggett. But currently it's unlikely that Caltrans has the appetite or intestinal fortitude (i.e. "guts") to draw what would be the inevitable fire from the more vehement environmental activists for even considering making egress in that neck of the woods any automotive-friendlier. It's correspondingly likely that "band-aids" such as the widening cited that only draw grumbling or short-term fire from those quarters will remain the activity of choice. Also, the fact that any improvement activity on that southerly 2-lane segment doesn't directly affect a dense redwood grove likely means that segment will probably a prime candidate to receive a version of the "band-aid" treatment in the near term if deemed necessary.
As far as I remember, the 2-lane section from Leggett to Confusion Hill is curvy, but wide enough for current large trucks to travel without restriction. Have to slow down for the curves, and there are limited passing opportunities, but no actual obstacles.
I agree, the only true part of 101 that isn't meant for modern freight traffic is at Richardson Grove. I kind of wonder how the bypass of Confusion Hill was affecting visitation prior to the pandemic?
Quote from: kkt on December 05, 2020, 12:03:57 AM
As far as I remember, the 2-lane section from Leggett to Confusion Hill is curvy, but wide enough for current large trucks to travel without restriction. Have to slow down for the curves, and there are limited passing opportunities, but no actual obstacles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2020, 12:14:09 AM
I agree, the only true part of 101 that isn't meant for modern freight traffic is at Richardson Grove. I kind of wonder how the bypass of Confusion Hill was affecting visitation prior to the pandemic?
That 2-lane segment saw quite a bit of improvement in the mid-late 80's -- particularly replacement of some really narrow bridges -- but, in conjunction with the current state of the Richardson Grove section, not enough to alleviate the truck restrictions on US 101 north of Laytonville. Semi-trucks (particularly the ones exceeding the posted "38-foot" post-to-axle standard) that just can't make it through Richardson would still have to slow to 15-20mph or less to get past Leggett -- which makes me wonder if, once Richardson is widened (band-aid and all notwithstanding!) if those restrictions would be modified or even lifted, with automotive traffic simply having to tolerate slow trucks through the 2-lane segments. Even with the inefficiencies along US 101, letting larger trucks use the highway would benefit commerce in the greater Eureka area -- effectively eliminating the trucking side-trip through Redding and over 299. And that in itself may be an additional rationale for the Richardson widening concept -- removing the final physically prohibitive obstacle to through trucks, regardless of the effect on traffic or the parks lining US 101. Frankly, the smell of political pressure emanating from the North Coast permeates the whole Grove widening project.
It's been several years since I've been up that way so GSV helped refresh my recollection of the challenges in that corridor. One thing that did catch my eye is in Leggett at the 101/1/271 junction where it appears there is preparation for a grade separation to nowhere (to the north) with s/b ramps connecting to 271. It seems as if the mystery stub is for a realignment that would bypass the current circuitous route following the Eel to at least Rock Creek and instead cross it at least once, if not twice. It also looks like there is a r/w reservation that goes as far as the river, based on Google's property line delineations. Anybody know what that's about?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Leggett,+CA+95585/@39.8706922,-123.717278,1133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x54d4cc1fffa328f9:0x28dffafca0e1592e!8m2!3d39.8654841!4d-123.7148275
I don't really know. But in the streetview image off CA 1, there's grading equipment and a portapotty and the earth north of CA 1 looks freshly graded, like prep for 101 to take an overpass over CA 1. That's dated Oct. 2017. However, I'm not seeing any prep for a right of way across the Eel from that earthwork. If they've gotten to the grading earth stage, you'd think at least the trees would have been removed.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 30, 2020, 03:21:04 PM
Quote from: SeriesE on October 30, 2020, 05:17:37 AM
Quote from: fungus on October 29, 2020, 09:10:37 PM
There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/
Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?
It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.
SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.
I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.
For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.
If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.
Which design has the least delays? Parclo A4 with unsynchronized signals (happens more often than not in my experience) or SPUI?
Want to learn more but it's hard to find them online.
Found this article in the March 1934 CHPW pertaining to the early construction of the modern Last Chance Grade of US 101 south of Crescent City. The previous road is now a Endetts Beach Road and California Coastal Trail in Del Norte Redwoods State Park:
https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n79/mode/2up?q=Klamath
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 23, 2020, 10:39:37 PM
Found this article in the March 1934 CHPW pertaining to the early construction of the modern Last Chance Grade of US 101 south of Crescent City. The previous road is now a Endetts Beach Road and California Coastal Trail in Del Norte Redwoods State Park:
https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n79/mode/2up?q=Klamath
Cool! If you happen to run across photos of the completed 1930s Last Chance Grade, do post a link :)
Quote from: kkt on December 24, 2020, 12:15:01 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 23, 2020, 10:39:37 PM
Found this article in the March 1934 CHPW pertaining to the early construction of the modern Last Chance Grade of US 101 south of Crescent City. The previous road is now a Endetts Beach Road and California Coastal Trail in Del Norte Redwoods State Park:
https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n79/mode/2up?q=Klamath
Cool! If you happen to run across photos of the completed 1930s Last Chance Grade, do post a link :)
I took photos atop the Last Chance Grade just for fun and didn't anticipate accidentally finding something that detailed in the CHPW. I might do some more digging given that I can probably a viable blog topic out of it. I had suspected the California Coastal Trail was the old highway, I guess that suspicion was confirmed.
Highway Heaven does a tour on I-15, CA-138 and CA-2.
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on January 11, 2021, 11:21:21 AM
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday1
Rick
It would be even better if CA 173 reopened completely so one could get the full original CA 2 experience behind the wheel.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 11, 2021, 11:57:41 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 11, 2021, 11:21:21 AM
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday1
Rick
It would be even better if CA 173 reopened completely so one could get the full original CA 2 experience behind the wheel.
Probably not going to happen. Back in 2011, when I was still living in Hesperia, I rode along on a friend's ATV over about two miles of 173 just east of the western gate; it was in sorry shape then, with a lot of deep ruts (both linear and crossing) along the normally graded surface (we nearly tipped over a couple of times). From a standpoint of pure need, D8 just doesn't see the need to put the work into that stretch to bring it back up to its previous driveable condition (seems like few living in Arrowhead have any pressing need to get down to either Cajon or the desert!).
Quote from: sparker on January 11, 2021, 02:21:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 11, 2021, 11:57:41 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 11, 2021, 11:21:21 AM
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday1
Rick
It would be even better if CA 173 reopened completely so one could get the full original CA 2 experience behind the wheel.
Probably not going to happen. Back in 2011, when I was still living in Hesperia, I rode along on a friend's ATV over about two miles of 173 just east of the western gate; it was in sorry shape then, with a lot of deep ruts (both linear and crossing) along the normally graded surface (we nearly tipped over a couple of times). From a standpoint of pure need, D8 just doesn't see the need to put the work into that stretch to bring it back up to its previous driveable condition (seems like few living in Arrowhead have any pressing need to get down to either Cajon or the desert!).
I was always under the impression that it was funded just enough to keep it maintained so it could be used as an evacuation route? I might be in the mindset to head back that way this month when I'm on vacation. The last time I was there I ended up hiking the original NOTR through Cajon Pass and Crowder Canyon, so I only took pictures of the Mojave segment of 173.
If you've ever wondered, driving down the Tahoe side of Echo Summit on US 50, if rocks ever fall off that cliff and clobber cars, the answer would be Yes.
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/boulder-strikes-car-while-traveling-over-echo-summit/ (https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/boulder-strikes-car-while-traveling-over-echo-summit/)
QuoteThe report said a driver of a black Dodge Charger was traveling westbound when a 3-foot by 2-foot boulder landed on its roof causing major damage.
CHP advises motorists to be aware because the area is known for falling rocks, land and snow slides.
"Please be careful when traveling through this area," said a statement. "Luckily the driver did not sustain any injuries."
"Please be careful"? How exactly do you avoid a rock clobbering you from 100 feet up?
Quote from: kkt on January 15, 2021, 02:32:56 PM
"Please be careful"? How exactly do you avoid a rock clobbering you from 100 feet up?
I suppose the more important thing is to avoid hitting rocks that have already fallen. Obviously not much that can be done about rocks falling onto you.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 11, 2021, 11:21:21 AM
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday!
Rick
Is it not possible to drive all of CA-2 from 210 freeway to CA-138? I looked at Google maps. The route looks like it is mapped, but there is message that says Angeles National Forest temporarily closed
Quote from: kendancy66 on January 15, 2021, 11:43:23 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 11, 2021, 11:21:21 AM
Loved the snow on 2. It would be nice to see the entire route someday!
Rick
Is it not possible to drive all of CA-2 from 210 freeway to CA-138? I looked at Google maps. The route looks like it is mapped, but there is message that says Angeles National Forest temporarily closed
It is, the Caltrans Quick Map shows a brush fire and emergency work.
Big weekend traversing the northern counties for me. I just finished the photo haul and got everything upload to Flickr:
I-580 from CA 24 to unbuilt CA 251; this was an opportunity to get the bike lanes on the San Rafael Bridge:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMqwZx
Unbuilt CA 251 on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Quentin:
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMqGBZ
The main attraction of the weekend was driving CA 1 from Manzanita up the entire Shoreline Highway to Leggett in Mendocino County.
Marin County
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMe7f7
Sonoma County
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMu1UK
Menocino County
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMxhYs
Richardson Grove State Park
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMxQiw
Confusion Hill/Old US 101 alignment
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMjUd9
CA 253
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMz7dR
CA 128
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMoPFf
Drive-Thru Tree
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMp2aT
Yolo County Route E6
https://flic.kr/s/aHsmTMQsH2
YALL I MUST KNOW. Did US 6 and US 66 ever overlap/ intersect? I saw a picture of both shields but I can't really remember it...
Quote from: kenarmy on January 20, 2021, 08:33:19 PM
YALL I MUST KNOW. Did US 6 and US 66 ever overlap/ intersect? I saw a picture of both shields but I can't really remember it...
Yes, they were briefly multiplexed from the Golden State Freeway to the Harbor Freeway via the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 20, 2021, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 20, 2021, 08:33:19 PM
YALL I MUST KNOW. Did US 6 and US 66 ever overlap/ intersect? I saw a picture of both shields but I can't really remember it...
Yes, they were briefly multiplexed from the Golden State Freeway to the Harbor Freeway via the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
Ohio has a 6 and 66 miltiplex:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4421602,-84.3245447,3a,49.4y,158.19h,81.27t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sO_7Qk7yYW1oc6f7FQstceg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 20, 2021, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 20, 2021, 08:33:19 PM
YALL I MUST KNOW. Did US 6 and US 66 ever overlap/ intersect? I saw a picture of both shields but I can't really remember it...
Yes, they were briefly multiplexed from the Golden State Freeway to the Harbor Freeway via the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
Please tell me you have a picture that has to be the most iconic concurrency ever. The Ohio one is cool too though.
Quote from: kenarmy on January 20, 2021, 09:06:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 20, 2021, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: kenarmy on January 20, 2021, 08:33:19 PM
YALL I MUST KNOW. Did US 6 and US 66 ever overlap/ intersect? I saw a picture of both shields but I can't really remember it...
Yes, they were briefly multiplexed from the Golden State Freeway to the Harbor Freeway via the Arroyo Seco Parkway.
Please tell me you have a picture that has to be the most iconic concurrency ever. The Ohio one is cool too though.
I'm pretty sure I do somewhere but the signage often is posted on the California's Historic Highways Facebook page if you're inclined to have a faster look.
Edit: Here you go:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/calhighways/permalink/3877816032269129/
(https://i.imgur.com/bruqfnp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rDEtfHo.jpg)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 21, 2021, 08:35:18 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/bruqfnp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rDEtfHo.jpg)
That's a really cool pic with US 6, 66, and upside down 66 (99).
Live police chase right now on the Ridge Route (old US 99) in LA County!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stucrewfanpage/permalink/707248286613669/?__cft__[0]=AZW4u1bYnLzp6qN1YEHa7ehffN1wrDZCRXMo5Iic3JGmFKE5ILE3oCl5goCMIE9j2ckgmN5chBbXnGt2Mo4eoRyAT5GiQ0aGz16Gb98N2p9h-7lDZEI9u5t6UmyNMaILA1upTpK1i2Nk86Q7ZWnDygef&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
Quote from: TheStranger on January 22, 2021, 06:01:13 PM
Live police chase right now on the Ridge Route (old US 99) in LA County!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stucrewfanpage/permalink/707248286613669/?__cft__[0]=AZW4u1bYnLzp6qN1YEHa7ehffN1wrDZCRXMo5Iic3JGmFKE5ILE3oCl5goCMIE9j2ckgmN5chBbXnGt2Mo4eoRyAT5GiQ0aGz16Gb98N2p9h-7lDZEI9u5t6UmyNMaILA1upTpK1i2Nk86Q7ZWnDygef&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
The driver didn't even make it off the N2 portion of Old Ridge Route before he wrecked.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 22, 2021, 06:01:13 PM
Live police chase right now on the Ridge Route (old US 99) in LA County!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stucrewfanpage/permalink/707248286613669/?__cft__[0]=AZW4u1bYnLzp6qN1YEHa7ehffN1wrDZCRXMo5Iic3JGmFKE5ILE3oCl5goCMIE9j2ckgmN5chBbXnGt2Mo4eoRyAT5GiQ0aGz16Gb98N2p9h-7lDZEI9u5t6UmyNMaILA1upTpK1i2Nk86Q7ZWnDygef&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
The driver didn't even make it off the N2 portion of Old Ridge Route before he wrecked.
I was wondering if he was going to turn left at Sandberg to stay on N2, or end up on the unmaintained section of the RRR. That would have been fun.
A rare sighting of chains required all afternoon and evening in the Cuyamaca Mountains according to Quick Map. CA 79 from Interstate 8 to CA 78 in Julian. With this big atmospheric river storm coming statewide this week, I'm thinking 80, 5, and 15 will all possibly be closed at some point and chains required on most mountain highways in the state. Be safe everyone!
Supposedly it is getting down to 30F in Fresno on Monday. I don't think there is any precipitation forecasted but it would be cool to see snow at this elevation.
Quote from: TJS23 on January 23, 2021, 11:14:52 PM
A rare sighting of chains required all afternoon and evening in the Cuyamaca Mountains according to Quick Map. CA 79 from Interstate 8 to CA 78 in Julian. With this big atmospheric river storm coming statewide this week, I'm thinking 80, 5, and 15 will all possibly be closed at some point and chains required on most mountain highways in the state. Be safe everyone!
Mountains around Big Bear and Idyllwild also got a lot of snow. Weather forecasts yesterday included warnings that chains were required for people headed going into the local mountains. I wouldn't be surprised if they were required all week as two more snow-producing storms are expected this week. Snow is currently down to about 4000', which is about as low as it gets above Palm Springs.
Quote from: pderocco on January 23, 2021, 07:37:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2021, 06:15:28 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on January 22, 2021, 06:01:13 PM
Live police chase right now on the Ridge Route (old US 99) in LA County!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/stucrewfanpage/permalink/707248286613669/?__cft__[0]=AZW4u1bYnLzp6qN1YEHa7ehffN1wrDZCRXMo5Iic3JGmFKE5ILE3oCl5goCMIE9j2ckgmN5chBbXnGt2Mo4eoRyAT5GiQ0aGz16Gb98N2p9h-7lDZEI9u5t6UmyNMaILA1upTpK1i2Nk86Q7ZWnDygef&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
The driver didn't even make it off the N2 portion of Old Ridge Route before he wrecked.
I was wondering if he was going to turn left at Sandberg to stay on N2, or end up on the unmaintained section of the RRR. That would have been fun.
Probably would have been hosed once he reached the Tumble Inn. I'm pretty sure that gate got locked up again after the fires up there.
Quote from: TJS23 on January 23, 2021, 11:14:52 PM
A rare sighting of chains required all afternoon and evening in the Cuyamaca Mountains according to Quick Map. CA 79 from Interstate 8 to CA 78 in Julian. With this big atmospheric river storm coming statewide this week, I'm thinking 80, 5, and 15 will all possibly be closed at some point and chains required on most mountain highways in the state. Be safe everyone!
Aside from the occasional wildfire closure, the only time I've seen I-15 actually closed for snow was back in late winter 1998. Traffic was shut down NB at the 15/215 interchange (original configuration). I was carrying chains, and got off I-15 at Lytle Creek and took Devore Road across to Devore itself, scooted around town streets and got back on I-15 a mile north of the closure. There was actually no snow on the surface all the way over Cajon but 15 was a little icy in spots; guess CHP thought SoCal drivers couldn't handle even
that.
Quote from: sparker on January 24, 2021, 04:33:00 PM
Aside from the occasional wildfire closure, the only time I've seen I-15 actually closed for snow was back in late winter 1998. Traffic was shut down NB at the 15/215 interchange (original configuration). I was carrying chains, and got off I-15 at Lytle Creek and took Devore Road across to Devore itself, scooted around town streets and got back on I-15 a mile north of the closure. There was actually no snow on the surface all the way over Cajon but 15 was a little icy in spots; guess CHP thought SoCal drivers couldn't handle even that.
Hmm in the past few years I believe I saw a full closure of the Cajon Pass and I'm definitely sure they closed it in between Barstow and the State line https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go--EGRkrUQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdpz-Txd9jk
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Since my own experience with closure was almost 23 years ago -- and weather issues have become considerably more severe since that time (gee -- I wonder why?) -- it's not surprising that previously non-problematic locations like the 4.7K altitude Mountain Pass, which I traversed almost yearly without incident when exhibiting or attending the winter CES show, generally held the 2nd weekend of January, are now intermittently subject to winter closure. Nevertheless, the years I lived in Hesperia ('09-'12) Cajon remained open year round except for wildfire and traffic accidents. But it seems that when it comes to weather and its corresponding travel issues, the past is becoming an increasingly unreliable predictor of the future!
For anyone familiar with SoCal, I've lived here about 5 years and I was shocked to see snow coating the ground at Mulholland and Malibu Canyon. I've seen trace amounts multiple times on CA 23 on the higher elevations from PCH to the 101 but never at Malibu Canyon. How significant is that?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 25, 2021, 04:08:11 AM
For anyone familiar with SoCal, I've lived here about 5 years and I was shocked to see snow coating the ground at Mulholland and Malibu Canyon. I've seen trace amounts multiple times on CA 23 on the higher elevations from PCH to the 101 but never at Malibu Canyon. How significant is that?
Back in late 2016 I encountered some snow out in Big Sur coming west on G16/Carmel Valley Road approaching CA 1. It wasn't much at ground level but up high it was pretty significant on some of the peaks.
I experienced snow on CA 17 back in February 1996. I was commuting to college early one morning (by bus) from Santa Cruz County to Downtown San Jose, and Caltrans closed the highway just south of Summit Road because of the snow. (Caltrans didn't have their snow plows stationed near the summit, hence it couldn't plow away the snow.) We had to turn around, detouring down to Watsonville to CA 129 and US 101 in order to get to San Jose. Needless to say, I was over 4 hours late getting to campus that day.
There was snow in the lowlands of Palo Alto one morning around 1978 or 79. Just a dusting, and it was gone by 10 AM, but it was there. I'm sure the hills were more of a problem.
There was snow at the Summit on Highway 17 in February 2019, the highway was briefly closed overnight for a while while the snow plows cleared the roadway, there's some twitter videos as well very magical! I should have driven up but woke up too late.
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Quote from: TJS23 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:36 PM
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Yeah, I just saw that! Going to be an interesting rest of the week, for sure. Yesterday, it looked like I-5 over the Grapevine and CA-58 over Tehachapi Pass were closed for significant time periods, and I-15 between Baker and the Nevada border was closed for a bit, as well. I-8 was closed east of San Diego for a stretch this morning. I-5 north of Redding is closed now, and sounds like US 199 is closed at the Oregon border too.
Some interesting chain requirements I usually don't see on the map, too.... CA-175 in the Clearlake area, CA-79 in San Diego County. And we're just getting started! I'm sure US-50 / I-80 will close for a bit, too. Would be amazing to see some snow flurries in SF proper - it was 34F when I got up this morning per my sensor outside - but I don't think that's in the cards.
Quote from: citrus on January 26, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:36 PM
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Yeah, I just saw that! Going to be an interesting rest of the week, for sure. Yesterday, it looked like I-5 over the Grapevine and CA-58 over Tehachapi Pass were closed for significant time periods, and I-15 between Baker and the Nevada border was closed for a bit, as well. I-8 was closed east of San Diego for a stretch this morning. I-5 north of Redding is closed now, and sounds like US 199 is closed at the Oregon border too.
Some interesting chain requirements I usually don't see on the map, too.... CA-175 in the Clearlake area, CA-79 in San Diego County. And we're just getting started! I'm sure US-50 / I-80 will close for a bit, too. Would be amazing to see some snow flurries in SF proper - it was 34F when I got up this morning per my sensor outside - but I don't think that's in the cards.
Amusingly CA 1/Shoreline Highway has stayed open. That would be a scary ride getting towards Fort Bragg from Leggett in a thick rain.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: citrus on January 26, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:36 PM
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Yeah, I just saw that! Going to be an interesting rest of the week, for sure. Yesterday, it looked like I-5 over the Grapevine and CA-58 over Tehachapi Pass were closed for significant time periods, and I-15 between Baker and the Nevada border was closed for a bit, as well. I-8 was closed east of San Diego for a stretch this morning. I-5 north of Redding is closed now, and sounds like US 199 is closed at the Oregon border too.
Some interesting chain requirements I usually don't see on the map, too.... CA-175 in the Clearlake area, CA-79 in San Diego County. And we're just getting started! I'm sure US-50 / I-80 will close for a bit, too. Would be amazing to see some snow flurries in SF proper - it was 34F when I got up this morning per my sensor outside - but I don't think that's in the cards.
Amusingly CA 1/Shoreline Highway has stayed open. That would be a scary ride getting towards Fort Bragg from Leggett in a thick rain.
Did that drive in a light rain in the dark and that was quite bad enough. Headlights don't do much for you when the road is all curves.
Quote from: kkt on January 26, 2021, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2021, 09:18:38 PM
Quote from: citrus on January 26, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:36 PM
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Yeah, I just saw that! Going to be an interesting rest of the week, for sure. Yesterday, it looked like I-5 over the Grapevine and CA-58 over Tehachapi Pass were closed for significant time periods, and I-15 between Baker and the Nevada border was closed for a bit, as well. I-8 was closed east of San Diego for a stretch this morning. I-5 north of Redding is closed now, and sounds like US 199 is closed at the Oregon border too.
Some interesting chain requirements I usually don't see on the map, too.... CA-175 in the Clearlake area, CA-79 in San Diego County. And we're just getting started! I'm sure US-50 / I-80 will close for a bit, too. Would be amazing to see some snow flurries in SF proper - it was 34F when I got up this morning per my sensor outside - but I don't think that's in the cards.
Amusingly CA 1/Shoreline Highway has stayed open. That would be a scary ride getting towards Fort Bragg from Leggett in a thick rain.
Did that drive in a light rain in the dark and that was quite bad enough. Headlights don't do much for you when the road is all curves.
Essentially all it is a modernized lumber haul road which connects Rockport to a Leggett. It's kind of amusing that the Lost Coast was considered such a challenge that the present route was the only rational way to complete CA 1.
That, sir, is an insult to lumber haul roads. :poke:
What's really interesting is that Usal Road north of Rockport is shown as a major Mendocino County Road on the 1935 Division of Highways map. I couldn't fathom that being the case now but at the name the lumber mill at Usal would have been active. It made way more sense for CA 1 to go north through the Lost Coast when the lumber industry was still alive north of Rockport:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26bs%3D10%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DMendocino%2520county%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=718%2C-22%2C965%2C1582
Where it gets really interesting is on the 1937 Gousha Map has Rockport-Leggett as part of Temporary CA 1:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY%7E8%7E1%26q%3DCalifornia%20state%20automobile%20association%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=-548%2C0%2C11924%2C19531
From there it gets even stranger with the State adopting the Rockport-Leggett segment:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/05/paper-highways-california-state-route-1.html?m=1
Went along 101 in South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae today, and a sign replacement project is underway - lots of new, slightly taller BGSes, mostly of the right-post kind, being placed near SFO.
There are a couple that are clearly designed to replace 1970s-era button copy signs and full-width gantries near 101/380, but placed in such a way that the new signs are completely blocked by the older ones.
Also saw a right-shoulder-post next-three-exits sign in SSF that is not far away from a 2005-era retroreflective, but median-post sign with the same info and that didn't look like it was anywhere outside of its useful service life.
The new signs still have internal exit tabs, despite the increased height.
Quote from: citrus on January 26, 2021, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on January 26, 2021, 07:23:36 PM
But here's a very very rare closure now happening: 101 is closed from Laytonville to CA271, CHP report says they don't have enough plows to clear the roadway, at least a 2 hour delay! It's been a while since I drove from Eureka to SF but I remember seeing chain signs and being confused about it possibly happening, but apparently it is possible!
Yeah, I just saw that! Going to be an interesting rest of the week, for sure. Yesterday, it looked like I-5 over the Grapevine and CA-58 over Tehachapi Pass were closed for significant time periods, and I-15 between Baker and the Nevada border was closed for a bit, as well. I-8 was closed east of San Diego for a stretch this morning. I-5 north of Redding is closed now, and sounds like US 199 is closed at the Oregon border too.
Some interesting chain requirements I usually don't see on the map, too.... CA-175 in the Clearlake area, CA-79 in San Diego County. And we're just getting started! I'm sure US-50 / I-80 will close for a bit, too. Would be amazing to see some snow flurries in SF proper - it was 34F when I got up this morning per my sensor outside - but I don't think that's in the cards.
Not surprised about the US 101 expressway through the Cummings area; a large portion of that is carved out of the hillside and would be prone to avalanche, particularly with the wetter snow that occurs at lower altitudes such as that along 101. Wonder if the hill between Calpella and Willits (shared with CA 20) has been affected by this storm; it actually closed several times during the winter of 1990-91 -- and it's at a considerably higher altitude than the Laytonville-Cummings-Leggett stretch!
Saw the 1992 Central Freeway youtube video reposted on FB recently (in some sort of historic San Francisco group) and the signage at the 1989-present Central Freeway/US 101/South Van Ness split caught my eye (note the temporary 101 sign on what had, to that point been labeled as "Mission Street/Van Ness Avenue":
https://youtu.be/vGM-crlegA4?t=212
(https://i.imgur.com/O7rCyBK.png)
Since the 2005 reconfiguration of the Central Freeway to end at Market Street, the exit is now known as "Mission Street/Duboce Avenue".
Also saw this old green sign at the Fell Street offramp that I don't think was there by the early 2000s:
(https://i.imgur.com/WIduwks.png)
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2021, 12:40:20 AM
Saw the 1992 Central Freeway youtube video reposted on FB recently (in some sort of historic San Francisco group) and the signage at the 1989-present Central Freeway/US 101/South Van Ness split caught my eye (note the temporary 101 sign on what had, to that point been labeled as "Mission Street/Van Ness Avenue":
Also saw this old green sign at the Fell Street offramp that I don't think was there by the early 2000s:
(https://i.imgur.com/WIduwks.png)
I am very familiar with this stretch of highway, and I can confirm that the upper deck which handled East/Southbound traffic was demolished as far as the Van Ness onramp by 1999 when I started using the Fell St ramp regularly. Along with that demolition, so went the sign. The view in that last frame you shared was open air for me by that time.
I wish they would have rebuilt that freeway. That thing must have been a blast to drive, when traffic actually moved lol
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 09, 2021, 12:47:51 PM
I wish they would have rebuilt that freeway. That thing must have been a blast to drive, when traffic actually moved lol
It made it very convenient if you were headed out to the Richmond or Sunset. I will say that the signal coordination on Octavia Blvd is pretty good, and while you are not moving at freeway speeds, it does still do a pretty good job of moving traffic out towards the panhandle.
The one that was really convenient was the Embarcadero Freeway, it was nice to be able to jump off right into Chinatown / North Beach without having to slog through all the lights and traffic getting across SOMA / Market St. Not that I am making a case for bringing *that* monstrosity back.
What was the control city for the 101 pullthru? San Rafael? Santa Rosa?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 09, 2021, 07:27:07 PM
What was the control city for the 101 pullthru? San Rafael? Santa Rosa?
Golden Gate Bridge most likely (as is the case today). No Marin destinations are control cities for 101 at any point (currently) in SF.
SM-G973U1
Quote from: TheStranger on February 09, 2021, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 09, 2021, 07:27:07 PM
What was the control city for the 101 pullthru? San Rafael? Santa Rosa?
Golden Gate Bridge most likely (as is the case today). No Marin destinations are control cities for 101 at any point (currently) in SF.
I remember that the control cities on the pull through were "Civic Center / Golden Gate Bridge". This is because prior to the earthquake, you could take the Central Freeway all the way to Franklin and Golden Gate Ave, which is only a couple of blocks from City Hall.
Moved reply out of quote. —Roadfro
Looks like California may be canceling Christopher Columbus on I-10. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously investigated and the state legislature will introduce a resolution to dename the Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf
Quote from: fungus on February 17, 2021, 10:28:39 PM
Looks like California may be canceling Christopher Columbus on I-10. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously investigated and the state legislature will introduce a resolution to dename the Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf
Nipping political talk on this one in the bud - take it elsewhere
Quote from: fungus on February 17, 2021, 10:28:39 PM
Looks like California may be canceling Christopher Columbus on I-10. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously investigated and the state legislature will introduce a resolution to dename the Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf (http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf)
Wait isn't a section of the Santa Monica Freeway named after Rosa Parks? But in this case the posting was also supposed to address Native American issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks_Highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks_Highway)
Here is a tour of I-5 by Highway Heaven.
Quote from: bing101 on February 18, 2021, 10:16:10 AM
Quote from: fungus on February 17, 2021, 10:28:39 PM
Looks like California may be canceling Christopher Columbus on I-10. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously investigated and the state legislature will introduce a resolution to dename the Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway. http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf (http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/bc/1102737_ReportonBdMtgof101320_Item59-G_021221.pdf)
Wait isn't a section of the Santa Monica Freeway named after Rosa Parks? But in this case the posting was also supposed to address Native American issues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks_Highway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks_Highway)
Yes, there is between 405 and 110:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE010.html
It looks like Columbus was never posted on the Florida end of I-10, so it is essentially an orphan sign. And I doubt it's posted in between either. It's very possible that by posting the exact location of the sign, Caltrans' job may be done for them even before it gets to the legislature.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2017.msg2566347#msg2566347
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Chang_Ho_Memorial_Interchange
There is the Dosan Ahn Chang Ho interchange where I-10 and CA-110/I-110 meet and it's named after a Korean-American activist in the link.
But then again the memo had to be about Native American issues that is the reason on Columbus removal.
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2021, 09:01:28 PM
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
I'm not even sure why it would be a Federal Holiday. Then again, it probably is my personal favorite since it falls in October when most Federal employees have kids in school and can't crowd on my Fall Vacation. For all I care it could be a Federal Holiday for just about anything and I would gladly take the day off just the same.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2021, 09:21:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2021, 09:01:28 PM
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
I'm not even sure why it would be a Federal Holiday. Then again, it probably is my personal favorite since it falls in October when most Federal employees have kids in school and can't crowd on my Fall Vacation. For all I care it could be a Federal Holiday for just about anything and I would gladly take the day off just the same.
Indulging the thread drift briefly... While Columbus Day is a federal holiday, there are several states that do not observe it. Nevada is one of them–I cannot ever recall having the day off from school when I was younger, and I (working at a state university) don't get days off for it now. However, Nevada does have the nearby "Nevada Day" as a state holiday, which is the observance of our state's admission to the union. It was originally observed on the actual date (October 31st) but has been observed on the last Friday in October since 2000, although apparently a bill has been introduced in the legislature to move it back to October 31st (which I would've liked in the past but now am not in favor of).
Quote from: roadfro on February 19, 2021, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2021, 09:21:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2021, 09:01:28 PM
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
I'm not even sure why it would be a Federal Holiday. Then again, it probably is my personal favorite since it falls in October when most Federal employees have kids in school and can't crowd on my Fall Vacation. For all I care it could be a Federal Holiday for just about anything and I would gladly take the day off just the same.
Indulging the thread drift briefly... While Columbus Day is a federal holiday, there are several states that do not observe it. Nevada is one of them–I cannot ever recall having the day off from school when I was younger, and I (working at a state university) don't get days off for it now. However, Nevada does have the nearby "Nevada Day" as a state holiday, which is the observance of our state's admission to the union. It was originally observed on the actual date (October 31st) but has been observed on the last Friday in October since 2000, although apparently a bill has been introduced in the legislature to move it back to October 31st (which I would've liked in the past but now am not in favor of).
I can't recall if I had it off either when I was younger but I also want to say some States didn't observe other Federal holidays like Presidents Day also. When I became a Federal Employee eight years ago one of the best side benefits was either taking all the Federal Holidays off or use it as a floating holiday later in the same week. I've used it to my advantage many times for road trips related purposes over long weekends.
Columbus Day is not a state holiday in California, Oregon, or Washington.
Quote from: roadfro on February 19, 2021, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2021, 09:21:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2021, 09:01:28 PM
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
I'm not even sure why it would be a Federal Holiday. Then again, it probably is my personal favorite since it falls in October when most Federal employees have kids in school and can't crowd on my Fall Vacation. For all I care it could be a Federal Holiday for just about anything and I would gladly take the day off just the same.
Indulging the thread drift briefly... While Columbus Day is a federal holiday, there are several states that do not observe it. Nevada is one of them–I cannot ever recall having the day off from school when I was younger, and I (working at a state university) don't get days off for it now. However, Nevada does have the nearby "Nevada Day" as a state holiday, which is the observance of our state's admission to the union. It was originally observed on the actual date (October 31st) but has been observed on the last Friday in October since 2000, although apparently a bill has been introduced in the legislature to move it back to October 31st (which I would've liked in the past but now am not in favor of).
I feel like all the kids (and maybe their parents) would be in favor of that.
I'm a retired Federal employee. We considered it a nice day off. It was the only holiday where nobody I knew did anything to commemorate the day, and that includes MLK and Presidents Day. Now it's an annoying reason not to get mail delivered.
Live police chase right now and the driver is on the freeway segment of La Cienega Boulevard (the planned 170 corridor from decades ago)!
https://abc7.com/watch/23340/
(https://i.imgur.com/9fqfi2F.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/nIoZB86.png)
Quote from: Alps on February 19, 2021, 11:19:52 PM
Quote from: roadfro on February 19, 2021, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 18, 2021, 09:21:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on February 18, 2021, 09:01:28 PM
I'm not sure why I-10 or any other freeway on the west coast should be named after Columbus. He discovered the islands in the Carribean chain, the Bahamas, and Central America, not any part of North America.
I'm not even sure why it would be a Federal Holiday. Then again, it probably is my personal favorite since it falls in October when most Federal employees have kids in school and can't crowd on my Fall Vacation. For all I care it could be a Federal Holiday for just about anything and I would gladly take the day off just the same.
Indulging the thread drift briefly... While Columbus Day is a federal holiday, there are several states that do not observe it. Nevada is one of them–I cannot ever recall having the day off from school when I was younger, and I (working at a state university) don't get days off for it now. However, Nevada does have the nearby "Nevada Day" as a state holiday, which is the observance of our state's admission to the union. It was originally observed on the actual date (October 31st) but has been observed on the last Friday in October since 2000, although apparently a bill has been introduced in the legislature to move it back to October 31st (which I would've liked in the past but now am not in favor of).
I feel like all the kids (and maybe their parents) would be in favor of that.
As a kid, it was nice to have the actual Nevada Day off, because it was also Halloween. However, as a teenager (when it changed) and now adult, the three day weekend is more appealing.
Also part of the reason the state proposed moving the actual observance of Nevada Day to Fridays in the first place was to give people more of an opportunity to travel to the annual parade in Carson City (especially for rural school bands, etc. to participate in said parade) and to hold other celebrations of statehood that are less feasible to do mid-week.
The original move of Nevada Day was carried out, I think first through citizen referendum vote (roughly 56% support) and then subsequent legislative action. The current action is just a bill in the legislature, and I don't think it has widespread support.
Wasn't sure which of our SR 1 threads to put this in, but just had this article pop up in my feed from The Washington Post about the recent closure around Big Sur, and how such closures are becoming a more common phenomenon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/highway-one-big-sur-wildfires-climate-change/
Quote from: kkt on February 19, 2021, 11:10:34 PM
Columbus Day is not a state holiday in California, Oregon, or Washington.
For some years after the Federal Martin Luther King holiday was enacted, Maryland continued to observe the holiday on King's birthday, January 15 (Jan. 14 if the 15th was a Saturday, Jan. 16 if the 15th was a Sunday). I forget when Maryland moved its MLK Day into line with the Federal holiday.
And to take this back to highways and not necessarily who to name them after, any timetable for the reopening of the collapsed CA 1 stretch? You can guide me upthread if you want to.
Nevermind, I see it at https://www.bigsurcalifornia.org/highway_conditions.html
ixnay
Quote from: roadfro on March 02, 2021, 03:09:53 PM
Wasn't sure which of our SR 1 threads to put this in, but just had this article pop up in my feed from The Washington Post about the recent closure around Big Sur, and how such closures are becoming a more common phenomenon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2021/highway-one-big-sur-wildfires-climate-change/
I still need to track down in the CHPW when it became an all year road.
Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?
Quote from: TJS23 on March 03, 2021, 03:15:33 AM
Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?
When I was working in Ontario about a quarter-mile from that interchange, the EB10>NB15 ramp cited both Barstow
and Las Vegas (as of 2012). Since that's the principal L.A. - Vegas corridor, it seemed to be a natural if somewhat gratuitous choice. IIRC, the pull-throughs on I-15 at both CA 210 and I-15 only reference Barstow; Las Vegas isn't mentioned on overhead BGS's until the 15/40 split (this was also as of 2012; if anyone knows different feel free to correct here).
Nope, that's still the case. For the record, I-215 always said Barstow north of I-10.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/03/03/sacramento-toll-lane-proposal-i-5/
SM-G973U1
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2021, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 03, 2021, 03:15:33 AM
Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?
When I was working in Ontario about a quarter-mile from that interchange, the EB10>NB15 ramp cited both Barstow and Las Vegas (as of 2012). Since that's the principal L.A. - Vegas corridor, it seemed to be a natural if somewhat gratuitous choice. IIRC, the pull-throughs on I-15 at both CA 210 and I-15 only reference Barstow; Las Vegas isn't mentioned on overhead BGS's until the 15/40 split (this was also as of 2012; if anyone knows different feel free to correct here).
It's pretty common throughout the US to use distant control cities at major interstate interchanges. For example, interchanges where interstates meet around St Louis will display Tulsa (I-44), Memphis (I-55), and Kansas City (I-70). These same interstates show more local control cities like Springfield, Cape Girardeau, and Columbia. I can point out similar examples all over the North and East.
Quote from: skluth on March 04, 2021, 03:16:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2021, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 03, 2021, 03:15:33 AM
Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?
When I was working in Ontario about a quarter-mile from that interchange, the EB10>NB15 ramp cited both Barstow and Las Vegas (as of 2012). Since that's the principal L.A. - Vegas corridor, it seemed to be a natural if somewhat gratuitous choice. IIRC, the pull-throughs on I-15 at both CA 210 and I-15 only reference Barstow; Las Vegas isn't mentioned on overhead BGS's until the 15/40 split (this was also as of 2012; if anyone knows different feel free to correct here).
It's pretty common throughout the US to use distant control cities at major interstate interchanges. For example, interchanges where interstates meet around St Louis will display Tulsa (I-44), Memphis (I-55), and Kansas City (I-70). These same interstates show more local control cities like Springfield, Cape Girardeau, and Columbia. I can point out similar examples all over the North and East.
California is one of the few states that pretty much almost entirely tries using local or in-state control cities whenever possible right?
Reno and Vegas and Oregon Coast are three out of state ones I know are used here, not sure when Phoenix and Portland first show up.
Kinda wild to think how relatively nearby all of the listed destinations at the East Los Angeles Interchange originally were, prior to Sacramento replacing Bakersfield for 5 north.
SM-G973U1
Phoenix on I-10 starts showing up in Indio ("I-10 Blythe Phoenix"), which is logical, since the prior control city is Indio (and occasionally Beaumont) from San Bernardino on. It is also a control city, briefly, for CA 62.
I don't remember where Portland comes up as a control for I-5, probably north of Redding, but there is a mileage for it north of CA 12 and Lodi.
There's also Yuma for I-8, east of El Centro.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 04, 2021, 04:58:01 AM
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/03/03/sacramento-toll-lane-proposal-i-5/
SM-G973U1
Good catch... the toll lane story made several Sacramento news outlets last night.
Here's additional coverage... https://www.abc10.com/amp/article/news/local/california/cal-trans-i-5-toll-lanes-downtown-sacramento-airport/103-a29d54c8-18db-49c8-b35b-9665f94c15ae
Quote
Caltrans considering I-5 toll lanes from downtown Sacramento to airport
The project would stretch from US 50 to the Yolo County line along Interstate 5 in Sacramento. ...
Caltrans is looking at the stretch of I-5 that extends from US 50 to the Yolo County line. The project aims to reduce congestion while increasing the number of people that can travel the busy route, according to Caltrans.
The proposal includes plans to widen the freeway and bridges, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, adding ramp meters, and toll lanes in both directions. ...
Project alternatives include the addition of 2+ or 3+ person High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, a 2+ or 3+ person High Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT) where only single-occupancy vehicles are charged, or even a no-build alternative, according to Caltrans.
The project cost is estimated at more than $300 million and could cost as much as $500 million. If approved, it could take until 2028 from the time the project is rolled out until completion, construction wouldn't be likely to start until 2025.
Public comment is underway: https://deavpm.wixsite.com/website-4/submit-comments
I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?
Quote from: TheStranger on March 04, 2021, 06:18:45 PM
Quote from: skluth on March 04, 2021, 03:16:59 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 03, 2021, 10:23:47 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 03, 2021, 03:15:33 AM
Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?
When I was working in Ontario about a quarter-mile from that interchange, the EB10>NB15 ramp cited both Barstow and Las Vegas (as of 2012). Since that's the principal L.A. - Vegas corridor, it seemed to be a natural if somewhat gratuitous choice. IIRC, the pull-throughs on I-15 at both CA 210 and I-15 only reference Barstow; Las Vegas isn't mentioned on overhead BGS's until the 15/40 split (this was also as of 2012; if anyone knows different feel free to correct here).
It's pretty common throughout the US to use distant control cities at major interstate interchanges. For example, interchanges where interstates meet around St Louis will display Tulsa (I-44), Memphis (I-55), and Kansas City (I-70). These same interstates show more local control cities like Springfield, Cape Girardeau, and Columbia. I can point out similar examples all over the North and East.
California is one of the few states that pretty much almost entirely tries using local or in-state control cities whenever possible right?
Reno and Vegas and Oregon Coast are three out of state ones I know are used here, not sure when Phoenix and Portland first show up.
Kinda wild to think how relatively nearby all of the listed destinations at the East Los Angeles Interchange originally were, prior to Sacramento replacing Bakersfield for 5 north.
SM-G973U1
It is annoying how many very small towns are used as control cities, just to keep the control cities within the state. They are known as INTERSTATE highways for a reason, and at a certain point large cities from other states should be used.
I feel that a good compromise is to have two control cities on most signs, and CA actaully does do this in many places (US 101 through the Central Coast comes to mind). Between San Jose and Ventura, the controls are LA and SF, but occasionally secondary controls like SLO and Santa Barbara will also be signed. Generally, where there is room, sign both controls, a local control and a long distance control (major city). Of course, where there is only room for one city, the major city should take precedence.
So I-15 north from the Inland Empire should use Las Vegas, not Barstow, as its control. But many of the pull-through signs could sign both.
CA does seem to go out of its way to avoid signing Phoenix.
But everyone know you have to go through Barstow to get to Vegas, so why not us it as a control city?
Now if Nevada had Jean or Primm as a control city I would be like "LOL Wat?" , but Barstow is reasonable.
Also, US-50 in Sacramento has Ocean City, MD as a control city.
That's not a control city, that's an end of route sign...
And I would add is mostly there for funsies by conveying scale. Almost nobody is going to drive across the country in one shot on US 50 to Ocean City. Not exactly "useful" as a control city...but cool.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2021, 10:52:39 PM
I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?
They have long had plans for HOV lanes on that part of I-5. The options under study are to build new HOV lanes, new HOT lanes, or converting an existing lane in each direction to HOV. State and federal law prohibits conversion of non-tolled lanes to tolled lanes, except HOV to HOT.
Quote from: jrouse on March 06, 2021, 11:00:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 04, 2021, 10:52:39 PM
I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?
They have long had plans for HOV lanes on that part of I-5. The options under study are to build new HOV lanes, new HOT lanes, or converting an existing lane in each direction to HOV. State and federal law prohibits conversion of non-tolled lanes to tolled lanes, except HOV to HOT.
Thank you for the explanation.
Fun thread on Reddit about shitty Bay Are merges. https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/lzgwp1/what_is_the_worst_highway_merge_in_the_bay_area/
Apparently the last two covered bridges in the State Highway System were on CA 96 and were removed in 1950:
https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa195051calirich/page/n451/mode/1up
Quote from: jander on March 07, 2021, 10:16:31 PM
Fun thread on Reddit about shitty Bay Are merges. https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/lzgwp1/what_is_the_worst_highway_merge_in_the_bay_area/
One that didn't warrant a mention in the 121 comments was 280 north to 880 north. Even though it was "improved" by separating it from the Stevens Creek Blvd. C/D lane a few years back, it's still one of the shortest merges out there; one needs to effect the merge in about 40-50 yards. But they remodeled this interchange without taking any more additional property around the interchange perimeter, so if that was part of the revamp "brief", D4 was operating with one hand tied behind their back. As the comments in the article attest, NIMBY input seems to exert inordinate influence into local freeway planning to the detriment of both efficiency and safety.
1980s footage of the Embarcadero Freeway from I-80 to Washington Street in downtown San Francisco, 3:53 into this clip. If you slow down the footage to 1/4 speed you can catch a State Route 480 sign in there:
https://youtu.be/rmsTZAF1F-o?t=233
Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport
Quote from: TJS23 on March 09, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport
That's an odd one for sure. I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 08, 2021, 06:29:00 PM
1980s footage of the Embarcadero Freeway from I-80 to Washington Street in downtown San Francisco, 3:53 into this clip. If you slow down the footage to 1/4 speed you can catch a State Route 480 sign in there:
https://youtu.be/rmsTZAF1F-o?t=233
I have a Blu-ray still from the Criterion Collection of this. It's got a couple nice old signage shots.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2021, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 09, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport
That's an odd one for sure. I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland.
Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line. This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 10:00:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2021, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 09, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport
That's an odd one for sure. I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland.
Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line. This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.
Thing is though that the actual road itself really doesn't lend itself to getting much faster than 40 MPH east until the vicinity of CA 29. It must have been one hell of a storm, I don't even recall there being chain control signs when I drove through back in October. I want to say the only real advisory signage east of Old Hopland is the 39 Foot Length prohibition:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50475866032_94807f9972_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jUo1qh)IMG_9162 (https://flic.kr/p/2jUo1qh) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Incidentally, CA 175 is one of the best intact examples of how a First State Highway Bond Act road. There is absurd amount of curves between US 101 and CA 29.
Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50475834212_a5c1557411_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jUnQXE)IMG_9220 (https://flic.kr/p/2jUnQXE) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 10, 2021, 10:26:00 PM
Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there
Lovely! I am looking forward to road trips again.
Quote from: kkt on March 11, 2021, 12:01:53 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 10, 2021, 10:26:00 PM
Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there
Lovely! I am looking forward to road trips again.
Wasn't all weird stuff like that, the view of Clear Lake was top notch from the same spot:
https://flic.kr/p/2jUnRtE
Quote from: sparker on March 10, 2021, 10:00:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2021, 11:30:19 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on March 09, 2021, 11:24:13 PM
Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport
That's an odd one for sure. I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland.
Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line. This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.
I used to live in the area. 175 would not frequently close due to snow, but there would usually be a few storms each year that could bring snow low enough to warrant chain control or even closure. Another concern of 175 near Hopland was concern of flooding in the low areas. And yes, 175 is one of the most winding state highways in a region of the state that's full of winding roads.
SM-G975U
I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. :-D
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:59:39 AM
I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. :-D
Except.......it looks like back around 1910 or so getting a road from the Redwood Highway over to Lake County was considered a priority -- hence the inclusion in the first State Bond road group -- and the reason that this currently and relatively obscure highway had a low LRN: 16! Curiously, if LRN 50 (SSR 16) had followed the original plans and traced Cache Creek all the way to Lower Lake rather than strike out north to a terminus at LRN 15/SSR 20 -- and the Lower Lake-Lakeport connector would have been prioritized earlier (that connector had been on the "to do" list for decades before CA 29 was routed over it after '64), SSR 16 could have conceivably ended up in Hopland, ironically using its LRN doppelganger!
Quote from: sparker on March 11, 2021, 12:43:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:59:39 AM
I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. :-D
Except.......it looks like back around 1910 or so getting a road from the Redwood Highway over to Lake County was considered a priority -- hence the inclusion in the first State Bond road group -- and the reason that this currently and relatively obscure highway had a low LRN: 16! Curiously, if LRN 50 (SSR 16) had followed the original plans and traced Cache Creek all the way to Lower Lake rather than strike out north to a terminus at LRN 15/SSR 20 -- and the Lower Lake-Lakeport connector would have been prioritized earlier (that connector had been on the "to do" list for decades before CA 29 was routed over it after '64), SSR 16 could have conceivably ended up in Hopland, ironically using its LRN doppelganger!
I always wonder why LRN 50 was ultimately diverted north of Cache Creek yo LRN 15. Cache Creek certainly wasn't an obstacle that couldn't have been overcome as it almost became a rail line before the highway was conceived. I suppose the good terrain LRN 15 offered was ultimately too good not to pass up. It would have been neat though to see CA 16 on what was LRN 16 instead of CA 175.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2021, 10:59:39 AM
I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. :-D
:-D
The CalTrans sign replacement/upgrade project in SF/San Mateo County continues in earnest.
- Old sign gantries on US 101 near the airport have been removed (particularly those dating to when I-380 was opened in the 1970s), replaced mostly with L-shaped sign bridges that have slightly taller signs than before.
- The new next-three-exits sign near South Airport Boulevard on northbound 101 is taller, allowing for more visual separation between each line of text. This can be easily compared to the 2000s-era next-three-exits sign about 1/8 mile north in the median.
- At the 380 split, the narrow, vertical 3di shields are used for "380 to 280."
- There are a couple of temporary signs (orange background on wooden posts) at the 101/380 junction that mistakenly list 380 and 280 as US highways!
- Southbound, the San Bruno Avenue and North Access Road ramps have separate signage but the same exact exit number (423A) even though northbound exit to North Access Road has its own number (423C).
- In SF, gore point signage (with exit number!) was installed for the very first time sometime in the last two weeks at the Central Freeway/US 101 exit for 9th Street.
Quote from: TheStranger on March 13, 2021, 11:59:05 AM
The CalTrans sign replacement/upgrade project in SF/San Mateo County continues in earnest.
I really wish I snapped a pic of this, but there's, for now, an overhead gantry on 101 SB that has been half replaced. So there's a reflective "San" and 101 shield, and a button copy "Jose" and "SOUTH".
There's temporary construction signage at CA-92, well. And I really really hope they do some pavement maintenance along with these upgrades. Potholes all over the place by the airport!
There is a random I-80 shield just past hospital curve It's probably technically where 80 begins but I never noticed it before. Just an 80 shield on a stubby pole, low height, on the crash barrier between east and west bound. It cant be more than 6ft off the roadway.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11864205/is-that-a-ghost-freeway-on-the-peninsula-and-are-our-highways-filthier-than-ever
For the uninitiated, Interstate 280 is the freeway that runs from San Francisco's South of Market on the north end to the outskirts of downtown San Jose on the south. The highway, routed through the Peninsula hills and devoid of billboards, has long been called "the world's most beautiful freeway." (Yes – some people think a freeway can be beautiful.)
Interstate 380, by contrast, is a simple 1.7-mile connector that links I-280 to U.S. 101 adjacent to San Francisco International Airport.
Bay Curious PodcastBay Curious is a podcast that answers your questions about the Bay Area. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, NPR One or your favorite podcast platform.
It turns out Masters' "suspicion" about I-380 is spot on. The freeway was conceived of as something much more than it is today.
Back in the formative years of Bay Area freeways, highway planners envisioned the freeway continuing west beyond I-280, across San Bruno's Crestmoor Canyon, up over Sweeney Ridge, descending to meet Highway 1 somewhere in Pacifica, perhaps in the Sharp Park neighborhood.
Caltrans confirms that history. The best single account of the plan, though a brief one, appeared in the San Mateo Daily Journal in 2014. Titled "The Interstate 380 Controversy," the Journal's piece characterized opposition to the freeway among San Bruno and Pacifica residents this way: "The public was outraged. The pristine watershed would be violated with gas-belching cars and smoke diesel 16-wheelers. No way would they allow this to happen."
Weird quirk as part of the US 101/Bayshore Freeway sign update project near SFO:
Years ago (2002?), CalTrans installed one of the only button copy internal exit tabbed signs ever in this state (keeping in mind the 1971 Los Angeles exit numbering experiments were all via external tabs) at Millbrae Avenue on southbound US 101, given the exit number of 420.
About a decade ago, when retroreflective signage was added to that stretch of 101, the northbound side got the exit number of 421.
On the very newly installed retroreflective Millbrae Avenue exit sign southbound (probably less than a week old), 420 is used as the exit number there, AND the 2003 button copy sign remains as well a few feet down the road!
Quote from: TheStranger on March 20, 2021, 10:23:07 PM
Weird quirk as part of the US 101/Bayshore Freeway sign update project near SFO:
Years ago (2002?), CalTrans installed one of the only button copy internal exit tabbed signs ever in this state (keeping in mind the 1971 Los Angeles exit numbering experiments were all via external tabs) at Millbrae Avenue on southbound US 101, given the exit number of 420.
About a decade ago, when retroreflective signage was added to that stretch of 101, the northbound side got the exit number of 421.
On the very newly installed retroreflective Millbrae Avenue exit sign southbound (probably less than a week old), 420 is used as the exit number there, AND the 2003 button copy sign remains as well a few feet down the road!
(https://i.imgur.com/8JiaeEr.jpg)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 21, 2021, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on March 20, 2021, 10:23:07 PM
Weird quirk as part of the US 101/Bayshore Freeway sign update project near SFO:
Years ago (2002?), CalTrans installed one of the only button copy internal exit tabbed signs ever in this state (keeping in mind the 1971 Los Angeles exit numbering experiments were all via external tabs) at Millbrae Avenue on southbound US 101, given the exit number of 420.
About a decade ago, when retroreflective signage was added to that stretch of 101, the northbound side got the exit number of 421.
On the very newly installed retroreflective Millbrae Avenue exit sign southbound (probably less than a week old), 420 is used as the exit number there, AND the 2003 button copy sign remains as well a few feet down the road!
(https://i.imgur.com/8JiaeEr.jpg)
The internal tab button copy sign on 101 in Millbrae has been replaced as of today, after about 18 years. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210328/c0e5ee664fa522b5f8d4ba1c169e62cf.jpg)
SM-G973U1
Here is a crazy Four Foot roadgeek segment
In Redlands: The I-10 University St. EB exit will be closed nightly, from 9pm-5am, April 5-9, 2021. This is for tree removal and other maintenance. Other construction, including replacing and adding traffic signals, will continue through Fall 2021. Source of this info is the SBCTA working in conjunction with Caltrans District 8; see goSBCTA.com/I10university
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
:clap:
The I-10 HOV gap between West Covina and Pomona has been closed, at least in the eastbound direction, as this weekend the roadway looks like it has been striped to the ultimate condition. The westbound lane looks like it could open any day now. Of course, the HOV lane ends at Towne Avenue since SBCTA is doing the widening of I-10 to a double express HOT lane in San Bernardino County.
GSV-related question: what is the name of the ship floating right off of Pier 15 in San Francisco?
Quote from: fungus on April 06, 2021, 12:47:31 PM
The I-10 HOV gap between West Covina and Pomona has been closed, at least in the eastbound direction, as this weekend the roadway looks like it has been striped to the ultimate condition. The westbound lane looks like it could open any day now. Of course, the HOV lane ends at Towne Avenue since SBCTA is doing the widening of I-10 to a double express HOT lane in San Bernardino County.
I've noticed quite a bit of progress on HOV projects throughout Los Angeles, including on Interstate 5 through Burbank and Norwalk. Hopefully these segments will open soon. The HOV lane gap would then be through the East Los Angeles Interchange, but I am not sure if there are plans of that connection or how it would be done. I'm sure it would be very costly and difficult to do without impacts to adjacent neighborhoods.
The Interstate 10 HOV lanes is a nice addition to the regional system. I need to head over there to see the progress and get some pictures.
SM-G975U
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 10, 2021, 09:20:34 PM
GSV-related question: what is the name of the ship floating right off of Pier 15 in San Francisco?
You're going to have to supply more info than that. There's A LOT of GSV at Pier 15. Just lifting the little GSV guy while zoomed in on Pier 15 shows multiple blue GSV lines crossing the pier like a lost tweaked meth head.
Quote from: skluth on April 11, 2021, 01:51:30 PM
Quote from: TheGrassGuy on April 10, 2021, 09:20:34 PM
GSV-related question: what is the name of the ship floating right off of Pier 15 in San Francisco?
You're going to have to supply more info than that. There's A LOT of GSV at Pier 15. Just lifting the little GSV guy while zoomed in on Pier 15 shows multiple blue GSV lines crossing the pier like a lost tweaked meth head.
Pier 15 is the Exploratorium, a wildly popular "hands-on" museum, though this is the first time I've seen GSV going inside a building - very cool. As to what is anchored off of it, it could be any number of things since (in normal times) that area of the waterfront is pretty active with ferries, the cruise ship terminal, recreational craft, and so on. If the image happened to be taken in October during fleet week then it could be a military vessel.
The I-15 toll lanes opened to the public this weekend. https://www.pe.com/2021/04/10/15-freeway-toll-lanes-in-riverside-county-open-to-drivers/
Quote from: fungus on April 13, 2021, 07:05:35 PM
The I-15 toll lanes opened to the public this weekend. https://www.pe.com/2021/04/10/15-freeway-toll-lanes-in-riverside-county-open-to-drivers/
I really like the signs. Very clean and easy to read:
(https://www.pe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/RPE-L-15OPEN-0410-02TP.jpg?w=780)
Quote from: fungus on April 06, 2021, 12:47:31 PM
The I-10 HOV gap between West Covina and Pomona has been closed, at least in the eastbound direction, as this weekend the roadway looks like it has been striped to the ultimate condition. The westbound lane looks like it could open any day now. Of course, the HOV lane ends at Towne Avenue since SBCTA is doing the widening of I-10 to a double express HOT lane in San Bernardino County.
The westbound lanes were open this weekend. They shut down lanes Friday night to restripe and they were good to go on Sunday.
Driving down the Bayshore Freeway/US 101 several times in the last week or so, I've really come to appreciate the slightly taller new retroreflective signs that have been put up between San Mateo and SSF.
As CalTrans still seems to be big on the same-sign-height look, the extra space allows for the signs at specific exits to not be visually cramped. I will say that the new sign at SFO on 101 for the 380 (to 280) interchange, the shield size makes the digits somewhat hard to read, as it is the narrower Interstate shield on those as opposed to the wider ones I associate with most freeway 3di shields.
Where the larger sizes work their best are those next-three-exit signs: the extra spacing between each line is less straining visually.
Amusingly, there's a sign bridge at 380 with a fading button copy South Airport Boulevard sign (nearly impossible to read at night with no lighting!), next to a early-2000s retroreflective sign for North Access Road. The contrast of the two signs' conditions and background colors couldn't be more obvious.
Lots of lamp posts along 101 that aren't being lit up anymore near the airport, which really puts the old button copy signs at a big disadvantage.
Highway Heaven's tour of CA-60
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
Quote from: TJS23 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:15 PM
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
Neither is anywhere close to becoming a thing. 99 has an actual concept behind it whereas 58 hasn't had one since the 1960s.
Quote from: TJS23 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:15 PM
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.
Quote from: kkt on April 22, 2021, 02:21:58 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:15 PM
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.
CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's
eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria). But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%). In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit. At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!
Quote from: sparker on April 22, 2021, 04:44:03 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 22, 2021, 02:21:58 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:15 PM
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.
CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria). But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%). In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit. At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!
And FWIW the priority of upgrading 99 seems to come and go. We aren't too removed from the Delano-Tulare segment upgrade being shelved. That particular segment has a lot of the substandard bits and pieces most people associate the 99 freeway with (especially a couple nasty RORO exits).
Quote from: bing101 on April 21, 2021, 09:21:40 PM
Highway Heaven's tour of CA-60
How long before the Badlands section of 60 is finished? I used to be stationed at March AFB when SAC had the base.
Rick
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 22, 2021, 08:58:00 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 22, 2021, 04:44:03 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 22, 2021, 02:21:58 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on April 21, 2021, 11:20:15 PM
I see a lot of discussion about if either Interstate 40 should be extended or if CA-99 should become I-7 or I-9. I get the assumption reading these comments that only one of these can happen, is that because of Federal Funds/Mileage?
No Federal funds are likely to be coming for either project, unless some member of Congress manages to get them attached to some other bill.
CA 99 from its southern terminus to Sacramento is also HPC #54 and correspondingly designated as a future Interstate, which means it's eligible for the current maximum 80% Federal funding for any efforts to bring it up to Interstate standards (it's already been fully built as a freeway, but only about 60% of it currently meets Interstate criteria). But such funding needs to be included in yearly DOT outlays -- and matched by dedicated funds raised in-state (i.e., the remaining 20%). In short, pretty much every party involved in planning and financing such a project needs to be on board at the same time -- and that certainly hasn't happened so far regarding CA 99's potential Interstate upgrades -- although chunks of the nearly 300-mile corridor have seen upgrades bit by bit. At this time Caltrans seems to be quite content with the route's current rate of progress; to actually advance upgrades in a more timely or extensive fashion would likely require political input from the various congressional districts along the corridor -- and lately they seem to have other things on their collective plates (drought-related water issues affecting regional agriculture being the latest and most pressing); it'll take considerably more than the effort expended back in 2005 to get the high-priority/future Interstate corridor on the books to actually see Interstate shields on the corridor -- and as of now such an effort doesn't seem to be on anyone's "top ten" list!
And FWIW the priority of upgrading 99 seems to come and go. We aren't too removed from the Delano-Tulare segment upgrade being shelved. That particular segment has a lot of the substandard bits and pieces most people associate the 99 freeway with (especially a couple nasty RORO exits).
Getting rid of the RORO's would be a minor undertaking compared to the big problem of underheight bridges in most of the smaller Tulare County towns through which CA 99 passes (several under 15'). Most of them are older concrete construction, so it's likely raising them wouldn't be attempted; either lowering the roadway (not a favored Caltrans practice) or simply replacing the bridges would be the probable solutions -- but the overall scope of the project would, if current Caltrans practice prevails, be broken up into small chunks -- one town or even one bridge at a time. At that rate, it would be around 2040 or so when the job would be completed. The one saving grace is that most of the bridges that CA 99 itself crosses have been brought out to 6 lanes already (much of that done during the repairs after the 1997 area flooding). It wouldn't be that these D6 projects would be shelved -- just eked out at a "leisurely" pace.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 22, 2021, 10:00:40 AM
Quote from: bing101 on April 21, 2021, 09:21:40 PM
Highway Heaven's tour of CA-60
(link removed)
How long before the Badlands section of 60 is finished? I used to be stationed at March AFB when SAC had the base.
Rick
The project was expected to be complete in 2022 (https://www.rctc.org/projects/route-60-truck-lanes/)when it started. I don't know if the project is on schedule, but it seems to be coming along quite nicely. I last went through about two weeks ago.
Pacific Coast Highway is open again.
https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/
Quote from: jander on April 23, 2021, 09:29:02 PM
Pacific Coast Highway is open again.
https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/
We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2021, 09:47:41 PM
Quote from: jander on April 23, 2021, 09:29:02 PM
Pacific Coast Highway is open again.
https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/
We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.
Supposedly D5 increased the capacity of the culvert under the new roadway by several hundred percent over the previous pipe
(once bitten.......). We'll soon see if their calculations were correct.
Quote from: sparker on April 24, 2021, 12:37:31 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 23, 2021, 09:47:41 PM
Quote from: jander on April 23, 2021, 09:29:02 PM
Pacific Coast Highway is open again.
https://sfist.com/2021/04/23/highway-1-washout-repaired-road-reopens-months-early/
We'll see if that lasts when the big weather front comes a knocking Sunday.
Supposedly D5 increased the capacity of the culvert under the new roadway by several hundred percent over the previous pipe (once bitten.......). We'll soon see if their calculations were correct.
That's interesting to hear, then in theory it shouldn't be a problem like before. I always wonder though where the next slide will be.
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but what are the latest plans for CA 178 between CA 99 and the freeway that is a bit to the east in Bakersfield, CA? While perusing the aerial images of the CA 58/Centennial Corridor project, I noticed some ROW clearance work that has been done on the street part of CA 178 between CA 99 and the north side of downtown Bakersfield.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on May 05, 2021, 10:01:46 PM
Apologies if this has been covered elsewhere, but what are the latest plans for CA 178 between CA 99 and the freeway that is a bit to the east in Bakersfield, CA? While perusing the aerial images of the CA 58/Centennial Corridor project, I noticed some ROW clearance work that has been done on the street part of CA 178 between CA 99 and the north side of downtown Bakersfield.
Mike
Ended up being relinquished between 99 and 204.
Quote from: fungus on February 18, 2021, 01:54:25 PM
It looks like Columbus was never posted on the Florida end of I-10, so it is essentially an orphan sign. And I doubt it's posted in between either. It's very possible that by posting the exact location of the sign, Caltrans' job may be done for them even before it gets to the legislature.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=2017.msg2566347#msg2566347
Just a note that the other end is/was on I-40. Here's my note from the names section of my page on I-10:
QuoteIn additional to the other designations noted, Route 10 (in its entirety) has been officially designated the "Christopher Columbus Transcontinental Highway", although on the east coast, the corresponding sign is not on I-10 (it is on I-40). It acquired this name in Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 106, Chapter 71, in 1976. According to reports in 2003, the sign on I-10 has disappeared.
The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html
QuoteAssemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.
The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.
The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.
But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.
... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.
Quote from: Kniwt on May 22, 2021, 09:12:26 AM
The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html
QuoteAssemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.
The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.
The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.
But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.
... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.
Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable. The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden. I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute. Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog. Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2021, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on May 22, 2021, 09:12:26 AM
The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html
QuoteAssemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.
The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.
The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.
But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.
... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.
Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable. The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden. I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute. Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog. Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter.
Sometimes the California State Transportation Authority fails to consider
context -- particularly in regards the differentials between rural and urban needs -- within their policy goals and statements. A presumption that there are viable alternative forms of transportation in rural/outlying areas is at best naive and at worst troublesome from a standpoint of public safety. Much of what passes for "mass transit" in the Valley is privately-commissioned transport of agricultural workers from one location to another
on public roads; higher-capacity facilities such as what is projected for CA 41 are intrinsically safer due to separation of directional traffic as well as the channelization of intersections, removing stopped vehicles from the main traffic lanes. It's a matter of protection of human life along with increased efficiency of travel. Out that far the concept of "induced demand" simply evaporates (if it was viable to begin with!); folks from Fresno who want to hit the beach at Morro Bay or Pismo would be heading down 41 regardless (as they have done for most of the last century); making it less likely they'll tragically encounter a left-turning ag worker van should be considered a worthwhile endeavor!
Quote from: sparker on May 22, 2021, 03:44:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 22, 2021, 09:40:23 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on May 22, 2021, 09:12:26 AM
The Fresno Bee reports that the state has had a change of heart and now supports widening a dangerous two-lane 6-mile stretch of CA 41 south of Fresno:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article251598648.html
QuoteAssemblymember Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, led a group sounding the alarm earlier this week, saying it appeared the long-planned widening of 41 from Elkhorn to Excelsior avenues was in jeopardy of not being funded.
The roughly $65 million widening is a way to save lives on a deadly six-mile stretch southeast of Caruthers, according to Patterson.
The California State Transportation Authority had declined to submit a letter of support, which is not necessary to make the project go but was seen as a sign that the key connector between Fresno and the Hanford-Lemoore area would be left at two lanes.
But the state officials changed their minds this week, according to Patterson.
... The Highway 41 two-lane gap had a particularly deadly few months at the end of 2020, including five fatal crashes.
Considering there is literally no alternate who people who commute that stretch (myself included) that statement about encouraging other modes of transportation is non-applicable. The impression that I always got was that the state stopped at Elkohorn when 41 was expanded in the late 1990s due to it requiring eminent domain of most of the community of Camden. I do think the safety aspect of this is overblown quite a bit but the two lane segment definitely does not meet the current needs of the Lemoore-Fresno commute. Most of the accidents and fatalities come from instances where people drive too aggressively in the Tule Fog. Similar accident trends occur on four lane 198 between Hanford-Lemoore every winter.
Sometimes the California State Transportation Authority fails to consider context -- particularly in regards the differentials between rural and urban needs -- within their policy goals and statements. A presumption that there are viable alternative forms of transportation in rural/outlying areas is at best naive and at worst troublesome from a standpoint of public safety. Much of what passes for "mass transit" in the Valley is privately-commissioned transport of agricultural workers from one location to another on public roads; higher-capacity facilities such as what is projected for CA 41 are intrinsically safer due to separation of directional traffic as well as the channelization of intersections, removing stopped vehicles from the main traffic lanes. It's a matter of protection of human life along with increased efficiency of travel. Out that far the concept of "induced demand" simply evaporates (if it was viable to begin with!); folks from Fresno who want to hit the beach at Morro Bay or Pismo would be heading down 41 regardless (as they have done for most of the last century); making it less likely they'll tragically encounter a left-turning ag worker van should be considered a worthwhile endeavor!
Interestingly Kings County does provide bus service for commuters down to 198 to NAS Lemoore. To my knowledge the same service isn't available on any part of the 41 corridor. It certainly doesn't help commuters from Fresno down to NAS Lemoore (there are a lot of them) or for that matter anyone working one of the numerous agricultural jobs in the area. That's the problem with that one size fits all approach to transportation planning, it is a far different ballgame out in the Central Valley than the big urban areas.
Amusingly though it interesting to see people put a political push into getting a road expanded for once. Usually it goes the other way as late in California.
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
262 is one that has come up a lot (and that looks to be permanent based on the 680 express lanes signage, the street sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard, and the spring 2021 set of trailblazers eastbound past Warren and westbound past 680).
112 was signed about 8 years ago in San Leandro along Davis Street
259 is the one you mentioned and also had noted had been signed before at least once
14U is goofy but would absolutely count in this category.
114 I think was signed off 101 briefly about 3 or 4 years ago, during the interchange reconstruction for Willow Road along the Bayshore Freeway in Menlo Park.
Was 103 ever a hidden route? 187 is scantly signed but I think has had some signage for years.
When was 77 first signed along the short East Oakland freeway spur off 880?
Pre-2000, 242 might be the example I can think of (as it existed on paper in 1964 even though the signed route remained 24 until the late 1980s).
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Is the 259 marker a standard green spade, or an orange construction-zone-type sign that is more likely to be short-lived (like the one for CA 114 in the Bay Area, which didn't last)?
Any photos would be welcome. I was just out there last month, but only briefly and didn't have a chance to check out CA 259's signage.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 23, 2021, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River. While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them. This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 23, 2021, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
262 is one that has come up a lot (and that looks to be permanent based on the 680 express lanes signage, the street sign blades at Warm Springs Boulevard, and the spring 2021 set of trailblazers eastbound past Warren and westbound past 680).
112 was signed about 8 years ago in San Leandro along Davis Street
259 is the one you mentioned and also had noted had been signed before at least once
14U is goofy but would absolutely count in this category.
114 I think was signed off 101 briefly about 3 or 4 years ago, during the interchange reconstruction for Willow Road along the Bayshore Freeway in Menlo Park.
Was 103 ever a hidden route? 187 is scantly signed but I think has had some signage for years.
When was 77 first signed along the short East Oakland freeway spur off 880?
Pre-2000, 242 might be the example I can think of (as it existed on paper in 1964 even though the signed route remained 24 until the late 1980s).
The single remaining CA 112 indication is on an EB overhead BGS just before the I-880 interchange, which itself was rebuilt a year or two ago; prior to that rebuilding there was a single CA 112 shield posted, again EB, on a lamppost just east of the interchange. Nothing westbound except for a single CA 61 trailblazer with a RH arrow immediately before the Doolittle Drive intersection.
QuoteIs the 259 marker a standard green spade
I've never figured out how to post pictures here, but it's a green spade. It seems to lack the PROPERTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA decal, though, which is why I hypothesise it's a contractor oversight even though it looks spec in every other aspect.
If Chris meant CA 103 near Terminal Island, I think that's always been posted in some fashion.
It would be hilarious if CA 225 popped back up via a construction shield if the rail underpass ever undergoes construction.
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2021, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 23, 2021, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River. While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them. This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.
Cool :)
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 24, 2021, 02:19:16 PM
I've never figured out how to post pictures here, but it's a green spade.
You can upload the picture to your website, Flickr, etc. Then copy the image address to a new post here, between image tags. See https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29125.msg2601935#msg2601935 for examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/nlf7va/in_1976_san_jose_city_councilman_joe_colla_lifted/
(https://i.redd.it/gfxmpmi8fg171.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/101-280-680_Joe_Colla_Interchange_1975.jpg)
The construction of the Joe Colla Interchange was delayed for almost five years.[1] In 1976, three uncompleted flyover ramps hung over US 101 and unfinished I-280/I-680. At this time, both I-280 and I-680 were completed to their current southern terminus. I-280 ended at State Route 17 (SR 17), now I-880, and I-680 ended in Milpitas, California.[2]
Joe Colla stunt[edit]
Near midnight, protesters of the unfinished interchange Tom Carter, Joe Colla, and Doug Beatty placed a 1960 Chevrolet Impala on a crane and placed it on top of an unfinished ramp. They weren't seen by police, although one officer recalled seeing a crane on the unfinished ramp, but assumed that it was late night work.[1]
Later that morning, Joe Colla rode a helicopter to the top of the same unfinished ramp and took a picture with the Impala. The next day, that picture ran in dozens of newspapers and according to the San Jose Mercury News, pressured former governor of California Jerry Brown. Eventually, because of the stunt, the interchange was completed five years later, in 1981.
Noticed that the US 101 section of Lombard Street in SF now has freshly smoothed out asphalt...Van Ness Avenue with the ongoing bus lane construction still needs a bit of work though.
Also seeing a proliferation of exit number gore point signs along 280 even though none of the overhead signs between Daly City and the ballpark have any exit numbering on them yet (over 20 years after CalNEXUS project began statewide).
80 has full exit numbering (being as short as it is) within the city.
101 has most but not all overhead signs with numbering, though there are several examples without it (i.e. the exits to 280). All the northbound exit signs for the Central Freeway are numbered, but not the southbound ramp to I-80. A gore point number sign was added to the 9th Street exit off the Central Freeway a month or two ago.
The Presidio Parkway exits along US 101 have had numbers from the start, and IIRC there is one small sign southbound on the Golden Gate Bridge noting the exit number for 25th Avenue (in actuality, Lincoln Boulevard but that eventually leads to 25th).
I thought Caltrans made a deliberate decision to sign exit numbers for long routes first, rather than short routes even when they've got lots of traffic.
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2021, 02:07:11 AM
I thought Caltrans made a deliberate decision to sign exit numbers for long routes first, rather than short routes even when they've got lots of traffic.
Most of 280 all the way from Daly City to San Jose has been given exit numbers with the internal-tab overhead signage, and IIRC at this point just about every other Bay Area freeway has overhead exit number signage at least once.
280 in SF stands out by having none of it on any of the overheads between Route 1 and King Street.
Quote from: kkt on June 05, 2021, 02:07:11 AM
I thought Caltrans made a deliberate decision to sign exit numbers for long routes first, rather than short routes even when they've got lots of traffic.
The strategy to implement exit numbering on freeways across California seems to vary district by district. For example, I would say about 90% of all freeway exits in San Diego and Imperial Counties (Caltrans District 11) are now at least minimally compliant with federal standards (at least one advance sign with exit number and an exit number on the gore sign). This includes all freeways, long and short.
The exit numbering changes were in large part due to a major sign replacement program in 2019 and 2020 where many button copy signs were replaced with reflective signs. It is much more difficult to find a button copy sign in San Diego today than it was 10 years ago. (Sooner or later, I will get out to take pictures of the replacement signs since our site mostly shows the older signs that have been largely replaced.)
Other Caltrans Districts have varying rates of sign replacements, and I am not aware of a strategy to implement sign replacements on longer-haul freeways versus short-haul freeways.
Most signs posted on this type of sign bridge in Caltrans District 11 (San Diego and Imperial Counties) have not been exchanged with new signs, which leads me to believe these sign bridges will be replaced and signs modernized to include exit numbers at the same time. (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210606/1c117beb94da91542d5499805d38e817.jpg)
SM-G975U
Upcoming construction project next week on Route 99 in Sacramento:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-sr-99-21st-avenue-undercrossing
QuoteWork Schedule/ Full Highway Closure Information
Caltrans is scheduled to close northbound and southbound State Route 99 from 47th Avenue to the U.S. Highway 50 Connector in Sacramento.
The four-day full highway closure is scheduled to begin 8:00 p.m., Friday, June 11, 2021 until 4:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2021.
Crews are also closing the mainline westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway to southbound SR-99, and the westbound and eastbound US-50 connector ramps to southbound SR-99.
In addition, the following ramps are scheduled to be closed:
The on-ramp from 16th Street to eastbound US-50
The on-ramp from 29th Street/H Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/N Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/T Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp from Broadway to southbound SR-99
The off-ramp from southbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The off-ramp from northbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The on-ramp from 14th Avenue/30th Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from East 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from West 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99
Glad I am not driving in Sacto! That is an ambitious schedule. Hope it works!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on June 10, 2021, 01:48:48 PM
Glad I am not driving in Sacto! That is an ambitious schedule. Hope it works!
Rick
Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours. Of course, the safety of the construction crews
and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration. I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north. Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice. I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.
Quote from: sparker on June 10, 2021, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 10, 2021, 01:48:48 PM
Glad I am not driving in Sacto! That is an ambitious schedule. Hope it works!
Rick
Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours. Of course, the safety of the construction crews and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration. I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north. Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice. I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.
I am inclined to agree. Weighing the options of the typical weeks/months-long projects while keeping a route open vs taking a few days or a week of inconvenience and detours, I think that most people would gladly take the tradeoff and simply close the freeway for a few days. With enough publicity, the traffic nightmares that many predict don't actually end up happening. People find a way to adapt.
Quote from: jdbx on June 10, 2021, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 10, 2021, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 10, 2021, 01:48:48 PM
Glad I am not driving in Sacto! That is an ambitious schedule. Hope it works!
Rick
Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours. Of course, the safety of the construction crews and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration. I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north. Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice. I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.
I am inclined to agree. Weighing the options of the typical weeks/months-long projects while keeping a route open vs taking a few days or a week of inconvenience and detours, I think that most people would gladly take the tradeoff and simply close the freeway for a few days. With enough publicity, the traffic nightmares that many predict don't actually end up happening. People find a way to adapt.
In my 22 years at Caltrans I have seen several of these major closures. They have gone off pretty much without a hitch. The massive amount of public outreach does make a difference. Like the previous poster said, people listen and adjust. If the W-X Fix50 bridge deck rebuild a few years ago was any indication, Caltrans will most likely halt the widening/reconstruction work that's underway on I-5 while 99 is closed. They shut down the widening/rehab work that was happening on I-80 "across the top" while that Fix50 project took place.
Quote from: jrouse on June 10, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Quote from: jdbx on June 10, 2021, 04:11:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on June 10, 2021, 03:46:44 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 10, 2021, 01:48:48 PM
Glad I am not driving in Sacto! That is an ambitious schedule. Hope it works!
Rick
Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours. Of course, the safety of the construction crews and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration. I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north. Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice. I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.
I am inclined to agree. Weighing the options of the typical weeks/months-long projects while keeping a route open vs taking a few days or a week of inconvenience and detours, I think that most people would gladly take the tradeoff and simply close the freeway for a few days. With enough publicity, the traffic nightmares that many predict don't actually end up happening. People find a way to adapt.
In my 22 years at Caltrans I have seen several of these major closures. They have gone off pretty much without a hitch. The massive amount of public outreach does make a difference. Like the previous poster said, people listen and adjust. If the W-X Fix50 bridge deck rebuild a few years ago was any indication, Caltrans will most likely halt the widening/reconstruction work that's underway on I-5 while 99 is closed. They shut down the widening/rehab work that was happening on I-80 "across the top" while that Fix50 project took place.
I think this is a bit of a trend in many areas to go with full closure, versus partial closures that would take months to accomplish a similar amount of work. THe partial closures are also inefficient as they have to use some of their labor time to keep opening and closing the highway. it is done for both highways and transit. Yes, you can plan a closure for the right time to minimize disruption. A true silver lining of COVID is that the lower traffic really enabled a boon to such construction projects, given traffic reduction. But more generally, summer in most areas has enough of a lower traffic impact, since schools and colleges are closed, that you can generally do a closure like this without severe impact as well. People can and often do schedule their vacation or WFH to coincide with such closures.
I now live in the DC area and pre-COVID, I would take the Metro to work. A few years ago, there were several closures of my line to do some repair work. One project was about seven weeks, so could not take vacation for the entire period, but enough people did for parts that it was indeed less crowded. Shuttle buses were a pain, but for a short period, very manageable. far better than single tracking which would mean that we'd still have delays (albeit less severe) for a much longer period of time.
Sorry for the incoming rant, but can anyone explain what the hell is going on around Mulholland and Kanan road area? Mulholland HWY has been closed at "The Snake" here for years: Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/V5mDuSUcZfTsfZpe8
They've taken almost 3 years to replace a simple two lane bridge in a rural area and it still isn't slated to be complete until late July.
Then there's a pedestrian/hiking bridge that went out on a trail connecting the old M.A.S.H. set to Malibu Creek State main entrance. Haven't heard from Caltrans or the county about why these things are taking forever to rebuild after the heavy rain intense fire seasons in 2018/2019 caused them to be fail.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 10, 2021, 10:48:51 AM
Upcoming construction project next week on Route 99 in Sacramento:
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-sr-99-21st-avenue-undercrossing
QuoteWork Schedule/ Full Highway Closure Information
Caltrans is scheduled to close northbound and southbound State Route 99 from 47th Avenue to the U.S. Highway 50 Connector in Sacramento.
The four-day full highway closure is scheduled to begin 8:00 p.m., Friday, June 11, 2021 until 4:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2021.
Crews are also closing the mainline westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway to southbound SR-99, and the westbound and eastbound US-50 connector ramps to southbound SR-99.
In addition, the following ramps are scheduled to be closed:
The on-ramp from 16th Street to eastbound US-50
The on-ramp from 29th Street/H Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/N Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/T Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp from Broadway to southbound SR-99
The off-ramp from southbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The off-ramp from northbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The on-ramp from 14th Avenue/30th Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from East 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from West 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99
https://www.enr.com/articles/51917-caltrans-shaves-months-off-sr-99-repair-time-with-precast-prefab-girders
"We can fabricate the product offsite within a factory environment to strict specifications and the product will then be able to arrive on the jobsite in such a manner that it is able to take traffic loading immediately as opposed to having to cure onsite," says Michael Hein, president of Con-Fab California.
The sections are trucked to the jobsite and installed with two crane crews. Once they are in place, the joints between them will be sealed off and ultra-high-performance concrete will be installed within the keyways to lock the pieces together, says Hein. Once that is done, a polyester concrete will be put on top to smooth out any edges.
Hein says his company worked on an $800,000 contract to fabricate the pieces in about a month. Once the sections were complete, his team put them together at the Con-Fab plant to fit before taking them to the actual project site, says Hein.
The FixSac99 bridge deck replacement is part of the SAC 99 21st Avenue Project, which includes replacing sound walls, the concrete median barrier, and installing brighter lighting for the 21st Street undercrossing.
Built in 1959, the 21st Avenue undercrossing was band widened in 1974. It currently has corrosion on the surface deck, concrete spalling, cracks, joint seals that need to be replaced, and the bridge deck has begun to deteriorate due to wear and tear from high traffic, weather and age. Caltrans says it is replacing the bridge deck before emergency operations are necessary.
Caltrans used a similar accelerated bridge construction method on the $14.1-million project that replaced the deteriorating Echo Summit Bridge on U.S. Highway 50 in El Dorado County.
I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.
From the 2021 INFRA Grants thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29600.msg2632097#msg2632097
Quote- The Yolo County Transportation District will be awarded $85.9 million in grant funding to improve traffic flow in the I-80 corridor on the west side of the Sacramento-Yolo metro area.
Possible widening of the Yolo Causeway? I know that that was a bottleneck at times (particularly Fridays) during the time I lived in Sacramento.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 17, 2021, 03:11:10 AM
I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.
Is 271 actually signed from an exit guide sign? 254, 283 and 211 aren't signed from any exit signage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on June 17, 2021, 03:11:10 AM
I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.
Is 271 actually signed from an exit guide sign? 254, 283 and 211 aren't signed from any exit signage.
The last time I came through there, the northern section of CA 271
was signed on a BGS from both directions of US 101; the southern section southeast of Leggett only utilized a stand-alone 271 trailblazer assembly adjacent to the exit -- and only at its southern end; the northern end of that section actually "terminates" at CA 1 a block west of that route's own northern terminus. I don't recall ever seeing a 271 trailblazer along CA 1, though. Apparently the 2-lane segment of US 101 north of Leggett would have been redesignated as the connecting portion of 271 had the 101 bypass freeway been built; the original intention when plans called for US 101 to be upgraded to a continuous freeway were for 271 to function south of Garberville much as 254 did north of there -- but environmental concerns and funding issues put those freeway plans on what looks like a permanent hold, so CA 271 remains a split facility.
Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8446775,-117.0269538,3a,75y,18.77h,93.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBsUSQRplkNrsW6VA0w8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5160398,-117.7570255,3a,75y,322.51h,90.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSe4Ss3cGyjyedNHrO2lpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5204469,-117.6166636,3a,75y,66.88h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP61U3nvL1t9A77CsRcMPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/)). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7292191,-117.1909826,3a,75y,303.78h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdyXyqBsa-OtdJhnP70ZNjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/) one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
I know right? :-D
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on June 30, 2021, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
I know right? :-D
Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 30, 2021, 09:13:00 PM
Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8446775,-117.0269538,3a,75y,18.77h,93.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBsUSQRplkNrsW6VA0w8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5160398,-117.7570255,3a,75y,322.51h,90.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSe4Ss3cGyjyedNHrO2lpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5204469,-117.6166636,3a,75y,66.88h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP61U3nvL1t9A77CsRcMPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/)). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7292191,-117.1909826,3a,75y,303.78h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdyXyqBsa-OtdJhnP70ZNjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/) one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.
They're all over the IE, too.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 30, 2021, 11:43:20 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 30, 2021, 09:13:00 PM
Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8446775,-117.0269538,3a,75y,18.77h,93.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBsUSQRplkNrsW6VA0w8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5160398,-117.7570255,3a,75y,322.51h,90.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSe4Ss3cGyjyedNHrO2lpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5204469,-117.6166636,3a,75y,66.88h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP61U3nvL1t9A77CsRcMPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/)). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7292191,-117.1909826,3a,75y,303.78h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdyXyqBsa-OtdJhnP70ZNjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/) one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.
They're all over the IE, too.
Santa Clara has been busy yellow-outlining their signal backplates for the last year; San Jose is just beginning to do so as well. They're showing up on Caltrans-owned streets (particularly El Camino Real in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) as well as local ones, so apparently everyone's on the same page regarding the effectiveness of the reflectors.
Quote from: sparker on July 01, 2021, 01:13:07 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 30, 2021, 11:43:20 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on June 30, 2021, 09:13:00 PM
Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8446775,-117.0269538,3a,75y,18.77h,93.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGBsUSQRplkNrsW6VA0w8Dw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5160398,-117.7570255,3a,75y,322.51h,90.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSe4Ss3cGyjyedNHrO2lpw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/), and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5204469,-117.6166636,3a,75y,66.88h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZP61U3nvL1t9A77CsRcMPQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/)). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7292191,-117.1909826,3a,75y,303.78h,83.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdyXyqBsa-OtdJhnP70ZNjw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US/) one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.
They're all over the IE, too.
Santa Clara has been busy yellow-outlining their signal backplates for the last year; San Jose is just beginning to do so as well. They're showing up on Caltrans-owned streets (particularly El Camino Real in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) as well as local ones, so apparently everyone's on the same page regarding the effectiveness of the reflectors.
They are optional in the current MUTCD, I'd love to see them made mandatory, including with the full black back plates and faces (yes, including in places like NYC - get with the program, willyas!). IIRC, they are adapted from European practice, where they use white outlines.
Mike
Quote from: kkt on May 24, 2021, 03:09:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2021, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 23, 2021, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River. While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them. This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.
Cool :)
https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/project-to-add-two-more-lanes-to-sr-210-finally-ready-to-start/article_d941e5dc-5400-11ea-855a-d34b6df40e1b.html
This is probably due to an ongoing project and 2023 is the estimated completion date.
Quote from: bing101 on July 03, 2021, 03:14:16 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 24, 2021, 03:09:04 PM
Quote from: mrsman on May 24, 2021, 10:26:45 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 23, 2021, 08:06:21 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on May 23, 2021, 06:46:27 PM
CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.
Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:
How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?
When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River. While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them. This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.
Cool :)
https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/project-to-add-two-more-lanes-to-sr-210-finally-ready-to-start/article_d941e5dc-5400-11ea-855a-d34b6df40e1b.html
This is probably due to an ongoing project and 2023 is the estimated completion date.
Well, so much for the original plans to simply widen the shoulders and bridges on 210 in San Bernardino to Interstate standards -- this is above & beyond that! It was needed back in 2012 when I moved north; nine years later it's probably a necessity! Maybe Caltrans will see fit to finally seek Interstate status when this is done two years hence!
Quote from: TheStranger on June 30, 2021, 04:46:31 PM
From the 2021 INFRA Grants thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29600.msg2632097#msg2632097
Quote- The Yolo County Transportation District will be awarded $85.9 million in grant funding to improve traffic flow in the I-80 corridor on the west side of the Sacramento-Yolo metro area.
Possible widening of the Yolo Causeway? I know that that was a bottleneck at times (particularly Fridays) during the time I lived in Sacramento.
Yes, plus an HOV direct connector at the I-80/US-50 interchange.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 11:25:25 PM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on June 30, 2021, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
I know right? :-D
Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.
It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff. Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away. In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0. But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.
Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.
Quote from: mrsman on July 06, 2021, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 11:25:25 PM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on June 30, 2021, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
I know right? :-D
Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.
It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff. Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away. In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0. But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.
Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.
There was no disaster on January 1 2000 because lots and lots of programmers worked very hard in the late 1990s to work around the problem. Going to a 4-digit year was elegant and preferred, but required converting the data in a data structure that may have no room to expand. A lot of times some individual program was set up still with a 2-digit year but a window of interpretation: dates from, say, 80 to 99 were interpreted as in 1980 to 1999, while 00 to, say, 30 are interpreted as 2000 to 2030. This strategy means individual applications may start failing at different times in the future with little or no warning.
Quote from: kkt on July 06, 2021, 11:00:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on July 06, 2021, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2021, 11:25:25 PM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on June 30, 2021, 11:22:54 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 03, 2021, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 03, 2021, 11:54:41 AM
Quote from: Joshua Whitman on April 03, 2021, 02:08:05 AM
Quote from: GaryA on March 04, 2019, 08:02:55 PM
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website (https://roads.dot.ca.gov/roadscell.php):
SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE
There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.
To that end I don't believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what I've seen on Daniel's site) in years. The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.
Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!
I know right? :-D
Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.
It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff. Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away. In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0. But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.
Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.
There was no disaster on January 1 2000 because lots and lots of programmers worked very hard in the late 1990s to work around the problem. Going to a 4-digit year was elegant and preferred, but required converting the data in a data structure that may have no room to expand. A lot of times some individual program was set up still with a 2-digit year but a window of interpretation: dates from, say, 80 to 99 were interpreted as in 1980 to 1999, while 00 to, say, 30 are interpreted as 2000 to 2030. This strategy means individual applications may start failing at different times in the future with little or no warning.
^This.
It is horrific that so many people now see Y2K as a non-issue or even a hoax. It is a total discredit to those that stayed up around the clock to address the issue precisely to ensure a disaster did not happen (including my mother who kept one of the major network backbones in New England running). It should be celebrated as a huge success that a disaster did not happen due to a whole lot of programmers' efforts. To treat it as an exaggerated event that did not warrant attention is ignorant disrespect and ingratitude.
Here is a clinched tour of I-605, I/CA-210 and I-15 on this AsphaltPlanet video.
Live police chase on 110 north (Arroyo Seco Parkway/old US 66)!!!
https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=168127058600352&ref=watch_permalink
Finally got some photos of the upgraded signage along US 101/Bayshore Freeway in San Mateo County.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/albums/72157719602979781
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51339887576_814fa09a3b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdJkVs)DSC_3230c (https://flic.kr/p/2mdJkVs) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51339160207_11c01e8f66.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdEBGB)DSC_3238c (https://flic.kr/p/2mdEBGB) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340623244_15bb3d8930.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdN7Bo)DSC_3244c (https://flic.kr/p/2mdN7Bo) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340623164_d2b371e444.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdN7A1)DSC_3246e (https://flic.kr/p/2mdN7A1) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51340104468_431ba4a6bf.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mdKsoY)DSC_3248e (https://flic.kr/p/2mdKsoY) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
That reminds me, I really need to get back out there and take better photos of El Camino Real in addition to the Bayshore.
I went drove the new Mulholland HWY bridge over Malibu Creek(???) by Old Place:
(https://i1.lensdump.com/i/ZLFVIr.jpg)
(https://i2.lensdump.com/i/ZLF9BF.jpg)
(https://i3.lensdump.com/i/ZLFdo3.jpg)
(https://i2.lensdump.com/i/ZLFseq.jpg)
And the old temporary bridge which was there when I took the other photos in early July:
(https://i.lensdump.com/i/ZLFB80.jpg)
Mulholland HWY is still closed at the snake:
(https://i1.lensdump.com/i/ZLFmJD.jpg)
Anyone know when it'll reopen, if ever?
The new Mulholland bridge is an eyesore. What do they need all that steel painted red for?
Not sure but I actually really like the bridge.
I like how I can "proceed at my own risk" on foot or on a bike. That totally would be up my alley to do.
Quote from: pderocco on August 05, 2021, 02:05:28 AM
The new Mulholland bridge is an eyesore. What do they need all that steel painted red for?
That's a standard commercial Rust-Oleum shade, intended to not only ward off major oxidation but to actually blend with any residual rust that would occur over time. To me, it's preferable to the "Cor-Ten" bridge structural treatment, found mainly on RR bridge structures over water, that actually derives its color from the rust it deliberately forms from day one (it's more of a dark red-brown). Example of the latter -- the BNSF bridge over the Willamette River about a mile north of Union Station in Portland. I definitely prefer the pre-painted approach; to me it's more appropriate to SoCal mountain settings -- all 3 Pacific Coast DOT's tend to use a medium green if they elect to paint the metal superstructure of their bridges; works in far northern CA and the NW states, but a little strange out in the desert; wouldn't mind the "red brick" paint out there.
Regarding that temporary Bailey Bridge. Was that obtained from the Caltrans emergency surplus? That seems suspiciously identical to what is in use at the Ferguson Slide on CA 140.
I kind of dig the rust color red on that new truss span. Almost all the truss spans I encounter in the state carry that green shade Sparker describes. If anything it's kind of abstract and make the bridges feel way older than it really is.
I like the rusty red color. It's a nice earth color that goes well in the country. (Of course I prefer the looks of the Golden Gate Bridge to the S.F.-Oakland Bay Bridge, too.)
Well, I like the look of the old bridge: entirely underneath the road, so you don't even notice you're on a bridge. It's not like it's a really long span with a nice view or something.
Sad, since this section of highway is TV/movie famous. It was a standin for generic backcountry roads in a million shows (Mission: Impossible used it a lot, incongruously, for generic Eastern European and tinpot South American dictatorships alike).
Seen finishing my road trip that I think is new, on the 80 portion from capital city freeway to 5, under the 80 reassurance shield it seems like they put a new TO 5 trailblazer under there. Another thing a CA DOT district is trying?
Quote from: sparker on August 05, 2021, 12:14:09 PM
Quote from: pderocco on August 05, 2021, 02:05:28 AM
The new Mulholland bridge is an eyesore. What do they need all that steel painted red for?
That's a standard commercial Rust-Oleum shade, intended to not only ward off major oxidation but to actually blend with any residual rust that would occur over time. To me, it's preferable to the "Cor-Ten" bridge structural treatment, found mainly on RR bridge structures over water, that actually derives its color from the rust it deliberately forms from day one (it's more of a dark red-brown). Example of the latter -- the BNSF bridge over the Willamette River about a mile north of Union Station in Portland. I definitely prefer the pre-painted approach; to me it's more appropriate to SoCal mountain settings -- all 3 Pacific Coast DOT's tend to use a medium green if they elect to paint the metal superstructure of their bridges; works in far northern CA and the NW states, but a little strange out in the desert; wouldn't mind the "red brick" paint out there.
Actually, in the eastern parts of the state, WSDOT uses a more tan/brown color that fits in better with the desert landscape over there than their standard green would: https://goo.gl/maps/cfBkNubJ6sczddjd6. I like do like the red though, and I think it fits Mulholland better than the tan would.
Quote from: TJS23 on August 07, 2021, 07:51:35 PM
Seen finishing my road trip that I think is new, on the 80 portion from capital city freeway to 5, under the 80 reassurance shield it seems like they put a new TO 5 trailblazer under there. Another thing a CA DOT district is trying?
TO 5 had existed there even in the old button copy signage, from what I remember when I lived in Sacramento from 2007-2014.
SM-G973U1
Article on projects that may be delayed in the San Diego-area TransNet program as priorities shift toward transit mobility.
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/here-are-the-transnet-projects-that-probably-arent-happening/
QuoteRegional planners outlining the future of transportation in San Diego are ready to acknowledge which highway and transit projects from the region's last vision aren't happening.
Twenty-one projects included in TransNet, the 2004 voter-approved sales tax for regional infrastructure funding, are unlikely to be built as part of a broad reimagining of San Diego's transportation system, executives from the San Diego Association of Governments told an oversight board last month and confirmed to Voice of San Diego in a follow-up interview.
The board of directors — composed of elected officials from across the county — still has final say on any decision, but the agency's staff, led by director Hasan Ikhrata, has said in no uncertain terms that there is no money for the unbuilt TransNet projects, and that they wouldn't have any place in his new vision for regional transportation even if there was.
The list of likely-to-be-canceled projects includes 19 highway improvements, one rapid bus line from San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa and a tunnel in Coronado. They're the same projects that have been on the chopping block since Ikhrata came to SANDAG in 2018, and began promising a new system built around hundreds of miles of fast, frequent trains.
List of impacted projects (which could be funded by other sources in the future, delayed indefinitely, or fully deleted) is in the weblink.
SM-G975U
That is fucking stupid
Quote from: andy3175 on August 13, 2021, 10:32:12 PM
Article on projects that may be delayed in the San Diego-area TransNet program as priorities shift toward transit mobility.
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/government/here-are-the-transnet-projects-that-probably-arent-happening/
QuoteRegional planners outlining the future of transportation in San Diego are ready to acknowledge which highway and transit projects from the region's last vision aren't happening.
Twenty-one projects included in TransNet, the 2004 voter-approved sales tax for regional infrastructure funding, are unlikely to be built as part of a broad reimagining of San Diego's transportation system, executives from the San Diego Association of Governments told an oversight board last month and confirmed to Voice of San Diego in a follow-up interview.
The board of directors — composed of elected officials from across the county — still has final say on any decision, but the agency's staff, led by director Hasan Ikhrata, has said in no uncertain terms that there is no money for the unbuilt TransNet projects, and that they wouldn't have any place in his new vision for regional transportation even if there was.
The list of likely-to-be-canceled projects includes 19 highway improvements, one rapid bus line from San Ysidro to Sorrento Mesa and a tunnel in Coronado. They're the same projects that have been on the chopping block since Ikhrata came to SANDAG in 2018, and began promising a new system built around hundreds of miles of fast, frequent trains.
List of impacted projects (which could be funded by other sources in the future, delayed indefinitely, or fully deleted) is in the weblink.
SM-G975U
Noticed that the only outstanding item regarding the upgrade of I-15 to full Interstate standards -- the revamping of the 15/94 interchange -- is only addressed peripherally, as the potential cancellation of the HOV connectors between the two routes, not the issue of LH entrances/exits. Nevertheless, as SANDAG and its director have little or no interest in that CA 15 segment, it may be time for D11 to request a waiver for the interchange --
particularly since the offending ramps only have LH entrances/exits on CA 94; all on and off moves on CA 15 are from the right side of each carriageway. It's time that the problem is put to bed and I-15 directly signed from I-5. And if it can be done by simple paperwork rather than projects that would involve hostile parties' assent, all the better.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2021, 11:32:02 PM
That is fucking stupid
Yeah -- closed minds occur across all the sociopolitical spectrum; no ideology has a monopoly on short-sightedness!
I mean I understand the need for mass transit emphasis in SoCal but come on! The freeway in and around San Diego are so neglected. I bet this doesn't bode well for the people there.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 14, 2021, 01:45:18 AM
I mean I understand the need for mass transit emphasis in SoCal but come on! The freeway in and around San Diego are so neglected. I bet this doesn't bode well for the people there.
What's interesting is the somewhat extensive LR system in the region hasn't extended north along the I-15 corridor, where much of the growth is occurring. Maybe SANDAG leadership simply has a disdain for suburbs, although simply neglecting them seems a bit gratuitous and a pointless exercise; simply not providing transit for an area doesn't have the effect of convincing folks out there to move back into the city center; they'll just continue to use their cars/trucks for their daily activities. San Jose has a somewhat similar problem; the LR layout, accompanied by local zoning changes, was intended to draw residents into downtown while the tech jobs remained on the periphery -- some called it a "coder conduit". But that didn't happen to the extent that the planners thought it would, and in the meantime those persons most in need of transit, including several communities of color, were ill-served by the system; instead of concentrating on shuttling tech workers to the residential areas preferred by planners, they could have enhanced the mobility of tens of thousands of historically underpaid and underserved city residents. But they didn't -- and the system (when it's up & running!) remains underutilized.
I don't believe there's an existing rail line that runs inland from San Diego for any appreciable length. They'd have to start from scratch on obtaining the right of way, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 14, 2021, 10:14:16 PM
I don't believe there's an existing rail line that runs inland from San Diego for any appreciable length. They'd have to start from scratch on obtaining the right of way, which would be prohibitively expensive.
Actually, there was MU (multi-powered-unit) car service on the old Santa Fe Escondido branch from Oceanside a few years back; don't know if that service is in operation today. Was more or less the "long way around" for commuters from San Diego to Escondido (think of heading north on I-5 then backtracking southeast on CA 78), so when it was established, there were doubts about its efficacy. As far as running LR north, it probably would have to in some way utilize the general I-15 (and possibly CA 163) corridor -- maybe even the ROW itself. There's really not much of an alternate path through the hills, since the watershed (or what passes for it in that neck of the woods) tends to drain through E-W canyons down to the coast, where it becomes wetlands on the landward side of the beach spit (hence all the lagoons along I-5). But since SANDAG seems to be train-happy, if not able to afford to fulfill its plans, it wouldn't surprise me to see some future rail corridor following I-15 at least north to Rancho Bernardo.
Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 17, 2021, 07:05:06 PM
Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
What?
Also, me live in Fresno and hate crash boom time with 99 in Atwater.
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 17, 2021, 07:05:06 PM
Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.
It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.
Quote from: pderocco on August 18, 2021, 12:39:39 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 17, 2021, 07:05:06 PM
Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.
It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.
Not really surprising as 58, as the logical extension of I-40, is the principal E-W trucking corridor across the northern tier of SoCal, connecting that Interstate to the San Joaquin Valley and, by extension, the Bay Area. That being said, US 395, along with CA 58 west of Kramer, makes up a viable commercial bypass of metro L.A. for truck traffic from I-10 (or even San Diego) to points north in order to avoid congestion in the L.A. basin. Being a 2-lane desert highway that passes through a hilly stretch between Adelanto and Kramer Junction, it can be a bit scary/dicey, particularly in regards to the level of truck traffic on the road. Originally, a freeway alignment west of the existing facility through Victorville and Adelanto was proposed; later, it was thought (at least locally) that the High Desert Corridor would serve as a connector over to I-15 north of Victorville, which would have the effect of making the Adelanto/Victorville N-S segment less of a priority. But now that facility is on hold, so plans (no formal alignment adoption as of yet) are back to being up in the air as far as a freeway through the developed area is concerned. Nevertheless, I would expect that D8 would press for some sort of improvement to the 2-lane stretch from Adelanto to 58 sooner than later, probably in the form of a divided expressway -- that stretch
is really dangerous. While the whole corridor warrants improvement, the portion posing the greatest safety issues will likely be addressed first.
Quote from: sparker on August 18, 2021, 05:59:50 AM
Quote from: pderocco on August 18, 2021, 12:39:39 AM
Quote from: Lukeisroads on August 17, 2021, 07:05:06 PM
Totally different topic
who likes the new kramer junction intersec
stands for intersection
Much better than before, but not so great if you're on 395 (two new traffic lights). Eventually, they'll need another "Kramer Junction Bypass" for 395.
It's odd that they've poured so much money into 58 in the last 20 years, but have barely touched 395.
Not really surprising as 58, as the logical extension of I-40, is the principal E-W trucking corridor across the northern tier of SoCal, connecting that Interstate to the San Joaquin Valley and, by extension, the Bay Area. That being said, US 395, along with CA 58 west of Kramer, makes up a viable commercial bypass of metro L.A. for truck traffic from I-10 (or even San Diego) to points north in order to avoid congestion in the L.A. basin. Being a 2-lane desert highway that passes through a hilly stretch between Adelanto and Kramer Junction, it can be a bit scary/dicey, particularly in regards to the level of truck traffic on the road. Originally, a freeway alignment west of the existing facility through Victorville and Adelanto was proposed; later, it was thought (at least locally) that the High Desert Corridor would serve as a connector over to I-15 north of Victorville, which would have the effect of making the Adelanto/Victorville N-S segment less of a priority. But now that facility is on hold, so plans (no formal alignment adoption as of yet) are back to being up in the air as far as a freeway through the developed area is concerned. Nevertheless, I would expect that D8 would press for some sort of improvement to the 2-lane stretch from Adelanto to 58 sooner than later, probably in the form of a divided expressway -- that stretch is really dangerous. While the whole corridor warrants improvement, the portion posing the greatest safety issues will likely be addressed first.
and plus the old kramer junction was beat up due to semi's
Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.
SM-G975U
I drove the stretch from Adelanto to CA-58 where it is two lanes with zero passing lanes and those delineators and overly wide shoulders last month. First time I ever took that route and it'll probably be my last until that gets fixed. Was passed 3 times on the shoulder by impatient drivers and I almost considered doing it myself when I was behind a very slow semi. This stretch needs to be 4 lanes the whole way just a steady stream of traffic. I can't believe how bad California neglects the freeways and roads in the high desert in this area.
Even in Phelan and west Victorville there were so many roads that needed to be four or even six lanes.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 22, 2021, 07:02:01 PM
Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.
SM-G975U
Since the traffic mix is considerably different on US 395 north of CA 58 than the section to the south, it's likely D8's -- as well as the overall view emanating from Caltrans HQ -- plans would prioritize the southern segment well before any significant work would be done to the north. 395 between Victorville/I-15 and CA 58 is effectively part of a
de facto commercial L.A. bypass -- as well as an effective alternate route from the multitudes of distribution warehouses in the Inland Empire -- essentially from Pomona all the way out to Redlands -- to northern CA, avoiding having to go through any part of L.A. County (even I-210's western reaches are more congested than in years past). CA 138 is considered (a) dangerous over its 2-lane stretch through the Phelan area, and (b) more of a slog now than before, since D7's 4-laning projects included signals along the way in the Pearblossom and Littlerock areas. Once the CA 58 Mojave bypass was completed 18 years ago, the die was cast, and 15 (including the 215 feed-in)/395/58 became the conduit of choice. So these days it's doing double-duty diverting through traffic from I-10 as well as San Diego from the L.A. basin, as well as one of the northern outlets of choice for traffic originating in the Empire.
With that traffic base using the facility largely 24/7, safety issues, heretofore addressed by the "band-aid" approach of periodic passing lanes and sporadic median structures, share DOT concern along with the capacity issues that become more pressing as time goes by. The chances for anything but slightly larger-scale versions of the measures being currently deployed along US 395 giving way to an all-out divided facility, expressway or freeway, are less than robust until it is decided to actually increase the capacity of the highway. One of the issues mitigating against the latter consideration is just where this increased traffic is to go on the south end of the corridor through Adelanto, west Victorville, and Hesperia. It was widely thought that with expedited construction of the HDC, the segment between US 395 and I-15 north of Victorville would serve, at least initially, as the volume outlet for traffic heading north or coming south on the outlying 395 segment, simply shunting traffic laterally for about four miles to I-15.
This "shunt" was considered vitally important, since there's been a longstanding controversy about just where to place a future 395 freeway alignment through the developed area from the current 15/395 split north through Adelanto. Originally the idea, agreed upon by the cities of Hesperia and Victorville was to simply follow the existing arterial corridor; to that effect adjacent property was reserved, shifting from one side of the present highway to the other to allow commercial development of the area. When Adelanto incorporated in the late '90's it did much the same by simply just keeping a "buffer zone" around 395 and placing development, including their own civic center, on adjacent or closely parallel streets. However, the regional MPO had other ideas, preferring a parallel N-S alignment about a mile west of the present route and snaking past several large housing tracts. The property previously reserved by the cities would be utilized for infill -- including some lower-income housing, in scarce supply even out in the high desert, where property valuation was largely less than "over the hill" in the Inland Empire. The MPO's rationale was twofold -- enhance the infill potential as described above, and effect separation of through 395 traffic from its present highly commercialized alignment. But the cities, whose governments were and are dominated by interests favoring existing zoning and land-use practices, demurred from the MPO plan. The section of the HDC between 395 and I-15 would have rendered the controversy less of an obstacle by being able to deliver 395 traffic to 15 and vice-versa despite the impasse between the cities and the MPO. When the HDC's road component was shelved, this meant that a capacity increase on 395 between Adelanto and CA 58 would have "nowhere to go", dumping traffic onto the existing 395 arterial street or the alternative along Air Base Parkway and the Old Trails Highway (historic US 66) favored by locals in the know and more or less along the HDC alignment. Now -- whether the HDC segment east of 395, including the Apple Valley CA 18 realignment, could be considered a local SIU, and not included within the agreement that effectively sunk the road portion of the corridor, is still being debated -- the toll road concept was to have had its east end at US 395; the remainder east of there would have been constructed as a freeway, with an expressway extension commencing east of I-15.
The bottom line is that without a viable freeway outlet to I-15, Caltrans/D8 was and is reluctant to plan & build a 4-lane divided facility along the outlying portion of US 395, safety issues notwithstanding.
Why is the zipper barrier away from the toll plaza here??
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51308931125_1ab0897f3b_k.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 25, 2021, 10:39:26 PM
Why is the zipper barrier away from the toll plaza here??
I haven't driven through GGB in two years but the zipper barrier besides being designed for the bridge is also moved in weekdays to convert the bridge from 3+3 lanes to 4+2 lanes in either direction to accommodate rush hour. (If there's a joke I definitely missed it)
This is not new per se because it's viewable in GMaps streetview since April but at the I-280 / US 101 junction the US 101 shield has worn out so much that a replacement was put in front of it as opposed to replacing the whole BGS. Another BGS behind it got the same treatment, but there's still a worn out I-80 sign on a BGS where I-80 starts (but the Junction I-80 shield is still there!)
(https://i.imgur.com/D0R8kbD.jpg)
Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Quote from: jander on August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through. CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway. US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
Conditions on (closed to the public) US 50 coming down the hill eastbound from Echo Summit. The just-constructed new bridge is at about 0:19.
https://twitter.com/BronteWittpenn/status/1432502222449872896
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: jander on August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through. CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway. US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire. All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone. US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.
As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route. An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there. Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.
Quote from: gonealookin on August 30, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: jander on August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through. CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway. US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire. All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone. US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.
As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route. An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there. Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.
At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives. If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay. CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself. But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement.
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2021, 03:10:23 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on August 30, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: jander on August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through. CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway. US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire. All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone. US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.
As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route. An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there. Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.
At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives. If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay. CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself. But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement.
One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow. I suppose it would require a lot more traffic control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it. Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?
I noticed CA 88 over Carson Pass shut down. I might have to reroute my Boise trip over CA 108 and CA 182 given I don't want to double back I-80 over the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Quote from: TJS23 on August 30, 2021, 03:49:46 AM
Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?
Can't speak for COVID-era traffic, but I always experienced traffic WB on I-10 during rush hour and beyond, particularly between Normandie and La Cienega (had to make a lot of trips between Long Beach and Mid-Wilshire).
Quote from: jdbx on August 31, 2021, 02:39:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2021, 03:10:23 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on August 30, 2021, 09:16:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 30, 2021, 08:35:49 PM
Quote from: jander on August 30, 2021, 08:04:34 PM
Quick and hopefully not to dumb of a question, but why is the evacuation from South Lake Tahoe only into Nevada and not North on CA-89 into Truckee?
Thanks for the explanation
Emerald Bay is not something you want to evacuate people through. CA 89 is a narrow, winding and often cliff strewn two lane highway. US 50 on the other hand is four lanes all the way from the hazard area out of the Tahoe Basin.
There is also thought that CA 89 is under direct threat from the fire. All of CA 89 north of the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89) is within the evacuation zone. US 50 and NV 207 at least buy a few more hours.
As to points north of Emerald Bay, CA 89 north would be the evacuation route. An important reason for the construction of the new bridge carrying CA 89 over the Truckee River at Tahoe City was to provide a second bridge there. Previously the Fanny Bridge was the only crossing there and that was considered a pretty bad choke point during a fire emergency.
At this point, US 50 into Carson City is the major evacuation route; NV/CA 28, NV 431, and CA 267 are secondary or "back-up" alternatives. If the fire turns north toward Placer County and Squaw Valley, it's likely CA 89 will close at some point, so shunting outbound traffic east and north may become necessary for the west side of the lake north of Emerald Bay. CA 89 from Myers south over Luther Pass, currently closed, is the first logical point of potential containment; if it jumps that, the area around the airport (alongside US 50 between the SLT "Y" and Myers) is another, primarily because most trees have been cleared from around the airport for obvious reasons; since Caldor is principally a "crown" fire with spread from treetop to treetop, an existing cleared area may be able to slow down the progress toward the lake itself. But if the worst happens and the fire shoots south around the lake, its eastern progress will be effectively halted somewhere west of US 395 (and I-580 north of Carson) because it'll simply head into the desert and run out of the type of fuel that promotes rapid fire movement.
One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow. I suppose it would require a lot more traffic control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it. Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?
According to the news reports I've been watching, there are manned traffic-control points not only all along US 50 but on CA 89 south of Tahoe City and on NV 28 at the NV 431 junction. It shouldn't be too hard for NDOT and the highway patrol to shut off WB 50 at 395 and convert those lanes to EB only. I suppose one of the issues is where the hell to go once traffic hits US 395 & I-580; I'd imagine many of those folks will be heading up to Reno where there are plenty of overnight accommodations (but 15K of them might well use up most of that in short order!), it's likely the 2+2 I-580 will be equally jammed. Just hope NDOT and NHP have contingency plans for this evac.
Quote from: sparker on August 31, 2021, 06:19:34 PM
Quote from: jdbx on August 31, 2021, 02:39:29 PM
One of the things I was thinking about yesterday, while watching news reports of the massive traffic jam leaving South Lake Tahoe via US-50 is why they can't run the evacuation contra-flow. I suppose it would require a lot more traffic control at every intersection, but looking at the traffic cams of those 2 eastbound lanes stopped solid, meanwhile the 2-way turn lane and both westbound lanes were completely empty was what made me think about it. Maybe contra-flow is something that can only work on access-controlled roads?
According to the news reports I've been watching, there are manned traffic-control points not only all along US 50 but on CA 89 south of Tahoe City and on NV 28 at the NV 431 junction. It shouldn't be too hard for NDOT and the highway patrol to shut off WB 50 at 395 and convert those lanes to EB only. I suppose one of the issues is where the hell to go once traffic hits US 395 & I-580; I'd imagine many of those folks will be heading up to Reno where there are plenty of overnight accommodations (but 15K of them might well use up most of that in short order!), it's likely the 2+2 I-580 will be equally jammed. Just hope NDOT and NHP have contingency plans for this evac.
The evacuation orders for most of the South Shore population came all at once Monday morning. The roads were briefly closed to all non-emergency westbound traffic, but Nevada residents who were caught down in the valley were eventually allowed back up the hill. Emergency vehicles and law enforcement were also coming westbound. With those factors contra-flow traffic wasn't an option; maybe just in the City of South Lake Tahoe, but at some point there would have been a mess as four lanes squeezed down to two anyway.
So most people got out of the Tahoe Basin Monday afternoon. I'm a Nevada resident but got my evacuation order at 4 p.m. today (I had already mostly packed in anticipation of it, and was out by 6:45). US 50 was almost completely empty as I left. I didn't want to compete for hotel rooms in Carson City or Reno so I'm out in Fallon for the first night of it, and thinking of interesting road trips for the duration, which I assume will be 10 days or more. My house is fairly close to the lake and I don't expect to get burned out, I think if the fire burned in that direction it would go up into the mountains above us, but who knows how it will go so I'm carrying as much stuff as I could reasonably get in a RAV4.
Quote from: TJS23 on August 30, 2021, 03:49:46 AM
Need the traffic and planner experts to help me answer this: How is there always traffic all day on the 10 EB from Culver City to downtown but never any traffic WB except maybe weekend Santa Monica beach traffic?
Pre-COVID there was always morning traffic westbound on the 10 from downtown.
Quote from: sparker on August 23, 2021, 04:54:12 AM
Quote from: andy3175 on August 22, 2021, 07:02:01 PM
Having just driven 395 on the two-lane section, safety considerations will require eventual modifications to separate the two directions of traffic and allow for safe passage. With packs of cars jockeying for position at speeds well in excess of the limit to complete the 395 desert segment fastest, it is a matter of time before additional safety improvements are warranted and arranged. This can be done by expanding the existing safety improvements (flaps separating two directions of traffic, improved signage, and wider shoulders) made on 395 south of 58 to include areas on 395 north of 58, followed by passing lane expansion and eventual median separation between the two directions of traffic. I've experienced this high level of traffic volume on weekdays as well as weekends between 15 and 14. Hopefully these safety improvements will come soon.
SM-G975U
Since the traffic mix is considerably different on US 395 north of CA 58 than the section to the south, it's likely D8's -- as well as the overall view emanating from Caltrans HQ -- plans would prioritize the southern segment well before any significant work would be done to the north. 395 between Victorville/I-15 and CA 58 is effectively part of a de facto commercial L.A. bypass -- as well as an effective alternate route from the multitudes of distribution warehouses in the Inland Empire -- essentially from Pomona all the way out to Redlands -- to northern CA, avoiding having to go through any part of L.A. County (even I-210's western reaches are more congested than in years past). CA 138 is considered (a) dangerous over its 2-lane stretch through the Phelan area, and (b) more of a slog now than before, since D7's 4-laning projects included signals along the way in the Pearblossom and Littlerock areas. Once the CA 58 Mojave bypass was completed 18 years ago, the die was cast, and 15 (including the 215 feed-in)/395/58 became the conduit of choice. So these days it's doing double-duty diverting through traffic from I-10 as well as San Diego from the L.A. basin, as well as one of the northern outlets of choice for traffic originating in the Empire.
With that traffic base using the facility largely 24/7, safety issues, heretofore addressed by the "band-aid" approach of periodic passing lanes and sporadic median structures, share DOT concern along with the capacity issues that become more pressing as time goes by. The chances for anything but slightly larger-scale versions of the measures being currently deployed along US 395 giving way to an all-out divided facility, expressway or freeway, are less than robust until it is decided to actually increase the capacity of the highway. One of the issues mitigating against the latter consideration is just where this increased traffic is to go on the south end of the corridor through Adelanto, west Victorville, and Hesperia. It was widely thought that with expedited construction of the HDC, the segment between US 395 and I-15 north of Victorville would serve, at least initially, as the volume outlet for traffic heading north or coming south on the outlying 395 segment, simply shunting traffic laterally for about four miles to I-15.
This "shunt" was considered vitally important, since there's been a longstanding controversy about just where to place a future 395 freeway alignment through the developed area from the current 15/395 split north through Adelanto. Originally the idea, agreed upon by the cities of Hesperia and Victorville was to simply follow the existing arterial corridor; to that effect adjacent property was reserved, shifting from one side of the present highway to the other to allow commercial development of the area. When Adelanto incorporated in the late '90's it did much the same by simply just keeping a "buffer zone" around 395 and placing development, including their own civic center, on adjacent or closely parallel streets. However, the regional MPO had other ideas, preferring a parallel N-S alignment about a mile west of the present route and snaking past several large housing tracts. The property previously reserved by the cities would be utilized for infill -- including some lower-income housing, in scarce supply even out in the high desert, where property valuation was largely less than "over the hill" in the Inland Empire. The MPO's rationale was twofold -- enhance the infill potential as described above, and effect separation of through 395 traffic from its present highly commercialized alignment. But the cities, whose governments were and are dominated by interests favoring existing zoning and land-use practices, demurred from the MPO plan. The section of the HDC between 395 and I-15 would have rendered the controversy less of an obstacle by being able to deliver 395 traffic to 15 and vice-versa despite the impasse between the cities and the MPO. When the HDC's road component was shelved, this meant that a capacity increase on 395 between Adelanto and CA 58 would have "nowhere to go", dumping traffic onto the existing 395 arterial street or the alternative along Air Base Parkway and the Old Trails Highway (historic US 66) favored by locals in the know and more or less along the HDC alignment. Now -- whether the HDC segment east of 395, including the Apple Valley CA 18 realignment, could be considered a local SIU, and not included within the agreement that effectively sunk the road portion of the corridor, is still being debated -- the toll road concept was to have had its east end at US 395; the remainder east of there would have been constructed as a freeway, with an expressway extension commencing east of I-15.
The bottom line is that without a viable freeway outlet to I-15, Caltrans/D8 was and is reluctant to plan & build a 4-lane divided facility along the outlying portion of US 395, safety issues notwithstanding.
look at the street view it had gas stations before the new overpass the intersection was always busy so much that people got mad and the signal was taking so long and green lights were so short PLUS there is a railroad crossing there so if it went off a car might get hit by a train due to the jam so the intersection was messed up
Quote from: Lukeisroads on September 02, 2021, 12:27:40 PM
look at the street view it had gas stations before the new overpass the intersection was always busy so much that people got mad and the signal was taking so long and green lights were so short PLUS there is a railroad crossing there so if it went off a car might get hit by a train due to the jam so the intersection was messed up
Ironically, prior to the completion of the 58 freeway, the RR grade crossing on US 395, north of the actual Kramer Junction, didn't have much effect on traffic flow for the southward 395 to westward 58 traffic movement, part of the ersatz "L.A. bypass" and the route of much of that movement's volume; 58 did cross the tracks a couple of miles to the west right before the start of the Boron freeway section, but the backup there rarely reached the Junction. Now, with CA 58 relocated north of the tracks, 395 traffic must cross the tracks to reach the interchange, so BNSF train movements now
do regularly impact this traffic situation. Long-range plans call for a 4-lane 395 relocation east of the junction (58/395 interchange type TBD) which will bridge the tracks -- but for the present, US 395 traffic crosses the RR at grade and probably will do so for at least the next decade unless funds can be identified enabling a more expedited development schedule.
This post made me think of a question:
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 04, 2021, 11:32:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2021, 09:21:11 AM
To me California cut outs are 😎 cool.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51422929788_9053b8c9be_w.jpg)
That's a more recent replacement/installation. It has the cardinal direction on top of the shield instead of below, which is a recent change to the California MUTCD, and it also uses a First Letter is Larger cardinal direction sign, which is also a recent practice. I agree with you that it looks good.
Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?
As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.
I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
Ahh, got it. Not sure what I was remembering.
I guess the better question then: anyone know the history of the "freeway entrance" assembly? Was it a thing right away? Or much later?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number. Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 04, 2021, 12:24:04 PMI guess the better question then: anyone know the history of the "freeway entrance" assembly? Was it a thing right away? Or much later?
"Freeway Entrance" assemblies came into being as a result of research into preventing wrong-way driving in the early 1960's. Double-loaded ramp configurations (off-ramp ending and on-ramp beginning at the same surface street intersection) were very common on early freeways in California, so a "Freeway Entrance" package at an on-ramp next to an off-ramp that received the wrong-way package ("Do Not Enter" and "Wrong Way" on the same post) was found to be beneficial in preventing wrong-way movements.
In the Facebook road groups, and I think occasionally on this forum, people complain about Caltrans using "Do Not Enter" and "Wrong Way" on the same post rather than "Do Not Enter" at the ramp terminus and "Wrong Way" midway between terminus and exit gore. Personally, I think Caltrans' solution is sensible since it adds emphasis and it is desirable to prevent wrong-way travel of any length. The traditional solution for the midramp position is an arrow in the pavement delineated using two-way reflectors that show red to wrong-way traffic. Caltrans also used to have a spec for a "Go Back - You Are Going Wrong Way" sign, and experimented with lights and horns that activate whenever a wrong-way driver is detected. These were not found to work well enough to justify rollout as standard provision. (Part of the problem was that many wrong-way drivers, finding themselves halfway down the ramp, opted to keep going so they could correct travel direction by turning right across the exit gore instead of U-turning immediately. This muddled thinking is characteristic of alcohol impairment, and it was found that the bulk of wrong-way driving incidents occurred after 2 AM bar closing.)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number. Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland. Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2021, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number. Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland. Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.
Considering the excessive amount of reassurance shields I would think someone in D4 had a strong affinity for what CA 77 was intended to be.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2021, 04:13:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 04, 2021, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number. Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
The short CA 77 section east of I-880 wasn't signed as such until about 10 years ago; prior to that, it was signed as a westward extension/north-end "leg" of CA 185, which intersected it at East 14th St. in East Oakland. Frankly, IMO that arrangement made more sense than an isolated CA 77 "stub"; why D4 went the other way is a mystery.
Considering the excessive amount of reassurance shields I would think someone in D4 had a strong affinity for what CA 77 was intended to be.
And which, between Oakland urban activists and Orinda/Lafayette NIMBY's, never really stood much of a chance of being developed as a freeway since initial corridor identification in 1959, still in the LRN era. Nevertheless, 77 would have been a useful "relief route" for CA 24 and the Caldecott Tunnels.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 04, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
This post made me think of a question:
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 04, 2021, 11:32:40 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 04, 2021, 09:21:11 AM
To me California cut outs are 😎 cool.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51422929788_9053b8c9be_w.jpg)
That's a more recent replacement/installation. It has the cardinal direction on top of the shield instead of below, which is a recent change to the California MUTCD, and it also uses a First Letter is Larger cardinal direction sign, which is also a recent practice. I agree with you that it looks good.
Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?
As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.
I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.
My recollection, from when I was a kid in the late 1960s and early 1970s, was that pretty much all the freeway entrances had "Freeway Entrance" signs much like the green one in the picture above, but they usually did NOT have route signs until much later. If you were a newcomer in an area with several freeways (central Oakland for instance) it was confusing. My experience is from the San Francisco Bay Area, and as we know the different Caltrans districts have different priorities. I think they started adding the route signs in the mid 1970s and the entrances mostly had them by the mid 1980s.
I like the cutout shields too :)
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.
Quote from: NE2 on September 06, 2021, 12:02:53 AM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
SR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.
As a UCR student at the time who made regular trips to San Diego, the first time I saw signage for CA 103 was in the fall of 1968, about the time that DOH was signing many previously-unsigned routes, including CA 83 on Euclid Ave. in Ontario and Upland and the parallel CA 31 on Milliken Avenue (later superseded by I-15); about that time the original CA 67 signage on the northeasternmost portion of the "Helix Freeway" (mostly CA 94 from I-5 east) was replaced by the signage for CA 125. Also, in SD, CA 209 received signage about that time from I-5 to Point Loma. The actual deployment of signage varied from district to district; D9, east of the Sierra, was the first to feature signage of every route within its jurisdiction, including CA's 182, 167, 158, 203, 168, and 136, all unsigned before 1967 (the signed reroute of CA 190 to Olancha occurred that year as well). Signing efforts within D11 and D5, flanking L.A. along the coast, proceeded from the summer through the end of 1968; this included the CA 217 UCSB access freeway. D7 in metro L.A. lagged a bit behind, with effective completion in the spring of 1969 -- although they did decline to sign some routes they considered nonessential, like CA 187 and CA 213; signages for both of those occurred in the mid-'80's. What was interesting is that the "if we own it, we sign it" edict came down in early 1967 immediately after the (Reagan) gubernatorial change. But both D6 and D10 in the Valley had begun to sign some of their previously unsigned routes prior to that; CA 137 received signage in early 1965, followed by CA 155 a year later after the alignment change into Delano from the original Oildale routing. The shorter unsigned routes in the Visalia-Kingsburg area (CA 216, CA 201) happened in mid-1968, about the same time their counterparts in D5 were being signed. But by the beginning of 1970 just about every existing mile of state highway, urban or rural, featured at least rudimentary reassurance signage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 04, 2021, 12:31:07 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 04, 2021, 12:16:52 PM
I'll be honest: can't think of a state-maintained California freeway that did not get a number after the Signed State Routes came into existence, and certainly way before the 1964 Great Renumbering. The names may have been in primary currency but virtually everything had a US shield or state shield at that point.
The Warren Boulevard Freeway (future CA 13) had completed segments prior to 1964 that were just a Legislative Route Number. Likewise with a completed segment of current CA 77 not receiving a shield number until 1964.
Yeah, but these were incomplete discontinuous alignments, as you say. Myself I would put these more into the category of routes under construction, even though these specific sections were finished.
QuoteSR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.
I don't think this was a freeway until the mid 1960s, when it did have a route number (1963?): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE103.html
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 07, 2021, 11:00:01 AM
QuoteSR 103 around San Diego (now SR 15 and I-15) is shown unsigned on official maps until 1969.
I don't think this was a freeway until the mid 1960s, when it did have a route number (1963?): https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE103.html
It had a route number but not a signed route number. Pre-1964, it was 283, which was assigned in 1959 on what seems to have been a locally maintained partially constructed freeway.
Does anyone know why CA-1 cuts inland south of Bodega Bay and then heading back inland after Tomalas? Why not just keep going along the coast directly?
Quote from: jander on September 11, 2021, 04:55:43 PM
Does anyone know why CA-1 cuts inland south of Bodega Bay and then heading back inland after Tomalas? Why not just keep going along the coast directly?
CA 1 was planned to be aligned further inland on a bypass of Bodega Bay:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/02/california-state-route-1-shoreline.html?m=1
Here is a tour of I-80 by Rockersk08
Quote from: jakeroot on September 04, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?
As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.
I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.
Are you sure you can't think of one?
(https://i.imgur.com/S2BG6R1.png)
Yes, Westside Parkway
will be CA 58, but it isn't right now! Plus, it does feature Freeway Entrance signs without any markers. Most of the entrances have a rather odd looking assembly with just direction and arrow plaques, omitting the "Westside Parkway" sign in the above image.
(https://i.imgur.com/5Ecg9G6.png)
Quote from: stevashe on September 19, 2021, 06:34:08 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 04, 2021, 12:06:11 PM
Does anyone know when route shields began to accompany the "freeway entrance" signs? Did they both show up at the same time?
As I recall, not all southern California freeways were opened with route numbers, and they were (and continue to be, in some capacity) called by their names instead. However, I think post-1964, all freeways that were unnumbered received numbers.
I also have no idea when "freeway entrance" signs became a thing. It easily could have have been after all routes were numbered.
Are you sure you can't think of one?
(https://i.imgur.com/S2BG6R1.png)
Yes, Westside Parkway will be CA 58, but it isn't right now! Plus, it does feature Freeway Entrance signs without any markers. Most of the entrances have a rather odd looking assembly with just direction and arrow plaques, omitting the "Westside Parkway" sign in the above image.
(https://i.imgur.com/5Ecg9G6.png)
That's cool!
I checked it out on Street View, and it does remind me a bit of some of the assemblies in Washington, apart from the cardinal direction plaque which seems to be quite rare around here (with down-facing arrows being more common, although not in every region).
I'm not sure I realized that stretch of freeway was yet to be numbered.
Yeah, but is that actually state highway? I don't think it's Caltrans-maintained, at least not yet.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 19, 2021, 10:27:25 PM
Yeah, but is that actually state highway? I don't think it's Caltrans-maintained, at least not yet.
IIRC Westside Parkway was officially added to Route 58 around December 2020 or so (see Joe Rouse's post in the Westside thread, linked below), and at the western connection to Stockdale Highway I did see (but didn't get a photo of) the Route 58 shield at the Freeway Entrance sign assembly out there back on August 19th.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11312.msg2652328#msg2652328
There is also a TO Route 58 sign at Mohawk my friend got a photo of:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51481306075_90de380834.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mre9Hr)DSC_5745 (https://flic.kr/p/2mre9Hr) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
Quote from: jakeroot on September 19, 2021, 10:11:57 PM
That's cool!
I checked it out on Street View, and it does remind me a bit of some of the assemblies in Washington, apart from the cardinal direction plaque which seems to be quite rare around here (with down-facing arrows being more common, although not in every region).
I'm not sure I realized that stretch of freeway was yet to be numbered.
Yeah it's very cool!! When I first spotted Westside Parkway on Google Maps, I immediately went to streetview to see what they did for the freeway entrance signs given there wasn't a highway they could include on them. The assemblies still don't really look Washington-like to me though, both because of the cardinal directions that are never used here like you said, but also because the downward arrows are usually integrated into a single sign instead of on a plaque below (https://goo.gl/maps/dfMKLeEtozo3viho9), and even when it is a plaque it's a larger size compared to the freeway entrance sign (https://goo.gl/maps/jJtsit5x9iDpKz1W8).
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 19, 2021, 10:27:25 PM
Yeah, but is that actually state highway? I don't think it's Caltrans-maintained, at least not yet.
No, it was not a state highway or Caltrans-maintained when those streetview images were taken. But Jake was not asking about state highways specifically, just freeways, at least as I read it. It does appear that some CA 58 shields are being added now that it has been transferred as TheStranger noted, so those assemblies may not remain shield-less for long.
Didn't get a photo of it yet, but as of this month the ramp from Route 82/El Camino Real south to I-380 east in San Bruno is now signed as "Freeway Entrance - I-380 TO US 101" rather than "Freeway Entrance - US 101" as it had been for decades (at least since the early 90s).
---
Posted it in my roadtrip thread for the SF-Daytona journey, but I did see California-style freeway entrance signage in West Virginia as well:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51484666113_52770c1240.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2mrwnx8)DSC_7845 (https://flic.kr/p/2mrwnx8) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
Closure this weekend in SF on the ramp from I-80 west to US 101/Central Freeway north, to repair broken guardrail
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-sf-wb-80-to-nb-hwy-101-connector?fbclid=IwAR0vaCMA-6M2rNAVx4CIX6xACRrXwYqUrUPWIClSJDml_uzQaTSlEavPKSQ
(This ramp was itself slated to be part of I-80 until the mid 1960s when the Western Freeway was canceled)
SM-G973U1
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
It just never became a thing with how early limited access State Highways were funded. Most toll facilities have been largely limited to bridges until fairly recently. Considering the cost of fuel from California blend gasoline coupled with a high gas tax large toll facility highways likely won't become a popular notion any time soon (but it would be preferable IMO to a mileage tax).
Crazy observation of the day, I was driving back to Westwood in LA from SD at 2am and the metering lights were on for the Wilshire Blvd onramp even though the road was practically empty :-D
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
A better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
A better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
False. Very false. By far most of the money collected pays for maintenance, construction, operations.
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2021, 11:45:55 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
A better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
False. Very false. By far most of the money collected pays for maintenance, construction, operations.
*citation needed*
Public authorities don't have a clean history in this regard. Wonder how toll revenues are confirmed to prevent skimming off the top. :D
Do they release finance statements to the public?
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2021, 11:45:55 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
A better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
False. Very false. By far most of the money collected pays for maintenance, construction, operations.
*citation needed*
Public authorities don't have a clean history in this regard. Wonder how toll revenues are confirmed to prevent skimming off the top. :D
Do they release finance statements to the public?
I don't know about most toll roads. But when I lived in Tidewater, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (http://www.cbbt.com/) (CBBT) would issue bonds to pay for improvements. Those bonds were paid off through tolls collected as is all the maintenance. It exists as a separate entity from the rest of the Virginia DOT. Information can be found on the website I've linked.
Otherwise I've only lived in Wisconsin and Missouri which don't have toll roads. I do know Illinois has a separate authority for their toll highways which pays for maintenance and improvements, which is why Illinois toll roads are better than their other interstates.
Interesting to note; I think you can trace the state's hesitancy to use toll facilities back to the 19th Century. Many early highways in California were toll road franchises in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Most franchise holders usually couldn't pull a profit or phoned in maintenance towards the end of their agreement. A large chunk the early State Highway System emphasized towards rebuilding former franchise toll road corridors. In fact, the first State Highway was the Lake Tahoe Wagon Road which had constructed as a toll facility.
Quote from: Rothman on September 24, 2021, 09:00:17 AM
Quote from: Alps on September 23, 2021, 11:45:55 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PM
Why does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
A better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
False. Very false. By far most of the money collected pays for maintenance, construction, operations.
*citation needed*
Public authorities don't have a clean history in this regard. Wonder how toll revenues are confirmed to prevent skimming off the top. :D
Do they release finance statements to the public?
knowledge I have may or may not be publicly available, but I believe agencies do have publicly available financial statements you can peruse. Unfortunately because of my privy nature to these things I can't even cite the agencies in question where my knowledge stems from.
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PMWhy does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
The California legislature commissioned a highway financing study in 1946 as part of the policy development (https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/112661) that led to the Collier-Burns Act of 1947. The study's authors looked at the interurban toll roads that were then being developed in the Eastern states and specifically rejected that method of funding new road capacity because most auto travel in California was within cities, meaning urban freeways were seen as the more pressing need. Later on, in 1951, the Division of Highways (Caltrans' predecessor agency) studied a Los Angeles-San Francisco toll road, and judged it infeasible because US 99 and US 101 would have siphoned off too much traffic.
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PMA better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
The story varies from state to state, but common themes included a desire to avoid raising fuel taxes just to cater to interurban traffic and studies showing that turnpike corridors served very high percentages of out-of-state traffic. (We see similar dynamics today in Florida relying on turnpikes to keep the gas tax lower than it would otherwise be, and Arizona and Wyoming trying to toll I-15 and I-80 respectively.)
As a general rule, economists consider turnpikes a second-best approach because tolls claw back a part of the consumer's surplus arising from the improvement. A common theme in the highway finance literature of the late 1940's and the 1950's is amazement at motorists' willingness to pay what were then fantastic sums to use toll roads.
I can't speak for all toll agencies, but I would expect that most if not all of the traditional public-authority turnpikes publish annual reports that include financial statements. I work to the rule of thumb that toll collection and related overheads are about 30% of tolls collected, but the actual numbers and the way they are reported vary from agency to agency. For example, in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the Kansas Turnpike Authority reported spending $7.8 million to collect $118 million in tolls, or 6.7%. The question is what expenses are reported under other headings that would vanish if toll collection stopped overnight.
It's certainly true that collection expenses associated with fuel taxes are quite low--about 1%.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 25, 2021, 03:27:07 AM
Quote from: Buffaboy on September 23, 2021, 06:29:15 PMWhy does California not have a statewide toll road like NYS, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and others?
The California legislature commissioned a highway financing study in 1946 as part of the policy development (https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/112661) that led to the Collier-Burns Act of 1947. The study's authors looked at the interurban toll roads that were then being developed in the Eastern states and specifically rejected that method of funding new road capacity because most auto travel in California was within cities, meaning urban freeways were seen as the more pressing need. Later on, in 1951, the Division of Highways (Caltrans' predecessor agency) studied a Los Angeles-San Francisco toll road, and judged it infeasible because US 99 and US 101 would have siphoned off too much traffic.
Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2021, 08:41:12 PMA better question is why so many eastern states have toll roads instead of paying for their freeways with gas taxes. Most of the money the tolls collect goes to pay the toll takers, not to pay for road construction or maintenance. Collecting gas taxes is very efficient.
The story varies from state to state, but common themes included a desire to avoid raising fuel taxes just to cater to interurban traffic and studies showing that turnpike corridors served very high percentages of out-of-state traffic. (We see similar dynamics today in Florida relying on turnpikes to keep the gas tax lower than it would otherwise be, and Arizona and Wyoming trying to toll I-15 and I-80 respectively.)
As a general rule, economists consider turnpikes a second-best approach because tolls claw back a part of the consumer's surplus arising from the improvement. A common theme in the highway finance literature of the late 1940's and the 1950's is amazement at motorists' willingness to pay what were then fantastic sums to use toll roads.
I can't speak for all toll agencies, but I would expect that most if not all of the traditional public-authority turnpikes publish annual reports that include financial statements. I work to the rule of thumb that toll collection and related overheads are about 30% of tolls collected, but the actual numbers and the way they are reported vary from agency to agency. For example, in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the Kansas Turnpike Authority reported spending $7.8 million to collect $118 million in tolls, or 6.7%. The question is what expenses are reported under other headings that would vanish if toll collection stopped overnight.
It's certainly true that collection expenses associated with fuel taxes are quite low--about 1%.
Thank you, I appreciate the explanation.
In an alleged DUI crash, a Toyota Tundra smacked the aging Mt. Murphy Bridge near Coloma (https://www.mtdemocrat.com/news/dui-crash-closes-mt-murphy-bridge/) and caused significant damage.
QuoteLevi Nuesmeyer, 37, of Placerville was arrested early Saturday morning on suspicion of driving under the influence after the 2022 Toyota Tundra he was driving reportedly struck railing and a column on the bridge.
...
County Department of Transportation Maintenance Division staff assessed the bridge and reported "severe structural damage caused by a reckless driver running into one of the main columns." DOT officials say they expect the bridge to remain closed for "several months" until repairs are made.
We'll see if they repair it or just tear it down. The bridge was due for replacement in the near future anyway.
QuoteThe Mt. Murphy Bridge was built in 1915. "The main span is 160 feet long with two concrete approach structures of 140 feet and 60 feet long, which were rebuilt in 1931. The bridge approaches are narrow (10.5-feet) with no separation of vehicles from pedestrians," states a DOT fact sheet, which also notes that due to the popularity of the state park about 38,000 pedestrians cross the bridge every year.
Despite upkeep efforts, the bridge has received a failing grade from Caltrans for more than a decade and DOT staff's preference is an on-alignment alternative that requires demolition of the old structure and building a new, wider bridge in its place that will include a separated, 8-foot-wide sidewalk for pedestrians and a lookout over the river on the west side.
Mt. Murphy Bridge on Bridgehunter. (https://bridgehunter.com/ca/el-dorado/25C0004/)
Geeze, good thing I already took pictures of that bridge.
Drove around some highways in the Bay Area yesterday! From San Francisco, I crossed north of the Golden Gate Bridge to drive in CA 1 between Mill Valley to Muir and Stinson Beach. This section of CA 1 has been opened for over two years but the last time I went to Bolinas it was closed for a long time so I never got to drive on it until now. There are some nice scenic views over valleys but nowhere to stop easily.
That day was a busy day for traffic though and even though it was clear skies it was also foggy in a lot of areas. At some point the other direction was blocked due to a car accident. I saw some CHP vehicles a few minutes later and I decided to take the Panoramic Highway to go back east to US 101 rather than get stuck on slow moving traffic. Going east was very nice because there was no traffic on my lane through Mt. Tam state park although there were some cars coming in the opposite direction so it's hard to say which highway takes less time to get from one side to another, it'd depend on the time of day.
Then I went to clinch CA 131 on Tiburon and drove through the Richmond Bridge on I-580 and went back home at SF. On I-580 I wanted to see if a certain guide sign was replaced because it was said (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29046.msg2651923#msg2651923) that it would be replaced with external exit tabs. Sorry folks but I can say the graffiti-damaged sign has yet to be replaced with anything. I can say now that I been on all of I-580 though! Getting back home was just typical stop-and-go traffic on the Bay Bridge and I-80, but that was the only toll I had to pay!
Panoramic Highway is almost always faster than CA 1 to Stinson Beach.
Noticed a couple of days ago that the South Airport Boulevard exit off US 101 southbound now has the larger-sized (national MUTCD style) exit gore point sign, as opposed to the vertical or square California-style gore point signage.
According to Wikipedia, there were proposals in the 70s to make the Big Sur Highway into a 4 lane freeway and the only thing stopping that from happening was the creation of the California Coastal Commission. Is that true or is it because, as I suspect, the terrain and seismic risks make building a 4 lane freeway impossible?
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 07:00:26 PM
According to Wikipedia, there were proposals in the 70s to make the Big Sur Highway into a 4 lane freeway and the only thing stopping that from happening was the creation of the California Coastal Commission. Is that true or is it because, as I suspect, the terrain and seismic risks make building a 4 lane freeway impossible?
Would be news to me, but if it was the 1970s it would have been post CHPW where it could easily be referenced. The closest freeway segment to Big Sur is Carmel-Castroville. CA 1 (old CA 3 and US 101A was planned for a freeway upgrade in addition to a segment over Montara Mountain.
Pertaining to the CHPWs it was a publication that ran from 1924-67. Generally freeways Route adoptions were well publicized in the 1950s/1960s CHPW era. The blog on did on the overall history on CA 1 in Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula has sublinks to the applicable CHPW volumes hosted on archive.org. You can run a simple search for notable words (example; "Sur" ) to narrow down what your looking for.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1
Also Daniel's site doesn't list a freeway alignment being adopted for CA 1 in Big Sur:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE001.html
Here is the relevant text:
[SHC 253.2] From Route 101 near San Luis Obispo to San Simeon; the northern limits of Carmel to the west city limits of Santa Cruz; the Higgins-Purisima Road to Route 280 south of San Francisco. Constructed as freeway for 5 miles near Morro Bay, from Route 68 to Route 156, from south of Watsonville to Santa Cruz, and from Pacifica to Route 280. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959 (Chapter 1062).
It sounds like you might have encountered someone who thinks Cambria and/or Carmel is part of the Big Sur Area in that Wikipedia article.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 31, 2021, 07:48:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 07:00:26 PM
According to Wikipedia, there were proposals in the 70s to make the Big Sur Highway into a 4 lane freeway and the only thing stopping that from happening was the creation of the California Coastal Commission. Is that true or is it because, as I suspect, the terrain and seismic risks make building a 4 lane freeway impossible?
Would be news to me, but if it was the 1970s it would have been post CHPW where it could easily be referenced. The closest freeway segment to Big Sur is Carmel-Castroville. CA 1 (old CA 3 and US 101A was planned for a freeway upgrade in addition to a segment over Montara Mountain.
Pertaining to the CHPWs it was a publication that ran from 1924-67. Generally freeways Route adoptions were well publicized in the 1950s/1960s CHPW era. The blog on did on the overall history on CA 1 in Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula has sublinks to the applicable CHPW volumes hosted on archive.org. You can run a simple search for notable words (example; "Sur" ) to narrow down what your looking for.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1
Also Daniel's site doesn't list a freeway alignment being adopted for CA 1 in Big Sur:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE001.html
Here is the relevant text:
[SHC 253.2] From Route 101 near San Luis Obispo to San Simeon; the northern limits of Carmel to the west city limits of Santa Cruz; the Higgins-Purisima Road to Route 280 south of San Francisco. Constructed as freeway for 5 miles near Morro Bay, from Route 68 to Route 156, from south of Watsonville to Santa Cruz, and from Pacifica to Route 280. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959 (Chapter 1062).
It sounds like you might have encountered someone who thinks Cambria and/or Carmel is part of the Big Sur Area in that Wikipedia article.
There seems to an assumption in popular culture that every time a freeway is cancelled it was some great big David vs Goliath battle when really, most freeways die with a whimper, being too expensive to build.
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 31, 2021, 07:48:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 07:00:26 PM
According to Wikipedia, there were proposals in the 70s to make the Big Sur Highway into a 4 lane freeway and the only thing stopping that from happening was the creation of the California Coastal Commission. Is that true or is it because, as I suspect, the terrain and seismic risks make building a 4 lane freeway impossible?
Would be news to me, but if it was the 1970s it would have been post CHPW where it could easily be referenced. The closest freeway segment to Big Sur is Carmel-Castroville. CA 1 (old CA 3 and US 101A was planned for a freeway upgrade in addition to a segment over Montara Mountain.
Pertaining to the CHPWs it was a publication that ran from 1924-67. Generally freeways Route adoptions were well publicized in the 1950s/1960s CHPW era. The blog on did on the overall history on CA 1 in Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula has sublinks to the applicable CHPW volumes hosted on archive.org. You can run a simple search for notable words (example; "Sur" ) to narrow down what your looking for.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1
Also Daniel's site doesn't list a freeway alignment being adopted for CA 1 in Big Sur:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE001.html
Here is the relevant text:
[SHC 253.2] From Route 101 near San Luis Obispo to San Simeon; the northern limits of Carmel to the west city limits of Santa Cruz; the Higgins-Purisima Road to Route 280 south of San Francisco. Constructed as freeway for 5 miles near Morro Bay, from Route 68 to Route 156, from south of Watsonville to Santa Cruz, and from Pacifica to Route 280. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959 (Chapter 1062).
It sounds like you might have encountered someone who thinks Cambria and/or Carmel is part of the Big Sur Area in that Wikipedia article.
There seems to an assumption in popular culture that every time a freeway is cancelled it was some great big David vs Goliath battle when really, most freeways die with a whimper, being too expensive to build.
Pertaining to Cambria the four expressway gets close by way of Cayucos. North of there I can't imagine there was much of a justification for expansion. I believe the downtown bypass in Cambria is considered a two lane expressway.
Turns out CA 1 all the way north to San Simeon is classified as an expressway:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%202005%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=4844%2C2764%2C1537%2C2517
Discussion of CA 1 around Carmel has been moved to: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=30492.0
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 10:11:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 31, 2021, 07:48:34 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 31, 2021, 07:00:26 PM
According to Wikipedia, there were proposals in the 70s to make the Big Sur Highway into a 4 lane freeway and the only thing stopping that from happening was the creation of the California Coastal Commission. Is that true or is it because, as I suspect, the terrain and seismic risks make building a 4 lane freeway impossible?
Would be news to me, but if it was the 1970s it would have been post CHPW where it could easily be referenced. The closest freeway segment to Big Sur is Carmel-Castroville. CA 1 (old CA 3 and US 101A was planned for a freeway upgrade in addition to a segment over Montara Mountain.
Pertaining to the CHPWs it was a publication that ran from 1924-67. Generally freeways Route adoptions were well publicized in the 1950s/1960s CHPW era. The blog on did on the overall history on CA 1 in Big Sur and the Monterey Peninsula has sublinks to the applicable CHPW volumes hosted on archive.org. You can run a simple search for notable words (example; "Sur" ) to narrow down what your looking for.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/02/california-state-route-1-cabrillo.html?m=1
Also Daniel's site doesn't list a freeway alignment being adopted for CA 1 in Big Sur:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE001.html
Here is the relevant text:
[SHC 253.2] From Route 101 near San Luis Obispo to San Simeon; the northern limits of Carmel to the west city limits of Santa Cruz; the Higgins-Purisima Road to Route 280 south of San Francisco. Constructed as freeway for 5 miles near Morro Bay, from Route 68 to Route 156, from south of Watsonville to Santa Cruz, and from Pacifica to Route 280. Added to the Freeway and Expressway system in 1959 (Chapter 1062).
It sounds like you might have encountered someone who thinks Cambria and/or Carmel is part of the Big Sur Area in that Wikipedia article.
There seems to an assumption in popular culture that every time a freeway is cancelled it was some great big David vs Goliath battle when really, most freeways die with a whimper, being too expensive to build.
I think the best example of this are the proposals to turn the LA River's concrete flood channel into a freeway. There seems to be an assumption that it was something that almost happened when the truth was that the idea went through a predictable cycle. First, some ill-informed politician would suggest it. Second, Caltrans or the Army Corps of Engineers would study it. Third, a report would be issued saying the idea would not work.
Apparently there is a snag in California's share of Federal Transportation Funds:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-block-billions-public-transit-193917145.html
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 11, 2021, 04:58:26 PM
Apparently there is a snag in California's share of Federal Transportation Funds:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/feds-block-billions-public-transit-193917145.html
California could win in court. This isn't much different from the history of federal employees. CSRS took care of federal civil servants until the mid-80's (https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/csrs-information/). Employees hired after that date got the less generous for the same money FERS; the government justified the change by saying new employees now had the flexibility to move in-and-out of government employment as they now pay Social Security. The donation percentage has increased over the years arbitrarily (https://www.cbo.gov/budget-options/56877). It's hard to argue states violated the law when the federal government is doing the same thing.
A couple of interesting incidents occurred along Interstate 5 in San Diego County over the past week.
The first was flying cash from an unsecured armored car traveling on I-5 through Carlsbad.
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/photos-authorities-look-to-identify-motorists-accused-of-scooping-up-money-on-freeway/
QuoteCalls began coming in about 9:15 a.m. Friday (11/19/21) to California Highway Patrol dispatchers about "a large sum of money in the roadway" on I-5 near Cannon Road, as well as about drivers getting out to collect the bills. A man and a woman were arrested on suspicion of taking cash after they got stuck on the freeway with their keys locked in the car, blocking traffic, according to CHP. ...
Travis Fisher, a driver caught in the chaos, told FOX 5 he initially thought it was an accident. Fisher estimated there were thousands of dollars scattered on the road. "I see all these things floating around and I realize it's money," Fisher said. "It was pretty crazy. Just everywhere, there was a sea of bills, everywhere."
On Sunday evening (11/21/21), two water main breaks occurred. One was downtown at 11th Avenue and A Street (south end of State Route 163), and the other was above the transition ramp between SR 163 south and I-5 north/Fourth Avenue. This break sprouted a geyser of water that flowed to the lowest point, in the S-curve of I-5, which flooded and blocked the northbound lanes most of the day Monday (11/22/21).
(https://i0.wp.com/timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Flooded-Northbound-I-5.jpg?ssl=1)
https://timesofsandiego.com/crime/2021/11/22/water-main-breaks-close-northbound-i-5-in-downtown-san-diego-flood-area/
QuoteThe first of the two pipeline failures began flooding traffic lanes at A Street and 11th Avenue about 3:30 p.m. Sunday, city officials reported. By 6:45 p.m., when repair workers got the overflow halted, the surging water had created a sinkhole and inundated at least one business.
About 3 1/2 hours after the first round of flooding began, an Uber driver reported that a geyser of water had burst through his windshield and a passenger window, injuring a customer, on an Route 163 offramp near I-5, the California Highway Patrol said. It took crews roughly six hours to get the flow of water under control. The extent of the Uber rider's injuries was unclear.
I was driving by Hawthorn St (exit 17, the reverse angle) the next morning and it was all mud and muck that they were digging out with a front loader.
Speaking of turnpikes and toll roads....
QuoteRoad companies soon formed to build turnpikes, or toll roads, to charge travelers to cross over the ridge to the coast. The Redwood City and San Gregorio Turnpike was built in 1868 up what is now Kings Mountain Rd., named for the Mountain Brow House Resort owned by Frank King and later by his widow. The turnpike followed what is present-day Tunitas Creek Rd. until it forked left through the Star Ranch to San Gregorio. A year earlier, Eugene Froment bought 750 acres on the backside of the ridge. It was a tow-day haul to Redwood City. At the resting spot, east of Skyline ridge, he built the Summit Springs Hotel one mile east of the ridge, complete with store, blacksmith shop, saloon and school
http://www.bocranebooks.com/blog/2015/5/25/the-truth-about-tunitas
QuoteIn 1868, Alpine Road was granted as a franchise toll road by the county supervisors to the Menlo Park and Santa Cruz Turnpike Corporation. However, within a few years, residents began complaining that the poorly maintained road had become impassible in winter. In 1874, the company forfeited the road to the county. At that time, the four-mile road had only extended a little beyond the Portola Corners stop sign, ending opposite Willowbrook at the bottom of a former Native American footpath to the coast. The path was used by Mission Dolores soldiers chasing after a renegade from the missions named Pomponio, who hid out in Devil's Canyon, named in his honor, near the Alpine-Skyline crest. What became known as the Old Spanish Trail ascends Coal Mine Ridge, named after what was prematurely thought to be a valuable discovery. Users of the toll road that stopped at the base of the ridge discovered that easily getting all the way to Santa Cruz from there was a fantasy of its own.
http://www.bocranebooks.com/blog/2015/5/28/biking-the-loop-secrets-of-alpine-road
QuoteAll drivers had to pay a toll to use the private turnpike (twenty-five cents for one man with one horse and one dollar for a loaded wagon pulled by four horses). Officially known as the Saratoga and Pescadero Turnpike and Wagon Road, the road was opened in 1871 to access the redwood timber in the upper San Lorenzo Valley and the Pescadero basin. The turnpike never came close to its initial objective, the town of Pescadero. Later it became known simply as the Saratoga Toll Road. At one point there were separate toll houses on either side of the Santa Clara/Santa Cruz county line. There were numerous complaints about the condition of the toll road, and within twenty years, the roadway had been purchased by the respective counties and made public.
Summit Road, the forerunner of Skyline Boulevard, came through the gap in 1884, providing an important link to the toll road. Before this time there had only been a trail along the summit linking the different ranches. When one of the ranchers began charging a toll to pass over his property, his neighbors petitioned the county for a public road, putting an end to this practice.
https://www.santacruzwaves.com/2015/11/skyline-boulevard-the-ever-evolving-saratoga-gap/
Interstate Kyle does a 3 part tour of CA-49
There is even a cut showing the historic CA-49 alignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhLPnK8asIo
Rockersk08 does a tour of Westside parkway.
Was going south on US 101 to San Mateo when I noticed the BGS before the 3rd Ave exit. I have a picture of it in 2019 where it says "Junction 92". Now the sign is replaced and the route number is inside a miner spade and Junction is in all caps. This is viewable in Google Street view so not a new but surprising change!
Quote from: Techknow on December 04, 2021, 09:11:45 PM
Was going south on US 101 to San Mateo when I noticed the BGS before the 3rd Ave exit. I have a picture of it in 2019 where it says "Junction 92". Now the sign is replaced and the route number is inside a miner spade and Junction is in all caps. This is viewable in Google Street view so not a new but surprising change!
When this sign was first installed I checked the design plans and the plans had the sign with a state route shield on it, so this was a contractor error. A while back I filed a customer service request with Caltrans pointing out that text "Junction 92" could be confused with Exit 92. They agreed and said that sign would be corrected with a proper state route shield.
There is another interchange sequence sign installed at the same time where the integer distance is right aligned instead of being vertically aligned with the integers below it and leaving space for a fractional value. I pointed that out in the same service request. Caltrans agreed it was incorrect but said it was too minor to fix and so only the "Junction 92" sign was corrected.
Rockersk08 does another tour this time on I-580, I-80.
Here is more on Interstate Kyles CA-49 tour
More stupid ass shit proposed here:
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-housing/story/2021-12-12/freeway-expansions-in-underserved-communities-could-be-banned-under-proposed-state-law?_amp=true
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
It is ridiculous, but playing up racial victimhood is very trendy these days. Look at the people claiming Maryland's plan to widen 270 and the Beltway through extremely wealthy Montgomery County is racist.
Also, the proliferation of electric cars and trucks makes pollution a bad faith argument for not improving freeways.
What is the reason why CA 125 ending at a local roadway instead of CA 905? Also why is there a very short freeway spur of CA 905 called CA 11? CA 11 is nothing more than a glorified freeway ramp.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 14, 2021, 12:51:33 PM
What is the reason why CA 125 ending at a local roadway instead of CA 905? Also why is there a very short freeway spur of CA 905 called CA 11? CA 11 is nothing more than a glorified freeway ramp.
The CA 125/905 interchange is still unfinished. When it's done, there will be a complete connection between the two freeways and with the new CA 11 freeway.
As for CA 11, it is being extended to a new border crossing east of the CA 905 crossing. This won't be the first time that a low route number once used for a freeway in the Los Angeles area was recycled for a short border crossing highway -- that happened with CA 7, now east of Calexico.
Longer wind explanation below and in the sub links regarding CA 11:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/12/california-state-route-11-otay-mesa.html?m=1
Quote from: kernals12 on December 13, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
It is ridiculous, but playing up racial victimhood is very trendy these days. Look at the people claiming Maryland's plan to widen 270 and the Beltway through extremely wealthy Montgomery County is racist.
Also, the proliferation of electric cars and trucks makes pollution a bad faith argument for not improving freeways.
I wouldn't say that. It's looking like excess pollution around freeway will continue for several decades at least, possibly longer. Electric cars are a small minority, electric light trucks even smaller, and electric heavy trucks practically nonexistent.
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2021, 01:04:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 13, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
It is ridiculous, but playing up racial victimhood is very trendy these days. Look at the people claiming Maryland's plan to widen 270 and the Beltway through extremely wealthy Montgomery County is racist.
Also, the proliferation of electric cars and trucks makes pollution a bad faith argument for not improving freeways.
I wouldn't say that. It's looking like excess pollution around freeway will continue for several decades at least, possibly longer. Electric cars are a small minority, electric light trucks even smaller, and electric heavy trucks practically nonexistent.
A Harvard Study (https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/14/vehicle-emission-declines-decreased-deaths-harvard-study-finds) found deaths from vehicle emissions fell by almost 30% between 2008 and 2017. Air pollution is a problem that gets smaller every year as older, more polluting cars are scrapped and replaced by cleaner newer ones.
Also, commercial vehicles are probably going to electrify faster, due to economics and regulations
The Fresno Bee reports on the ongoing Veterans Boulevard project, which will connect Herndon and Shaw avenues and include a new interchange at CA 99.
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article256593581.html
QuoteThe first stretch of the boulevard was completed in 2019, when it was celebrated as the first phase of what will ultimately be a 2.5-mile connection from Herndon and Polk avenues, east of Highway 99, to Shaw and Grantland avenues, west of the freeway.
City leaders said the next piece of Veterans Boulevard would be completed by mid-2022. The project includes an extension of Veterans Avenue west of Riverside Drive and an overpass above the Union Pacific tracks.
The total project is projected to be completed by the end of 2023.
(https://i.imgur.com/qw5rRIG.png)
Quote from: Kniwt on December 15, 2021, 12:56:38 PM
The Fresno Bee reports on the ongoing Veterans Boulevard project, which will connect Herndon and Shaw avenues and include a new interchange at CA 99.
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article256593581.html
QuoteThe first stretch of the boulevard was completed in 2019, when it was celebrated as the first phase of what will ultimately be a 2.5-mile connection from Herndon and Polk avenues, east of Highway 99, to Shaw and Grantland avenues, west of the freeway.
City leaders said the next piece of Veterans Boulevard would be completed by mid-2022. The project includes an extension of Veterans Avenue west of Riverside Drive and an overpass above the Union Pacific tracks.
The total project is projected to be completed by the end of 2023.
(https://i.imgur.com/qw5rRIG.png)
I drive by this all the time, it's been interesting to see in action. The new alignment of Golden State Boulevard is being pushed west of where the HSR will be.
^^^
Glad to see partial cloverleafs are still being built. Seems like they have been less popular the last twenty years (outside of a few select states).
Okay, what's up with super old image of the area around Herndon and Weber? There is an entire shopping complex there now. All that stuff along 99 and existing Golden State immediately south of Herndon has been razed.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 15, 2021, 08:21:44 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 15, 2021, 01:04:42 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 13, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
It is ridiculous, but playing up racial victimhood is very trendy these days. Look at the people claiming Maryland's plan to widen 270 and the Beltway through extremely wealthy Montgomery County is racist.
Also, the proliferation of electric cars and trucks makes pollution a bad faith argument for not improving freeways.
I wouldn't say that. It's looking like excess pollution around freeway will continue for several decades at least, possibly longer. Electric cars are a small minority, electric light trucks even smaller, and electric heavy trucks practically nonexistent.
A Harvard Study (https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/12/14/vehicle-emission-declines-decreased-deaths-harvard-study-finds) found deaths from vehicle emissions fell by almost 30% between 2008 and 2017. Air pollution is a problem that gets smaller every year as older, more polluting cars are scrapped and replaced by cleaner newer ones.
Also, commercial vehicles are probably going to electrify faster, due to economics and regulations
Those years include the Cash for Clunkers program of 2009.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2021, 09:32:34 PM
^^^
Glad to see partial cloverleafs are still being built. Seems like they have been less popular the last twenty years (outside of a few select states).
California is a great place if you like partial cloverleaf interchanges. Cal trans still prefers them and simple diamonds over more innovative interchange designs.
Quote from: SeriesE on December 16, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2021, 09:32:34 PM
^^^
Glad to see partial cloverleafs are still being built. Seems like they have been less popular the last twenty years (outside of a few select states).
California is a great place if you like partial cloverleaf interchanges. Cal trans still prefers them and simple diamonds over more innovative interchange designs.
They have built a few DDIs
Quote from: SeriesE on December 16, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2021, 09:32:34 PM
^^^
Glad to see partial cloverleafs are still being built. Seems like they have been less popular the last twenty years (outside of a few select states).
California is a great place if you like partial cloverleaf interchanges. Cal trans still prefers them and simple diamonds over more innovative interchange designs.
How are simple diamonds or other interchanges more effective than partial cloverleafs?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 16, 2021, 11:30:32 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on December 16, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 15, 2021, 09:32:34 PM
^^^
Glad to see partial cloverleafs are still being built. Seems like they have been less popular the last twenty years (outside of a few select states).
California is a great place if you like partial cloverleaf interchanges. Cal trans still prefers them and simple diamonds over more innovative interchange designs.
How are simple diamonds or other interchanges more effective than partial cloverleafs?
Part of the issue with implementation of newer designs is that the freeway corridors in this state generally are very old. Most interchanges are heavily built up and likely would require additional right of way for more modern designs, not a popular notion in urban areas suffice to say. At least for the most part things like right on right off ramps are gradually being phased out.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
hey thats california for you
Quote from: Lukeisroads on December 21, 2021, 01:25:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 13, 2021, 05:19:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 13, 2021, 05:16:26 PM
I'm kind of surprised that was someone from Los Angeles County and not a Bay Area County proposing that.
It's the same lady representative who has been bitching and whining about the 710, 605, and I-5 expansions claiming the freeway widenings are racist. This seems ridiculous to me as the majority of people in these communities drive.
How about more sensible approaches like buying a row or two of homes/businesses along the freeway and placing forests/linear parks along the freeway to offset the emissions. Or if that's too expensive in the meantime just plant more trees/landscaping in these areas.
hey thats california for you
It's also expensive, and leaves "unused" and "useless" land that eventually becomes more freeway lanes when that highway becomes too congested. Those linear parks wouldn't last ten years before they'd be bulldozed in the name of progress.
Here is a tour of CA-24 and I-980.
Riverside County traffic announcement
All Westbound 91 Freeway Lanes To Close This Weekend
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – Weather permitting, all westbound 91 Freeway lanes will close this weekend – between state Route 71 in Corona and the 241 Toll Road in Anaheim Hills – for construction work, it was announced Monday.
The full closure will last from 11 p.m. Friday through 5 a.m. Saturday to allow crews to install an overhead sign across the lanes – one of the last pieces of the Riverside County Transportation Commission 91 Corridor Operations Project.
To support the closure, the westbound 91 Express Lanes in Riverside and Orange counties, the westbound Green River Road on-ramp and off-ramp, the southbound 71/westbound 91 connector, and the northbound 15/westbound 91 Express Lanes connector will be closed starting as early as 8 p.m. Friday.
Link for full article (https://patch.com/california/murrieta/all-westbound-91-freeway-lanes-close-weekend)
The extra lane will be worth it.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on January 11, 2022, 01:39:47 PM
The extra lane will be worth it.
Yes it will and I can't wait for the 241 connector for the HOT lanes.
It's been mentioned in this forum that there's only two known Clearview signs in any California highway. Now only one remains! The Clearview sign at the CA/AR border of I-10 has been replaced with a Caltrans spec sign. The other sign is a weigh station sign also on I-10.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6056159,-114.5350825,3a,75y,110.55h,80.9t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2yQQo0ycdFnv70a-3_pzQ!2e0!5s20190501T000000!7i16384!8i8192
The Ehrenberg/Parker sign is a special case, though: it was ADOT-spec and erected by Caltrans.
I have seen a few signs with Clearview font for local wayfinding sign programs in places such as downtown San Diego, and I've also seen Clearview font for some airport signage. I agree that there are almost no Clearview signs on state-maintained highways. A few that used to exist, such as those with Arizona DOT standards on I-10 and I-8, are now replaced with Caltrans standards.
Quote from: andy3175 on January 17, 2022, 11:57:01 PM
I have seen a few signs with Clearview font for local wayfinding sign programs in places such as downtown San Diego, and I've also seen Clearview font for some airport signage. I agree that there are almost no Clearview signs on state-maintained highways. A few that used to exist, such as those with Arizona DOT standards on I-10 and I-8, are now replaced with Caltrans standards.
As much as I dislike Clearview, the inset tab feels like a step backwards for this sign. I'm aware that standards were recently changed for overhead signs to allow for external tabs, I wonder if external tabs will ever start to appear on ground-mounted signs as well.
Caltrans to replace rock canopy in Highway 70 tunnel, expect delays next week (https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/covering-california/caltrans-to-replace-rock-canopy-in-highway-70-tunnel-expect-delays-next-week/article_8d41d4be-7b16-11ec-9778-6b399a156b89.html)
PLUMAS COUNTY, Calif. - Caltrans said drivers should expect delays at the Elephant Butte Tunnel on Highway 70 this coming Monday through Wednesday.
There will be traffic control in the area of the tunnel as crews repair and replace the rock canopy.
Caltrans expects delays to be about 15 minutes.
This is not the only site of construction along Highway 70 between Jarbo Gap and the Greenville Wye, Caltrans says. People should expect 30 to 60 minute delays Mondays through Saturdays, with minimal delays anticipated for Sundays.
Quote from: skluth on January 22, 2022, 10:49:10 PM
Caltrans to replace rock canopy in Highway 70 tunnel, expect delays next week (https://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/covering-california/caltrans-to-replace-rock-canopy-in-highway-70-tunnel-expect-delays-next-week/article_8d41d4be-7b16-11ec-9778-6b399a156b89.html)
PLUMAS COUNTY, Calif. - Caltrans said drivers should expect delays at the Elephant Butte Tunnel on Highway 70 this coming Monday through Wednesday.
There will be traffic control in the area of the tunnel as crews repair and replace the rock canopy.
Caltrans expects delays to be about 15 minutes.
This is not the only site of construction along Highway 70 between Jarbo Gap and the Greenville Wye, Caltrans says. People should expect 30 to 60 minute delays Mondays through Saturdays, with minimal delays anticipated for Sundays.
Better than being closed. 70 took a beating this past year from all the fire associated damage.
Mod Note: I split off the recent posts related to California Agricultural Inspection Stations, and a few others from February 2021, and put them into the following dedicated thread. I figured it might be better to have a dedicated thread for further inquiry and discussion. –Roadfro
California Agricultural Inspection Stations (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.msg2572035#msg2572035)
Quote from: roadfro on February 17, 2022, 12:16:29 PM
Mod Note: I split off the recent posts related to California Agricultural Inspection Stations, and a few others from February 2021, and put them into the following dedicated thread. I figured it might be better to have a dedicated thread for further inquiry and discussion. –Roadfro
California Agricultural Inspection Stations (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.msg2572035#msg2572035)
Would it be possible to spin the CA 118 talk into this thread?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25487.msg2437354#msg2437354
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 17, 2022, 07:22:30 PM
Would it be possible to spin the CA 118 talk into this thread?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=25487.msg2437354#msg2437354
Done!
Caltrans has a major rehabilitation project in the works for the 31.7-mile Alpine County section of SR 4, with construction scheduled from 2025-2028. This is the section over Ebbetts Pass that includes quite a few miles without a center stripe. It doesn't look like there's any widening of the roadway involved, and skimming through the linked documentation it seems this roadway will remain a one-laner after the work is completed.
Caltrans SR 4 Pavement Anchor Project (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-10/district-10-current-projects/10-0j720)
How is that road? It's on my list to clinch this summer.
Scenic, steep, narrow, winding with some tight hairpin curves. It's fun to drive if you have time and patience, but is mostly useful for access to trailheads and recreational areas and is not a very efficient way to cross the Sierra; CA 88 which parallels it to the north is the speedy route. CA 4 opens for the summer after snow clearance and any necessary repairs around the second week of May, on average.
Here's Max's thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23391.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23391.0)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2022, 03:11:09 PM
How is that road? It's on my list to clinch this summer.
Here you go if you wanted something hyper detailed:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/08/trans-sierra-highways-california-state.html?m=1
The narrow road isn't really that big of a deal. It might not have a center stripe but is just as wide as a lot of rural two lane stuff on the county level. The incline grades are the real deal though, they are very sustained. I usually find myself using 2nd gear if not 1st from time to time if I'm heading east.
I followed SR 4 over Ebbetts Pass when I last visited California, in September 2014. I believe it still has more one-lane segments than any other California state highway, though there are now interruptions where bridges have been replaced with a full two-lane cross-section.
Though it has been signposted with a 24% maximum grade, I found it to be fairly tame because of the switchbacks and had little difficulty negotiating it in a 1994 Saturn SL2 with automatic transmission that is not allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because it has no "1" range (i.e., cannot be downshifted far enough that automatic upshifts to 2nd gear are prohibited). Marin Avenue in Berkeley is still my personal gold standard for scary in California.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 25, 2022, 05:30:13 PM
I followed SR 4 over Ebbetts Pass when I last visited California, in September 2014. I believe it still has more one-lane segments than any other California state highway, though there are now interruptions where bridges have been replaced with a full two-lane cross-section.
Though it has been signposted with a 24% maximum grade, I found it to be fairly tame because of the switchbacks and had little difficulty negotiating it in a 1994 Saturn SL2 with automatic transmission that is not allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because it has no "1" range (i.e., cannot be downshifted far enough that automatic upshifts to 2nd gear are prohibited). Marin Avenue in Berkeley is still my personal gold standard for scary in California.
Out of the paved roads in California I personally find Blackrock Road north of Balch Camp to be the most treacherous I've encountered based off actual road conditions. The sheer cliff and having to back up encountering oncoming traffic certainly isn't for everyone:
https://flic.kr/p/SiKzQT
Some other challenging paved roads in California I've encountered with notable steel downhill grades include:
- Mineral King Road
- Nacimiento-Ferguson Road
- Nine Mile Canyon Road
CA 4 over Ebbetts Pass has the huge benefit of being well maintained given it is a State Highway. The last time I drove it in 2020 the asphalt was silky smooth and very well maintained. It's definitely one of my favorite state highway segments in California.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 25, 2022, 05:30:13 PM
I followed SR 4 over Ebbetts Pass when I last visited California, in September 2014. I believe it still has more one-lane segments than any other California state highway, though there are now interruptions where bridges have been replaced with a full two-lane cross-section.
Though it has been signposted with a 24% maximum grade, I found it to be fairly tame because of the switchbacks and had little difficulty negotiating it in a 1994 Saturn SL2 with automatic transmission that is not allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because it has no "1" range (i.e., cannot be downshifted far enough that automatic upshifts to 2nd gear are prohibited). Marin Avenue in Berkeley is still my personal gold standard for scary in California.
Wow, Marin Avenue, yes, that takes me back to being a passenger in the back seat of the VW Bug with mom driving up up and away... from the back the view out the front windshield was nothing but sky...
The Fresno Bee reports on safety along Millerton Road north of the city, which has claimed 22 lives in 10 years.
https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/marek-warszawski/article258437663.html
QuoteMillerton Road is largely a two-lane rural road between North Fork Road in Friant and Auberry Road even though it serves both the casino and Millerton Lake State Recreation Area.
According to the California Highway Patrol, the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over county roads, since 2012 there have been 16 fatal accidents resulting in 22 deaths along the 5.7-mile stretch between the town of Friant and Auberry Road. A closer examination of accident reports published by The Bee and other Fresno media revealed that a majority of the fatalities occurred in roughly the same place: Millerton Road's intersection with Marina Drive and Winchell Cove Road, one mile west of the existing Table Mountain Casino and closer to the newly built casino and hotel.
... Due to heavy traffic and shoulders too narrow for bike lanes, Millerton Road has a fearsome reputation among local cyclists. Many avoid it altogether or only ride the segment between Auberry Road and Sky Harbour Road, 1.5 miles where bike lanes striped years ago are now barely visible.
... Plans to widen Millerton Road into a four-lane, divided roadway have kicked around Fresno County planning offices for the better part of two decades. On the 2006 expenditure plan for the Measure C transportation tax, it is listed as a Tier 2 project. (Tier 1 projects received funding priority.) Despite the obvious need, improvements are years away from being shovel ready. Steven White, director of Fresno County Public Works and Planning, said it will take until the end of 2023 to complete the environmental work "if everything goes smoothly." After that, the county will need to raise $35 million, a sum that includes the acquisition of more than 40 road easements.
(https://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/o295ph/picture258664413/alternates/FREE_1140/FRS_millertonroad_01)
I don't know why anyone on a bike would bother with Millerton Road when Auberry Road is the better cycling route. Lake Millerton and Table Mountain Casino do bring enough traffic to justify a continuation of the four lanes from Friant Road.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2022, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2022, 03:11:09 PM
How is that road? It's on my list to clinch this summer.
Here you go if you wanted something hyper detailed:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/08/trans-sierra-highways-california-state.html?m=1
The narrow road isn't really that big of a deal. It might not have a center stripe but is just as wide as a lot of rural two lane stuff on the county level. The incline grades are the real deal though, they are very sustained. I usually find myself using 2nd gear if not 1st from time to time if I'm heading east.
Quote from: gonealookin on February 25, 2022, 03:33:37 PM
Scenic, steep, narrow, winding with some tight hairpin curves. It's fun to drive if you have time and patience, but is mostly useful for access to trailheads and recreational areas and is not a very efficient way to cross the Sierra; CA 88 which parallels it to the north is the speedy route. CA 4 opens for the summer after snow clearance and any necessary repairs around the second week of May, on average.
Here's Max's thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23391.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=23391.0)
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 25, 2022, 05:30:13 PM
I followed SR 4 over Ebbetts Pass when I last visited California, in September 2014. I believe it still has more one-lane segments than any other California state highway, though there are now interruptions where bridges have been replaced with a full two-lane cross-section.
Though it has been signposted with a 24% maximum grade, I found it to be fairly tame because of the switchbacks and had little difficulty negotiating it in a 1994 Saturn SL2 with automatic transmission that is not allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because it has no "1" range (i.e., cannot be downshifted far enough that automatic upshifts to 2nd gear are prohibited). Marin Avenue in Berkeley is still my personal gold standard for scary in California.
Thanks for the responses I do want to do a little hiking and make it into a 2-3 day trip. It's been on my radar. I will check out those links. Thank you Max!
My Mom sent me these photos from I-10 heading from LAX to Palm Springs
(https://i.imgur.com/h0PrVwg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/iUf6b2e.jpg)
That first photo is California 60 through the Badlands.
San Gorgonio Pass on I-10 in the second photo actually. That's the San Bernardino Mountains with snow in both photos.
Took this one from CA 243 south of Banning myself this month:
https://flic.kr/p/2n4cMJX
And this one from CA 79:
https://flic.kr/p/2n4cq7m
As an aside speaking of US 60/CA 60 in the Moreno Valley Badlands here is the original pre-1935 Jackrabbit Trail:
https://flic.kr/p/2n4fKmS
^ Second photo is the San Jacinto Mountains south of I-10
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2022, 10:22:59 AM
^ Second photo is the San Jacinto Mountains south of I-10
That's right, you can see the concrete stub of Old US 99-60-70 right of the exit sign.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2022, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2022, 10:22:59 AM
^ Second photo is the San Jacinto Mountains south of I-10
That's right, you can see the concrete stub of Old US 99-60-70 right of the exit sign.
Thanks. I had no idea why that old concrete road was there. It's strange that Google has GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9207056,-116.8073561,3a,75y,77.6h,89.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEZOhHHmkFWkpQLpKYgyJBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEZOhHHmkFWkpQLpKYgyJBw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D326.1369%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en) along the road as I don't think it's supposed to be open to traffic. It's certainly not a through street there. It would be nice if they cobbled together these stubs and cutoff sections as a nonmotorized path for bikes and pedestrians from Banning to Whitewater; it would be empty during the summer but I can see it being popular during the winter and spring (at least when the winds aren't blowing). I'd also like it if the off-freeway gaps were filled to route traffic when accidents block the highway.
I can see why you mistook the mountain range. That's as low as I've seen snow in my four winters here. I have never seen snow on that low mountain in the foreground. They showed it snowing on I-10 on the news last week.
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2022, 02:43:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 27, 2022, 10:36:18 AM
Quote from: skluth on February 27, 2022, 10:22:59 AM
^ Second photo is the San Jacinto Mountains south of I-10
That's right, you can see the concrete stub of Old US 99-60-70 right of the exit sign.
Thanks. I had no idea why that old concrete road was there. It's strange that Google has GSV (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9207056,-116.8073561,3a,75y,77.6h,89.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEZOhHHmkFWkpQLpKYgyJBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEZOhHHmkFWkpQLpKYgyJBw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D326.1369%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664?hl=en) along the road as I don't think it's supposed to be open to traffic. It's certainly not a through street there. It would be nice if they cobbled together these stubs and cutoff sections as a nonmotorized path for bikes and pedestrians from Banning to Whitewater; it would be empty during the summer but I can see it being popular during the winter and spring (at least when the winds aren't blowing). I'd also like it if the off-freeway gaps were filled to route traffic when accidents block the highway.
I can see why you mistook the mountain range. That's as low as I've seen snow in my four winters here. I have never seen snow on that low mountain in the foreground. They showed it snowing on I-10 on the news last week.
There are quite of few old segments of US 99-60-70 like that east from Banning towards Indio. The 1923 Whitewater Bridge is probably most famous stub segment that comes up amongst old highway fans.
I actually just missed that storm by a day or two. I was up at Big Bear earlier in the week when they had about 3 inches of snow. I ended up looping 330, 18 and 38 through the San Bernardino Mountains. I did 243 also but the San Jacinto Mountains had nowhere near the level of snow at the time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2022, 05:45:58 PM
CA 4 over Ebbetts Pass has the huge benefit of being well maintained given it is a State Highway. The last time I drove it in 2020 the asphalt was silky smooth and very well maintained. It's definitely one of my favorite state highway segments in California.
I drove it last June, and it was fine. The "one-lane" part is over 22 miles long, which is much longer than any other road I've seen with two white stripes down the edges.
If anyone is interested in clinching state routes, be aware that the access road off of CA-4 to Bear Valley ski resort is unsigned CA-207.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 25, 2022, 03:34:37 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 25, 2022, 03:11:09 PM
How is that road? It's on my list to clinch this summer.
Here you go if you wanted something hyper detailed:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/08/trans-sierra-highways-california-state.html?m=1
The narrow road isn't really that big of a deal. It might not have a center stripe but is just as wide as a lot of rural two lane stuff on the county level. The incline grades are the real deal though, they are very sustained. I usually find myself using 2nd gear if not 1st from time to time if I'm heading east.
I'll go one better - I've ridden this road on a bicycle and it was great. Sure, it's narrow in sections but the traffic volumes are so low that there is no problem with oncomiing/passing vehicles. A few years back a buddy and I were training for a series of rides in the French Alps and did this from Markleeville to Lake Alpine and back (and the next day went from Markleeville to 395 and back over Monitor). There are two summits on this: Ebbetts and Pacific Grade. Yes, the climbs were brutally steep in spots but it really is a fantastic road for scenery and meandering through the woods. I've also done it several times on motorcycle trips where the serpentine nature of the road made for fun riding. If you time it right in the fall, the aspens turning is really spectacular. Highly recommended!
QuoteIf anyone is interested in clinching state routes, be aware that the access road off of CA-4 to Bear Valley ski resort is unsigned CA-207.
There used to be a trailblazer up but it doesn't seem to have been replaced. I think there is some advance signage on the EB side, too, as memory serves (I'll have to dig out my video footage).
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on February 28, 2022, 01:58:55 PM
QuoteIf anyone is interested in clinching state routes, be aware that the access road off of CA-4 to Bear Valley ski resort is unsigned CA-207.
There used to be a trailblazer up but it doesn't seem to have been replaced. I think there is some advance signage on the EB side, too, as memory serves (I'll have to dig out my video footage).
This is what I have for CA 207, the reassurance shields are mounted super high and somehow one was even hit by a truck:
https://flic.kr/p/2jD8Ub6
https://flic.kr/p/2jD88gF
There's a trailblazer on the WB side too, or there was. It disappeared by my third time over the "hill." I have that somewhere as a single photo.
I did note a CA 207 shield on in both directions between CA 4 and the ski area. There is no "End" placard but the terminus of state maintenance is very apparent once the asphalt degrades to this:
https://flic.kr/p/2jD6phY
The Tahoe side of Echo Summit on US 50 suffers from periodic rockslides. The one that happened late yesterday afternoon is the biggest I can recall since I've lived here. They're going to get rid of the biggest boulder with dynamite and hope to have the highway reopened by late this afternoon for weekend tourist traffic.
(https://i.imgur.com/F6CkAGO.jpg)
(Photo from Caltrans District 3 Twitter)
I said it on Twitter and I'll say it here; that is a Boulder the size of a large Boulder.
Wow. Not to tell them their jobs, but I hope they're not going to try jackhammering that boulder while they are standing on it.
Love the California mountains.
Quote from: kkt on March 04, 2022, 12:54:41 PM
Wow. Not to tell them their jobs, but I hope they're not going to try jackhammering that boulder while they are standing on it.
Love the California mountains.
No, they blew it up with dynamite a few minutes ago. It was shown live on Youtube and somehow the camera even survived. It looks like they can get the debris with bulldozers and if the roadway isn't too badly damaged, reopen the road reasonably quickly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn-eRDnMrkU
Unfortunately, it looks like they didn't tighten the camera tripod enough, because the view slowly drifts upward and by the time of the actual blast (about 4:10) you just see the dust cloud and some debris spray.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 04, 2022, 02:22:30 PM
Unfortunately, it looks like they didn't tighten the camera tripod enough, because the view slowly drifts upward and by the time of the actual blast (about 4:10) you just see the dust cloud and some debris spray.
This is what I was watching, much better view with Fire In The Hole at about 0:30.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTt6_6lEnGo
So much better, thanks for sharing!
In this 1960s footage of San Francisco, found some old video of US 101/Bayshore Freeway from SFO to South San Francisco -
https://youtu.be/SLwXfAV1aJo?t=341
(5:41 in)
OF NOTE:
Northbound on 101, the next-three-exits sign in the median shows the following:
"South San Francisco" exit (today's Grand Avenue exit)
"Butler Road" (the pre-1993 Oyster Point exit, before Oyster Point was realigned to the late-1980s Sister Cities Boulevard as part of the increasing business park development east of the freeway; Butler Avenue still exists on the west side of 101)
"Brisbane" (the exit that is now known as "Bayshore Boulevard/Cow Palace" but in the pre-exit numbering era I grew up in, was simply "Cow Palace")
6:02 is the Alemany Maze, notable in this video because this might be one of the only times it was ever videotaped or photographed as the US 101/Route 82/Route 87 interchange. (Or for all I know this was back in the US 101/Bypass US 101 days? "It's A Mad Mad World" was the listed movie on one of the marquees of the old mid-Market theater district)
6:10 shows the old white-on-black signage for the Central Freeway/SF Skyway (US 101/I-80) split after Hospital Curve
Wow, that brings back dim childhood memories of the Eiffel Tower image on top of the City of Paris department store.
Love the button copy stop sign in Chinatown.
The newest vehicles are 1965 models and there are just a few. My guess is that the film was taken in late 1964, probably October since the weather is nice.
Rick
Loved the Bay Bridge exit signage.
Quote from: nexus73 on March 08, 2022, 10:48:50 AM
The newest vehicles are 1965 models and there are just a few. My guess is that the film was taken in late 1964, probably October since the weather is nice.
At least some of it was in July. The Republican presidential convention was going on in Daly City, and the video showed someone carrying a large campaign sign for Margaret Chase Smith, and someone else with a smaller William Scranton sign.
I didn't realize the cable cars on the turntable were pushed around by men, but I guess it makes sense, since they don't have motors.
That video has the weirdest processing on it, some kind of hyper-aggressive noise reduction that causes strange artifacts on signs and geometric patterns, especially around 2:30.
Yes, they push the cable cars around the turntable. The turntable is on ball bearings or something, pushing it does not look like it's really taxing the operator's strength.
Back in the day, men and boys over 12 were allowed to stand at the edge of the cable car so you were looking out at the cars in the street with nothing in between you and them. (Not women, sorry.) But now both to eliminate the sexism and to make it safer, every cable car rider is required to have a seat inside the car. Kind of sad to see the tradition of hanging on to the edge of the car go away. And I'm not even convinced it's a lot safer. The cable car's construction is lightweight, definitely not a place I'd like to be if it was in a collision with a car even at a stately 9 1/2 mph.
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2022, 01:13:14 AM
Yes, they push the cable cars around the turntable. The turntable is on ball bearings or something, pushing it does not look like it's really taxing the operator's strength.
Back in the day, men and boys over 12 were allowed to stand at the edge of the cable car so you were looking out at the cars in the street with nothing in between you and them. (Not women, sorry.) But now both to eliminate the sexism and to make it safer, every cable car rider is required to have a seat inside the car. Kind of sad to see the tradition of hanging on to the edge of the car go away. And I'm not even convinced it's a lot safer. The cable car's construction is lightweight, definitely not a place I'd like to be if it was in a collision with a car even at a stately 9 1/2 mph.
Website says you can still hang on to the outside rails:
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/cable-cars
Anyone could do so when I lived in SF and prior, no matter one's gender. Shoot, me and my siblings did so when my siblings we younger than 12 during an earlier visit. Visit was in the late 1980s and then I lived there in the very late 1990s.
The cable cars are ridiculously slow. If you fall off, you can just run and catch up easily.
Quote from: Rothman on March 09, 2022, 06:51:34 AM
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2022, 01:13:14 AM
Yes, they push the cable cars around the turntable. The turntable is on ball bearings or something, pushing it does not look like it's really taxing the operator's strength.
Back in the day, men and boys over 12 were allowed to stand at the edge of the cable car so you were looking out at the cars in the street with nothing in between you and them. (Not women, sorry.) But now both to eliminate the sexism and to make it safer, every cable car rider is required to have a seat inside the car. Kind of sad to see the tradition of hanging on to the edge of the car go away. And I'm not even convinced it's a lot safer. The cable car's construction is lightweight, definitely not a place I'd like to be if it was in a collision with a car even at a stately 9 1/2 mph.
Website says you can still hang on to the outside rails:
https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/cable-cars
Anyone could do so when I lived in SF and prior, no matter one's gender. Shoot, me and my siblings did so when my siblings we younger than 12 during an earlier visit. Visit was in the late 1980s and then I lived there in the very late 1990s.
The cable cars are ridiculously slow. If you fall off, you can just run and catch up easily.
Hey, so it does! Cool, that makes my day. I'll be sure to plan a trip back there with the child and ride a cable car or two. Maybe lots of people complained about the "no hanging on outside" rule and they changed it.
Quote from: kkt on March 09, 2022, 01:13:14 AM
Yes, they push the cable cars around the turntable. The turntable is on ball bearings or something, pushing it does not look like it's really taxing the operator's strength.
Back in the day, men and boys over 12 were allowed to stand at the edge of the cable car so you were looking out at the cars in the street with nothing in between you and them. (Not women, sorry.) But now both to eliminate the sexism and to make it safer, every cable car rider is required to have a seat inside the car. Kind of sad to see the tradition of hanging on to the edge of the car go away. And I'm not even convinced it's a lot safer. The cable car's construction is lightweight, definitely not a place I'd like to be if it was in a collision with a car even at a stately 9 1/2 mph.
And only the Powell/Beach and Powell/Taylor lines have turntables. The California Street line deadheads (no Jerry Garcia pun intended) at either end into a single track. The California St. cars are of a different design that have two sets of controls for the gripman to operate it in either direction with open air seating at each end.
Did Caltrans choose to have the Santa Monica Freeway veer away from Olympic Boulevard west of Culver City because they doubted the Beverly Hills Freeway would ever come to fruition?
Generals Highway, between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, has reopened. This route was closed last fall due to fire activity. Los Angeles Times article here:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951627955_1ef69bfafc_z.jpg)
CA 79, between Temecula and Aguanga, has a signaled/flagged one-lane segment mid-way, where construction crews are working on a bridge near Dripping Springs. We traveled this segment the morning of March 7; the waits were not very long at the construction site.
Quote from: M3100 on March 20, 2022, 08:25:39 PM
Generals Highway, between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, has reopened. This route was closed last fall due to fire activity. Los Angeles Times article here:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951627955_1ef69bfafc_z.jpg)
Worth noting that if anyone is looking for a scenic drive then Generals Highway, CA 180 in Kings Canyon and Mineral King Road (all accessible from Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks) are all top notch.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2022, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: M3100 on March 20, 2022, 08:25:39 PM
Generals Highway, between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, has reopened. This route was closed last fall due to fire activity. Los Angeles Times article here:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951627955_1ef69bfafc_z.jpg)
Worth noting that if anyone is looking for a scenic drive then Generals Highway, CA 180 in Kings Canyon and Mineral King Road (all accessible from Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks) are all top notch.
I feel like 180 and 168 is dangerous cause the concrete can burn up
Quote from: Lukeisroads on April 03, 2022, 01:41:17 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 20, 2022, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: M3100 on March 20, 2022, 08:25:39 PM
Generals Highway, between Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, has reopened. This route was closed last fall due to fire activity. Los Angeles Times article here:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51951627955_1ef69bfafc_z.jpg)
Worth noting that if anyone is looking for a scenic drive then Generals Highway, CA 180 in Kings Canyon and Mineral King Road (all accessible from Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks) are all top notch.
I feel like 180 and 168 is dangerous cause the concrete can burn up
Both are largely covered in a asphalt surface nowadays. For what it is worth the Generals Highway had a lot of repaved sections in the KNP Fire zones when I drove it last week.
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 06:45:17 PM
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
I don't know about "great." Opinion pieces usually are lacking on citations and actual examples of the argument they trying to convey. It read like a complaint fest about the gas tax and the Newsom administration.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2022, 06:58:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 06:45:17 PM
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
I don't know about "great." Opinion pieces usually are lacking on citations and actual examples of the argument they trying to convey. It read like a complaint fest about the gas tax and the Newsom administration.
They did mention the horrifyingly totalitarian law that classified vehicle miles travelled as a form of pollution.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 11, 2022, 07:14:39 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2022, 06:58:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 06:45:17 PM
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
I don't know about "great." Opinion pieces usually are lacking on citations and actual examples of the argument they trying to convey. It read like a complaint fest about the gas tax and the Newsom administration.
They did mention the horrifyingly totalitarian law that classified vehicle miles travelled as a form of pollution.
Mentioned, but gave no actual reference point for the reader to refer back to. Basically this is no better than the exact opposite extreme presented by the likes the Los Angeles Times in their opinion pieces.
And to clarify, I'm not outright dismissing the arguments the article is trying to make. What gets me is the way it is written is towards a particular bias. There is plenty of non-empty calorie highway content regarding California that it could have been written in a much more meaningful way...but that's just my opinion.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2022, 06:58:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 06:45:17 PM
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
I don't know about "great." Opinion pieces usually are lacking on citations and actual examples of the argument they trying to convey. It read like a complaint fest about the gas tax and the Newsom administration.
I guess what I agreed with it on was that it's more practical to continue to invest in easing congestion whilst building a transit network to offer alternatives. Not the approach California seems to be now be taking with almost completely ignoring congestion mitigation projects that include building new roads or lanes. Yes there are some exceptions to this but all the long term planning shows very little going to such projects. What hasn't started yet is being heavily scrutinized with some much needed projects like the 710 tunnel being canceled entirely.
But yeah I shouldn't have used the term great to describe the whole article and it does seem to focus on Newsom more than it should but it is worth pointing out there does seem to be a sentiment that making congestion worse will "encourage" people to use transit. I can't remember where but I've seen this said more than once by government officials and Caltrans is on record saying the days of adding new GP lanes are in the past with exceptions to current plans.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 11:31:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 11, 2022, 06:58:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 11, 2022, 06:45:17 PM
Great opinion piece about the bullshit policies in California that are delaying in widening roads which badly need it.
https://www.ocregister.com/2022/04/10/newsom-administration-makes-traffic-congestion-worse/
I don't know about "great." Opinion pieces usually are lacking on citations and actual examples of the argument they trying to convey. It read like a complaint fest about the gas tax and the Newsom administration.
I guess what I agreed with it on was that it's more practical to continue to invest in easing congestion whilst building a transit network to offer alternatives. Not the approach California seems to be now be taking with almost completely ignoring congestion mitigation projects that include building new roads or lanes. Yes there are some exceptions to this but all the long term planning shows very little going to such projects. What hasn't started yet is being heavily scrutinized with some much needed projects like the 710 tunnel being canceled entirely.
But yeah I shouldn't have used the term great to describe the whole article and it does seem to focus on Newsom more than it should but it is worth pointing out there does seem to be a sentiment that making congestion worse will "encourage" people to use transit. I can't remember where but I've seen this said more than once by government officials and Caltrans is on record saying the days of adding new GP lanes are in the past with exceptions to current plans.
To some extent it depends on the Caltrans District. I would certainly say with District 7 and District 4 we aren't likely to see new State Level road infrastructure of any major degree any time soon. Conversely there are exceptions like District 6 where the last couple decades have seen major new road developments in recent decades. I think a lot of the new development in District 6 has much to do with the localities involved being more agreeable to road based infrastructure additions. It certainly doesn't hurt that District 6 is one of the few regions in California currently seeing a population boom.
I saw an interesting contractor error today... On US 101 north towards the I-380 junction exit there's an orange sign that uses US Route Shields for I-380 and I-280, as if taking the exit would take one to US 380 to get to US 280. The US Route shield is not only an outline but has a white background!
This seems too good to be true... except it's on GSV! Apparently it was there last November, and it's still here as of April. I'll see if I can get a photo for prosperity's sake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6270444,-122.4017645,3a,76.6y,351.9h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHrPrAlvz6AiHK5f5nsJXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: Techknow on April 12, 2022, 11:01:16 PM
I saw an interesting contractor error today... On US 101 north towards the I-380 junction exit there's an orange sign that uses US Route Shields for I-380 and I-280, as if taking the exit would take one to US 380 to get to US 280. The US Route shield is not only an outline but has a white background!
This seems too good to be true... except it's on GSV! Apparently it was there last November, and it's still here as of April. I'll see if I can get a photo for prosperity's sake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6270444,-122.4017645,3a,76.6y,351.9h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHrPrAlvz6AiHK5f5nsJXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Good one :)
Quote from: Techknow on April 12, 2022, 11:01:16 PM
I saw an interesting contractor error today... On US 101 north towards the I-380 junction exit there's an orange sign that uses US Route Shields for I-380 and I-280, as if taking the exit would take one to US 380 to get to US 280. The US Route shield is not only an outline but has a white background!
This seems too good to be true... except it's on GSV! Apparently it was there last November, and it's still here as of April. I'll see if I can get a photo for prosperity's sake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6270444,-122.4017645,3a,76.6y,351.9h,100.54t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sjHrPrAlvz6AiHK5f5nsJXw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Talk about a wrong turn at
Albuquerque Roswell.
Quote
Caltrans to begin next phase of Hwy 46 widening project
By: Erin FePosted at 1:16 PM, Apr 13, 2022 and last updated 5:46 PM, Apr 13, 2022
Caltrans is about to begin a project that will double lanes along Highway 46 in northern San Luis Obispo County.
A groundbreaking ceremony is set for this Friday.
The project will widen Highway 46 East from Shandon to Cholame.
"What we're doing is we're taking a five-mile stretch starting east of the Shandon rest area to east of the Jack Ranch Café," said Heidi Crawford, Caltrans District 5 PIO.
Construction on this phase is expected to wrap up sometime in 2024.
"We've made places on the road where people can merge on, they can merge off, unlike what it was before. Of course, any time you're taking anything from a two-lane to a four-lane, there's just better flow," Crawford said.
Caltrans say the project's price tag is more than $115 million with the money coming from the State Transportation Improvement Fund.
"it's going to affect commuters, it's going to affect the tourists, it's going to affect the trucking community. people that drive this road on a regular basis," Crawford said.
At the end of the project, Highway 46 East will be a four-lane expressway
from Paso Robles to Lost Hills in Kern County.
A project to improve the Highway 46/State Route 41 interchange is expected to begin in 2024.
Link (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/caltrans-to-begin-next-phase-of-hwy-46-widening-project)
Why do that if it'll just induce more traffic? /s
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 05:59:37 PM
Why do that if it'll just induce more traffic? /s
Caltrans is subtly trying to keep people off the cool Coast Range roads like CA 198 and CA 58. ;-)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2022, 06:02:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 05:59:37 PM
Why do that if it'll just induce more traffic? /s
Caltrans is subtly trying to keep people off the cool Coast Range roads like CA 198 and CA 58. ;-)
Than that'll induce people like me to those roads instead! In all seriousness I've been slowly but surely clenching most of the highways between the coast and I-5 south of San Francisco. I'm about to turn my attention to the Sierras
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 08:41:17 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2022, 06:02:07 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 15, 2022, 05:59:37 PM
Why do that if it'll just induce more traffic? /s
Caltrans is subtly trying to keep people off the cool Coast Range roads like CA 198 and CA 58. ;-)
Than that'll induce people like me to those roads instead! In all seriousness I've been slowly but surely clenching most of the highways between the coast and I-5 south of San Francisco. I'm about to turn my attention to the Sierras
:thumbsup:
Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2022, 05:10:45 PM
Quote
Caltrans to begin next phase of Hwy 46 widening project
By: Erin FePosted at 1:16 PM, Apr 13, 2022 and last updated 5:46 PM, Apr 13, 2022
Caltrans is about to begin a project that will double lanes along Highway 46 in northern San Luis Obispo County.
A groundbreaking ceremony is set for this Friday.
The project will widen Highway 46 East from Shandon to Cholame.
"What we're doing is we're taking a five-mile stretch starting east of the Shandon rest area to east of the Jack Ranch Café," said Heidi Crawford, Caltrans District 5 PIO.
Construction on this phase is expected to wrap up sometime in 2024.
"We've made places on the road where people can merge on, they can merge off, unlike what it was before. Of course, any time you're taking anything from a two-lane to a four-lane, there's just better flow," Crawford said.
Caltrans say the project's price tag is more than $115 million with the money coming from the State Transportation Improvement Fund.
"it's going to affect commuters, it's going to affect the tourists, it's going to affect the trucking community. people that drive this road on a regular basis," Crawford said.
At the end of the project, Highway 46 East will be a four-lane expressway
from Paso Robles to Lost Hills in Kern County.
A project to improve the Highway 46/State Route 41 interchange is expected to begin in 2024.
Link (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/caltrans-to-begin-next-phase-of-hwy-46-widening-project)
I think they should have done the James Dean intersection first, since that's a moderately dangerous spot.
Quote from: pderocco on April 16, 2022, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2022, 05:10:45 PM
Quote
Caltrans to begin next phase of Hwy 46 widening project
By: Erin FePosted at 1:16 PM, Apr 13, 2022 and last updated 5:46 PM, Apr 13, 2022
Caltrans is about to begin a project that will double lanes along Highway 46 in northern San Luis Obispo County.
A groundbreaking ceremony is set for this Friday.
The project will widen Highway 46 East from Shandon to Cholame.
"What we're doing is we're taking a five-mile stretch starting east of the Shandon rest area to east of the Jack Ranch Café," said Heidi Crawford, Caltrans District 5 PIO.
Construction on this phase is expected to wrap up sometime in 2024.
"We've made places on the road where people can merge on, they can merge off, unlike what it was before. Of course, any time you're taking anything from a two-lane to a four-lane, there's just better flow," Crawford said.
Caltrans say the project's price tag is more than $115 million with the money coming from the State Transportation Improvement Fund.
"it's going to affect commuters, it's going to affect the tourists, it's going to affect the trucking community. people that drive this road on a regular basis," Crawford said.
At the end of the project, Highway 46 East will be a four-lane expressway
from Paso Robles to Lost Hills in Kern County.
A project to improve the Highway 46/State Route 41 interchange is expected to begin in 2024.
Link (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/caltrans-to-begin-next-phase-of-hwy-46-widening-project)
I think they should have done the James Dean intersection first, since that's a moderately dangerous spot.
Only been known as Bloody Junction since the 1950s.
US 101 in Ventura County has some lane closures in the La Conchita area; article attached.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52030453213_9720405c6d_z.jpg)
Quote from: M3100 on April 25, 2022, 09:53:29 PM
US 101 in Ventura County has some lane closures in the La Conchita area; article attached.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52030453213_9720405c6d_z.jpg)
A...physical...newspaper? How 20th Century...
Quote from: Rothman on April 26, 2022, 12:09:53 AM
A...physical...newspaper? How 20th Century...
Or 19th, or even 18th.
A physical newspaper?
In this day and age?
On this website?
Localized entirely within this thread?
At least it wasn't a link located behind a pay wall. I thought seeing the article in print was cool.
So, anyway, a La Conchita closure on US 101 is like dog bites man at this point, though at least it's not for a landslide this time.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 26, 2022, 12:56:28 AM
A physical newspaper?
In this day and age?
On this website?
Localized entirely within this thread?
can I see?
https://www.escalontimes.com/209-living/freeway-highway-proposals-died-instead-marring-california/
This article describes some highway proposals through the years that have been canceled. The list includes portions of state routes 168, 65, 130, and 1.
QuoteTioga Pass in the 1930s became the highest paved segment of the California highway system.
It holds that honor still today despite attempts by people on both sides of the Sierra – Bishop in the east and Fresno in the west – to extend Highway 168 across Piute Pass at 11,417 feet.
The idea for a southern Sierra highway crossing was born in 1919. There were repeated attempts to get the legislature on board in the 1920s before the idea died in the 1930s. The route that highway would have taken would have sliced through the John Muir Wilderness. Today it is only accessible by foot or horseback.
In the 1950s Madera County boosters set their sights on other nearby trans-Sierra routes via Mammoth Pass or the Minaret Summit.
That idea started was eventually killed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972 when he persuaded the Nixon Administration to kill either route for good.
The end result today is reflected in nearly a 90-mile stretch of the Sierra crest without roads marring the adjoining Ansel Adams and John Muir wildernesses flanking both sides of the mountain range.
The stretch is bookended on the south by Highway 178's Walker Pass at 5,250 feet and on the north by Highway 120 and Tioga Pass. ...
(Highway 65) was part of a freeway system where a Westside Freeway that was eventually built as Interstate 5 and an Eastside Freeway would connect northern and southern California.
Just like Interstate 5 runs along the base of the Coastal foothills, Highway 65 would have run along the base of the Sierra foothills.
You would have been able to merge onto Highway 65 and head north to Yuba City or south to Bakersfield.
Although the freeway was killed, two segments of route already in place were designated as Highway 65. The northern segment runs south out of Olivehurst through Lincoln and ends in Roseville where it connects with Interstate 80.
The southern segment starts from Highway 99 near Bakersfield and ends at Highway 198 near Exeter.
The two segments represent 95 miles of the originally proposed 300-mile route. ....
Congressman Richard Pombo who was from Tracy (proposed a connection between Highway 130 and Interstate 5).
His idea to ease traffic congestion on the Altamont Pass was to construct a freeway up Del Puerto Canyon from Patterson to San Jose where it would enter the Santa Clara Valley near the Mt. Hamilton Road.
The idea picked up support from several cities in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Major pushback from environmental groups made sure the idea was DOA before it reached consideration in the halls of state and federal power. ...
(I)n the 1950s state highway engineers advanced a plan to replace (Highway 1 between Carmel and San Simeon) with a four-lane freeway. It was proposed at the same time as the Westside and Eastside freeways in the Central Valley. The idea was dead by the early 1960s.
Perhaps the most stunning freeway idea that never got off the ground was for a 36-lane crossing of the San Francisco Bay south of the Bay Bridge.
In 1946 less than a decade after the Bay Bridge opened, people were grumbling about traffic. The push was on for another crossing to the south.
Several were conventional bridges.
But the one advanced by John Reber, who is described as an actor who turned master planner, was for a 36-lane crossing and was anything but conventional. ...
The plan called for a causeway constructed on a giant earthen fill. It was to go from Alameda where it would connect to land via a tunnel before reaching the Oakland estuary to China Basin in San Francisco where the last segment would be via a 2,000-foot-long bridge.
The causeway was envisioned as nearly four-tenths of a mile wide. It called for a freeway in the middle of it 400 feet in width or enough to accommodate 36 lanes.
On both sides of the freeway, it called for 160 feet wide right-of-way for four main lines and 70 miles of sidings.
Those sidings would serve industrial areas that lined the outside of the causeway in parcels of 600 feet in depth and 1,600 feet in width.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 26, 2022, 11:52:44 PM
https://www.escalontimes.com/209-living/freeway-highway-proposals-died-instead-marring-california/
This article describes some highway proposals through the years that have been canceled. The list includes portions of state routes 168, 65, 130, and 1.
Quote
But the one advanced by John Reber, who is described as an actor who turned master planner, was for a 36-lane crossing and was anything but conventional. ...
The plan called for a causeway constructed on a giant earthen fill. It was to go from Alameda where it would connect to land via a tunnel before reaching the Oakland estuary to China Basin in San Francisco where the last segment would be via a 2,000-foot-long bridge.
The causeway was envisioned as nearly four-tenths of a mile wide. It called for a freeway in the middle of it 400 feet in width or enough to accommodate 36 lanes.
On both sides of the freeway, it called for 160 feet wide right-of-way for four main lines and 70 miles of sidings.
Those sidings would serve industrial areas that lined the outside of the causeway in parcels of 600 feet in depth and 1,600 feet in width.
There's deepwater ship channels both up to Alameda and up to the docks on both sides of China Basin. Blocking ship access to the ports would not be a good idea. There's more practical ways to build a southern Bay Bridge.
Regarding Piute Pass and CA 168 that was way more the expansion of General Grant National Park into that Kings Canyon National Park that killed that. The northern boundary of Kings Canyon National Park almost aligns exactly with the Piute Pass Highway corridor. Kings Canyon National Park also killed the Kings Canyon Highway (CA 180) to Kearsarge Pass, but that was a Forest Service initiative from Cedar Grove eastward.
Quote from: Alps on April 26, 2022, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 26, 2022, 12:56:28 AM
A physical newspaper?
In this day and age?
On this website?
Localized entirely within this thread?
can I see?
I laughed just a little too loudly in the airport just now. I appreciate the reference!
Quote from: pderocco on April 16, 2022, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2022, 05:10:45 PM
Quote
Caltrans to begin next phase of Hwy 46 widening project
By: Erin FePosted at 1:16 PM, Apr 13, 2022 and last updated 5:46 PM, Apr 13, 2022
Caltrans is about to begin a project that will double lanes along Highway 46 in northern San Luis Obispo County.
A groundbreaking ceremony is set for this Friday.
The project will widen Highway 46 East from Shandon to Cholame.
"What we're doing is we're taking a five-mile stretch starting east of the Shandon rest area to east of the Jack Ranch Café," said Heidi Crawford, Caltrans District 5 PIO.
Construction on this phase is expected to wrap up sometime in 2024.
"We've made places on the road where people can merge on, they can merge off, unlike what it was before. Of course, any time you're taking anything from a two-lane to a four-lane, there's just better flow," Crawford said.
Caltrans say the project's price tag is more than $115 million with the money coming from the State Transportation Improvement Fund.
"it's going to affect commuters, it's going to affect the tourists, it's going to affect the trucking community. people that drive this road on a regular basis," Crawford said.
At the end of the project, Highway 46 East will be a four-lane expressway
from Paso Robles to Lost Hills in Kern County.
A project to improve the Highway 46/State Route 41 interchange is expected to begin in 2024.
Link (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/caltrans-to-begin-next-phase-of-hwy-46-widening-project)
I think they should have done the James Dean intersection first, since that's a moderately dangerous spot.
How is it like now as opposed to 1955?
Is there a traffic signal there?
Quote from: dbz77 on April 28, 2022, 12:57:06 AM
Quote from: pderocco on April 16, 2022, 06:14:59 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 15, 2022, 05:10:45 PM
Quote
Caltrans to begin next phase of Hwy 46 widening project
By: Erin FePosted at 1:16 PM, Apr 13, 2022 and last updated 5:46 PM, Apr 13, 2022
Caltrans is about to begin a project that will double lanes along Highway 46 in northern San Luis Obispo County.
A groundbreaking ceremony is set for this Friday.
The project will widen Highway 46 East from Shandon to Cholame.
"What we're doing is we're taking a five-mile stretch starting east of the Shandon rest area to east of the Jack Ranch Café," said Heidi Crawford, Caltrans District 5 PIO.
Construction on this phase is expected to wrap up sometime in 2024.
"We've made places on the road where people can merge on, they can merge off, unlike what it was before. Of course, any time you're taking anything from a two-lane to a four-lane, there's just better flow," Crawford said.
Caltrans say the project's price tag is more than $115 million with the money coming from the State Transportation Improvement Fund.
"it's going to affect commuters, it's going to affect the tourists, it's going to affect the trucking community. people that drive this road on a regular basis," Crawford said.
At the end of the project, Highway 46 East will be a four-lane expressway
from Paso Robles to Lost Hills in Kern County.
A project to improve the Highway 46/State Route 41 interchange is expected to begin in 2024.
Link (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/caltrans-to-begin-next-phase-of-hwy-46-widening-project)
I think they should have done the James Dean intersection first, since that's a moderately dangerous spot.
How is it like now as opposed to 1955?
Is there a traffic signal there?
No signal, largely the same as the 1950s.
Quote from: andy3175 on April 26, 2022, 11:52:44 PM
https://www.escalontimes.com/209-living/freeway-highway-proposals-died-instead-marring-california/
QuoteTioga Pass in the 1930s became the highest paved segment of the California highway system.
It holds that honor still today despite attempts by people on both sides of the Sierra – Bishop in the east and Fresno in the west – to extend Highway 168 across Piute Pass at 11,417 feet.
The idea for a southern Sierra highway crossing was born in 1919. There were repeated attempts to get the legislature on board in the 1920s before the idea died in the 1930s. The route that highway would have taken would have sliced through the John Muir Wilderness. Today it is only accessible by foot or horseback.
In the 1950s Madera County boosters set their sights on other nearby trans-Sierra routes via Mammoth Pass or the Minaret Summit.
That idea started was eventually killed by Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1972 when he persuaded the Nixon Administration to kill either route for good.
The end result today is reflected in nearly a 90-mile stretch of the Sierra crest without roads marring the adjoining Ansel Adams and John Muir wildernesses flanking both sides of the mountain range.
The stretch is bookended on the south by Highway 178's Walker Pass at 5,250 feet and on the north by Highway 120 and Tioga Pass. ...
Which of these cross-Sierra proposals would have "marred" California? 168 between Huntington Lake and Lake Sabrina? 180 from Kanawyers to Onion Valley? Extending 203 down the San Joaquin River? Does anyone look at any of the existing high pass roads, and think of them as somehow marring the areas they pass through? I think they're all wonderful, especially 120 and 108.
The article speaks of a near 90-mile stretch of the crest without roads. But the gap between through-roads is between 120 over Tioga Pass and Sherman Pass, 140 miles apart. Extending 203 looks to me like a good choice because it's a lower pass that could remain open a little longer.
But the best proposal for another crossing was the later proposal for 190, which could cross near Haiwee Reservoir at a little over 8000 feet, far enough south that it could perhaps be kept open through the winter. That was still shown on the latest Caltrans map that Rumsey has, dated 2005. I'd love to see that built. It could even connect to Sherman Pass Road via FR 21S03. These areas are beautiful, and it would be nice to make them more accessible. To consider that intrinsically "marring" of the environment is pure misanthropy.
Every time I mention any unbuilt Trans-Sierra corridor on Gribblenation a large percentage of the commentary is about two things:
- How they are glad the road wasn't built (I guess people have more time for week/s long hikes and I'm doing something wrong since I don't).
- How great John Muir is.
What will really get you is how far CA 190 got before the corridor was shifted. Horseshoe Meadows Road is higher than Tioga Pass and is built to within sight of where it would have crossed Mulky Pass.
I don't think any of the unbuilt Trans-Sierra corridors need to be built. It's not about the environmental cost; that would be minimal (though not negligible) in the overall impact to the region. I think it's more the economic cost of being built vs the economic benefit. I don't see much economic benefit to building any and maintaining the current Trans-Sierra corridors is costly. Some people drive CA 120 during the summer, but the economic impact is nowhere close to CA 1 between Carmel and San Simeon. Building and maintaining one more Trans-Sierra highway that would hardly be used just isn't worth the cost.
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2022, 02:17:10 PM
I don't think any of the unbuilt Trans-Sierra corridors need to be built. It's not about the environmental cost; that would be minimal (though not negligible) in the overall impact to the region. I think it's more the economic cost of being built vs the economic benefit. I don't see much economic benefit to building any and maintaining the current Trans-Sierra corridors is costly. Some people drive CA 120 during the summer, but the economic impact is nowhere close to CA 1 between Carmel and San Simeon. Building and maintaining one more Trans-Sierra highway that would hardly be used just isn't worth the cost.
FWIW that is what is nice about Sherman Pass, it is on Forest Service dime and seasonal. 180 was intended to be like that, I'm not sure if planned 168 over Piute Pass was also a Forest Service initiative. I'm fine with Caltrans and CTC balking at projects like this but I'm equally okay with the Forest Service taking them up.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on April 26, 2022, 02:28:55 PM
At least it wasn't a link located behind a pay wall. I thought seeing the article in print was cool.
Thanks. I support a free press, and that includes 'paper' newspapers, though they have largely disappeared.
Meanwhile, we drove the (outer) southbound lane on US 101 through this segment last Saturday; they did not have any construction equipment staged at that point.
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2022, 02:17:10 PM
I don't think any of the unbuilt Trans-Sierra corridors need to be built. It's not about the environmental cost; that would be minimal (though not negligible) in the overall impact to the region. I think it's more the economic cost of being built vs the economic benefit. I don't see much economic benefit to building any and maintaining the current Trans-Sierra corridors is costly. Some people drive CA 120 during the summer, but the economic impact is nowhere close to CA 1 between Carmel and San Simeon. Building and maintaining one more Trans-Sierra highway that would hardly be used just isn't worth the cost.
I agree. The cost of maintaining those high altitude passes is large. There's lots of work to do every spring as they plow the snow and fix road damage due to rockfalls, meltwater, the freeze-thaw cycle. The easier passes were made into year-around routes, I-80 and US 50. The Sierra passes south of Carson Pass are quite a bit higher, have shorter open seasons, take longer to drive over than just going north to I-80 or south to CA 178.
Building additional passes would be for access to timber or other resources along the way, not just to get to the other side.
Quote from: kkt on April 28, 2022, 09:48:14 PM
Quote from: skluth on April 28, 2022, 02:17:10 PM
I don't think any of the unbuilt Trans-Sierra corridors need to be built. It's not about the environmental cost; that would be minimal (though not negligible) in the overall impact to the region. I think it's more the economic cost of being built vs the economic benefit. I don't see much economic benefit to building any and maintaining the current Trans-Sierra corridors is costly. Some people drive CA 120 during the summer, but the economic impact is nowhere close to CA 1 between Carmel and San Simeon. Building and maintaining one more Trans-Sierra highway that would hardly be used just isn't worth the cost.
I agree. The cost of maintaining those high altitude passes is large. There's lots of work to do every spring as they plow the snow and fix road damage due to rockfalls, meltwater, the freeze-thaw cycle. The easier passes were made into year-around routes, I-80 and US 50. The Sierra passes south of Carson Pass are quite a bit higher, have shorter open seasons, take longer to drive over than just going north to I-80 or south to CA 178.
Building additional passes would be for access to timber or other resources along the way, not just to get to the other side.
Which on the Forest Service side actually would be a good thing with all the recent big fires. A good percentage of Forest Service Roads in the Sierra Nevada Mountains were built for timber or as fire breaks. But that's speaking more towards the Forest Service mission of resource management versus the National Park Service being environmental preservation oriented.
I see LAX is adding a People Mover.
https://goo.gl/maps/MdBVpu6utsVr5neX9
In 2022 it seems being constructed, so my guess is two months later it's not yet in service.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2022, 09:00:55 AM
I see LAX is adding a People Mover.
https://goo.gl/maps/MdBVpu6utsVr5neX9
In 2022 it seems being constructed, so my guess is two months later it's not yet in service.
A people mover not involving cars.....in LA that's remarkable.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 30, 2022, 09:00:55 AM
I see LAX is adding a People Mover.
https://goo.gl/maps/MdBVpu6utsVr5neX9
In 2022 it seems being constructed, so my guess is two months later it's not yet in service.
They're also planning a people mover in Inglewood as well. A new underground subway will built along the 405 corridor to connect LAX with the future Sepulveda pass line. Lots of mass transit projects underway or planned. The Crenshaw Line is close to opening until they shut part of it down to upgrade an at grade intersection to a bridge because they couldn't have done it right the first time.
https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/vacaville/state-dedicates-section-of-i-505-to-kirk-hollywood-griess/
The Hollywood Freeway is not just in Los Angeles anymore. Yes I-505 in Vacaville, CA is officially called the Kirk "Hollywood" Greiss Memorial Highway.
I would like to know about a guide along CA 254 ( Avenue of the Giants) in Humboldt County that references "Shively." someplace between Pepperwood and the northern terminus.
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
GSV has no imagery ( even in 2020) of any such signs yet posted. However, where is the road? Still as of today no such bridge across the Eel River exists to reach Schively at all from Pepperwood.
Edit https://goo.gl/maps/pCXCdFEwfzrCzGzHA
I found the signs. At the south limit of Pepperwood on CA 254. However, why do the signs exist if there is no road for it to travel on?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I would like to know about a guide along CA 254 ( Avenue of the Giants) in Humboldt County that references "Shively." someplace between Pepperwood and the northern terminus.
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
GSV has no imagery ( even in 2020) of any such signs yet posted. However, where is the road? Still as of today no such bridge across the Eel River exists to reach Schively at all from Pepperwood.
Displayed as a place on the 1935 DOH map of Humboldt County, likely wiped out by the 1955 floods:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCalifornia%20division%20of%20highways%20Humboldt%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2121%2C5672%2C1082%2C1772
I believe there is a low water bridge that accesses the site of Shivley.
Also, this may be of use for you regarding the history of Avenue of the Giants:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/10/california-state-route-254-avenue-of.html?m=1
And Caltrans still signs it despite only someone using a boat can reach it.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 11:10:52 AM
And Caltrans still signs it despite only someone using a boat can reach it.
I think most people who live there just drive across the River if it's low enough and the low bridge isn't accessible. I did that once in Richardson Grove State Park after they pulled the bridge for the season.
Here is an example of one of the low water bridges located off Avenue of the Giants:
https://bridgehunter.com/ca/humboldt/bh89996/
I seem recall there being a low water bridge at Shivley Flat Road that pops up on aerial images now and then. There a lots tire tracks in the River bed.
I found some images of the low water bridge at the end of Shivley Flat Road:
- The 1972 aerial photo on Historicaerials.com.
- To the north on the current Apple Maps image.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
Quote from: pderocco on May 11, 2022, 01:46:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
During wet season, those low water bridges are incredibly prevalent during dry season months on the Eel River.
It's amazing how during dry seasons that they take advantage of such conditions.
Even in St. Louis, MO there is an extra street along the Mississippi River that is used when the river is low. When the river is at peak flowing, a bunch of no parking signs pop up from the river about 20 feet out from the bank.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 11, 2022, 09:22:12 AM
It's amazing how during dry seasons that they take advantage of such conditions.
Even in St. Louis, MO there is an extra street along the Mississippi River that is used when the river is low. When the river is at peak flowing, a bunch of no parking signs pop up from the river about 20 feet out from the bank.
Leonor K Sullivan Blvd (formerly Front St) is a legacy dating back to when the Arch Grounds were the old St Louis port riverfront. I didn't live in St Louis then, but it was filled with old warehouses and flooded regularly. It's not so much that there is a street along the riverfront as the rest of the street grid along the riverbank was removed to build the Arch. It originally looked much like the area between I-70 and the river north of the Eads Bridge but more subject to flooding. In the first iteration of the Jefferson Memorial, there were several riverboats docked there. LKS Blvd was needed to access the riverboats which included a Burger King and McDonald's. Most were already gone by the time the 1993 flood got rid of all but the last couple tour boats. Today it's just a couple small tour boats with parking on the paved bank.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 11, 2022, 01:46:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
During wet season, those low water bridges are incredibly prevalent during dry season months on the Eel River.
Where 101 crosses the river, that's not a low water bridge. There is no river crossing on Shively Rd. It's just a small winding forest road.
Quote from: pderocco on May 12, 2022, 02:46:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 11, 2022, 01:46:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
During wet season, those low water bridges are incredibly prevalent during dry season months on the Eel River.
Where 101 crosses the river, that's not a low water bridge. There is no river crossing on Shively Rd. It's just a small winding forest road.
Shivley Flat Road actually. As I already stated above, the low water bridge can be seen the following ways:
- The 1972 aerial photo on Historicaerials.com.
- To the north on the current Apple Maps image.
It appears Humboldt County just uses a grading machine on the Eel River bank during the dry season and plops a portable low level struck in the River. Richardson Grove State Park does the same thing ever summer for campground access.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2022, 08:04:06 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 12, 2022, 02:46:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 11, 2022, 01:46:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
During wet season, those low water bridges are incredibly prevalent during dry season months on the Eel River.
Where 101 crosses the river, that's not a low water bridge. There is no river crossing on Shively Rd. It's just a small winding forest road.
Shivley Flat Road actually. As I already stated above, the low water bridge can be seen the following ways:
- The 1972 aerial photo on Historicaerials.com.
- To the north on the current Apple Maps image.
It appears Humboldt County just uses a grading machine on the Eel River bank during the dry season and plops a portable low level struck in the River. Richardson Grove State Park does the same thing ever summer for campground access.
I'm mostly just looking at maps. I've driven 101 there countless times, and 254 two or three, but never been to Shively. (Why?) But I clearly see that it is accessed by something called Shively Rd, which connects to 101 on the NE side of the river just NW of Stafford, and snakes down through the woods to Shively, so no low water crossing is necessary. Shively Flat Rd is just a short road within that community.
With the river low as it is, there are several visible low river crossings in Google aerial imagery, but they look like they're unmaintained, and only passable via rock crawler: Holmes Flat Rd, Vinnum Rd, McCann Rd.
Quote from: pderocco on May 14, 2022, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2022, 08:04:06 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 12, 2022, 02:46:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 11, 2022, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: pderocco on May 11, 2022, 01:46:16 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 10, 2022, 10:51:17 AM
I went on Google Maps to find there is no roads at all leading into Shrively as the Eel River is in between the highway and the small rural community. The only access from CA Route 254 is south of Barkdull Road via Holmes and other back roads. Yet I've never been south of Barkdull Road as I headed back to One oh One via Barkdull and only clinched CA 254 from Barkdull Road to its north end.
Shively Road leaves 101 just past Stafford where the highway crosses the river. That must be what the residents of Shively and Larabee use.
During wet season, those low water bridges are incredibly prevalent during dry season months on the Eel River.
Where 101 crosses the river, that's not a low water bridge. There is no river crossing on Shively Rd. It's just a small winding forest road.
Shivley Flat Road actually. As I already stated above, the low water bridge can be seen the following ways:
- The 1972 aerial photo on Historicaerials.com.
- To the north on the current Apple Maps image.
It appears Humboldt County just uses a grading machine on the Eel River bank during the dry season and plops a portable low level struck in the River. Richardson Grove State Park does the same thing ever summer for campground access.
I'm mostly just looking at maps. I've driven 101 there countless times, and 254 two or three, but never been to Shively. (Why?) But I clearly see that it is accessed by something called Shively Rd, which connects to 101 on the NE side of the river just NW of Stafford, and snakes down through the woods to Shively, so no low water crossing is necessary. Shively Flat Rd is just a short road within that community.
With the river low as it is, there are several visible low river crossings in Google aerial imagery, but they look like they're unmaintained, and only passable via rock crawler: Holmes Flat Rd, Vinnum Rd, McCann Rd.
That's what I've been trying to tell you, the county and other local entities install a lot of the low water bridges during the summer months. The most notable is the temporary span than Richardson Grove State Park installs every summer for campground access. In the case of Shivley Flat Road it just happens to be one of the locations that gets a summer low water bridge. There really isn't any incentive not to install the temporary spans given how low the Eel River gets given how empty the Eel River can be during the dry months.
Also, other maps which displays the low water bridge on Shivley Flat Road is the 1951 USGS, 1964 USGS, 1974 USGS and 2012 USGS.
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
No stop lights for a couple decades on 101 between SF-LA. The expressway segments are basically pushed to their absolute limits in places like Prunedale.
Prunedale has a side road access with a hazard flasher, but there is also a concrete median barrier that prevents traffic from turning left to or from US 101. That appears to be the closest thing to a full signalized intersection between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it’s not all freeway between the two, but that doesn’t mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~30 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
Yeah north of SF it lucked out, as now both Eureka and Crescent City are the only two places that have them.
So in essence only SF, Eureka, and Crescent City are the only three cities with stoplights for an almost 800 mile route.
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~20 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
IIRC the Santa Barbara stoplight was finally replaced with full freeway upgrades around 1991-1992; when I went on a trip to Disneyland in 1992 with family, the signals were already gone in Santa Barbara from what I recall on the drive home.
---
Speaking of US 101:
in San Francisco, new overhead signs with exit numbers have been added on the northbound Bayshore Freeway between I-280 and I-80. Vermont Street is first labeled as "Exit 433" but then later identified correctly as "Exit 433A".
On I-80 west, the new sign at the 5th Street offramp actually does NOT have an exit number - since the Harrison Street ramp just before it has a new external left exit tab, my guess is that the external tab for 5th will be added at some point. (This replaced a sign that did have an internal exit tab from about 2009-2010)
I-280 along the Southern Freeway and the extension to the Giants ballpark still has the early-2000s overhead retroreflective signs without exit numbers.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 17, 2022, 11:25:35 AM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~20 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
IIRC the Santa Barbara stoplight was finally replaced with full freeway upgrades around 1991-1992; when I went on a trip to Disneyland in 1992 with family, the signals were already gone in Santa Barbara from what I recall on the drive home.
---
Speaking of US 101:
in San Francisco, new overhead signs with exit numbers have been added on the northbound Bayshore Freeway between I-280 and I-80. Vermont Street is first labeled as "Exit 433" but then later identified correctly as "Exit 433A".
On I-80 west, the new sign at the 5th Street offramp actually does NOT have an exit number - since the Harrison Street ramp just before it has a new external left exit tab, my guess is that the external tab for 5th will be added at some point. (This replaced a sign that did have an internal exit tab from about 2009-2010)
I-280 along the Southern Freeway and the extension to the Giants ballpark still has the early-2000s overhead retroreflective signs without exit numbers.
You're correct about the Santa Barbara signals. I've lost track of time it was ~30 years ago. I should remember better since I slogged through it regularly during college in the 80's and shortly after graduation was amazed at what a nice job was done both functionally and aesthetically with that new freeway segment. If only other Caltrans project looked so good . . .
The whole corridor on Santa Barbara Channel was fascinating to dig into. And yes, the signals were removed in 1991:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/08/former-us-route-101-along-santa-barbara.html?m=1
https://goo.gl/maps/fggewoRNzWc8Sjnr9
Is it me or is the south portal of the Tom Lantos Tunnel larger in diameter than its northbound counterpart?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2022, 03:49:57 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fggewoRNzWc8Sjnr9
Is it me or is the south portal of the Tom Lantos Tunnel larger in diameter than its northbound counterpart?
Possibly, I took this photo myself a couple years back from the older Devils Slide alignment of CA 1:
https://flic.kr/p/2eF3Hxz
Interestingly I found the Tom Lantos Tunnels to be barely obscured from the oldest alignment of CA 1 atop Pedro Mountain Road:
https://flic.kr/p/2md32La
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2022, 03:49:57 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/fggewoRNzWc8Sjnr9
Is it me or is the south portal of the Tom Lantos Tunnel larger in diameter than its northbound counterpart?
The Street View imagery clearly shows that in each direction the exit from the tunnel widens on the left side. At the north end, this allows for emergency vehicle turnaround.
My question is why is each tube striped for single lane?Wouldn't it been more logical to build one tube for two way traffic? Yes it's safer but still a waste of money for a state that claims it's broke. Or for any state unless they are being proactive for future expansion.
I suspect it was based on how big a hole could be punched through the hillside and have it still stand up. We know that hillside is a bit unstable already.
Apparently the Tom Lantos Tunnels are rated to withstand a 7.5-8.0 magnitude earthquake. I believe the idea was that if one tunnel went down for some reason the other couple be temporarily put into two-way services. Considering the amount of trouble Devil's Slide caused it would surprise me if redundant measures like tunnel twinning would be desirable.
Also, it's kind of amusing that after all this time the Wawona Tunnel is still the longest highway tunnel in the state.
Quote from: roadman65 on May 17, 2022, 08:31:33 PM
My question is why is each tube striped for single lane?Wouldn't it been more logical to build one tube for two way traffic? Yes it's safer but still a waste of money for a state that claims it's broke. Or for any state unless they are being proactive for future expansion.
I drove thru the tunnel three weeks ago and can guess it's striped that way to allow for a shoulder in case of an emergency stop. Also the inner side of each tunnel has emergency exits. (the Alaskan Way replacement tunnel has similar exits although it's a single tube) The safe exits likely would have influenced the tunnel design?
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~30 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
In which intersections were these signals located?
Quote from: dbz77 on May 18, 2022, 02:43:50 AM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~30 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
In which intersections were these signals located?
North to south (southwest to northeast, actually): Chapala, State, Anacapa, Santa Barbara
Quote from: heynow415 on May 18, 2022, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: dbz77 on May 18, 2022, 02:43:50 AM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on May 16, 2022, 11:06:04 AM
Question about US 101. Are there any stop lights along it between LA and SF?
I know it's not all freeway between the two, but that doesn't mean it has to have at grades with signals. I know that north of SF, you get expressway segments and two lane segments there that do not have busy intersections to warrant signals.
I thought I heard someone post here a while back, that Caltrans made improvements to eliminate some of the signals making the first signal north of Greater Los Angeles further away from the big metro than what once was.
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~30 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
In which intersections were these signals located?
North to south (southwest to northeast, actually): Chapala, State, Anacapa, Santa Barbara
I had lived there for about a year when the signals were removed. I clearly remember sitting at those signals for four, five minutes.
It's a shame that the Tom Lantos tunnels couldn't have been built with two lanes in each direction. If they were, it would probably piss off the locals.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 19, 2022, 10:56:36 PM
It's a shame that the Tom Lantos tunnels couldn't have been built with two lanes in each direction. If they were, it would probably piss off the locals.
I don't know about that. A lot of people out of Half Moon Bay complain CA 92 is only two lanes and a hellish safety corridor. CA 1 was once planned to be realigned as a freeway over Pedro Mountain in the distant past.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2022, 11:00:47 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 19, 2022, 10:56:36 PM
It's a shame that the Tom Lantos tunnels couldn't have been built with two lanes in each direction. If they were, it would probably piss off the locals.
I don't know about that. A lot of people out of Half Moon Bay complain CA 92 is only two lanes and a hellish safety corridor. CA 1 was once planned to be realigned as a freeway over Pedro Mountain in the distant past.
The Bay Area once was capable of thinking big.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 19, 2022, 11:51:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2022, 11:00:47 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 19, 2022, 10:56:36 PM
It's a shame that the Tom Lantos tunnels couldn't have been built with two lanes in each direction. If they were, it would probably piss off the locals.
I don't know about that. A lot of people out of Half Moon Bay complain CA 92 is only two lanes and a hellish safety corridor. CA 1 was once planned to be realigned as a freeway over Pedro Mountain in the distant past.
The Bay Area once was capable of thinking big.
That whole area has a weird history with transportation. Even before CA 1 there was supposed to be an interurban line that would connect San Francisco to Santa Cruz directly via Devils Slide. The gap never really got filled in the middle of the San Francisco Peninsula in the Pescadero-San Gregorio corridor. The only thing that was actually kind of modern that got built is the largely coast hugging alignment of CA 1.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2022, 11:55:24 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 19, 2022, 11:51:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 19, 2022, 11:00:47 PM
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 19, 2022, 10:56:36 PM
It's a shame that the Tom Lantos tunnels couldn't have been built with two lanes in each direction. If they were, it would probably piss off the locals.
I don't know about that. A lot of people out of Half Moon Bay complain CA 92 is only two lanes and a hellish safety corridor. CA 1 was once planned to be realigned as a freeway over Pedro Mountain in the distant past.
The Bay Area once was capable of thinking big.
That whole area has a weird history with transportation. Even before CA 1 there was supposed to be an interurban line that would connect San Francisco to Santa Cruz directly via Devils Slide. The gap never really got filled in the middle of the San Francisco Peninsula in the Pescadero-San Gregorio corridor. The only thing that was actually kind of modern that got built is the largely coast hugging alignment of CA 1.
It would be nice to see tunnels built for the 101 freeway through San Francisco. Maybe one day. One can dream.
The undeveloped parts of the Bay Area have had a strong "humans are the virus" mentality since the 1970s and have opposed any infrastructure projects (freeways, 4 lane highways, aqueducts) that might possibly allow more people into their bucolic wonderland.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 20, 2022, 12:03:32 AM
It would be nice to see tunnels built for the 101 freeway through San Francisco. Maybe one day. One can dream.
I'm not sure it would save that much. The fastest way from San Jose or parts south to San Rafael and parts north is NOT through San Francisco, and would not be even if there were a tunnel connecting 101. On days when the weather is decent, the traffic delay over the Golden Gate Bridge is not from the bridge's capacity, or the cross traffic on 19th Avenue or Park Presidio Blvd., but the right lane of the bridge being backed up all the way to Golden Gate Park with traffic for the Bridge visitor's parking lot.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 20, 2022, 12:11:02 AM
The undeveloped parts of the Bay Area have had a strong "humans are the virus" mentality since the 1970s and have opposed any infrastructure projects (freeways, 4 lane highways, aqueducts) that might possibly allow more people into their bucolic wonderland.
And I'm glad they did, so they Bay Area has a few miles of suburbs alternating with woods or park or agricultural land. Partly due to keeping down road construction, but other measures as well: zoning, parks, ownership by the Nature Conservancy and similar organizations. Without them it would be 10,000 square miles of unrelieved subdivisions with no open space for play and native plants and animals without driving for hours.
I enjoy the coastline of the San Francisco Peninsula also. There are some really obscure parklands like Montara State Beach which have some gems hidden them like Old CA 1 on Pedro Mountain Road. I think the perception of the terrain is that it much developable for real estate than it actually is. There is a bunch of terrain variations as the Santa Cruz Mountains emptied into the Pacific Ocean at the western edge of the peninsula.
Quote from: DTComposer on May 19, 2022, 07:48:01 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 18, 2022, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: dbz77 on May 18, 2022, 02:43:50 AM
Quote from: heynow415 on May 16, 2022, 11:58:04 AM
The last signals on (the) 101 were in Santa Barbara, four in a row downtown, that resulted in monumental traffic jams. They were removed ~30 years ago with completion of the freeway. There are flashing beacons at some crossings in expressway segments but otherwise there's nothing from LA to SF. North of SF, with completion of the Willits bypass there are no signals until Eureka.
In which intersections were these signals located?
North to south (southwest to northeast, actually): Chapala, State, Anacapa, Santa Barbara
I had lived there for about a year when the signals were removed. I clearly remember sitting at those signals for four, five minutes.
I recall there were signs on the cross streets advising drivers of the long signal cycles and suggesting that they should shut off their engines while waiting.
Quote from: kkt on May 20, 2022, 01:13:06 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 20, 2022, 12:03:32 AM
It would be nice to see tunnels built for the 101 freeway through San Francisco. Maybe one day. One can dream.
I'm not sure it would save that much. The fastest way from San Jose or parts south to San Rafael and parts north is NOT through San Francisco, and would not be even if there were a tunnel connecting 101.
I have seen enough traffic backlog on both Franklin and Van Ness heading north to definitely wish for a free-flowing alternative! I'm realistic that such type of tunneling (which was proposed in the 1960s for 101 at one point from Turk to the current Presidio Parkway) would be very unlikely, just that it would be a helpful alternative to 19th and Van Ness.
I've also dealt with congestion southbound on 19th approaching Taraval at rush hour.
After several years, some updates on the proposed Broadway Bridge linking Sacramento and West Sacramento:
https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2017072019/4
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2022/05/20/broadway-bridge-environmental-review.html
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that Caltrans has put out a $12 million contract to add a peak-hour southbound shoulder lane on I-15 from the Nevada line to the agricultural station:
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/traffic/i-15-traffic-at-nevada-california-border-one-step-closer-to-relief-2581579/
QuoteThe several mile backup often seen on Interstate 15 at the Nevada-California border – most recently on Monday following the conclusion of the Electric Daisy Carnival – could soon see some relief.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recently put a contract out for bid for a planned $12 million project on a stretch of I-15 southbound from the Nevada-California border to the California Department of Food and Agriculture Station. That's where the road goes from three travel lanes to two, causing traffic bottlenecks.
The project calls for repaving and restriping the shoulder so it can become a third lane during high traffic times. Those would mainly be Sundays and Mondays following busy weekends in the Las Vegas Valley.
"The California Department of Transportation and the Nevada Department of Transportation continue to work together to deliver a project that will help improve operations of Interstate-15," Caltrans said in a statement. "The goal is to open the first phase of the project, the expanded transition section, by late summer."
Is it legal for a passenger car to use a truck bypass? This was prompted by Memorial Day traffic at the Lebec 5/99 merge, where taking the truck bypass was noticeably faster than staying in the car lanes. The signage (https://goo.gl/maps/HuJBbCjZSvHXHPhu5) in this case has a BGS over the car lanes with "Passenger Cars / Buses", and a BWS over the truck lanes with "Trucks / All Trailers".
Quote from: GaryA on June 01, 2022, 04:44:02 PM
Is it legal for a passenger car to use a truck bypass? This was prompted by Memorial Day traffic at the Lebec 5/99 merge, where taking the truck bypass was noticeably faster than staying in the car lanes. The signage (https://goo.gl/maps/HuJBbCjZSvHXHPhu5) in this case has a BGS over the car lanes with "Passenger Cars / Buses", and a BWS over the truck lanes with "Trucks / All Trailers".
Yes, as far as I know. I use the truck bypass on I-5 northbound at CA 14 almost every time I'm heading into Santa Clarita due to the general use lanes clogging.
QuoteIs it legal for a passenger car to use a truck bypass?
Yes, it's absolutely legal. The restriction is on the trucks, not you. https://www.pe.com/2018/01/21/on-the-road-what-are-the-rules-for-truck-bypass-lanes/
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 01, 2022, 04:50:45 PM
Quote from: GaryA on June 01, 2022, 04:44:02 PM
Is it legal for a passenger car to use a truck bypass? This was prompted by Memorial Day traffic at the Lebec 5/99 merge, where taking the truck bypass was noticeably faster than staying in the car lanes. The signage (https://goo.gl/maps/HuJBbCjZSvHXHPhu5) in this case has a BGS over the car lanes with "Passenger Cars / Buses", and a BWS over the truck lanes with "Trucks / All Trailers".
Yes, as far as I know. I use the truck bypass on I-5 northbound at CA 14 almost every time I'm heading into Santa Clarita due to the general use lanes clogging.
I often do the same eastbound on CA 60 at the I-215 split near Moreno Valley for the same reason. The truck bypass is often almost empty.
Quote from: GaryA on June 01, 2022, 04:44:02 PM
Is it legal for a passenger car to use a truck bypass? This was prompted by Memorial Day traffic at the Lebec 5/99 merge, where taking the truck bypass was noticeably faster than staying in the car lanes. The signage (https://goo.gl/maps/HuJBbCjZSvHXHPhu5) in this case has a BGS over the car lanes with "Passenger Cars / Buses", and a BWS over the truck lanes with "Trucks / All Trailers".
I think so. The northbound I-5/I-405 truck bypass in Orange County even has local traffic (from Lake Forest Dr and Bake Pkwy) merge in to the truck bypass lanes, so it has to be legal for non-trucks to use those lanes.
A Caltrans Worker has died on duty from Hit and Run Injuries on a section of I-80 in Vacaville area.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/caltrans-worker-killed-vacaville-interstate-hihgway-80-hit-run/
Quote from: bing101 on June 05, 2022, 11:39:58 PM
A Caltrans Worker has died on duty from Hit and Run Injuries on a section of I-80 in Vacaville area.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/caltrans-worker-killed-vacaville-interstate-hihgway-80-hit-run/
RIP. I hope her children do okay. Sure, they'll have something from the memorial fund and maybe some insurance, but they need a mom, not just a pile of money.
I find it interesting that I-5 and US 101 both have different standards for assigning mileage control cities.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52081350128_1d4ec26bba_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130504723_96a4cc863c_c.jpg)
One has two destinations (the interstate) and the other ( the US Route) has three.
On other roads it seems to be the latter as I mostly encountered three destinations. Yet I-5 seems to have a different standard.
I-10 also has signs with two control cities. At least here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9174197,-116.6187184,3a,36y,309.8h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLEXBiUAIReTjP-e6Q68iSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9244663,-116.859552,3a,40.4y,76.14h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgcFRCeSrsB8CW6DyjLgZgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en). But not here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.607325,-114.5640148,3a,15y,93.49h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stgxBGWDfdrxZg5vkANOiww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)or here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7091046,-116.1484359,3a,15y,118.51h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sutzbSYPRsn931mXhaC6NLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 11:27:24 AM
I-10 also has signs with two control cities. At least here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9174197,-116.6187184,3a,36y,309.8h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLEXBiUAIReTjP-e6Q68iSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9244663,-116.859552,3a,40.4y,76.14h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgcFRCeSrsB8CW6DyjLgZgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en). But not here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.607325,-114.5640148,3a,15y,93.49h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stgxBGWDfdrxZg5vkANOiww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)or here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7091046,-116.1484359,3a,15y,118.51h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sutzbSYPRsn931mXhaC6NLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).
It takes a keen eye to spot the acknowledgement of the existence of that Other Desert City (Phoenix) by name on I-10.
Quote from: jdbx on June 08, 2022, 12:44:01 PM
Quote from: skluth on June 08, 2022, 11:27:24 AM
I-10 also has signs with two control cities. At least here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9174197,-116.6187184,3a,36y,309.8h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLEXBiUAIReTjP-e6Q68iSw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9244663,-116.859552,3a,40.4y,76.14h,89.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgcFRCeSrsB8CW6DyjLgZgw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en). But not here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.607325,-114.5640148,3a,15y,93.49h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stgxBGWDfdrxZg5vkANOiww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en)or here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7091046,-116.1484359,3a,15y,118.51h,91.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sutzbSYPRsn931mXhaC6NLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en).
It takes a keen eye to spot the acknowledgement of the existence of that Other Desert City (Phoenix) by name on I-10.
Which also happens to lie just east of the "other Desert Cities."
Driving home from Berkeley early this morning around 1:30 AM...saw Caltrans crews working on the signage for the I-80 westbound ramp at 5th Street in SF (the ramp that used to carry US 40 and 50 to surface streets prior to the 1950s).
Essentially they were adding the external left exit tab (which had been missing for a couple of weeks) to this sign. The previous sign had an internal exit tab dating from about 2009 or so.
Interesting to contrast that with another 2022-era sign install set, the stretch of US 101/Bayshore Freeway between the Central Freeway and Alemany Maze, where all the new signs have internal exit tabs (particularly at Silver Avenue and at the ramps to I-280)! The signs along this segment replace retroreflective, no-exit-number installations from around 2000-2003.
Quote from: roadman65 on June 08, 2022, 10:26:42 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52130504723_96a4cc863c_c.jpg)
One has two destinations (the interstate) and the other ( the US Route) has three.
On other roads it seems to be the latter as I mostly encountered three destinations. Yet I-5 seems to have a different standard.
If I'd been designing that sign on I-5, I would have put a third destination, for Mount Shasta.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2022, 03:26:52 PM
Driving home from Berkeley early this morning around 1:30 AM...saw Caltrans crews working on the signage for the I-80 westbound ramp at 5th Street in SF (the ramp that used to carry US 40 and 50 to surface streets prior to the 1950s).
Essentially they were adding the external left exit tab (which had been missing for a couple of weeks) to this sign. The previous sign had an internal exit tab dating from about 2009 or so.
Interesting to contrast that with another 2022-era sign install set, the stretch of US 101/Bayshore Freeway between the Central Freeway and Alemany Maze, where all the new signs have internal exit tabs (particularly at Silver Avenue and at the ramps to I-280)! The signs along this segment replace retroreflective, no-exit-number installations from around 2000-2003.
Interesting observations! I haven't traveled through there since January this year, I always been on freeways south of I-80. But I will be driving to the East Bay this Sunday. I love to see one of these external exit tabs pop up in the wild!
Couple observations as I drove to work and home after chit chatting with friends:
- The US 101 express lanes from I-380 to CA 84 are still under construction. It appears the speed limit through this whole stretch of freeway is 55 MPH. According to GSV these 55 MPH signs have been there for a couple years. I was disappointed! Despite this, I still managed to drive 28 miles (via I-280, I-380, US 101, CA 84) in 40 minutes at 8 AM!
- Went back home by driving on I-280 from Sand Hill Road. I am reminded of how little light pollution there is. Yes there's lampposts and low beams from cars. But in the background there's little to no lights.
Here is a tour of the current alignment of CA-58 from Barstow to Bakersfield. Video by Rockersk08.
Great video! The age references made me feel super old! :-D
Back in 2017 my friend and I were on an Elvis pilgrimage to Memphis. One of our stops was at a 2nd rate motel in Mojave. The windmills are lit up at night so that was quite the display!
Rick
There are first rate motels in Mojave? :pan:
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on June 11, 2022, 04:13:58 PM
There are first rate motels in Mojave? :pan:
No, but there are 4th rate ones. Went to stay at one and asked the see the room. It was dusk, the, um, innkeeper opened the door and turned on the light and the floor was a solid mass of roaches scattering.
Quote from: TheStranger on June 08, 2022, 03:26:52 PM
Driving home from Berkeley early this morning around 1:30 AM...saw Caltrans crews working on the signage for the I-80 westbound ramp at 5th Street in SF (the ramp that used to carry US 40 and 50 to surface streets prior to the 1950s).
Essentially they were adding the external left exit tab (which had been missing for a couple of weeks) to this sign. The previous sign had an internal exit tab dating from about 2009 or so.
Interesting to contrast that with another 2022-era sign install set, the stretch of US 101/Bayshore Freeway between the Central Freeway and Alemany Maze, where all the new signs have internal exit tabs (particularly at Silver Avenue and at the ramps to I-280)! The signs along this segment replace retroreflective, no-exit-number installations from around 2000-2003.
Your observations are indeed correct and I was able to snap some photos that show some of the new signs, including these external left exit tabs!
The Seventh Street exit sign now has an exit number:
(https://i.imgur.com/tftrvd4.jpg)
The Vermont Street exit has an exit number and the truck restriction is now clarified for those over 3 (American) tons:
(https://i.imgur.com/0XjGSxd.jpg)
Now the best for last, the external left exit tabs for exit 2B of I-80 west. There is also one for exit 2A that I did not take a photo of. I did not see any other external exit tabs other than those three.
(https://i.imgur.com/BsACLdO.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CJePGww.jpg)
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Certainly didn't help that labor unions in the affected communities strongly opposed it. It read as though nobody even bothered to consult anyone at the community level.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Certainly didn't help that labor unions in the affected communities strongly opposed it. It read as though nobody even bothered to consult anyone at the community level.
Also, why would Governor Newsom sign a bill banning freeway improvements his administration has supported?
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:43:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Certainly didn't help that labor unions in the affected communities strongly opposed it. It read as though nobody even bothered to consult anyone at the community level.
Also, why would Governor Newsom sign a bill banning freeway improvements his administration has supported?
Really annoying squeaky wheels got greased
Got to travel along 91, 55, and 22 yesterday, and got some photos (including the external tab photo I posted in the thread about those) -
- Freeway name sign (Chino Valley Freeway) at the 71/83 junction
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52185309665_58d8cc572c_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvrmsn)_DSC8789e (https://flic.kr/p/2nvrmsn) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
- Old button copy on 55 south
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52185308935_3d89bfef75_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvrmeM)_DSC8801c (https://flic.kr/p/2nvrmeM) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52185077904_1b7f8c3221_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvqayu)_DSC8804c (https://flic.kr/p/2nvqayu) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
- Interesting to see that the newer, retroreflective (with exit tab) sign has the freeway name alone on it for 22 west (Garden Grove Freeway), while the older sign has a control city plus freeway name.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52185077954_1f2a80f3f4_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvqazm)_DSC8803c (https://flic.kr/p/2nvqazm) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
Don't think I've seen anybody else posting this but at least in Los Angeles they're updating some freeway signs again! :D
(https://i.imgur.com/LXrnRNZl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ipQ7PCil.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9Zx0Poil.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Certainly didn't help that labor unions in the affected communities strongly opposed it. It read as though nobody even bothered to consult anyone at the community level.
There were so many problems with that bill:
1. It banned
all freeway expansion in high poverty areas, even ones that did not require any right of way acquisition
2. It even banned new carpool lanes
3. It didn't consider electric vehicles
4. It applied even to areas, think San Bernardino and the Central Valley, that have no public transit to speak of
5. To define "high poverty", it used an index (https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false) developed by a private group that, by definition, classifies half the state as disadvantaged. So even if California's housing and air quality issues were solved magically, it would still ban freeway expansion in half the state
I'm definitely sure that the various lobbying groups lining up against the bill made these points clear. The fact that it got as far as it did is scary.
That's the best legislative news I have heard in a long time. I hope that "Clown World" has peaked in California, but I am not for certain. If municipalities like San Francisco want to prohibit expansion (as I believe they already have), that's their business. San Francisco and Los Angeles are very different than Bakersfield or areas of the Inland Empire.
Quote from: coldmoney21 on June 30, 2022, 06:06:50 PM
Don't think I've seen anybody else posting this but at least in Los Angeles they're updating some freeway signs again! :D
(https://i.imgur.com/LXrnRNZl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ipQ7PCil.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9Zx0Poil.jpg)
Unfortunately, it looks like they're updating signs very poorly...
No exit numbers with the Gabe Ave assembly.
And the two signs for James Wood Blvd could've been designed better–less wide, and with external tabs, both of which would've had less wind loading... (The panel is already taller than the truss, which until the last decade or so was a no-no for CalTrans.) I wonder if they just slapped up new panels on top of an existing sign.
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2022, 04:15:21 PM
Quote from: coldmoney21 on June 30, 2022, 06:06:50 PM
Don't think I've seen anybody else posting this but at least in Los Angeles they're updating some freeway signs again! :D
(https://i.imgur.com/LXrnRNZl.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ipQ7PCil.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/9Zx0Poil.jpg)
Unfortunately, it looks like they're updating signs very poorly...
No exit numbers with the Gabe Ave assembly.
And the two signs for James Wood Blvd could've been designed better–less wide, and with external tabs, both of which would've had less wind loading... (The panel is already taller than the truss, which until the last decade or so was a no-no for CalTrans.) I wonder if they just slapped up new panels on top of an existing sign.
I'm not sure really. I know they want to use the big yellow exit only labels wherever they can. And well they still like the inner exit tab. These are brand new signs so idk what rules they're following haha 😅
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2022, 04:15:21 PM
Unfortunately, it looks like they're updating signs very poorly...
And the two signs for James Wood Blvd could've been designed better–less wide, and with external tabs, both of which would've had less wind loading... (The panel is already taller than the truss, which until the last decade or so was a no-no for CalTrans.) I wonder if they just slapped up new panels on top of an existing sign.
Actually, having 110" and 120" tall sign panels on trusses designed for 100" panels has been standard practice in California for quite sometime. IINM, Caltrans did have "deeper" trusses (dating back to the 70's) but they phased those out around Y2K in favor of using the "100-inch" truss for 100", 110" and 120" tall panels.
Here's another example of the MUTCD standard Exit Only signage in Southern California, along US 101 north (Ventura Freeway westbound)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191222849_455590a6df_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP)_DSC8985 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2022, 01:45:36 PM
Here's another example of the MUTCD standard Exit Only signage in Southern California, along US 101 north (Ventura Freeway westbound)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191222849_455590a6df_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP)_DSC8985 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
I'm guessing this is something new they're implementing in California? I know other states have that kind of signage. It was not something Caltrans used previously.
Here is a look at the Newhall Interchange in 1992.
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 09:51:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 30, 2022, 03:36:53 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 30, 2022, 03:13:51 PM
AB 1778 is dead!
https://cal.streetsblog.org/2022/06/29/no-freeway-expansion-bill-dies-in-senate-committee/
Hopefully this year's elections bring a less woke legislature and this is the last we'll ever see of such an asinine idea.
Certainly didn't help that labor unions in the affected communities strongly opposed it. It read as though nobody even bothered to consult anyone at the community level.
There were so many problems with that bill:
1. It banned all freeway expansion in high poverty areas, even ones that did not require any right of way acquisition
2. It even banned new carpool lanes
3. It didn't consider electric vehicles
4. It applied even to areas, think San Bernardino and the Central Valley, that have no public transit to speak of
5. To define "high poverty", it used an index (https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false) developed by a private group that, by definition, classifies half the state as disadvantaged. So even if California's housing and air quality issues were solved magically, it would still ban freeway expansion in half the state
I'm definitely sure that the various lobbying groups lining up against the bill made these points clear. The fact that it got as far as it did is scary.
According to the article, the bill's author had agreed to amendments which would have limited some of the above, including one which would have limited the bill's enforcement to LA County. However, being defeated 8-2 in committee is a sign that it was doomed regardless of how many amendments were added to limit the bill's dubious restrictions.
Quote from: coldmoney21 on July 05, 2022, 03:06:35 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 03, 2022, 01:45:36 PM
Here's another example of the MUTCD standard Exit Only signage in Southern California, along US 101 north (Ventura Freeway westbound)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191222849_455590a6df_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP)_DSC8985 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvXEeP) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
I'm guessing this is something new they're implementing in California? I know other states have that kind of signage. It was not something Caltrans used previously.
Yeah, the classic CalTrans exit only signage was not quite as solidly yellow:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191452090_3020c0d493_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvYQof)_DSC8984 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvYQof) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52191453165_2a3c168a0f_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2nvYQGM)_DSC8969 (https://flic.kr/p/2nvYQGM) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
The new Sixth St Bridge opens Monday (https://ktla.com/news/local-news/history-in-the-making-socal-residents-wowed-by-new-6th-street-bridge/). It will be open today for nonmotorized traffic.
Don't know if this has been discussed before on AARoads (feel free to link) , but...
On another family of mb's, I was reminded of Cali's agricultural checkpoints at the major highway entrances to the Golden State.
My questions are...
Who must stop?
Are they like truck weigh stations - open only at certain hours? When closed, what can/must transporters of risky commodies do?
How busy are they?
Quote from: ixnay on July 11, 2022, 09:50:30 PM
Don't know if this has been discussed before on AARoads (feel free to link) , but...
On another family of mb's, I was reminded of Cali's agricultural checkpoints at the major highway entrances to the Golden State.
My questions are...
Who must stop?
Are they like truck weigh stations - open only at certain hours? When closed, what can/must transporters of risky commodies do?
How busy are they?
There's this discussion about the state's agricultural stations: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.0
AFAIK, all traffic heading inbound to the state must stop and the stations aren't grade separated so those are the places on the Interstate with stop signs LOL. How long one gets stopped can vary. I think if one is hauling a trailer (either a truck or a pick-up truck with something like a speedboat) they are more likely to be stopped. If one indicates they possess fruit they will get stopped longer.
I believe these checkpoints are open 24/7 and they can get busy in holiday/weekends, especially the checkpoint at I-15 south of Primm, NV.
Question: I've only lived in SoCal for about 7 years so I don't know too much about when these projects underway or soon to be were actually proposed. Is Caltrans still going to plan more projects that include new GP lanes or are they doing away with that entirely? I'm specifically referring to future projects that haven't been approved yet. Not ones already under discussion.
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
I believe these checkpoints are open 24/7 and they can get busy in holiday/weekends, especially the checkpoint at I-15 south of Primm, NV.
They're not (open 24/7, that is), or at least the Primm one isn't. I do that drive several times a year, usually very early Sunday morning (between 2 and 4 AM) and there's never been anyone there, you just drive right through.
Quote from: FredAkbar on July 13, 2022, 02:46:38 AM
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
I believe these checkpoints are open 24/7 and they can get busy in holiday/weekends, especially the checkpoint at I-15 south of Primm, NV.
They're not (open 24/7, that is), or at least the Primm one isn't. I do that drive several times a year, usually very early Sunday morning (between 2 and 4 AM) and there's never been anyone there, you just drive right through.
On occasion I've seen the Ag station on US 199 closed during the middle of the day.
When they are open, everyone must stop, but the stop may be very brief (waive through) or the officer may ask a brief question ("Are you carrying any fruit?") or more questions or search the car. For passenger cars it's usually wave through or a single question, trucks probably get more.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2022, 11:00:32 AM
When they are open, everyone must stop, but the stop may be very brief (waive through) or the officer may ask a brief question ("Are you carrying any fruit?") or more questions or search the car. For passenger cars it's usually wave through or a single question, trucks probably get more.
That's pretty much the case when Big Rig Steve passes through one (usually I-15 or I-80). If he's not carrying any sort of fresh veggies, fruits and the like, he'll respond to the state inspector with something like '"razor blades" or "frozen beef", etc, and be waved on through. Then he might get prePassed through the scale and be on his way.
He's had much longer paperwork delays at the state 'port of entry' inspection stations on I-80 in Wyoming.
Als for the interruption of freeway standards, I look upon them in the same manner as I look upon tollgates.
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2022, 11:00:32 AM
When they are open, everyone must stop, but the stop may be very brief (waive through) or the officer may ask a brief question ("Are you carrying any fruit?") or more questions or search the car. For passenger cars it's usually wave through or a single question, trucks probably get more.
The one at Meyers on US 50 has had a bypass lane for locals and Tahoe visitors for many years because of the horrendous backups that would occur, particularly on Sunday/end of holiday afternoons with returning-from-Tahoe traffic. It's at a natural choke point for folks coming into CA but it also snares south Tahoe traffic so they had to do something since moving it closer to the state line wasn't an option. The one on I-80 in Truckee used to have the same thing before they moved that whole inspection station three miles eastward to be on the Reno side of Truckee/CA267/CA89 to address that same problem. Way back when (before bypass lanes and station relocations) having skis on the roof rack was a guaranteed pass to get waved through.
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
There's this discussion about the state's agricultural stations: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.0
Which mentions cars entering from NV or returning to CA being waved through. Are they less lenient with Arizona cars? Or Oregon cars?
Quote from: ixnay on July 13, 2022, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
There's this discussion about the state's agricultural stations: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.0
Which mentions cars entering from NV or returning to CA being waved through. Are they less lenient with Arizona cars?
I've entered CA using I-40 and CA 62 a couple times each and I-10 once. I've always been waved through but I had California plates.
Quote from: skluth on July 13, 2022, 08:48:59 PM
Quote from: ixnay on July 13, 2022, 08:30:08 PM
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2022, 10:55:42 PM
There's this discussion about the state's agricultural stations: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=31044.0)
Which mentions cars entering from NV or returning to CA being waved through. Are they less lenient with Arizona cars?
I've entered CA using I-40 and CA 62 a couple times each and I-10 once. I've always been waved through but I had California plates.
I've been waved through without 'em. They really don't care about passenger cars.
On a recent trip to Northern California with Washington plates:
I-5 SB - Stopped, asked a brief question and waved through
US 199 SB - Stopped, asked a brief question and waved through
US 101 SB - Station closed, no stop required
(https://i.imgur.com/lWQCWgK.jpg)
This early plan for Irvine Ranch from 1961 (which for some reason includes land that's now part of Newport Beach) shows SR 73 veering Southward to end at the Pacific Coast Highway (which may be upgraded to freeway standards here?)
Quote from: kernals12 on July 22, 2022, 08:32:39 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/lWQCWgK.jpg)
This early plan for Irvine Ranch from 1961 (which for some reason includes land that's now part of Newport Beach) shows SR 73 veering Southward to end at the Pacific Coast Highway (which may be upgraded to freeway standards here?)
I don't believe the Pacific Coast Freeway ever really got too far into the planning stages. I've seen CHPW references to the facility when I was writing the blogs for CA 22 and CA 107, I'm sure there is lots more.
Here is a tour by Asphalt Planet. Note as of July 2022 the Redwood Street overpass in Vallejo is under renovation. Some of the video will include Tennessee Street overpass in the renovation process.
I'm still trying to figure out why they made the new cable-stayed eastern portion of the Bay Bridge a single-level span while the western part (including the intermediate tunnel) is still double-decked. In any case, it is now the most elegant span in America, and I think it's cool that the Golden State Warriors incorporated the new eastern span into their logo.
Quote from: Henry on July 25, 2022, 10:38:40 AM
I'm still trying to figure out why they made the new cable-stayed eastern portion of the Bay Bridge a single-level span while the western part (including the intermediate tunnel) is still double-decked. In any case, it is now the most elegant span in America, and I think it's cool that the Golden State Warriors incorporated the new eastern span into their logo.
It is probably because of a public fear of driving on double decked structures in earthquake-prone places.
Mike
Just for a nicer view than the underside of a bridge deck.
PS, I don't think you have to go very far at all to find a much more elegant span than the Bay Bridge.
SR 89 between Markleeville and SR 88 will be closed for a while. Yesterday's monsoon storms dropped close to 3 inches of rain on the Tamarack burn scar, leading to massive flash flooding. At least one segment of SR 89 was washed out and quite a bit more is covered in mud and debris. Caltrans District 10 has pictures and more info on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/posts/pfbid0EvVTsTETYCtQi2quEZDv9qmu4ZEwRwKUhviJpJY9dNFQ5UrJQdiqofX4Xbz2RE3Zl)
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:02:42 PM
SR 89 between Markleeville and SR 88 will be closed for a while. Yesterday's monsoon storms dropped close to 3 inches of rain on the Tamarack burn scar, leading to massive flash flooding. At least one segment of SR 89 was washed out and quite a bit more is covered in mud and debris. Caltrans District 10 has pictures and more info on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/posts/pfbid0EvVTsTETYCtQi2quEZDv9qmu4ZEwRwKUhviJpJY9dNFQ5UrJQdiqofX4Xbz2RE3Zl)
The washout on SR 89 is close enough to the town of Markleeville that it's between the town and the only alternate dirt road access (Airport Road out to the Alpine County airstrip and Indian Creek Reservoir). So the only routes to Markleeville are via either Monitor Pass (SR 89 out to US 395) from the east or Ebbetts Pass (SR 4 over the Sierra crest to the west). Not a very convenient situation for those folks. More thunderstorms are in the forecast for the next couple days too. These fires strip all the vegetation which has an impact for a long time after the fire is extinguished.
Quote from: gonealookin on August 04, 2022, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:02:42 PM
SR 89 between Markleeville and SR 88 will be closed for a while. Yesterday's monsoon storms dropped close to 3 inches of rain on the Tamarack burn scar, leading to massive flash flooding. At least one segment of SR 89 was washed out and quite a bit more is covered in mud and debris. Caltrans District 10 has pictures and more info on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/posts/pfbid0EvVTsTETYCtQi2quEZDv9qmu4ZEwRwKUhviJpJY9dNFQ5UrJQdiqofX4Xbz2RE3Zl)
The washout on SR 89 is close enough to the town of Markleeville that it's between the town and the only alternate dirt road access (Airport Road out to the Alpine County airstrip and Indian Creek Reservoir). So the only routes to Markleeville are via either Monitor Pass (SR 89 out to US 395) from the east or Ebbetts Pass (SR 4 over the Sierra crest to the west). Not a very convenient situation for those folks. More thunderstorms are in the forecast for the next couple days too. These fires strip all the vegetation which has an impact for a long time after the fire is extinguished.
Yeah, Monitor Pass is the recommended detour. Alpine County is in for a wild few years with post-fire effects. I'm not looking forward to dealing with Caldor Fire scar slides/flooding in the position I'm about to join.
Let's just hope that Monitor Pass stays open, because that's the only good way in/out of Markleeville for the foreseeable future. Closest stores/services are in the Carson Valley and trucks serving the few businesses in Markleeville can't easily get over Ebbetts Pass.
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on August 04, 2022, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:02:42 PM
SR 89 between Markleeville and SR 88 will be closed for a while. Yesterday's monsoon storms dropped close to 3 inches of rain on the Tamarack burn scar, leading to massive flash flooding. At least one segment of SR 89 was washed out and quite a bit more is covered in mud and debris. Caltrans District 10 has pictures and more info on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/posts/pfbid0EvVTsTETYCtQi2quEZDv9qmu4ZEwRwKUhviJpJY9dNFQ5UrJQdiqofX4Xbz2RE3Zl)
The washout on SR 89 is close enough to the town of Markleeville that it's between the town and the only alternate dirt road access (Airport Road out to the Alpine County airstrip and Indian Creek Reservoir). So the only routes to Markleeville are via either Monitor Pass (SR 89 out to US 395) from the east or Ebbetts Pass (SR 4 over the Sierra crest to the west). Not a very convenient situation for those folks. More thunderstorms are in the forecast for the next couple days too. These fires strip all the vegetation which has an impact for a long time after the fire is extinguished.
Yeah, Monitor Pass is the recommended detour. Alpine County is in for a wild few years with post-fire effects. I'm not looking forward to dealing with Caldor Fire scar slides/flooding in the position I'm about to join.
Let's just hope that Monitor Pass stays open, because that's the only good way in/out of Markleeville for the foreseeable future. Closest stores/services are in the Carson Valley and trucks serving the few businesses in Markleeville can't easily get over Ebbetts Pass.
Well, Ebbetts Pass is closed after today's rain due to a slide. No estimated reopening time per Caltrans District 10. Only way in or out of Markleeville is Monitor Pass.
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/article/news/westbound-highway-37-to-close-from-vallejo-to-sears-point-for-five-nights/?ref=moststory
A section of CA-37 to be repaved.
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 09:15:09 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on August 04, 2022, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: cl94 on August 04, 2022, 01:02:42 PM
SR 89 between Markleeville and SR 88 will be closed for a while. Yesterday's monsoon storms dropped close to 3 inches of rain on the Tamarack burn scar, leading to massive flash flooding. At least one segment of SR 89 was washed out and quite a bit more is covered in mud and debris. Caltrans District 10 has pictures and more info on Twitter (https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10) and Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/CaltransDistrict10/posts/pfbid0EvVTsTETYCtQi2quEZDv9qmu4ZEwRwKUhviJpJY9dNFQ5UrJQdiqofX4Xbz2RE3Zl)
The washout on SR 89 is close enough to the town of Markleeville that it's between the town and the only alternate dirt road access (Airport Road out to the Alpine County airstrip and Indian Creek Reservoir). So the only routes to Markleeville are via either Monitor Pass (SR 89 out to US 395) from the east or Ebbetts Pass (SR 4 over the Sierra crest to the west). Not a very convenient situation for those folks. More thunderstorms are in the forecast for the next couple days too. These fires strip all the vegetation which has an impact for a long time after the fire is extinguished.
Yeah, Monitor Pass is the recommended detour. Alpine County is in for a wild few years with post-fire effects. I'm not looking forward to dealing with Caldor Fire scar slides/flooding in the position I'm about to join.
Let's just hope that Monitor Pass stays open, because that's the only good way in/out of Markleeville for the foreseeable future. Closest stores/services are in the Carson Valley and trucks serving the few businesses in Markleeville can't easily get over Ebbetts Pass.
Well, Ebbetts Pass is closed after today's rain due to a slide. No estimated reopening time per Caltrans District 10. Only way in or out of Markleeville is Monitor Pass.
Ebbetts Pass was reopened rather quickly. However, SR 89 north of Markleeville is going to have an extended closure, leaving that Monitor Pass route as the primary access. https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2022/aug/06/highway-89-repairs-could-take-month/ (https://www.recordcourier.com/news/2022/aug/06/highway-89-repairs-could-take-month/)
Quote"That lane is undermined to the point where we have another event ... it's just not safe," CalTrans representative Bob Highfill told a town hall meeting in Markleeville.
State workers will install a larger box culvert on Highway 89 at the entrance to the historic town. That process could take 4-5 weeks.
...
Crews were working on an alternative route into town in hopes of having emergency access by Wednesday.
Highfill said a temporary bridge brought to help improve access ended up being short of the 55 feet required for the span. He said bringing in a new temporary bridge would take as long as installing the culvert.
Those who are interested in fragments of old US 101: It looks like the section of original concrete (sometimes labelled Vendell Rd) branching off of Agoura Rd near Liberty Canyon Rd in Agoura Hills will probably be largely covered up if not destroyed by the Annenberg Wildlife Crossing as that is constructed over the next few years.
GSV reference: https://goo.gl/maps/zJkChGFVoqC9bpG98, although much of the concrete was trenched and patched recently and is in worse shape than shown in GSV.
It looks like SR-190 in Death Valley is going to be experiencing some closures for another week: https://apnews.com/article/floods-california-department-of-transportation-climate-and-environment-a09b3c47f1d941eeb889618e35ffc375
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 09, 2022, 06:08:13 PM
It looks like SR-190 in Death Valley is going to be experiencing some closures for another week: https://apnews.com/article/floods-california-department-of-transportation-climate-and-environment-a09b3c47f1d941eeb889618e35ffc375
Let's look for the downsides of record rainfall in one of the driest places on earth
Quote from: kernals12 on August 09, 2022, 07:49:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 09, 2022, 06:08:13 PM
It looks like SR-190 in Death Valley is going to be experiencing some closures for another week: https://apnews.com/article/floods-california-department-of-transportation-climate-and-environment-a09b3c47f1d941eeb889618e35ffc375
Let's look for the downsides of record rainfall in one of the driest places on earth
The reason those side-canyons in Death Valley and parts of southern Nevada and Arizona look the way they do is these once-a-decade events that send incredible amounts of water and debris rushing through in a very short amount of time. Flash floods in the desert are spectacular, and very deadly if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We had rain in the mountains around Palm Springs also. The tram up Mt San Jacinto is closed (https://kesq.com/news/2022/08/09/palm-springs-aerial-tramway-closed-until-monday-due-to-flash-flood-clean-up/) currently as the road washed out a couple days ago. It wasn't as much rain and therefore not as damaged as it was three years ago when we got 3"+ rain in one day (https://kesq.com/news/2020/02/11/a-day-of-heavy-rainfall-led-to-destruction-through-the-coachella-valley-last-valentines-day/), but even half an inch of rain can cause significant damage.
Rain on the mountain does not mean it rains in the valley. I've only seen a trace in town while the surrounding mountains have gotten a fair amount of rain from this extended monsoon.
Very weird story from yesterday. A small plane made an emergency landing on the 91 Freeway in Corona (https://abc7.com/corona-plane-crash-landing/12112660/). The pilot needed to make an emergency landing and took advantage of a gap in freeway traffic. He did hit the back of a pickup and the plane itself is a wreck but fortunately nobody was hurt. Someone's car video amazingly captured the crash which happened just behind them.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 09, 2022, 06:08:13 PM
It looks like SR-190 in Death Valley is going to be experiencing some closures for another week: https://apnews.com/article/floods-california-department-of-transportation-climate-and-environment-a09b3c47f1d941eeb889618e35ffc375
The road was covered for 30 miles, so they closed 80 miles of it?
Quote from: skluth on August 10, 2022, 12:17:04 PM
Very weird story from yesterday. A small plane made an emergency landing on the 91 Freeway in Corona (https://abc7.com/corona-plane-crash-landing/12112660/). The pilot needed to make an emergency landing and took advantage of a gap in freeway traffic. He did hit the back of a pickup and the plane itself is a wreck but fortunately nobody was hurt. Someone's car video amazingly captured the crash which happened just behind them.
These stories make me angry. I worked in Concord for a while and could easily have been on I-680 when this one happened (https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Small-plane-crashes-on-I-680-at-rush-hour-Girl-2767531.php). A busy freeway is not an emergency runway; if the pilot tries to save his own life by setting down on the freeway he's putting a lot of innocent people at risk. From that one in 2004:
QuoteA four-seat airplane crashed on a busy Contra Costa County highway shortly after takeoff Tuesday, severely injuring an 11-year old girl as it sliced open the minivan in which she was riding, and burst into flames during the evening commute.
Miraculously, no one else was seriously injured in the crash, and the pilot and his son walked away from the charred wreckage of the Piper Turbo Arrow that littered Interstate 680 in Pleasant Hill.
"I just aimed for an open spot on the freeway and prayed," said the pilot, Robert Curt Hatch, 43, of Grand Junction, Colo.
The girl remained in surgery at Children's Hospital in Oakland last night after her leg was cut by the plane's propeller as it sliced through the roof and a door of her parents' minivan.
...
Hatch said the plane was going about 75 mph when it grazed a pickup truck before landing atop a blue Dodge Grand Caravan minivan. As the wings caught fire, the three-blade propeller ripped through a passenger door like a can opener, smashing the window, shearing the vehicle's body and slicing the girl's leg. The van skidded 100 feet before stopping.
Here's a subsequent follow-up (http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=495202fb-1977-4c1e-8c53-7ae9dfc31f0b). I hope Mr. Hatch is still paying for his actions.
QuoteNational Transportation Safety Board Judge Patrick Geraghty ordered Robert Curt Hatch's pilot license to be suspended for five months for operating an aircraft in a "reckless" manner. Hatch landed a malfunctioning Piper PA-28RT-201T, N2920C on a busy freeway April 13, 2004, seriously injuring an eleven-year-old girl.
...
(Hatch) landed the airplane on the southbound side of the I-680 freeway. During the landing rollout the left wing struck one vehicle and the right wing of the airplane struck a second vehicle, which spun the airplane around.
The propeller struck Arianna Jimenez, a passenger in the second vehicle, nearly amputating her leg. She has undergone numerous surgeries and will face more in the future. The family claims more than $1 million in medical bills. A civil suit is pending.
Hatch and his son escaped unharmed, and the aircraft was consumed by fire.
Quote from: pderocco on August 10, 2022, 07:50:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 09, 2022, 06:08:13 PM
It looks like SR-190 in Death Valley is going to be experiencing some closures for another week: https://apnews.com/article/floods-california-department-of-transportation-climate-and-environment-a09b3c47f1d941eeb889618e35ffc375
The road was covered for 30 miles, so they closed 80 miles of it?
I mean, I doubt there is anything at all in the other 50 miles out there, so may as well save folks the trouble of being able to drive 50 miles just to have to turn around and drive 50 miles back.
Yeah, there's not a lot on CA 190 other than Death Valley. I guess you could take in the brisk urbane sights of Darwin, or the usually closed Amargosa Opera House. ;)
Star Wars Canyon and a bunch of ghost towns around Panamint Valley are accessible from eastern CA 190. Too bad Horseshoe Meadows Road isn't part of eastern CA 190 anymore because that is one of the coolest roads in California (and higher than Tioga Pass Road).
Contract for the 105 express lanes has been awarded
https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/flatiron-wins-la-transport-schemes-worth-800m/
^^^^ that's bizarre metro hasn't said anything and I don't recall them identifying any preferred alternative. Their latest update on the website just shows the EA was released in 2020. Are we sure this isn't just appropriating money and/or engineering or design?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2022, 09:53:47 PM
^^^^ that's bizarre metro hasn't said anything and I don't recall them identifying any preferred alternative. Their latest update on the website just shows the EA was released in 2020. Are we sure this isn't just appropriating money and/or engineering or design?
Metro isn't the best at updating its website.
And the contract is worth $500 million. That'd be some very expensive engineering or design.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2022, 09:53:47 PM
^^^^ that's bizarre metro hasn't said anything and I don't recall them identifying any preferred alternative. Their latest update on the website just shows the EA was released in 2020. Are we sure this isn't just appropriating money and/or engineering or design?
Metro isn't the best at updating its website.
And the contract is worth $500 million. That'd be some very expensive engineering or design.
If so that absolutely sucks if they're only going with a simple conversion into an express lanes as one of the alternatives had two express lanes each way at the expense of a standard freeway shoulder. Yes freeways should have shoulders but traffic relief would be better I use this road at least once a week and two express lanes each way would be a god send.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2022, 10:16:03 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 30, 2022, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2022, 09:53:47 PM
^^^^ that's bizarre metro hasn't said anything and I don't recall them identifying any preferred alternative. Their latest update on the website just shows the EA was released in 2020. Are we sure this isn't just appropriating money and/or engineering or design?
Metro isn't the best at updating its website.
And the contract is worth $500 million. That'd be some very expensive engineering or design.
If so that absolutely sucks if they're only going with a simple conversion into an express lanes as one of the alternatives had two express lanes each way at the expense of a standard freeway shoulder. Yes freeways should have shoulders but traffic relief would be better I use this road at least once a week and two express lanes each way would be a god send.
Uh, they are going to be adding lanes
The press release says
QuoteThe I-105 ExpressLanes Project is a $500m scheme to convert two of the highway's lanes to "ExpressLanes" — that is, ones in which high-occupancy vehicles, vans and buses travel free whereas solo drivers are charged a toll. It will also add two new ExpressLanes, one to either carriageway.
^^^ I did not see that. I am happy they went this route. They will also be considering this option for the 405 between The Sepulveda Pass and the 105 once the Sepulveda Pass project wraps up. Hopefully the 405 South Bay curve improvements will include more lanes as well.
CARB's ban on internal combustion powered vehicles should make it a lot easier for highway expansions to pass environmental review, no?
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 01:31:01 PM
CARB's ban on internal combustion powered vehicles should make it a lot easier for highway expansions to pass environmental review, no?
Likely not. The current state stance is equally about pushing minimizing single occupant vehicle usage.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2022, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 01:31:01 PM
CARB's ban on internal combustion powered vehicles should make it a lot easier for highway expansions to pass environmental review, no?
Likely not. The current state stance is equally about pushing minimizing single occupant vehicle usage.
Politicians follow public opinion. The mayor of Portland recently said he didn't care if the widening of I-5 in his city led to more traffic since the cars will all be electric.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 03:20:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2022, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 01:31:01 PM
CARB's ban on internal combustion powered vehicles should make it a lot easier for highway expansions to pass environmental review, no?
Likely not. The current state stance is equally about pushing minimizing single occupant vehicle usage.
Politicians follow public opinion. The mayor of Portland recently said he didn't care if the widening of I-5 in his city led to more traffic since the cars will all be electric.
The last I checked the CTC didn't really seem to be too keen on what public opinion was. I'm not saying I like it, but I would expect the 2035 EV mandate to suddenly course change the direction the CTC has been going since 1978.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 31, 2022, 03:06:18 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on August 31, 2022, 01:31:01 PM
CARB's ban on internal combustion powered vehicles should make it a lot easier for highway expansions to pass environmental review, no?
Likely not. The current state stance is equally about pushing minimizing single occupant vehicle usage.
Environmental review (CEQA/NEPA) goes well beyond air quality impacts. Widening, particularly in urban areas, where acquisition of established neighborhoods is needed is still something that would be part of an EIR/EIS. With increasing public outrage over displacement/disruption of established communities, I don't see things getting much easier for expansion projects in built-up areas. Between that and the considerable land acquisition costs I can understand why CTC continues to focus on increasing capacity through increased efficiency (e.g. HOV) of the existing network, maximizing whatever remaining r/w is available, and incremental improvements here and there. If Moonbeam didn't sell off/abandon already-owned r/w back in the day perhaps it would have been easier to build/expand things in several key corridors around the state without needing to pick political fights with adjacent communities.
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Only took since 1949 for an upgrade. That corridor between Santa Cruz and Aptos is surprisingly one of the oldest freeways in Northern California.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Only took since 1949 for an upgrade. That corridor between Santa Cruz and Aptos is surprisingly one of the oldest freeways in Northern California.
This is honestly the stretch I hate the most on my trips along PCH from LA to SF. Six will help but it'll still get clogged up. There's a couple other sections that could use the six lane treatment after this one.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
No way! I was sure we'd see the Second Coming first.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
I got excited at first, thinking this was the addition of mainline lanes, but it appears this is for auxiliary lanes with shoulder-running for buses. At least that's the read I got from this graphic:
(https://santacruzlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/auxiliary-highway-1-lanes-santa-cruz-map-Aug-2022-RTC-800x442.jpg)
We enjoy vacationing down in Capitola and Aptos, and the final few miles along CA-1 is always the worst part of the trip. We can usually make it from our home to the CA-17/CA-1 interchange in about 90 minutes, but it's often an additional 45+ minutes to make the 5-7 mile journey the rest of the way. I hope these auxiliary lanes work, but mainline lanes would have been even better. I know, I know, beggars can't be choosers.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Only took since 1949 for an upgrade. That corridor between Santa Cruz and Aptos is surprisingly one of the oldest freeways in Northern California.
This is honestly the stretch I hate the most on my trips along PCH from LA to SF. Six will help but it'll still get clogged up. There's a couple other sections that could use the six lane treatment after this one.
As late I've been resorting to using the old surface alignment on Soquel. For whatever reason that still moves even in rush hour.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Only took since 1949 for an upgrade. That corridor between Santa Cruz and Aptos is surprisingly one of the oldest freeways in Northern California.
This is honestly the stretch I hate the most on my trips along PCH from LA to SF. Six will help but it'll still get clogged up. There's a couple other sections that could use the six lane treatment after this one.
As late I've been resorting to using the old surface alignment on Soquel. For whatever reason that still moves even in rush hour.
How about an offshore viaduct all the way from San Juan Capistrano to Eureka?
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 04:58:15 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 04:36:01 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 02, 2022, 11:36:35 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 08:58:33 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
Only took since 1949 for an upgrade. That corridor between Santa Cruz and Aptos is surprisingly one of the oldest freeways in Northern California.
This is honestly the stretch I hate the most on my trips along PCH from LA to SF. Six will help but it'll still get clogged up. There's a couple other sections that could use the six lane treatment after this one.
As late I've been resorting to using the old surface alignment on Soquel. For whatever reason that still moves even in rush hour.
How about an offshore viaduct all the way from San Juan Capistrano to Eureka?
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica. CA 61 and CA 87 come to mind as other offshore structures which were planned a similar manner but never built.
Quote from: jdbx on September 02, 2022, 04:10:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 02, 2022, 06:51:36 AM
HWY 1 in Santa Cruz is getting widened to 6 lanes!
https://santacruzlocal.org/2022/09/01/highway-1-widening-project-advances-in-santa-cruz-county/
I got excited at first, thinking this was the addition of mainline lanes, but it appears this is for auxiliary lanes with shoulder-running for buses. At least that's the read I got from this graphic:
(https://santacruzlocal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/auxiliary-highway-1-lanes-santa-cruz-map-Aug-2022-RTC-800x442.jpg)
We enjoy vacationing down in Capitola and Aptos, and the final few miles along CA-1 is always the worst part of the trip. We can usually make it from our home to the CA-17/CA-1 interchange in about 90 minutes, but it's often an additional 45+ minutes to make the 5-7 mile journey the rest of the way. I hope these auxiliary lanes work, but mainline lanes would have been even better. I know, I know, beggars can't be choosers.
It does say that a new lane is "expected" to be built whatever that really means. They worded that article weird.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 05:18:55 PM
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/BN3R6N4.jpg)
Quote from: Kniwt on September 03, 2022, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 05:18:55 PM
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/BN3R6N4.jpg)
Cool story. Thanks. I guess those giant islands off the coast of Dubai (https://www.worldatlas.com/islands/man-made-islands-of-dubai.html) weren't an original idea. Seeing how those are becoming a huge boondoggle (https://www.theinertia.com/environment/dubais-man-made-islands-for-the-super-rich-are-reportedly-sinking-back-into-the-sea/), it's even more reassuring that the Santa Monica Causeway never happened.
Quote from: Kniwt on September 03, 2022, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 05:18:55 PM
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/BN3R6N4.jpg)
That's not a viaduct, that's an island.
Priest-Coulterville Road probably doesn't require it's own thread. Nonetheless given it has has been around since the 1850s I did a blog on it anyways since I drove it on the way to Wards Ferry Road:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/09/priest-coulterville-road.html?m=1
All Lane Closure on Eastbound 91 from Main Street to I-15, Corona this weekend
Quote
The Riverside County Transportation Commission's 91 Refresh Project will require a weekend full closure of eastbound
91 from Main Street to just west of Interstate 15 in Corona, September 16-19, 2022. The eastbound 91 Express Lanes
and the eastbound 91 Main St. on-ramp also will be closed. The 15/91 Interchange will remain open.
Crews will be repaving lanes in this area. For the safety of motorists and crews, detours will be in place. Please avoid
the area or allow extra travel time due to anticipated significant delays.
WHEN:
Friday, September 16 at 9 p.m. to Monday, September 19 at 5 a.m. Dates are subject to change, due to weather and
other factors. If needed, the closure will be rescheduled as soon as possible.
WHERE:
- Weekend full closure of eastbound 91 lanes, east of Main St. to just west of Interstate 15
- Weekend full closure of eastbound Main St. on-ramp to eastbound 91
- Weekend full closure of eastbound 91 Express Lanes
More information including graphic of affected area here (https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/imgs/SD28/2022/sep/091322_eAlert/EB91_Closure_091622.pdf)
Quote from: skluth on September 03, 2022, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on September 03, 2022, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 05:18:55 PM
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/BN3R6N4.jpg)
Cool story. Thanks. I guess those giant islands off the coast of Dubai (https://www.worldatlas.com/islands/man-made-islands-of-dubai.html) weren't an original idea. Seeing how those are becoming a huge boondoggle (https://www.theinertia.com/environment/dubais-man-made-islands-for-the-super-rich-are-reportedly-sinking-back-into-the-sea/), it's even more reassuring that the Santa Monica Causeway never happened.
I suspect the bridges would have been tolled if it had been built.
Quote from: dbz77 on September 15, 2022, 12:38:47 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 03, 2022, 02:48:39 PM
Quote from: Kniwt on September 03, 2022, 01:31:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 02, 2022, 05:18:55 PM
Sarcasm aside those were suggested once for several freeways. If I recall correctly one was even planned for US 101A (now CA 1) in the vicinity of Santa Monica.
https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2003/Sept-2003/09_29_03_Dreaming_Big_The_Road_in_the_Sea.htm
(https://i.imgur.com/BN3R6N4.jpg)
Cool story. Thanks. I guess those giant islands off the coast of Dubai (https://www.worldatlas.com/islands/man-made-islands-of-dubai.html) weren't an original idea. Seeing how those are becoming a huge boondoggle (https://www.theinertia.com/environment/dubais-man-made-islands-for-the-super-rich-are-reportedly-sinking-back-into-the-sea/), it's even more reassuring that the Santa Monica Causeway never happened.
I suspect the bridges would have been tolled if it had been built.
Remember: back in those days, collecting tolls meant manned toll booths, requiring toll takers ($) and where cars would have to queue up (causing back-ups on the Santa Monica Freeway) and then accelerate, creating lots of pollution.
The whole idea was hare-brained and impractical.
I think that idea was borne from the "we can conquer nature no matter what" mentality that I thought died off with the Edwardian era, but seems to have existed until the environmentalism movement became popular. When I looked at the 1934 California route proposal that was featured in the (now) Caltrans journal, it had lines that showed routes going over the Sierra, or along the Klamath River. It seems the idea was "we'll just build these routes no matter how difficult, expensive, or environmentally sensitive."
Quote from: Quillz on September 16, 2022, 04:43:35 PM
I think that idea was borne from the "we can conquer nature no matter what" mentality that I thought died off with the Edwardian era, but seems to have existed until the environmentalism movement became popular. When I looked at the 1934 California route proposal that was featured in the (now) Caltrans journal, it had lines that showed routes going over the Sierra, or along the Klamath River. It seems the idea was "we'll just build these routes no matter how difficult, expensive, or environmentally sensitive."
At the same time as this, there were Plans for freeways in Malibu and Topanga Canyons.
Quote from: Quillz on September 16, 2022, 04:43:35 PM
I think that idea was borne from the "we can conquer nature no matter what" mentality that I thought died off with the Edwardian era, but seems to have existed until the environmentalism movement became popular. When I looked at the 1934 California route proposal that was featured in the (now) Caltrans journal, it had lines that showed routes going over the Sierra, or along the Klamath River. It seems the idea was "we'll just build these routes no matter how difficult, expensive, or environmentally sensitive."
The Piute Pass Highway and Kings Canyon Highway were both Forest Service driven. Both would have been maintained by the Forest Service as Sign Route 168 and 180 continuations. The Forest Service sought input from the Division of Highways pertaining to the Kings Canyon Highway between Cedar Grove and Kearsarge Pass. The expansion of General Grant National Park into Kings Canyon National Park absorbed both planned highways. Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was annexed into the early corridor concepts of for CA 190 over Mulky Pass. The strange thing is the most difficult portion of that highway which is now Horseshoe Meadows Road was actually constructed and is higher than Tioga Pass Road. The Division of Highways relinquished Horseshoe Meadows Road to the Forest Service in favor of a lower altitude routing. Considering the Forest Service constructed Sherman Pass Road during the 1970s I doubt they would object too much towards CA 190 being completed. To your point the mission statement of Caltrans and the CTC are very different compared to the Division of Highways and CHC. Either way, Sherman Pass Road more or less functions as the missing link between the segments of CA 190.
Pertaining to Topanga Canyon and Malibu Canyon. If any planned route was added to the 1959 Freeway & Expressway System then yes, it was in fact planned at least as an expressway if not fully limited access.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+forest+service+mission&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS924US924&oq=us+forest+service+mission&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l7j0i390l2.8975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)" This means the Forest Service's goal is to make sure there is enough forest for American industry to exploit both today and in the future. The service was formed in response to the rapid loss of virgin forest land in the late 19th century when nobody was replacing cut forests after harvesting and forest fires were just Acts of God. Their goal was always to support the lumber and related industries and only peripherally environmental from its early days under Pinchot who constantly clashed with Mather, the first Parks director. Ken Burns' documentary on the National Park (https://kenburns.com/films/national-parks/)s covers this feud pretty extensively.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+forest+service+mission&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS924US924&oq=us+forest+service+mission&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l7j0i390l2.8975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)" This means the Forest Service's goal is to make sure there is enough forest for American industry to exploit both today and in the future. The service was formed in response to the rapid loss of virgin forest land in the late 19th century when nobody was replacing cut forests after harvesting and forest fires were just Acts of God. Their goal was always to support the lumber and related industries and only peripherally environmental from its early days under Pinchot who constantly clashed with Mather, the first Parks director. Ken Burns' documentary on the National Park (https://kenburns.com/films/national-parks/)s covers this feud pretty extensively.
And to that end, a great way to get resources deep into a forest or mountain range is to build a road there. Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (which are in the area being discussed) both have very active logging activities which were even larger in the past.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2022, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+forest+service+mission&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS924US924&oq=us+forest+service+mission&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l7j0i390l2.8975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)" This means the Forest Service's goal is to make sure there is enough forest for American industry to exploit both today and in the future. The service was formed in response to the rapid loss of virgin forest land in the late 19th century when nobody was replacing cut forests after harvesting and forest fires were just Acts of God. Their goal was always to support the lumber and related industries and only peripherally environmental from its early days under Pinchot who constantly clashed with Mather, the first Parks director. Ken Burns' documentary on the National Park (https://kenburns.com/films/national-parks/)s covers this feud pretty extensively.
And to that end, a great way to get resources deep into a forest or mountain range is to build a road there. Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (which are in the area being discussed) both have very active logging activities which were even larger in the past.
Definitely. The Forest Service has been building and maintaining roads to support the logging industry for decades.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 12:02:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2022, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 11:53:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Forest Service's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+forest+service+mission&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS924US924&oq=us+forest+service+mission&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l7j0i390l2.8975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)" This means the Forest Service's goal is to make sure there is enough forest for American industry to exploit both today and in the future. The service was formed in response to the rapid loss of virgin forest land in the late 19th century when nobody was replacing cut forests after harvesting and forest fires were just Acts of God. Their goal was always to support the lumber and related industries and only peripherally environmental from its early days under Pinchot who constantly clashed with Mather, the first Parks director. Ken Burns' documentary on the National Park (https://kenburns.com/films/national-parks/)s covers this feud pretty extensively.
And to that end, a great way to get resources deep into a forest or mountain range is to build a road there. Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (which are in the area being discussed) both have very active logging activities which were even larger in the past.
Definitely. The Forest Service has been building and maintaining roads to support the logging industry for decades.
Worth noting, on the western flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountains part of the Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was built and now is known as Balch Park Road (Tulare County Route J37). Balch Park Road is one of the prime examples of a road used to haul timber just as it is to permit recreational access to Sequoia National Forest, Balch Camp and Mountain Home State Forest. Running into a logging truck coming the opposite on Balch Park Road can get interesting given how narrow the road deck is.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 16, 2022, 04:43:35 PM
I think that idea was borne from the "we can conquer nature no matter what" mentality that I thought died off with the Edwardian era, but seems to have existed until the environmentalism movement became popular. When I looked at the 1934 California route proposal that was featured in the (now) Caltrans journal, it had lines that showed routes going over the Sierra, or along the Klamath River. It seems the idea was "we'll just build these routes no matter how difficult, expensive, or environmentally sensitive."
The Piute Pass Highway and Kings Canyon Highway were both Forest Service driven. Both would have been maintained by the Forest Service as Sign Route 168 and 180 continuations. The Forest Service sought input from the Division of Highways pertaining to the Kings Canyon Highway between Cedar Grove and Kearsarge Pass. The expansion of General Grant National Park into Kings Canyon National Park absorbed both planned highways. Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was annexed into the early corridor concepts of for CA 190 over Mulky Pass. The strange thing is the most difficult portion of that highway which is now Horseshoe Meadows Road was actually constructed and is higher than Tioga Pass Road. The Division of Highways relinquished Horseshoe Meadows Road to the Forest Service in favor of a lower altitude routing. Considering the Forest Service constructed Sherman Pass Road during the 1970s I doubt they would object too much towards CA 190 being completed. To your point the mission statement of Caltrans and the CTC are very different compared to the Division of Highways and CHC. Either way, Sherman Pass Road more or less functions as the missing link between the segments of CA 190.
Pertaining to Topanga Canyon and Malibu Canyon. If any planned route was added to the 1959 Freeway & Expressway System then yes, it was in fact planned at least as an expressway if not fully limited access.
It's pretty obvious the 1959 Freeway and Expressway plan was drawn up before any detailed study of the routes could be conducted.
Quote from: kernals12 on September 17, 2022, 06:32:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 16, 2022, 04:43:35 PM
I think that idea was borne from the "we can conquer nature no matter what" mentality that I thought died off with the Edwardian era, but seems to have existed until the environmentalism movement became popular. When I looked at the 1934 California route proposal that was featured in the (now) Caltrans journal, it had lines that showed routes going over the Sierra, or along the Klamath River. It seems the idea was "we'll just build these routes no matter how difficult, expensive, or environmentally sensitive."
The Piute Pass Highway and Kings Canyon Highway were both Forest Service driven. Both would have been maintained by the Forest Service as Sign Route 168 and 180 continuations. The Forest Service sought input from the Division of Highways pertaining to the Kings Canyon Highway between Cedar Grove and Kearsarge Pass. The expansion of General Grant National Park into Kings Canyon National Park absorbed both planned highways. Suffice to say the mission of the Park Service was already moving towards preservation, I'd argue that was never the goal of the Forest Service.
The Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was annexed into the early corridor concepts of for CA 190 over Mulky Pass. The strange thing is the most difficult portion of that highway which is now Horseshoe Meadows Road was actually constructed and is higher than Tioga Pass Road. The Division of Highways relinquished Horseshoe Meadows Road to the Forest Service in favor of a lower altitude routing. Considering the Forest Service constructed Sherman Pass Road during the 1970s I doubt they would object too much towards CA 190 being completed. To your point the mission statement of Caltrans and the CTC are very different compared to the Division of Highways and CHC. Either way, Sherman Pass Road more or less functions as the missing link between the segments of CA 190.
Pertaining to Topanga Canyon and Malibu Canyon. If any planned route was added to the 1959 Freeway & Expressway System then yes, it was in fact planned at least as an expressway if not fully limited access.
It's pretty obvious the 1959 Freeway and Expressway plan was drawn up before any detailed study of the routes could be conducted.
Heh...give a listen when California Route By Route episode 1.04 comes out, we touch on that.
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 12:02:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2022, 12:00:21 PM
Quote from: skluth on September 17, 2022, 11:53:42 AM
The Forest Service's mission is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+forest+service+mission&rlz=1C1CHZN_enUS924US924&oq=us+forest+service+mission&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l7j0i390l2.8975j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)" This means the Forest Service's goal is to make sure there is enough forest for American industry to exploit both today and in the future. The service was formed in response to the rapid loss of virgin forest land in the late 19th century when nobody was replacing cut forests after harvesting and forest fires were just Acts of God. Their goal was always to support the lumber and related industries and only peripherally environmental from its early days under Pinchot who constantly clashed with Mather, the first Parks director. Ken Burns' documentary on the National Park (https://kenburns.com/films/national-parks/)s covers this feud pretty extensively.
And to that end, a great way to get resources deep into a forest or mountain range is to build a road there. Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (which are in the area being discussed) both have very active logging activities which were even larger in the past.
Definitely. The Forest Service has been building and maintaining roads to support the logging industry for decades.
Not surprising, given that the Park Service is part of the Interior Department, and the Forest Service is part of the Agriculture Department.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
The Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was annexed into the early corridor concepts of for CA 190 over Mulky Pass. The strange thing is the most difficult portion of that highway which is now Horseshoe Meadows Road was actually constructed and is higher than Tioga Pass Road. The Division of Highways relinquished Horseshoe Meadows Road to the Forest Service in favor of a lower altitude routing. Considering the Forest Service constructed Sherman Pass Road during the 1970s I doubt they would object too much towards CA 190 being completed.
Mulky is close to 10400, which means it would be closed every winter. Haiwee pass is a little over 8200, and I think there's a path from there that doesn't exceed that elevation. A road that low, maintained by the state, might manage to stay open most winters, like Onyx Summit on CA-38 in the San Bernardino Mountains.
If they ever built 190, it would doubtless intersect FR-21S03, connecting it to Sherman Pass Rd, which would be cool.
Quote from: pderocco on September 19, 2022, 12:01:55 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 16, 2022, 08:23:29 PM
The Lone Pine-Porterville High Sierra Road was annexed into the early corridor concepts of for CA 190 over Mulky Pass. The strange thing is the most difficult portion of that highway which is now Horseshoe Meadows Road was actually constructed and is higher than Tioga Pass Road. The Division of Highways relinquished Horseshoe Meadows Road to the Forest Service in favor of a lower altitude routing. Considering the Forest Service constructed Sherman Pass Road during the 1970s I doubt they would object too much towards CA 190 being completed.
Mulky is close to 10400, which means it would be closed every winter. Haiwee pass is a little over 8200, and I think there's a path from there that doesn't exceed that elevation. A road that low, maintained by the state, might manage to stay open most winters, like Onyx Summit on CA-38 in the San Bernardino Mountains.
If they ever built 190, it would doubtless intersect FR-21S03, connecting it to Sherman Pass Rd, which would be cool.
Correct, Haiwee would be the highest elevation point on the modern adopted alignment of 190. The trouble isn't so much the height but rather the north/south oriented Kern River Fault. That would include dropping quite a bit of elevation in the middle of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and making a rapid ascent. Even at 6,000 feet above sea level I don't see how a highway could be kept open all year in a cost effective way.
190 is completed as far as I'm concerned. Other than some bad asphalt around Kennedy Meadows, the entire route through the Sierra is easy to drive in the summer, and provides a complete connection between the two CA-190 alignments (although a long implied US-395 concurrency is required). It doesn't follow the route Caltrans wanted, but we got what we got.
https://www.socalregion.com/ridge-route-alternate-presentation-video/ (https://www.socalregion.com/ridge-route-alternate-presentation-video/)
Here is a feature on the Ridge Route presentation by Mike Ballard.
Quote from: Quillz on September 19, 2022, 12:16:05 AM
190 is completed as far as I'm concerned. Other than some bad asphalt around Kennedy Meadows, the entire route through the Sierra is easy to drive in the summer, and provides a complete connection between the two CA-190 alignments (although a long implied US-395 concurrency is required). It doesn't follow the route Caltrans wanted, but we got what we got.
What interests me that the general routing for 190 was determined but it was never classified as part of the Freeways & Expressways System. I would have to imagine after all those alignment revisions it would confrom to two lane expressway standards:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201982%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=7122%2C8183%2C871%2C1427
District 9 is "aiming for an October reopening" of CA 190 for access to Death Valley from the US 395 corridor, from either Lone Pine/Olancha or from Ridgecrest. It sounded like the Towne Pass segment between the Panamint Valley and Stovepipe Wells in Death Valley proper had the worst damage and will be the last to open.
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1575590596890140672
Oh, I didn't even know it was closed. Haven't been to Death Valley for a few years.
Good to know Westgard Pass is open, I might have interest in that now for October.
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:09:16 PM
Oh, I didn't even know it was closed. Haven't been to Death Valley for a few years.
It just happened this year. I should know, I was just there last year.
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:28:54 PM
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
The last time I was out on Westgard Pass was something like 2009-10? I was supposed to go back in 2020 but my wife was diagnosed was COVID suddenly during our trip. It wasn't a total wash though, I did knock out Old CA 180 on Onion Valley Road and Old CA 190 on Horseshoe Meadows Road.
QuoteI did knock out Old CA 180 on Onion Valley Road and Old CA 190 on Horseshoe Meadows Road.
These have been actually signed in the past?
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 07:04:29 PM
QuoteI did knock out Old CA 180 on Onion Valley Road and Old CA 190 on Horseshoe Meadows Road.
These have been actually signed in the past?
Unclear, but it was in the original definition for Sign Route 180 and appears on at least couple maps. Granted the Onion Valley Road of today is far more tame than the haul road of the Kearsarge Mine:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/08/onion-valley-road-former-california.html?m=1
Quote from: Alps on September 29, 2022, 06:28:41 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:09:16 PM
Oh, I didn't even know it was closed. Haven't been to Death Valley for a few years.
It just happened this year. I should know, I was just there last year.
This summer's desert monsoon season was tough on Death Valley with a one-two punch of flash flooding. There was a round of storms in early August that caused a fair amount of damage. I think they got the main roads mostly reopened, but then there was a hurricane in early September that came closer than usual to the San Diego area, and that sent more moisture up into the desert and the eastern Sierra with additional road damage.
Quote from: gonealookin on September 29, 2022, 07:14:30 PM
This summer's desert monsoon season was tough on Death Valley with a one-two punch of flash flooding. There was a round of storms in early August that caused a fair amount of damage. I think they got the main roads mostly reopened, but then there was a hurricane in early September that came closer than usual to the San Diego area, and that sent more moisture up into the desert and the eastern Sierra with additional road damage.
A
hurricane? Where was that? I recall getting a bunch of rain one night in San Diego.
Quote from: pderocco on September 30, 2022, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on September 29, 2022, 07:14:30 PM
This summer's desert monsoon season was tough on Death Valley with a one-two punch of flash flooding. There was a round of storms in early August that caused a fair amount of damage. I think they got the main roads mostly reopened, but then there was a hurricane in early September that came closer than usual to the San Diego area, and that sent more moisture up into the desert and the eastern Sierra with additional road damage.
A hurricane? Where was that? I recall getting a bunch of rain one night in San Diego.
There was a topical storm over the Gulf of California about a month ago. Technically it would be a typhoon, not a hurricane. They are the same but typhoon is when it's Pacific origin, hurricane when it's Atlantic origin.
Quote from: Quillz on September 30, 2022, 12:46:37 AM
Quote from: pderocco on September 30, 2022, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: gonealookin on September 29, 2022, 07:14:30 PM
This summer's desert monsoon season was tough on Death Valley with a one-two punch of flash flooding. There was a round of storms in early August that caused a fair amount of damage. I think they got the main roads mostly reopened, but then there was a hurricane in early September that came closer than usual to the San Diego area, and that sent more moisture up into the desert and the eastern Sierra with additional road damage.
A hurricane? Where was that? I recall getting a bunch of rain one night in San Diego.
There was a topical storm over the Gulf of California about a month ago. Technically it would be a typhoon, not a hurricane. They are the same but typhoon is when it's Pacific origin, hurricane when it's Atlantic origin.
It was Hurricane Kay (https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2022/ep12/ep122022.fstadv.018.shtml?), which moved up west of the west coast of Baja California around September 7-9. It was downgraded to a tropical storm and then to a post-tropical cyclone by the time it got near the U.S./Mexico border and then died out west of northern Baja.
The storms affecting the west coast of North America and Hawaii are referred to as "hurricanes" (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/cyclone.html) if they reach that strength. Notably, Hurricane Iniki caused considerable devastation in Kauai in September 1992.
Kind of hope the next one goes farther north, really need an El Nino winter.
There was that whole atmospheric river thing last year that dumped about three inches of rain in a day in the Central Valley. For whatever reason that storm really didn't much of anything in terms of damage.
Tropical storm classification by region
(https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/weather/learn-about/weather/tropical-cyclone-distribution-new.jpg)
Heh. I like how the boundary between hurricanes and typhoons in the Pacific is a little ambiguous.
Quote from: Rothman on September 30, 2022, 11:02:16 AM
Heh. I like how the boundary between hurricanes and typhoons in the Pacific is a little ambiguous.
It's not. The boundary is at 180°, aka the International Date Line. I was stationed for a year on Midway in the early 80s, sending up weather balloons twice/day. No idea if any named storms ever cross that line as it was a pretty quiet year meteorologically when I was there.
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:28:54 PM
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
If you went up to the bristlecone pines, you would have had to go through it, since it's before the turn-off. If you haven't ever done so, though, it's a good drive.
Did a drive from the Bay Area to Orange County today, took 101, 154, 101, 144, 192, back to 101, then 5.
- Had to deal with construction in at least three different sections of 101 (King City, Santa Barbara/Montecito, and then west of Ventura near the coastline).
- Interesting how Route 154 for 2 of its final 3 miles is a Super 2, but then ends at a diamond interchange with 101 (not sure there would be enough right of way to ever make this a system interchange).
- I think there's one Route 144 shield left total? Maybe there always weren't that many to begin with.
- The scraped-out Route 1 shield on southbound US 101 east of Oxnard Boulevard (where the outline of the shield shape and the number are still there) really highlight the absurdity of how all that and the continued lack of signage towards and on Rice Avenue has been. On one next-few-exits sign, two layers of greenout have peeled off, revealing a "Pacific Coast Highway" line of text that had been covered by Oxnard Boulevard greenout.
- Ah, the East/West 101 sign blades in San Fernando Valley! How long have those been used/produced?
- On 101 south as the Santa Ana Freeway begins, one retroreflective BGS does exist labeling the road as just "I-5 / I-10 --- Santa Ana / San Bernardino"; the rest from there to Soto Street more properly have some form of "US 101 TO I-5 / I-10 / Route 60"
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 30, 2022, 08:29:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:28:54 PM
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
If you went up to the bristlecone pines, you would have had to go through it, since it's before the turn-off. If you haven't ever done so, though, it's a good drive.
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak. All this talk recently of various Eastern Sierra routes is making me want to take another trip to that area. Will have to hit Westgard Pass at some point. When I did Modoc County, I drove CA-299 to the Nevada state line just to say I've done it. Want to do something similar with CA-168/CA-266.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2022, 02:55:55 AM
Did a drive from the Bay Area to Orange County today, took 101, 154, 101, 144, 192, back to 101, then 5.
- Had to deal with construction in at least three different sections of 101 (King City, Santa Barbara/Montecito, and then west of Ventura near the coastline).
The Montecito-to-Ventura area is finally being widened. For decades it was basically four lanes wide and always had massive traffic jams. It's being widened to at least six lanes, and several interchanges are being redone. Even with the construction, the traffic flow is already much better than it was.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2022, 02:55:55 AM
- The scraped-out Route 1 shield on southbound US 101 east of Oxnard Boulevard (where the outline of the shield shape and the number are still there) really highlight the absurdity of how all that and the continued lack of signage towards and on Rice Avenue has been. On one next-few-exits sign, two layers of greenout have peeled off, revealing a "Pacific Coast Highway" line of text that had been covered by Oxnard Boulevard greenout.
This is why I hate relinquishment. Because it's so inconsistent. Some routes get signed, some don't. The official policy is CA-1 is unsigned from Oxnard to Las Cruces (except for a short PCH segment past Ventura). But signage doesn't reflect this. And it's still seen on Oxnard Boulevard, and yet there is nothing on Rice Avenue! I've read elsewhere that the CA-1/CA-34 junction is getting upgraded. When it does, the logic is all the signage in that area will finally get fixed and properly signed. This area has been absolutely messy for years now as far as signage goes. But given the way the Oxnard Boulevard/Rice Avenue freeway-to-freeway interchange has been reworked, it's now "default" that you stay on Rice Avenue (it used to be the opposite). I think this makes it clear to motorists this is now CA-1. And US-101 is obviously dominant, so I don't think navigation is too bad even with the poor signage. (And note there are still exit numbers on Oxnard Boulevard even though it's not CA-1 anymore. No idea if/when those will get fixed up).
Also, CA-232 is supposed to be moved from Vineyard Avenue onto Santa Clara Avenue. This means that it will basically form a perfect loop: CA-1 from the coast heads due north to US-101, keep heading northeast on the new CA-232 and you seamlessly move onto CA-118, looping you back to the LA area.
Quote from: TheStranger on October 01, 2022, 02:55:55 AM
- Ah, the East/West 101 sign blades in San Fernando Valley! How long have those been used/produced?
Well over a decade at this point, if not longer. Seems the practice started in the early 00s, as Caltrans slowly replaced signage. But like what I mentioned above, it's very inconsistent. I was discussing this in the Washington thread, where I'd create signage that said something like "NB/101/West," indicating the overall orientation but then noting at the moment, you are heading west. The only consistency seems to be the blades directly at the junctions that refer to E/W. All other signage is N/S.
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 30, 2022, 08:29:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:28:54 PM
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
If you went up to the bristlecone pines, you would have had to go through it, since it's before the turn-off. If you haven't ever done so, though, it's a good drive.
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak. All this talk recently of various Eastern Sierra routes is making me want to take another trip to that area. Will have to hit Westgard Pass at some point. When I did Modoc County, I drove CA-299 to the Nevada state line just to say I've done it. Want to do something similar with CA-168/CA-266.
If you're starting in Mammoth, or anywhere along US 395, and you haven't driven it before, I recommend the eastern segment of CA 120 between US 6 and US 395 as part of an interesting loop. Going westbound on CA 120, after the steep climb out of Benton Hot Springs you have the rollercoaster segment through the valley, some high speed straightaways and sharp curves, and eventually views of Mono Lake with a side trip to the tufa formations on its south shore. A very short hop northbound on US 395 gets you to the north end of CA 158, the June Lake Loop, which is another attractive drive.
Quote from: gonealookin on October 03, 2022, 07:30:49 PM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on September 30, 2022, 08:29:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 29, 2022, 06:28:54 PM
I've never done Westgard Pass. Went into the White Mountains once for a field study. But anything beyond that I've never been to. I finally visited Modoc County in 2020, next time I'm near Mammoth, I should finally clinch CA-168 (and CA-266).
If you went up to the bristlecone pines, you would have had to go through it, since it's before the turn-off. If you haven't ever done so, though, it's a good drive.
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak. All this talk recently of various Eastern Sierra routes is making me want to take another trip to that area. Will have to hit Westgard Pass at some point. When I did Modoc County, I drove CA-299 to the Nevada state line just to say I've done it. Want to do something similar with CA-168/CA-266.
If you're starting in Mammoth, or anywhere along US 395, and you haven't driven it before, I recommend the eastern segment of CA 120 between US 6 and US 395 as part of an interesting loop. Going westbound on CA 120, after the steep climb out of Benton Hot Springs you have the rollercoaster segment through the valley, some high speed straightaways and sharp curves, and eventually views of Mono Lake with a side trip to the tufa formations on its south shore. A very short hop northbound on US 395 gets you to the north end of CA 158, the June Lake Loop, which is another attractive drive.
Horseshoe Meadows Road (Old CA 190) is probably the coolest road in the area and also higher than Tioga Pass. Onion Valley and Whitney Portal are also there but they aren't the same level as Horseshoe.
Damn, too bad all this stuff will be closed soon. Got me all excited for a road trip next spring. Lots of Sierra stuff I haven't done.
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Yes, that's where we stayed. We were near the White Mountain Sunmit but didn't ascend it. Time constraints and it was part of our agreement to have free reign of that station.
I've actually done very little in the Eastern Sierra. When I drove to Lassen a couple years ago, I finally got the chance to take 395 pretty much down the entire state (from Susanville to the 14 junction). So I passed by a lot of stuff, but didn't really stop. I've visited places like Mono Lake and that nearby crater, and big tourist areas like Mammoth and Tahoe, but a lot of the more regional attractions, like Horseshoe Meadows, never visited. So looking forward to getting more familiar with this area.
And that loop sounds great! I'll probably stay in Bishop, and do 395 -> 6 -> 120 -> 395 -> 158 -> 395. Did the June Lake Loop once, but never clinched that alignment of 120 (didn't go past the crater). I'm not sure when this stuff closes for the winter, but hoping I can get to it in early November.
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Isn't that road gated?
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Isn't that road gated?
Basically White Mountain Road drops to a dirt road above the Bristlecone Pine Forest. Apparently the public road is only accessible to 12,470 feet above sea level. Barcroft Research Station is located at 14,246 feet above sea level.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2022, 08:11:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Isn't that road gated?
Basically White Mountain Road drops to a dirt road above the Bristlecone Pine Forest. Apparently the public road is only accessible to 12,470 feet above sea level. Barcroft Research Station is located at 14,246 feet above sea level.
So, that would mean Mount Evans is still the highest public road at 14,130'.
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2022, 08:11:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Isn't that road gated?
Basically White Mountain Road drops to a dirt road above the Bristlecone Pine Forest. Apparently the public road is only accessible to 12,470 feet above sea level. Barcroft Research Station is located at 14,246 feet above sea level.
So, that would mean Mount Evans is still the highest public road at 14,130'.
Correct, unless White Mountain Road is open to the summit for a day or two. I seem to recall it was open a couple days a year to the general public. There is something in California law that requires a otherwise non-public road to be open for at least a day to maintain its status as an actual accessible roadway. A similar situation exists on Old Stage Road south of San Juan Bautista given it is open for a single day a year to vehicles.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2022, 09:35:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 08:47:16 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 04, 2022, 08:11:46 AM
Quote from: Rothman on October 04, 2022, 06:54:30 AM
Quote from: pderocco on October 04, 2022, 02:59:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on October 02, 2022, 06:30:33 PM
The turn was at White Mountain Road, shortly after CA-168 begins. It was a dirt road that took us to a little research station south of the actual White Mountain Peak.
Was that the station on the side of Mt Barcroft?
Had you continued to White Mountain peak, where there's a weather research station at the very top, I believe you would have been on the highest road in the country.
Isn't that road gated?
Basically White Mountain Road drops to a dirt road above the Bristlecone Pine Forest. Apparently the public road is only accessible to 12,470 feet above sea level. Barcroft Research Station is located at 14,246 feet above sea level.
So, that would mean Mount Evans is still the highest public road at 14,130'.
Correct, unless White Mountain Road is open to the summit for a day or two. I seem to recall it was open a couple days a year to the general public. There is something in California law that requires a otherwise non-public road to be open for at least a day to maintain its status as an actual accessible roadway. A similar situation exists on Old Stage Road south of San Juan Bautista given it is open for a single day a year to vehicles.
I have hiked to the summit of White Mountain Peak.
The small parking area at the gate which is the trailhead is at about 11,700 feet. It's about 2 miles short of the University of California's Barcroft Field Station. The gate is the end of the public road.
Once a year (I think) Barcroft hosts an open house and the gate is opened, so the public can drive the additional 2 miles to the research station at 12,470 feet. The research station personnel keep that dirt road maintained.
I don't think the public is ever allowed to drive beyond the research station. The road quickly deteriorates to a jeep track and worse. The final steep climb to the summit is extremely rocky and you wouldn't be able to drive any normal vehicle to the top of White Mountain Peak. I'd guess the research station people use ATVs when they want to go to the summit, where there's a small concrete block building. The summit is about 5.5 miles beyond the main research station.
Google Maps satellite view (https://goo.gl/maps/ZXS3ozjtRmb4ctzH7)
Another edit: I guess it's been a while since I did that hike and memory has faded. Maybe they've improved the road to the summit some since I've hiked it. Info on the Summit Hut (https://wmrc.edu/summit-hut/)
QuoteTypically open by special arrangement only from about mid-June to mid-October, weather and snow permitting. We are not accepting reservations for this facility at this time.
The summit hut, 8 km (5 miles) north of Barcroft Station, was constructed in 1955 on White Mountain Peak at 4342 m (14,242').
The summit hut is supplied from Barcroft station, about a 30-45 minute drive away. Vehicular access is by permission only and 4×4 with high clearance is essential. A snowfield usually blocks the final switchbacks just below the summit lab.
Can you hike to the summit any time, or you need a permit?
Quote from: Quillz on October 04, 2022, 02:58:14 PM
Can you hike to the summit any time, or you need a permit?
No need for any permit. You do need to be in shape because it's no casual walk, it's 7.6 miles each way, all at 11,700 feet or higher, and the last 1.5 miles or so to the summit is quite steep.
https://goo.gl/maps/c1ttis8YAu9q8PL38
I really am impressed with this cantilever design of I-405.
I wish FDOT could build their freeways over frontage roads this way.
I wish they would have just built it further over Sepulveda and added a new GP lane plus 3 HOT lanes each way and made Sepulveda BLVD 6 lanes with bike/pedestrian facilities. That would have really done wonders to help with the traffic situation.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/68402/637962657880100000
The list of projects funded by Measure C in Fresno County is lit AF
Quote from: kernals12 on October 19, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/68402/637962657880100000
The list of projects funded by Measure C in Fresno County is lit AF
In particular the two that have my interest is the passing lanes on CA 43, passing lanes on CA 198 west of NAS Lemoore, getting CA 180 finally to I-5 and expanding Millerton Road to a four lane highway. Slightly different ballgame getting funding in Fresno County, generally there has been little resistance to infrastructure improvements.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:05:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
Except for temporary periods when 880 or 238 have been closed, they are the truck route and 580 is the auto route.
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE580.html
QuoteOakland / San Leandro Truck Ban
Trucks are banned along the stretch of I-580 that runs along the base of the East Bay Hills in Oakland and San Leandro. The truck ban on I-580 dates back to 1951, before the road was even a highway. Then it was called MacArthur Boulevard and Oakland's City Council wanted to keep it free from truck traffic. MacArthurs Blvd traverses the Oakland hills, which were middle and upper middle class, and the flatlands (which were traversed by US 101E/Route 17 (now I-880) were working class. When MacArthur Boulevard became a highway in the early 1960s, the City of Oakland continued the ban on a roughly nine mile stretch of highway without significant debate. It applied to vehicles weighing more than 9,000 pounds, like big rigs, but not smaller trucks like those delivering packages on residential streets. The ban also excluded buses. In 1967, the ban was up for renewal, this time sparking a more intense deliberation. The possibility that trucks could barrel down both East Bay highways made people irate. The California Department of Transportation, Caltrans, studied the issue in 1967 to verify that trucks could travel an alternate route instead of I-580. The study looked at traffic, not impacts on health or quality of life. According to their website, the department concluded that "there was no strong evidence either to retain or to terminate the truck ban." Caltrans recommended the ban be extended indefinitely, but with periodic reviews of "operations of the alternate routes, 238 and 880." Those reviews happened just a few times, with none occurring after 1972.
(Source: KQED, 7/1/2021)
In 1990, the California Trucking Association asked Caltrans to study lifting the ban on trucks on I-580. And according to their website, Caltrans officials said if they found good reasons to lift the ban – and the City of Oakland was onboard – they would recommend opening the freeway to trucks. That study never happened though. Residents living along I-580 worried studying the issue would open the door to lifting the ban, so they put pressure on their representatives to stop the study before it started. The Oakland City Council passed a resolution affirming they wanted to continue the ban. State legislators also wanted to stop the study and continue the ban. The Assemblyperson at the time said her constituents felt that if Oakland and San Leandro lifted the ban, they would be breaking a promise made to residents decades ago. The I-580 highway ban is the only one of its kind meant to assuage the concerns of local residents. According to the Federal Highway Authority, there are only nine such bans nationwide. Seven of those bans are due to construction or structural engineering constraints. One ban – on the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Bridge in D.C. – was ordered by President Eisenhower to keep trucks away from the Lincoln Memorial.
(Source: KQED, 7/1/2021)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2022, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 19, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/68402/637962657880100000
The list of projects funded by Measure C in Fresno County is lit AF
In particular the two that have my interest is the passing lanes on CA 43, passing lanes on CA 198 west of NAS Lemoore, getting CA 180 finally to I-5 and expanding Millerton Road to a four lane highway. Slightly different ballgame getting funding in Fresno County, generally there has been little resistance to infrastructure improvements.
They're planning to upgrade a lot of 2 lane roads to 4 lane divided highways
Quote from: kernals12 on October 19, 2022, 12:17:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 19, 2022, 09:40:19 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 19, 2022, 09:16:31 AM
https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/home/showpublisheddocument/68402/637962657880100000
The list of projects funded by Measure C in Fresno County is lit AF
In particular the two that have my interest is the passing lanes on CA 43, passing lanes on CA 198 west of NAS Lemoore, getting CA 180 finally to I-5 and expanding Millerton Road to a four lane highway. Slightly different ballgame getting funding in Fresno County, generally there has been little resistance to infrastructure improvements.
They're planning to upgrade a lot of 2 lane roads to 4 lane divided highways
Much of it is justified too given Fresno County has been consistently trending upward in growth the last couple decades. There are numerous roads that need expansions for carrying capacity and winter safety due to the Tule Fog. Fresno County also went heavy in with getting SB1 funds for road repairs a couple years ago. Two major SB1 projects were completed fairly recently along Clovis Avenue and Fowler Avenue within five miles of my house as examples.
Fresno County unlike some of the other counties with large urban centers isn't very adverse to expanding infrastructure. There is very different demographics (namely blue collar) at play locally that run against the grain of what would be expected elsewhere in the state.
@Roadfro, the Measure C stuff for Fresno County is substantial enough to start a new thread on. Is it possible to split the Measure C stuff off?
Doesn't the proposal to extend CA-180 to I-5 already physically exist, as far as the roads go? If/when Caltrans takes over, are there certain improvements or changes that must be made? I've read about the proposal to have it reach CA-25, but the big difference there is the road is unpaved and not really suitable for most mundane travel. (So it could happen, but would require huge amounts of work).
Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2022, 04:16:02 PM
Doesn't the proposal to extend CA-180 to I-5 already physically exist, as far as the roads go? If/when Caltrans takes over, are there certain improvements or changes that must be made? I've read about the proposal to have it reach CA-25, but the big difference there is the road is unpaved and not really suitable for most mundane travel. (So it could happen, but would require huge amounts of work).
Right now there is now direct connection between 33 and 5. The implied connection from 33 to 5 is County Route J1. J1 jogs quite a bit around west of Mendota.
Interestingly there is plenty of evidence to support 180 actually having been signed to 25 via locally maintained Panoche Road into the 1940s. The Panoche Pass corridor is part of the legislative description of 180 but no Route has ever been formally adopted.
I know there was a proposal to take it all the way to 101 via concurrency with 25. I don't think that was ever signed, even in the SSR days.
Quote from: Quillz on October 19, 2022, 04:41:16 PM
I know there was a proposal to take it all the way to 101 via concurrency with 25. I don't think that was ever signed, even in the SSR days.
During 1964 the segment of 25 from Paicines to 101 became 180 legislatively. The field signage was never swapped by the Postmile Paddles were. This was reverted legislatively back to 25 during 1984.
The mistake the DOH map with Panoche Pass was attempting to make it part of the Freeway & Expressway System. The corridor should have remained conventional highway. There would have been a far better chance that Panoche Road would have been rebuilt to state standards and adopted during the 1970s like a couple other County Sign Routes were.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:05:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
ISTR there being some kind of design deficiency around the MacArthur Maze and/or on I-580 that necessitates this. But I'm not super familiar with the area.
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2022, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:05:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
ISTR there being some kind of design deficiency around the MacArthur Maze and/or on I-580 that necessitates this. But I'm not super familiar with the area.
No, there's no design deficiency in 580 or the maze. As can be seen by truck traffic being allowed on them when 880 was closed by earthquake, or several other incidents over the years. It's much more pleasant for car drivers to have just cars to share the road with. Because there are so many more cars, car drivers pay more of the gas taxes than trucks do. So when there are two parallel routes like this, they see nothing wrong with designating one route for cars only. Just as trucks were banned on old US 50 over MacArthur Blvd before the freeway route was built.
Quote from: kkt on October 20, 2022, 05:16:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2022, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:05:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
ISTR there being some kind of design deficiency around the MacArthur Maze and/or on I-580 that necessitates this. But I'm not super familiar with the area.
No, there's no design deficiency in 580 or the maze. As can be seen by truck traffic being allowed on them when 880 was closed by earthquake, or several other incidents over the years. It's much more pleasant for car drivers to have just cars to share the road with. Because there are so many more cars, car drivers pay more of the gas taxes than trucks do. So when there are two parallel routes like this, they see nothing wrong with designating one route for cars only. Just as trucks were banned on old US 50 over MacArthur Blvd before the freeway route was built.
IIRC, there were deficiencies in the maze, that had to be fixed as part of the relocated replacement for I-880's fallen Cypress viaduct. But the truck ban is more than 70 years old, long predating the maze.
The rich bitches in Piedmont are a more likely explanation.
Piedmont? Maybe, but it was a City of Oakland ordinance that requested 580 be truck-free when the freeway was being built, and both 580 and 238-880 routes are in Oakland. Don't discount the number of car drivers who prefer a big-rig-free route, when there are two parallel routes available.
There's been some local talk of wanting the truck ban on the MacArthur Freeway/580 removed (due to the effect shifting all of the truck emissions has had on the Nimitz/880 and 238 corridors), as seen in this article from last December:
https://oaklandside.org/2021/12/17/oakland-residents-weigh-in-on-i-580-truck-ban-pros-and-cons/
Quote from: kkt on October 20, 2022, 05:16:59 PM
Quote from: roadfro on October 20, 2022, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 19, 2022, 09:05:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/51335621054/in/album-72157719576559427/
Just curious to know why trucks are diverted from I-580 to I-880 traveling to LA from the Bay Bridge?
ISTR there being some kind of design deficiency around the MacArthur Maze and/or on I-580 that necessitates this. But I'm not super familiar with the area.
No, there's no design deficiency in 580 or the maze. As can be seen by truck traffic being allowed on them when 880 was closed by earthquake, or several other incidents over the years. It's much more pleasant for car drivers to have just cars to share the road with. Because there are so many more cars, car drivers pay more of the gas taxes than trucks do. So when there are two parallel routes like this, they see nothing wrong with designating one route for cars only. Just as trucks were banned on old US 50 over MacArthur Blvd before the freeway route was built.
There is not a design deficiency with the Maze but there are operational characteristics with 580 that are not ideal for trucks and the resulting impacts to overall traffic flow, namely its vertical profile. The constant you're-either-going-up-or-going-down through the Oakland section would result in trucks slowing on the uphill grades, affecting what are now relatively constant traffic speeds (slower during peak periods of course). 880 and 238 are flat.
And as an interesting demonstration of the impacts to the roadway from trucks vs. autos, most all of the no-truck section, built 1962-65, still has the original concrete pavement as the driving surface. There are short segments that have been overlaid with asphalt and other random slab replacements but otherwise the only "rehabilitation" done since its original construction was a microgrinding project a few years back.
On the topic of I-580's truck ban in Oakland, CA 85 has a truck ban as well assuming it is over 4 American tons from the Stevens Creek Blvd exit to US 101 in San Jose. The freeway opened in 1994. According to CA Highways it was approved by regional/local leaders at the time.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52444673528/in/dateposted-public/
I was reading about how Caltrans is going to Jack this bridge up, the remove the piers to add taller ones, to bring up the height to 16'5" .
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-vallejo-80-six-bridges-elevate
Quote from: roadman65 on October 22, 2022, 11:04:24 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52444673528/in/dateposted-public/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52444673528/in/dateposted-public/)
I was reading about how Caltrans is going to Jack this bridge up, the remove the piers to add taller ones, to bring up the height to 16'5" .
https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-vallejo-80-six-bridges-elevate (https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/d4-vallejo-80-six-bridges-elevate)
Yes Caltrans had to close some of the streets that go above I-80 to make the overpass more Truck friendly.
You figure they would lower the grade of the freeway instead of rebuilding the piers.
Quote from: oscar on October 22, 2022, 02:02:10 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 22, 2022, 01:01:14 PM
You figure they would lower the grade of the freeway instead of rebuilding the piers.
Depends on what's underneath that part of the freeway. For example, maybe another freeway or its ramps, or a rapid-transit tunnel, or the water table -- the area is really close to San Francisco Bay. (I don't know where in the interchange the overpass removals occurred.)
They don't call that interchange the "Maze" for nothing.
The overpass-raising project is I-80 through Vallejo, about 20 miles north of the Oakland Maze.
Does anyone have anything about plans from the 60s and 70s to build freeways in the Ojai Valley?
Quote from: kernals12 on October 23, 2022, 06:27:45 PM
Does anyone have anything about plans from the 60s and 70s to build freeways in the Ojai Valley?
Yes:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html?m=1
33 gets pretty wild with traffic from the end of the Ojai Freeway to the split from 150 in Ojai. The way I always figured it the Ojai Freeway is so lightly traveled that it was hard to justify completing it all the way to Ojai. The Ojai Freeway notably has almost button copy signs and no exit numbers. Considering how early the Ojai Freeway was built it seemingly was spared the fate environmental challenges that would have likely otherwise killed it.
Speaking of 33, the segment north or Ojai (the Maricopa Highway) through Wheeler Gorge to CA 166 is a masterpiece of a driving road. I seriously don't understand why everyone dog piles 2 over Angeles Crest when the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 beats it in every other way in terms of being fun.
(https://i.imgur.com/RophVnm.png)
Found this Ventura County Freeway Plan from the city of Ventura's 1964 General Plan
(https://i.imgur.com/yU30ymA.png)
Differences from the 1958 State Freeway and Expressway Masterplan are the omission of the Decker, Whitnall, Piru and Pleasant Valley Freeways and the northern part of the Ojai Freeway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 23, 2022, 06:31:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 23, 2022, 06:27:45 PM
Does anyone have anything about plans from the 60s and 70s to build freeways in the Ojai Valley?
Yes:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/07/california-state-route-33-us-101-north.html?m=1
33 gets pretty wild with traffic from the end of the Ojai Freeway to the split from 150 in Ojai. The way I always figured it the Ojai Freeway is so lightly traveled that it was hard to justify completing it all the way to Ojai. The Ojai Freeway notably has almost button copy signs and no exit numbers. Considering how early the Ojai Freeway was built it seemingly was spared the fate environmental challenges that would have likely otherwise killed it.
Speaking of 33, the segment north or Ojai (the Maricopa Highway) through Wheeler Gorge to CA 166 is a masterpiece of a driving road. I seriously don't understand why everyone dog piles 2 over Angeles Crest when the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 beats it in every other way in terms of being fun.
I was looking more for things like engineering studies and public hearings.
California's Highway Department seemed to have gnack in those days for drawing lines on a map without any consideration for whether they were needed or if they were buildable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 23, 2022, 06:31:06 PM
Speaking of 33, the segment north or Ojai (the Maricopa Highway) through Wheeler Gorge to CA 166 is a masterpiece of a driving road. I seriously don't understand why everyone dog piles 2 over Angeles Crest when the Maricopa Highway segment of 33 beats it in every other way in terms of being fun.
I'd rate them similar in terms of "fun". I love the northerly views of the Antelope Valley from 2. And there are more side roads off 2 that actually go somewhere.
I've also encountered two fatal motorcycle accidents on that piece of 33, and one along 2. Not that that's fun...
Good news for anyone up for an impromptu drive over Tioga Pass next year:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/yosemite-national-park-reservations-travel-11668535648
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2022, 08:39:39 PM
Good news for anyone up for an impromptu drive over Tioga Pass next year:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/yosemite-national-park-reservations-travel-11668535648
Thanks for the info. Here's another article (https://bestlifeonline.com/yosemite-reservation-system-news/) for those who can't access behind the WSJ's paywall.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 15, 2022, 08:39:39 PM
Good news for anyone up for an impromptu drive over Tioga Pass next year:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/yosemite-national-park-reservations-travel-11668535648
After they get out of the 3 hour entrance traffic...
On the subject of Sierra passes, I've been reading a lot lately about the Piute Pass and the Olancha pass highways, and I was curious if anyone had anymore info on the 180/onion valley pass routing (over Kearsage?) and more details about 203 past Devils Postpile (seems like the hard part has already been paved on that route...) It looks like 190 still shows up on highway maps routed over the Haiwee pass, but likely will never happen.
Quote from: thsftw on November 16, 2022, 05:25:00 PM
On the subject of Sierra passes, I've been reading a lot lately about the Piute Pass and the Olancha pass highways, and I was curious if anyone had anymore info on the 180/onion valley pass routing (over Kearsage?) and more details about 203 past Devils Postpile (seems like the hard part has already been paved on that route...) It looks like 190 still shows up on highway maps routed over the Haiwee pass, but likely will never happen.
180 was supposed to be a Forest Service Road, never really got anywhere substantial:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/08/onion-valley-road-former-california.html?m=1
The Minaret Summit proposal was just that, a proposal:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/08/sierra-vista-scenic-byway-part-3-sierra.html?m=1
Asphalt Planet does a tour on I-5 Golden State Freeway.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52501848096/in/dateposted-public/
Does anyone know why I-5 has a short paved median stretch near Red Bluff, CA?
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2022, 11:28:33 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52501848096/in/dateposted-public/
Does anyone know why I-5 has a short paved median stretch near Red Bluff, CA?
I've seen speculation that that is where the freeway from CA 99 was planned to merge with I-5.
Love to see that speculation either confirmed or rebutted.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2022, 11:28:33 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52501848096/in/dateposted-public/
Does anyone know why I-5 has a short paved median stretch near Red Bluff, CA?
Temporary construction crossover (https://www.historicaerials.com/location/40.12028728299099/-122.2186254818651/2010/17).
Quote from: roadman65 on December 03, 2022, 11:28:33 AM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52501848096/in/dateposted-public/
Does anyone know why I-5 has a short paved median stretch near Red Bluff, CA?
I see such a place on Google Earth, but in Street View it doesn't match the picture. The multiple billboards are missing, even though Street View is dated only one year after the photo.
There is, however, an even more dramatic crossover here: https://goo.gl/maps/W2Hywqw8KXhN9dcb8 (https://goo.gl/maps/W2Hywqw8KXhN9dcb8)
Due to heavy rain since Friday, Highway 1 from Ragged Point (SLO county line) to the Big Sur settlement has been closed which makes passing through the region currently impossible. Let's hope the road didn't get washed out or a huge slide happen
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article269567812.html
https://goo.gl/maps/xYqnwdzof2ZueuSEA
Is the removal of the San Diego Freeway at this location due to the most recent MUTCD disallowing route numbers and road names to coexist on a guide?
I always remembered that freeway names were more prominent then route numbers my last visit to LA.
https://goo.gl/maps/Xn2omMpgHHTB1vvh8
What was one on the greened out sign? GSV shows this sign here always.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 05, 2022, 10:55:48 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/Xn2omMpgHHTB1vvh8
What was one on the greened out sign? GSV shows this sign here always.
Probably for an exit that was removed. There used to be an exit/entrance at Waterford St southbound that provided a connection to Montana Ave which was a back route into UCLA - I remember using it regularly when my brother was a student there in the early 90's. Since it dumped into a small residential neighborhood shoehorned into the VA cemetery and was way too close to the Wilshire interchange it was likely an easy choice to eliminate it. Still, why they didn't just remove the upstream sign panel instead of going through the trouble of completely blanking it out is another D7 mystery.
Quote from: roadman65 on December 05, 2022, 10:39:06 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/xYqnwdzof2ZueuSEA
Is the removal of the San Diego Freeway at this location due to the most recent MUTCD disallowing route numbers and road names to coexist on a guide?
I always remembered that freeway names were more prominent then route numbers my last visit to LA.
To my recollection, the 2009 national MUTCD does not prohibit a road name and route number on a sign (but may discourage it).
This is probably more a reflection of Caltrans de-emphasizing freeway names. Route numbers have become much more common in navigational parlance, and not including freeway names reduces message loading (and potentially sign panel area).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52588325995/in/photostream/
California not only doesn’t use standard states exit number formats. Not only due they put tabs within the signs, but they create a longer tab with a tab within it.
This sign displays a tab with a tab. They could even write a border around all of it but instead create an illusion of two signs together.
^^^
There really isn't a tab there. They lay out the sign as though it had tabs, and then place everything on a simple rectangular surface. Saves money on cutting, I guess.
Quote from: pderocco on December 27, 2022, 01:30:08 PM
^^^
There really isn't a tab there. They lay out the sign as though it had tabs, and then place everything on a simple rectangular surface. Saves money on cutting, I guess.
This one https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52588125979/in/photostream/
They got it right. A real Exit tab on top.
Quote from: pderocco on December 27, 2022, 01:30:08 PM
^^^
There really isn't a tab there. They lay out the sign as though it had tabs, and then place everything on a simple rectangular surface. Saves money on cutting, I guess.
Yeah those rectangular outlines in Caltrans BGSes are common. But in other cases rectangular outlines can appear inside rectangular outlines. Cool eh?
(https://i.imgur.com/LNDiq2y.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52601553614/in/dateposted-public/
Interesting US 101 shield I found leaving a Vista Point along US 101 S Bound.
The arrow and place card both are misaligned above the shield.
With the current atmospheric river ongoing in California, it now appears many highways in the Bay Area are being impacted or closed at certain spots and weather forecasters are expecting a storm on Wednesday that could cause flooding that may be worse than the past Saturday (NYE). Several examples include US 101 flooded at South San Francisco, a landslide on I-580 EB around Livermore, and potholes at CA 37, I-880 and somewhere along I-5
Area Forecast Discussion from NWS:
QuoteFlood Watch and High Wind Watch have been issued for the midweek
system.
Afternoon radar continues to show light rain moving across the Bay
Area and Monterey Bay region. So far rain totals have been from
around a tenth in North Bay to a trace in South Bay. There still
is more rain to come this afternoon and early evening before
clearing out. When all is said and done, totals will be in the
few hundredths to half an inch, depending which site you`re
looking at. There is a chance of an over achiever getting to
0.75".
All focus however continues, and rightfully so, to be on the
midweek system. The meteorology is as such...first we`ll see the
warm front roll into the region Wednesday morning. The triple
point of the occlusion-warm-cold fronts seems to be slipping
northward in model runs. This means that we could sit under the
influence of warm frontal rain processes longer, which means more
rain than forecast currently, just from the warm front. This warm
front will also bring an initial bout of strong gusty winds.
Given the saturation of the soils, rainfall, and winds; this warm
front alone is enough to cause damage.
Portions of the Bay Area and the Monterey Bay region may get a
break from the rain for a short time late Wednesday morning as we
get behind the warm front, but before the cold front. It`ll still
be breezy during this time and will maintain the threat downed
trees. This will be a short lived reprieve before the cold front,
our pineapple express, sets in. Ensemble models are continuing to
show probability of substantial rainfall over our coastal ranges.
In addition, gale force, potentially storms force, winds will
accompany the winds Wednesday afternoon into the overnight hours.
Models have also been trending slower with the pineapple express,
which means more residence time over the region and the greater
chance for high amounts of precipitation. As such, we have issued
a high wind watch and a flood watch for our entire service area,
in coordination with our neighbors and their service areas.
To put it simply, this will likely be one of the most impactful
systems on a widespread scale that this meteorologist has seen in
a long while. The impacts will include widespread flooding, roads
washing out, hillside collapsing, trees down (potentially full
groves), widespread power outages, immediate disruption to
commerce, and the worst of all, likely loss of human life. This
is truly a brutal system that we are looking at and needs to be
taken seriously.
On the other side of the coin, this system and the serious of
systems is rather impressive. Total Precipitable Water in the
satellite currently is showing above 2", pushing 3" for midweek.
The afternoon upper air flight on Wednesday will really be
telling. Beyond the midweek system the pattern will remain active
and continue to have impacts on life, property, and commerce.
The most recent forecast package calls for the following rainfall
totals late Tuesday night through early Friday:
-The Santa Lucia Mtns and the Big Sur Coast: 4.5 to 6.5" (locally up
to 8" over higher peaks)
-Coastal Mountains in the North Bay: 4.5 to 6.5" (locally up to 7.5"
over higher peaks)
-The Santa Cruz Mtns and Northern Monterey Bay: 3.5 to 6" (locally
up to 7" over higher peaks)
-Interior North Bay: 2.75 to 5"
-Around the SF Bay (including East & South Bay): 1.5 to 3"
-Southern/Eastern Monterey Bay: 2 to 3"
-Salinas Valley/ San Benito County: 1.5 to 3"
Does anybody here know of a published list of common places where Caltrans places chain control/winter weather closure check points? For example, on I-80 Eastbound I usually see on the Caltrans road reports if control is in place it's either at Applegate, Cisco Grove or Kingvale; I-80 westbound is almost always at either Truckee or Mogul (just across the state line in Nevada). Is there a published list of the normal places where such control checkpoints are located?
Noticed a few days ago that the exit for 3rd Street off US 101 north in San Francisco is now mistakenly labeled on the overhead sign as "Exit 492B" and not 429B (the correct number on the gore point sign).
Quote from: moabdave on January 10, 2023, 12:22:03 AM
Does anybody here know of a published list of common places where Caltrans places chain control/winter weather closure check points? For example, on I-80 Eastbound I usually see on the Caltrans road reports if control is in place it's either at Applegate, Cisco Grove or Kingvale; I-80 westbound is almost always at either Truckee or Mogul (just across the state line in Nevada). Is there a published list of the normal places where such control checkpoints are located?
Best bet is the a Caltrans Quick Map for what's going on real time. In theory CHP could put a chain control checkpoint anywhere they wanted.
California 63 Route courtesy a local install by Visalia:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52669457798_1fa4bcf405_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ofdJPY)63CAa (https://flic.kr/p/2ofdJPY) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
^^^
That looks like the green stencil layer is delaminating, and exposing more of the solid white layer underneath. That happens a lot. You'd think 3M would have mastered that decades ago, or perhaps it's just that the sign makers aren't following the directions.
The city of Fresno uses a similarly cheap vinyl which delaminates quickly. Whatever vinyl Caltrans is using tends to hold up much better to UV and heat exposure. Caltrans is also using a single vinyl sheet on the current spec highway spades, the previous generation had an issues where the numbers would begin to peel off.
Question about the planned Pit River Bridge.
If Caltrans decides to replace it, what will happen to the Union Pacific Rail line beneath it? I noticed it has a very active railroad beneath the freeway including Amtrak service.
I was under the impression it would be retained for railroad use.
The existing road could be turned into a viewpoint parking lot, and maybe a bungee jumping staging area. They wouldn't allow fishing, though--you might catch a train instead.
I wonder how often trains go through there. Years ago, I hung out at the north end of the big trestle over the river in Redding, hoping for a great train picture, but after an hour or so I got tired of waiting. Same for the Williams loop.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 01, 2023, 03:37:15 PM
Noticed a few days ago that the exit for 3rd Street off US 101 north in San Francisco is now mistakenly labeled on the overhead sign as "Exit 492B" and not 429B (the correct number on the gore point sign).
Yeah that's a weird typo, and it's been around for months (since last October at least). I kept forgetting to take a photo of it... until now!
(https://i.imgur.com/VsGFj8M.jpg)
Yesterday I drove back from Oregon via 199 for the first time (beautiful highway) and then down to SF via Crescent City and Eureka for only the 2nd time in my life. During the drive I saw all the twisted to the side Chains Required signs which I actually remembered from ten years ago. Coincidentally, a large winter storm is coming to CA with extremely cold air which will lower the snow level to almost 500 feet in some places especially on that 101 corridor. Last time this happened a couple of years ago the highway was close north of Willits due to spin outs on the summit north of town. I wonder what will happen this time, it would be cool to see chains required on 101 but they will probably just close the highway a la grapevine. Any old timers ever seen a time when chains were actually required on 101?
I have not seen chains required on 101, but there are others here who have driven it more often than I have. I've seen it frosty and icy.
Random question: How long does it take for FasTrak to process a toll for a vehicle without a transponder? I was in the Bay Area for work yesterday, and I drove a rental car over the Carquinez Bridge. It had been a while since I'd driven eastbound on that bridge, and I had forgotten about the conversion to all electronic tolling. This morning, I set up a one-time payment account on the Bay Area FasTrak website, so hopefully that will cover it without getting the charge (and extra fee) from my rental car company. But I will also need to submit this toll charge for reimbursement through work, so was curious how long it might be until I get the receipt.
About a month. My wife forgot cash (this was when cash was still being taken) before COVID and we got a bill from using the eastbound Carquinez Bridge.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2023, 02:50:05 PM
About a month. My wife forgot cash (this was when cash was still being taken) before COVID and we got a bill from using the eastbound Carquinez Bridge.
A month! :confused: I was hoping it'd be a week or so... I can't put off submitting the reimbursements that long.
I'll probably just eat the $7 then...I don't think I used the full meal per diem that day anyway, so I guess it still got covered in a way.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 05, 2023, 03:37:19 PM
I was under the impression it would be retained for railroad use.
That's my impression as well. Structural issues aren't the issue as much as the feds want to dump ownership of the bridge onto UP. Currently, the Bureau of Reclamation owns the bridge and it is the only such structure on the Interstate system.
https://goo.gl/maps/NrjGfvymb9AkBP4m9
Google did a great job here in capturing the snow covered mountains near San Bernardino.
Quote from: roadfro on March 09, 2023, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2023, 02:50:05 PM
About a month. My wife forgot cash (this was when cash was still being taken) before COVID and we got a bill from using the eastbound Carquinez Bridge.
A month! :confused: I was hoping it'd be a week or so... I can't put off submitting the reimbursements that long.
I'll probably just eat the $7 then...I don't think I used the full meal per diem that day anyway, so I guess it still got covered in a way.
I just did the same thing. Went to the FasTrak website and set up a one time account for a rental car. Went over the Bay Bridge four times, and the Dumbarton Bridge once. I think all of the charges were posted to my credit card within a week.
Quote from: wriddle082 on March 27, 2023, 08:38:17 PM
I just did the same thing. Went to the FasTrak website and set up a one time account for a rental car. Went over the Bay Bridge four times, and the Dumbarton Bridge once. I think all of the charges were posted to my credit card within a week.
They're good about billing you, but if you want to look at your account activity, you have to download a PDF with very curt abbreviations for everything. Lousy user interface.
Well this crash on CA 118 just showed up in my feed. I am unsure where to post it.
Quote from: wriddle082 on March 27, 2023, 08:38:17 PM
Quote from: roadfro on March 09, 2023, 10:51:51 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 09, 2023, 02:50:05 PM
About a month. My wife forgot cash (this was when cash was still being taken) before COVID and we got a bill from using the eastbound Carquinez Bridge.
A month! :confused: I was hoping it'd be a week or so... I can't put off submitting the reimbursements that long.
I'll probably just eat the $7 then...I don't think I used the full meal per diem that day anyway, so I guess it still got covered in a way.
I just did the same thing. Went to the FasTrak website and set up a one time account for a rental car. Went over the Bay Bridge four times, and the Dumbarton Bridge once. I think all of the charges were posted to my credit card within a week.
I had forgotten to look, but it appears FasTrak charged my card within a week as well. Crossed the bridge on 3/8, posted about this and set up the one-time account on 3/9, charge posted to my credit card on 3/12.
Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2023, 02:20:25 AM
They're good about billing you, but if you want to look at your account activity, you have to download a PDF with very curt abbreviations for everything. Lousy user interface.
That's the part that would seem challenging for reimbursement. I looked briefly this morning and didn't see a way to download a statement or activity from the one-time account.
I did end up not claiming the toll for reimbursement, as I had leftover per diem and figured I still came out a bit ahead.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 28, 2023, 11:17:55 AM
Well this crash on CA 118 just showed up in my feed. I am unsure where to post it.
Geez, that's crazy!!
I wonder what caused that tire to pop off. :hmmm: If it was something like a recent tire repair not fully tightening the nuts or something, there would be grounds for a law suit based on negligence.
^^ I gave FasTrak my corporate AMEX card info and was able to submit the charges in an expense report in Concur and get them approved and paid. Since each charge was under a certain $ amount, a receipt or photo of one was not required. I just put in what the charge was for in the comment box and allocated the charges to the projects I was working on in the East Bay.
Quote from: roadfro on March 28, 2023, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: 74/171FAN on March 28, 2023, 11:17:55 AM
Well this crash on CA 118 just showed up in my feed. I am unsure where to post it.
Geez, that's crazy!!
I wonder what caused that tire to pop off. :hmmm: If it was something like a recent tire repair not fully tightening the nuts or something, there would be grounds for a law suit based on negligence.
It was caused by the truck driver using wheel spacers.
https://cdllife.com/2023/chp-reminds-truckers-to-follow-maximum-cmv-speed-limit-of-55-m-p-h/
California is very proud of their 55 mph truck speed limit, particularly the police bragging about ticketing a trucker doing 73 mph in a posted 65 mph or 70 mph area for cars...
It's ridiculous and dangerous. A trucker obeying 55 mph is going to cause far more safety hazards than a trucker doing 65-70 mph. Is this about safety or purely revenue?
They even acknowledge other states are different (aka safer, far more reasonable), but they will strictly e̶n̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ extort truck drivers.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 29, 2023, 11:03:17 AM
https://cdllife.com/2023/chp-reminds-truckers-to-follow-maximum-cmv-speed-limit-of-55-m-p-h/
California is very proud of their 55 mph truck speed limit, particularly the police bragging about ticketing a trucker doing 73 mph in a posted 65 mph or 70 mph area for cars...
It's ridiculous and dangerous. A trucker obeying 55 mph is going to cause far more safety hazards than a trucker doing 65-70 mph. Is this about safety or purely revenue?
They even acknowledge other states are different (aka safer, far more reasonable), but they will strictly e̶n̶f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ extort truck drivers.
This is the same state where literally everything causes cancer, am I meant to be surprised?
US 99 shield suddenly appeared on the Ventura Freway/Route 134 eastbound in Griffith Park after a greenout patch fell this week! Two different users at the Freeways of Los Angeles group got photos of it in the past couple of days
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52796997989_4d9abe2e3b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oruq5M)Steve Proctor photo of 99 shield at 134 in Griffith Park (https://flic.kr/p/2oruq5M) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52797148180_d9e0d8f512_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2orvbJh)Ian Ligget shot of 99 shield at 134 in Griffith Park (https://flic.kr/p/2orvbJh) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
I passed that gantry less than a week ago. Why couldn't have it been like that then?
Quote from: TheStranger on April 05, 2023, 11:24:03 PM
US 99 shield suddenly appeared on the Ventura Freway/Route 134 eastbound in Griffith Park after a greenout patch fell this week! Two different users at the Freeways of Los Angeles group got photos of it in the past couple of days
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52796997989_4d9abe2e3b_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oruq5M)Steve Proctor photo of 99 shield at 134 in Griffith Park (https://flic.kr/p/2oruq5M) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52797148180_d9e0d8f512_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2orvbJh)Ian Ligget shot of 99 shield at 134 in Griffith Park (https://flic.kr/p/2orvbJh) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
On one hand nice to see the old signs. But then again it was time to remove the button copy on this one.
California Big Green Signs are often patched more than Joseph's Coat.
Great blast from the past, when we had real numbers and real button copy with real names for the Southland freeways. Gorgeous!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 06, 2023, 09:03:19 AM
Great blast from the past, when we had real numbers and real button copy with real names for the Southland freeways. Gorgeous!
Rick
The amusing aspect of that particular sign:
The patched greenout, NOT the original sign, had the freeway name on it! (Albeit, the original sign did not have any button copy, while the patch with the I-5 Golden State Freeway text did)
I do recall seeing some 1950s Golden State Freeway/US 6/US 99 signs existing prior to the designation of I-5, in fact the example below from the AARoads Shield Gallery is about 1 mile south of the currently revealed 99 sign! (This one I think is specifically at the junction of the Golden State Freeway with the old Colorado Street Freeway adjacent to Glendale, the very next exit after the 134/5 junction in the recent photos - that freeway spur still exists to this day, too)
https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19550061
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19550061i1.jpg)
QuoteUS 99 shield suddenly appeared on the Ventura Freway/Route 134 eastbound in Griffith Park after a greenout patch fell this week!
Is that still visible?? I might have to go out and nab some shots myself.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 06, 2023, 05:33:07 PM
QuoteUS 99 shield suddenly appeared on the Ventura Freway/Route 134 eastbound in Griffith Park after a greenout patch fell this week!
Is that still visible?? I might have to go out and nab some shots myself.
Apparently happened yesterday. I would venture a guess it will be visible for a couple more weeks. I'm planning on passing by on the 16th to see if I can get photos.
Cool. We'll head out on Saturday. My wife wants to do a little road trip anyway.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 06, 2023, 03:10:32 PM
(Albeit, the original sign did not have any button copy, while the patch with the I-5 Golden State Freeway text did)
I'm willing to bet that it did, but the buttons were removed so the patch could be installed flat to the original sign.
Quote from: jzn110 on April 06, 2023, 09:30:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on April 06, 2023, 03:10:32 PM
(Albeit, the original sign did not have any button copy, while the patch with the I-5 Golden State Freeway text did)
I'm willing to bet that it did, but the buttons were removed so the patch could be installed flat to the original sign.
Someone mentioned on the Freeways of Los Angeles group that this section of 134 was built in 1962 - I think that was several years before button copy started being applied to what were originally porcelain signs.
Something that used to be super common, but a rarity now since the Van Ness Avenue bus lanes project commenced: a US 101 shield on surface streets in San Francisco! This one is at Van Ness and Grove Street, northbound towards City Hall.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52798688677_6f48e47fc6_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2orD5Ez)101 shield near city hall (https://flic.kr/p/2orD5Ez) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
For comparison I took a photo of every 101 shield on Richardson/Lombard/Van Ness back in January 2011, most of which are now gone:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/albums/72157625842961088
(https://live.staticflickr.com/5050/5363484584_97e2cadca1_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/9aXg79)DSC_7696 (https://flic.kr/p/9aXg79) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
(Vintage poles like these were taken out as part of the bus lanes project, so that may explain why a lot of the shields were taken down too)
Just spotted this in the Caltrans list of highway conditions:
Quote
SR 14
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
A HIGH WIND ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT FROM THE JCT OF US 101 /IN LOS ANGELES/ TO THE JCT OF SR 126 /IN SANTA CLARITA/ (LOS ANGELES CO) - TRAVEL IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CAMPERS, TRAILERS, OR PERMIT LOADS
So, high winds along an unconstructed segment.
Quote from: citrus on April 07, 2023, 03:35:59 PM
Just spotted this in the Caltrans list of highway conditions:
Quote
SR 14
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
A HIGH WIND ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT FROM THE JCT OF US 101 /IN LOS ANGELES/ TO THE JCT OF SR 126 /IN SANTA CLARITA/ (LOS ANGELES CO) - TRAVEL IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CAMPERS, TRAILERS, OR PERMIT LOADS
So, high winds along an unconstructed segment.
With a deleted/unconstructed highway segment referenced in the form of CA 126.
Quote from: citrus on April 07, 2023, 03:35:59 PM
Just spotted this in the Caltrans list of highway conditions:
Quote
SR 14
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
A HIGH WIND ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT FROM THE JCT OF US 101 /IN LOS ANGELES/ TO THE JCT OF SR 126 /IN SANTA CLARITA/ (LOS ANGELES CO) - TRAVEL IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CAMPERS, TRAILERS, OR PERMIT LOADS
So, high winds along an unconstructed segment.
Depends on what they are referring to. If it's Newhall Avenue (which used to be San Fernando Road), it's fully traversable and was part of CA-14 until 2002 or so. If they're referring to Golden Valley Road, which has never been part of CA-14 but is more or less the unsigned connection, I suppose that's "unconstruted" but only in a technical sense. Either way it's an odd reference. And further demonstrates my belief that relinquishment is a stupid idea and highways should be signed regardless of who maintains them.
CA 180 to Grant Grove reopened a week early after slide repairs:
https://www.yourcentralvalley.com/news/local-news/update-sequoia-and-kings-canyon-national-park-reopening/
Quote from: TheStranger on April 07, 2023, 02:28:32 AM
Quote from: jzn110 on April 06, 2023, 09:30:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on April 06, 2023, 03:10:32 PM
(Albeit, the original sign did not have any button copy, while the patch with the I-5 Golden State Freeway text did)
I'm willing to bet that it did, but the buttons were removed so the patch could be installed flat to the original sign.
Someone mentioned on the Freeways of Los Angeles group that this section of 134 was built in 1962 - I think that was several years before button copy started being applied to what were originally porcelain signs.
Yeah, the sign is old enough to predate button copy in California. Many of the older signs had button copy applied to make them reflective.
Quote from: Quillz on April 07, 2023, 04:40:58 PM
Quote from: citrus on April 07, 2023, 03:35:59 PM
Just spotted this in the Caltrans list of highway conditions:
Quote
SR 14
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
A HIGH WIND ADVISORY IS IN EFFECT FROM THE JCT OF US 101 /IN LOS ANGELES/ TO THE JCT OF SR 126 /IN SANTA CLARITA/ (LOS ANGELES CO) - TRAVEL IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR CAMPERS, TRAILERS, OR PERMIT LOADS
So, high winds along an unconstructed segment.
Depends on what they are referring to. If it's Newhall Avenue (which used to be San Fernando Road), it's fully traversable and was part of CA-14 until 2002 or so. If they're referring to Golden Valley Road, which has never been part of CA-14 but is more or less the unsigned connection, I suppose that's "unconstruted" but only in a technical sense. Either way it's an odd reference. And further demonstrates my belief that relinquishment is a stupid idea and highways should be signed regardless of who maintains them.
Neither of those make it anywhere near US-101, though!
Strange reference to the 101 junction that is traversable via I-5/Rinaldi/Reseda. Not sure why they did that. Should have just set it to I-5.
From there 14 was supposed to follow Reseda to Mulholland to Temescal and PCH. None of that is paved except the latter.
Went to look at the US 99 at the CA 134-I-5 interchange with my wife yesterday. Fabulous, well preserved. Hopefully someone kind at Caltrans will deprioritize the sign replacement for awhile. :)
Mike Ballard has video clip of the US-99 sign at the CA-134@ I-5 interchange.
Looks like everyone is parking on the shoulder of Zoo Drive and taking photos from Main Trail.
That Camry with the hood up is a front for a roadgeek taking photos. :-D
Who would have thought most people at this point in time are even aware of US 99? That's neat how much attention this is getting.
On the forum it doesn't surprise me at all. I haven't seen anything mainstream report on the appearance of a US 99 sign.
Quote from: bing101 on April 10, 2023, 10:47:58 PM
Mike Ballard has video clip of the US-99 sign at the CA-134@ I-5 interchange.
I learned something new today: how CA-134 was routed before to link to that short Colorado Street freeway.
Also answered my question why the ramps from I-5 to CA-134 merges to the left
Quote from: cl94 on April 07, 2023, 05:58:59 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on April 07, 2023, 02:28:32 AM
Quote from: jzn110 on April 06, 2023, 09:30:35 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on April 06, 2023, 03:10:32 PM
(Albeit, the original sign did not have any button copy, while the patch with the I-5 Golden State Freeway text did)
I'm willing to bet that it did, but the buttons were removed so the patch could be installed flat to the original sign.
Someone mentioned on the Freeways of Los Angeles group that this section of 134 was built in 1962 - I think that was several years before button copy started being applied to what were originally porcelain signs.
Yeah, the sign is old enough to predate button copy in California. Many of the older signs had button copy applied to make them reflective.
I have read several times before that reflector buttons were epoxied onto the old porcelain signs in the early 1980's. I'm only 44, so I was a little too young to observe that transition, but I have wondered how exactly that was accomplished. Were people going up onto the signs and applying those dot-by-dot? That seems like an unimaginable amount of manual labor. Anybody who was around then or with some insider knowledge who can elaborate onto how it was accomplished?
Reddit thread on the US 99 sign on 134 east:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/12i5mpd/spotted_near_burbank_a_portion_of_this_sign_fell/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
(https://i.redd.it/1rbk9vlel7ta1.jpg)
That thread reads like "when non-road people discover US 66 wasn't the only US Route."
Quote from: TheStranger on April 12, 2023, 06:39:50 PM
Reddit thread on the US 99 sign on 134 east:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/12i5mpd/spotted_near_burbank_a_portion_of_this_sign_fell/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1 (https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/12i5mpd/spotted_near_burbank_a_portion_of_this_sign_fell/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
(https://i.redd.it/1rbk9vlel7ta1.jpg)
The Last time we talked about US-99 was because Caltrans accidentally put a US-99 Sign at the US-50 @ CA-51, CA-99 Interchange in Sacramento. This was when US-50/I-305 and CA-51/Business 80 was going through a maintenance project in the area. In Sacramento there is a CA-99 that has been rumored to be I-7 or I-9 for some time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800992i1.jpg)
Interstate 9 is a pipe dream that's been around for decades. I'll believe it when it happens.
Same with Interstate 40 west of Barstow along CA 58. I just wish CA 210 and CA 905 would become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 at some point within my lifetime. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:06:11 PM
Same with Interstate 40 west of Barstow along CA 58. I just wish CA 210 and CA 905 would become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 at some point within my lifetime. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.
I-40 west of Barstow was an actual submission for chargeable funds, but that was during 1968. The Interstate corridor on CA 99 was never formally proposed, CA 210 was withdrawn from consideration during the late 1990s and CA 905 has never been formally considered.
Regarding CA 99, the simplest answer for an non-chargeable Interstate corridor is either I-305 or (even better IMO) I-99. Neither of those have the legislative number duplication nonsense to deal with. I-99 won't make many road people happy (it would make me happy) but it would keep the corridor the number it always been. Maintaining the 99 number would probably be favorable to local interests. It certainly isn't less strange than I-238 and still arguably a better use of the number than east coast I-99.
The Interstate 305 designation is already taken, although it is unsigned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_50_in_California#Freeway_and_expressway_upgrades. So unless you want existing 305 to be extended southward another 298 miles, Interstate 7 or 9 would be the preferred designation, assuming CA 99 ever becomes an Interstate, which plenty of us doubt will ever happen.
It's also not legislatively defined by the state, it is just an FHWA designation. One legislative session is all it would take to define the corridor as extending from I-80 in West Sacramento to I-5 near Wheeler Ridge.
But again, I'd like to emphasize my preference for asymmetry.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 12, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
It certainly isn't less strange than I-238
That's a low bar :)
Quote from: kkt on April 13, 2023, 12:52:22 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 12, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
It certainly isn't less strange than I-238
That's a low bar :)
Yes, a very low bar. All the same, that low bar has kept what would otherwise might be the most uninteresting urban freeway in California in the spotlight due it having a weird number.
Holy moly the roads are bad in SoCal. I know we've had a rainy season and bad weather but this is insane. I'm not sure how LA plans on taking this all on. The situation up in big bear is mind blowing how bad the roads are. I just had to get my car towed after hitting a foot plus deep pothole that came from nowhere on Beverly Glenn and it ripped my bumper off which I don't even know how that possible.
I know Mayor Bass has setup a new initiative to report them and get them fixed but many of these roads will need to be entirely resurfaced.
To long standing residents here, has it ever been this bad? I've only been here since 2015 but I've never seen it like this. It's just as bad if not worse than Oklahoma in some places.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2023, 03:45:09 PM
Holy moly the roads are bad in SoCal. I know we've had a rainy season and bad weather but this is insane. I'm not sure how LA plans on taking this all on. The situation up in big bear is mind blowing how bad the roads are. I just had to get my car towed after hitting a foot plus deep pothole that came from nowhere on Beverly Glenn and it ripped my bumper off which I don't even know how that possible.
I know Mayor Bass has setup a new initiative to report them and get them fixed but many of these roads will need to be entirely resurfaced.
To long standing residents here, has it ever been this bad? I've only been here since 2015 but I've never seen it like this. It's just as bad if not worse than Oklahoma in some places.
For some roads, yes, they've always been bad. But it's so dependent on where you are. A pothole from the rain showed up on my local street, but it was fixed within a week or so. Other places, not yet, although I'm seeing progress at least. But you did mention coming here in 2015. 2005 was another really wet year (El Nino), and the roads were awful then. So it's not a new thing, it really just is getting hit hard by rain.
Doesn't seem especially bad to me this year all things considered. Then again I'm the guy who regularly drives Fresno County and San Benito maintained roads.
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2023, 08:05:22 PM
The Last time we talked about US-99 was because Caltrans accidentally put a US-99 Sign at the US-50 @ CA-51, CA-99 Interchange in Sacramento. This was when US-50/I-305 and CA-51/Business 80 was going through a maintenance project in the area. In Sacramento there is a CA-99 that has been rumored to be I-7 or I-9 for some time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800992i1.jpg)
Is that still up? It's been a minute since I've been in Sac'to last.
Grabbed my own photo of the US 99 sign on the Ventura Freeway gantry yesterday:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52825436842_4957673111_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ou1aXQ)IMG_0701 (https://flic.kr/p/2ou1aXQ) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Speaking of 99, it turns out Caltrans signed CA 99 Business from the Manning Avenue exit near Fowler. To my knowledge, the US 99/CA 99 on Golden State Boulevard in Fresno County has not been signed in any way for at least a decade:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52826438930_e7656fac12_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ou6iRd)99BCAa (https://flic.kr/p/2ou6iRd) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 17, 2023, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: bing101 on April 12, 2023, 08:05:22 PM
The Last time we talked about US-99 was because Caltrans accidentally put a US-99 Sign at the US-50 @ CA-51, CA-99 Interchange in Sacramento. This was when US-50/I-305 and CA-51/Business 80 was going through a maintenance project in the area. In Sacramento there is a CA-99 that has been rumored to be I-7 or I-9 for some time.
(https://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19800992i1.jpg)
Is that still up? It's been a minute since I've been in Sac'to last.
Nope. Was patched over with a 99 shield. The sign structure has since been removed for the HOV lane project currently under construction through there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 12, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:06:11 PM
Same with Interstate 40 west of Barstow along CA 58. I just wish CA 210 and CA 905 would become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 at some point within my lifetime. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.
I-40 west of Barstow was an actual submission for chargeable funds, but that was during 1968. The Interstate corridor on CA 99 was never formally proposed, CA 210 was withdrawn from consideration during the late 1990s and CA 905 has never been formally considered.
Regarding CA 99, the simplest answer for an non-chargeable Interstate corridor is either I-305 or (even better IMO) I-99. Neither of those have the legislative number duplication nonsense to deal with. I-99 won't make many road people happy (it would make me happy) but it would keep the corridor the number it always been. Maintaining the 99 number would probably be favorable to local interests. It certainly isn't less strange than I-238 and still arguably a better use of the number than east coast I-99.
I rather see a return of US 99 (+ upgrading the portion south of Sacramento to Interstate standards) TBH
Quote from: SeriesE on April 18, 2023, 05:12:51 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 12, 2023, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 12, 2023, 10:06:11 PM
Same with Interstate 40 west of Barstow along CA 58. I just wish CA 210 and CA 905 would become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905 at some point within my lifetime. Ditto for CA 15 becoming Interstate 15.
I-40 west of Barstow was an actual submission for chargeable funds, but that was during 1968. The Interstate corridor on CA 99 was never formally proposed, CA 210 was withdrawn from consideration during the late 1990s and CA 905 has never been formally considered.
Regarding CA 99, the simplest answer for an non-chargeable Interstate corridor is either I-305 or (even better IMO) I-99. Neither of those have the legislative number duplication nonsense to deal with. I-99 won't make many road people happy (it would make me happy) but it would keep the corridor the number it always been. Maintaining the 99 number would probably be favorable to local interests. It certainly isn't less strange than I-238 and still arguably a better use of the number than east coast I-99.
I rather see a return of US 99 (+ upgrading the portion south of Sacramento to Interstate standards) TBH
I've said before that California should have done what Oregon does with their US highways, and turn them into de facto business routes/spurs. All the various CA-2xx highways could have been kept as a unified US-99 (273, 265, 263), and thus deviate from I-5 when necessary. (Just like how US-30 works with I-84). Had this been the case, there probably would have been enough justification to keep US-99 around in Oregon and Washington, too. After the '64 renumbering, numerous state highways existed in pieces anyway, so US-99 wouldn't have been any different in this regard.
But that's not what happened, obviously.
Quote from: Quillz on April 18, 2023, 05:56:03 AM
I've said before that California should have done what Oregon does with their US highways, and turn them into de facto business routes/spurs. All the various CA-2xx highways could have been kept as a unified US-99 (273, 265, 263), and thus deviate from I-5 when necessary. (Just like how US-30 works with I-84). Had this been the case, there probably would have been enough justification to keep US-99 around in Oregon and Washington, too. After the '64 renumbering, numerous state highways existed in pieces anyway, so US-99 wouldn't have been any different in this regard.
It would be amusing to call 263 a "business route" since not a lot of business gets done on it.
Looks like they're doing this to 204, at least the part within Bakersfield, which is signed as both 204 and 99 Business. I expect the 204 signs will disappear eventually. They could sign the part outside Bakersfield too, and leave it as secret 204, like 51 in Sacramento which is signed as 80 Business.
Quote from: pderocco on April 18, 2023, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 18, 2023, 05:56:03 AM
I've said before that California should have done what Oregon does with their US highways, and turn them into de facto business routes/spurs. All the various CA-2xx highways could have been kept as a unified US-99 (273, 265, 263), and thus deviate from I-5 when necessary. (Just like how US-30 works with I-84). Had this been the case, there probably would have been enough justification to keep US-99 around in Oregon and Washington, too. After the '64 renumbering, numerous state highways existed in pieces anyway, so US-99 wouldn't have been any different in this regard.
It would be amusing to call 263 a "business route" since not a lot of business gets done on it.
Looks like they're doing this to 204, at least the part within Bakersfield, which is signed as both 204 and 99 Business. I expect the 204 signs will disappear eventually. They could sign the part outside Bakersfield too, and leave it as secret 204, like 51 in Sacramento which is signed as 80 Business.
99 Business around Bakersfield is signed even south of the limits of CA 204 on Union Avenue towards the vicinity of Wheeler Ridge.
Quote from: pderocco on April 18, 2023, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 18, 2023, 05:56:03 AM
I've said before that California should have done what Oregon does with their US highways, and turn them into de facto business routes/spurs. All the various CA-2xx highways could have been kept as a unified US-99 (273, 265, 263), and thus deviate from I-5 when necessary. (Just like how US-30 works with I-84). Had this been the case, there probably would have been enough justification to keep US-99 around in Oregon and Washington, too. After the '64 renumbering, numerous state highways existed in pieces anyway, so US-99 wouldn't have been any different in this regard.
It would be amusing to call 263 a "business route" since not a lot of business gets done on it.
Looks like they're doing this to 204, at least the part within Bakersfield, which is signed as both 204 and 99 Business. I expect the 204 signs will disappear eventually. They could sign the part outside Bakersfield too, and leave it as secret 204, like 51 in Sacramento which is signed as 80 Business.
They should take 178 off of surface streets in Bakersfield and sign the divided highway portion of 204 from the 99 to the 178 interchange as 178. South of there they can sign the rest of 204 as business 99.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 19, 2023, 03:46:34 PM
Quote from: pderocco on April 18, 2023, 09:47:44 PM
Quote from: Quillz on April 18, 2023, 05:56:03 AM
I've said before that California should have done what Oregon does with their US highways, and turn them into de facto business routes/spurs. All the various CA-2xx highways could have been kept as a unified US-99 (273, 265, 263), and thus deviate from I-5 when necessary. (Just like how US-30 works with I-84). Had this been the case, there probably would have been enough justification to keep US-99 around in Oregon and Washington, too. After the '64 renumbering, numerous state highways existed in pieces anyway, so US-99 wouldn't have been any different in this regard.
It would be amusing to call 263 a "business route" since not a lot of business gets done on it.
Looks like they're doing this to 204, at least the part within Bakersfield, which is signed as both 204 and 99 Business. I expect the 204 signs will disappear eventually. They could sign the part outside Bakersfield too, and leave it as secret 204, like 51 in Sacramento which is signed as 80 Business.
They should take 178 off of surface streets in Bakersfield and sign the divided highway portion of 204 from the 99 to the 178 interchange as 178. South of there they can sign the rest of 204 as business 99.
178 actually ends at 204 now.
Could the Tom Lantos Tunnels be modified to accomodate 4 lanes?
Doesn't look like it. Each tunnel is one lane and a shoulder that's not wide enough to be another lane.
You're not adding a lane on either side of the tunnels, so it's pointless to take away the shoulder for a travel lane.
Did our take on the reemergence of the US 99 sign at the Ventura Freeway/Golden State Freeway interchange:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/04/the-reemergence-of-us-route-99-at.html
I don't know if this was ever brought up in the Pacific Southwest thread, but I've seen this erroneous sign for quite some time now. In Newbury Park, on Borchard Rd going NB right at the junction with US-101, the street sign shows a CA spade with a 101 inside instead of the US route shield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1827868,-118.926352,3a,38.1y,37.89h,104.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KnNJMhP39e98uEnp3KHvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: RZF on April 22, 2023, 02:45:53 PM
I don't know if this was ever brought up in the Pacific Southwest thread, but I've seen this erroneous sign for quite some time now. In Newbury Park, on Borchard Rd going NB right at the junction with US-101, the street sign shows a CA spade with a 101 inside instead of the US route shield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1827868,-118.926352,3a,38.1y,37.89h,104.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KnNJMhP39e98uEnp3KHvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh neat, I got to that area a ton but I've never seen that. First time I've ever seen CA-101.
Quote from: Quillz on April 22, 2023, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: RZF on April 22, 2023, 02:45:53 PM
I don't know if this was ever brought up in the Pacific Southwest thread, but I've seen this erroneous sign for quite some time now. In Newbury Park, on Borchard Rd going NB right at the junction with US-101, the street sign shows a CA spade with a 101 inside instead of the US route shield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1827868,-118.926352,3a,38.1y,37.89h,104.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KnNJMhP39e98uEnp3KHvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh neat, I got to that area a ton but I've never seen that. First time I've ever seen CA-101.
Makes me wonder about the logistics of making road signs. You'd think whoever actually designs the sign in a CAD system, would have a basic understanding of the types of roads, and in this case would know what most idiot drivers manage to learn, that 101 is a US route. And you'd think that as the sign was being made, someone involved in the process would notice the error. I remember when there was an I-52 sign in La Jolla, which should have been CA-52. Are they all morons?
Quote from: pderocco on April 24, 2023, 03:14:48 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 22, 2023, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: RZF on April 22, 2023, 02:45:53 PM
I don't know if this was ever brought up in the Pacific Southwest thread, but I've seen this erroneous sign for quite some time now. In Newbury Park, on Borchard Rd going NB right at the junction with US-101, the street sign shows a CA spade with a 101 inside instead of the US route shield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1827868,-118.926352,3a,38.1y,37.89h,104.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KnNJMhP39e98uEnp3KHvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh neat, I got to that area a ton but I've never seen that. First time I've ever seen CA-101.
Makes me wonder about the logistics of making road signs. You'd think whoever actually designs the sign in a CAD system, would have a basic understanding of the types of roads, and in this case would know what most idiot drivers manage to learn, that 101 is a US route. And you'd think that as the sign was being made, someone involved in the process would notice the error. I remember when there was an I-52 sign in La Jolla, which should have been CA-52. Are they all morons?
I've always wondered if it's a case of specs have to be followed, even if it's known there is an error. I remember seeing a giant Alabama shield in Texas, and it's like... Surely they can recognize Texas isn't shaped like Alabama?
I will say error shields like this are pretty rare in California. The most common one I see is applying the interstate shield to state or federal highways.
Quote from: Quillz on April 24, 2023, 03:23:51 AM
I've always wondered if it's a case of specs have to be followed, even if it's known there is an error. I remember seeing a giant Alabama shield in Texas, and it's like... Surely they can recognize Texas isn't shaped like Alabama?
I think it's a case of specs have to be worn.
Quote from: Quillz on April 24, 2023, 03:23:51 AM
Quote from: pderocco on April 24, 2023, 03:14:48 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 22, 2023, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: RZF on April 22, 2023, 02:45:53 PM
I don't know if this was ever brought up in the Pacific Southwest thread, but I've seen this erroneous sign for quite some time now. In Newbury Park, on Borchard Rd going NB right at the junction with US-101, the street sign shows a CA spade with a 101 inside instead of the US route shield:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1827868,-118.926352,3a,38.1y,37.89h,104.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7KnNJMhP39e98uEnp3KHvg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Oh neat, I got to that area a ton but I've never seen that. First time I've ever seen CA-101.
Makes me wonder about the logistics of making road signs. You'd think whoever actually designs the sign in a CAD system, would have a basic understanding of the types of roads, and in this case would know what most idiot drivers manage to learn, that 101 is a US route. And you'd think that as the sign was being made, someone involved in the process would notice the error. I remember when there was an I-52 sign in La Jolla, which should have been CA-52. Are they all morons?
I've always wondered if it's a case of specs have to be followed, even if it's known there is an error. I remember seeing a giant Alabama shield in Texas, and it's like... Surely they can recognize Texas isn't shaped like Alabama?
That was always my thoughts about why there are so many signs being newly installed out there with the 3/4 text sizing error. My city has recently put up quite a few of them, and I have a hard time believing that nobody involved in the sign-making process realizes just how wrong and bad these signs look. They probably are just blindly following what is probably a poorly-worded standard.
Groundbreaking (https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/caltrans-breaks-ground-on-highway-46-41-wye-project/177089/) was held for a project that will convert the intersection in SLO County where James Dean was killed in 1955 into a grade separated interchange
Much of the new alignment being built in Cholame strays north of the existing highway. I was out there last week, looked like most of the grade work was already nearing completion.
Will the new interchange be named the James Dean Memorial Interchange, in honor of him?
I'm surprised Caltrans didn't at least put a traffic signal there during the past 50+ years
Way too busy of an intersection, the backups would be massive with a traffic light. The only really difficult movement is the left hand turn from eastbound CA 46 to continue on northbound CA 41. The trouble tends to be that the area gets a lot of winter fog which contributes to low visibility borne crashes. Trying to turn left from any of the local properties is way worse from the two two lane segments of CA 41/CA 46.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 26, 2023, 02:49:44 PM
Much of the new alignment being built in Cholame strays north of the existing highway. I was out there last week, looked like most of the grade work was already nearing completion.
Funny you'd mention that, and also that Concrete Bob would mention CA-65 in Porterville in another thread. I drove through both those stretches last Saturday. I had no idea that 46 would have a new alignment until I saw it with my own eyes. Then I looked online and found the map. However, I couldn't find any map showing the arrangement for the 41/46 split. Does anyone have a link to that? The maps in EIRs are usually the best.
Quote from: kernals12 on April 26, 2023, 02:47:51 PM
Groundbreaking (https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/caltrans-breaks-ground-on-highway-46-41-wye-project/177089/) was held for a project that will convert the intersection in SLO County where James Dean was killed in 1955 into a grade separated interchange
Wasn't the actual intersection not in use anymore? I think the modern highway (and the named intersection) is a little north of where it used to be.
Also, some brand new signage just went up on US-101 through the valley! The Ventura Freeway between CA-27 and I-405, specifically. Couldn't get any pics, one sign is being worked on right now. However, already saw a design error: too much spacing between "White Oak" and "Avenue." Looks like someone hit the space bar twice.
Quote from: Quillz on April 27, 2023, 05:04:20 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 26, 2023, 02:47:51 PM
Groundbreaking (https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/caltrans-breaks-ground-on-highway-46-41-wye-project/177089/) was held for a project that will convert the intersection in SLO County where James Dean was killed in 1955 into a grade separated interchange
Wasn't the actual intersection not in use anymore? I think the modern highway (and the named intersection) is a little north of where it used to be.
I don't think so, because even after all those decades there would be visible scars on the landscape.
Quote from: pderocco on April 29, 2023, 12:28:36 AM
Quote from: Quillz on April 27, 2023, 05:04:20 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 26, 2023, 02:47:51 PM
Groundbreaking (https://pasoroblesdailynews.com/caltrans-breaks-ground-on-highway-46-41-wye-project/177089/) was held for a project that will convert the intersection in SLO County where James Dean was killed in 1955 into a grade separated interchange
Wasn't the actual intersection not in use anymore? I think the modern highway (and the named intersection) is a little north of where it used to be.
I don't think so, because even after all those decades there would be visible scars on the landscape.
It's the same as it was when it was the junction of US 466 and CA 41.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 29, 2023, 12:34:10 AM
It's the same as it was when it was the junction of US 466 and CA 41.
To clarify for other folks:
The 41/46 east junction is the one that hasn't changed much in decades, the one in Cholame. This is where James Dean's accident occurred.
The west junction is what has been realigned, with Shandon now bypassed to the north on 41/46. 41/US 466 used to continue through town to where 41 continues south (then originally 466 followed 41, 229, and the Rocky Canyon Trail to Atascadero).
Rocky Canyon being the last segment of dirt US Route in California. It was never actually paved and US 466 was realigned west of Shandon along CA 41 to Paso Robles. Rocky Canyon is heavily eroded but can still be hiked:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/12/legacy-of-us-route-466-part-3-morro-bay.html?m=1
Years ago, Elkhorn Boulevard in Sacramento was realigned to head southwest from its former direct alignment to Power Line Road.
Now I see the culmination of this: a new entrance to Sacramento International Airport!
https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento/smf-breaks-ground-extension-project/103-148720ab-3a4b-4043-93c7-94e0cea9cac8?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot&tag1=kxtvshare&fbclid=IwAR0aeWp1mi4RAbQaA1oyFvh4yTbPCKjr0pASbBd3GAPU1SZR_OCaff8pi6M
I'm trying to figure out the need for this other than creating a shorter route to the airport for that Amazon hub. It seems like the airport is equally accessible from the 99 using the 5 as it is in getting off the 99 an exit before the 5 and using Elkhorn.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 30, 2023, 11:34:38 AM
I'm trying to figure out the need for this other than creating a shorter route to the airport for that Amazon hub. It seems like the airport is equally accessible from the 99 using the 5 as it is in getting off the 99 an exit before the 5 and using Elkhorn.
Here's the stated "need" from a Sacramento Bee article (https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article274853281.html):
QuoteAirport officials characterized the second direct connection to the airport as an alternative entrance if travel backs up on I-5. Motorists on State Highway 99 could get off at the Elkhorn Boulevard exit and take that road right to the airport, they said.
The connector would also serve as a direct link for traffic between a proposed airport cargo station in Metro Air Park and the airport.
"Our goal has always been to have secondary access to the airport," TJ Chen, deputy director of airport planning and development said at the groundbreaking ceremony.
Apparently, in the late 60s, there were plans for a Hwy 9 Freeway/Expressway (https://archive.org/details/FredMcPhersonOnSavingTheSanLorenzoRiver-HipHistorySantaCruzJuly192018/18-07-19-Fred-McPherson-SavingSanLorenzo-HipHistorySC.m4v) (start at 0:55) in the San Lorenzo Valley going from Scotts Valley to Boulder Creek.
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Must've never got much beyond the concept phase. I don't see that segment of CA 9 referenced as part of the Freeway & Expressway System. But to Quillz point, probably over 95% of urban state highways were added to the Freeway & Expressway system at some point. It would be fair to say that most state highways in big cities were at least conceptually planned to have limited access elements. That's not to say every planned freeway and expressway had a formal alignment adoption by the CHC.
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 05:09:33 AM
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Drove through Glendale the other day. Caltrans put up a new I-5 shield at the Victory Blvd exit. No more US-99.
Is the Sierra Highway that parallels the southern CA 14 freeway the Historic US 6 alignment into the LA area?
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 01:00:18 PM
Is the Sierra Highway that parallels the southern CA 14 freeway the Historic US 6 alignment into the LA area?
Yes, but there are several alignments in Santa Clarita.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 03, 2023, 08:09:32 AM
Must've never got much beyond the concept phase. I don't see that segment of CA 9 referenced as part of the Freeway & Expressway System. But to Quillz point, probably over 95% of urban state highways were added to the Freeway & Expressway system at some point. It would be fair to say that most state highways in big cities were at least conceptually planned to have limited access elements. That's not to say every planned freeway and expressway had a formal alignment adoption by the CHC.
This. A stupid percentage of the state highway system is on the freeway and expressway system. That does not mean a full freeway was ever proposed, or even anything more than minor access control.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 05:09:33 AM
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to with my comment. Or how there were all these plans to take highways across the Sierra. It was just a mentality of anything and everything can be built, and who cares about the environmental impact. Makes me wonder what might have been if environmentalism didn't become a bigger deal, would we have a causeway from California to Hawaii?
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 05:09:33 AM
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to with my comment. Or how there were all these plans to take highways across the Sierra. It was just a mentality of anything and everything can be built, and who cares about the environmental impact. Makes me wonder what might have been if environmentalism didn't become a bigger deal, would we have a causeway from California to Hawaii?
Pretty obviously not. That would be physically impossible
Worth noting that environmentalism killing highways wasn't just a late 1960s/early 1970s problem. Both CA 180 over Kearsarge Pass and CA 168 over Piute Pass were low key killed in 1940 when Forest Service lands were transferred to the National Park Service as part of Kings Canyon National Park. Both projects were intended to be Forest Service built roads with Sign Routes affixed to them. Essentially think Sherman Pass Road but with a more significant profile.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 05:26:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 05:09:33 AM
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to with my comment. Or how there were all these plans to take highways across the Sierra. It was just a mentality of anything and everything can be built, and who cares about the environmental impact. Makes me wonder what might have been if environmentalism didn't become a bigger deal, would we have a causeway from California to Hawaii?
Pretty obviously not. That would be physically impossible
Doesn't stop FritzOwl from planning it
These maps from a 1958 US Department of Commerce study show lots of never built freeways.
(https://i.imgur.com/hrzixlc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8Ge3d6B.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MbrTcjH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/WugI2sV.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/kwfDvhd.png)
Quote from: RZF on May 03, 2023, 12:46:44 PM
Drove through Glendale the other day. Caltrans put up a new I-5 shield at the Victory Blvd exit. No more US-99.
Aww. Did they replace the entire panel or just green it out?
Worse, I-5 patch with no further repairs.
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
Quote from: roadman65 on May 03, 2023, 01:00:18 PM
Is the Sierra Highway that parallels the southern CA 14 freeway the Historic US 6 alignment into the LA area?
Yes, it is. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Highway)
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
That was part of the Route 77 proposal.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
Same reason California City was built. There was an expected population boom around Edwards Air Force Base, and all those workers would need somewhere to live. But it never happened but they still built up miles of tracts anyway. I guess back in the 50s or w/e these plans were made, they just had different predictions about where population booms would be.
New Yerba Buena Island offramp from eastbound I-80 on the Bay Bridge. (This explains finally why the Treasure Island exit remained numbered as "Exit 4A" for years even when the Yerba Buena exit/4B was not active)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/will-new-bay-bridge-off-ramp-reduce-traffic-18078884.php?fbclid=IwAR1mnEl-9HX7L6jwl06fe7gwlc4JO2fuZha8-lD97zKhyAnZ03OQXmqBETc
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
What is interesting is that Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Blvd functions effectively as an expressway anyway. This is right by my house, I drive it daily, and in spite of posted speed limits, most people travel 60-70 MPH in the area between Geary Blvd and Pleasant Hill Rd. I don't think a freeway was ever truly necessary along this route, however.
The routes that really did need to be built out as a freeway are 24 over Ygnacio Valley and Kirker Pass road, and 239/84 between Brentwood and Livermore and/or Tracy. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Brentwood - Tracy route.
A lot of the planned freeways and expressways did get built eventually, but not as state highways. That's really apparent with some planned corridors around Sacramento and even the Bay Area with the likes of stuff akin to Vasco Road.
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
What is interesting is that Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Blvd functions effectively as an expressway anyway. This is right by my house, I drive it daily, and in spite of posted speed limits, most people travel 60-70 MPH in the area between Geary Blvd and Pleasant Hill Rd. I don't think a freeway was ever truly necessary along this route, however.
The routes that really did need to be built out as a freeway are 24 over Ygnacio Valley and Kirker Pass road, and 239/84 between Brentwood and Livermore and/or Tracy. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Brentwood - Tracy route.
All those freeways through Western Marin and Sonoma Counties would've been great, spawning beautiful new subdivisions and preventing the Bay Area's current housing crunch.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 05, 2023, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
What is interesting is that Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Blvd functions effectively as an expressway anyway. This is right by my house, I drive it daily, and in spite of posted speed limits, most people travel 60-70 MPH in the area between Geary Blvd and Pleasant Hill Rd. I don't think a freeway was ever truly necessary along this route, however.
The routes that really did need to be built out as a freeway are 24 over Ygnacio Valley and Kirker Pass road, and 239/84 between Brentwood and Livermore and/or Tracy. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Brentwood - Tracy route.
All those freeways through Western Marin and Sonoma Counties would've been great, spawning beautiful new subdivisions and preventing the Bay Area's current housing crunch.
I agree that we need to build more housing, and that the fact that we essentially stopped within the core Bay Area 40 years ago has a lot to do with the current crisis, but I don't think the terrain of Western Marin or Sonoma counties really lends itself to large-scale housing development of that sort. There are still plenty of interior lowland areas in the core Bay Area that should be built up and densified, with adequate highway and transit provisioning to service them. Case-in-point: the lost opportunity to really do something on a grander scale on the various closed military installations.
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 05, 2023, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
What is interesting is that Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Blvd functions effectively as an expressway anyway. This is right by my house, I drive it daily, and in spite of posted speed limits, most people travel 60-70 MPH in the area between Geary Blvd and Pleasant Hill Rd. I don't think a freeway was ever truly necessary along this route, however.
The routes that really did need to be built out as a freeway are 24 over Ygnacio Valley and Kirker Pass road, and 239/84 between Brentwood and Livermore and/or Tracy. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Brentwood - Tracy route.
All those freeways through Western Marin and Sonoma Counties would've been great, spawning beautiful new subdivisions and preventing the Bay Area's current housing crunch.
I agree that we need to build more housing, and that the fact that we essentially stopped within the core Bay Area 40 years ago has a lot to do with the current crisis, but I don't think the terrain of Western Marin or Sonoma counties really lends itself to large-scale housing development of that sort. There are still plenty of interior lowland areas in the core Bay Area that should be built up and densified, with adequate highway and transit provisioning to service them. Case-in-point: the lost opportunity to really do something on a grander scale on the various closed military installations.
I think this area (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2877543,-122.8992971,3a,90y,179.77h,97.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRk-03GHOXuQ2fVH1aYHkKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) looks pretty suitable for housing development.
Problem is obtaining said land requires the land owner to be willing to sell. Most of those property owners and ranchers on the Shoreline Highway aren't interested in selling.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2023, 12:25:22 PM
A lot of the planned freeways and expressways did get built eventually, but not as state highways. That's really apparent with some planned corridors around Sacramento and even the Bay Area with the likes of stuff akin to Vasco Road.
Another example of "state route planned, local route built" -
I have always wondered if that expressway section of Watt Avenue between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Jackson Highway was built with state funds - it was part of the 1980s proposed relocated Route 16, though 16 eventually was kept along Jackson, Folsom and Power Inn west towards Sacramento State University.
The most obvious Bay Area example is the Richmond Parkway/planned Route 93.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 05, 2023, 02:39:52 PM
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 01:58:22 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 05, 2023, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: jdbx on May 05, 2023, 12:22:39 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 04, 2023, 12:11:04 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on May 04, 2023, 12:16:48 AM
Not quite sure if the map shows "proposed freeways" or just "planned or existing highways" regardless of freeway. Having said that:
What's listed in the first map that is unbuilt:
Route 87 north of US 101 (to San Francisco)
Route 61 north of Route 84 (to Alameda)
Route 84 west of the Dumbarton Bridge (as a freeway)
I-380 west of I-280
First map also essentially shows the 1958-1965 I-680 that used today's Route 262 and I-880 between Warm Springs and San Jose
Second map:
Route 93 east of I-80, heading southeast to Moraga and then to Alamo at I-680 (west of I-80 is the Richmond Parkway)
Route 24 east of Walnut Creek through Clayton to Route 4 in Pitsburg
Route 77 east of International Boulevard northeast to Moraga to Route 242 in Concord
Route 84 between Livermore and Brentwood along Vasco Road
Route 239 from Route 4 in Brentwood southeast to the I-580/I-205 junction
Route 13 west of Route 24 and south of I-580
Route 92 as a freeway east of I-880 to I-580
Third map:
Route 17 (now unbuilt Route 251) northwest of the I-580/US 101 junction in San Rafael to Route 1 in Point Reyes Station
Route 37 between Point Reyes Station and Novato
Fourth map:
Route 12 freeway east of Santa Rosa
That freeway bypassing Santa Rosa to the west (presumably Route 116) is really eyebrow raising. I guess they really expected Santa Rosa's population to boom.
Also weird is that freeway along Pleasant Hill/Taylor west of Walnut Creek
What is interesting is that Pleasant Hill Road / Taylor Blvd functions effectively as an expressway anyway. This is right by my house, I drive it daily, and in spite of posted speed limits, most people travel 60-70 MPH in the area between Geary Blvd and Pleasant Hill Rd. I don't think a freeway was ever truly necessary along this route, however.
The routes that really did need to be built out as a freeway are 24 over Ygnacio Valley and Kirker Pass road, and 239/84 between Brentwood and Livermore and/or Tracy. There is still a glimmer of hope for the Brentwood - Tracy route.
All those freeways through Western Marin and Sonoma Counties would've been great, spawning beautiful new subdivisions and preventing the Bay Area's current housing crunch.
I agree that we need to build more housing, and that the fact that we essentially stopped within the core Bay Area 40 years ago has a lot to do with the current crisis, but I don't think the terrain of Western Marin or Sonoma counties really lends itself to large-scale housing development of that sort. There are still plenty of interior lowland areas in the core Bay Area that should be built up and densified, with adequate highway and transit provisioning to service them. Case-in-point: the lost opportunity to really do something on a grander scale on the various closed military installations.
I think this area (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2877543,-122.8992971,3a,90y,179.77h,97.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRk-03GHOXuQ2fVH1aYHkKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) looks pretty suitable for housing development.
You make a fair point, I suppose the area around Valley Ford wouldn't be that prohibitive from a terrain standpoint. Obviously the political obstacles are much greater. It still bothers me how much of an opportunity is being squandered in places like Alameda and Concord where there is plenty of space to provide housing for so many more people.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 05, 2023, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2023, 12:25:22 PM
A lot of the planned freeways and expressways did get built eventually, but not as state highways. That's really apparent with some planned corridors around Sacramento and even the Bay Area with the likes of stuff akin to Vasco Road.
Another example of "state route planned, local route built" -
I have always wondered if that expressway section of Watt Avenue between Fair Oaks Boulevard and Jackson Highway was built with state funds - it was part of the 1980s proposed relocated Route 16, though 16 eventually was kept along Jackson, Folsom and Power Inn west towards Sacramento State University.
The most obvious Bay Area example is the Richmond Parkway/planned Route 93.
Which even has Contra Costa County Route 93 call boxes.
Perhaps what's needed is for all the tech firms, venture capitalists, and Stanford be forced to move to Sacramento.
Sacramento has enough problems providing adequate infrastructure to the people who live there already.
Sacramento "bit the big one" when it scrapped all the plans for suburban freeways (16, 65,102, 143, 148, 244, 256, I-80 bypass) between 1974 and 1979. All the right-of-way purchased for the new freeways (the ones that were formally adopted - There were no land acquisitions for 102) was sold to developers by the end of the 1970s. Sacramento's LRT uses the land that was purchased for the I-80 bypass. If I-80, 143, 244 and 65 were built, we would have had four additional American River crossings, which would be of great relief to the area.
The LRT is virtually empty except during weekday rush hours. I am so glad that I retired three years ago. I couldn't put up with that $#!t these days.
A lot of the land left undeveloped is prone to landslides, and it would be a bad idea to build permanent structures there.
I'd like to see some areas developed more densely, more like the density of S.F., and with better amenities to go with it. Want to be close to jobs and a vibrant downtown? Accept that you're not gonna have a single family home on 1/4 acre.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on May 05, 2023, 11:44:52 PM
Sacramento "bit the big one" when it scrapped all the plans for suburban freeways (16, 65,102, 143, 148, 244, 256, I-80 bypass) between 1974 and 1979. All the right-of-way purchased for the new freeways (the ones that were formally adopted - There were no land acquisitions for 102) was sold to developers by the end of the 1970s. Sacramento's LRT uses the land that was purchased for the I-80 bypass. If I-80, 143, 244 and 65 were built, we would have had four additional American River crossings, which would be of great relief to the area.
The LRT is virtually empty except during weekday rush hours. I am so glad that I retired three years ago. I couldn't put up with $#!t these days.
But 143 is sort of getting built as the Capital Southeast Connector
Kinda sorta, but not really. The Connector is a hybrid of SR 143 and 148 south of US 50. There is no American River Crossing. And the design of the Connector involves six roundabouts on a roughly 2.7 mile stretch through the Wilton area. The section of the connector, in its ultimate buildup will have ten tight-diamond interchanges between Excelsior Road and the El Dorado County line. Initially, those intersections will be built as surface level grade crossings.
Route 120 closure into Yosemite slated to last until July
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article275104321.html?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR04BXueIXwegrAwkeKb8iU1IugdiWQUXf_5TZxTaSI74ORRrE908o-EXlI
Hmm... I was trying to do the Tioga Pass Road this year. When is the 41 into Yosemite going to be open? There's a connection to 120 from there, right?
Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
Quote from: skluth on May 03, 2023, 06:02:50 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 05:26:53 PM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 03:27:52 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 03, 2023, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: Quillz on May 03, 2023, 05:09:33 AM
It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to with my comment. Or how there were all these plans to take highways across the Sierra. It was just a mentality of anything and everything can be built, and who cares about the environmental impact. Makes me wonder what might have been if environmentalism didn't become a bigger deal, would we have a causeway from California to Hawaii?
Pretty obviously not. That would be physically impossible
Doesn't stop FritzOwl from planning it
It should happen. It would take the traffic load off of the 101 and PCH. The Santa Monica pier can be moved. Better yet a tunnel would be even more preferable.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2023, 03:01:34 PM
Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
So is the 41-to-120 portion the part that is being worked on? I was planning to take 120 across Yosemite but sounds like it won't be open until July at the earliest.
Quote from: Quillz on May 07, 2023, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 07, 2023, 03:01:34 PM
Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
So is the 41-to-120 portion the part that is being worked on? I was planning to take 120 across Yosemite but sounds like it won't be open until July at the earliest.
I don't think so, my understanding is the problem is on a Caltrans maintained segment of 120 which would put it west of the Yosemite park boundary. All you'll need to do is check the "Plan Your Visit" tab on the NPS page for Yosemite by the time July comes around.
(https://i.imgur.com/h1S2qmS.jpg)
This 1969 map from a brochure for the Watson Industrial Park makes some interesting predictions about LA's future freeways.
They predicted that the Beverly Hills Freeway would see the light of day but not the extension of SR 57 to the Pacific Coast Highway (excuse me, Pacific Coast Freeway).
I've read that the Century Freeway was envisioned to stretch all the way to San Bernardino but it looks like any plans to extend it past the 605 were scuttled early.
Notable lines of the map that are missing: The Slauson Freeway, the Laurel Canyon Freeway, the part of the Whitnall Freeway south of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Pacific Coast Freeway North of Redondo Beach and the Reseda-to-the-Sea Freeway.
The Division of Highways Maps showed the exact same data. Any DOH map from 1938-1970 shows projected realignments of highways. The map legend on the DOH Maps denoted the difference between a planned realignment versus one formally adopted by the California Highway Commission. The post 1975 Caltrans Maps show similar information but aren't quite as nice as what the Division of Highways put out.
I had a road atlas from around 1991 that still showed the proposed CA 64 freeway, even though it was canceled and deleted in 1970 and 1976. It also showed the proposed CA 30 freeway (which was constructed as CA 210), and the proposed Interstate 710 extension to Interstate 210 (which will never be built).
Right, but just because an alignment was cancelled by the CHC/CTC doesn't mean the highway was deleted legislatively. In the case of CA 64 it has never been deleted by Legislative action.
It's been some months and the sign for "Exit 492B" on US 101 northbound at 3rd Street in SF is still up, even though the correct number is 429B.
That also reminds me: back in the early 2000s, the one retrofitted button copy exit numbering sign was along 101 southbound in Millbrae, Exit 420 for Millbrae Avenue. For a while, the same exit ramp complex was signed for a different number (Exit 421) northbound; I think both sides have now been standardized to exit 420, though not sure which number would be more accurate.
Quote from: TheStranger on May 31, 2023, 04:01:16 AM
I think both sides have now been standardized to exit 420, though not sure which number would be more accurate.
Perhaps they're
both smoking something. :sombrero:
Quote from: TheStranger on May 31, 2023, 04:01:16 AM
It's been some months and the sign for "Exit 492B" on US 101 northbound at 3rd Street in SF is still up, even though the correct number is 429B.
Exit ≈492B.
By request, posts discussing AZ 95 signed in Needles, CA have been split off to a dedicated thread. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33374.0) –Roadfro
Sierra highway pass reopening news:
https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10/status/1666829489559719937
CA 108/Sonora Pass: The snowplows working from opposite sides met a few days ago but there's still work to be done as to repairs to the road, removing fallen trees, etc.
CA 120 and Tioga Road through Yosemite National Park: Lots of snow still to be removed and whatever repairs must be done; target reopening is in time for July 4 weekend but it's iffy.
Further south and east of the Sierra on CA 136 near Lone Pine:
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1666226259825926144
Sadly highway 4 being open doesn't do much for shortening the drive time from the Bay Area to Mammoth, especially since a lot of it is only a single lane.
Starting a road trip on Monday, going to June Lake first so I'm hoping they will open Sonora Pass by then! Never been up that way nor Ebbetts pass so at least I have an alternative now.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 08, 2023, 01:31:20 PM
Further south and east of the Sierra on CA 136 near Lone Pine:
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1666226259825926144
Los Angeles apparently isn't stealing enough of their water.
Quote from: TJS23 on June 08, 2023, 03:17:13 PM
Starting a road trip on Monday, going to June Lake first so I'm hoping they will open Sonora Pass by then! Never been up that way nor Ebbetts pass so at least I have an alternative now.
I did Sonora Pass three years ago. It was pretty steep, but I enjoyed it. Second highest crossing of the Sierra IIRC, and offers some really beautiful scenery. I think it was the western approach just before the actual pass, really steep stuff and your car will really get those RPMs up.
Ebbetts Pass IMO is by far the more interesting than Sonora Pass. The one lane highway and wreckage of the mining boom of Alpine County is fascinating.
Quote from: Quillz on June 09, 2023, 05:10:21 AM
Quote from: TJS23 on June 08, 2023, 03:17:13 PM
Starting a road trip on Monday, going to June Lake first so I'm hoping they will open Sonora Pass by then! Never been up that way nor Ebbetts pass so at least I have an alternative now.
I did Sonora Pass three years ago. It was pretty steep, but I enjoyed it. Second highest crossing of the Sierra IIRC, and offers some really beautiful scenery. I think it was the western approach just before the actual pass, really steep stuff and your car will really get those RPMs up.
You're in luck!
https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1667262643839840256
Just saw as well, very impressive by Caltrans! Glad I don't have to add extra time on 88 or scare my girlfriend going up one lane on Ebbetts :-D
Probably worth noting that the one lane segment of 4 is still 12-15 feet wide. It might be striped for one lane, but cars can easily pass each other.
Quote from: TJS23 on June 09, 2023, 06:36:25 PM
Just saw as well, very impressive by Caltrans! Glad I don't have to add extra time on 88 or scare my girlfriend going up one lane on Ebbetts :-D
Depending on how good your brakes are you might scare her anyway on the Sonora Pass highway. "TJS23, what's that burning smell? :wow: "
I do promise you'll see a LOT of snow above 7500-8000 feet. There won't be any opportunity for a quick roadside hike up there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 09, 2023, 06:42:04 PM
Probably worth noting that the one lane segment of 4 is still 12-15 feet wide. It might be striped for one lane, but cars can easily pass each other.
Virtually all of the state highway 1-lanes are wide enough for 2 cars to pass. Really only an issue if you have trucks/long vehicles. Some of the local road 1-lanes get fun, though.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 09, 2023, 08:12:33 PM
I do promise you'll see a LOT of snow above 7500-8000 feet. There won't be any opportunity for a quick roadside hike up there.
And it'll still be another month until a lot of that melts. Monitor Pass just melted out today at the SNOTEL site, a full month later than normal, as did Marlette Lake. I'll be able to report on ground conditions at both Ebbetts and Sonora tomorrow, but SNOTEL shows 5 feet on the ground at Ebbetts and 3.5 at Sonora as of this morning.
Quote from: gonealookin on June 09, 2023, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on June 09, 2023, 06:36:25 PM
Just saw as well, very impressive by Caltrans! Glad I don't have to add extra time on 88 or scare my girlfriend going up one lane on Ebbetts :-D
Depending on how good your brakes are you might scare her anyway on the Sonora Pass highway. "TJS23, what's that burning smell? :wow: "
Using low gears is strongly recommended.
I can confirm that there is still a crapload of snow above 7500 feet as of today. Ebbetts probably has more snow right along the road, but Sonora might have more snow in view. Most of Sonora's viewpoints are open and and clear of snow, while those on Ebbetts are mostly blocked. Metric crapton of roaring seasonal waterfalls along 108 on both sides of the pass if you're into that.
Quote from: kkt on June 10, 2023, 11:57:42 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on June 09, 2023, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: TJS23 on June 09, 2023, 06:36:25 PM
Just saw as well, very impressive by Caltrans! Glad I don't have to add extra time on 88 or scare my girlfriend going up one lane on Ebbetts :-D
Depending on how good your brakes are you might scare her anyway on the Sonora Pass highway. "TJS23, what's that burning smell? :wow: "
Using low gears is strongly recommended.
Oh, come on. It's
only a 25% grade. :spin:
Sonora has the a much longer sustained grades compared to Ebbetts. Ebbetts is only really steep east of Pacific Grade Summit to Hermit Valley.
Yeah, as much as people hype up Ebbetts for being narrow, Sonora has much gnarlier grades. Several places with over 10% sustained on both sides of the pass, with that 25% east of the pass being sustained for close to a mile. And it's not like Sonora is any easier for a long vehicle with those tight turns.
https://mynewsla.com/business/2023/06/14/county-stands-to-receive-45-million-for-transportation-projects/
Riverside County could get money from the state for the Mid-County Parkway.
The temporary lanes on I-5 near Twisselman Road got torn down now that construction is complete. That was a missed opportunity to not build the temp lanes as a permanent lane as I-5 really needs another lane due to the heavy truck traffic.
It was probably light-duty asphalt, not intended to last.
Besides, any time you widen part of a road, you create a choke point where it necks back down.
I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley really is a strange interstate, given that it doesn't go through any significant towns for almost 300 miles, even though it's fairly close to several good-sized towns.
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 07:04:29 PM
It was probably light-duty asphalt, not intended to last.
Besides, any time you widen part of a road, you create a choke point where it necks back down.
I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley really is a strange interstate, given that it doesn't go through any significant towns for almost 300 miles, even though it's fairly close to several good-sized towns.
Caltrans has been putting those temporary lanes in on I-10 west of Blythe. The amount of deterioration in a short time period makes it pretty obvious it's not long-life asphalt. I've noticed it tends to work better than using the temporary left lane cattle chute.
Hello reporting back, Sonora Pass was amazing, 10 ft snowbank at the summit! My girlfriend loved it! Definitely check it out! I also got to drive the June Lake Loop, Benton Crossing Road, and US 6 over Montgomery Pass for the first time.
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 07:04:29 PM
It was probably light-duty asphalt, not intended to last.
Besides, any time you widen part of a road, you create a choke point where it necks back down.
I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley really is a strange interstate, given that it doesn't go through any significant towns for almost 300 miles, even though it's fairly close to several good-sized towns.
I know they're temporary, but I'm saying they should have been built to permanent lane quality and use it as a passing lane. Keep doing that throughout the entire CA-99 to I-580 segment and eventually there will be 3 lanes
Quote from: SeriesE on June 19, 2023, 03:45:25 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 07:04:29 PM
It was probably light-duty asphalt, not intended to last.
Besides, any time you widen part of a road, you create a choke point where it necks back down.
I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley really is a strange interstate, given that it doesn't go through any significant towns for almost 300 miles, even though it's fairly close to several good-sized towns.
I know they're temporary, but I'm saying they should have been built to permanent lane quality and use it as a passing lane. Keep doing that throughout the entire CA-99 to I-580 segment and eventually there will be 3 lanes
Right, but it definitely would need to be laid with a more resilient surfacing. Concrete for one costs way more than whatever cheap asphalt Caltrans has been using for those temporary lanes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 19, 2023, 08:03:39 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on June 19, 2023, 03:45:25 AM
Quote from: pderocco on June 18, 2023, 07:04:29 PM
It was probably light-duty asphalt, not intended to last.
Besides, any time you widen part of a road, you create a choke point where it necks back down.
I-5 in the San Joaquin Valley really is a strange interstate, given that it doesn't go through any significant towns for almost 300 miles, even though it's fairly close to several good-sized towns.
I know they're temporary, but I'm saying they should have been built to permanent lane quality and use it as a passing lane. Keep doing that throughout the entire CA-99 to I-580 segment and eventually there will be 3 lanes
Right, but it definitely would need to be laid with a more resilient surfacing. Concrete for one costs way more than whatever cheap asphalt Caltrans has been using for those temporary lanes.
Needs more durable structural soil too (whatever the technical term is) because a lot of places were lumpy but the pavement appears to be intact
To add my $.02 Sonora Pass is my favorite of the "big 4" (Tioga, Sonora, Ebbets and Monitor). I think it has the best mix of scenery and views. Ebbets is probably the funnest for the shock factor with that 1 lane road part, but IMHO the views are better over Sonora.
Interesting observation, how many people consider Sherman Pass in the big Sierra Nevada pass lot? Sherman Pass ranks as the third highest highway pass after Tioga and Sonora. I tend to think it gets overlooked given it is a Forest Service maintained road. Hell, even Horseshoe Meadow Road (old CA 190) and Rocky Creek Road both exceed 10,000 feet in elevation beating out Tioga Pass.
Being from SoCal, I've been over Sherman Pass many more times than the northern passes. It's a great ride, and includes one of my favorite wildflower spots a few miles east (north) of the pass. But the Sequoia NF website says it's still closed right now. Either they had an unusual amount of slide damage this year, or they just haven't got around to tidying it up due to the unusual amount of slide damage elsewhere in the NF. It's not a heavily used road. I doubt most people even know it's there, since it's not a state highway. But it doesn't have spectacular views like 120 and 108.
Quote from: pderocco on June 23, 2023, 03:06:13 AM
Being from SoCal, I've been over Sherman Pass many more times than the northern passes. It's a great ride, and includes one of my favorite wildflower spots a few miles east (north) of the pass. But the Sequoia NF website says it's still closed right now. Either they had an unusual amount of slide damage this year, or they just haven't got around to tidying it up due to the unusual amount of slide damage elsewhere in the NF. It's not a heavily used road. I doubt most people even know it's there, since it's not a state highway. But it doesn't have spectacular views like 120 and 108.
The Sequoia National Forest page does regular updates. There is a bunch of rock fall at the lower elevations that needed to be cleared. I'm sure higher elevations still have lots of snow on the road.
Perhaps we could see vital infrastructure projects expedited if Newsom's plan becomes a reality: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/gov-newsom-proposes-efforts-to-speed-up-more-projects/61257
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 26, 2023, 05:59:54 AM
Perhaps we could see vital infrastructure projects expedited if Newsom's plan becomes a reality: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/gov-newsom-proposes-efforts-to-speed-up-more-projects/61257
Isn't that just reflecting the recent changes to NEPA which mandated a page limit and decisions to be made within certain timeframes?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 26, 2023, 07:07:23 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 26, 2023, 05:59:54 AM
Perhaps we could see vital infrastructure projects expedited if Newsom's plan becomes a reality: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/gov-newsom-proposes-efforts-to-speed-up-more-projects/61257
Isn't that just reflecting the recent changes to NEPA which mandated a page limit and decisions to be made within certain timeframes?
I don't care if it's the guv or NEPA as long as it speeds up the overlong process we currently have
Does anyone know what this vacant strip of land in Riverside County is for? My first assumption was that it was for the MCP but the RCTC website says that it would go along Placentia Avenue. It has no transmission lines and it's not a flood channel. So what is it?
(https://i.imgur.com/6M8Cs5i.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ehq18f0.png)
Looks like an undeveloped greenway.
It looks like the ghost of an irrigation channel. There looks to be a channel in the sliver of historical Google Earth imagery from 1996 SW of Lake Perris (top image). The empty corridor to the east in the second image is also probably an old irrigation channel as shown by the probable remnants here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8289495,-117.1001035,235m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8310234,-117.1426377,113m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8315765,-117.1597626,779m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). The long-time use of irrigation around Perris and Hemet dates back to at least the early 1900s, predating Lake Perris. Those channels may even date back to pre-Columbian times when the various Cahuilla people were the only inhabitants as they had an extensive irrigation systems all over So Cal, even in Palm Springs (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8093792,-116.5554212,37a,35y,270h,39.44t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) where I live. There appears to be an eastern continuation here along Baycrest Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8251311,-117.0424069,1071m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8188992,-117.004493,894m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). There is little need for many channels today so many of them have been filled over time, either deliberately or just by blowing dust and sand (there's a lot of that here).
It reminds me of this area in Iraq (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0292651,47.32644,4986m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) from back when I did imagery analysis for DMA (https://www.nga.mil/defining-moments/Defense_Mapping_Agency.html)(now NGA). There are still a lot of irrigation ditches there but you can also see plenty of straight lines where ditches once ran.
There's a lot of strange water infrastructure around here. This is an aquifer feeder (//http://), catching runoff from the Whitewater River to replenish the Coachella Valley aquifer before much of it evaporates off. It also helps keep the river from flooding the major roads (Indian Canyon, Gene Autry, Vista Chino) as there is still a lot of water coming down the San Bernardino Mountains (Mount Gorgonio is over 11000' and still has snow); it's currently a wild stream as it passes under I-10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9238477,-116.636695,700m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) (there's much more water now than the imagery shows on GM) but disappears before Indian Canyon.
Quote from: skluth on June 28, 2023, 11:32:30 AM
It looks like the ghost of an irrigation channel. There looks to be a channel in the sliver of historical Google Earth imagery from 1996 SW of Lake Perris (top image). The empty corridor to the east in the second image is also probably an old irrigation channel as shown by the probable remnants here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8289495,-117.1001035,235m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8310234,-117.1426377,113m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8315765,-117.1597626,779m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). The long-time use of irrigation around Perris and Hemet dates back to at least the early 1900s, predating Lake Perris. Those channels may even date back to pre-Columbian times when the various Cahuilla people were the only inhabitants as they had an extensive irrigation systems all over So Cal, even in Palm Springs (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8093792,-116.5554212,37a,35y,270h,39.44t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) where I live. There appears to be an eastern continuation here along Baycrest Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8251311,-117.0424069,1071m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8188992,-117.004493,894m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). There is little need for many channels today so many of them have been filled over time, either deliberately or just by blowing dust and sand (there's a lot of that here).
It reminds me of this area in Iraq (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0292651,47.32644,4986m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) from back when I did imagery analysis for DMA (https://www.nga.mil/defining-moments/Defense_Mapping_Agency.html)(now NGA). There are still a lot of irrigation ditches there but you can also see plenty of straight lines where ditches once ran.
There's a lot of strange water infrastructure around here. This is an aquifer feeder (//http://), catching runoff from the Whitewater River to replenish the Coachella Valley aquifer before much of it evaporates off. It also helps keep the river from flooding the major roads (Indian Canyon, Gene Autry, Vista Chino) as there is still a lot of water coming down the San Bernardino Mountains (Mount Gorgonio is over 11000' and still has snow); it's currently a wild stream as it passes under I-10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9238477,-116.636695,700m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) (there's much more water now than the imagery shows on GM) but disappears before Indian Canyon.
I wonder if there's a major water pipeline under it. The one image of the newer subdivisions with a pin for a water treatment plant may indicate that it is, since that would otherwise be unusual to have a water plant in the middle of a residential subdivision. And if there is, it would make for a nice greenway.
Quote from: skluth on June 28, 2023, 11:32:30 AM
It looks like the ghost of an irrigation channel. There looks to be a channel in the sliver of historical Google Earth imagery from 1996 SW of Lake Perris (top image). The empty corridor to the east in the second image is also probably an old irrigation channel as shown by the probable remnants here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8289495,-117.1001035,235m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8310234,-117.1426377,113m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu)and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8315765,-117.1597626,779m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). The long-time use of irrigation around Perris and Hemet dates back to at least the early 1900s, predating Lake Perris. Those channels may even date back to pre-Columbian times when the various Cahuilla people were the only inhabitants as they had an extensive irrigation systems all over So Cal, even in Palm Springs (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8093792,-116.5554212,37a,35y,270h,39.44t/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) where I live. There appears to be an eastern continuation here along Baycrest Avenue (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8251311,-117.0424069,1071m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) and here (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8188992,-117.004493,894m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu). There is little need for many channels today so many of them have been filled over time, either deliberately or just by blowing dust and sand (there's a lot of that here).
It reminds me of this area in Iraq (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.0292651,47.32644,4986m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) from back when I did imagery analysis for DMA (https://www.nga.mil/defining-moments/Defense_Mapping_Agency.html)(now NGA). There are still a lot of irrigation ditches there but you can also see plenty of straight lines where ditches once ran.
There's a lot of strange water infrastructure around here. This is an aquifer feeder (//http://), catching runoff from the Whitewater River to replenish the Coachella Valley aquifer before much of it evaporates off. It also helps keep the river from flooding the major roads (Indian Canyon, Gene Autry, Vista Chino) as there is still a lot of water coming down the San Bernardino Mountains (Mount Gorgonio is over 11000' and still has snow); it's currently a wild stream as it passes under I-10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9238477,-116.636695,700m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) (there's much more water now than the imagery shows on GM) but disappears before Indian Canyon.
It's always good to learn something new
It's the above ground right of way for the Val Verde Tunnel, which is an underground aqueduct of Colorado River water feeding into Lake Matthews. Here is where it comes above ground west of there:
(https://i.imgur.com/vKhGTID.jpg)
Several road, rail, and active transportation projects funded. Description with links to the funded projects here: https://dot.ca.gov/news-releases/news-release-2023-025
Quote from: kernals12 on June 28, 2023, 09:31:31 AM
Does anyone know what this vacant strip of land in Riverside County is for? My first assumption was that it was for the MCP but the RCTC website says that it would go along Placentia Avenue. It has no transmission lines and it's not a flood channel. So what is it?
(https://i.imgur.com/6M8Cs5i.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ehq18f0.png)
As O.T. said, it's the Val Verde Tunnel. You can see all that stuff on USGS maps. I highly recommend using Earth Point Topo Map on Google Earth for this sort of thing. https://www.earthpoint.us/topomap.aspx (https://www.earthpoint.us/topomap.aspx)
Quote from: skluth on June 28, 2023, 11:32:30 AM
There's a lot of strange water infrastructure around here. This is an aquifer feeder (//http://), catching runoff from the Whitewater River to replenish the Coachella Valley aquifer before much of it evaporates off. It also helps keep the river from flooding the major roads (Indian Canyon, Gene Autry, Vista Chino) as there is still a lot of water coming down the San Bernardino Mountains (Mount Gorgonio is over 11000' and still has snow); it's currently a wild stream as it passes under I-10 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.9238477,-116.636695,700m/data=!3m1!1e3?authuser=0&entry=ttu) (there's much more water now than the imagery shows on GM) but disappears before Indian Canyon.
I think that aquifer feeder is primarily to keep the salt water from the Salton Sea from spreading through the ground into the Coachella Valley.
I-15 backups in California have gotten so bad that the CEO of MGM is wading into the discussions–it's starting to affect business in Las Vegas.
Quote from: Howard Stutz, The Nevada Independent
Hornbuckle: I-15 backups biggest complaint of MGM's Southern California visitors
The Strip's largest resort operator said the No. 1 complaint it hears from its Southern California customer base – roughly one-quarter of the company's overall business – is backups on Interstate 15.
MGM Resorts International CEO Bill Hornbuckle said dedicating just a small portion of the $4 billion to $5 billion the federal government has earmarked for transportation infrastructure improvements throughout the U.S. to fix the portion of the interstate that connects the Strip with Southern California "would go a long way" toward solving the challenges faced by the resort industry's largest customer base.
A few years ago, Hornbuckle took the drive himself just to experience what MGM's Southern California guests experience that turn a four-and-a-half-hour commute into an eight-hour slog with backups stretching up to 20 miles.
"I just sat there and thought about what our customers were thinking," he said. "People are resilient. I'll give them that."
Hornbuckle said he has heard similar concerns about I-15 from his fellow Strip operators.
Nevada and other tourism states, except for Hawaii, draw most of their customers by interstate highways. MGM operates nine resorts with more than 37,000 hotel rooms on the Strip.
Fixing Los Angeles to Las Vegas transportation problems is one the reasons Hornbuckle took on the role as chairman two years ago of the U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, which advises the U.S. Department of Commerce on how government policies and programs affect the industry.
Full article here:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/hornbuckle-i-15-backups-biggest-complaint-of-mgms-southern-california-visitor
Ah don't worry. They're starting construction on the HSR line by the end of the year. For the 5th year in a row.
I always do I-40 or I-10 out to US 95 and up. It's a greater distance but it's not much more (if it's more) time when you factor in the backups.
My detour through Garlock, Panamint Valley and Death Valley works well from the Central Valley. My wife is usually the one trying to insist on I-15. I only take I-15 well into the nighttime hours.
How cost effective would it be to widen Nipton Road to Searchlight? Or at least sign it as an alternative to I-15 over Mountain Pass?
The big problem you have there is that it isn't state highway in California. The better bet is just to swing east from Vegas down I-11 and US 95.
Quote from: Mark68 on July 07, 2023, 07:17:57 PM
How cost effective would it be to widen Nipton Road to Searchlight? Or at least sign it as an alternative to I-15 over Mountain Pass?
Why invest millions of dollars to widen 15 miles of Nipton Road in California when you can spend that same money expanding 10 or 15 miles of I-15 to six lanes, specifically between the Nevada state line and the Agricultural Inspection Station (where they just implemented that part time shoulder lane), and west of Mountain Pass?
I wonder what's so hard about paving 2 lanes in the median of a freeway that's in the middle of the desert?
Quote from: SeriesE on July 08, 2023, 01:40:56 AM
I wonder what's so hard about paving 2 lanes in the median of a freeway that's in the middle of the desert?
Anything post CEQA and NEPA is hard. That and California isn't really interested in improving the I-15 corridor north of Barstow. Simplistic as a project as it may be it still would cost a lot of money.
Quote from: SeriesE on July 08, 2023, 01:40:56 AM
I wonder what's so hard about paving 2 lanes in the median of a freeway that's in the middle of the desert?
That's where Brightline is building their high speed rail line. "In 2020, Brightline signed a right-of-way agreement that allows it to build the 135-mile California portion of the corridor in the middle of Interstate 15. (https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/transportation/2023/03/07/high-speed-train-connecting-la-and-las-vegas-expected-to-open-in-2027)"
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
That doesn't make any sense. It still affects California.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2023, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
That doesn't make any sense. It still affects California.
I mean hey, building a more inconveniently located Ag Station just to slow passenger traffic down at the bottom of a long ascent grade was a priority. Kind of tells you what the state probably thinks regarding cooperative measures towards Nevada?
Had business in Redlands so I was out on the new 3-laned portion of Route 210 (i.e., Highland to I-10). Really nice. Just some leftover details to finish but all three lanes are open in both directions.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
Who do they
think is driving from Southern California to Las Vegas? Texans?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 08, 2023, 06:12:25 PM
Had business in Redlands so I was out on the new 3-laned portion of Route 210 (i.e., Highland to I-10). Really nice. Just some leftover details to finish but all three lanes are open in both directions.
How are the lanes configured? Is it at least 3 everywhere but between the 330 exits and entrances?
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 08, 2023, 07:05:31 PM
Who do they think is driving from Southern California to Las Vegas? Texans?
Californian's who are going to lose all their money in Las Vegas.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 08, 2023, 06:12:25 PM
Had business in Redlands so I was out on the new 3-laned portion of Route 210 (i.e., Highland to I-10). Really nice. Just some leftover details to finish but all three lanes are open in both directions.
That's strange. Google Earth has imagery that's supposed to be from two months ago, and it looks like it's all still under construction. Did they actually finish it in two months?
Also, it looks like they added just enough room for the new lanes, which means it's still not up to Interstate standards.
Quote from: NE2 on July 08, 2023, 11:00:34 PM
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 08, 2023, 06:12:25 PM
Had business in Redlands so I was out on the new 3-laned portion of Route 210 (i.e., Highland to I-10). Really nice. Just some leftover details to finish but all three lanes are open in both directions.
How are the lanes configured? Is it at least 3 everywhere but between the 330 exits and entrances?
It's now three everywhere. No more pinchpoint going east.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 08, 2023, 06:12:25 PM
Had business in Redlands so I was out on the new 3-laned portion of Route 210 (i.e., Highland to I-10). Really nice. Just some leftover details to finish but all three lanes are open in both directions.
I went through it on my way home just before July 4. I agree; it's really nice. The merge onto I-10 could be a bit better because there's not much distance to the Orange St interchange but that's a minor complaint compared to the previous squeeze into two lanes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2023, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2023, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
That doesn't make any sense. It still affects California.
I mean hey, building a more inconveniently located Ag Station just to slow passenger traffic down at the bottom of a long ascent grade was a priority. Kind of tells you what the state probably thinks regarding cooperative measures towards Nevada?
Caltrans was probably thinking: Where can we build an Ag station where we can ensure that traffic trying to avoid our ag restrictions and inspections would not easily have the ability to go around it -- which means close to the border, before any interchanges that connect anywhere else. They were also probably asking where right of way was inexpensive, where environmental regulations would permit them to do it (i.e., not protected desert land), and where there was easy observation. The current location is great for that, and is significantly better than the previous location, which was all the way down in Yermo.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 09, 2023, 07:43:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 08, 2023, 03:09:24 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 08, 2023, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 08, 2023, 01:00:12 PM
Also, it has long been the case that Caltrans has little interest in upgrading I-15 NE of Barstow because most of that 'need' is being driven by places that are not in California. If that other place chooses to chip in...
Mike
That doesn't make any sense. It still affects California.
I mean hey, building a more inconveniently located Ag Station just to slow passenger traffic down at the bottom of a long ascent grade was a priority. Kind of tells you what the state probably thinks regarding cooperative measures towards Nevada?
Caltrans was probably thinking: Where can we build an Ag station where we can ensure that traffic trying to avoid our ag restrictions and inspections would not easily have the ability to go around it -- which means close to the border, before any interchanges that connect anywhere else. They were also probably asking where right of way was inexpensive, where environmental regulations would permit them to do it (i.e., not protected desert land), and where there was easy observation. The current location is great for that, and is significantly better than the previous location, which was all the way down in Yermo.
Right, the current location minimizes the inconvenience for the Ag inspectors while maximizing the problem for Nevada. Then again, I don't understand why this state insists on stopping/slowing passenger traffic. No other state does ag inspection like this, it just seems incredibly inefficient. The whole concept seems like an antiquated relic of a much different era that could have (perhaps should have been) streamlined when a new station on I-15 became necessary.
As an aside, maybe this topic is worth putting in the CARoutexRoute podcast?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 09, 2023, 08:35:33 PM
Right, the current location minimizes the inconvenience for the Ag inspectors while maximizing the problem for Nevada. Then again, I don't understand why this state insists on stopping/slowing passenger traffic. No other state does ag inspection like this, it just seems incredibly inefficient. The whole concept seems like an antiquated relic of a much different era that could have (perhaps should have been) streamlined when a new station on I-15 became necessary.
As an aside, maybe this topic is worth putting in the CARoutexRoute podcast?
As for why we have Ag inspections, I recommend the following podcast: https://gastropod.com/chocpocalypse-now-quarantine-and-the-future-of-food/ . I'll paste a relevant transcript at the end.
As for discussing this on the podcast: We could explore the issue when we talk about Route 15, unless we want to talk about it with the Ag stations on I-5.
Here's the interesting segment of the podcast for this discussion:
GRABER: In the part of your book that focuses on food and crop quarantine, you visit a quarantine station on the California border with Arizona, it's called the Needles Inspection Station.
VEHICLE SOUND
MITCH VEGA: How you doing, bud? Good. This is his bills and all this is on here. They usually just have basic stuff. Auto parts. Yeah, nothing that concerns us. Have a good day, bud.
TWILLEY: This is Mitch Vega–he's getting the documents that say what the 18-wheeler in front of us is carrying. Needles is on the I-40, which is one of the big cross-country freeways coming into California. Every truck that comes into California on I-40, Mitch or one of his colleagues stops it.
VEGA: How you doing sir? Hazardous materials. Loads. Scotch tissue. Supply solutions. He's good. Mars Chocolate.
TWILLEY: We should hijack that one.
VEGA: We got a lot of chocolate that comes through here.
GRABER: The site is is out in the desert, there isn't much around, and it's called Needles because that's the name of a nearby city.
MANAUGH: It's basically a kind of a checkpoint that you would drive through on your way from Arizona into California. It's four lanes. There's generally about six people working there.
TWILLEY: Basically, it's a border control station run by the California Department of Agriculture. And they have one mission and one mission only, which is to intercept any plant diseases or pests that might be kind of hitchhiking their way into California from anywhere else and that might pose a threat to the California agricultural industry.
GRABER: Michele Jacobsen is in charge of the Needles Inspection Station.
MICHELE JACOBSEN: We have a lot of produce comes through. Anything. Citrus, your winter greens, kiwis coming in right now out of Italy. Sometimes South African oranges. Chile, a lot of stuff comes in through here from Chile, too. What they're doing is the inspectors are checking the bills of lading. So when the drivers pull up, they know that they have to give us our paperwork and we see what's going on.
TWILLEY: Depending on what's in the truck, Mitch and his colleagues might just wave the driver onward–like the Mars chocolate, or the auto parts. But if they're carrying produce, then it may well be subject to a quarantine order.
JACOBSEN: What's not under quarantine is easier to tell you than what's under quarantine. What's not under quarantine is a lot of your lettuces, your tomatoes are not under quarantine, your melons are not really under quarantine. Bananas, there's no quarantine on bananas. Onions and stuff don't have quarantines. But there's a lot of quarantines. It's easier to tell you what's not under quarantine.
TWILLEY: We were at the Needles checkpoint on one of the busiest days of their entire year–it was the peak of bee season, when trucks full of bees from all over the U.S. are flowing into California to pollinate all the almond trees. 75 billion bees to be precise. Every single truckload gets inspected. The ones that are pest-free get waved on. Geoff and I suited up in bee suits and Michele took us out to see some of the rejected bee trucks.
JACOBSEN: What we're doing over here is all these loads have been rejected for having pests on them. And it could be anything from a small hive beetle to any kind of an ant, it could be a fire ant. It could be a carpenter ant. And or anything that would be considered as a Q rating, which is something that is not determined to be established in California.
GRABER: Michele and her team are scouring the trucks they stop. They're searching for all kinds of tiny pests that haven't yet gotten into California, these Q-rated ones–and those are different kinds of beetles, ants, moths, flies. Because California is really concerned about what these creatures might do if they penetrate its borders.
TWILLEY: Well California is, as my garden is evidence, the fruit and vegetable capital of America. I mean, the agricultural industry here is massive. I think the latest estimate was that it's worth fifty billion dollars a year. Two thirds of America's fruits and nuts are produced in California was the stat that blew me away. And of that, it's 100 percent of all the almonds–all the almonds! All the almonds that are eaten in America and 80 percent of all the almonds that are eaten in all the world.
MANAUGH: You know, California is sort of two things at once. It's very, very geographically isolated in the sense that it is surrounded by mountains, deserts and the Pacific Ocean. And so it's kind of its own little unusual ecosystem. You know, species that have been here have been here for a very long time and species that have not been here have been, you know, separated by these natural barriers that exist. And so when newly introduced species do come here, they often find they have no natural predators.
GRABER: Michele and her team become the predators–they look to see if there are any bugs–and then they have to figure out if the bug is anything to be worried about.
TWILLEY: What's going on here?
JACOBSEN: He's checking under the microscope for a pest. He probably–did you find those on the bees, Matthew?
MATTHEW: Yeah.
JACOBSEN: So he found something on the bees and he's checking it. That's our digital imaging microscope. So he is taking a digital image and he's sending it down to our pest diagnostics lab. And they will send us back an email telling us what the insect is rated. And then we go from there.
TWILLEY: The pest diagnostics lab folks were actually on their lunch break, but as soon Michele and her team were able to confirm the bug's ID, then they would know whether they could let the truck full of bees through, or whether it had to be turned back to be disinfested–usually by pressure washing–and then reinspected. Sometimes the entire load has to be destroyed–not bees, they would just get turned away, but if it's a load of infested oranges, that's likely going straight in the incinerator.
GRABER: Infested oranges–that's a huge problem. In our citrus episode, we talked about how the Asian citrus psyllid is a massive issue because the little bug carries a bacterial disease that can completely destroy citrus crops. And California's citrus industry is valued at billions of dollars.
MANAUGH: Oh, yeah. I mean, that's part of the stress. And, you know, kind of the existential stakes actually, of the problem here is that you're dealing with unbelievably tiny little offenders, you know, things that are the size of a grain of rice or just an egg that might be the size of like a mustard seed.
TWILLEY: Michele told us that one of her proudest moments was stopping this tiny citrus psyllid at the border.
MANAUGH: Someone was moving across the country. They looked into their moving van and they had an entire tree back there. The tree itself did not look very healthy. You know, that was obviously a warning flag for them. They inspected that tree and that's when they found the citrus psyllid. And that, of course, is not something they want to let into California. It's found very fertile ground in Florida already. And it's actually wiped out an estimated five out of every seven Florida growers. It's a huge threat. And it's people like Michele Jacobson that are keeping it out of California.
GRABER: But like we said, the psyllid is the size of a grain of rice. How did they even think to look to find it in a moving van–I mean, that's not a truck carrying one of the crops of particular concern!
TWILLEY: I know! In a way it was just lucky–they also do random inspections, especially of cars and RVs with out-of-state plates and they happened to find it. But they do also have a logic to what they decide to inspect beyond just those trucks carrying crops that are on the quarantine list.
MANAUGH: The way Michele, who runs the station, described it to us, was basically "thinking like a pest." Trying to imagine where, if you're a pest, if you're a bug, if you're a little insect, where you would be in a container, in a truck bed, or maybe even just like a set of somebody's backyard patio furniture that they're bringing across the country to their new home in California. And so then that's where they'll look. So they'll think to themselves, OK, here's a nice little crack that this bug might lay some eggs here or here's a dark little corner where we might find something. And so that's where they look. And that's actually, it turns out, how they have found a lot of things.
GRABER: Do people try to sneak through things that they would want to inspect, like trees from their house or their moving pods or anything, are they trying to get things through the border?
TWILLEY: Yeah, all the time. And a lot of times people don't necessarily know. So one of the things Michele said was that people who live in their RVs and just kind of tool around, oftentimes they'll have a little like potted plant that they like to put out when they're actually kind of stationary somewhere and those can carry pests. She said, actually, one of the things she's seen is there's a huge rise in chainsaw art.
GRABER: Huh.
TWILLEY: Yeah, not a thing that I've dabbled in myself.
GRABER: I'm not sure what that is.
TWILLEY: I guess people take chainsaws and carve tree trunks and oftentimes, you know, they'll be like a little hole in the tree trunk. She's like, Oh, it's so beautiful. And then I look and there's a hole and there'll be a bug inside that hole.
GRABER: Oh my god.
TWILLEY: So she has a huge problem there. Some people lie. She pulled over a guy who had a bag of pecans, which are a Q-rated nut, and she said she was going to have to confiscate them and he said no and turned around and went back into Arizona, came back an hour later. The pecans were in his suitcase. Apparently he forgot.
GRABER: LAUGHS. Forgot in quotes.
TWILLEY: Exactly. And then the other thing that's really funny is like so many people are afraid of being caught with something that the entire freeway just before the checkpoint is just littered with people's fruit and vegetables. So people throw out their baby carrots, which they could totally bring through. Baby carrots aren't Q-rated. You know, people throw out their bananas. Not a problem. Again, there are, you know, no bananas to kill in California. So some people are so worried about being caught with something, which, of course, nothing happens. They either just take it away or clean it, but people see a checkpoint and panic. So.
GRABER: Of course Michele and her team can't check everything that comes through. They just can't. They do check all the trucks that are carrying crops that are known to harbor pests, but even there, they can't go over every inch. Traffic would be backed up for miles. So sometimes things do get through.
TWILLEY: An amazing example is the bee example. There's this incredibly disastrous bee mite that has been responsible for a lot of the colony collapse stuff you see. We talked about it in our honey episode. And this mite used to be a Q-rated pest. They used to inspect for it. Back in the 80s and 90s, they were inspecting for it. Eventually it got through. Now it's established. But that bought the time for them to start working on which chemicals can you spray your hive with to kill this mite. Those chemicals also have problems. So at the same time, they've been working on breeding something called a hygienic bee, which is resistant to the mite. So quarantine like: yes, kind of it failed in the sense of like now this mite is established in California, but it didn't fail in the sense that it bought more than a decade for people to figure out how to mitigate the consequences of the mite arriving, as it were.
MANAUGH: And I think that that's one of the things that happens, that even though things get through, you know, even though the quarantine is not total and it's not universally successful, what it does do is it gives us time to get ready for this thing to show up. And so what I mean by that is developing things like responses, treatments, even new pesticides. You know, getting people ready, maybe they have to plant new crops. Maybe they actually do need to physically design something into their existing farms or greenhouse operations to help filter out this thing that's coming. But quarantine is really vital then in the sense that even though it's not perfect, it allows us to get ready.
TWILLEY: Quarantine for plants does this, and so does quarantine for humans. You heard the expression flatten the curve everywhere in spring 2020–that was coined by the head of quarantine at the CDC, which is a story we tell in the book. He analyzed the 1918 flu and he realized the cities that did best used quarantine to buy themselves time–quarantine flattened that curve so doctors and hospitals could prepare to handle the disease. Same with the social distancing and so on of COVID. The point was to give us time to get ready and to come up with treatments and even vaccines.
GRABER: But one thing that did occur to me as I was reading about Needles Station is that it's not actually a real quarantine.
TWILLEY: Yeah, you're totally right. You called it, Cynthia. LAUGHS. The Needles border inspection station is not true quarantine, even by our own definition. But there is–you know, honestly, mostly for plants, there isn't such a thing as true quarantine because, you know, unlike people, plants are sort of not that valuable individually. And if you put it in the incinerator, you know, it's okay.
GRABER: Imagine an orange–whether it's the fruit or the tree, it's just not worth putting in quarantine to see if it gets sick. If you notice a problem, a bug of concern in the truck, or a sick plant, you might dump the whole truckload of crops or plants in the incinerator, frankly. It's cheaper to replace oranges than have a special quarantine facility to hold them. But some individual plants are indeed worth saving.
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I'm waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I'm waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
You'll be waiting for awhile.
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I'm waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
How much time do you think you have? :)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:36:25 PM
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
And I'm waiting for the freeway on I-380 to be extended west of I-280 to Pacifica! It doesn't have to be signed as an Interstate but another freeway would be nice.
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2023, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:36:25 PM
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
And I'm waiting for the freeway on I-380 to be extended west of I-280 to Pacifica! It doesn't have to be signed as an Interstate but another freeway would be nice.
Totally in fictional territory but at the very least, a 2 lane road west to Skyline/Route 35 would be super useful, if for no other reason than allowing Daly City and Pacifica residents to have airport access without having to use 280 or 101!
SM-G973U1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 22, 2023, 01:06:20 AM
Interesting observation, how many people consider Sherman Pass in the big Sierra Nevada pass lot? Sherman Pass ranks as the third highest highway pass after Tioga and Sonora. I tend to think it gets overlooked given it is a Forest Service maintained road. Hell, even Horseshoe Meadow Road (old CA 190) and Rocky Creek Road both exceed 10,000 feet in elevation beating out Tioga Pass.
Yup, that's the main issue. It's not part of CA-190 (even though it should be for all practical purposes), so it gets ignored. Admittedly the road quality isn't the best. But I'm looking forward to doing it again soon, whenever it opens (if it's not already). It's a really great crossing and you get some good views of Whitney on a clear day.
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2023, 07:24:15 AM
Yup, that's the main issue. It's not part of CA-190 (even though it should be for all practical purposes), so it gets ignored. Admittedly the road quality isn't the best. But I'm looking forward to doing it again soon, whenever it opens (if it's not already). It's a really great crossing and you get some good views of Whitney on a clear day.
The NF website says it's open now. I may drive it this coming weekend. There's a great meadow up there with lots of different wildflowers, typically peaking in mid-July. There's also a fire lookout tower on Bald Mountain that I went to once, and the guy who manned it invited us up to enjoy the view.
If CA-190 is ever connected, though, it will go north of there. But it would certainly intersect 21S03, which runs from the northernmost point on Sherman Pass Rd up to a trailhead. And it would also intersect 22S82 that runs up the west side of the Kern River to another trailhead. That would create an interesting road network up there.
Quote from: pderocco on July 12, 2023, 08:07:10 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 12, 2023, 07:24:15 AM
Yup, that's the main issue. It's not part of CA-190 (even though it should be for all practical purposes), so it gets ignored. Admittedly the road quality isn't the best. But I'm looking forward to doing it again soon, whenever it opens (if it's not already). It's a really great crossing and you get some good views of Whitney on a clear day.
The NF website says it's open now. I may drive it this coming weekend. There's a great meadow up there with lots of different wildflowers, typically peaking in mid-July. There's also a fire lookout tower on Bald Mountain that I went to once, and the guy who manned it invited us up to enjoy the view.
If CA-190 is ever connected, though, it will go north of there. But it would certainly intersect 21S03, which runs from the northernmost point on Sherman Pass Rd up to a trailhead. And it would also intersect 22S82 that runs up the west side of the Kern River to another trailhead. That would create an interesting road network up there.
What I always found weird was that the hardest part of CA 190 to the vicinity of Mulky Pass by way of Horseshoe Meadows was actually constructed. For whatever reason the DOH decided it should be an all-year expressway and turned it over to the Forest Service.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 12, 2023, 08:59:33 PM
What I always found weird was that the hardest part of CA 190 to the vicinity of Mulky Pass by way of Horseshoe Meadows was actually constructed. For whatever reason the DOH decided it should be an all-year expressway and turned it over to the Forest Service.
I don't think it's odd, because there are lots of other roads that climb the verge of the Sierra Nevada and stop: Whitney Portal, Onion Valley, Glacier Lodge, Lake Sabrina, Rock Creek, etc. They're useful for other reasons than starting a through-road over the mountains. And they're easier to build in one sense: the road workers can easily go home to Lone Pine every night while they're building it. The original building of roads like CA-120 or CA-108 is staggering to contemplate, especially given when they were built.
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2023, 07:28:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I'm waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
How much time do you think you have? :)
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2023, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:36:25 PM
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
And I'm waiting for the freeway on I-380 to be extended west of I-280 to Pacifica! It doesn't have to be signed as an Interstate but another freeway would be nice.
Knowing Caltrans, it'll be a cold day in hell before any of these things happen.
Quote from: Henry on July 13, 2023, 10:22:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2023, 07:28:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don’t see any catenary wiring. I’m guessing it’s a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don’t specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I’m waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
How much time do you think you have? :)
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2023, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:36:25 PM
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
And I'm waiting for the freeway on I-380 to be extended west of I-280 to Pacifica! It doesn't have to be signed as an Interstate but another freeway would be nice.
Knowing Caltrans, it'll be a cold day in hell before any of these things happen.
And there's a reason. Ask yourself what the cost benefit is.
For conversion from state signage to Interstate? No benefit to the state at all. No federal funds come with the designation these days. There's no change in maintenance. Truckers don't need the signage to direct them (there are apps for that). There is only cost for a lot of resignage. When you have tight budgets, it's not going to be a priority.
As for extending I-380 to Route 1: Is there traffic justification for the freeway? Would it pass environmental muster, especially considering the induced traffic and pollution that would come from the route, at a time that the state is trying to discourage driving to reduce carbon impacts. It's a different time than the 1950s/1960s. There's no clear need or benefit, and it would cost a lot of funds that could be better spent elsewhere.
Yeah, I know I'm somewhat of a downer realist in this group, where folks want their number consistency, their lines on a map completed. But I enjoy the history and understanding why something isn't completed or won't be completed, as well as admiring well done construction.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 14, 2023, 10:40:53 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 13, 2023, 10:22:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 10, 2023, 07:28:48 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 10, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
Quote from: pderocco on July 10, 2023, 12:47:50 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 09, 2023, 11:51:28 PM
I noticed along CA 15, that a transit way exists in the median, however I don't see any catenary wiring. I'm guessing it's a bus only lane with stops at El Cajon Blvd and such.
The city of San Diego transit website don't specify what mode is used other than route 235.
It's for MTS buses. Doesn't go very far, so it doesn't look like a very cost-effective piece of pavement.
I'm waiting for I-15 to finally get signed south of I-8. :bigass:
How much time do you think you have? :)
Quote from: Techknow on July 11, 2023, 02:40:47 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 10, 2023, 12:36:25 PM
I'm still waiting for CA 210 and CA 905 to become Interstate 210 and Interstate 905. It is obvious by now that neither will ever happen.
And I'm waiting for the freeway on I-380 to be extended west of I-280 to Pacifica! It doesn't have to be signed as an Interstate but another freeway would be nice.
Knowing Caltrans, it'll be a cold day in hell before any of these things happen.
And there's a reason. Ask yourself what the cost benefit is.
For conversion from state signage to Interstate? No benefit to the state at all. No federal funds come with the designation these days.
No additional money is specifically allocated for Interstates nowadays, but they are still eligible for a 90% federal share of NHPP funding, as opposed to the usual 80%. On projects that cost in the millions, that is a significant difference.
Quote from: Rothman on July 14, 2023, 11:05:22 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 14, 2023, 10:40:53 PM
And there's a reason. Ask yourself what the cost benefit is.
For conversion from state signage to Interstate? No benefit to the state at all. No federal funds come with the designation these days.
No additional money is specifically allocated for Interstates nowadays, but they are still eligible for a 90% federal share of NHPP funding, as opposed to the usual 80%. On projects that cost in the millions, that is a significant difference.
Thanks for the clarification. I took a look at the implementation guidance, and it doesn't make clear if they are referring only to chargeable mileage or not. I would image any of the noted conversions (210, 15) would be non-chargeable mileage. Of course, none of those routes have major worked planned in the relevant areas (esp. the small stub of Route 15), so this might not be a big deal. It might impact Route 905, but that's also got trade corridor route funding.
Quote from: cahwyguy on July 15, 2023, 06:54:20 PM
Of course, none of those routes have major worked planned in the relevant areas (esp. the small stub of Route 15), so this might not be a big deal.
I remember reading a while ago there were plans to reconfigure the 15/94 interchange and remove the left ramps, though not sure if that is still slated to happen at present.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 16, 2023, 02:14:45 AM
I remember reading a while ago there were plans to reconfigure the 15/94 interchange and remove the left ramps, though not sure if that is still slated to happen at present.
I don't know why left exits are considered unacceptable when they connect to other freeways. The roads could be renumbered to redefine them as through-routes instead of exits, but why would that make them acceptable?
And in this case, the left exits are attributes of CA-94, so shouldn't have anything to do with whether CA-15 could be considered up to Interstate standards.
Drove Sherman Pass Road today, from US-395, where it was almost 110 degrees, over the pass where it was in the 70s, and then down the Kern River to Lake Isabella, where it was almost 100. Sherman Pass Road seemed like it always does, with a fair number of very shallow potholes, but perfectly drivable. I was a little disappointed in the wildflowers, because they're late this year. The corn lilies were only a couple feet tall, and nowhere near blooming at the high elevations. It was still quite wet up there, so I think I should have waited a couple of weeks. Tons of scarlet gilia, though, which are pretty spectacular, and I saw a lot of columbines up there, which I had never seen in that area in the past.
CA-178 along lower Kern Canyon still has one-way traffic at one point, due to a bit of the road falling into the river. Lake Isabella is the fullest it's been since June 2005, at 530K acre/feet. It had dropped almost to 36K last November, which was the lowest since October 2015. Amazing how fast it changes. Part of it may be that they have raised the dams, which involved some fancy retaining wall work on CA-155 next to the main dam, while over the past ten years they haven't dared to let it get that full. Both the upper and lower Kern were raging. I think the raft businesses are doing well.
Oh, and CA-155 over the mountains is still closed, and so is Sierra Way through the South Fork Valley east of the lake.
I'll probably do Sherman Pass in a couple weeks myself. Was planning for it this weekend but other stuff came up.
We're going to do Sonora Pass this coming weekend. Should be lovely.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on July 17, 2023, 08:20:45 PM
We're going to do Sonora Pass this coming weekend. Should be lovely.
Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.
Last time I drove Sonora Pass was in 2020. I didn't actually stop at the actual pass so this time I plan to try to get some photos, maybe find a short hiking trail in the area.
Quote from: Quillz on July 19, 2023, 05:19:55 AM
Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.
If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.
Quote from: pderocco on July 19, 2023, 06:24:18 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 19, 2023, 05:19:55 AM
Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.
If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.
Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open. I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive. I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.
Also, Tioga Pass Road in Yosemite opens on the 22nd at 8 AM:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid04xkMezn53z4JksRKCt9zAf8NDRaVBZnrabkeBdB93t9nP6W8hNRnEAiHVK6dY1D5l&id=100064546485710&mibextid=qC1gEa
https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/index.htm
QuoteHey, maybe I'll run into you.
My insurance company hopes not. :pan:
But! That sounds like a fun route. Haven't done Sherman Pass in the longest time, though it will have already been a long day by the time we get down there, so perhaps another weekend.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2023, 06:27:45 PM
Quote from: pderocco on July 19, 2023, 06:24:18 PM
Quote from: Quillz on July 19, 2023, 05:19:55 AM
Hey, maybe I'll run into you. That's my plan for this weekend. Do a long loop starting in Fresno, cross Sonora Pass, end up in the Mono Lake area, then stop in Bishop. Then maybe on the way back, try to work in Sherman Pass. My original plan was Tioga Pass but that's out. Maybe if Yosemite itself is open, I'll visit the village some time in the future.
If you do Sherman Pass, you'll have a choice of how to get back into the valley. Going north on Great Western Divide Highway up to Ponderosa, and then out CA-190 is really nice, but it's very tortuous, and late Sunday you're certain to find yourself behind a slow camper all the way down. Taking M-50 out through California Hot Springs isn't quite as interesting, but it's shorter and easier. Or you can go down the Kern River through Lake Isabella, and take CA-178 to Bakersfield. Much longer, but if you've never seen the Kern Canyon, it's a great ride.
Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open. I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive. I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.
Also, Tioga Pass Road in Yosemite opens on the 22nd at 8 AM:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid04xkMezn53z4JksRKCt9zAf8NDRaVBZnrabkeBdB93t9nP6W8hNRnEAiHVK6dY1D5l&id=100064546485710&mibextid=qC1gEa
https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/index.htm
Nice. Gonna try to get it done a weekend in August. I've got a longer Lassen/redwoods trip planned for September.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 19, 2023, 06:27:45 PM
Shame CA 155 over Greenhorn Summit isn't open. I found myself on Old Stage Road north of Glennville early this year, definitely worth the drive. I'm not sure if Caliente-Bodfish Road is open south of Lake Isabella but that's a great mountain drive also.
I drove CalBod in the spring, although I did the loop through Loraine and Twin Oaks, but I didn't see any signs saying it was closed over the hill.
What is up with the roads north of San Francisco particularly in Marin, Sonoma, and Napa Counties? For the most part amazing bike and cool roads but the merging distances are comical especially on the 101. The room is also there why don't they add more merging space? Also the 101 on ramp going south off of Sir Francis Drake BLVD is horrible. Almost got into an accident there.
Who's the the MPO or agency that oversees planning and construction projects here?
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. This would include Marin, Sonoma and Napa Counties. MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region. Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning. The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA). For Napa County, it's the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?
Quote from: jrouse on July 24, 2023, 11:39:38 PM
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties. MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region. Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning. The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).
All state funding in the area? From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?
At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives. This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban). However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion. Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.
Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?
You're thinking of the transit agencies.
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 12:04:11 AM
Quote from: jrouse on July 24, 2023, 11:39:38 PM
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties. MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region. Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning. The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).
All state funding in the area? From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?
At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives. This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban). However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion. Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.
Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...
The State of California uses revenues from state and federal gas taxes for transportation projects through the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the capital projects that will receive funding, and allocates 25 percent of the Transportation Improvement Fund to Caltrans and 75 percent of the fund to metropolitan planning organizations.
State funds are used for new capital projects such as the expansion of transit networks and new highway lanes, and maintenance costs such as street and highway resurfacing. A much smaller portion covers operational costs, such as paying the salaries of bus drivers and mechanics at the local level. In addition, state funds are used to match funds for federal projects.
The majority of federal transportation funding is used for capital projects, such as new interstate highway and rail construction. Some of this funding goes to specific projects earmarked by Congress.
Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) are largely responsible for planning, coordinating and distributing funds for local and regional projects. Projects listed in a metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency's regional transportation plan (RTP) and regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) then make up the STIP..
In California, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions manage 75 percent of the available STIP funds. The funds available to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies are called regional improvement program (RIP) funds. This local control was established under legislation passed in 1997. That legislation came about because of a number of counties implementing voter-approved sales tax measures with detailed plans for spending on specified projects. Since these revenues were managed at the county level, and were used to match state and federal dollars, the next logical step was to give the locals control over the State funds. More than half of the counties in California have a local transportation sales tax.
As noted above Caltrans still has control of 25 percent of the TIF. There's also a large program known as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These are the State funds that go to cover maintenance and operations and fund needed operational and safety improvements. The SHOPP is fully controlled by Caltrans. SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity increasing projects.
This local control of the vast majority of the STIP is the primary reason why you see local agencies taking the lead in getting roadway widening projects built in California's urban areas. The many competing maintenance and safety needs mean the SHOPP is well spoken for each year and some of the things you see in California that bother roadgeeks so much, such as poor signing, lack of mileposts, etc.,are what they are because of the higher priorities and limited dollars.
More info can be found here:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/data-analytics-services/transportation-economics/transportation-funding-booklet/2022/final-2022-transportation-funding-a11y.pdf
https://www.ca-ilg.org/transportation-funding
Quote from: jrouse on July 25, 2023, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?
You're thinking of the transit agencies.
OK, so would that be similar to how Metro in LA operates its own transit system yet still has planning jurisdiction in areas like Santa Monica who operate their own service?
Because if so, then, that makes sense why there's so many different transit agencies because of all the different cities. But I was under the impression that there was too many different, planning agencies within the bay area, causing a lot of bureaucratic, red tape and different hurdles for projects.
Multiple projects in California moving forward: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/contractors-ready-for-billions-in-caltrans-spending/61811
Quote from: jrouse on July 25, 2023, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 12:04:11 AM
Quote from: jrouse on July 24, 2023, 11:39:38 PM
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission oversees overall transportation project planning and funding in the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay Area. This would include Marin and Sonoma Counties. MTC administers the State and Federal transportation funds for the region. Each of those 9 counties has a county-level congestion management agency which administers locally generated transportation sales taxes and also does some county level transportation planning. The CMA for Marin County is the Transportation Authority for Marin (TAM) and the CMA for Sonoma County is the Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA).
All state funding in the area? From their website, it looks like they review state grant applications, which would not mean that they administer all state funding?
At least in NY, MPOs do not have any control over the administration of core state funding (state dedicated funds and personal income tax funds), despite being involved with grant applications for certain initiatives. This is because their legal authority is really only over federal urban funding dedicated to the areas within their MPAs (e.g., STBG Large Urban). However, to facilitate transportation planning, NYSDOT suballocates additional federal funds to certain MPOs at its own discretion. Some MPOs have control over adding projects to the STIP, rather than just their TIPs; for some others, NYSDOT has retained sign off on amendments.
Anyway, if I were at CalTrans and discovered that some idiot handed over all discretion of state funding usage to an MPO, I'd make sure their legacy would be permanently infamous...of course, looking at the situation through a NY lens...
The State of California uses revenues from state and federal gas taxes for transportation projects through the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF). The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) lists the capital projects that will receive funding, and allocates 25 percent of the Transportation Improvement Fund to Caltrans and 75 percent of the fund to metropolitan planning organizations.
State funds are used for new capital projects such as the expansion of transit networks and new highway lanes, and maintenance costs such as street and highway resurfacing. A much smaller portion covers operational costs, such as paying the salaries of bus drivers and mechanics at the local level. In addition, state funds are used to match funds for federal projects.
The majority of federal transportation funding is used for capital projects, such as new interstate highway and rail construction. Some of this funding goes to specific projects earmarked by Congress.
Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs) are largely responsible for planning, coordinating and distributing funds for local and regional projects. Projects listed in a metropolitan planning organization or regional transportation planning agency's regional transportation plan (RTP) and regional transportation improvement program (RTIP) then make up the STIP..
In California, metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation planning agencies and county transportation commissions manage 75 percent of the available STIP funds. The funds available to metropolitan planning organizations and regional transportation planning agencies are called regional improvement program (RIP) funds. This local control was established under legislation passed in 1997. That legislation came about because of a number of counties implementing voter-approved sales tax measures with detailed plans for spending on specified projects. Since these revenues were managed at the county level, and were used to match state and federal dollars, the next logical step was to give the locals control over the State funds. More than half of the counties in California have a local transportation sales tax.
As noted above Caltrans still has control of 25 percent of the TIF. There's also a large program known as the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These are the State funds that go to cover maintenance and operations and fund needed operational and safety improvements. The SHOPP is fully controlled by Caltrans. SHOPP funds cannot be used for capacity increasing projects.
This local control of the vast majority of the STIP is the primary reason why you see local agencies taking the lead in getting roadway widening projects built in California's urban areas. The many competing maintenance and safety needs mean the SHOPP is well spoken for each year and some of the things you see in California that bother roadgeeks so much, such as poor signing, lack of mileposts, etc.,are what they are because of the higher priorities and limited dollars.
More info can be found here:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/data-analytics-services/transportation-economics/transportation-funding-booklet/2022/final-2022-transportation-funding-a11y.pdf
https://www.ca-ilg.org/transportation-funding
I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed. In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans). I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).
The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of
federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway). In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a
state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert :D).
Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states :D) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP. Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP,
depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO. NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding
must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular). That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the
programming and
expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding). In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.
I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such. I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...
(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2023, 01:47:18 AM
Quote from: jrouse on July 25, 2023, 12:14:11 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 24, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Wasn't there some initiative to consolidate some of the agencies in the Bay Area? It's insane how many there are. It's something like 26 of them, no?
You're thinking of the transit agencies.
OK, so would that be similar to how Metro in LA operates its own transit system yet still has planning jurisdiction in areas like Santa Monica who operate their own service?
Because if so, then, that makes sense why there's so many different transit agencies because of all the different cities. But I was under the impression that there was too many different, planning agencies within the bay area, causing a lot of bureaucratic, red tape and different hurdles for projects.
Not quite. LA Metro happens to be a county level transportation planning agency that's also a transit operator. The discussion in the Bay Area has revolved around consolidating all the individual transit agencies (27 in total) into one larger agency.
There are several different planning agencies in the Bay Area and there has been some consolidation there. The Association of Bay Area Governments is the the Council of Governments (COG) for the nine-county Bay Area, and MTC is the MPO. The ABAG and MTC staff have been consolidated but both organizations continue to have separate boards of directors.
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 09:35:23 AM
I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed. In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans). I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).
The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway). In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert :D).
Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states :D) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP. Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP, depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO. NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular). That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the programming and expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding). In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.
I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such. I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...
(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)
Let me take a step back, and forgive me if I'm sharing info you may already know. Long story short, federal dollars are put into the STIP along with State dollars, but are managed and allocated according to federal law.
The two primary California state transportation programming documents are the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).
Every county in California is served by a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA), and every county with at least one urbanized area is also served by an MPO. Each of the 18 MPOs and the 26 RTPAs develops and adopts a regional transportation plan (RTP).
Federal law requires that MPOs prepare a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which is a short-range program of specific projects derived from the RTP and supported with available funding commitments from various sources. The Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) is a statewide programming document required by federal law and prepared by Caltrans. It is a compilation of 18 MPOs' FTIPs and projects from the rural portions of the state that are not located within an MPO boundary.
The STIP lists the capital projects that will receive State and federal funding. The 1997 legislation that I mentioned in my earlier post broke up the STIP into two programs -75 percent goes into a regional program and 25 percent goes into an interregional program. The regional program is further subdivided by formula into county shares.
The aforementioned RTP is the basis for each RTPA's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIPs form the regional portion of the STIP and they also serve as the MPO's portion of the FSTIP.
Caltrans plans, designs, and nominates state highway projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) — the interregional portion of the STIP. Caltrans also is responsible for the projects that are funded through the SHOPP.
Most projects in the adopted STIP and SHOPP are included in MPOs' FTIPs and the FSTIP. FTIPs and the FSTIP also include other federally funded projects that are not subject to the state's programming process.
Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/financial-programming/documents/2023-fstip-final-a11y.pdf
Quote from: jrouse on July 25, 2023, 05:08:59 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 25, 2023, 09:35:23 AM
I'll dig into the links more, but I think more clarification on what I was asking is needed. In the end, I think it boils down to the question as to whether or not California adds all 100% state funded capital projects to their STIP and, even if they do, if the MPOs and RTPAs have real control over them (i.e., if the MPOs/RTPAs have real authority to veto a 100% state-funded project to the STIP put forward by CalTrans). I'm not talking about operations funding, as state-funded operations funding should not added to the STIP...unless certain activities are funded federally with capital project funding and let traditionally (Interstate mowing/cleanup comes to mind as one of these rare exceptions in NY...much to NYSDOT Program Management's chagrin...operations pilfering the capital project funds...).
The reason why I was half-surprised at the assertion of total MPO control (the other half-not-surprised because of CA infamously being quirky) is because the STIP is only federally mandated for enabling the authorization and obligation of federal funding (You went into the process a little early by talking about tax revenues; let's set aside the fact that federal funding is a reimbursement process, which is usually taken for granted when talking about capital program funding, anyway). In other words, the only reason why CA would require 100% state-funded projects to be added to the STIP would be a state requirement, rather than federal -- something they would do to themselves for whatever reason (and misguided, as this New Yorker would assert :D).
Like I said in my original post, allocation to MPOs in NY (thank goodness we don't have rural transportation organizations to deal with like in other states :D) does not necessarily mean full control over the STIP. Sure, it's a commitment to spend those particular funds within the MPAs, but NYSDOT retains some leverage, however harsh/severe, when it comes to what ends up on the STIP, depending upon the agreed upon bylaws of the particular MPO. NYSDOT relies upon federal legislation which dictates that DOTs are the pass-through agency for federal funding to keep that leverage, while respecting that some federal funding must be distributed to the MPOs (like I said, STBG Large Urban, in particular). That said, in CA, it sounds like the allocation to the MPOs/RTPAs happens at a much higher level at that rather arbitrary split of 75/25...although I'd really like to see how that really plays out in reality (i.e., given the programming and expenditures of the allocated funds, there's always room for back door shenanigans with the funding). In other words, what is the federal/state funding mix of that 75% in the end, and determining if the state-funded portion of that 75% pertains to 100% state-funded capital projects, rather than matches to federal funding.
I guess that's really the outstanding question -- how much of that 75% is not programmed to be federally-funded, if capital projects end up 100% state-funded (which, in NY, is a big deal since SDF funding cannot be used off the state-maintained system), and whether CalTrans/State of CA has allowed MPOs/RTPAs to veto CalTrans' programming decisions with such. I suppose it also raises the question of even if the MPOs/RTPAs have that power, if they've ever exercised it and what CalTrans' reaction was...
(personal opinions/commentary emphasized)
Let me take a step back, and forgive me if I'm sharing info you may already know. Long story short, federal dollars are put into the STIP along with State dollars, but are managed and allocated according to federal law.
The two primary California state transportation programming documents are the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).
Every county in California is served by a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA), and every county with at least one urbanized area is also served by an MPO. Each of the 18 MPOs and the 26 RTPAs develops and adopts a regional transportation plan (RTP).
Federal law requires that MPOs prepare a Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) which is a short-range program of specific projects derived from the RTP and supported with available funding commitments from various sources. The Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) is a statewide programming document required by federal law and prepared by Caltrans. It is a compilation of 18 MPOs' FTIPs and projects from the rural portions of the state that are not located within an MPO boundary.
The STIP lists the capital projects that will receive State and federal funding. The 1997 legislation that I mentioned in my earlier post broke up the STIP into two programs -75 percent goes into a regional program and 25 percent goes into an interregional program. The regional program is further subdivided by formula into county shares.
The aforementioned RTP is the basis for each RTPA's Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIPs form the regional portion of the STIP and they also serve as the MPO's portion of the FSTIP.
Caltrans plans, designs, and nominates state highway projects in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) — the interregional portion of the STIP. Caltrans also is responsible for the projects that are funded through the SHOPP.
Most projects in the adopted STIP and SHOPP are included in MPOs' FTIPs and the FSTIP. FTIPs and the FSTIP also include other federally funded projects that are not subject to the state's programming process.
Source: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/financial-programming/documents/2023-fstip-final-a11y.pdf
As someone who actually attends MPO meetings, yes, I know what a TIP and STIP is. Repeating the high level description of which organizations are involved doesn't get down to the more detailed level of where my question is getting at: Which is, again, do MPOs/RTPAs hold veto authority over whether 100% state funded projects are added to their TIPs and therefore the STIP, if 100% state-funded projects even are. That's a question that's a yes, no or sometimes answer, not "CA has MPOs that put together TIPs that make up the STIP" answer. The answer does not lie in the boilerplate of a STIP document.
I'll put this way: Given your scouring of the CalTrans website, the answer to my question lies not in an online .pdf intended for the public, but either from someone with access to California's version of "eSTIP," where the real magic happens (like in NY), or someone who is in or has experience in CalTrans' planning/program management group (whatever they call it out there). Boilerplate from the STIP is not going to contain the actual mechanics of how CalTrans and their MPOs and RTPAs actually amend the TIPs and STIP in their continual updating of their capital program. As I just heard for the 1000th time today from another group in my office, unless you're in program management, most people don't understand the day-to-day workings of it...until they find they need more money. :D
You don't seem to be understanding what I mean by a "100% State Funded" project, since you went back up to the high level explanation of what a TIP/STIP is. This is a state-funded project that will have no federal reimbursement whatsoever and there is no federal mandate to include such projects in a TIP or STIP. FHWA certainly doesn't have sign-off authority on 100% State funded projects, as there is no need for them to be authorized in FMIS -- their federal management software. FHWA only checks federal authorizations against the STIP. Although DOTs put together those fancy documents like you shared, in practice, the only thing that matters is what goes on in a state's eSTIP, where amounts are amended through whatever process deemed appropriate in the MPOs (and I'd imagine RTPAs). 100% State-funded projects in NY simply aren't in there most of the time because they don't need to be to get their funding authorized. So, if MPOs/RTPAs can sit there and vote against CalTrans in their committee meetings in progressing 100% State-funded projects, that would be stupefying and if there is any legal backing for it, that would be another example of California being California instead of having common sense. :D
All that said, as I peruse the FSTIP document you shared (and I do like how they include the F. NYSDOT should as well...), it does seem to me that CalTrans follows NYSDOT's programming practices. The only projects listed in their highway bridge program section are federally-funded (i.e., I didn't see any with a totally blank federal row). There are a paltry few 100% "State Cash" projects on local projects listed earlier in the document -- this arrangement would not be allowed in NY, unless it was a reverse betterment for a local entity to work on a state-owned road -- a situation NYSDOT tries to avoid at all costs...but fails to do so in rare cases. Anyway, I'm suspecting that I'm correct in assuming that California doesn't add 100% state-funded projects to their STIP on a regular basis. SHOPP also appears to be federally-reimbursed in some fashion and to some extent, per what I see in the document.
In other news:
I'm also intrigued by California ATP's program, which they list as a State fund source, but also includes federal TAP funding (!). That must be an absolute nightmare to manage, given the various restrictions on TAP, especially regarding solicitation of projects. Why on Earth did they think that was advantageous to mix that up with State funding? Unless...my goodness, are they covering the local matches? I've heard that's allowed, but NYSDOT forbids it at the State level. Shoot, if I was municipality that got money for absolutely free and no skin in the game, there'd be a good chance the project would not progress on schedule. :D
I do also like how CalTrans just lists "STIP advanced construction" in their project listings. "Um, this will be federally-funded somehow, sometime." :D When you have to authorize the funds in FMIS, it has to have a federal program code/fund source associated with it. Interesting that they're keeping the fund sources from the public...or, maybe they just fly by the seat of their pants. Discussions with FHWA over their STIP's fiscal constraint must be quite entertaining. :D
Anyway, that was fun. Thanks for trying.
https://ktla.com/news/local-news/portion-of-santa-monica-bluffs-in-danger-of-falling-onto-pch/ (https://ktla.com/news/local-news/portion-of-santa-monica-bluffs-in-danger-of-falling-onto-pch/)
a section of CA-1 in Santa Monica has a section that looks like its about to fall off.
^^^ weird Al's wife was the one that called it in too lol
The crack looks much bigger than in the Street View 360VR shot from the bluff.
Surprisingly one of my first times I've traveled from LA to San Francisco and back a few times during the day in the summer. Usually my trips are during the winter or at night. Mind you this also comes during a time where PCH is still closed south of Big Sur so perhaps that might have something to do with it.
But regardless it makes me think there are so many roads that need massive upgrades rather it be lane expansions, merging lanes, roundabouts, grade separations, or hell just build a fucking train to peoples front doors. Goddamn Caltrans do something.
Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?
It makes me think we need a lot more freeways in California lol
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2023, 03:06:36 AM
Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?
Tl;Dr: I think it's pretty normal.
This year I routinely driven US 101 between SF and SJ in specific segments in late afternoon which tends to be one of the peak traffic periods. Here are my anecdotes:
Redwood City to Belmont (north) and Menlo Park (south) is generally fine with high volume traffic, even when ramp meters are on. The only reason there would be stop and go traffic is that an accident was nearby or on the way but it happens from time to time. Underpowered exits and junctions do end up with a line of cars. The Bayfront Expressway section of CA 84 is usually good, can travel fast but there are traffic lights. I seen complaints about crossing Dumbarton bridge though.
Redwood City to Sunnyvale: traffic is much heavier in Palo Alto and Mountain View before the CA 85 junction but gets better after that. Still, a 15 mile trip takes at best 30 minutes and if there is an accident, 50 minutes or more.
Saturday (and probably Sunday): high traffic levels around noon and afternoon around SFO and San Mateo, and stop and go traffic if there's an accident. Not sure why, honestly.
That is so surprising to me given the fact I look at Caltrans website and there's minimal improvements planned when full on freeways should be what is proposed for some of the segments.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2023, 03:06:36 AM
Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?
You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.
Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.
I'm lucky, in that I'm never driving between LA and SF except for pleasure, so I can always take my time and use alternate routes like CA-33, or CA-25, or CA-166. I've always hated I-5 in the SJ Valley.
Quote from: pderocco on July 28, 2023, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2023, 03:06:36 AM
Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?
You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.
Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.
I'm lucky, in that I'm never driving between LA and SF except for pleasure, so I can always take my time and use alternate routes like CA-33, or CA-25, or CA-166. I've always hated I-5 in the SJ Valley.
Wasn't it Sparker who used to talk about taking 25 and 198 between 101 and 5? That's really the ultimate right there if you want a scenic backroad detour that doesn't really add much travel time.
Quote from: pderocco on July 28, 2023, 04:03:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2023, 03:06:36 AM
Max, you seem to be closer to this area and more traveled than me, is it normal to have so much traffic? It wasn't necessarily stop and go except a few of usual culprits just the steady unrelenting amount and then you see some poor soul on a road trying to make a left turn. I watch it and weep. Is it just summer traffic? Related to CA-1 closures?
You didn't say what road you were on, but if it's I-5, it's probably pretty normal. When there are only two lanes to choose from, and there are a lot of trucks, a significant percentage of the time you're stuck behind one truck in the left lane inching its way past another in the right lane. I think I-5 would be improved by much more than 50% by adding a lane in each direction.
Also, I wouldn't think CA-1 closures would affect I-5. The small amount of traffic normally on CA-1 (small compared to freeways) would probably end up on US-101.
I was driving home from San Diego yesterday afternoon/evening, so I got a nice 8 hours on I-5 on a Thursday to contemplate this. I think part of the problem is that when many of these highways were built, the population was significantly less than it is today. Consider that there are just as many lanes on I-5 between Wheeler Ridge and Tracy as there were when the highway was initially built, decades ago. I do believe that the split speed limit adds to the congestion, but there absolutely is a need for an additional lane in each direction. Obviously that is a pipe dream, but at least the addition of some climbing lanes on uphill stretches and longer merge lanes near major interchanges could do wonders.
Most of the I-5 right of way is wide enough for a third lane in each direction, I think.
The West Side Freeway is wide enough for six lanes and a high speed rail in the median. The problem with I-5 along the West Side Freeway (relating to Panda's question to me earlier) is the weekend rushes. I-5 gets a ton of the traffic coming/going from LA and the Bay Area on weekends. 99 usually is the better on weekends bet since most GPS software won't suggest it and long haul freight vehicles usually stick to I-5. The detour time usually is offset by not having to sit in traffic jams.
Yeah, I hardly ever take I-5 anymore through the Central Valley, at least south of Stockton.
99 can get bad on weekdays during rush hour, but yeah, that's 100% the better option on weekends. And it's getting better as more sections are widened to 6-8 lanes and micropassing trucks stop being an issue.
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 12:34:52 AM
99 can get bad on weekdays during rush hour, but yeah, that's 100% the better option on weekends. And it's getting better as more sections are widened to 6-8 lanes and micropassing trucks stop being an issue.
It's so weird. My parents are still of the "interstate = better" mentality and as a result will always take I-5 no matter where they need to go in the Central Valley. Bakersfield, just take I-5 to CA-58. Visalia, just take I-5 to CA-198. Fresno, just take I-5 to CA-41. They always get nervous when I drive them somewhere on CA-99 because "what's wrong with the 5?"
I use I-5 to get from the SF bay area to Vegas (via Bakersfield, CA-58, etc). According to Google Maps, it's ~10mins faster (and 11 miles shorter) to take I-5 (I usually cut over to CA-99 on Stockdale Hwy + Westside Pkwy, and this will only get easier when the Centennial Corridor is done) than to go immediately to CA-99 via I-205 and CA-120.
Do you guys disagree with that estimate, or just think that CA-99 is generally a more enjoyable drive even if it takes a few minutes longer?
Depends on what you mean by "enjoyable." CA-99 at least offers variable scenery in terms of going through the major population centers. I-5 is just a slog for me, it's boring and there is little variance. I actually have almost fallen asleep driving on it sometimes because there's nothing. You need some visual stimulus when driving.
I-5 and CA 99 aren't roads you take for "enjoyment." 99 will give you less potential problems and frustrations. 99 will also give you reasonable access to services and perhaps an oddity or two given it is a older freeway. To me, those are worth the investment of an 11 minute paper detour.
If you want an "enjoyable" routing take 25, 198, 33 and 58 from the Gilroy area to Bakersfield. You'll get plenty of mountains with 25/198 and lord of open country on 33.
Okay, instead of "more enjoyable" I guess I should have said "less annoying".
I am generally optimizing for travel time when I go to Vegas, but I'm ok with a *slight* detour if the road has more lanes or less waiting (I've definitely felt the claustrophobic aspect of I-5 while sitting in dense sections of traffic, waiting for trucks to pass each other, etc). Maybe I'll give 99 a shot.
CA-99 is probably less "monotonous" than I-5, is what I think is being said. In terms of, inducing drowsiness.
99 is less monotonous, certainly. I wouldn't call it particularly "interesting" and the quirks are disappearing as segments get upgraded, but there's quite a bit more variety. For a freeway route between SoCal and NorCal, 101 is easily the winner in terms of scenery and it's not much of a contest.
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
There isn't, the whole stretch is free of traffic lights.
No traffic lights, but short merging lanes and substandard shoulders abound.
99 has lots of sections under construction. Those construction zones in 2 lane segments with split/crossover lanes are very stressful to drive
Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later. Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often. Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction.
The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours. Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2023, 10:42:17 PM
Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later. Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often. Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction.
The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours. Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.
What about using CA-33 as a detour in most cases? It seems like it generally parallels the 5.
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:56:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 30, 2023, 10:42:17 PM
Atwater should be wrapping up sooner or later. Tulare I've noticed doesn't tend to slow down all that often. Tulare also has a couple bailout options if you need to get off 99 depending on the travel direction.
The thing that I've always hated about I-5 is that if there is a problem there is no easy detours. Any detours that exist usually require advanced knowledge of the Central Valley farm roads.
What about using CA-33 as a detour in most cases? It seems like it generally parallels the 5.
That works fine sometimes. The trouble with 33 is that it goes through some pretty slow towns and swings fair distance from I-5 (especially south of 145).
Most commonly I use 33 between Firebaugh and Santa Nella if I'm trying to make the 99-5 transition. I usually jog across the Central Valley via Avenue 7 1/2 and Avenue 7 east of Firebaugh. Definitely nowhere near the traffic on those two roads compared to 180 or 152.
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF. The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.
1 has the way better through route in SF via 19th and Park Presidio Boulevard.
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:55:28 PMLast signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
It hadn't occurred to me that when they built the Willits Bypass, the southernmost traffic light on US-101 moved north by 132 miles. But there are a couple dozen or more in Eureka, and a few more in Crescent City.
Bypassing Eureka would provoke even more vicious resistance than bypassing Willits did, because it would be a bigger project.
I'm wondering if some of the other towns along US-101 will actually start asking for a traffic light, like Hopland or Laytonville. Or even the north end of route 1. But I don't see anything like that happening south of San Fran, because all the little towns have been bypassed already.
Quote from: pderocco on July 31, 2023, 12:42:33 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:55:28 PMLast signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
It hadn't occurred to me that when they built the Willits Bypass, the southernmost traffic light on US-101 moved north by 132 miles. But there are a couple dozen or more in Eureka, and a few more in Crescent City.
Bypassing Eureka would provoke even more vicious resistance than bypassing Willits did, because it would be a bigger project.
I'm wondering if some of the other towns along US-101 will actually start asking for a traffic light, like Hopland or Laytonville. Or even the north end of route 1. But I don't see anything like that happening south of San Fran, because all the little towns have been bypassed already.
Rather than traffic lights, they might go for roundabouts. These tend to work well in fairly rural locations.
And the southernmost traffic light on the 101 would be in San Francisco, so the Willits bypass didn't change anything there.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2023, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF. The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.
I think it's just the result of traffic patterns changing over time. There are numerous instances where trying to follow a single highway number is more convoluted and time consuming than doing some alternates. (CA-115 comes to mind). I think relinquishment of certain highways in urban areas is sometimes the result of this.
Nobody normal is going to follow 101 through SF unless they really want to see the sights of San Francisco (Lombard Street is only a couple blocks east). 880-580 is the same distance and freeway the entire way. 85-280-1 is the better option if you want to stay west of the bay and cross the Golden Gate.
Quote from: Quillz on July 31, 2023, 01:18:27 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on July 31, 2023, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: Quillz on July 30, 2023, 11:55:28 PM
Quote from: cl94 on July 30, 2023, 10:01:08 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2023, 09:46:47 PM
Although 101 is still a few bypasses short of a freeway.
All of 101 south of San Francisco is 4-lane expressway at this point. I don't even think there is a light along that stretch.
There isn't. Last signal light was removed in Santa Barbara in 1992. Every mile of 101 between Los Angeles and San Francisco is either freeway or expressway. North of there, there was once talk of a Eureka bypass but the city didn't want it. (A bypass around Willits was built some years ago).
What gets me is the fact very few follow US 101 straight through SF. The ramp from Van Ness to the Central is hardly used with motorists and that particular ramp is US 101 proper to transition from arterial to freeway for the last time SB.
I think it's just the result of traffic patterns changing over time. There are numerous instances where trying to follow a single highway number is more convoluted and time consuming than doing some alternates. (CA-115 comes to mind). I think relinquishment of certain highways in urban areas is sometimes the result of this.
I've used the cloverleaf from Van Ness to Central Freeway many times in the last decade and it can be a parking lot at rush hour, it's not a sparsely used ramp at all. The main backup there is the merge between 80 west and 101 south, which can sometimes go all the way back to Van Ness too.
More delays with reopening SR 1 at Paul's Slide (https://www.ksby.com/news/local-news/work-at-pauls-slide-on-highway-1-paused-as-crews-assess-recent-slide-activity), Monterey County. The slide has been active since March and has shown no signs of stopping. Hope nobody was planning to drive 1 through Big Sur this summer, because there's a good chance the full length won't be open until 2024 at this rate.
This adds to Caltrans's long list of geotech issues caused by the wet winter, including several other places along SR 1, the 6-month Feather River Canyon closure, and SR 198 west of Coalinga.
So many road closures. CA 33, The Snake on Mulholland HWY, and CA-2 in the angeles forest and still CA-1. I'm a bit worried at some point Caltrans is going to give up on this section of CA-1 at some point.
Do you know what the worst case scenario is with this? Is there a potential for a larger slide creating a necessity for a large expensive bridge to be built?
I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_101#History), though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.
If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.
Quote from: Bruce on August 03, 2023, 01:41:40 AM
I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_101#History), though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.
If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.
More or less been building that on our 101 page. I don't have everything between between LA-SF in the CHPWs but I have a good chunk of it already data mined (a handful of blogs need to brought to our modern standard also). More or less the observation I've had is that there was never a push for a full SF-LA US 101 freeway. The Division of Highways had built up the corridor/or funded construction largely before the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act. The DOH smartly opted to ask for LRN 238 as the chargeable Interstate corridor where I-5 presently resides along the West Side Freeway. The DOH and California Highway Commission tried to get the SF-LA corridor added as chargeable mileage in 1968 (see Daniel's site this reference) but I think it wasn't anticipated to be accepted.
Back to our 101 page, the corridor is so large that I found the history easier to break down largely by community or geographic feature. Each area/city blog has links that go directly to the CHPW page (perfect for Wikipedia reference tabs) or map being cited:
https://www.gribblenation.org/p/us-route-101.html?m=1
Long term I'm planning on getting out US 101 page for California fully fleshed out like US 99 is. I'll probably pick that project up again next year starting with Conejo Pass after I get through the last couple state highway blogs we are missing for California. In the mean time the Golden Gate Freeway blog is probably what you are wanting for the corridor Lombard Street. The plans insinuate there would have been some sort of I-480/US 101 multiplex:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html?m=1
Worth noting, the entire library of CHPWs (1924-67 and probably the best highway magazine ever published domestically) and the California Highway Bulletin can be found on archive.org if you search "California Highway Bulletin." Every state issued State Highway map from 1918-2005 can be found on David Rumsey by search "Caltrans." The county level Division of Highways survey maps (which I find useful for locating old alignments) published in 1935 can be found on David Rumsey by searching "California Division of Highways."
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2023, 01:26:32 AM
So many road closures. CA 33, The Snake on Mulholland HWY, and CA-2 in the angeles forest and still CA-1. I'm a bit worried at some point Caltrans is going to give up on this section of CA-1 at some point.
Do you know what the worst case scenario is with this? Is there a potential for a larger slide creating a necessity for a large expensive bridge to be built?
Nothing is impossible, but I really don't see that happening. This isn't something like the washed out segment of TX-87, CA-1 is internationally famous and Big Sur is a major tourist destination. Just flat out abandoning that stretch of highway would be a highly unpopular move. I don't even see it being moved down to county maintenance. That stretch of CA-1 has always had issues since it was built in the 1930s, and it's always been fixed and kept open. Sometimes it's closed for long stretches, but that's the way things go sometimes. I believe there are also some businesses and remote houses that are served by that stretch.
The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold. The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state. In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide. Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2023, 03:13:53 PM
The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold. The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state. In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide. Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.
Wasn't there talk of the CA-39 connection to CA-2 finally being opened soon? Or was that just more political noise?
Quote from: Quillz on August 03, 2023, 05:16:58 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2023, 03:13:53 PM
The problem with giving up on 1 in Big Sur is two fold. The highway is the only real connective center for several communities to the rest of the state. In particular this is the case for the Lucia area near Paul's Slide. Secondly CA 1 in Big Sur is a huge economic driver, SLO County and Monterey County would never agree to Caltrans giving it the CA 39 treatment.
Wasn't there talk of the CA-39 connection to CA-2 finally being opened soon? Or was that just more political noise?
There was an actual presentation where the public could comment a couple months ago.
I hope that happens.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 03, 2023, 07:53:48 AM
Quote from: Bruce on August 03, 2023, 01:41:40 AM
I've been researching the history of US 101 over the past few days for a little project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_101#History), though most of it has been California because of the overwhelming amount of stuff that needs to be covered. Note that I've only got up to 1954 so far.
If anyone has a solid source for when the CA Division of Highways wanted to turn US 101 from SF to LA into a continuous freeway or expressway. I'd be glad to put it in here. Also anything I really should cover from earlier eras.
More or less been building that on our 101 page. I don't have everything between between LA-SF in the CHPWs but I have a good chunk of it already data mined (a handful of blogs need to brought to our modern standard also). More or less the observation I've had is that there was never a push for a full SF-LA US 101 freeway. The Division of Highways had built up the corridor/or funded construction largely before the 1956 Federal Highway Aid Act. The DOH smartly opted to ask for LRN 238 as the chargeable Interstate corridor where I-5 presently resides along the West Side Freeway. The DOH and California Highway Commission tried to get the SF-LA corridor added as chargeable mileage in 1968 (see Daniel's site this reference) but I think it wasn't anticipated to be accepted.
Back to our 101 page, the corridor is so large that I found the history easier to break down largely by community or geographic feature. Each area/city blog has links that go directly to the CHPW page (perfect for Wikipedia reference tabs) or map being cited:
https://www.gribblenation.org/p/us-route-101.html?m=1
Long term I'm planning on getting out US 101 page for California fully fleshed out like US 99 is. I'll probably pick that project up again next year starting with Conejo Pass after I get through the last couple state highway blogs we are missing for California. In the mean time the Golden Gate Freeway blog is probably what you are wanting for the corridor Lombard Street. The plans insinuate there would have been some sort of I-480/US 101 multiplex:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2019/03/the-embarcadero-and-history-of.html?m=1
Worth noting, the entire library of CHPWs (1924-67 and probably the best highway magazine ever published domestically) and the California Highway Bulletin can be found on archive.org if you search "California Highway Bulletin." Every state issued State Highway map from 1918-2005 can be found on David Rumsey by search "Caltrans." The county level Division of Highways survey maps (which I find useful for locating old alignments) published in 1935 can be found on David Rumsey by searching "California Division of Highways."
GribbleNation has been a great help in orienting myself in the right time period for certain events. Some of the newspaper archives available have an overwhelming number of results, but many are just real estate listings, classifieds, or other junk that is hard to sort out. I've been browsing through various issues of CHPW and have to say I'm very jealous; Washington's equivalent (which is only partially scanned) is much more bare in comparison, and has far fewer maps.
The way I'm trying to write my own blogs is in a way that the actual public documents are easy to grab from the link citations. Hopefully the CHPW information is useful for your endeavor fleshing out the US 101 Wikipedia page. Unfortunately I couldn't link the AASHTO Database but at least the images for the most part are large enough to be legible when clicked on.
I was fortunate a couple years ago in that I was gifted a nearly complete CHPW set by a BART Director. For whatever reason the Oakland Public Library didn't want the donation so he reached out to me instead. It honestly one of the most generous gifts I've personally received in this hobby. All that was really required of me was driving to Oakland to pick them up.
I was made aware of the CHPW scans roughly around the same time. Given the wealth of information contained within those volumes it seemed borderline criminal not to break them down into Route specific blogs.
For reasons unknown Fresno County decided to post a new County Route J40 sign at Mountain View Avenue and Bethel Avenue. This sign was erected between 2018-2022 and I guess makes Fresno County 3/3 for actual Letter County Route signage. I found no evidence of additional shields in Fresno County nor Tulare County today.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53095051702_34734642cf_4k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2oTQ24U)0 (https://flic.kr/p/2oTQ24U) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Is the county shield really small, or is the directional banner really big?
Standard size shield (which is small) and standard size placard. Really speaks to how the standard County Route shield needs to be upsized.
Personally, I've never like county shields at all. Not really a fan of the pentagon, and I think black-on-white would work better. I'm of the opinion county shields should look like state shields, just in a different color scheme. I know some states do this, I think it works better.
Quote from: Quillz on August 05, 2023, 05:54:33 PM
Personally, I've never like county shields at all. Not really a fan of the pentagon, and I think black-on-white would work better. I'm of the opinion county shields should look like state shields, just in a different color scheme. I know some states do this, I think it works better.
I've always liked how my home state of Wisconsin does county highways. :nod:
Mike
Another US 101 question: anyone know when the first set of HOV lanes were added to the Bayshore Freeway? Just need a backstop for where my newspaper archive searching can begin.
Quote from: Bruce on August 07, 2023, 02:06:15 AM
Another US 101 question: anyone know when the first set of HOV lanes were added to the Bayshore Freeway? Just need a backstop for where my newspaper archive searching can begin.
From https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html -
QuoteCommuter Lanes
In San Mateo County, a HOV lane runs (in both directions) from Whipple Avenue to the Santa Clara county line, for a length of 6.6 mi. This was opened in July 1991. It requires two or more occupants, and operates on weekdays during the following hours: 5:00-9:00AM, 3:00-7:00PM.
In Santa Clara County, a HOV lane runs (both directions) from the San Mateo county line to the vicinity of Bernal Road, for a length of approximately 25 miles. The portion between the San Mateo County Line and Guadalupe Parkway was opened in November 1986 and extended twice in 1988; the portion between Guadalupe Parkway and Route 280 was opened in April 1993; and the portion between Route 280 and Bernal Road was opened in June 1990. All require two or more occupants, and operate on weekdays during the following hours: 5:00-9:00AM, 3:00-7:00PM.
With respect to usage: A 2001 Caltrans survey showed that use of the HOV lane in the San Francisco Bay Area fell from 14,110 vehicles in 1996 to 9,093 in 2001. During the busiest hour of the morning, more than 1,500 cars used the HOV lane, which is about the same number of cars as in each non-carpool lane. Note that the 2001 survey showed that US 101 has the distinction of the slowest speed for carpoolers at 28 mph during the afternoon.
This matches my own memory of planning meetings in the early 1980s and construction in the late 1980s and early 90s.
Thanks, I had found the 1991 date before in some newspaper articles but not the 1986 section.
It's an interesting weather forecast for Southern California this coming weekend as significant moisture from Hurricane Hilary is expected to affect the area, and especially the desert side. Latest rainfall forecast from the National Weather Service:
QuoteCurrent forecast rainfall amounts Saturday through Monday:
Coast: 2 to 2.50 inches
Valleys: 2.50 to 3 inches
Mojave Desert: 3 to 4.50 inches
San Bernardino County Mtns: 4 to 6 inches, locally up to 8 inches on the eastern slopes
Riverside and San Diego County Mtns: 4 to 8 inches, locally up to 10 inches on the eastern slopes
Lower Deserts: 5 to 6 inches
That is a lot on the eastern mountain slopes and in the desert areas. Storm systems like this have caused a lot of flash flood damage to the roads out that way in the past.
This El Nino year is going to wreak havoc on Southern California in general. The more intense (for the eastern Pacific Ocean's standards) tropical storm season right now is a direct result of that. Road authorities in CA have to be aware that they may have their work cut out for them this year.
I'm still of the "I'll take what I can get when it comes to rain" mentality, even though drought conditions improved a lot this year. But I'm always nervous driving in the rain, seems a lot of motorists around here never slow down in it.
The years prepping for hurricane out east are screaming at me "don't wish for one here."
I'm pretty sure we are going to be reading about washouts along I-10 and other desert highways. If I was in Palm Springs or the surrounding area, I'd be rather concerned at this point.
Several news organizations are reporting that Caltrans is going to reduce the speed limit from 70 MPH to 65 MPH at US 101 in Southern Monterey county. This seems to be happening before the end of the month.
Here's one news report: https://www.ksbw.com/article/caltrans-to-lower-speed-limit-on-highway-101-in-southern-monterey-county/44843427
That segment of 101 easily can handle 70 MPH or higher. If CHP really wants to find unsafe speeding in the area it can easily be seen on Cattleman Road (old 101).
I feel the majority of modern freeways can safely support higher speeds than what is posted. Especially as the flow of traffic seems to be perpetually 10-15 above what's posted anyway.
I want to say that is the only segment of 101 in California that was signed at 70 MPH? Given there was no accident data cited it sounds more of an issue about CHP not adequately patrolling the southern Monterey County segment. There certainly isn't a traffic count justification to lower the limit. Also, just because the limit is artificially lowered doesn't mean drivers will slow down.
What a joke. There's zero engineering justification. They claim there is a speeding problem... news flash. Lowering the speed limit is not going to stop people from going 100 mph. You're just now putting those going 70 mph, which the freeway is safely designed for, in a category of being speeders.
People go 80-90 mph on I-5 between LA and San Francisco. Let's lower that speed limit from 70 mph to 65 mph to increase compliance and slow people down. Sure...
The compliance will continue to go down. What happened to California and 85th percentile speeds?
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 07:26:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
A racetrack, I hope.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 19, 2023, 01:43:58 AM
What a joke. There's zero engineering justification. They claim there is a speeding problem... news flash. Lowering the speed limit is not going to stop people from going 100 mph. You're just now putting those going 70 mph, which the freeway is safely designed for, in a category of being speeders.
People go 80-90 mph on I-5 between LA and San Francisco. Let's lower that speed limit from 70 mph to 65 mph to increase compliance and slow people down. Sure...
The compliance will continue to go down. What happened to California and 85th percentile speeds?
I drive the southern Monterey County segment of 101 usually 2-4 times a month. My average speed through the segment is usually a cruise control setting of 77-78 MPH. I rarely hit obstructions that require me to slow and in usually running a little bit below the average speed. I would imagine the segment would easily qualify for a 75-80 MPH speed limit if the 85th percentile was followed.
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 07:26:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
Low traffic. That's about it.
Quote from: kkt on August 19, 2023, 11:18:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 07:26:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
A racetrack, I hope.
The 101 racetrack is in the Bay Area at night when you can be cruising at 100 and have people passing you and CHP being selective in who they pull over. I was cruising through there a few week ago going about 70-75 and people would fly by me like I'm standing still. Saw CHP several times fly past me with their lights on only to give up and turn them off and pull back off to the side before flying by me again. I thought LA freeways became a lawless shit show at night. I couldn't believe what I saw on the Bay Area freeways.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 03:03:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 19, 2023, 11:18:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 07:26:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
A racetrack, I hope.
The 101 racetrack is in the Bay Area at night when you can be cruising at 100 and have people passing you and CHP being selective in who they pull over. I was cruising through there a few week ago going about 70-75 and people would fly by me like I'm standing still. Saw CHP several times fly past me with their lights on only to give up and turn them off and pull back off to the side before flying by me again. I thought LA freeways became a lawless shit show at night. I couldn't believe what I saw on the Bay Area freeways.
You said "fuck speed limits on interstates," so it sounds like you've got no issues with this.
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 03:07:40 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 03:03:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 19, 2023, 11:18:13 AM
Quote from: Quillz on August 19, 2023, 07:26:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
What are those certain conditions?
A racetrack, I hope.
The 101 racetrack is in the Bay Area at night when you can be cruising at 100 and have people passing you and CHP being selective in who they pull over. I was cruising through there a few week ago going about 70-75 and people would fly by me like I'm standing still. Saw CHP several times fly past me with their lights on only to give up and turn them off and pull back off to the side before flying by me again. I thought LA freeways became a lawless shit show at night. I couldn't believe what I saw on the Bay Area freeways.
You said "fuck speed limits on interstates," so it sounds like you've got no issues with this.
I really don't. It's not on my list of concerns. Just pointing it out.
As you are all probably aware, southwest California is now under a tropical storm warning (I learned this from Google Maps). Northwest Mexico is probably under the same warning, but Google Maps doesn't list it.
Yeah, I'm in the SF Valley and bracing for some rain. Local forecasts show a fair bit starting around 8 AM tomorrow, but will be done by Monday. Seems the main areas that might get hit hard are Palm Springs and similar desert areas. Anyone in LA proper probably won't be dealing with too much, but nature is tricky and anything can happen.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
You criminal.
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
You criminal.
I'm horrible. Lol. Really I hover around 10 over most of the time. I'm just saying it seems like these roads could handle higher speeds but Americans should have more stringent driver license requirements IMO.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2023, 03:03:31 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:17:33 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 19, 2023, 06:31:50 AM
I go around 100 in certain conditions and it's perfectly fine. Complete fucking joke to lower but I am not going to care less or abide by it. Fuck speed limits on interstates.
You criminal.
I'm horrible. Lol. Really I hover around 10 over most of the time. I'm just saying it seems like these roads could handle higher speeds but Americans should have more stringent driver license requirements IMO.
They are. Most modern freeways/interstates can handle much higher speeds. Most speed limits are artificial. 55 mph was due to the 1970s oil embargo, and at the time, most cars got best mileage around that speed. It's likely higher on modern cars.
Looks like a wonderful summer Sunday afternoon on the roads of Southern California.
(https://i.imgur.com/PFfYQEe.jpg)
I'm sure the LA and San Diego areas are awful, but of that the biggest single thing appears to be the full closure of Interstate 15 through Barstow. I haven't seen an exact reason yet but flooding would be a decent guess.
Meanwhile in the Central Valley essentially nothing exciting has happened.
Friend of mine in San Diego says the event was totally overhyped.
Las Vegas looks interesting, though...
Quote from: gonealookin on August 20, 2023, 07:10:52 PM
Looks like a wonderful summer Sunday afternoon on the roads of Southern California.
I'm sure the LA and San Diego areas are awful, but of that the biggest single thing appears to be the full closure of Interstate 15 through Barstow. I haven't seen an exact reason yet but flooding would be a decent guess.
It's downed power lines, according to CalTrans.
I'm in San Diego, and it was raining pretty hard an hour ago, but very little wind. Seems like a typical winter storm, except for the temperature.
I do notice that I-8 EB going down into the low desert is closed, due to a rockslide. That's gonna suck, because it looks like 78 might be closed (zero traffic showing), so CR-S22 through Ranchita down to Borrego Springs is the nearest alternative. Even the Mexico routes 2 and 20 are closed. But in the
western part of San Diego County everything looks green on Google Maps.
Wow. All of the eastern portion of CA-190 is closed, as is about everything in Death Valley. Maybe Scotty's Castle is going to have to wait another year or two to open.
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:23:41 PM
Friend of mine in San Diego says the event was totally overhyped.
Las Vegas looks interesting, though...
It's raining pretty heavy where I am right now, but I'd agree the warnings are erring much more on the side of caution than reality. Fine with me, frankly a lot of people shouldn't be driving right now because a lot of people never slow down or seem to take any precautions during rain.
Personally I'm not seeing anymore rain than I did earlier in the year. Looks like it will be wrapping up later tonight.
Quote from: Quillz on August 20, 2023, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:23:41 PM
Friend of mine in San Diego says the event was totally overhyped.
Las Vegas looks interesting, though...
It's raining pretty heavy where I am right now, but I'd agree the warnings are erring much more on the side of caution than reality. Fine with me, frankly a lot of people shouldn't be driving right now because a lot of people never slow down or seem to take any precautions during rain.
Personally I'm not seeing anymore rain than I did earlier in the year. Looks like it will be wrapping up later tonight.
Heh. The way Californians are afraid of rain always amuses me (had a friend from somewhere in LA that spoke of times when her school was cancelled due to heavy rains...). I know they don't build their hills out there as well as we do back East, though... :D
Makes me wonder about what people consider "extreme weather" and if gentler climates mean that what other people consider normal is considered extreme...
Which is why things like chain controls exist. I argue they are thing largely to thin out of the herd of mediocre drivers who can't operate a vehicle in adverse weather.
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 10:25:26 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 20, 2023, 09:49:39 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 20, 2023, 08:23:41 PM
Friend of mine in San Diego says the event was totally overhyped.
Las Vegas looks interesting, though...
It's raining pretty heavy where I am right now, but I'd agree the warnings are erring much more on the side of caution than reality. Fine with me, frankly a lot of people shouldn't be driving right now because a lot of people never slow down or seem to take any precautions during rain.
Personally I'm not seeing anymore rain than I did earlier in the year. Looks like it will be wrapping up later tonight.
Heh. The way Californians are afraid of rain always amuses me (had a friend from somewhere in LA that spoke of times when her school was cancelled due to heavy rains...). I know they don't build their hills out there as well as we do back East, though... :D
Makes me wonder about what people consider "extreme weather" and if gentler climates mean that what other people consider normal is considered extreme...
If anything, people around here aren't afraid of rain. Which is why people have a tendency to never slow down during the rain, then wonder why they slip out.
Traveling is always helpful. I've gotten proficient with driving on snow/ice, heavy rain, fog, etc. But I get not everyone has.
I mean, the flooding in parts of the inner LA metro has been quite bad. The area around the 101/134/170 interchange has been a mess, with many cars getting stuck in floodwater.
Further out, there are full closures on I-10 in Thousand Palms, US 395 north of Victorville, CA 14 north of CA 58, CA 58 west of CA 14, and CA 178 through Kern Canyon. It is an absolute mess in the mountains.
Quote from: pderocco on August 20, 2023, 08:31:46 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on August 20, 2023, 07:10:52 PM
Looks like a wonderful summer Sunday afternoon on the roads of Southern California.
I'm sure the LA and San Diego areas are awful, but of that the biggest single thing appears to be the full closure of Interstate 15 through Barstow. I haven't seen an exact reason yet but flooding would be a decent guess.
It's downed power lines, according to CalTrans.
I'm in San Diego, and it was raining pretty hard an hour ago, but very little wind. Seems like a typical winter storm, except for the temperature.
I do notice that I-8 EB going down into the low desert is closed, due to a rockslide. That's gonna suck, because it looks like 78 might be closed (zero traffic showing), so CR-S22 through Ranchita down to Borrego Springs is the nearest alternative. Even the Mexico routes 2 and 20 are closed. But in the
western part of San Diego County everything looks green on Google Maps.
Oh, it gets better. There was a period today when 8, 78, and S22 were all closed due to flooding or slides.
That would make the Sherman Pass Road the southernmost crossing of the Sierra open right now. Good thing I did my Yosemite trip last weekend, my options this weekend would have been much more limited.
Pretty dull in greater LA. We got 3 and half inches of rain but not much in the way of wind. Brief power outage for less than 30 seconds. The humidity was a bit obnoxious but that was about it.
Looks way worse in the low desert, though.
Saturday was worse in the Central Valley. There was an isolated storm that had some wind speed behind it. Yesterday was basically light rain and drizzle all afternoon.
Just about every highway in the desert is closed right now due to flooding and washouts.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on August 21, 2023, 02:10:19 PM
Pretty dull in greater LA. We got 3 and half inches of rain but not much in the way of wind. Brief power outage for less than 30 seconds. The humidity was a bit obnoxious but that was about it.
Looks way worse in the low desert, though.
To be expected, seems like the hurricane went where predicted, so LA never was going to get hit too hard. I normally enjoy the rain but this one was warm and not very pleasant. And now it's blue sky again and supposed to get back up to 90 F by the end of the week.
I was planning another Yosemite trip for this weekend but I might have to cancel since my planned route may not be opened. Or I'd have to just go via the Central Valley both in and out. I'm glad I got Tioga Pass in when I did.
Deep water? No tread on tires? Too fast for conditions? Inexperience behind the wheel?.......take your pick.
I'm surprised to see major discrepancies between CalTrans road conditions and Google Maps. Google says I-5 is closed for a stretch north of San Diego, and on CA-78 from CR-S22 to Borrego Springs Rd, but CalTrans says they're not.
One scary bit: Both CalTrans and Google show no way in and out of Trona, since CA-190 and CA-178 are both closed.
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
Heard I-8 is closed about 75 miles east of San Diego as massive boulders fell onto the highway. Traffic is being detoured to the WB lanes set up in temporary two way mode.
https://calexicochronicle.com/2023/08/21/hilary-boulders-keep-e-b-i-8-closed-to-traffic/
Yeah that's kind of common on the Mountain Springs Grade even with normal storms.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
For clarification, Trona is noteworthy given the town is so full of salt that even grass has a difficultly growing with irrigation. For example the field at Trona high school still doesn't have grass which can be seen on satellite views.
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that “no way out” feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
At least you found a motel. When I drove US 101 rooms were hard to come by. Apparently people love the ocean in CA and OR, despite the lack of sunshine, cool temps, and water that is too cold for swimming. Yet they still hoard traveler services when there is nothing else to do in US 101 cities. In Florida ( or any east coast city) people wait till till sunny skies, hot temps, and little less cooler water to fill up beachside motels.
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
You do lots of things, especially if you have a wet suit. A lot of those northern beaches are just pretty to look at or relax without going in the water.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
At least you found a motel. When I drove US 101 rooms were hard to come by. Apparently people love the ocean in CA and OR, despite the lack of sunshine, cool temps, and water that is too cold for swimming. Yet they still hoard traveler services when there is nothing else to do in US 101 cities. In Florida ( or any east coast city) people wait till till sunny skies, hot temps, and little less cooler water to fill up beachside motels.
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
I love not having full sun! I love cooler temperatures! And I don't care about swimming in the ocean anyway.
I watch the surf, I walk, I watch the sun set, I look at the interesting critters in the tide pools and the birds...
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
At least you found a motel. When I drove US 101 rooms were hard to come by. Apparently people love the ocean in CA and OR, despite the lack of sunshine, cool temps, and water that is too cold for swimming. Yet they still hoard traveler services when there is nothing else to do in US 101 cities. In Florida ( or any east coast city) people wait till till sunny skies, hot temps, and little less cooler water to fill up beachside motels.
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
If you can't see the beauty on the Oregon Coast, you have no soul.
Quote from: pderocco on August 22, 2023, 02:08:24 AM
I'm surprised to see major discrepancies between CalTrans road conditions and Google Maps. Google says I-5 is closed for a stretch north of San Diego, and on CA-78 from CR-S22 to Borrego Springs Rd, but CalTrans says they're not.
One scary bit: Both CalTrans and Google show no way in and out of Trona, since CA-190 and CA-178 are both closed.
Google Maps has been a bit funky lately with the closures. Pretty sure a large stretch of EB I-80 (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.0267983,-122.2674422,13.3z/data=!5m1!1e1?entry=ttu) is not closed for the next 3 months...(https://i.imgur.com/VyAg56g.jpg)
The Caltrans QuickMap has the most reliable data for California. They even have more up to date notes for most of the major county roads.
Quote from: Rothman on August 22, 2023, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
At least you found a motel. When I drove US 101 rooms were hard to come by. Apparently people love the ocean in CA and OR, despite the lack of sunshine, cool temps, and water that is too cold for swimming. Yet they still hoard traveler services when there is nothing else to do in US 101 cities. In Florida ( or any east coast city) people wait till till sunny skies, hot temps, and little less cooler water to fill up beachside motels.
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
If you can't see the beauty on the Oregon Coast, you have no soul.
If he'd rather go to Huntington Beach than the Oregon Coast, fine, more space in Oregon for me.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
And even with that, those folks working in the Searles Valley salt/trona processing plants do have a way out: The world's largest deposit of trona (soda ash) happens to be in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. If California eventually gets around to forcing the closure of those salt/trona processing plants due to environmental pollution, the labor in those plants will likely find their way to Wyoming if previous experience is any indicator.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 05:15:01 PM
Quote from: Quillz on August 22, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 22, 2023, 08:10:11 AM
I bet that "no way out" feeling is just an average day for anyone stuck having to work at those Searles Valley salt plants. Trona probably would be my contender for the worst place in California.
I was trapped between Eureka and Crescent City for about 14 hours about two years ago. CA-299 was closed east of Eureka, US-101 was closed just south of Crescent City. Both due to damage from rains. Bald Hills Road was also closed/washed out, and CA-169 has a gap. I think we ended up overnighting in a motel in Eureka. There were some big rigs, I guess they just slept in their cabs. But at least we were near the redwoods and the ocean, so it wasn't the worst place to be trapped.
At least you found a motel. When I drove US 101 rooms were hard to come by. Apparently people love the ocean in CA and OR, despite the lack of sunshine, cool temps, and water that is too cold for swimming. Yet they still hoard traveler services when there is nothing else to do in US 101 cities. In Florida ( or any east coast city) people wait till till sunny skies, hot temps, and little less cooler water to fill up beachside motels.
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
NorCal beaches are beautiful. Often craggy, nice coastal trails, and I enjoy cooler weather. They are appealing if you enjoy scenic vistas and aren't a surfer.
Quote from: roadman65 on August 22, 2023, 05:15:01 PM
Why those in Northern California and Coastal Oregon go to a beach you can do nothing on them is a question I have for Saint Peter after I die.
I know one thing you can do on them: you can drive on them, because the sand is so full of clay. Not very comfortable to lie on with a beach towel, though.
Also, I used to live in Oregon, and in the summer I'd go out to Seaside to skate the boardwalk. After a couple of encounters with dense fog as soon as I was within a mile of the coast, I took to calling ahead, to save me the trip.
There's some nice scenery out there, but it's only to look at, not to touch. I'll take Cape Cod any day...
According to the Caltrans QuickMap and their road conditions site, looks like a lot of things are back open.
395 is open
14 is open
178 to Trona is open
Colorado Desert highways are open
Looks like a small portion of I-10 is still closed. But anyone needing to go to the Eastern Sierra should be fine.
Death Valley NP seems to take so long to fix roads that, statistically, they get hammered again before they've been fixed. I'll bet Scotty's Castle Road suffered fresh damage, and Titus Canyon, which have been closed for a long time. Same in the Mojave Desert Preserve, where the old 66 has been closed for, what, a couple years?
Quote from: pderocco on August 23, 2023, 08:47:36 PM
Same in the Mojave Desert Preserve, where the old 66 has been closed for, what, a couple years?
I recall that 66 east of Amboy was closed in 2021 (when me and my friend did our SF-Daytona Beach roadtrip) and it had been closed for a few years before that.
Some construction projects have started but not much:
https://dpw.sbcounty.gov/operations/nth-active-and-completed-projects/
https://dpw.sbcounty.gov/operations/nth-funding-and-future-projects/
Nothing at this point is going to beat the Chuckwalla Valley Road closure for lengthiness.
Quote from: pderocco on August 23, 2023, 08:47:36 PM
Death Valley NP seems to take so long to fix roads that, statistically, they get hammered again before they've been fixed. I'll bet Scotty's Castle Road suffered fresh damage, and Titus Canyon, which have been closed for a long time. Same in the Mojave Desert Preserve, where the old 66 has been closed for, what, a couple years?
Death Valley National Park Alerts and Conditions page. (https://www.nps.gov/deva/planyourvisit/conditions.htm) The information on there is pretty vague right now as to recent damage and repair timelines, but it does say "Bonnie Clare Road and Scotty's Castle (are) unlikely to open before late 2025."
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2023, 09:22:46 PM
Nothing at this point is going to beat the Chuckwalla Valley Road closure for lengthiness.
What about CA-39? Closed since 1978.
Quote from: Quillz on August 24, 2023, 03:07:36 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2023, 09:22:46 PM
Nothing at this point is going to beat the Chuckwalla Valley Road closure for lengthiness.
What about CA-39? Closed since 1978.
CA 39 isn't a former desert US Route segment either.
This part of CA-34 in Camarillo really perplexes me every time I drive it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2252246,-119.0254913,3a,75y,49.48h,81.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQw-nDy0j-umYGkUIKBonwQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
All that space on the SB/WB side of the road to construct more lanes, especially as this is passing through the center of the city. Instead we're relegated to two lanes as if it were a rural state route. Is its designation as a state route the reason why they keep it at two lanes here?
It's been like that my whole life. I've always wondered that myself, it's such a weird design.
34 is part of the freeway and expressway system. If I recall correctly 34 peaks out at about 20,000 vehicles a day. That's definitely not enough for a freeway but it probably ought to be some sort four lane configuration.
That's what I'm thinking. It should be four lanes (and has the space to be) from Pleasant Valley Rd to Las Posas/Upland Rd.
I poked around in HistoricAerials, and it seems that segment of unused pavement along SR 34 just north of US 101 has existed since at least World War II. However, it was extended to the northeast between 1959 and 1967 when the orchards on either side of what is now Metcalfe Avenue were removed to subdivide the land into a housing development.
I wonder if there are unusual soil conditions in the area that necessitate pavement as a cap.
I've heard talk of CA-34 being deleted entirely, but we'll see. Of course over time it's been slowly truncated. Used to reach Port Hueneme, then Oxnard, now ends at the Rice Avenue intersection. At this point it's probably more a south-north highway.
Where though? I was under the impression 34 was on a pretty secure footing east of Oxnard. More so now given Rice is supposed to at some point become part of 1.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2023, 02:10:37 PM
Where though? I was under the impression 34 was on a pretty secure footing east of Oxnard. More so now given Rice is supposed to at some point become part of 1.
I think it's quasi-official now. We finally got a (horribly ugly) CA-1 shield on the Rice Avenue BGS. The old "<->" banner at Rice Avenue now changed to just "<-" which seems to indicate the change. I don't think deletion is likely myself but it's possible it could happen due to the cited reasons (possible desire to widen Lewis Avenue, which might not be possible as Caltrans owns it).
Donner Pass Road, old US 40, which has been undergoing a rehabilitation project and then was closed most of this summer due to a rock slide, has reopened:
https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/230/Donner-Pass-Road-Reconstruction (https://www.nevadacountyca.gov/230/Donner-Pass-Road-Reconstruction)
Excellent, I was getting hungry.
Perfect time for a lunch on all of you at the Donner Lake Picnic Grounds.
Some more specific information on conditions in Death Valley National Park, from the LA Times: (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-09-03/death-valley-national-park-faces-months-of-storm-repairs)
QuoteAs Hilary bore down, torrents of water rushed through Death Valley, forging new gullies, displacing heavy rocks and undercutting roadways, including State Route 190, one of the park's main thoroughfares.
Chunks of the highway, including entire lanes, now lay in crumbles, and officials say it could be months before the park reopens.
...
Among the damaged areas is a 1,500-foot stretch of roadway near Towne Pass that "washed away," said Christopher Andriessen, a spokesman with the California Department of Transportation, District 9.
East of Towne Pass, a 40-foot-wide Arizona Crossing – a type of culvert – is gone, as are multiple swaths of pavement between Death Valley Junction and Olancha, Andriessen said, including some as long as 300 feet. As a result, hotels and campgrounds are closed for the foreseeable future.
The estimated cost of repairs is so far about $6 million, but that includes only State Route 190 and a small part of State Route 136, Andriessen said. Only about 900 of the park's nearly 1,400 miles of roadways have so far been assessed.
...
Andriessen, of Caltrans, said crews are aiming to reopen State Route 190 in about three months. Other roads, including the one that runs from Furnace Creek to Badwater Basin, the park's lowest point, are federally managed and also in need of repairs. There is no current estimate for its reopening.
Hopefully 190 will be open by January. I got stuck with driving duty for a 40th birthday party in Las Vegas. As fascinating as the shoulder lane on the I-15/San Bernardino 500 seems I rather just avoid it entirely.
Well, there goes my hope of driving part of 190 in November. Though I had written that off at this point.
It really hasn't been a good year for roads in the Southwest. Between Hilary and this weekend's monsoon rains, there is a ton of damage just in the past few weeks.
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2023, 05:05:34 PM
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
I don't like it simply for the fact that it forces drivers in that fast lane to drive a little slower. With no shoulder on the left and, instead, a big concrete wall, I personally don't like driving in that lane when I'm in the Valley.
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2023, 05:05:34 PM
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
I assume it's replacing the glare screen paddles that got removed off the top of the lower median. My recollection of driving the 101 when the paddles were still on was that quite a few would be knocked off.
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2023, 05:05:34 PM
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
They are doing a similar project up in the Bay Area on I-80 within Contra Costa County. The stated reason is to reduce glare from oncoming vehicles, and they are also installing median lightning.
Quote from: jdbx on September 07, 2023, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2023, 05:05:34 PM
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
They are doing a similar project up in the Bay Area on I-80 within Contra Costa County. The stated reason is to reduce glare from oncoming vehicles, and they are also installing median lightning.
Interesting. No lighting here yet, didn't know glare was a major hazard. I'm not usually in the lane so I don't notice as much.
Quote from: Quillz on September 07, 2023, 09:29:14 PM
Quote from: jdbx on September 07, 2023, 04:29:10 PM
Quote from: Quillz on September 05, 2023, 05:05:34 PM
I assume others in the SF Valley have noticed the long and high concrete median being constructed on the 101? It seems to be almost done.
What are the benefits of this? Have cars gone over the median in the past? It has been under construction for a long time, and yet it doesn't seem to be much different from what was there before. (Some new BGS have also gone up in the same area).
They are doing a similar project up in the Bay Area on I-80 within Contra Costa County. The stated reason is to reduce glare from oncoming vehicles, and they are also installing median lightning.
Interesting. No lighting here yet, didn't know glare was a major hazard. I'm not usually in the lane so I don't notice as much.
Another reason is that many of the older median k-rails are too low for modern vehicles which tend to sit higher and can end up mounting/crossing/crashing through a lower barrier.
I figured it was more for cars going over the median. I've not seen that here but I figured it was possible. But I brought it up because it seems the old median wasn't that much smaller. This new one seems more rounded, though, at the base.
The response I was given from caltrans was, it was to reduce glare and rubbernecking. I didn't hear anything about median lighting, but it would be nice.
Has anyone heard about this?: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/massive-san-francisco-sinkhole-forms-after-crews-fix-water-main-break-in-74-year-old-pipes/ar-AA1gChTJ?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a5915b2bb7f8447191c2b74ec1f3b943&ei=73.
Quote from: bing101 on April 10, 2023, 10:47:58 PM
Mike Ballard has video clip of the US-99 sign at the CA-134@ I-5 interchange.
Here's the lame fix D7 made for that sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/WsupgH2.jpg)
They're not going to greenout the top left?
"Golden Sta" is the ultimate control city.
Welcome to California: Your tax dollars at work!
Even still, talk about some super longevity on those early DOH freeway gantry signs.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
"Golden Sta" is the ultimate control city.
That's right up there with Other Desert Cities.
Quote from: kkt on September 12, 2023, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
"Golden Sta" is the ultimate control city.
That's right up there with Other Desert Cities.
CA-91 W towards Beach Cities is an honorable mention.
Quote from: RZF on September 12, 2023, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 12, 2023, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
"Golden Sta" is the ultimate control city.
That's right up there with Other Desert Cities.
CA-91 W towards Beach Cities is an honorable mention.
Or more succinctly, I-8 West toward, simply, "Beaches (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.7604064,-117.1973415,3a,75y,266.69h,102.86t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQQkDKu43aGHlf3D8y6cZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)".
Quote from: kkt on September 12, 2023, 09:39:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2023, 08:34:03 PM
"Golden Sta" is the ultimate control city.
That's right up there with Other Desert Cities.
That one was so much better when it was "other Desert Cities" with the lowercase 'o'.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on September 12, 2023, 09:25:22 PM
Welcome to California: Your tax dollars at work!
You mean our tax dollars at wo
That fix of a sign over a BGS is not the first time I seen it, it can also be seen on I-280 in San Francisco at the Alemany Interchange. Here the US-101 symbol got faded after 20 years and I thought it was a cheap fix over replacing the entire sign.
(https://i.imgur.com/lSzVNfi.jpg)
The fix for the I-5 signage just looks... weird.
^^^ I saw that this week - more than the cheap/lazy fix, it reminded me that it seems the reflective signage has a much shorter lifespan than the older signs. So many of them are fading/peeling/etc. after 10 years or less.
They've replaced nearly all the signage on US-101 between San Francisco and San Jose - except for one BGS southbound - the one near Rengstorff in Mountain View that has the greenout over BYPASS. That sign, which is over 60 years old at this point, is in better shape (even with the later-added buttons) than a whole lot of the 2000s vintage signage.
That I-5 cover-up struck me as photoshopped on first glance.
Not a good result Caltrans!
Either replace the signage so that the top line says "Golden State Fwy"
Or remove all of the new greenout so that we have two "SOUTH 5" entries. Yes, the 99 needs to be covered by a 5, but its unfortunate that the color couldnt match better.
Where is Richard Ankrom when we need him?
[He is the guerilla artist who painstakingly painted a very realistic "5" on signage at the northobound Harbor approaching the Four Level. Signage at the time indicated exiting right for 5 Santa Ana and 10 San Bernardino as well as signage for 101 north, but nothing for 5 north (which you need to stay in the left lane through all of the tunnels for the next 3 miles). His sign was so heloful that it was later replaced with an official version. ]
Quote from: mrsman on September 21, 2023, 12:26:22 PM
Where is Richard Ankrom when we need him?
[He is the guerilla artist who painstakingly painted a very realistic "5" on signage at the northobound Harbor approaching the Four Level. Signage at the time indicated exiting right for 5 Santa Ana and 10 San Bernardino as well as signage for 101 north, but nothing for 5 north (which you need to stay in the left lane through all of the tunnels for the next 3 miles). His sign was so heloful that it was later replaced with an official version. ]
Not so much "painted", but fabricated a shield and "north" placard to spec and then installed it on an existing sign.
Quote from: roadfro on September 21, 2023, 12:31:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 21, 2023, 12:26:22 PM
Where is Richard Ankrom when we need him?
[He is the guerilla artist who painstakingly painted a very realistic "5" on signage at the northobound Harbor approaching the Four Level. Signage at the time indicated exiting right for 5 Santa Ana and 10 San Bernardino as well as signage for 101 north, but nothing for 5 north (which you need to stay in the left lane through all of the tunnels for the next 3 miles). His sign was so heloful that it was later replaced with an official version. ]
Not so much "painted", but fabricated a shield and "north" placard to spec and then installed it on an existing sign.
Who's gonna erect their own BGS about 2 miles before the 101/405 and 10/405 interchanges saying "405 Right 2 Lanes" so we don't have all these horrendous backups from drivers trying to get over at the last minute?
What is going on at lake Isabella with CA-178? That short segment of freeway is so bizarre. Unless they plan to extend it one day(which I doubt) this is a freeway removal that would make sense. Did they expect the metro area around Lake Isabella to become larger than it did or something?
There was a planned freeway bypass of Kern River Canyon that was never built which would have connected it to Bakersfield. That segment of CA 178 gets pretty wild given how much it is used by recreational crowds on the weekend. Lake Isabella being at such a low elevation tends to stay popular as a place to visit all year.
Freeway removal? Have you driven the road it replaces? It's even more tortuous than the road that would be replaced if the expressway were extended. (Actually, I love Kern Canyon Road, but I'd rather drive it while everyone else is on the expressway.)
The plan was to cross the river again, west of where the current expressway ends, go up onto the plateau, and come back down roughly along Rancheria Road. I think a more practical plan would simply be to extend it a couple miles on the south side of the river, straightening lots of curves, until around Willow Spring Creek. There are also a few tight curves at lower elevations that could perhaps be handled with a couple of short tunnels.
I wasn't sure how busy it was. Thanks for the history on it Max. Any chance it gets extended? When I was on it it seemed so short and no traffic since it 2am so that's why I asked I wants t sure. Lake Isabella is such a cool area I can't believe I just found out about.
I doubt it now. The entirety of the Kern River doesn't seem to be anywhere near the peak popularity it was at in the 1950s and 1960s. Speaking just regarding Alfred Harrell Highway it had traffic counts high enough to rebuilding much of it freeway standards. Nowadays there just isn't the same volume of people visiting Hart Park. I would imagine there is a similar pattern at work with CA 178 and Lake Isabella. That's even before getting into things like environmental group pushback.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
Check from the I-5 south regular lane transition to I-405 south:
https://flic.kr/p/2fDMHMS
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 09:54:36 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
New "Big Green Sign" signage is de-emphasizing the name (probably because navigation apps rarely use the names). That doesn't mean the name can't be used, or that old signage out there doesn't refer to it, or that older maps don't refer to it, or that map apps don't have the name somewhere. It could also be a side effect of all the naming resolutions for short segments of highways -- this has made the broader names dating back 50 years ago meaningless.
But Caltrans, in new Big Green Sign signage, is de-emphasizing the older names. "Naming resolution" names are often on little signs by the side of the road, and are not really used in normal parlance.
It will be interesting to see the impact of the bill the governor just signed:
This bill would require the department, through the erection of highway signs and appropriate markers, to provide recognition of the historical and cultural importance of the California tribes local to, or historically located in, the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to work with certain entities, including, but not limited to, California tribes local to, or historically located along, Route 210, to name Route 210 and to identify appropriate locations for signs to recognize tribal lands along Route 210 in the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to erect those signs and other appropriate markers at the appropriate locations on Route 210, as part of the department's regularly scheduled replacement, modification, and maintenance of highway signs. The bill would specify that Route 210 shall be known and designated as the Southern California Native American Freeway or by the name developed by the department with the specified entities.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 09:54:36 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
New "Big Green Sign" signage is de-emphasizing the name (probably because navigation apps rarely use the names). That doesn't mean the name can't be used, or that old signage out there doesn't refer to it, or that older maps don't refer to it, or that map apps don't have the name somewhere. It could also be a side effect of all the naming resolutions for short segments of highways -- this has made the broader names dating back 50 years ago meaningless.
Some navigation systems glom onto the secondary and tertiary names for highways - for example, my wife's car refers to CA-85 as the Norman Y. Mineta Freeway - I think that name is only on side-of-the-road signage at the beginning and end of the route.
Quote from: DTComposer on October 17, 2023, 04:27:35 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 09:54:36 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
New "Big Green Sign" signage is de-emphasizing the name (probably because navigation apps rarely use the names). That doesn't mean the name can't be used, or that old signage out there doesn't refer to it, or that older maps don't refer to it, or that map apps don't have the name somewhere. It could also be a side effect of all the naming resolutions for short segments of highways -- this has made the broader names dating back 50 years ago meaningless.
Some navigation systems glom onto the secondary and tertiary names for highways - for example, my wife's car refers to CA-85 as the Norman Y. Mineta Freeway - I think that name is only on side-of-the-road signage at the beginning and end of the route.
Part of all of this has to do with "message loading." This is the concept that drivers could get confused if there are too many pieces of information on a sign to process while they are driving at high speeds. So certain pieces of information that were once common are being removed, but I believe Caltrans generally takes the approach too far.
Many freeway exits for streets used to routinely have the name of the city that the street leads to. These are being removed in many cases. Also, if a street also happens to be a state highway, the street name is often removed - even if it can be helpful to locals.
As far as whether a freeway's name is primary or secondary, a lot has to do with what the freeway is named for. Geographic names are of course very prominent. Names for people are often less so, unless the person being named is prominent.
In the case of CA-85, Norman Mineta is the main name, given his prominence in San Jose politics and even national politics (Cabinet secretary in Clinton and Bush II administations). The namings for deceased military or public safety officials are genearlly minor names and not well known.
Quote from: mrsman on October 17, 2023, 04:56:14 PM
In the case of CA-85, Norman Mineta is the main name, given his prominence in San Jose politics and even national politics (Cabinet secretary in Clinton and Bush II administations). The namings for deceased military or public safety officials are genearlly minor names and not well known.
Ah, but they are all listed ... and explained ... on the California Highways site :-) We'll cover some of the more interesting ones on the podcast.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 09:54:36 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
New "Big Green Sign" signage is de-emphasizing the name (probably because navigation apps rarely use the names). That doesn't mean the name can't be used, or that old signage out there doesn't refer to it, or that older maps don't refer to it, or that map apps don't have the name somewhere. It could also be a side effect of all the naming resolutions for short segments of highways -- this has made the broader names dating back 50 years ago meaningless.
But Caltrans, in new Big Green Sign signage, is de-emphasizing the older names. "Naming resolution" names are often on little signs by the side of the road, and are not really used in normal parlance.
It will be interesting to see the impact of the bill the governor just signed:
This bill would require the department, through the erection of highway signs and appropriate markers, to provide recognition of the historical and cultural importance of the California tribes local to, or historically located in, the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to work with certain entities, including, but not limited to, California tribes local to, or historically located along, Route 210, to name Route 210 and to identify appropriate locations for signs to recognize tribal lands along Route 210 in the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to erect those signs and other appropriate markers at the appropriate locations on Route 210, as part of the department's regularly scheduled replacement, modification, and maintenance of highway signs. The bill would specify that Route 210 shall be known and designated as the Southern California Native American Freeway or by the name developed by the department with the specified entities.
Was this a James Ramos bill? I'll have to go look this one up.
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on October 17, 2023, 09:10:59 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 17, 2023, 10:27:13 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 17, 2023, 09:54:36 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pV3Uj38LRyknUquY8
So no more using the name San Diego Freeway? Everything appears to be the I-405 Freeway in ramp guide signing.
New "Big Green Sign" signage is de-emphasizing the name (probably because navigation apps rarely use the names). That doesn't mean the name can't be used, or that old signage out there doesn't refer to it, or that older maps don't refer to it, or that map apps don't have the name somewhere. It could also be a side effect of all the naming resolutions for short segments of highways -- this has made the broader names dating back 50 years ago meaningless.
But Caltrans, in new Big Green Sign signage, is de-emphasizing the older names. "Naming resolution" names are often on little signs by the side of the road, and are not really used in normal parlance.
It will be interesting to see the impact of the bill the governor just signed:
This bill would require the department, through the erection of highway signs and appropriate markers, to provide recognition of the historical and cultural importance of the California tribes local to, or historically located in, the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to work with certain entities, including, but not limited to, California tribes local to, or historically located along, Route 210, to name Route 210 and to identify appropriate locations for signs to recognize tribal lands along Route 210 in the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to erect those signs and other appropriate markers at the appropriate locations on Route 210, as part of the department's regularly scheduled replacement, modification, and maintenance of highway signs. The bill would specify that Route 210 shall be known and designated as the Southern California Native American Freeway or by the name developed by the department with the specified entities.
Was this a James Ramos bill? I'll have to go look this one up.
AB 776 (Holden) Route 210.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB776
Existing law vests the Department of Transportation with full possession and control of all state highways. Existing law describes the authorized routes in the state highway system, including that for Route 210. Existing law requires the department to keep and repair all objects or markers adjacent to a state highway that have been erected to mark registered historical places.
This bill would require the department, through the erection of highway signs and appropriate markers, to provide recognition of the historical and cultural importance of the California tribes local to, or historically located in, the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to work with certain entities, including, but not limited to, California tribes local to, or historically located along, Route 210, to name Route 210 and to identify appropriate locations for signs to recognize tribal lands along Route 210 in the Counties of Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The bill would require the department to erect those signs and other appropriate markers at the appropriate locations on Route 210, as part of the department's regularly scheduled replacement, modification, and maintenance of highway signs. The bill would specify that Route 210 shall be known and designated as the Southern California Native American Freeway or by the name developed by the department with the specified entities.
10/08/23 Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 543, Statutes of 2023.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q37TmH9mUNKzNQkJ9
Is the sound wall along the I-405 SB Exit 57 ramp a Caltrans install or did the hotel next to the off-ramp install it? The design is not typical for freeways anywhere, but fits in aesthetically with the hotel it is adjacent to.
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2023, 05:31:11 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q37TmH9mUNKzNQkJ9
Is the sound wall along the I-405 SB Exit 57 ramp a Caltrans install or did the hotel next to the off-ramp install it? The design is not typical for freeways anywhere, but fits in aesthetically with the hotel it is adjacent to.
As I recall, that was a hotel project when it converted from the Holiday Inn to the Angeli (or whatever it's current name is). It was originally the twin to the Holiday Inn in Long Beach.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 18, 2023, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2023, 05:31:11 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q37TmH9mUNKzNQkJ9
Is the sound wall along the I-405 SB Exit 57 ramp a Caltrans install or did the hotel next to the off-ramp install it? The design is not typical for freeways anywhere, but fits in aesthetically with the hotel it is adjacent to.
As I recall, that was a hotel project when it converted from the Holiday Inn to the Angeli (or whatever it's current name is). It was originally the twin to the Holiday Inn in Long Beach.
I remember when that was the Holiday Inn as my family stayed there in 1971-72 ( can't remember which year) on the 9th Floor looking SE at the Sunset Blvd overpass and seeing the skyscrapers off in a distance along Willshire Blvd.
The Holiday Inn used to have another one like it in Charleston, SC in the median of US 17, and one more in Syracuse, NY that is still owned by the Holiday Inn successors IHG under the Crowne Plaza brand.
It cost $60 a night then making it expensive for the time, as of now it's $200 a night. I imagine with inflation it's still in the same scale of pricing as it was back then.
Didn't realize that rooms were small and pie shaped as it was too long ago for me to remember. However I remember the freeways of the time. Other than the 405 widening, it's basically the same. Plus the center guardrail with a fence is a Jersey barrier now gracing the median. I thought it was odd that Sepulveda and Sunset don't intersect, but Sunset and the freeway have ramps at least. Back then the WB Sunset to NB Sepulveda did not have a ramp, but that might of been because left turns were allowed onto the freeway NB from WB Sunset.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 18, 2023, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2023, 05:31:11 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q37TmH9mUNKzNQkJ9
Is the sound wall along the I-405 SB Exit 57 ramp a Caltrans install or did the hotel next to the off-ramp install it? The design is not typical for freeways anywhere, but fits in aesthetically with the hotel it is adjacent to.
As I recall, that was a hotel project when it converted from the Holiday Inn to the Angeli (or whatever it's current name is). It was originally the twin to the Holiday Inn in Long Beach.
Years ago, on my childhood trips from Fresno to Disneyland or Dodger Stadium, I could have sworn I saw one of those Holiday Inns off of I-5 at around Burbank. I remember always wanting to stay there instead of Motel 6 or the Candy Cane Inn. I might have to dig up one of my vintage AAA TourBooks to investigate.
I did see one of those still standing off of I-5 in Downtown San Diego last week. It's now a Four Points Sheraton.
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 17, 2023, 11:09:24 PM
AB 776 (Holden) Route 210.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB776
Ah, thanks for that. Sombrero tip. :sombrero:
Quote from: jg4567 on October 18, 2023, 01:29:47 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 18, 2023, 12:52:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on October 18, 2023, 05:31:11 AM
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Q37TmH9mUNKzNQkJ9
Is the sound wall along the I-405 SB Exit 57 ramp a Caltrans install or did the hotel next to the off-ramp install it? The design is not typical for freeways anywhere, but fits in aesthetically with the hotel it is adjacent to.
As I recall, that was a hotel project when it converted from the Holiday Inn to the Angeli (or whatever it's current name is). It was originally the twin to the Holiday Inn in Long Beach.
Years ago, on my childhood trips from Fresno to Disneyland or Dodger Stadium, I could have sworn I saw one of those Holiday Inns off of I-5 at around Burbank. I remember always wanting to stay there instead of Motel 6 or the Candy Cane Inn. I might have to dig up one of my vintage AAA TourBooks to investigate.
I did see one of those still standing off of I-5 in Downtown San Diego last week. It's now a Four Points Sheraton.
http://leonardlundgrenarchitect.com/Holiday_Inn_San_Diego,_NOW.html
The one in San Diego was a Holiday Inn as well.
I think we can go here
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32553.msg2794878#msg2794878
To discuss those hotels. Leave this for CA Highway talk.
This looks like it would be fun as a roadgeeking history event if you were in Pasadena this Sunday morning, October 29: ArroyoFest 2023 (https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/arroyofest-returns-to-pasadena-this-weekend-after-20-years-absence), a closure of the Arroyo Seco Parkway for pedestrians and bicyclists to explore it.
QuotePasadena is gearing up for a historic and festive event on Sunday, Oct. 29, when the Arroyo Seco Parkway, also known as the 110 Freeway, will be closed to vehicle traffic and opened to people walking, biking, or on any form of active transportation, for six hours.
The fun event, called ArroyoFest 2023, marks the 20th anniversary of the first time that the parkway was transformed into a car-free zone for biking, walking, and exploring.
...
"The parkway's southbound/westside lanes will essentially be transformed into a giant sidewalk reserved for pedestrians including runners, walkers, people with small children/rollers, and people with wheelchairs able to move freely in either direction," Reutimann said. "The northbound/east side lanes will be reserved for wheeled devices including bikes, scooters, and skateboards."
...
As to road closures, Reutimann said the Arroyo Seco Parkway will be closed from Glenarm Avenue in Pasadena to Avenue 26 in LA's Lincoln Heights neighborhood.
In addition, one mile of local streets in South Pasadena will be closed to vehicular traffic: Orange Grove Blvd. from SR 110 to Mission Street, and Mission Street from Orange Grove Blvd. to Marengo Ave. Attendees will be able to enter the event route via any on/off ramp between Avenue 26 and Glenarm Ave.
That says "six hours" but the main event appears to be 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. and then I suppose they allow extra time to clear the stragglers. Map of the event here. (https://www.626goldenstreets.com/uploads/1/0/3/4/10345694/arroyofest-route-map-square_orig.png)
The incorrectly numbered tab for one of the exit signs on US 101/Bayshore Freeway in SF (northbound at 3rd Street) has been fixed:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53291770162_c9cca425ce_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2pcdfBu)3rd street fixed exit tab (https://flic.kr/p/2pcdfBu) by Chris Sampang (https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/), on Flickr
They forgot the white outline.
Caltrans: We can't have exit tabs, they don't meet wind loading requiiiiiiiiiirements!
Also Caltrans: One line of 16" text goes on a 120" panel, right?
I-10/Santa Monica Freeway closure yesterday (leading to traffic en route to Griffith Observatory for me) due to a massive fire just west of the East Los Angeles Interchange:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/massive-downtown-la-fire-shuts-down-10-freeway-interchange-indefinitely/
Quote from: TheStranger on November 12, 2023, 11:02:46 AM
I-10/Santa Monica Freeway closure yesterday (leading to traffic en route to Griffith Observatory for me) due to a massive fire just west of the East Los Angeles Interchange:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/massive-downtown-la-fire-shuts-down-10-freeway-interchange-indefinitely/
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34119
Minor news: there's now a signalized junction for Mulholland Highway/S Old Topanga Canyon Road. This was a dangerous intersection my whole life, nice to see it finally get addressed.
^^^ it's also being upgraded with pedestrian pathways as well.
We haven't had much snow so far, and rather unusually Ebbetts, Sonora and Monitor Passes are open for the Thanksgiving weekend. Pretty good chance they will even see some traffic on December 1 as right now there's nothing in the 10-day forecast to prevent that. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the portion of SR 203 west of the Mammoth ski area are closed for the winter.
Quote from: gonealookin on November 22, 2023, 03:48:02 PM
We haven't had much snow so far, and rather unusually Ebbetts, Sonora and Monitor Passes are open for the Thanksgiving weekend. Pretty good chance they will even see some traffic on December 1 as right now there's nothing in the 10-day forecast to prevent that. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the portion of SR 203 west of the Mammoth ski area are closed for the winter.
Monitor will sometimes stay open all winter if it's a light snow year. Looking back, though, Ebbetts and Monitor usually stay open until the end of November or first half of March. Last year was the earliest Ebbetts closure since at least 2009. Sonora generally closes a little later because it's 900 feet higher. Tioga closed right around the average time.
Models are showing a storm at the end of next week. So there's a decent chance the 30th or 1st will be the closure date for the remaining passes, depending on how cold and strong this storm is.
Quote from: cl94 on November 22, 2023, 05:12:12 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on November 22, 2023, 03:48:02 PM
We haven't had much snow so far, and rather unusually Ebbetts, Sonora and Monitor Passes are open for the Thanksgiving weekend. Pretty good chance they will even see some traffic on December 1 as right now there's nothing in the 10-day forecast to prevent that. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the portion of SR 203 west of the Mammoth ski area are closed for the winter.
Monitor will sometimes stay open all winter if it's a light snow year. Looking back, though, Ebbetts and Monitor usually stay open until the end of November or first half of March. Last year was the earliest Ebbetts closure since at least 2009. Sonora generally closes a little later because it's 900 feet higher. Tioga closed right around the average time.
Models are showing a storm at the end of next week. So there's a decent chance the 30th or 1st will be the closure date for the remaining passes, depending on how cold and strong this storm is.
The historical pass closure dates on the Caltrans site are misleading. The roads close with significant storms in late October or early November and are listed as "closed due to snow" rather than "closed for the winter". Caltrans leaves open the possibility of reopening them with an extended period of dry weather. This year there were some brief closures (2-3 days, including the last several days; Ebbetts and Sonora just reopened today). But often we get a few more minor storms that start to add up, and eventually Caltrans throws in the towel for that year and declares the road "closed for the winter", and the date they announce that is what is shown on the historical chart, even though the road in many cases has been closed for a few weeks prior without ever having reopened.
I was just in the Eastern Sierra last week and supposedly there were snow tire/chain restrictions in place for the Conway Summit (basically the part of the 395 between Mono Lake and Bodie State Park). Otherwise the roads were just fine, had no trouble getting to Mammoth or Mono Lake. Planning to go back there at the end of the year, possibly with a new car.
Quote from: Quillz on November 21, 2023, 01:23:11 AM
Minor news: there's now a signalized junction for Mulholland Highway/S Old Topanga Canyon Road. This was a dangerous intersection my whole life, nice to see it finally get addressed.
I concur. I heard a crash behind me shortly after turning into Old Topanga Canyon once, as someone pulled out of that road and was hit by someone on Mulholland. My guess is that people mostly went too fast on Mulholland.
Quote from: gonealookin on November 22, 2023, 03:48:02 PM
We haven't had much snow so far, and rather unusually Ebbetts, Sonora and Monitor Passes are open for the Thanksgiving weekend. Pretty good chance they will even see some traffic on December 1 as right now there's nothing in the 10-day forecast to prevent that. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the portion of SR 203 west of the Mammoth ski area are closed for the winter.
Google is showing 108 and 4 closed for the season. They were yesterday, too. Sonora Pass is shown as open, but not the road further west.
The Caltrans Quick Map has 4 and 108 still open.
Quote from: pderocco on November 23, 2023, 10:38:13 PM
Quote from: gonealookin on November 22, 2023, 03:48:02 PM
We haven't had much snow so far, and rather unusually Ebbetts, Sonora and Monitor Passes are open for the Thanksgiving weekend. Pretty good chance they will even see some traffic on December 1 as right now there's nothing in the 10-day forecast to prevent that. The Tioga Road through Yosemite and the portion of SR 203 west of the Mammoth ski area are closed for the winter.
Google is showing 108 and 4 closed for the season. They were yesterday, too. Sonora Pass is shown as open, but not the road further west.
Google is wrong. Caltrans announced yesterday that both were reopened, VMSes say both are open, and I plan to drive at least one this weekend. TBD if they will last until next weekend.
For those in the SF Valley, does anyone know what the hold up is on getting the signalized intersection at Ventura and Royer up and running? The lights were installed nearly a year ago at this point, and some of Ventura got the lanes reconfigured, but there's still no progress. By contrast, the Mulholland/Old Topanga Canyon intersection started work after, and it's already done. By contrast, this looks like a much simpler signalized intersection, so I'm not sure why it's still not in use yet.
Ebbetts and Sonora are open for the Thanksgiving weekend but Monitor got shut down. I don't think there's that much snow, but they could have a lot of ice up there, and maybe part of the reasoning is that a holiday weekend draws some drivers who don't have enough experience in those conditions.
https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10/status/1727958649904259238
(Caltrans, you usually do better than that with the font on your green spade graphic.)
I drove Sonora yesterday. A little snow around the 8k mark on the Mono side, but over the summit and down the Alpine side were heavily salted and clear. Much less snow up there than when I drove it in June. Overall, a nice drive and much less treacherous than I expected given how cold it was.
I would assume Monitor closed due to snow. Parts of Alpine and northern Mono had snow on the ground yesterday morning and 395 had snow/ice patches in the canyon.
If you want to drive Monitor (reopened this morning), Sonora, or Ebbetts this year, you probably have until Thursday at the latest. First big storm of the year coming Thursday PM and the passes are likely to get a lot. A smaller system coming tomorrow PM into Wednesday, which may push up the closing timeline.
Does the area around Mono Lake usually stay open? Seems it was just fine south of the Conway Summit. I like going there, Mammoth Lakes already had a fair bit of snow on some of the nearby roads.
Quote from: Quillz on November 27, 2023, 05:19:26 PM
Does the area around Mono Lake usually stay open? Seems it was just fine south of the Conway Summit. I like going there, Mammoth Lakes already had a fair bit of snow on some of the nearby roads.
The northern part of the June Lake Loop 158 usually closes. And so does 120, of course. But I've never seen any of the other nearby state routes closed, like 167, 270, 182.
I've never tried to explore local roads in the area after a snowstorm, and closures on those don't usually show up on Google.
Quote from: pderocco on November 27, 2023, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 27, 2023, 05:19:26 PM
Does the area around Mono Lake usually stay open? Seems it was just fine south of the Conway Summit. I like going there, Mammoth Lakes already had a fair bit of snow on some of the nearby roads.
The northern part of the June Lake Loop 158 usually closes. And so does 120, of course. But I've never seen any of the other nearby state routes closed, like 167, 270, 182.
I've never tried to explore local roads in the area after a snowstorm, and closures on those don't usually show up on Google.
The winter gate on CA 158 is around 3 miles west of the town of June Lake, like so: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZhMqtJNhN2b1kDYu9 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZhMqtJNhN2b1kDYu9). At the north end the closure is just a few yards off US 395.
East of US 395, CA 120 is kept open for just a few miles, to the turnoff to the tufa formations in Mono Lake. The gate at the other end is at Benton Crossing Road (a Mono County road which is usually kept open but can also close for days at a time). Mono County has a road status page (https://www.monocounty.ca.gov/roads/page/county-road-closures).
CA 167 and CA 182 and their connections in Nevada are almost always open as they serve as bypasses of some snowy parts of US 395.
CA 182 and NV 338 had some extended closures last year, but that was more due to the extreme winter causing slides than anything else. 182/338 and NV 208 are signed as a permanent detour for US 395 through the flood and slide-prone Walker River Canyon.
CA 167 / NV 359 / US 95 and US 6 / NV 360 / US 95 are commonly used by trucks to get around the 2-lane section of 395 thanks to gentler grades and more truck facilities. Even in a car outside of winter, Reno to Bishop is only slightly slower via 95/6 than 395. Trucks are generally directed onto 6 if there is any inclement weather north of Bishop.
Quote from: pderocco on November 27, 2023, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: Quillz on November 27, 2023, 05:19:26 PM
Does the area around Mono Lake usually stay open? Seems it was just fine south of the Conway Summit. I like going there, Mammoth Lakes already had a fair bit of snow on some of the nearby roads.
The northern part of the June Lake Loop 158 usually closes. And so does 120, of course. But I've never seen any of the other nearby state routes closed, like 167, 270, 182.
I've never tried to explore local roads in the area after a snowstorm, and closures on those don't usually show up on Google.
Yeah, those routes make sense. But Mono Lake is a nice area to spend a weekend, lots of trails and what not, I've usually had good luck even during the winter with it being open. I guess I'll just try a drive out there soon.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/y6H9a3SEWZ7uqpms8
Is there really a business route here? I ve did a virtual tour of Front Street and found no confirmation of shields verifying it.
Also no CA 146 shields along Front Street in Downtown Soledad either especially at East Street where the route goes east. Makes me wonder if Caltrans even maintains Front Street or even East Street for CA 146.
146 in Soledad was authorized for relinquishment in 2009 and accepted by the city in September 2010:
https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE146.html
And no, I've never found US 101 Business shields on Front Street. 146 is decently signed though:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/151828809@N08/z1maQ6J44m
So Business 101 is de facto as AASHTO doesn't treat it as real.
What interests me is the fact that CA 146 is discontinuous and is in two non connected segments. It seems odd to give the two the same number and not assign separate route numbers for both.
Signage of eastern 146 was removed in 2020, but the segment has not been relinquished. The terminus of eastern 146 runs up to the older National Monument boundary before Pinnacles Wilderness was incorporated into the new National Park. The segment at this point is probably completely unnecessary given it is on NPS lands. Early LRN 120 did run up to approximately where the near Gulch Trail parking lot is. I could never find any evidence to suggest there was ever a plan to connect the two highway segments. The terrain isn't conducive for creating a through road and would require a ton of switchbacks or a tunnel.
Regarding Business 101, I believe it is actually in the AASHTO database. I don't really pay attention to Business Route designations as much as I do the movements of the mainline parent highway.
https://www.gribblenation.org/2022/08/former-us-route-101-through-soledad.html?m=1
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 29, 2023, 08:23:34 AM
And no, I've never found US 101 Business shields on Front Street.
There's still signage for the business route, at a sign for exit 303 to Front St. from southbound US 101. https://maps.app.goo.gl/Pj7Hi8dT9syQMsQn8
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 29, 2023, 09:45:51 AM
Signage of eastern 146 was removed in 2020, but the segment has not been relinquished.
Signage for eastern 146, at least from southbound CA 25, has returned. https://maps.app.goo.gl/pbcHfUeaRyXjwC4W8
Interesting regarding eastern CA 146. I'm wondering if the CTC thought that would be an east relinquishment but the Park Service is telling them "no so fast?"
Regarding Soledad, I'm actually stopping there this morning for breakfast on the way home. I'll have a chance to double check for Business Route signage on Front Street.
I-5 N/CA-126 exit is poorly signed as of now. I was getting off I-5 N to take CA-126 W when I noticed there was no BGS at the gore point. The only thing that exists to let you know the junction is coming up is a pull-through sign about 1000 feet beforehand. Then, the exit just comes up. The good thing is I already know where to get off having done this so many times, but for new motorists it may be confusing.
There's a GSV from last month showing a temporary orange gore point exit sign, but, when I was there, that orange sign was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4398881,-118.5987944,3a,30.5y,300.69h,88.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-v6c0uYNIfTYQaMDwIw82g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
And that's a negative for Front Street. 101 Business is signed on southbound US 101 approaching the Front Street exit though.
Quote from: RZF on November 30, 2023, 12:19:13 PM
I-5 N/CA-126 exit is poorly signed as of now. I was getting off I-5 N to take CA-126 W when I noticed there was no BGS at the gore point. The only thing that exists to let you know the junction is coming up is a pull-through sign about 1000 feet beforehand. Then, the exit just comes up. The good thing is I already know where to get off having done this so many times, but for new motorists it may be confusing.
There's a GSV from last month showing a temporary orange gore point exit sign, but, when I was there, that orange sign was gone.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.4398881,-118.5987944,3a,30.5y,300.69h,88.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-v6c0uYNIfTYQaMDwIw82g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Well, it
is a major construction zone right now.
I went through there too, last Friday, and was surprised how far north they're widening it. Looks like it's all the way to Ridge Route Rd.
Does anyone know how to find the map/list of county maintained roads in Marin County?
https://publicworks.marincounty.org/#/city/answers/jurisdiction-roads/how-do-i-know-if-my-road-is-county-maintained
This link goes to a Generic map, not a road map.
Specifically looking for information on Telephone Road, in Nicassio.
If you click on a point, it tells you what jurisdiction it's in. It looks like Telephone Rd is in an unincorporated area.
Quote from: pderocco on December 24, 2023, 08:42:08 PM
If you click on a point, it tells you what jurisdiction it's in. It looks like Telephone Rd is in an unincorporated area.
Yeah, I dont care what jurisdiction its in. I want to know if its a country maintained road or not.
Which Marin couture should be able to tell me.
If its a county maintained road, I can ride my bike on it. If Its private I can get shot at. Big difference
Call the Sheriff's office nonemergency number during business hours?
There what appears to be "no trespassing" signs from Point Reyes-Petaluma Road.
Quote from: jander on December 24, 2023, 07:13:58 PM
Does anyone know how to find the map/list of county maintained roads in Marin County?
https://publicworks.marincounty.org/#/city/answers/jurisdiction-roads/how-do-i-know-if-my-road-is-county-maintained
This link goes to a Generic map, not a road map.
Specifically looking for information on Telephone Road, in Nicassio.
Here are two additional maps of interest:
Marin Map Viewer: https://www.marinmap.org/dnn/ . As there is no address for telephone road, start near Point Reyes Station and work your way there. THis shows you the assessor parcel.
There's also the Marin County GIS Open Data: https://gisopendata.marincounty.gov/ . You'll need to search for the right map. Try the Roads database: https://gisopendata.marincounty.gov/datasets/marincounty::roads/explore . There, when I click on Telephone Road (near Pt Reyes Station), I get:
OBJECTID 11182
FeDirP
FeName Telephone
FeType Rd
FeDirS
CFCC A51
FrAddL 0
ToAddL 0
FrAddR 0
ToAddR 0
ZipL 94956
ZipR 94956
Jurisdiction
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Telephone Rd
DivDir
UniqueID 11,182
PFrAddL 201
PToAddL 299
PFrAddR 200
PToAddR 298
FunctionalClass VT
City Unincorporated
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification null
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 13,049.29
Whereas Shoreline Highway (which is Route 1, and thus state maintained) gives:
FrAddL 12,191
ToAddL 12,595
FrAddR 12,430
ToAddR 12,710
ZipL 94956
ZipR 94956
Jurisdiction
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Shoreline Hwy
DivDir
UniqueID 10,725
PFrAddL 12,151
PToAddL 12,999
PFrAddR 12,400
PToAddR 12,798
FunctionalClass OF
City Unincorporated
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification NotCountyMaintained
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 4,347.824
And Bayview Street in Mill Valley gives:
OBJECTID 5065
FeDirP
FeName Bayview
FeType Ave
FeDirS
CFCC A41
FrAddL 9
ToAddL 29
FrAddR 2
ToAddR 30
ZipL 94941
ZipR 94941
Jurisdiction Mill Valley
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Bayview Ave
DivDir
UniqueID 5,065
PFrAddL 1
PToAddL 29
PFrAddR 2
PToAddR 30
FunctionalClass L
City Mill Valley
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification null
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 545.327
Perhaps this will help?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 25, 2023, 12:04:29 AM
There what appears to be "no trespassing" signs from Point Reyes-Petaluma Road.
If that wasn't enough, Caltrans GIS says private. So yeah. Caltrans doesn't make it as easy to tell in their data as some other agencies do (thank you Nevada for making it easy), but it's there.
Interstate Kyle takes a Tour on CA-108 Sonora Pass.
Quote from: cahwyguy on December 25, 2023, 12:46:59 AM
Quote from: jander on December 24, 2023, 07:13:58 PM
Does anyone know how to find the map/list of county maintained roads in Marin County?
https://publicworks.marincounty.org/#/city/answers/jurisdiction-roads/how-do-i-know-if-my-road-is-county-maintained
This link goes to a Generic map, not a road map.
Specifically looking for information on Telephone Road, in Nicassio.
Here are two additional maps of interest:
Marin Map Viewer: https://www.marinmap.org/dnn/ . As there is no address for telephone road, start near Point Reyes Station and work your way there. THis shows you the assessor parcel.
There's also the Marin County GIS Open Data: https://gisopendata.marincounty.gov/ . You'll need to search for the right map. Try the Roads database: https://gisopendata.marincounty.gov/datasets/marincounty::roads/explore . There, when I click on Telephone Road (near Pt Reyes Station), I get:
OBJECTID 11182
FeDirP
FeName Telephone
FeType Rd
FeDirS
CFCC A51
FrAddL 0
ToAddL 0
FrAddR 0
ToAddR 0
ZipL 94956
ZipR 94956
Jurisdiction
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Telephone Rd
DivDir
UniqueID 11,182
PFrAddL 201
PToAddL 299
PFrAddR 200
PToAddR 298
FunctionalClass VT
City Unincorporated
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification null
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 13,049.29
Whereas Shoreline Highway (which is Route 1, and thus state maintained) gives:
FrAddL 12,191
ToAddL 12,595
FrAddR 12,430
ToAddR 12,710
ZipL 94956
ZipR 94956
Jurisdiction
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Shoreline Hwy
DivDir
UniqueID 10,725
PFrAddL 12,151
PToAddL 12,999
PFrAddR 12,400
PToAddR 12,798
FunctionalClass OF
City Unincorporated
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification NotCountyMaintained
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 4,347.824
And Bayview Street in Mill Valley gives:
OBJECTID 5065
FeDirP
FeName Bayview
FeType Ave
FeDirS
CFCC A41
FrAddL 9
ToAddL 29
FrAddR 2
ToAddR 30
ZipL 94941
ZipR 94941
Jurisdiction Mill Valley
sPMSKey
Street_Nam Bayview Ave
DivDir
UniqueID 5,065
PFrAddL 1
PToAddL 29
PFrAddR 2
PToAddR 30
FunctionalClass L
City Mill Valley
UpdateDate December 3, 2023
UpdateUserName maringis_admin
EditComment null
CreateUserName maringis_admin
CreateDate December 3, 2023
CalTransClassification null
LocalClassification null
LocalRoadNumber null
RoadLevel 0
Shape__Length 545.327
Perhaps this will help?
Thanks
Quote from: jander on December 24, 2023, 07:13:58 PM
Does anyone know how to find the map/list of county maintained roads in Marin County?
https://publicworks.marincounty.org/#/city/answers/jurisdiction-roads/how-do-i-know-if-my-road-is-county-maintained
This link goes to a Generic map, not a road map.
Specifically looking for information on Telephone Road, in Nicassio.
Telephone Road is not County-maintained. It's a private ranch road.
Quote from: bing101 on December 25, 2023, 10:28:13 PM
Interstate Kyle takes a Tour on CA-108 Sonora Pass.
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I still need to do CA-4 and CA-88. Otherwise I've done all the Sierra crossings at least once. Sonora Pass is probably the most memorable for me. (As in, I must have completely spaced out driving US-50 because I did it around 2013 yet don't remember a thing about it).
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 25, 2023, 10:28:13 PM
Interstate Kyle takes a Tour on CA-108 Sonora Pass.
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I still need to do CA-4 and CA-88. Otherwise I've done all the Sierra crossings at least once. Sonora Pass is probably the most memorable for me. (As in, I must have completely spaced out driving US-50 because I did it around 2013 yet don't remember a thing about it).
From either Stockton on the west or Minden, NV on the east, you can easily pick off both 88 and the Sierra portion of 4 as a loop connecting via 89 through Markleeville. While great at any time, I definitely recommend the CA4 portion in October as the section east of Pacific Grade Summit to the 89 junction has lots of aspen trees which are spectacular when they turn in the fall. A great ride on a motorcycle, towing a trailer not so much (4 has some narrow/1.5 lane and winding sections, though 88 is fine throughout).
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 25, 2023, 10:28:13 PM
Interstate Kyle takes a Tour on CA-108 Sonora Pass.
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I still need to do CA-4 and CA-88. Otherwise I've done all the Sierra crossings at least once. Sonora Pass is probably the most memorable for me. (As in, I must have completely spaced out driving US-50 because I did it around 2013 yet don't remember a thing about it).
Yeah, when I climbed Mt. Washington I stopped a couple of times to let the car chill out before I went again. I imagine similar here.
Quote from: Alps on December 28, 2023, 05:54:57 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Quote from: bing101 on December 25, 2023, 10:28:13 PM
Interstate Kyle takes a Tour on CA-108 Sonora Pass.
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I still need to do CA-4 and CA-88. Otherwise I've done all the Sierra crossings at least once. Sonora Pass is probably the most memorable for me. (As in, I must have completely spaced out driving US-50 because I did it around 2013 yet don't remember a thing about it).
Yeah, when I climbed Mt. Washington I stopped a couple of times to let the car chill out before I went again. I imagine similar here.
The climb up to the pass from the east is less than you might expect. Only about 2800 feet, or half of Mount Washington. Sure, some of it gets up to 26%, but it's not that long of a climb. Now, you want to stop for photos your first time, but I have never had mechanical issues up there driving a well-maintained car at speed.
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I've always thought that CA-108 and CA-120 over the mountains were about tied for beauty. They're quite different, but both spectacular.
Quote from: pderocco on December 29, 2023, 04:28:40 AM
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I've always thought that CA-108 and CA-120 over the mountains were about tied for beauty. They're quite different, but both spectacular.
Sonora gets intense after a boring ride real quick, while Tioga has a longer and more gradual interesting direction through the mountains. I do love both though.
Quote from: pderocco on December 29, 2023, 04:28:40 AM
Quote from: Quillz on December 28, 2023, 04:00:45 AM
Always a fun drive. I've done it a couple times but still, those 26% grades or so always catch me off-guard. The first time I did it, my oil light came on and so I ended up driving it really slow for fear of screwing up my engine (I didn't). The second time was earlier this year and there was still a fair bit of snow.
I've always thought that CA-108 and CA-120 over the mountains were about tied for beauty. They're quite different, but both spectacular.
I did Tioga Pass earlier this year and frankly, it wasn't as impressive as I remembered. There were some nice photo stops (I think it was Olmstead Point that gives a good view of Half Dome). And I really enjoyed the actual descent from the pass down to Lee Vining. But otherwise it was flatter than I was expecting, and not as scenic.
The descent through Lee Vining Canyon is the better part of CA 120 by far. I tend to prefer CA 4 given it has a lot of things to do, even if none of them would ever win "most scenic" as standalone items compared to the other passes.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2023, 05:19:02 PM
The descent through Lee Vining Canyon is the better part of CA 120 by far. I tend to prefer CA 4 given it has a lot of things to do, even if none of them would ever win "most scenic" as standalone items compared to the other passes.
I've never actually taken it due to the one lane segments, what viewpoints/things to do am I missing? It's the only pass I haven't done.
Quote from: Voyager on December 29, 2023, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2023, 05:19:02 PM
The descent through Lee Vining Canyon is the better part of CA 120 by far. I tend to prefer CA 4 given it has a lot of things to do, even if none of them would ever win "most scenic" as standalone items compared to the other passes.
I've never actually taken it due to the one lane segments, what viewpoints/things to do am I missing? It's the only pass I haven't done.
I do enjoy Calaveras Big Tres State Park. I listed a bunch of items in this blog:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2018/08/trans-sierra-highways-california-state.html?m=1
I found some external exit tabs on CA 1 northbound at Pacifica! Not only are they (kinda oversized and the tab outline seems to be a bit incomplete) right side tabs, they seem to be new signs. They are NOT in Google Streetview, at least not yet as of Sep 2023. Sorry, I didn't spot any external exit tabs on BGSes, those seem to remain unchanged.
(https://i.imgur.com/LkXN6Zb.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/1wyfXKo.jpeg)
This is the location for the second sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6612443,-122.4837377,3a,75y,357h,76.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFaKHG2FKAJfLmjuCDK6fFg!2e0!5s20230901T000000!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), there's no sign there in the Sep 2023 streetview, but there was one in Feb 2018 so I guess it replaced that sign.
Quote from: Voyager on December 29, 2023, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 29, 2023, 05:19:02 PM
The descent through Lee Vining Canyon is the better part of CA 120 by far. I tend to prefer CA 4 given it has a lot of things to do, even if none of them would ever win "most scenic" as standalone items compared to the other passes.
I've never actually taken it due to the one lane segments, what viewpoints/things to do am I missing? It's the only pass I haven't done.
You shouldn't fear the one lane segments. They're not that narrow. They just don't have a stripe down the middle.
Unless you're driving an RV, that is.
Even then you aren't likely to see an RV due to that 24% grade just east of Pacific Grade Summit. The rest of the descent really isn't all that steep. The roadway is definitely wide enough that two passenger vehicles can pass each other at any time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2024, 07:55:38 AM
Even then you aren't likely to see an RV due to that 24% grade just east of Pacific Grade Summit. The rest of the descent really isn't all that steep. The roadway is definitely wide enough that two passenger vehicles can pass each other at any time.
Couple places it's a little tight, but yes. Nowhere that is truly one lane like you might find elsewhere in the state. It's just not that gnarly of a road apart from the hairpins and unguarded drops, but those hairpins are enough to stop longer vehicles.
On that note, Caltrans officially called it quits on the seasonal passes today. Ebbetts and Sonora have been in "storm closure" since November 29, Monitor has been in storm closure since December 27.
None of the one lane portions on any California State Highway is true single lane (even dirt 173). All of them are 12-15 feet wide and probably were at one point considered adequate for dual carriageways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2024, 04:21:47 PM
None of the one lane portions on any California State Highway is true single lane (even dirt 173). All of them are 12-15 feet wide and probably were at one point considered adequate for dual carriageways.
12-15 feet wide is single lane. 16 is the minimum to consider 2-way.
Quote from: Alps on January 02, 2024, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 02, 2024, 04:21:47 PM
None of the one lane portions on any California State Highway is true single lane (even dirt 173). All of them are 12-15 feet wide and probably were at one point considered adequate for dual carriageways.
12-15 feet wide is single lane. 16 is the minimum to consider 2-way.
Right, but when a lot of these roads were constructed 12 feet was considered two-lane. 12 foot roads were pretty much the standard through the 1st-3rd state highway bond act eras. It wasn't really until the late 1920s that state highways began to be widened to modern two lane standards.
The one lane state highways definitely aren't up to modern standards, but they are also very generous by one lane standards. Compared to something like Wards Ferry Road even the likes of CA 4 near Ebbetts Pass is comfortably wide.
Once the switchbacks, the grade, and the warning signs get rid of the trucks and RVs, the cars should have no problems as long as they drive carefully.
The CA-25/CA-156 roundabout fully opened last month:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/gilroy-california-turbo-roundabout-18585736.php
No photos/street view available yet, but I'll be down that way over the weekend and will check it out.
I drove through it two weeks ago when it was partially opened during a heavy rain shower. It wasn't exactly great but it did ultimately save some time over the old traffic light.
The current storm brings the first bidirectional I-80 closure of the season, as well as the first low to mid-elevation chain controls. As I write this, 80 is closed between Alta and Verdi due to people crashing. Maybe we can finally start to build a snowpack up here in the Sierra...
Quote from: DTComposer on January 02, 2024, 09:01:43 PM
The CA-25/CA-156 roundabout fully opened last month:
https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/gilroy-california-turbo-roundabout-18585736.php
No photos/street view available yet, but I'll be down that way over the weekend and will check it out.
I just come across another article about this roundabout and was going to share here.
New 'turbo roundabout' south of San Jose is only the second of its kind in the U.S. (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/new-turbo-roundabout-south-of-san-jose-is-only-the-second-of-its-kind-in-the-u-s/ar-AA1mmYYv) –
Mercury News (via MSN)
I'd heard the term "turbo roundabout" before, but those previous mentions were simply the spiral design (guiding inner lanes outward) designed with paint stripes. This, and the first example cited in the article, delineate the spiral movement channelization with raised concrete medians (although the medians are very minimally raised, likely to accommodate large vehicle movements), which is a unique application.
I gotta say it's an interesting approach that hopefully works. I've thought a few multi-lane roundabouts near me could benefit from using either double solid lines or "painted medians" within the circulatory roadway to better encourage drivers to not change lanes in the middle—this treatment is even better guidance in that regard.
Looks like 33 is closed again. I was planning on driving it today.
Here is a cool drive by 101not5 from Irvine to Riverside.
Does anyone know why Caltrans District 12 is only Orange County?
https://cwwp2.dot.ca.gov/documentation/district-map-county-chart.htm
Considering Los Angeles County is the most populous in the entire state exceeding the 10 million mark, it is part of District 7 with Ventura County.
It seems odd that they would assign an entire district to one county with other larger counties being paired with others.
Orange County felt that District 7 was favoring the other counties over them. They asked for a change and got their own District.
Also very likely that Caltrans did not want to have noncontiguous districts. The old Dist 7 was LA, Ventura, Orange. LA is by far the biggest, but if LA were separated into its own district, Ventura and Orange would not be contiguous with each other. And governmentally, a split is easier than a full rearranging (like adding OC into Dist. 8 (SB/Riv) or Dist. 11 (SD/Imperial)).
I also see that San Diego and Imperial Counties are District 11.
Being District 10 is around the Stockton Area Counties, and pretty much the districts with numbers lower than 10 are arranged in a counterclockwise manor from south of D4, I'm to assume that SD/ Imperial were once part of D8 hence the number 11.
Quote from: roadman65 on January 07, 2024, 06:50:45 PM
I also see that San Diego and Imperial Counties are District 11.
Being District 10 is around the Stockton Area Counties, and pretty much the districts with numbers lower than 10 are arranged in a counterclockwise manor from south of D4, I'm to assume that SD/ Imperial were once part of D8 hence the number 11.
Created 1933 when Division of Highways District 7 was broken up:
https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/2016/january/history-caltrans-district-11/#:~:text=The%20eleventh%20district%20of%20the%20California%20Division%20of,Riverside%20County%20was%20placed%20under%20District%208.%2013
Quote from: roadfro on January 04, 2024, 11:26:22 AM
I'd heard the term "turbo roundabout" before, but those previous mentions were simply the spiral design (guiding inner lanes outward) designed with paint stripes. This, and the first example cited in the article, delineate the spiral movement channelization with raised concrete medians (although the medians are very minimally raised, likely to accommodate large vehicle movements), which is a unique application.
I gotta say it's an interesting approach that hopefully works. I've thought a few multi-lane roundabouts near me could benefit from using either double solid lines or "painted medians" within the circulatory roadway to better encourage drivers to not change lanes in the middle—this treatment is even better guidance in that regard.
The 'turbo roundabout' was first designed in the Netherlands and has seen widespread implementation over the past 20 years, both on two-lane roads as well as on four lane corridors.
The idea of turbo roundabouts is that you stay in your lane while driving through, so you have to pick the correct lane before entering the roundabout. Good signage is essential. The turbo roundabout has a more efficient usage of capacity than traditional multilane roundabouts. However a downside is that you cannot do U-turns on them unless you drive over the raised lane separation.
In the Netherlands the raised lane separation is only like 1.5 - 2 inches high on an A-profile, so trucks can drive over them. The apron of the roundabout is also made out of concrete so they can help large trucks navigate the roundabout. The apron is raised slightly to prevent people going straight over them at 30 mph.
This was the most recent photo I could find of the project, the roundabout is open, but not yet completed.
(https://i.imgur.com/gKamcr7.jpg)
Here's an example of a similar one in the Netherlands:
(https://i.imgur.com/2a6Ko3s.jpg)
Quote from: Chris on January 08, 2024, 10:55:53 AM
The idea of turbo roundabouts is that you stay in your lane while driving through, so you have to pick the correct lane before entering the roundabout. Good signage is essential. The turbo roundabout has a more efficient usage of capacity than traditional multilane roundabouts. However a downside is that you cannot do U-turns on them unless you drive over the raised lane separation.
(https://i.imgur.com/gKamcr7.jpg)
Looks like the ratchet mechanism on the end of a window shade spool.
The problem is that there are two lanes to choose from, but three places to exit. So you may have to make two decisions.
Another problem with roundabouts that I certainly feel, but have never heard mentioned, is that as you go around the circle, it's easy to lose your sense of direction. Especially on a large roundabout with more than four roads, the difference between 135 degrees and 180 degrees is difficult to feel:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/YmpnHLPHjcMsZzXr9 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/YmpnHLPHjcMsZzXr9)
I just drove from Hollywood to Midway city via the 101 to the 5 to the 605 and the 405 to Bolsa and back home I took the 405 to Sunset all the way and for the most part it was flowing at or slightly below speed limits with many time the inner lanes flowing at 80-85 MPH. This was from the hours of 2pm-7pm roughly on a Tuesday during rush hour. The trip back from the 405 heading NB towards sunset from Orange County was almost completely free flowing with no backups except for the SB traffic had more backups but still have several spots where traffic was flowing freely.
Orange County with the exception of I-605 NB all had completely free flowing conditions with zero traffic congestion just heavy traffic. Wider roads do help traffic. Induced demand is bullshit. I see these scenarios play out time and time again just I don't post about because of mental exhaustion. Orange County builds much wider roads and the 405 has definitely improved since its widening. The next step will be to build mass transit but fuck the "just one more lane bro" commenters because their reasoning is malarkey.
As soon as you get into LA where the road narrows and you see less lanes more traffic backs up. Yes I know there are more people but there are also many more mass/active transit options. I just wanted to point this out. There are logical freeway options and if LA Metro could find a way to make the 405 like the 635 in Dallas with removing the HOV lane and adding a below grade 3x3 tolled express segment from the OC line to the 101 whilst redoing the 101 and I-10 interchanges, removing bottleneck/lane drops creating consistencies in the number of lanes, along with building a subway from Van Nuys to the UCLA/purple line and to the airport, along with widening/modifying Sepulveda in certain spots to create a continuous bus lane at peak hours and a bike/sidewalk(which believe it or not those don't even exist in certain spots through the Sepulveda pass), this would alleviate(NOT SOLVE) traffic congestion ten fold for decades to come.
But nooooooo let's look at tolling freeways instead.
PS, my proposal for this corridor is actually something that needs serious consideration unlike my fantasy for a 40 mile undersea tunnel for I-10. This is something that could actually be done and with little property acquisition.
With all that said, traffic moving as fast as it did even with backups in a megalopolis of 20+ million during peak hours with little backups is pretty fucking impressive. Imagine if these roads were only 2-3 lanes each way. Imagine if we uproar like these loons in Portland mad about widening roads to 3x3 or adding auxiliary lanes. Well, actually we're getting that here.
Point is there's logical freeway expansions. The I-405 country express lanes added two new through lanes each way plus aux lanes and correcting deficiencies as well as addressing overpasses/adding pedestrian overpasses for local connection improvements. All of them added bike lanes as well as new car lanes. For the freeway one of the lanes was a free to use GP lane and a conversion of an HOV lane to a toll lane with an added toll lane. It worked.
California has launched a new website to track and show off developments as part as a new massive infrastructure investment across the state: https://build.ca.gov/
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2024, 12:27:54 AM
I just drove from Hollywood to Midway city via the 101 to the 5 to the 605 and the 405 to Bolsa and back home I took the 405 to Sunset all the way and for the most part it was flowing at or slightly below speed limits with many time the inner lanes flowing at 80-85 MPH. This was from the hours of 2pm-7pm roughly on a Tuesday during rush hour. The trip back from the 405 heading NB towards sunset from Orange County was almost completely free flowing with no backups except for the SB traffic had more backups but still have several spots where traffic was flowing freely.
Orange County with the exception of I-605 NB all had completely free flowing conditions with zero traffic congestion just heavy traffic. Wider roads do help traffic. Induced demand is bullshit. I see these scenarios play out time and time again just I don't post about because of mental exhaustion. Orange County builds much wider roads and the 405 has definitely improved since its widening. The next step will be to build mass transit but fuck the "just one more lane bro" commenters because their reasoning is malarkey.
As soon as you get into LA where the road narrows and you see less lanes more traffic backs up. Yes I know there are more people but there are also many more mass/active transit options. I just wanted to point this out. There are logical freeway options and if LA Metro could find a way to make the 405 like the 635 in Dallas with removing the HOV lane and adding a below grade 3x3 tolled express segment from the OC line to the 101 whilst redoing the 101 and I-10 interchanges, removing bottleneck/lane drops creating consistencies in the number of lanes, along with building a subway from Van Nuys to the UCLA/purple line and to the airport, along with widening/modifying Sepulveda in certain spots to create a continuous bus lane at peak hours and a bike/sidewalk(which believe it or not those don't even exist in certain spots through the Sepulveda pass), this would alleviate(NOT SOLVE) traffic congestion ten fold for decades to come.
But nooooooo let's look at tolling freeways instead.
PS, my proposal for this corridor is actually something that needs serious consideration unlike my fantasy for a 40 mile undersea tunnel for I-10. This is something that could actually be done and with little property acquisition.
With all that said, traffic moving as fast as it did even with backups in a megalopolis of 20+ million during peak hours with little backups is pretty fucking impressive. Imagine if these roads were only 2-3 lanes each way. Imagine if we uproar like these loons in Portland mad about widening roads to 3x3 or adding auxiliary lanes. Well, actually we're getting that here.
Point is there's logical freeway expansions. The I-405 country express lanes added two new through lanes each way plus aux lanes and correcting deficiencies as well as addressing overpasses/adding pedestrian overpasses for local connection improvements. All of them added bike lanes as well as new car lanes. For the freeway one of the lanes was a free to use GP lane and a conversion of an HOV lane to a toll lane with an added toll lane. It worked.
You do have a point in that LA traffic, as bad of a rap as it gets, is very "predictable". Sure, there's traffic as long as most people are awake, but I'd argue that the traffic spots are very localized and occur only at certain times a day on certain days a week. I'm aware that I-405 is always backed up from CA 90 to Wilshire-ish, and then slow to US-101 most hours of the day. Same with I-210 East from Pasadena to CA 57. Same with US 101 in Oxnard and Camarillo from 2-6pm weekdays. You always know where traffic slows and where it picks up. So, agencies should focus on the bottlenecks. Is I-405 in OC really that bad that it needs express lanes? Sure, it's D12, they're basically doing their own thing, but it is odd that some bottlenecks are not being addressed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2024, 10:10:14 AM
California has launched a new website to track and show off developments as part as a new massive infrastructure investment across the state: https://build.ca.gov/
It's blank for me.
Quote from: Voyager on January 11, 2024, 03:11:50 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 10, 2024, 10:10:14 AM
California has launched a new website to track and show off developments as part as a new massive infrastructure investment across the state: https://build.ca.gov/
It's blank for me.
Yeah I was hoping for meaningful infrastructure projects and instead I get environmental restoration projects with no further information.
I'm noticing that Caltrans signs Santa Ana as control city opposite Sacramento for I-5 in Los Angeles. Considering the former is a distant suburb and the latter is the next major city away from Greater LA, the engineers in both Districts 7 and 12 who agreed on Santa Ana for the SB control are way off their rockers as much as Colorado in Denver pairing Grand Junction to Limon.
Santa Ana is the Orange County seat. The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway." While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles. Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2024, 12:04:40 PM
Santa Ana is the Orange County seat. The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway." While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles. Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.
You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added? I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.
Quote from: jdbx on January 22, 2024, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2024, 12:04:40 PM
Santa Ana is the Orange County seat. The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway." While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles. Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.
You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added? I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.
What's interesting is I-5 N from Downtown LA used to have Bakersfield as a control city before Sacramento. (There are still some lingering freeway entry signs in the SF Valley with it as a control sign northbound). Bakersfield has become a sort of a "LA is too expensive, I want a big newer house for an affordable price" kinda city, and its substantial population growth over the past 50 years shows that. Given the amount of LA refugees that have increasingly moved there, I'm surprised D7 hasn't kept Bakersfield as the more aptly-fit control city for I-5 N. Yeah, at Wheeler Ridge, motorists are advised to take CA 99 into Bakersfield. But still, I always thought that it's weird that Sacramento, a city 400+ miles away, is the control city when there are other large regional cities on the way there.
Quote from: jdbx on January 22, 2024, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2024, 12:04:40 PM
Santa Ana is the Orange County seat. The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway." While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles. Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.
You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added? I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.
It's not in California (if that's what you're looking for specifically) but some of the first freeway signs in Utah had Los Angeles as the southbound control city for I-15, because Las Vegas wasn't a major city yet!
Quote from: CL on May 27, 2011, 12:11:53 PM
I found a photo that confirms that Los Angeles was a control city on I-15 (though I'm still not sure if that was ever the case for US-91). In Salt Lake, no less!
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm3.static.flickr.com%2F2551%2F5763182105_81d7071551.jpg&hash=9fc8c095551225f0f651ef1be091539cc507439b) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/countylemonade/5763182105/)
On a similar note, once you get north of Redding, I believe I-5's control city changes to Portland, skipping Eugene and Salem entirely, despite these being significant cities in Oregon. (There might be a few Salem signs, but I've yet to see them). Not sure of the exact distance but I think it's close to 500 miles or so between Redding and Portland.
Quote from: RZF on January 22, 2024, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: jdbx on January 22, 2024, 05:22:43 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 22, 2024, 12:04:40 PM
Santa Ana is the Orange County seat. The freeway is also called the "Santa Ana Freeway." While I'd agree that Santa Ana is kind of anonymous by modern suburban infill historically the community has been very much a very different thing than Los Angeles. Either way, I see no issue with using any county seat as a control city.
You bring to mind an interesting question that I am now pondering. Usually these lists of control cities were developed decades ago. Are there ever cases of control cities being dropped or added? I don't mean a case of greening out "San Diego" to place "Santa Ana" when both were already on the list of control cities. I mean a case where a community grew rapidly and became a major destination *after* the list of control cities were initially created? I guess I am just wondering how fluid a list of control cities may be and how much deviation there could be in 2024 vs 1964 for example.
What's interesting is I-5 N from Downtown LA used to have Bakersfield as a control city before Sacramento. (There are still some lingering freeway entry signs in the SF Valley with it as a control sign northbound). Bakersfield has become a sort of a "LA is too expensive, I want a big newer house for an affordable price" kinda city, and its substantial population growth over the past 50 years shows that. Given the amount of LA refugees that have increasingly moved there, I'm surprised D7 hasn't kept Bakersfield as the more aptly-fit control city for I-5 N. Yeah, at Wheeler Ridge, motorists are advised to take CA 99 into Bakersfield. But still, I always thought that it's weird that Sacramento, a city 400+ miles away, is the control city when there are other large regional cities on the way there.
Well some old Enco map I had did show that I-5 north of CA 99 was incomplete in the late sixties. I assume Bakersfield was a holdover from then when all traffic at the 5 & 99 split were then forced onto Highway 99 then due to I-5 north of there not yet a road.
Santa Ana being the Orange County seat and the fact that the communities in between LA and there were smaller at the time I-5 came to life does make sense. However like Clinton and Easton in New Jersey on I-78, are no longer stand out cities as they were prior to the 1980's that added bedroom communities to former rural townships along that interstate, should be amended with the times as the importance of such have changed.
If so it should be signed as both Santa Ana and San Diego from East LA to Santa Ana.
Santa Ana is still the seat of governance of Orange County. That alone makes it an easily justifiable control city. Trying to argue otherwise is a weak attempt to paint it as a non existent problem.
Also worth point out that Santa Ana has a population of over 300,000. Not all those people are dashing north to downtown Los Angeles for work.
While I disagree with Santa Ana as a control for I-5 northbound, Santa Ana is a proper control for I-5 southbound. Primarily, because the names of freeways are slowly being removed from signage, so control city usage at least maintains that, to an extent.
So if signs for the Santa Ana Freeway are being removed, at least I can see the control guidance to Santa Ana in LA county and northern orange county.
The northbound control from San Diego, in both SD county and Orange county, was Los Angeles for many many years. D12 decided that its city is good enough to be a control southbound so they replaced Los Angeles with Santa Ana as the control on northbound I-5 on all (most) guide signs to I-5 north between San Clemente and Santa Ana. I don't like it. First of all, it creates a discontinuity as L.A. is the control throughout San Diego county, then drops from view, and then reappears after entering SA city limits. Second of all, L.A. is far more important of a destination. IMO, guide signs can use Santa Ana as a secondary control on NB I-5, but L.A. should be the primary control.
Florida in D2 of FDOT did the same for I-95 leaving Jacksonville as they once signed St. Augustine as a control city, as it too is a county seat of nearby St. John's County. Then Miami would commence from St. John's County onward.
Since then D2 changed the cities out for Daytona Beach, where I-4 interchanges, to amend the current trend of using cities near interstate junctions. So I do see the Significance of Santa Ana.
I just think it's odd that considering that Sacramento is used the other way that they don't remain consistent here. Not going to write Caltrans and lecture them like it's a mortal sin, just that it appears off beat and think it's unusual to apply different principles going north than south.
Regarding adding control cities: Irvine has begun to be used on I-405 - it wasn't even incorporated when I-405 was built through the area and had a 1970 population of ~10,000. Now it's over 300,000 and the second-largest city in Orange County (passing Santa Ana).
CA-126 heading east from US-101 had Santa Paula as a control city, which was replaced by Santa Clarita. Similar to the above, Santa Clarita wasn't incorporated until 1987 (although it was at the time a collection of small-ish communities), and now has over 200,000 people.
As far as Santa Ana as a control city: the historical reasons have been given, but this is also why I do not like single control cities. When in a metro area, a significant local control and a long-distance control should both be used. So from downtown Los Angeles, I-5 north should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento (or perhaps Bakersfield/Sacramento) and I-5 south should be Santa Ana/San Diego - BUT I would advocate for Anaheim instead of Santa Ana - it is the largest city in Orange County, has national recognition (Disney, sports teams) and is by far the dominant destination for tourists (who I think would be the primary users of control cities).
Quote from: DTComposer on January 23, 2024, 01:49:56 PM
Regarding adding control cities: Irvine has begun to be used on I-405 - it wasn't even incorporated when I-405 was built through the area and had a 1970 population of ~10,000. Now it's over 300,000 and the second-largest city in Orange County (passing Santa Ana).
CA-126 heading east from US-101 had Santa Paula as a control city, which was replaced by Santa Clarita. Similar to the above, Santa Clarita wasn't incorporated until 1987 (although it was at the time a collection of small-ish communities), and now has over 200,000 people.
Correct. Santa Clarita wasn't even a known term before 1987. The little communities like Newhall, Saugus, and Valencia were the terminology for the area. I suspect that they wanted a compromise term, although Newhall, IMO, should have been the most prominent for the Newhall Pass that US 99 / I-5 and the railroad passes through between this area and the San Fernando Valley.
Quote
As far as Santa Ana as a control city: the historical reasons have been given, but this is also why I do not like single control cities. When in a metro area, a significant local control and a long-distance control should both be used. So from downtown Los Angeles, I-5 north should be Santa Clarita/Sacramento (or perhaps Bakersfield/Sacramento) and I-5 south should be Santa Ana/San Diego - BUT I would advocate for Anaheim instead of Santa Ana - it is the largest city in Orange County, has national recognition (Disney, sports teams) and is by far the dominant destination for tourists (who I think would be the primary users of control cities).
I definitely agree with your points on using two control cities when possible. I would normally also support Anaheim over Santa Ana, except for the fact that the use of SA keeps alive the SA Fwy name. Plus, it is a good control from the north, west, and northwest to lead towards the Orange Crush Interchange, which is why SA is also a good control for SB CA-57.
The use of Anaheim as a north control for CA 55 is not helpful since it is directing traffic towards the Anaheim Hills and away from the main Anaheim tourist destinations like Disney and the sports facilities. (I would prefer a double control of Yorba Linda and Riverside. Yes, 55 does not hit YL directly, but it is more clearly a city that is in the northeastern corner of Orange County, plus the first two exits off 91 eastbound, after 55 ends, leads directly into YL.)
Anaheim would be a great control for 91 WB from the Riverside area. Far better than Beach Cities or even Los Angeles in this area. Beach Cities is non descript and I-10 and CA-60 are far more direct to Los Angeles. Although good signage towards Disney and the sports facilities would be needed if Anaheim is ever adopted as a control on 91.
EDITED TO ADD: I would also be in favor of two control cities for I-10 EB. Whereas San Bernardino can be the main control on smaller signs and at freeway entrance ramps from local streets, I would be in favor of San Bernardino / Phoenix at all major freeway junctions east of Downtown LA.
Great ideas mrsman! Love the Phoenix control city addition too...in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch. We do drive a long ways out here in the West!
Quote from: nexus73 on January 24, 2024, 08:59:53 AM
Great ideas mrsman! Love the Phoenix control city addition too...in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch. We do drive a long ways out here in the West!
I don't want to take full credit. There are some video games that involve driving that show some of the freeway driving in L.A. that suggest a Phoenix control instead of San Bernardino. Again, because of the issue of freeway names like Santa Ana Fwy and San Bernardino Fwy that are being removed from signs, I support San Bernardino as the primary control with Phoenix as the secondary - even though in most cases I would advocate for the bigger city being the primary control.
One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point. Likewise, places like Dunsmuir, CA are tiny rest stops off the 5, but important Amtrak stops. Fillmore, CA was the same way, it had its heyday during the railroads.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 24, 2024, 08:59:53 AM
in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch. We do drive a long ways out here in the West!
Agree on this. I know Portland shows up northbound by Redding if not earlier.
Quote
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA. Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.
I keep meaning to ask - do you mean Willits (instead of Willets)?
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2024, 05:05:02 PM
One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point.
Another historical context here - although Oxnard has been larger population-wise for decades, Ventura is the county seat and the commercial, historical and cultural center of the region. Along those lines, though, Santa Barbara is much better known outside of California than either of those cities and is a much bigger tourist/cultural draw. I've always thought US-101 should sign for Ventura/Santa Barbara from L.A.
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
For trains it makes sense that the long-distance Coast Starlight stops in Oxnard, since it's more centrally located in Ventura County. But the Pacific Surfliners do stop in Ventura, as well as Oxnard and Camarillo.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 24, 2024, 05:54:12 PM
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).
Quote from: GaryA on January 25, 2024, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on January 24, 2024, 05:54:12 PM
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).
Why does US 101 receive three control city mileage signs but I-5 only gets two mileage cities?
Quote from: GaryA on January 25, 2024, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on January 24, 2024, 05:54:12 PM
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
That must have been some time ago - since I began driving in that area (1990) the pull-through signs at CA-126 and CA-33 have always just been San Francisco, and they were definitely older signs.
North of there (beginning at the CA-1 junction in Las Cruces) they still have two-city controls: San Luis Obispo/San Francisco, Salinas/San Francisco, San Jose/San Francisco.
Quote from: DTComposer on January 24, 2024, 05:54:12 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on January 24, 2024, 08:59:53 AM
in Oregon I wish we saw some Sacramento control city signage on the southern stretch. We do drive a long ways out here in the West!
Agree on this. I know Portland shows up northbound by Redding if not earlier.
Quote
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA. Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.
I keep meaning to ask - do you mean Willits (instead of Willets)?
Quote from: Quillz on January 24, 2024, 05:05:02 PM
One thing I've learned is some cities are way more important in certain contexts. For example, most people probably know Ventura, CA but don't know Oxnard, CA as well. But try taking an Amtrak through California and avoiding Oxnard. It's damn near impossible. Nearly all passenger traffic heading north or south goes through Oxnard at some point.
Another historical context here - although Oxnard has been larger population-wise for decades, Ventura is the county seat and the commercial, historical and cultural center of the region. Along those lines, though, Santa Barbara is much better known outside of California than either of those cities and is a much bigger tourist/cultural draw. I've always thought US-101 should sign for Ventura/Santa Barbara from L.A.
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
For trains it makes sense that the long-distance Coast Starlight stops in Oxnard, since it's more centrally located in Ventura County. But the Pacific Surfliners do stop in Ventura, as well as Oxnard and Camarillo.
Fixed the Willets! Good catch :-)
What you talkin about Willits?
Quote from: roadman65 on January 25, 2024, 01:08:11 PM
Quote from: GaryA on January 25, 2024, 01:03:11 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on January 24, 2024, 05:54:12 PM
Interesting to note that Santa Barbara isn't used as a control at all on that stretch (save for some auxiliary signs on intersecting roads) - starting at CA-126, US-101 north is signed for San Francisco.
Back when Caltrans used dual control cities, US 101 was signed at CA 126 as being for "Santa Barbara / San Francisco".
Further up, it would be "San Luis Obispo / San Francisco"; I don't remember what was used north of there (Salinas and then San Jose, probably).
Why does US 101 receive three control city mileage signs but I-5 only gets two mileage cities?
A couple of thoughts on this:
1. US 101 has existed for longer, so the dual control city setup may date back to the 1960s - an era where 5 did not exist at all between the Grapevine and points north.
2. 99 I know does the double-control thing almost from the very start in Wheeler Ridge, 5 goes through much fewer destinations between LA and Sacramento compared to 101 between SF and San Francisco. So while San Francisco is mentioned on roadside distance signs along the West Side Freeway portion, it's never the main control city (except for maybe a mention at the 152 junction).
From Sacramento southward, Los Angeles is already the control city (as far north as in Natomas near the former Arco Arena). Since Bakersfield was removed as a control city in the 1980s from I-5, Sacramento has been the northbound control from East Los Angeles north to Elk Grove.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bridge-toll-booth-removal-postponed-18654142.php
"The Bay Area Toll Authority, which oversees operation of the bridges, had planned to start removing the empty booths last August and finish the last one — the Bay Bridge — by the fall of 2026.
Those plans, however, have been delayed and will cost more, the Chronicle has learned.
The removal of the toll booths — and the accompanying restriping and installation of overhead toll collection equipment — won't begin until early 2026, according to John Goodwin, a spokesperson for the toll authority, and won't be completed until March 2027.
The reason for the delay was a decision by Caltrans to upgrade the automated toll collection system at the same time it moves from toll booths to gantries, Goodwin said.
"What will come is a whole new toll collection system — hardware and software," he said. "While drivers will surely notice the hardware, they're not likely to see any of the software changes. What drivers will notice is the elimination of toll booths and the installation of gantries. The rest of it will be invisible."
As for the state-owned bridges, here's the latest schedule for when each will shed its toll booths and start so-called open-road tolling:
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge: February 2026
Antioch Bridge: May 2026
Carquinez Bridge: June 2026
Benicia-Martinez Bridge: July 2026
Dumbarton Bridge: July 2026
San Mateo Bridge: August 2026
Bay Bridge: March 2027
The project is expected to cost $150 million, compared with the original estimate of $77 million. And it could grow further as the toll authority develops a formal budget for the move to open-road tolling over the next four months, Goodwin said."
Egads, they're slow.
Quote from: Rothman on February 08, 2024, 06:54:04 AM
Egads, they're slow.
From the article: "One Bay Area bridge — the Benicia-Martinez Bridge on Interstate 680 — already has some open-road tolling, which began as a test when the northbound span opened in 2007...... At the time, the toll authority called the test the 'wave of the future.'"
No kidding, "wave of the future" finally happens elsewhere 20 years later. That said, I suppose delaying things to allow them to use upgraded equipment is probably a better use of funds than doing it sooner with legacy equipment and then having to come back later to upgrade.
I'm curious to see how they will approach this at each of the bridges with regards to how they manage lane drops, where they ultimately place the gantries, how many through-lanes are maintained ahead of the metering lights.
Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better. Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.
Quote from: nexus73 on February 09, 2024, 09:17:46 AM
Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better. Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.
Yes. I don't live in California anymore but I will visit every year or two, and I don't want to have to jump through hoops and pay a "visitor's tax" extra high rate to cross bridges.
Because that would go over well. A lot of people who live in the Bay Area rarely have a reason to cross the bridges. Never mind that you'd need to change state law to remove the tolls, something people who don't use the bridges would not like. Even better, toll increases have generally been improved by regional voters, so it's not like there isn't public support for tolls over another source of funding.
The bridge toll pays for the bridges and upgrades to the bridges, apart from $1 that supports transit along the bridge (which in turn reduces congestion for everyone else). $7 charged only one way isn't a particularly high toll, given that similar crossings in the Northeast would happily charge double. There's also a hefty carpool discount (50%) and a multi-bridge discount if you use multiple crossings in a day. Golden Gate is run by its own agency that has higher tolls, but that also has maintenance costs.
Quote from: cl94 on February 09, 2024, 10:58:05 PM
Because that would go over well. A lot of people who live in the Bay Area rarely have a reason to cross the bridges. Never mind that you'd need to change state law to remove the tolls, something people who don't use the bridges would not like. Even better, toll increases have generally been improved by regional voters, so it's not like there isn't public support for tolls over another source of funding.
The bridge toll pays for the bridges and upgrades to the bridges, apart from $1 that supports transit along the bridge (which in turn reduces congestion for everyone else). $7 charged only one way isn't a particularly high toll, given that similar crossings in the Northeast would happily charge double. There's also a hefty carpool discount (50%) and a multi-bridge discount if you use multiple crossings in a day. Golden Gate is run by its own agency that has higher tolls, but that also has maintenance costs.
There is also the fact that there are a *lot* of electric vehicles in the Bay Area, so tying anything to a gas tax is going to result in diminishing returns.
Quote from: kkt on February 09, 2024, 10:18:05 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on February 09, 2024, 09:17:46 AM
Fuel prices are already sky high so why not add a 10 cent per gallon tax for the bridge system in all counties along the San Francisco Bay? Then drop the tolls and save money by also dropping the toll bureaucracies plus the collection system while removing all the toll booth obstructions so traffic flows better. Drive the bridges for "free" and figure out of area people doing so will be gassing up somewhere along the bay to put something in the kitty.
Yes. I don't live in California anymore but I will visit every year or two, and I don't want to have to jump through hoops and pay a "visitor's tax" extra high rate to cross bridges.
You can always do pay by license plate, and just register your plate beforehand. We do plan to do a special episode of the podcast talking about tolls when we can get it setup.
(edited to fix quoting)
That. At least with Bay Area FasTrak, license plate account pays the same rate as a transponder on state-owned crossings. Transponders are mainly needed for express lanes. GGBHTD gives a 25-cent discount for using a transponder, but that's its own agency not directly aligned with Caltrans.
Is that a lane control signal on the c/d roadway pipe gantry off to the right in this photo taken on I-80 in Russell?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53527897374_d364a9ab2d_c.jpg)
Quote from: roadman65 on February 13, 2024, 08:10:39 PM
Is that a lane control signal on the c/d roadway pipe gantry off to the right in this photo taken on I-80 in Russell?
A bit of an optical illusion there, I think. Knowing how much construction has gone on in recent years on that Cordelia stretch of I-80, I believe it's an orange temporary detour sign attached to the mileage sign, covered in black plastic wrap.
If you're referring to the green down arrows hanging from the gantry, they're lane control signals for the weigh station. The mileage sign hides the CHP logo identifying it as such.
Is SF starting to align itself with the rest of state installing traffic signals?
I noticed that some signals are mounted overhead with backplates. Usually SF uses side mounts with no backplates and 8-8-8 signal heads painted dark green.
California always likes it curved mast arms and 12-12-12 with back plates and uses black coloring.
I was reading an article on Wiki about I-280 originally planned in 1958 to not head north east of CA Route 1, but to be built along Route 1 and meet its parent ( as I-80 was to run further west) south of the Presidio and I-280 would have ran further north to the Golden Gate Bridge.
Also included would have completed the now defunct Embarcadero Freeway to also connect to the GG Bridge. However US 101 would have been the alignment in part as the freeway would have shifted inland instead of hug the bay front.
I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all. From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.
Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?
Most of them are featured in volumes of California Highways and Public Works. You can find the entire 1924-1967 collection on archive.org.
For the Golden Gate Freeway here you go:
https://archive.org/details/technicalreportg1965cali/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater
But to answer your question, the corridor of 19th would have needed to been largely razed. I don't recall the corridor getting far into the planning phases but the early elevated freeways during the mid-1950s soured a lot of people in the city on anything else being built.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 19, 2024, 10:02:21 AM
I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all. From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.
Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?
Originally it was meant to connect to the Embarcadero Freeway. I-280 was built on a slightly different alignment past the 6th Street exit (closer to Mission Creek) and the roadway was built as far as 3rd Street.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4185022205
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915295
But even as early as the '70s there were alternative proposals, several of which included removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (which happened in 1991). Different connections to I-80 were considered, including along 6th Street.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915297
(Search other photos in that collection to find more plans and alternatives)
In conjunction with the ballpark construction in the late '90s, the freeway from 6th to 3rd was removed and replaced with the ramps to King Street.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 19, 2024, 10:21:45 AM
Most of them are featured in volumes of California Highways and Public Works. You can find the entire 1924-1967 collection on archive.org.
For the Golden Gate Freeway here you go:
https://archive.org/details/technicalreportg1965cali/page/n77/mode/1up?view=theater
But to answer your question, the corridor of 19th would have needed to been largely razed. I don't recall the corridor getting far into the planning phases but the early elevated freeways during the mid-1950s soured a lot of people in the city on anything else being built.
IIRC wasn't the pre-1968 280 going to use Junipero Serra past the end of the current freeway (Font) and then Laguna Honda/7th into Golden Gate park? As opposed to 19th itself
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QE8ABRc7atViWQWA8
So this was the intended connection to I-80 from I-280 then. The long ramps to and from Brannan/ 6th connecting I-280 Exit 57.
Quote from: DTComposer on March 19, 2024, 10:46:49 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 19, 2024, 10:02:21 AM
I am confused of where present day I-280 would have went if I-280 was built beyond the intersection of King and Fifth where it now terminates. I see King Street is a boulevard north of I-280 which suggests that the city don't want the freeway to continue at all. From GSV both King and the Embarcadero look like it was a purposely done boulevard to move the traffic efficiently to replace the need for a freeway especially considering the elevated I-480 was torn down along the waterfront north of the Bay Bridge.
Does anyone have links to maps to show the unbuilt freeway proposals that were to be that never came to fruition?
Originally it was meant to connect to the Embarcadero Freeway. I-280 was built on a slightly different alignment past the 6th Street exit (closer to Mission Creek) and the roadway was built as far as 3rd Street.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4185022205
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915295
But even as early as the '70s there were alternative proposals, several of which included removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (which happened in 1991). Different connections to I-80 were considered, including along 6th Street.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4445915297
(Search other photos in that collection to find more plans and alternatives)
In conjunction with the ballpark construction in the late '90s, the freeway from 6th to 3rd was removed and replaced with the ramps to King Street.
The original 280 stub ended at Third Street, parallel to King and can be seen in archived images in Google Earth Pro or in historicaerials.com for years prior to 1997. Had 280 been constructed northward to connect with the Embarcadero Freeway, aka I-480/SR-480, it would have plowed through what is now Willie Mays Plaza and up the left field foul line through Oracle Park.
The boulevard that exists today along the Embarcadero was created to replace the Embarcadero Freeway to the north of the Bay Bridge and to provide a traffic connection and pedestrian and bicycling promenade to the south in conjunction with the construction of the ballpark and the redevelopment/reincarnation of South Beach, which was a large but dying/dead industrial area. It also enabled establishment of Muni Metro tracks and stations/platforms in the median from the ballpark and Caltrain station to Fisherman's Wharf. Standard Muni Metro service comes out of the Market Street subway and serves the southern leg of the Embarcadero while the northern leg is served by historic streetcars that run on the surface of Market Street. Even though the N-Judah and F-Market/Wharves run in opposite directions from Market Street, both standard Metro cars and historic streetcars can run on the entire length of the Embarcadero since they are both powered by the same catenary system.
It's amazing how many proposals there were in the city for freeways. However, with the revolts it's understandable why so many were brought up.
To me I think the Sixth Street Ramps should be extended that one block to connect with I-80 to have the freeways connect.
I can actually see the reasoning behind the Embarcadero removal as it did obstruct the aesthetics of the Bayfront. The Ferry Building, was completely hindered as the double decker viaduct was taller than the building itself. Only the clock tower was taller than that. However, ideally a suppressed freeway should have been from the start, but it's too late now. Though 70k traffic did prove SR 480 was a useful roadway in its day.
King of hard to build a suppressed freeway along the Embarcadero given how close it is to the water. The freeway was almost certainly unaided by the fact that a lot of it was laid on reclaimed land that had been present for decades. The Golden Gate Freeway design alternatives are interesting given they seem to intend to account for the negative reaction to the elevated freeways. Many of them were below grade and similar to something like the Vine Street Expressway in Philadelphia.
A tunnel under the Embarcadero would not be impossible. It would be below sea level, but slur walls could be built to keep it sealed. It could have been built with the above looking like it is now.
Put yourself in the mindset of the era of 1948-1959 when the concept of freeways in San Francisco was new. The city planners, Division of Highways and California Highway Commission were all trying to figure out how to best make these freeways happen in San Francisco. They didn't have a lot of room and all collectively settled on elevated structures being the way forward. At no point in my research was a below grade freeway even seriously considered until the 1965 Golden Gate Freeway designs I linked above.
I suspect the elevated freeways were simply the most cost effective option available during the era. Let us not forget that this was an era prior to CEQA and NEPA. If the planners really wanted a corridor and had funding it was likely going to get built.
I suspect the reason the Golden Gate Freeway ultimately went nowhere in 1965 was that all the design alternatives were way too expensive compared to the early elevated structures. The Golden Gate Freeway also had vie for a piece of the Federal Highway Trust Fund which is why the mileage it had reserved was eventually shifted to less problematic corridors.
It's funny how the double decker was a space saver at the time as you don't need a wide freeway ROW to build. You build up instead hence the parking garage concept. After the 89 quake and both this and the Nimitz Freeway across the bay brought out maybe this concept is the idea.
Times change and definitely people change. Just like VHS was here one moment, then the DVD, and then next we have streaming. Same with road designs.
A shame more freeways couldn't be built, but now is not the time for sure to redo the plans. However if they knew then to tunnel I'm sure the SR 480 would still be alive today, but right idea at wrong time.
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Huh. I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now. I forgot you were in the Bay Area.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
The state of the city is maybe 5-10% worse than before the pandemic, but news articles make the world think it is 10x worse.
Now's not the time to complete previous freeway plans. Hayes Valley, the Marina, the Inner Sunset (where cancelled freeways were supposed to go through) are areas that have all recovered from the pandemic and would be much worse off with freeways running through them - it's really the Union Square and Financial District areas that have changed.
CA-27 has been closed for some time now, between CA-1 and the Topanga city limits. Not sure what's going on, my guess is maybe some kind of rock slide? It's happened before, but the other mountain crossings are open. I use this crossing a lot so having to take Malibu Canyon Road instead adds a fair bit of travel time.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Have you actually been there and seen it for yourself, or are you just making this assumption based on what the media tells you?
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2024, 05:36:08 PM
CA-27 has been closed for some time now, between CA-1 and the Topanga city limits. Not sure what's going on, my guess is maybe some kind of rock slide? It's happened before, but the other mountain crossings are open. I use this crossing a lot so having to take Malibu Canyon Road instead adds a fair bit of travel time.
It's made the commute on the 405 horrible. Added perhaps 20 minutes in the morning, and about 40 in the evening (making it, for me, over 2 hours to go 35 miles!)
Quote from: Quillz on March 22, 2024, 05:36:55 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Have you actually been there and seen it for yourself, or are you just making this assumption based on what the media tells you?
No comment on the overall state of the city, but I will say, if there were ever a city where I felt like the road decisions were deliberately made to screw over drivers, it's SF. I lived there from 2015-2023 and bit by bit, the inconveniences to driving crept up. To name a few:
1) Great Highway & JFK closure
2) reduction from 4 lanes to 2 on South Van Ness
3) pedestrian head starts everywhere, even where it barely makes any sense to have them
4) comically inefficient signal configurations like 5th & Folsom (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.7801348,-122.4032686,3a,75y,334.91h,86.65t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sC5FFc49WYCiH9pUXNFzDqQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DC5FFc49WYCiH9pUXNFzDqQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D55.129448%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu), where to turn right from NB 5th onto Folsom you must wait through 3 other phases (only one of which even has pedestrians/bicyclists crossing Folsom)
And you know what, it's okay. I moved out to the suburbs and I couldn't be happier. If the people of SF want driving to be insanely inefficient (whether to encourage mass transit, or to pursue hopeless dreams of zero traffic deaths (https://www.visionzerosf.org/)), it's their city, they can govern it how they want.
Speaking of SF, what is up with most of the signage of US 101 being recently pulled on Van Ness?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2024, 07:36:12 PM
Speaking of SF, what is up with most of the signage of US 101 being recently pulled on Van Ness?
Recently as in the last few months, or the last few years?
If the latter, my guess is that most of the signs were attached to poles that were replaced / taken down as part of the bus lanes work, and nobody really thought to replace them.
This would be Caltrans jurisdiction, right?
Quote from: citrus on March 22, 2024, 08:23:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2024, 07:36:12 PM
Speaking of SF, what is up with most of the signage of US 101 being recently pulled on Van Ness?
Recently as in the last few months, or the last few years?
If the latter, my guess is that most of the signs were attached to poles that were replaced / taken down as part of the bus lanes work, and nobody really thought to replace them.
This would be Caltrans jurisdiction, right?
Yes, District 4.
Poor signage is pretty common. A lot of PCH is barely signed between Santa Monica and Oxnard. Sometimes the shields get stolen and not replaced.
1 and 35 are both still fairly well signed in the city.
I loved living in SF. Didn't have a car and it was easy enough to get around. Of course, that was many moons ago now. Been meaning to get back.
I like visiting San Francisco. I'd go as far to say that I find it be the most interesting large city in California. That said, liking to visit a place and desiring to live there are two different things.
Speaking for myself, I don't recall the things I liked about living in downtown Chicago outweighing those I disliked. That is probably the closest living situation I've had to what would be similar to living in San Francisco.
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Huh. I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now. I forgot you were in the Bay Area.
I'm in the bay area once every other week. You do realize that it is possible to travel from one area to the other, right?
And just so you know the various Bay Area cities and their vibes are completely different from San Francisco and Oakland.
Quote from: citrus on March 22, 2024, 11:47:35 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
The state of the city is maybe 5-10% worse than before the pandemic, but news articles make the world think it is 10x worse.
Now's not the time to complete previous freeway plans. Hayes Valley, the Marina, the Inner Sunset (where cancelled freeways were supposed to go through) are areas that have all recovered from the pandemic and would be much worse off with freeways running through them - it's really the Union Square and Financial District areas that have changed.
You are very right that the news is making it far worse than the situation really is. But my larger point is San Francisco proper doesn't seem to have recovered like other cities have Los Angeles. Oakland is in the same category as San Francisco, but I think for different reasons because of the crime rates which are pretty bad now, but with San Francisco are over by the news, particularly the conservative news outlets. With that being said, they are pretty bad and I do believe the governor has announced he is a pretty large California patrol presence as an attempt to curb some of the crimes.
Now my freeway comment was more or less tongue in cheek, though I would like to see a lot of the propose freeways built in San Francisco I would want them built as tunnels. But I digress before we get in the complete fantasy territory and go off-topic.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 10:32:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Huh. I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now. I forgot you were in the Bay Area.
I'm in the bay area once every other week. You do realize that it is possible to travel from one area to the other, right?
And just so you know the various Bay Area cities and their vibes are completely different from San Francisco and Oakland.
Well, yeah. I lived there.
Looks like I flipped your snooty switch on.
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 10:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 10:32:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Huh. I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now. I forgot you were in the Bay Area.
I'm in the bay area once every other week. You do realize that it is possible to travel from one area to the other, right?
And just so you know the various Bay Area cities and their vibes are completely different from San Francisco and Oakland.
Well, yeah. I lived there.
Looks like I flipped your snooty switch on.
That's assumptive. I was just visiting San Francisco a week ago. How does not wanting to live in a dense urban area but otherwise liking to visit come off as "snooty" to you? I also enjoy visiting cities like Seattle and Portland for similar reasons.
At the end of the day, if one wants to live in a dense city like San Francisco there are certain things one must adapt to. Not having constant access to personal transportation and stuff like freeways would be among those items. If you think those kinds of thing isn't for you then perhaps it is best just to live somewhere else.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2024, 10:47:28 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 10:37:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 10:32:29 PM
Quote from: Rothman on March 22, 2024, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 22, 2024, 09:18:44 AM
Actually, now would be a better time than ever to complete the original plans. San Francisco has not returned to its original state pre-pandemic. Sad to see the state that City is in.
Huh. I've mixed-up everyone's backgrounds now. I forgot you were in the Bay Area.
I'm in the bay area once every other week. You do realize that it is possible to travel from one area to the other, right?
And just so you know the various Bay Area cities and their vibes are completely different from San Francisco and Oakland.
Well, yeah. I lived there.
Looks like I flipped your snooty switch on.
That's assumptive. I was just visiting San Francisco a week ago. How does not wanting to live in a dense urban area but otherwise liking to visit come off as "snooty" to you? I also enjoy visiting cities like Seattle and Portland for similar reasons.
At the end of the day, if one wants to live in a dense city like San Francisco there are certain things one must adapt to. Not having constant access to personal transportation and stuff like freeways would be among those items. If you think those kinds of thing isn't for you then perhaps it is best just to live somewhere else.
Wut?
No one was talking to you... :D
I love San Francisco. It really hurt me to see it how it was in 2020. Sure it's improved but not as fast as LA. No doubt it'll make a comeback. It's too beautiful and unique of a city not to. But the contrast of one of side of the Golden Gate Bridge and the other is shocking.
I too visited SF a few times this month, with both friends and family. I didn't get the impression that the city hasn't "recovered". Instead I felt like there's lot of traffic, lots of people and it took time to find street parking, but none of the places I went were around the downtown area instead I was at Crissy Field and Japantown last Saturday.
Also I noticed for the first time that Park Presidio Blvd (CA 1) has a HOV lane now. It's actually part of a pilot program that started in 2020, so yeah I'm quite late in my observation. I don't know if it makes a big difference, it took me 30+ minutes to drive from the southern part/edge of the city using CA 1 to the Golden Gate Bridge and Crissy Field.
Quote from: Techknow on March 26, 2024, 11:02:05 PMI too visited SF a few times this month, with both friends and family. I didn't get the impression that the city hasn't "recovered". Instead I felt like there's lot of traffic, lots of people and it took time to find street parking, but none of the places I went were around the downtown area instead I was at Crissy Field and Japantown last Saturday.
Also I noticed for the first time that Park Presidio Blvd (CA 1) has a HOV lane now. It's actually part of a pilot program that started in 2020, so yeah I'm quite late in my observation. I don't know if it makes a big difference, it took me 30+ minutes to drive from the southern part/edge of the city using CA 1 to the Golden Gate Bridge and Crissy Field.
Mainly because "recovery" is a meaningless term that is more dependent on one's politics than anything else. Last time I went to SF, it seemed as it was in the 00s and 90s. Same complaints, same kind of people, etc. COVID happened but I've not seen anything dramatically changed. To me, there was nothing to recover from. But my perspective is more a visitor, living there would be different.
Quote from: Quillz on March 27, 2024, 01:35:49 AMLast time I went to SF, it seemed as it was in the 00s and 90s. Same complaints, same kind of people, etc. COVID happened but I've not seen anything dramatically changed. To me, there was nothing to recover from. But my perspective is more a visitor, living there would be different.
The retail pullout from downtown has been pretty staggering in the last 2-3 years, with Macy's recently announcing the year-end closure of their iconic Union Square west coast flagship store. The planned redevelopment of the Crocker Galleria food court/mini-mall in the Financial District has instead left that structure with only two or three open shops.
The areas that seem to be doing better are the more far-flung areas within the city, i.e. compare Stonestown Mall with its crowds and food options, to the downtown San Francisco Centre which Westfield divested and which has lost tenants consistently. (Stonestown also has the advantage of free parking in a nicer area)
Quote from: TheStranger on March 27, 2024, 10:40:01 PMQuote from: Quillz on March 27, 2024, 01:35:49 AMLast time I went to SF, it seemed as it was in the 00s and 90s. Same complaints, same kind of people, etc. COVID happened but I've not seen anything dramatically changed. To me, there was nothing to recover from. But my perspective is more a visitor, living there would be different.
The retail pullout from downtown has been pretty staggering in the last 2-3 years, with Macy's recently announcing the year-end closure of their iconic Union Square west coast flagship store. The planned redevelopment of the Crocker Galleria food court/mini-mall in the Financial District has instead left that structure with only two or three open shops.
The areas that seem to be doing better are the more far-flung areas within the city, i.e. compare Stonestown Mall with its crowds and food options, to the downtown San Francisco Centre which Westfield divested and which has lost tenants consistently. (Stonestown also has the advantage of free parking in a nicer area)
When I speak of San Francisco, I'm speaking San Francisco proper. I'm actually considering buying a row home somewhere near Golden Gate Park because I love it so much. Everyone sees things in a different lens, but I have definitely noticed the city is not the same since the pandemic. A lot of places aren't, but they have recovered to a degree. I really can't say the same thing about San Francisco.
A lot of people here would think I'm just making things up if I were to tell you what I witnessed on some of my previous trips, especially at night.
People would probably think I'm lying about what I witnessed that one night in Alaska, too. I get it, we have all experienced stuff we would best want to forget. I've been nervous about going back to "the dome" ever since.
My dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
The only civilian agency in California I've not had issues prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting cases was Riverside County Sheriff. Most agencies (especially cities) have always been pushy about picking up anything that wasn't a felony. While that mindset is not something I particularly agree with it is one I've dealt with in the state since 2007.
Even still, outside of what I do daily I tend to not really think about retail theft when I go places. Probably doesn't hurt in my case that I despise shopping in general and do what I can to avoid it. I'm certainly not visiting a store when I go visit a city like San Francisco.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 02:41:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
The only civilian agency in California I've not had issues prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting cases was Riverside County Sheriff. Most agencies (especially cities) have always been pushy about picking up anything that wasn't a felony. While that mindset is not something I particularly agree with it is one I've dealt with in the state since 2007.
Even still, outside of what I do daily I tend to not really think about retail theft when I go places. Probably doesn't hurt in my case that I despise shopping in general and do what I can to avoid it. I'm certainly not visiting a store when I go visit a city like San Francisco.
I think it's pretty well-known the issues San Francisco is facing. I'll shop pretty much every city I go to. I'm sure San Francisco will bounce back but for me and what I've witnessed it's just pretty different from the city I knew before the pandemic. Selfishly, I'm hoping property prices go down so I can afford to buy my own row house somewhere along Golden Gate Park, but I'm not holding my breath.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:31:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 02:41:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
The only civilian agency in California I've not had issues prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting cases was Riverside County Sheriff. Most agencies (especially cities) have always been pushy about picking up anything that wasn't a felony. While that mindset is not something I particularly agree with it is one I've dealt with in the state since 2007.
Even still, outside of what I do daily I tend to not really think about retail theft when I go places. Probably doesn't hurt in my case that I despise shopping in general and do what I can to avoid it. I'm certainly not visiting a store when I go visit a city like San Francisco.
I think it's pretty well-known the issues San Francisco is facing. I'll shop pretty much every city I go to. I'm sure San Francisco will bounce back but for me and what I've witnessed it's just pretty different from the city I knew before the pandemic. Selfishly, I'm hoping property prices go down so I can afford to buy my own row house somewhere along Golden Gate Park, but I'm not holding my breath.
The stance of district attorneys on retail theft seems to sway from extreme to the other over time. The National Retail Foundation has done a considerable amount of lobbying in San Francisco for prosecuting shoplifting to be taken seriously. That lobbying didn't really seem to work out and a lot of retailers left. I suspect eventually things will start to reverse and head the other direction given money tends to do a lot talking.
Then again, it would be fair to mention that police response to shoplifting varied greatly in other states I've worked. Scottsdale was big on trying to convince us to let misdemeanor cases walk also. They often made us hold onto detainees for two-four hours or just flat out told us they weren't going to show. That is probably not the popular perception one has of an Arizonan city. The city DA actually met with me once and spelled it out clearly that they viewed prosecution misdemeanor theft cases as a waste of time.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 03:42:47 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:31:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 02:41:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
The only civilian agency in California I've not had issues prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting cases was Riverside County Sheriff. Most agencies (especially cities) have always been pushy about picking up anything that wasn't a felony. While that mindset is not something I particularly agree with it is one I've dealt with in the state since 2007.
Even still, outside of what I do daily I tend to not really think about retail theft when I go places. Probably doesn't hurt in my case that I despise shopping in general and do what I can to avoid it. I'm certainly not visiting a store when I go visit a city like San Francisco.
I think it's pretty well-known the issues San Francisco is facing. I'll shop pretty much every city I go to. I'm sure San Francisco will bounce back but for me and what I've witnessed it's just pretty different from the city I knew before the pandemic. Selfishly, I'm hoping property prices go down so I can afford to buy my own row house somewhere along Golden Gate Park, but I'm not holding my breath.
The stance of district attorneys on retail theft seems to sway from extreme to the other over time. The National Retail Foundation has done a considerable amount of lobbying in San Francisco for prosecuting shoplifting to be taken seriously. That lobbying didn't really seem to work out and a lot of retailers left. I suspect eventually things will start to reverse and head the other direction given money tends to do a lot talking.
Then again, it would be fair to mention that police response to shoplifting varied greatly in other states I've worked. Scottsdale was big on trying to convince us to let misdemeanor cases walk also. They often made us hold onto detainees for two-four hours or just flat out told us they weren't going to show. That is probably not the popular perception one has of an Arizonan city. The city DA actually met with me once and spelled it out clearly that they viewed prosecution misdemeanor theft cases as a waste of time.
Hey, a silver lining of all this may be that some of San Francisco shopping may go back to the old days where it wasn't all glitzy an upscale. I wasn't to experience it so I can't say exactly how it was. But I do enjoy some of the more unique and quirky shops.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMA lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it.
Retailers learned about 20 years after Amazon that many people like ordering things online and having them delivered. So many retail stores started doing at-home delivery, and found out it doesn't really impact their bottom line to close down stores, so they do that. Yes, theft doesn't help, but having worked in retail and seeing the numbers that AP won't make public, it's more a good excuse than the reality of why they do it. As always, follow the money. Closing stores and shifting to at-home delivery means less rent to be paid, fewer employees to be paid, and so on.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Exactly. Many of the issues you hear are things like this, to create the narrative that [insert city here] is scary and dangerous. You hear it with all the major cities of America. Which is funny because crime rates have been dropping in America for decades, and continue to do so. But the rate of reporting keeps going up, creating the illusion things are a lot more dangerous than they really are.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 03:42:47 PMThen again, it would be fair to mention that police response to shoplifting varied greatly in other states I've worked. Scottsdale was big on trying to convince us to let misdemeanor cases walk also. They often made us hold onto detainees for two-four hours or just flat out told us they weren't going to show. That is probably not the popular perception one has of an Arizonan city. The city DA actually met with me once and spelled it out clearly that they viewed prosecution misdemeanor theft cases as a waste of time.
Another thing that often goes unmentioned is most retail chains will track people stealing and not stop them, because they almost always return and once it gets over a certain $ amount, it becomes a felony. This is the reason why it often appears people just take stuff and leave, because the stores let them. I saw this first hand when I did some AP work. We had about 3-4 known shoplifters, and once they got over the felony amount, had the police waiting for them when they left.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:47:17 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 03:42:47 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 03:31:25 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 02:41:18 PMQuote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2024, 01:36:45 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2024, 08:19:41 AMMy dad and I witnessed a shooting leaving a Tigers game in Detroit (where I'm originally from) during the mid-1980s. I still go back to visit, I don't recall ever having bringing it up in the forum. I would hazard a guess that Detroit has been by far the more crime prone city compared to San Francisco in living memory.
When I hear vague stories like about crime in San Francisco it makes me curious as to what people are referring. Generally it is something about the homeless in conjunction with someone publicly peeing or defecating. Homeless people and someone publicly relieving themselves isn't high on the echelon of scary things I personally find scary or even off putting.
I can't fathom what a homeless person would do to an able bodied person like myself other than an attempt at panhandling. It isn't exactly simple to find a publicly available restroom in any city in California let alone San Francisco. Considering how much I have had to relieve myself on remote public roads or even during distance runs I guess that I can sympathize with the problem there.
Well, this is anecdotal I've been frequenting San Francisco for a decade now and it's been noticeably worse since the pandemic. A lot of retailers have closed and yes, you could attribute that to the pandemic, but they've also attribute it to an increased and retail theft so there's more to it. But some of the things I've witnessed since 2020 just in the last few years I've never seen in the five years leading up to it. In fact, I rarely saw crime at all.
The only civilian agency in California I've not had issues prosecuting misdemeanor shoplifting cases was Riverside County Sheriff. Most agencies (especially cities) have always been pushy about picking up anything that wasn't a felony. While that mindset is not something I particularly agree with it is one I've dealt with in the state since 2007.
Even still, outside of what I do daily I tend to not really think about retail theft when I go places. Probably doesn't hurt in my case that I despise shopping in general and do what I can to avoid it. I'm certainly not visiting a store when I go visit a city like San Francisco.
I think it's pretty well-known the issues San Francisco is facing. I'll shop pretty much every city I go to. I'm sure San Francisco will bounce back but for me and what I've witnessed it's just pretty different from the city I knew before the pandemic. Selfishly, I'm hoping property prices go down so I can afford to buy my own row house somewhere along Golden Gate Park, but I'm not holding my breath.
The stance of district attorneys on retail theft seems to sway from extreme to the other over time. The National Retail Foundation has done a considerable amount of lobbying in San Francisco for prosecuting shoplifting to be taken seriously. That lobbying didn't really seem to work out and a lot of retailers left. I suspect eventually things will start to reverse and head the other direction given money tends to do a lot talking.
Then again, it would be fair to mention that police response to shoplifting varied greatly in other states I've worked. Scottsdale was big on trying to convince us to let misdemeanor cases walk also. They often made us hold onto detainees for two-four hours or just flat out told us they weren't going to show. That is probably not the popular perception one has of an Arizonan city. The city DA actually met with me once and spelled it out clearly that they viewed prosecution misdemeanor theft cases as a waste of time.
Hey, a silver lining of all this may be that some of San Francisco shopping may go back to the old days where it wasn't all glitzy an upscale. I wasn't to experience it so I can't say exactly how it was. But I do enjoy some of the more unique and quirky shops.
Certainly possible. The history of Times Square is interesting and full of examples of how it shifted back and forth. At one point it was a seedy, dangerous part of NYC, then it shifted into the LED Mecca it is today. Cities always go through cycles, no doubt SF is any different. History of full of examples of the pendulum swinging in one direction, then going the other direction, then going back, and so on. If the people living there don't like how things are, they will change them. Have to be patient.
Last year I finally clinched the entirety of CA-49 in one day. Was a really fun (albeit long) drive. One of the more interesting drives in the state.
Quote from: Quillz on April 14, 2024, 06:35:06 PMLast year I finally clinched the entirety of CA-49 in one day. Was a really fun (albeit long) drive. One of the more interesting drives in the state.
Haven't done that, but I clinched CA 49 from I-80 to the southern terminus at Oakhurst two days ago on my way to the Bakersfield meet—the original plan was to go north from Reno and clinch all of 49 from north to south, but had to work part of the day and left later than intended. Even still, I think the 49 part of the journey alone took me about 6 hours.
A very fun and interesting drive with lots of scenery and narrow winding sections (and a lot of historical markers that I unfortunately didn't have time to stop at). I found myself thinking a couple times "how is this a state highway?"...especially I think it was the little bit just north of US 50 in Placerville that is essentially a residential street and probably not even 20 feet wide.
CA-49 originally began at CA-140 in Mariposa, the extension down to CA-41/Oakhurst didn't appear to be completed until the 1950s or so. Even then it's a weird mash-mash of various roads that only makes a completed route via concurrencies. I always saw it as the western/southern counterpart to CA-89, another interesting but weird route. (And for bonus points, they have a wrong-way concurrency!)
I clinched the whole thing in one day as part of my trip to Lassen and the Modoc Plateau. Goal was Fresno to Susanville in one day, I had many options. Wanted to do one of the various Sierra crossings (probably 4, 88, or 50), but decided to take the longer way and do 49 to 70 instead.
49 makes a lot more sense the further back in time you go to when the mines played a prominent role in the state. Much of the highway segments were really early additions to the state highway system and haven't changed a great deal. Some portions get a surprisingly high amount of traffic, especially around Sonora and Grass Valley.
Some of the maps in Interstate Kyle's video were those that I originally drew for the Golden Chain Highway blog. The shame is that there was once a multi-county effort to get a webpage going to promote CA 49 as a major touring route. I went a little overboard detailing those historical alignments at the request of the committee which was heading that page.
Quote from: Quillz on April 14, 2024, 06:35:06 PMLast year I finally clinched the entirety of CA-49 in one day. Was a really fun (albeit long) drive. One of the more interesting drives in the state.
Your next assignment is CA-89. That's also a fun, long drive, but interesting in very different ways.
89 mile for mile is probably the most scenic California State Highway. I'm not sure how it doesn't get more mainstream attention with stuff like Emerald Bay, Lassen Peak and Mount Shasta along the routing.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2024, 06:06:13 PM89 mile for mile is probably the most scenic California State Highway. I'm not sure how it doesn't get more mainstream attention with stuff like Emerald Bay, Lassen Peak and Mount Shasta along the routing.
Almost certainly. 1, 4, 70, 108 have enough dull to drag down their ratings.
Quote from: pderocco on April 15, 2024, 05:59:08 PMQuote from: Quillz on April 14, 2024, 06:35:06 PMLast year I finally clinched the entirety of CA-49 in one day. Was a really fun (albeit long) drive. One of the more interesting drives in the state.
Your next assignment is CA-89. That's also a fun, long drive, but interesting in very different ways.
I clinched it years before 49. But I did it in stages. 395 to 49 was 2020, 49 to 5 was last year.
Quote from: cl94 on April 15, 2024, 06:18:42 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2024, 06:06:13 PM89 mile for mile is probably the most scenic California State Highway. I'm not sure how it doesn't get more mainstream attention with stuff like Emerald Bay, Lassen Peak and Mount Shasta along the routing.
Almost certainly. 1, 4, 70, 108 have enough dull to drag down their ratings.
The section of 1 between Pismo Beach and Orcutt is definitely...far from interesting.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 15, 2024, 08:48:01 PMQuote from: cl94 on April 15, 2024, 06:18:42 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2024, 06:06:13 PM89 mile for mile is probably the most scenic California State Highway. I'm not sure how it doesn't get more mainstream attention with stuff like Emerald Bay, Lassen Peak and Mount Shasta along the routing.
Almost certainly. 1, 4, 70, 108 have enough dull to drag down their ratings.
The section of 1 between Pismo Beach and Orcutt is definitely...far from interesting.
The original alignment through Oxnard and the section from Venice to east Long Beach doesn't win any prizes either.
Quote from: heynow415 on April 16, 2024, 11:41:43 AMThe original alignment through Oxnard and the section from Venice to east Long Beach doesn't win any prizes either.
Rice Avenue in Oxnard does have its legacy of "will this ever be signed as Route 1" (which took 15 years from when the reroute was announced in an article for future signing back in 2008, to late last year when it was finally marked on US 101) - the thread I started about it in 2012 highlights the entire saga https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208
I haven't been back in that area in a while to see if 1 shields are now actually on the avenue.
IIRC there's at least one planned spot where Rice will have a grade separation with Route 34...with a projected completion date of 2028. (almost two full decades after signage was originally planned to move to the new routing)
The Rice realignment had been on the books as far back as the 1970s too.
I just commented in that other thread that perhaps they should raise the tracks over the road instead.
Quote from: TheStranger on April 16, 2024, 04:49:52 PMQuote from: heynow415 on April 16, 2024, 11:41:43 AMThe original alignment through Oxnard and the section from Venice to east Long Beach doesn't win any prizes either.
Rice Avenue in Oxnard does have its legacy of "will this ever be signed as Route 1" (which took 15 years from when the reroute was announced in an article for future signing back in 2008, to late last year when it was finally marked on US 101) - the thread I started about it in 2012 highlights the entire saga https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6208
I haven't been back in that area in a while to see if 1 shields are now actually on the avenue.
IIRC there's at least one planned spot where Rice will have a grade separation with Route 34...with a projected completion date of 2028. (almost two full decades after signage was originally planned to move to the new routing)
The Rice realignment had been on the books as far back as the 1970s too.
I was there recently and there is still no CA-1 signage on Rice Avenue, all there is is a CA-1 shield on a BGS (and it's a horrible hack job, the shield doesn't line up with any elements at all). I've said before that CA-1 effectively disappears between the end of the freeway segment south of Oxnard to roughly the historic beginning of CA-1 at the Las Cruces Junction. There is almost no signage (although nowadays the little segment of PCH that parallels the freeway is pretty well signed), so navigation outside of GPS or paper maps can be hard.
https://lastreetnames.com/street/ (https://lastreetnames.com/street/)
Here is a cool road geek page on the history of LA Area street names. Yes its like gribblenation but for local streets.
Speaking of horrible hack jobs, anyone noticed the pasted-up CA 66 shields on CA 210 at Foothill Blvd in San Dimas, or is that just me?
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on April 18, 2024, 01:32:25 PMSpeaking of horrible hack jobs, anyone noticed the pasted-up CA 66 shields on CA 210 at Foothill Blvd in San Dimas, or is that just me?
I've seen it but I didn't bother to get a picture. I was much more interested in the uni-sign in Upland that day:
https://flic.kr/p/2n4m4GT
Quote from: bing101 on April 18, 2024, 12:17:12 PMhttps://lastreetnames.com/street/ (https://lastreetnames.com/street/)
Here is a cool road geek page on the history of LA Area street names. Yes its like gribblenation but for local streets.
Neat. No history on Valley Circle, unfortunately. But a lot of stuff I didn't know. Quite a few wordplay puns, for example. Also didn't catch onto the Spanish explorer theme in the S.F. Valley as some of those streets have since been renamed.