🛣 Headlines About California Highways – June 2021

[Plutonic Panda]

It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.

Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.

[theroadwayone]

It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.

Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.

Yeah, Midtown Expressway, and the LOMEX and I-78 on Long Island. While we're at it, extend I-278 through Springfield (underground) and plug I-78 into it's auxiliaries.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's also funny how that article fails to mention NYC taking top place in traffic congestion(even though I'm not the biggest fan of using the hours wasted in traffic metric) after it's been removing car lanes in favor of bus and bike lanes left and right. Then city leaders claim the only way to reduce traffic is to implement congestion pricing.

Here's a novel plan, how about building out the original 20th century subway plan, removing all bus and parking lanes, and restoring all car lanes with a network of protected bike lanes. Build the Midtown Expressway in Tokyo fashion.

Yeah, Midtown Expressway, and the LOMEX and I-78 on Long Island. While we're at it, extend I-278 through Springfield (underground) and plug I-78 into it's auxiliaries.

Im game.

[skluth]

What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1

I also find it amusing how that article uses a city with declining population growth as a model for freeway removal claiming there wasn't an increase in traffic– again, in a city that is seeing a net loss in population.

The parallel is that both Rochester's freeway and I-980 are adjacent to downtowns. I don't think most urbanists look beyond that. The difference is Rochester's freeway didn't go anywhere; it was a beltway for the downtown and even with it removed doesn't change the commute for tens of thousands of drivers. I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.

This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.

[Max Rockatansky]

What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1

I also find it amusing how that article uses a city with declining population growth as a model for freeway removal claiming there wasn't an increase in traffic– again, in a city that is seeing a net loss in population.

The parallel is that both Rochester's freeway and I-980 are adjacent to downtowns. I don't think most urbanists look beyond that. The difference is Rochester's freeway didn't go anywhere; it was a beltway for the downtown and even with it removed doesn't change the commute for tens of thousands of drivers. I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.

This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.

The part that gets me is how everyone has forgotten that I-980 essentially carried all the Nimitz traffic when the Cypress Viaduct collapsed in the Loma Prieta Earthquake.  Having a tiny bit of redundancy in the limited access road network can go a long way and that was a prime example.

[myosh_tino]

I-980 is an important connector between CA 24 and I-880; removing it would move the traffic from I-980 onto I-580 as it approaches the SF-O Bay Bridge and the Nimitz next to Oakland's port. Removing I-980 would instead toss that commuting traffic onto other already crowded freeways.

It's actually more complicated than that.  If I-980 is removed, then ramps would need to be constructed connecting I-880 to I-580 at the MacArthur Maze.  Otherwise, that commute traffic will find it's way onto Oakland's city streets as commuters try to get to I-880 from the inland east bay which I'm sure is not what the locals want.

This is not to say every freeway removal option is dumb. However, removing I-980 would be incredibly dumb and short-sighted.

I agree.

[cahwyguy]

What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1

To answer the question: They are articles I find of interest that I want to come back to for when I update my California Highways pages. Generally they have to do with California highways, but occasionally they are just something I want to read in more detail.

[andy3175]

CalTrans to start work on $5.6M Highway 273 project. CalTrans will begin working on a project at the intersection of Highway 273 and Girvan Road Wednesday. CalTrans said they are going to create a flat railroad crossing that will also include a new bus stop, remove the sidewalk gap on Eastside Road, improve the intersection and widen the lanes to current standards. They will also install a trail between Westside Road and Canyon Road. The traffic signal will be deactivated and access to Girvan and Westside roads will be blocked. The total cost of the project is $5.6 million. (Action News Now)

Looking at the Google Maps for this area, while the railroad crossing is under construction on Girvan Road, there appears to be just one way in or out of the neighborhood bounded by the railroad parallel to SR 273 on the west, the Sacramento River on the east, Clear Creek on the south, and farmland/Allen's Golf Course on the north. The detour to South Bonnyview Road is a bit out of the way especially when traveling south. Here is a link to the Google Map of this area: https://goo.gl/maps/9aEzcsQwsNwfFyWeA.

Hopefully the project will improve the connection between SR 273 and the neighborhood east of the railroad.

[Plutonic Panda]

What do articles like this have to do with California headlines regarding its highways:

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/05/30/removing-highways-improving-cities-difficult/?guccounter=1

To answer the question: They are articles I find of interest that I want to come back to for when I update my California Highways pages. Generally they have to do with California highways, but occasionally they are just something I want to read in more detail.

Thanks for the response.

[Occidental Tourist]

Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?

Reviewed the 101/25 plan as shown in the OP several times; while referring to future phases, there's no specific mention of a parclo format being built; only the fact that the current folded-diamond "stem" connecting the NB 101 offramp/onramp to CA 25 will get a signal at the latter intersection.  IIRC, the original plans moving the connection farther north did have a parclo as one of the interchange options.  If there are links to documents indicating said parclo at the interchange site, please supply them -- thanks!

Page 14 of the linked PowerPoint identifies an "ultimate configuration"  with a curved northbound offramp and on-ramp: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Webpage%20version_101-25%20Open%20House_SLIDES.pdf

My description of it as a "parclo"  was a bit generous.  "Slightly better ramp radii"  might be a more accurate description.

[sparker]

Does anyone know when they plan to start Phase II with the partial cloverleaf?

Reviewed the 101/25 plan as shown in the OP several times; while referring to future phases, there's no specific mention of a parclo format being built; only the fact that the current folded-diamond "stem" connecting the NB 101 offramp/onramp to CA 25 will get a signal at the latter intersection.  IIRC, the original plans moving the connection farther north did have a parclo as one of the interchange options.  If there are links to documents indicating said parclo at the interchange site, please supply them -- thanks!

Page 14 of the linked PowerPoint identifies an "ultimate configuration"  with a curved northbound offramp and on-ramp: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Webpage%20version_101-25%20Open%20House_SLIDES.pdf

My description of it as a "parclo"  was a bit generous.  "Slightly better ramp radii"  might be a more accurate description.

Well, that's marginally better.  If D4 and possibly D5 (depending upon alignment preferences) plan on including a relocated CA 152, with its massive truck flow, in the mix, they had better plan on a set of free-flow movements from SB 101 to SB 25/EB 152 and vice-versa -- the combination of Hollister-bound/originating commute traffic and semis heading to and from Pacheco Pass will overwhelm any configuration that requires traffic stoppage.  To and from south 101, not so much; CA 156 generally handles much of that overall regional movement.  A nice SB>EB flyover would handle things quite well. 

Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project -- please!!!!!

[Concrete Bob]

Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project -- please!!!!!

Amen to all that !!!  This is a serious inter-regional project, especially when factoring the future SR 152 upgrade/re-route. 

[sparker]

Just keep anyone with visions of roundabouts well away from this project -- please!!!!!

Amen to all that !!!  This is a serious inter-regional project, especially when factoring the future SR 152 upgrade/re-route. 

Don't know if the plans for such are current, but a couple of years ago a roundabout was mentioned as one of the intersection options for the CA 25/156 junction just north of Hollister.  Given the truck traffic on 156 (Valley to Monterey Peninsula/Watsonville and back), it's a spectacularly bad idea unless it's a "hybrid", with at least a bridge over the whole mess along 156.  It might work with CA 25 as currently configured (standard semi-rural 2-lane), but if it's elevated to a 4-lane expressway as per current (and let) D5 plans, the raised prevailing speeds on that enhanced road might render a roundabout problematic on that road as well.  Currently the intersection is signalized with channelized lefts; even with peak commute traffic, it seems to work reasonably well; whoever set the signal timing pretty much got it right!  IMO simply grade-separating the intersection with 156 as the prevailing route and simple diamond ramps to 25 would be the best option if an upgrade is deemed necessary; no need to throw in the favored design du jour just because it's there!