AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: CA 86 Improvements  (Read 1537 times)

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 830
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:21 AM
CA 86 Improvements
« on: December 21, 2016, 01:23:42 AM »

I've read about CA-86, how it has turned into an important NAFTA corridor for big rig trucks moving back and forth between the US and Mexico as well as being one particularly dangerous highway. The conversion to 4 lane apparently hasn't helped all that much. Fatal collisions are still happening along the at grade intersections.

Between the I-10 interchange in Indio and Calexico at the Mexico border CA-86 and CA-111 combine into a highway that looks like it wants to be and probably needs to be an Interstate with fully controlled access. Is there a long term plan to upgrade that corridor into an Interstate class road? Pretty much all of it is 4 lane and a great deal of it is already flanked by frontage roads. With some of the talk going on about CA-99 possibly getting an Interstate designation, either I-9 or I-7, this road farther South could get the other unused designation or be an extension of what might be signed along CA-99. Wasn't CA-99 signed along this corridor to Calexico previously?
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1572
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:49:34 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2016, 03:29:32 AM »

I've read about CA-86, how it has turned into an important NAFTA corridor for big rig trucks moving back and forth between the US and Mexico as well as being one particularly dangerous highway. The conversion to 4 lane apparently hasn't helped all that much. Fatal collisions are still happening along the at grade intersections.

Between the I-10 interchange in Indio and Calexico at the Mexico border CA-86 and CA-111 combine into a highway that looks like it wants to be and probably needs to be an Interstate with fully controlled access. Is there a long term plan to upgrade that corridor into an Interstate class road? Pretty much all of it is 4 lane and a great deal of it is already flanked by frontage roads. With some of the talk going on about CA-99 possibly getting an Interstate designation, either I-9 or I-7, this road farther South could get the other unused designation or be an extension of what might be signed along CA-99. Wasn't CA-99 signed along this corridor to Calexico previously?

Prior to the '64 renumbering, US 99 multiplexed east with US 70, occasionally US 60, and the nascent I-10 from Los Angeles east to Indio before heading more or less SSE along what is now CA 86 to its present south terminus at CA 111 north of Calexico; it multiplexed with CA 111 south from there to the Mexican border.  Its successor through the Central Valley, CA 99, never extended south of the I-5 junction at Wheeler Ridge.  Part & parcel of the rationale for the renumbering 52 years ago was to get rid of lengthy multiplexes; the ones east of L.A. were considered particularly egregious; over Beaumont Summit, the alignment featured US 60/70/99 and, as the freeway was completed, I-10.  Cajon Pass featured US 66/91/395 and, in a situation similar to the I-10 corridor, I-15 (and, for a distance near San Bernardino, CA 18 up until 1962 or so). 

(n.b.: since CA 99 is both HPC #54 and designated as a future Interstate, the following really isn't an exercise in fiction):  It's unlikely that whatever Interstate number might be selected for CA 99, it would be continued down the original US 99 alignment (currently occupied by I-5 & I-10) to service the CA 86 corridor; if ever elevated to Interstate status, an Indio-Calexico route would likely get a new designation (any then-available odd designation between 5 & 15 would do).  However, once a Westmorland bypass is constructed, the combined 86/111 corridor will be completed as a controlled-access expressway north of Calexico (the CA 7 border crossing, slightly to the east, is the designated & suggested truck route in the area -- similar to CA 905 serving as the preferred commercial border crossing as opposed to I-5 in the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa area).  After completing the expressway, IMHO Caltrans will consider the corridor a fait accompli and in all likelihood won't prioritize -- or even entertain -- upgrade notions for some time to come.   
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4041
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:15 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2016, 08:47:52 AM »

I used to drive 86 every couple of weeks when most of the current expressway was being built.  Basically at the time both CA 78 and 86 went through Brawley and there was of course Westmorland....some of the four-land road wasn't completed south of Coachella to 111 either.  I never found 86 to be that dangerous of a roadway back then or particularly dangerous.  There was issues with non-commercial drivers going way too damn fast around the western shore of the Salton Sea but that wasn't anything that would require an upgrade to Interstate standards.  The expressway that is being completed likely will be more than enough to serve the future of the corridor quite nicely for the foreseeable future.

111 on the other hand, holy crap could that road use some passing lanes now and then.  Talk about a complete night and day difference in alignments, I'm sure that surprises the hell out of people who take that by accident over 86...lots of magazine article ruination and bumpy pavement out that way.  :-D

Like Sparker said 86 was part of "US 99" previously.  Basically US 99 was gone by 1969 and what we got left is a bunch of "99" highways in California, Oregon, and Washington.  The really oddity is that at least in California CA 99 still conforms to current AASHTO policy in regards to an intra-state US Route being over 300 miles, so really it was the preference to see the bump to a state route.  USends has a very good stub at the gradual decline of US 99:

http://www.usends.com/99.html

As a side note it is interesting to read up on why US 199 stayed but US 299 became CA 299 in addition how US 399 was pieced up in the 64 renumbering.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 830
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:21 AM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2016, 01:55:02 PM »

Quote from: Sparker
However, once a Westmorland bypass is constructed, the combined 86/111 corridor will be completed as a controlled-access expressway north of Calexico (the CA 7 border crossing, slightly to the east, is the designated & suggested truck route in the area -- similar to CA 905 serving as the preferred commercial border crossing as opposed to I-5 in the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa area).  After completing the expressway, IMHO Caltrans will consider the corridor a fait accompli and in all likelihood won't prioritize -- or even entertain -- upgrade notions for some time to come.

I don't know the overall fatality stats of CA-86, but it's easy to find news reports of fatal accidents along this corridor, even after 4 lane expressway upgrades were completed. One of the most notorious was November 15, 2014 when 5 women were killed in an accident. Six women from Coachella were in a van that pulled onto CA-86 into the path of a pickup truck; the lone survivor in the van was critically injured.

With the main roadways of CA-86 designed to meet freeway standards (and result in higher driving speeds) at grade intersections become a serious problem, especially the more secluded roads that spur off CA-86 in the agricultural areas of that valley. Between Mecca and Westmoreland traffic signals are rare. One was recently installed in Salton City. Some intersections don't have any lighting. That's not a big deal for a smaller, rural highway. This is a major trucking route.

It costs a fortune to upgrade a 4 lane expressway to a completely controlled access freeway. Some parts of CA-86 and CA-111 do have freeway style interchanges. The corridor needs either more of those, elimination of other at grade intersections and perhaps more intersections controlled with traffic signals.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4041
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:15 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2016, 04:19:04 PM »

And expressways like US 101 and CA 58 aren't major trucking routes?  Its hard to sell something like what you're suggesting beyond the current expressway without fatality statistics and traffic counts.  I mean come on, it isn't like 99 is even getting much traction for upgrades with the current climate in the state and that keeps popping up on lists of the most dangerous roadways in the country. 
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1572
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:49:34 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2016, 04:26:07 PM »

Some parts of CA-86 and CA-111 do have freeway style interchanges. The corridor needs either more of those, elimination of other at grade intersections and perhaps more intersections controlled with traffic signals.

It's possible that Caltrans will approach any further improvements to this corridor on an "as needed" or "squeaky wheel" basis.  If accident rates -- tethered to specific locations -- end up being problematic, I'd expect to see grade separations with interchanges deployed at junctions where there is considerable traffic diverging, specifically the 78/86 junction on the west Salton Sea shore (since the Border Patrol uses that intersection as its "rear guard" inspection station, an interchange design would likely have to make provisions for such a facility).  Around Westmorland and Brawley, it's likely that signaling/channelization would be the preferred safety-related improvements unless funding for a major corridor upgrade became available.   

Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 830
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:21 AM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2016, 01:25:38 AM »

Quote from: Max Rockatansky
And expressways like US 101 and CA 58 aren't major trucking routes?

I never accused either one of those routes of being less than significant travel routes. However, both US 101 and CA 58 have a lot more mileage worth of freeway quality segments than CA-86, which has very little despite all the heavy truck activity, high speed traffic and highway fatality accidents.

Let it be known I'm all for upgrading CA-58 between Barstow and I-5 to Interstate quality and extending I-40 along that route. That's something that should have been done decades ago. While US-101 probably has the traffic load to justify a full Interstate upgrade it may be impossible to upgrade all of it between Los Angeles and San Francisco to such a facility.
Logged

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 286
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: May 26, 2017, 06:54:02 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2016, 04:49:30 AM »

I never accused either one of those routes of being less than significant travel routes. However, both US 101 and CA 58 have a lot more mileage worth of freeway quality segments than CA-86, which has very little despite all the heavy truck activity, high speed traffic and highway fatality accidents.

Let it be known I'm all for upgrading CA-58 between Barstow and I-5 to Interstate quality and extending I-40 along that route. That's something that should have been done decades ago. While US-101 probably has the traffic load to justify a full Interstate upgrade it may be impossible to upgrade all of it between Los Angeles and San Francisco to such a facility.

I'd love for US 101 to be upgraded to an interstate if only because they'd have to call it Interstate 1. As for 58, I'd hope they at least remove the remaining traffic signals so it can become a real deal expressway.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 830
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:21 AM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2016, 10:35:07 AM »

Upgrading CA-58 completely to Interstate quality between Barstow and Bakersfield is at least do-able. Bypasses around Hinkley and Kramer Junction will make a full conversion easier if Caltrans and politicians in California ever deem it to be a priority. CA-58 will eventually be 100% freeway between Barstow and Tehachapi. Getting rid of all the little dirt road drive ways and at grade intersections the rest of the way to Bakersfield will be a slow slog. Caltrans may never deal with those unless prodded by politicians interested in super highways. Perhaps if CA-99 is given an Interstate designation (like I-9 or I-7) it might give I-40 a push on getting extended to Bakersfield.

I think upgrading all of US-101 to Interstate quality will be much tougher job. There are so many at grade intersections to remove or convert to freeway exits. A great deal of work would have to be done on the existing freeway quality portions. The main lanes are not up to Interstate standards in many areas. Many exits have substandard ramp designs.

Some portions of US-101, like the stretch between Salinas and Gilroy, would require a lot of existing property to be bought and cleared, which would probably ignite a lot of furious political opposition. That stretch of US-101 has heavy traffic worthy of a much larger road. Still, under the current political environment, I don't see Caltrans wanting to screw with it.

By contrast, I don't think quite so many people would cry foul about the removal of certain intersections and other improvements to bring CA-86 up to Interstate standards.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2531
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:41:22 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2016, 03:32:35 PM »

Upgrading CA-58 completely to Interstate quality between Barstow and Bakersfield is at least do-able. Bypasses around Hinkley and Kramer Junction will make a full conversion easier if Caltrans and politicians in California ever deem it to be a priority.

The Hinkley bypass is currently under construction and will probably open sometime in 2017.  The Kramer Junction bypass has completed the design phase and should be put out to bid in 2017. I would say by 2020, all of CA-58 between Barstow and Bakersfield will be a 4-lane divided highway with a mixture of expressway and freeway segments.  Please note that the two bypasses are being built to "expressway" rather than "freeway" standards.

CA-58 will eventually be 100% freeway between Barstow and Tehachapi. Getting rid of all the little dirt road drive ways and at grade intersections the rest of the way to Bakersfield will be a slow slog. Caltrans may never deal with those unless prodded by politicians interested in super highways

Maybe.

Eliminating the at-grade intersections long the two lengthy stretches of 4-lane expressway, between Mojave and the California City Blvd turnoff and west of Hinkley may prove to be too expensive and provide little benefit to the motoring public.  There's very little cross-traffic and do not recall those stretches of highways having a history of serious traffic accidents.

Perhaps if CA-99 is given an Interstate designation (like I-9 or I-7) it might give I-40 a push on getting extended to Bakersfield.

I doubt it.

I believe Caltrans' ultimate goal is to have a CA-58 freeway/expressway intersect with I-5.  From what I understand, construction is about to begin to link CA-58 to the Westside Pkwy in Bakersfield by extending the freeway west from the current 58/99 interchange.

I also don't believe Caltrans will pursue an I-40 designation because of the costs of upgrading the expressway portions of CA-58 and the cost of having to redo exit numbers on the existing I-40 because the western terminus would move from Barstow to I-5.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4041
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:15 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2016, 04:25:23 PM »

I guess the real question is why does almost everyone who is from out of state seem to think the expressways in California are something super dangerous.  For the most part state routes and U.S. Highways that are built to four lane divided capacity are much better designed than most places in the country.  Most of the time upgrading to a freeway much less a full Interstate won't benefit really anyone all that much.  U.S. 101 doesn't have a single traffic signal between downtown L.A. all the way north to San Francisco.  58 is about to be upgraded in a similar manner to the 101 and 86 is far better designed than what you'll get most places.  I don't see anyone ever really clamoring for an AZ 85, U.S. 127 north of Lansing in Michigan, freeway or even something like a freeway replacement for the U.S. 27 expressway in Florida....or at least I see it a lot less.  Not everything needs to be Interstate capacity to be a quality and adequate facility.  Even 99 really only needs upgrades between Fresno and Delano.  An expansion to six lanes would solve most of the issues there and they wouldn't need to meet Interstate standards to do it.  I'd rather have the money go into roadways that need extra capacity like 65, 152, 156, and 25 just to name some examples.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 04:33:06 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:56:13 PM
CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2016, 08:44:04 PM »

Caltrans has had a policy in place for the last several years called "Intersection Control Evaluation".  Whenever an intersection warrants some kind of improvements in traffic control, our designers are now required to look at various alternatives besides signals.  The alternative that almost always gets looked at is a roundabout, but there are other strategies available.  Signals and interchanges don't necessarily have to be the solution unless the evaluation shows it provides the most benefit.  Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


iPhone
Logged

compdude787

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 303
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Lynnwood, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:29:05 AM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2016, 10:29:04 PM »

Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


Oh, so just like Britain...

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1572
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:49:34 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2016, 12:48:17 AM »

Caltrans has had a policy in place for the last several years called "Intersection Control Evaluation".  Whenever an intersection warrants some kind of improvements in traffic control, our designers are now required to look at various alternatives besides signals.  The alternative that almost always gets looked at is a roundabout, but there are other strategies available.  Signals and interchanges don't necessarily have to be the solution unless the evaluation shows it provides the most benefit.  Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


iPhone
Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


Oh, so just like Britain...

It's unlikely that roundabouts -- particularly those situated along main traffic lanes rather than on/offramps -- will be seriously considered along routes featuring heavy truck traffic -- that's just a disaster waiting to happen!  They'll probably be limited to 2-lane or 4-lane undivided/5-lane facilities where through trucks venture only sporadically -- like the CA 154/246 intersection east of Solvang, where through trucks tend to stay on nearby US 101 and the other routes are dominated by local and recreational traffic. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4041
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:15 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2016, 01:00:45 AM »

Caltrans has had a policy in place for the last several years called "Intersection Control Evaluation".  Whenever an intersection warrants some kind of improvements in traffic control, our designers are now required to look at various alternatives besides signals.  The alternative that almost always gets looked at is a roundabout, but there are other strategies available.  Signals and interchanges don't necessarily have to be the solution unless the evaluation shows it provides the most benefit.  Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


iPhone
Do not be surprised if you see more roundabouts on our 4-lane expressways, as it could be a viable alternative in some instances.


Oh, so just like Britain...

It's unlikely that roundabouts -- particularly those situated along main traffic lanes rather than on/offramps -- will be seriously considered along routes featuring heavy truck traffic -- that's just a disaster waiting to happen!  They'll probably be limited to 2-lane or 4-lane undivided/5-lane facilities where through trucks venture only sporadically -- like the CA 154/246 intersection east of Solvang, where through trucks tend to stay on nearby US 101 and the other routes are dominated by local and recreational traffic.

Not an expressway but I was surprised to see that a roundabout system was put in on 43 just north of the junction with 198.  For a two-lane highway that gets a pretty good deal of truck traffic taking the short cut to 99.  The thing is so new that it doesn't even pop up on satellite view on Google Maps yet.

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1572
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:49:34 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2016, 01:41:18 AM »

Not an expressway but I was surprised to see that a roundabout system was put in on 43 just north of the junction with 198.  For a two-lane highway that gets a pretty good deal of truck traffic taking the short cut to 99.  The thing is so new that it doesn't even pop up on satellite view on Google Maps yet.



Now that's really surprising!  That section of 43 is the main outlet north from Hanford to Fresno (and points beyond).  I'll venture that it's going to be a very short matter of time before a truck loaded down with whatever plows right through the middle of that thing! 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4041
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:03:15 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2016, 03:00:41 PM »

Not an expressway but I was surprised to see that a roundabout system was put in on 43 just north of the junction with 198.  For a two-lane highway that gets a pretty good deal of truck traffic taking the short cut to 99.  The thing is so new that it doesn't even pop up on satellite view on Google Maps yet.



Now that's really surprising!  That section of 43 is the main outlet north from Hanford to Fresno (and points beyond).  I'll venture that it's going to be a very short matter of time before a truck loaded down with whatever plows right through the middle of that thing!

Yeah I think it was built so traffic could access the new Cosco easier which is west of 43 on Lacey.  I have to go up to Fresno on Sunday for the holiday, if I get on the road early I'll make the swing over that way for some photos.  Looked like the northbound lane was still pretty direct but the southbound still takes a fairly wide swing.
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:56:13 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2016, 10:26:03 AM »

It's unlikely that roundabouts -- particularly those situated along main traffic lanes rather than on/offramps -- will be seriously considered along routes featuring heavy truck traffic -- that's just a disaster waiting to happen!  They'll probably be limited to 2-lane or 4-lane undivided/5-lane facilities where through trucks venture only sporadically -- like the CA 154/246 intersection east of Solvang, where through trucks tend to stay on nearby US 101 and the other routes are dominated by local and recreational traffic.

In hindsight, yes, I would agree, we probably won't see many roundabouts on 4-lane divided expressways.   I think there are some technical challenges with roundabout designs on those facilities anyway.  There is talk of putting in roundabouts on CA-126 east of Santa Paula, which is a multilane undivided facility.

I'm just starting to get into the design and operation of roundabouts, as our main expert in the department is retiring this spring and I'll probably be taking over some of his duties when he leaves.  So I have a few things to learn.  And we are all still learning things from the roundabouts that have been put in.






iPhone
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 273
  • Last Login: Today at 10:19:24 AM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #18 on: December 24, 2016, 11:12:32 AM »

It's unlikely that roundabouts -- particularly those situated along main traffic lanes rather than on/offramps -- will be seriously considered along routes featuring heavy truck traffic -- that's just a disaster waiting to happen!  They'll probably be limited to 2-lane or 4-lane undivided/5-lane facilities where through trucks venture only sporadically -- like the CA 154/246 intersection east of Solvang, where through trucks tend to stay on nearby US 101 and the other routes are dominated by local and recreational traffic.

In hindsight, yes, I would agree, we probably won't see many roundabouts on 4-lane divided expressways.   I think there are some technical challenges with roundabout designs on those facilities anyway.  There is talk of putting in roundabouts on CA-126 east of Santa Paula, which is a multilane undivided facility.

I'm just starting to get into the design and operation of roundabouts, as our main expert in the department is retiring this spring and I'll probably be taking over some of his duties when he leaves.  So I have a few things to learn.  And we are all still learning things from the roundabouts that have been put in.
Hopefully you can answer this: Are there any studies that examine accident rates in multilane roundabouts that have lane controls in the roundabouts versus those multilane roundabouts that have no lane markings (e.g., Los Alamitos Traffic Circle)?
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:09 AM
    • AARoads
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #19 on: December 26, 2016, 02:15:04 AM »

Between the I-10 interchange in Indio and Calexico at the Mexico border CA-86 and CA-111 combine into a highway that looks like it wants to be and probably needs to be an Interstate with fully controlled access. Is there a long term plan to upgrade that corridor into an Interstate class road? Pretty much all of it is 4 lane and a great deal of it is already flanked by frontage roads. With some of the talk going on about CA-99 possibly getting an Interstate designation, either I-9 or I-7, this road farther South could get the other unused designation or be an extension of what might be signed along CA-99. Wasn't CA-99 signed along this corridor to Calexico previously?

Prior to the '64 renumbering, US 99 multiplexed east with US 70, occasionally US 60, and the nascent I-10 from Los Angeles east to Indio before heading more or less SSE along what is now CA 86 to its present south terminus at CA 111 north of Calexico; it multiplexed with CA 111 south from there to the Mexican border.  Its successor through the Central Valley, CA 99, never extended south of the I-5 junction at Wheeler Ridge.  Part & parcel of the rationale for the renumbering 52 years ago was to get rid of lengthy multiplexes; the ones east of L.A. were considered particularly egregious; over Beaumont Summit, the alignment featured US 60/70/99 and, as the freeway was completed, I-10.  Cajon Pass featured US 66/91/395 and, in a situation similar to the I-10 corridor, I-15 (and, for a distance near San Bernardino, CA 18 up until 1962 or so). 

There has been some talk of decommissioning SR 86 between Brawley and Imperial, including the segment through El Centro. Caltrans prepared a report on the feasibility of this in 2011. It is available here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/systplan/30-SR-86RelinquishmentEvaluationJune2011.pdf. Here's a sample quote:

Quote
The County of Imperial, the City of El Centro, the City of Imperial, and the City of Brawley are supportive of this relinquishment. They have expressed an interest in having full control of these portions of SR-86 within their jurisdictions so they would have the ability to issue permits to new developments for roadway connections, thereby eliminating the need to obtain State encroachment permits or State involvement.

The relinquishment of SR 86 through the city of Imperial appears to be moving forward, based on an article I found in the March 2016 Milemarker 11 (see http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/milemarker11/march2016.pdf), which states "There are multiple projects underway or set to begin in 2016 that will improve more than 100 miles of roadway (in Imperial County). Among these projects, is rehabilitation work on four miles of State Route 86 in the city of Imperial as part of a Caltrans relinquishment process, and a new signal at Hovley Road and State Route 78. Currently under construction, the Caltrans Maintenance station in El Centro will bring much needed new facilities to the region and will house 50 employees, equipment and materials." This same newsletter contains a map at the end showing pavement work underway along SR 86 north of SR 78

The 2011 also report mentions a proposal for a new state-maintained roadway that could be built along the current Forrester Road (S-30) corridor west of the current SR 86 corridor. It is not explicit that Forrester Road would be a realigned route for SR 86, but I suppose it is possible if the existing route is decommissioned to county and municipal governments. The 2011 report states:

Quote
The Forrester Road Interregional Corridor Study was completed in April 2009. The report analyzes a variety of short-term and long-term alternatives to improve Forrester Road between SR-98 and SR-78. These alternatives including widening the existing two lane roadway to a four and six lane facility, and developing interchange  improvements at I-8/Forrester Road. The study also evaluates transportation demands and resulting infrastructure needs required to serve the demand for growing regional, interregional, and international traffic. In addition, the study looks at transportation improvements intended to facilitate the movement of freight and related goods to meet the needs of agriculture and related industries in Imperial Valley, including cross-border commercial vehicle traffic. One of the study’s long range future network alternatives is to develop Forrester Road as a Caltrans facility between SR-98 and SR-78. The study discusses the need to relinquish SR-86, which supports this current relinquishment recommendation. By providing the additional Forrester Road corridor for commercial goods movement and international, interregional and regional traffic, the need to retain SR-86 as a State highway is minimized.

The Transportation Concept Report Summary for SR 86 is in two files: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/corridor-mobility/D8_docs/TCRs/sr-86.pdf (portion of SR 86 in District VIII) and http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/tcs/08_Jan_SR_86TCS.pdf (SR 86 in District XI). The District 8 section specifically states that it is intended to function as a full freeway in its ultimate configuration, as noted on page 4:

Quote
The SR-86 ultimate corridor will be a six-lane freeway for the controlled access portion of the highway within the urbanized areas and for the rural portion of the highway, the ultimate corridor will be determined by its potential as a significant, goods-movement route and for its seasonal/recreational traffic potential. The intent is to take advantage of or develop opportunities for long term right of way acquisition and to work with local and regional agencies to implement corridor preservation measures. The ultimate facility will accommodate anticipated growth, which is expected to occur during and beyond the twenty year planning horizon.

But that appears not to be the case for SR 86 from the Riverside-Imperial County line south to its southern terminus. As noted on page 4 of the District 11 report, "With the exception of the proposed Westmorland Bypass 4-lane expressway, there are no mainline capacity enhancing projects proposed for SR-86." I believe the existing facility, which was only recently converted into a four-lane expressway, was considered to be satisfactory for the planning horizon of the 2008 transportation concept report.

An update to the SR 86 transportation concept report and a study of upgrading Forrester Road (S-30) are listed on a map that showing ongoing planning efforts in Imperial County - see http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/maps/StatusMapImperial.pdf.

So I guess we'll see what happens next with SR 86.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:51:09 AM
    • AARoads
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2016, 02:30:28 AM »

After I wrote the last post, I found a copy of the December 2016 Transportation Concept Report for the portion of SR 86 in District 11:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/departments/planning/pdfs/tcr/2016_TCR_SR_86_IMP.pdf

This new report calls for decommissioning of all of SR 86 south of the western intersection with SR 78 (Segments 1 through 11 as described below). The shared/concurrent/cosigned SR 78-86 would become solely SR 78. The TCR divides up SR 86 into 12 segments:

SEGMENT 1 is from SR-111 to McCabe Road with agricultural fields surrounding the route in the
beginning of the segment. The route begins as a two-lane conventional highway as it enters the
community of Heber that includes two four-way stop sign intersections.
SEGMENT 2 is from McCabe Road to I-8 and traverses from a rural to an urban landscape, north of
McCabe Road in the City of El Centro.
SEGMENT 3 is from I-8 to Main Street in El Centro, known locally as 4th Street
SEGMENT 4 is from Main Street to Adams/North Imperial Avenue and extends from North 4th Street and
merges into Adams Avenue at North 5th Street in the City of El Centro
SEGMENT 5 is from Adams Avenue/North Imperial Avenue (El Centro) to Aten Road (City of Imperial)
SEGMENT 6 is from Aten Road to Barioni Boulevard in the City of Imperial. In this segment, the Imperial
County Airport and Imperial Valley Expo are directly across from one another with North Imperial Avenue
(SR-86) separating the airport land use and the events center.
SEGMENT 7 is from Barioni Boulevard to Legion Road and is known as the Frank A. Story Memorial
Highway
SEGMENT 8 is from Legion Road to West Main Street in the City of Brawley. In this segment there are
commercial shopping centers, motels and restaurants on West Main.
SEGMENT 9 is from West Main Street in the City of Brawley to Fredericks Road/Junction SR-78, or the
western edge of the Brawley Bypass, also known as the SR-78 Expressway.
SEGMENT 10 is from Fredericks Road/Junction SR-78 to Forrester Road/Center Street. The highway is a
four-lane conventional highway with commercial businesses that serves the City of Westmorland.
SEGMENT 11 is from Forrester Road/Center Street to West Junction SR-78.
SEGMENT 12 is from West Junction SR-78 to the Imperial/Riverside County Line

See chart on page 5 and text on page 46:

Quote
Relinquishment

SR-86 primarily functions as a Main Street through the community of Heber and the cities of El Centro,
Imperial, Brawley, and Westmorland with high concentrations of access points and bicycle and
pedestrian crossings. In certain segments, the surrounding land use consists of primarily residential and
commercial centers and the route operates more like a city street rather than an interregional state
highway, normally characterized by higher speeds and limited access points.

In order to have greater control of the design and operation of SR-86, the City of Imperial began
discussions with Caltrans regarding the potential relinquishment of the route within their jurisdiction
from Treshill Road (PM 8.80) to Ralph Road (PM 12.30). A Project Study Report (PSR) was completed for
this portion of the route and upon completion of the rehabilitation outlined in the PSR, the California
Transportation Commission (CTC) can approve the relinquishment to the city. This will allow the City of
Imperial to manage, maintain, and improve the roadway within their community to meet their needs or
vision for the corridor.

In 2011, a Transportation System Analysis and Evaluation (TSAE) Report was developed by Caltrans
District 11 to address and determine the appropriateness of relinquishing portions of the SR-86 from of
SR-111 (PM 0.0) to SR-78 East Junction (PM 24.20). Following the TSAE, a Project Study Report for Project
Development Support was developed in 2013 by Caltrans to request programming for capital support in
the SHOPP program for the relinquishment.

Forrester Road

The SR-86 corridor is instrumental in providing goods movement for commodities that enter the country
via the POE’s and for the different agricultural activities in Imperial County. Due to the Main Street
character found in the various cities, trucks often use Forrester Road as a way to bypass the congested
city centers. Originally designed to only facilitate local agricultural traffic, Forrester Road’s function has
evolved to include international cross border traffic.32 As the relinquishment discussions developed with
the local jurisdictions along SR-86, ICTC, Caltrans, and SCAG conducted the Forrester Road Interregional
Corridor Study that examined the possibility of relinquishing the current alignment of SR-86, including
alternatives for a bypass of the City of Westmorland. By superseding Forrester Road as the new state
highway, this alternative would alleviate potential traffic impacts caused by intraregional and interregional
growth and increasing border traffic between Mexico and the United States.

ROUTE CONCEPT

CONCEPT RATIONALE

As previously discussed, SR-86 primarily functions as a Main Street through the community of Heber and
the cities of El Centro, Imperial, Brawley, and Westmorland with high concentrations of access points
and high bicycle and pedestrian volumes. In certain segments, the surrounding land use consists of
primarily residential and commercial centers and the route operates more like a city street rather than
an interregional state highway, normally characterized by higher speeds and limited access points.

Therefore, the concept for SR-86 is to relinquish segments (segments 1-9) to allow for the local
jurisdictions to have the final authority on future street improvements and ultimately streamline the
permitting process for their development projects.

Segments 10 through 12 will continue to be part of the state highway system as it serves as a major
goods movement corridor serving the greater Los Angeles area and beyond. There is currently a Break
in Route between the SR-86 west junction and the Brawley Bypass; therefore, segments 10 and 11 will
be designated as SR-78 to provide a continuous alignment for that route.

In the 2013 Imperial County Long Range Transportation Plan, there is a proposed project called the
Westmorland Bypass that allows through traffic to bypass the City of Westmorland. This four-lane
expressway on the new alignment would extend approximately four miles from SR-86/SR-78 near Andre
Road and rejoin SR-86/SR-78 near Lack Road and would be designated as SR-78. Segment 12 would be
maintained as a four-lane expressway as SR-86.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 232
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:56:13 PM
Re: CA 86 Improvements
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2016, 01:26:15 PM »

It's unlikely that roundabouts -- particularly those situated along main traffic lanes rather than on/offramps -- will be seriously considered along routes featuring heavy truck traffic -- that's just a disaster waiting to happen!  They'll probably be limited to 2-lane or 4-lane undivided/5-lane facilities where through trucks venture only sporadically -- like the CA 154/246 intersection east of Solvang, where through trucks tend to stay on nearby US 101 and the other routes are dominated by local and recreational traffic.

In hindsight, yes, I would agree, we probably won't see many roundabouts on 4-lane divided expressways.   I think there are some technical challenges with roundabout designs on those facilities anyway.  There is talk of putting in roundabouts on CA-126 east of Santa Paula, which is a multilane undivided facility.

I'm just starting to get into the design and operation of roundabouts, as our main expert in the department is retiring this spring and I'll probably be taking over some of his duties when he leaves.  So I have a few things to learn.  And we are all still learning things from the roundabouts that have been put in.
Hopefully you can answer this: Are there any studies that examine accident rates in multilane roundabouts that have lane controls in the roundabouts versus those multilane roundabouts that have no lane markings (e.g., Los Alamitos Traffic Circle)?

I'm not aware of a specific comparison like that.
The Los Alamitos Traffic Circle is not considered a roundabout so I think that would be comparing apples to oranges. 

We do have some data on single versus multilane roundabouts.  I don't know the numbers offhand but we are encouraging single lane operation if possible at initial opening while designing the facility for expansion in the future.



iPhone
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.