🛣 Headlines About California Highways – October 2023

[cahwyguy]

It's a new month, and you know what that means: It's time for headlines related to California Highways. There have been a lot of headlines this month. Additionally, there are some resources here I discovered while working on the podcasts; there are links to the two podcast episodes dropped during the month, and there are some articles that will certainly spur some discussion... so, "ready, set, discuss".

Link to the headline post: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16599

[Max Rockatansky]

Looks like the Yankee Jim Bridge just got kicked up the priority list for me.  I'll have to wait until Jessica gets her Forester back to I can stuff my mountain bike in the back.

[Quillz]

You've got an article in there about Arizona and one about Detroit.

[cahwyguy]

You've got an article in there about Arizona and one about Detroit.

Yup. The one about Arizona deals with the section of AZ 95 that was routed in California. The Detroit one deals with highway removals gone wrong, and there are also discussions about proposed removals for Route 980 and Route 90, so it seemed relevant and interesting.

[pderocco]

I wish I knew about Yankee Jims Bridge two weeks ago, as I was up there exploring the old Historic US-40 routing. I see there's another similar bridge upstream on Iowa Hill Rd that has already been bypassed by a wider more modern bridge. The two would make a nice loop to travel.

[Max Rockatansky]

I wish I knew about Yankee Jims Bridge two weeks ago, as I was up there exploring the old Historic US-40 routing. I see there's another similar bridge upstream on Iowa Hill Rd that has already been bypassed by a wider more modern bridge. The two would make a nice loop to travel.

That and the Mosquito Road Bridge.  That replacement project is well underway, I got up there before it started. 

You've got an article in there about Arizona and one about Detroit.

Yup. The one about Arizona deals with the section of AZ 95 that was routed in California.

And is still somehow fairly decently signed on Needles.  Of all the things I didn't expect to survive the last decade in Needles the AZ 95 Detour Route was high on that list.

[pderocco]

I've used USGS Topoview a fair amount, and it's a nice resource, but rather clumsy. I wish all those scans were incorporated into Google Earth. There is already Earth Point Top Map, which has the latest USGS maps, and is smart enough to select the quad size based on eye altitude. Google Earth has a time slider, which could be used to switch among the different vintages of historic imagery, if only they could add it to their server.

[pderocco]

Rumsey has a 1926 Los Angeles map which shows it going only as far south as Electric Blvd, which I believe is now Venice Blvd. A 1928 map shows it going a smidge further, not quite to Washington. I also found a 1933 map scan, pretty low resolution, from 1933 showing it crossing Culver and ending at what's now Imperial Hwy after crossing what's now LAX. So all that was built some time around 1930. A 1938 Thomas map from Rumsey shows that in greater detail. It doesn't show anything resembling a grade separation between Lincoln and Culver. Perhaps that was built when LAX was built.

[pderocco]

So CA-2, a.k.a. Angeles Crest Hwy, is now somewhat less closed than it was. That's nice. But since when is it considered a north/south route? The article speaks of a closed section "from just north of Mt. Wilson Red Box Road to just south of Upper Big Tujunga Canyon Road". These points are on almost the same latitude, with a heading of 74 degrees, and the road itself is pretty much east/west at those points.

[Quillz]

It seems this whole thing about the Marina Freeway went from 0-100 very fast. Just a few months ago it seemed like just an idea someone proposed, now it's like a serious thing that might happen? I'm kind of neutral on it. I think there are some good arguments that can be made in both directions. It was never fully realized and it doesn't get a lot of traffic most of the time. But as someone who works at LAX and thus has to drive by that junction every day, it is always packed on both ends, either CA-1 or I-405. It may not carry a lot of traffic overall, but it certainly does during peak hours. And I disagree that it's a "freeway to nowhere." It isn't very long but it has a distinct corridor that no other surface street perfectly parallels.

Granted, I'm sure any action is probably years away, but I would say I lean more towards "keep it around." Would there be plans to move CA-90 onto surface streets?

[cahwyguy]

It seems this whole thing about the Marina Freeway went from 0-100 very fast. Just a few months ago it seemed like just an idea someone proposed, now it's like a serious thing that might happen? I'm kind of neutral on it. I think there are some good arguments that can be made in both directions. It was never fully realized and it doesn't get a lot of traffic most of the time. But as someone who works at LAX and thus has to drive by that junction every day, it is always packed on both ends, either CA-1 or I-405. It may not carry a lot of traffic overall, but it certainly does during peak hours. And I disagree that it's a "freeway to nowhere." It isn't very long but it has a distinct corridor that no other surface street perfectly parallels.

Granted, I'm sure any action is probably years away, but I would say I lean more towards "keep it around." Would there be plans to move CA-90 onto surface streets?

If you read a later article on this that was also in the post ( https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-28/marina-freeway-community-outreach-study-housing-park ) , the proposal started a petition that got lawmakers to backtrack, and it looks like the idea is either off the stove and tossed in the trash, or at best on a low simmer. Having just driven the 90 last night after taking a friend back to the Marina, it's really hard to see how the proposal work would in the real world. It looks good on paper, but the location just wouldn't work for the linear park or housing.

[Quillz]

It seems this whole thing about the Marina Freeway went from 0-100 very fast. Just a few months ago it seemed like just an idea someone proposed, now it's like a serious thing that might happen? I'm kind of neutral on it. I think there are some good arguments that can be made in both directions. It was never fully realized and it doesn't get a lot of traffic most of the time. But as someone who works at LAX and thus has to drive by that junction every day, it is always packed on both ends, either CA-1 or I-405. It may not carry a lot of traffic overall, but it certainly does during peak hours. And I disagree that it's a "freeway to nowhere." It isn't very long but it has a distinct corridor that no other surface street perfectly parallels.

Granted, I'm sure any action is probably years away, but I would say I lean more towards "keep it around." Would there be plans to move CA-90 onto surface streets?

If you read a later article on this that was also in the post ( https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-10-28/marina-freeway-community-outreach-study-housing-park ) , the proposal started a petition that got lawmakers to backtrack, and it looks like the idea is either off the stove and tossed in the trash, or at best on a low simmer. Having just driven the 90 last night after taking a friend back to the Marina, it's really hard to see how the proposal work would in the real world. It looks good on paper, but the location just wouldn't work for the linear park or housing.

It's another one of those "I'll believe it when it happens" ideas. When I heard about it, yeah, building more parks is nice and if it will benefit the local residents, great. But I just didn't really understand how it's going to solve anything. People won't start taking buses or light rail, they'll just move onto the local streets instead.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wow, they're actually considering closing Wilshire Boulevard to reconnect MacArthur Park. I've always envisioned perhaps sinking Wilshire Boulevard enough to wear a park cap could be built over it or part of it. But completely closing the road.

It seems like every week they're closing a car lane in favor of building a bus or a bike lane talking about tearing out a freeway this is insanity.

https://mynewsla.com/business/2023/10/05/new-project-aims-to-reconnect-macarthur-park/?fbclid=IwAR1J-j3TUFcKCJln4gir1lP032uIhRDh4gl5N_sAPyUH3QbRevSG7rRk7aA

[Quillz]

It's not insanity just because you don't like or agree with it.

And if it's like the Marina Freeway, it's an idea. A project like that is years away, if it happens at all.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's not insanity just because you don't like or agree with it.

And if it's like the Marina Freeway, it's an idea. A project like that is years away, if it happens at all.

Sure that's just my opinion. I'm not sure why that has to be stated. To me, it's insanity. I completely support, adding alternative modes of transit. But the way Metro is going about doing it is completely comical. Their service sucks number one. It's not safe. They have ramped up, fair enforcement and more.

But it seems like every day, and I drive a lot I noticed a lane closure for some bike lane that I rarely ever see cyclist use. I see Bus lanes on La Brea now and when I tried to use the bus lanes during peak hour, it didn't really change much of anything.

Now they're talking about putting up speed cameras, more and more intersections are banning right turns on red, they're putting in these stupid bike boxes like they just did in front of my apartment on Hawthorne, which is caused backups all the way to Sycamore, which never used to happen before they banned right turns on red with a few exceptions of special events that happened on Hollywood Boulevard.

They're talking about closing Wilshire, one of the most important roads in the city to connect a park that already can be connected without having to close the road. There's this thing that already exist called a tunnel.

They cancel the 710 tunnel in Pasadena. They cancel the high Desert corridor freeway. They cancel the 710 and 605 expansions.

I mean, have you ever gone on Metro website and look at the projects they have proposed? They have simple bicycle paths like the rail to RIVER that they claim will take five years to build.

You have people like Joe Linton that go absolutely nuts over a fucking auxiliary lane.

If we don't want to expand freeways, why can't we least modernize our existing freeway to freeway interchanges?

How about adding a bus lane down the 101 and restoring bus service along that freeway? There's plenty of room to do it. It would just require some earthwork and reinforcement of existing retaining walls.

The websites, a joke they have projects that haven't even been updated for 6-7 years. Caltrans rarely gets back with you if you're inquiring about them building or expanding a freeway that needs it. Building a stack at the 101 and 405 interchange. LADOT has blocked me on Twitter, after having broken, no rules of being rude, using profanity or anything like that simply just disagreeing about their tactics.

They have projects like the Hyperion Avenue bridge that was supposed to begin back in 2019, projects like the I-10/overland interchange project that was supposed to begin soon or already underway. They don't even respond when asked about that now.

The entire length of the k line was supposed to open years ago and now the section that did open was a year or two behind schedule in the entire thing still isn't even completed. Not to mention the fact they're going to shut it down in 2026 through 2029 or so to construct a bridge at Centinela. That is to grade separate the light rail train.

Then they're building a glorified light rail street car down Van Nuys Blvd. focusing on changing the orange line from Bus, rapid transit to light rail train, which is not needed.

And then above all they claim oh, we want to just remake LA as a less car dependent city but if you notice on nearly every single project, they retain car parking. How is that any different than just having it as a driving lane to keep traffic moving so people can get where they need to be and not sit in traffic idling their engines?

And then you have the schemes like narrowing fountain Avenue from two lanes each way to one.

Characterize it however you want but to me that is insanity. That is incompetency at the highest level. I'm not against making LA less dependent, but this is not the way to go.

[Quillz]

You make lots of good points, but perhaps some of these things you assume are simple are not as simple as they seem. And other things like anything involving the 710 is always going to have lots of community opposition. Many freeways were the product of ignoring opposition and plowing (or tunneling) through them anyway.

[cahwyguy]

It's not insanity just because you don't like or agree with it.

And if it's like the Marina Freeway, it's an idea. A project like that is years away, if it happens at all.

Sure that's just my opinion. I'm not sure why that has to be stated. To me, it's insanity. I completely support, adding alternative modes of transit. But the way Metro is going about doing it is completely comical. Their service sucks number one. It's not safe. They have ramped up, fair enforcement and more.

One thing I've learned after years and years of doing my highway pages, and years of years of reading CTC minutes, is that no project is as simple as it seems, and things always take much longer and sometimes never happen. That's one reason I strive so hard to be neutral on these things, and just report what I read. Why get upset when I don't know all the details. Let's look at some of the examples here.

But it seems like every day, and I drive a lot I noticed a lane closure for some bike lane that I rarely ever see cyclist use. I see Bus lanes on La Brea now and when I tried to use the bus lanes during peak hour, it didn't really change much of anything.

Often the point of these lanes is not to speed up traffic, but to slow it down -- on purpose. This encourages people to get out of their single passenger cars to get onto the transit, which is the ultimate goal. Nowadays, these agencies have a goal of more than just moving people, but to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

[ ... ]
They're talking about closing Wilshire, one of the most important roads in the city to connect a park that already can be connected without having to close the road. There's this thing that already exist called a tunnel.

I believe Wilshire is under the control of the city, not LA Metro, so get your ire in the right place. Soil conditions or utilities may not permit a tunnel -- that's a much older part of the city. Given the traffic in the area, they may just want to reroute people around the park.

They cancel the 710 tunnel in Pasadena. They cancel the high Desert corridor freeway. They cancel the 710 and 605 expansions.

The 710 tunnel in Pasadena was never going to happen. NEVER. It was far too expensive, and would involve far too much utility relocation. Once the surface routing was abandoned, that was dead.

The High Desert Corridor really didn't need a freeway in that area. They can just improve the roads that are there into expressways. They are getting close with the continuing improvements on Route 138.

Both 710 and 605 have major projects in the works. But the real answer there isn't widening the roads -- it is widening the train corridors. Get the containers onto the trains, and out to the inland empires and the deserts where land is cheaper. Put them on the trucks there, instead of concentrating everything at the port. What clogs the 710 and 605 is truck traffic, and that's not local.

I mean, have you ever gone on Metro website and look at the projects they have proposed? They have simple bicycle paths like the rail to RIVER that they claim will take five years to build.

Have you studied what is involved with building these projects? The years of environmental work. The community meetings required? The right of way and uiltity acquisitions, and the landowners that slow things down? These are not fast processes.

[ ... ]
If we don't want to expand freeways, why can't we least modernize our existing freeway to freeway interchanges?

How about adding a bus lane down the 101 and restoring bus service along that freeway? There's plenty of room to do it. It would just require some earthwork and reinforcement of existing retaining walls.

Because it is often more than that, as sparker used to point out. There are issues with soil conditions, noise, environmental, utilities. There is the need to have places to stage construction equipment. There is the need to keep the existing infrastructure open and moving during all of this. And, most importantly, there are limits on money and funding that often stop things before they start (and things have just gotten more expensive, with less money coming in from gas taxes as folks electrify and go to hybrids. Everytime they try VMT, people get up in arms.

The websites, a joke they have projects that haven't even been updated for 6-7 years. Caltrans rarely gets back with you if you're inquiring about them building or expanding a freeway that needs it. Building a stack at the 101 and 405 interchange. LADOT has blocked me on Twitter, after having broken, no rules of being rude, using profanity or anything like that simply just disagreeing about their tactics.

Do what I do. Read the CTC minutes. You get a lot of updates on projects. As for Caltrans, you need to talk to the right people, and build relationships with the Public Information Officers. You also need to understand and be realistic about the process.

They have projects like the Hyperion Avenue bridge that was supposed to begin back in 2019, projects like the I-10/overland interchange project that was supposed to begin soon or already underway. They don't even respond when asked about that now.

Have funding priorities changes? But to see the status, and what is going on, find the project in the SHIP or the SHOPP. Those are publicly available on the Caltrans website. Look things up by the PPNO, EA, or Project ID. You can then see what is holding up the project. THe information is there. You just have to find it.

The entire length of the k line was supposed to open years ago and now the section that did open was a year or two behind schedule in the entire thing still isn't even completed. Not to mention the fact they're going to shut it down in 2026 through 2029 or so to construct a bridge at Centinela. That is to grade separate the light rail train.

Rail lines often run into problems with the utilities dragging their feet on moving lines, which slows construction. Again: Subscribe to their email lists and attend the public meetings.

Then they're building a glorified light rail street car down Van Nuys Blvd. focusing on changing the orange line from Bus, rapid transit to light rail train, which is not needed.

Actually, it is needed. I say this as someone who lives in the valley. The Orange Line would have been better as light rail from the start, but the NIMBYs prevented it. Van Nuys desperately needs better transit on the route. Where Metro fails is serving the North Valley. There is no transit (or precious little) N of Devonshire -- try and find a bus line in Porter Ranch.

[ ... ]
Characterize it however you want but to me that is insanity. That is incompetency at the highest level. I'm not against making LA less dependent, but this is not the way to go.

Outside observers know nothing about the competence of the people doing their jobs. They see things going slow, and they thing it is the fault of the people, when there are so many other factors. They blame the workers for the problems, when often it is the direction they are given by the political entities -- who often have different goals than you would like.

I'm not saying you need to agree with what is being done. But you do need to understand that often what slows things down, or moves projects in directions that you personally might not like, are forces that you cannot see. It is often forces that have far different goals than you might have. Does that make them "bad"? Bad is judgment call and is a perspective. It just makes them different.

[Max Rockatansky]

I always thought the troubles with 138 between 15 and 14 to be a little overblown.  Yes, the corridor needs improvement but I can think of way worse and over capacity in my work area.  CA 68, CA 156 and CA 152 off the top of my head have way worse two lane segments than 138 between 15-14.

[ClassicHasClass]

Much of the issues with CA 138 on the 14-15 run (a drive I used to make a lot) could be dealt with simply by getting it the heck out of downtown Palmdale. I used to take Avenues E/J and go down through Lake Los Angeles to pick up CA 138 in Llano, and that was much faster. The major backup occurs at the Oasis Rd traffic light just over the San Bernardino county line, but once you get on the new expressway, it picks up markedly even with that chokepoint bridge just before Interstate 15.