Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[kkt]

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

Oakland / 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)

[kernals12]

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

[Max Rockatansky]

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?

[Quillz]

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).

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[Quillz]

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.

[Max Rockatansky]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[oscar]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[TheStranger]

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/

[heynow415]

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. 

[Techknow]

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.

[roadman65]

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

[bing101]

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

Yes Caltrans had to close some of the streets that go above I-80 to make the overpass more Truck friendly.

[roadman65]

You figure they would lower the grade of the freeway instead of rebuilding the piers.

[kkt]

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.

[kernals12]

Does anyone have anything about plans from the 60s and 70s to build freeways in the Ojai Valley?

[Max Rockatansky]

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. 

[kernals12]

Found this Ventura County Freeway Plan from the city of Ventura's 1964 General Plan


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.

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.

[pderocco]

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...

[Max Rockatansky]

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

[skluth]

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 for those who can't access behind the WSJ's paywall.