Route 1/Rice Avenue in Oxnard

[cl94]

I think I liked the "line the post with razor wire" method of anti-vandalism better than these sheetings.

Wasn't that only deployed in D7?

I think there was some out in D8 too.

There is/was definitely some razor wire deployed in D8. First place I ever saw it was along I-15 in Barstow. They don't use it elsewhere because a) it looks trashy AF and b) it's dangerous for maintenance workers.

[Quillz]

BREAKING NEWS

As of today (January 24, 2023), the first ever Route 1 sign has FINALLY been placed on a BGS on southbound US 101 in Oxnard, over a decade after interchange work at Rice and 101 was completed, and over 13 years since the Ventura County Star had stated that the redesignation would occur in 2009.

Via Freeways of Los Angeles facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreewaysLA/posts/2614122915401837/?__cft__

• =AZXZyOeoAwuxLqmacyQ7OH2rY5XK1KzOKvytcMZljrlkrtyDrkTYnyCCTwNCWa_BgVZ47hSws8CEs5HTVSuvKn136CPvccrpMyr0m27zowIO00glQqdcEL07MykaONxErfrTiyF36dOI0OjpMxxVZkOo61wQFcyJmhwCsIuDr38bRPuX5caO3NIFKWRL9lPQM7Y&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
  
  Image courtesy Dontae Duncan:
  
  Rice Avenue Route 1 sign on 101 south - 1-24-23 by Chris Sampang, on Flickr
  
  

And funnily enough it's pretty messily applied, and seems too large relative to the text.

On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?

[DTComposer]

On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?

From a functionality standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to just route CA-118 onto Santa Clara and down to US-101, and de-commission Wells/Los Angeles Avenue (and "retire" 232)? If you're heading west on CA-118, it seems most likely you want to end up on US-101, unless you're a local destination.

[RZF]

On a related note, isn't CA-232 supposed to be moved onto Santa Clara Avenue so motorists can seamlessly go from CA-1 -> CA-232 -> CA-118? Is that still planned?

From a functionality standpoint, wouldn't it make sense to just route CA-118 onto Santa Clara and down to US-101, and de-commission Wells/Los Angeles Avenue (and "retire" 232)? If you're heading west on CA-118, it seems most likely you want to end up on US-101, unless you're a local destination.

CA-118 serves more of a connection from points east to CA-126 than US-101. From Camarillo and Oxnard, CA-126 is almost on its own island unless you take surface streets to CA-118, which will then connect you to CA-126.

[Max Rockatansky]

Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation.  I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious.  I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did.  The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).

[pderocco]

Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation.  I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious.  I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did.  The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).

Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.

[Quillz]

Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation.  I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious.  I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did.  The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).

Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.

To me this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're going to retain Los Angeles Avenue and then add Santa Clara Avenue, why not keep CA-118 on the former, and just move CA-232 onto the latter? This doesn't require any changes to CA-118, and CA-232 remains a short south-north route, albeit a few miles from its original alignment.

[Max Rockatansky]

Total aside with CA 232, somehow that the fifth most viewed blog all time on Gribblenation.  I know it's not a fluke/bot thing because of the analytics and reader comments suggest it got shared somewhere that took it serious.  I have no idea why CA 232 out of all the blogs we've done on California took off like it did.  The only California blog ahead of it for views is the San Juan Grade (which is number four).

Well, they could extend 118 down Santa Clara to 101/1, and then turn 232 90 degrees and run it along Los Angeles, relinquishing Vinyard.

To me this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you're going to retain Los Angeles Avenue and then add Santa Clara Avenue, why not keep CA-118 on the former, and just move CA-232 onto the latter? This doesn't require any changes to CA-118, and CA-232 remains a short south-north route, albeit a few miles from its original alignment.

A big obstruction for swapping 118 and 232 is that it would require the Legislative defintions to be changed also.  That's not per se impossible, but it could see it being enough of an annoyance that nobody wants to do the work to get a bill submitted.  Moving 232 to Santa Clara wouldn't require a change of the legislative defintion.

[GaryA]

According to an article published today in the Ventura County Star (https://www.vcstar.com/story/news/local/communities/oxnard/2023/03/21/rice-avenue-bridge-planned-for-site-of-deadly-2015-oxnard-train-crash/70003908007/):

- The bridge that is expected to carry CA 1 (Rice Ave) over the railroad tracks and CA 34 (5th St) is expected be finished in 2028.
- The financing of $117 million (up from original estimate $70 million) has been lined up.
- There have been some issues with property acquisition for a small parcel that contains a water well; while the well could remain, servicing it during and after construction would be tricky.
- City of Oxnard is the primary agency, and is wrapping up the design phase now; with funds released and projects opened to bid in about a year.
- The new bridge will be slightly east of the current crossing, so no long-term closure of Rice is expected.

[Quillz]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

[GaryA]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.

[RZF]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.

The only thing I can see them doing here in order to use the least amount of land is create a diamond interchange (could be labeled Exit 114).

[Quillz]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.

If not, we'll have another 210/83 situation.

[Max Rockatansky]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.

If not, we'll have another 210/83 situation.

83 doesn't touch 210 anymore. 

[JustDrive]

So a direct junction with 34 will be gone?

I believe a connector road is planned between the two highways, but this article didn't mention it.

The only thing I can see them doing here in order to use the least amount of land is create a diamond interchange (could be labeled Exit 114).

The "END 34"  sign is located west of the intersection with Rice Ave, as opposed to the actual intersection, so I think a connector road is going to be built. Only problem is that anything south of 5th is outside of Oxnard city limits, and that farmland is protected by county legislation.

[pderocco]

I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.

[heynow415]

I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.

Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly.  Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through. 
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing. 

[pderocco]

I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.

Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly.  Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through. 
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing. 

Good points. But the land between the tracks and the road certainly isn't private property. It either belongs to the railroad already, Oxnard, or the state along 34, so I wouldn't think using it would be expensive, especially since it would be temporary.

I'm curious what this "slingshot effect" is. If a train is longer than a rise and equal fall in the elevation, I would think it would take some energy to start going over, but once the head is over, it would be more or less neutral (a mechanical siphon) until the tail starts to go over, at which point it would get back most of the energy it put in at the beginning. Is that bit at the end the "slingshot effect"? I think the grades would be about 1%, but don't trains experience that effect frequently in hilly areas?

Also, I'm not sure the railroad was first in this case. The 1904 USGS maps show a road where Rice Ave is now, and the rail line, but no road along the rail line. When I look at the various maps of the area I've downloaded from Rumsey and other places, I see the rail line existing in 1901, but not in 1897. Before that, the coast railroad connected to LA only along what's now route 126.

That said, I'm just thinking outside the box. It looks like building a half-cloverleaf there could be quite expensive, especially given the width of the road, and the rail bridge and its approaches could be a lot cheaper to build. The railroad might be induced to cooperate by giving it a cut of the difference.

[Quillz]

That line is active, too. I've been on it, it's part of the Coast Starlight or the Surfliner, there are stations in Camarillo and Oxnard, you'll pass over CA-1 along the way.

[heynow415]

I was just looking at this in Google Earth, and I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be easier and cheaper to raise the railroad tracks over Rice Ave. It looks like there's room to temporarily move the tracks over, so they're right next to 5th St, then build a half-mile or so incline on each side of Rice Ave, a short bridge over Rice, route the trains over that, and tear up the temporary track. They wouldn't have to touch the road at all, or acquire any property.

Assuming the railroad is still active (meaning trains still run on it, not just that there are tracks sitting there) land would need to be acquired, even if temporarily to construct the shoofly.  Railroads also don't like creating running grades where they don't exist currently, especially for a situation like this where a freight train could be longer than the up-and-over which would create a slingshot effect for the train as it passes through. 
Lastly, FRA-recognized rail corridors generally take primacy over any crossing roadways (because they were there first) so whatever railroad it is would likely make Caltrans deal with the roadway instead of the RR modifying the tracks, i.e. Caltrans would need to get an encroachment permit to do work in the RR ROW as opposed to the RR needing to get one from Caltrans, since the RR technically controls the crossing. 

Good points. But the land between the tracks and the road certainly isn't private property. It either belongs to the railroad already, Oxnard, or the state along 34, so I wouldn't think using it would be expensive, especially since it would be temporary.

I'm curious what this "slingshot effect" is. If a train is longer than a rise and equal fall in the elevation, I would think it would take some energy to start going over, but once the head is over, it would be more or less neutral (a mechanical siphon) until the tail starts to go over, at which point it would get back most of the energy it put in at the beginning. Is that bit at the end the "slingshot effect"? I think the grades would be about 1%, but don't trains experience that effect frequently in hilly areas?

Also, I'm not sure the railroad was first in this case. The 1904 USGS maps show a road where Rice Ave is now, and the rail line, but no road along the rail line. When I look at the various maps of the area I've downloaded from Rumsey and other places, I see the rail line existing in 1901, but not in 1897. Before that, the coast railroad connected to LA only along what's now route 126.

That said, I'm just thinking outside the box. It looks like building a half-cloverleaf there could be quite expensive, especially given the width of the road, and the rail bridge and its approaches could be a lot cheaper to build. The railroad might be induced to cooperate by giving it a cut of the difference.

Since railcar couplers aren't a perfect/snug fit there's a gap within each set of couplers.  Assuming the locomotive(s) are traveling at a constant speed, going uphill the cars are all being pulled but going downhill, particularly if the cars are laden, they can be pushing against the locomotives which end up functioning as a brake.  So the "gap" in the couplers either opens up or closes.  Multiply that by many cars and the length of the overall train expands and contracts.  You can hear this in play when a freight first starts moving with the banging sound going down the line as the cars start being pulled.  Over a long, constant grade it's not really a factor but for a short up and down it could be.  Yes, rail couplers are designed to handle that kind of loading but to the extent it creates unnecessary wear and tear, I would venture the railroads would discourage it.