🛣 Headlines About California Highways for April 2020

[cahwyguy]

April has been a strange month, to say the least. You would think being "safer at home"  – and having no theatre to go to – would give me more time, but I've been really busy. I've been working from home full time, and also working on a big update to the highway pages covering December through April, including reviewing all the headlines, going through the legislative stuff, going through the CTC stuff (including the 2020 STIP), and adding more memorial information. You can look for it to drop in a week or two, after I go through these headlines.

As I've been collecting them, my impression has been that there has been less news and more quiet work. Most of the articles I've been seeing have been on the impact of COVID-19 on transit systems, and how it has lightened traffic (which are not collectable headlines for this list). Certainly, CTC and transit organization meetings have gone virtual, and the legislature has been on medical recess. But there has still been news, and folks like Tom have been keeping busy. Which, of course, means I'm keeping busy as well, going through them.

One last note: You saw my mention about the memorial information (see "Picture Challenge: Name Signs"). I'm looking in particular for pictures of highway name signs (i.e., if a highway is named something, a picture showing that particular name on a sign – not just as a destination city), and in some cases, pictures of the people named. I'm currently working on the latter half of US 101. When I do upload the updates, look at the updated pages to see if you might have any photos to go with my missing information. I'll note the effort has been particularly useful: I've found quite a few signs where the name in the field is slightly different than what was in the legislation.

Now, as always, you can find the full set of headlines on my blog. I'd paste them here, but the bboard software doesn't preserve the links.

Ready, set, discuss.

[sparker]

April has been a strange month, to say the least. You would think being "safer at home"  – and having no theatre to go to – would give me more time, but I've been really busy. I've been working from home full time, and also working on a big update to the highway pages covering December through April, including reviewing all the headlines, going through the legislative stuff, going through the CTC stuff (including the 2020 STIP), and adding more memorial information. You can look for it to drop in a week or two, after I go through these headlines.

As I've been collecting them, my impression has been that there has been less news and more quiet work. Most of the articles I've been seeing have been on the impact of COVID-19 on transit systems, and how it has lightened traffic (which are not collectable headlines for this list). Certainly, CTC and transit organization meetings have gone virtual, and the legislature has been on medical recess. But there has still been news, and folks like Tom have been keeping busy. Which, of course, means I'm keeping busy as well, going through them.

One last note: You saw my mention about the memorial information (see "Picture Challenge: Name Signs"). I'm looking in particular for pictures of highway name signs (i.e., if a highway is named something, a picture showing that particular name on a sign – not just as a destination city), and in some cases, pictures of the people named. I'm currently working on the latter half of US 101. When I do upload the updates, look at the updated pages to see if you might have any photos to go with my missing information. I'll note the effort has been particularly useful: I've found quite a few signs where the name in the field is slightly different than what was in the legislation.

Now, as always, you can find the full set of headlines on my blog. I'd paste them here, but the bboard software doesn't preserve the links.

Ready, set, discuss.

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!  Also, it looks like the seemingly never-ending construction zone on CA 99 through Kingsburg and Selma is, per usual, continuing on...and on...and on!  I don't think I've driven through there since the mid-90's where it hasn't been torn up for one project or another -- ramp reconfiguration, repaving, widening, more repaving, filling in the median, etc., etc.  Not that it's not warranted; this is one of the most heavily utilized, in terms of commercial/agricultural traffic, sections of 99 (from CA 198 north to Fresno) due to produce of varying sorts heading up to processors in the Fresno area.  IIRC, the Fresno County segment is one of those slated under the "99 master plan" to expand out to 8 lanes over time; looks like they may be advancing the schedule of that. 

Finally -- the work on the Moraga "Canyon Bridge" is a vivid illustration of what I've cited several times regarding Caltrans taking on more and more local projects in terms of design and at least facilitation of construction.  This bridge has repeatedly made local TV newscasts, having been damaged during wildfires as well as local drunks hitting its railings on a semi-regular basis.  At one point a few years back the supports were weakened as to prompt a "Corps of Engineers" temporary truss-style structure being deployed to fill the gap until fixes could be made -- something that is quite unusual for toney suburbs; more common for bridge replacement on major canyon highways (cf. CA 140 en route to Yosemite).  But D4 having to take the lead on these projects, including allocation of funding, diminishes the pool for major district projects, which often are delayed or even shelved (welcome to Caltrans 2020!). 

[gonealookin]

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!

sparker, the cahighways.org US 395 page has some maps and Caltrans has a brief description of the project. Unlike the situations in Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine to the north, this new stretch of road will be an actual bypass to the west of Olancha.  The portion of existing US 395 from the current 395/CA 190 intersection south to the connection with the new bypass (this portion mainly notable for having the jerky place) will be redesignated as CA 190, while north of the 395/CA 190 intersection existing US 395 (passing the Crystal Geyser plant) will be relinquished to Inyo County.

Upon completion of the Olancha bypass, US 395 will be four lanes continuously from Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining all the way down to the 395/CA 14 split near Ridgecrest.  There really isn't that much 4-laning left to do on CA 14 either so I'd think at some point in the next 15-20 years we'll have at least 4 lanes continuously from LA all the way up to Mono Lake.  Except for the existing 4-lane sections over Conway Summit and Devils Gate Summit, I can't imagine any expansion in Mono County between Lee Vining and the CA/NV line in my lifetime.

[sparker]

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!

sparker, the cahighways.org US 395 page has some maps and Caltrans has a brief description of the project. Unlike the situations in Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine to the north, this new stretch of road will be an actual bypass to the west of Olancha.  The portion of existing US 395 from the current 395/CA 190 intersection south to the connection with the new bypass (this portion mainly notable for having the jerky place) will be redesignated as CA 190, while north of the 395/CA 190 intersection existing US 395 (passing the Crystal Geyser plant) will be relinquished to Inyo County.

Upon completion of the Olancha bypass, US 395 will be four lanes continuously from Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining all the way down to the 395/CA 14 split near Ridgecrest.  There really isn't that much 4-laning left to do on CA 14 either so I'd think at some point in the next 15-20 years we'll have at least 4 lanes continuously from LA all the way up to Mono Lake.  Except for the existing 4-lane sections over Conway Summit and Devils Gate Summit, I can't imagine any expansion in Mono County between Lee Vining and the CA/NV line in my lifetime.

Thanks -- just did a GSV for 395 through Cartago; there's a dirt track paralleling the existing alignment between the road and the closest east side buildings, so the current roadway can easily be utilized as the NB lanes of an expressway -- and there's plenty of room on the west side to put another carriageway, even with the extra-wide median (a good thing to have in any case).  So it looks like at least an effective way to expedite through traffic through (and around) both towns.  The shunting of CA 190 over the old southern 395 section at Olancha has been Caltrans (and the old DOH) SOP ever since I can remember (cf. CA 146 at Soledad/US 101) to effect a junction.   

[Max Rockatansky]

In addition to the 99 repairs near Selma and Kingsburg there has been a ton of projects here in Fresno that are taking advantage of the  low traffic volumes.  In particular the ramps from CA 99 to CA 180 are seeing a ton of work right now...granted that project feels like it is taking forever.

I've had a lot of time to catch up on a lot of things I wanted to do on Gribblenation and get close to done on others.  The Paper Highways series seems to be pretty popular, that being the case I'll probably be hitting on a lot more of them this month.  The virtual photo journey on US 199 worked but it just doesn't feel the same as using my own stuff.  Whenever this is over I do have a NorCal blowout planned that I was actually supposed to get started on this past week. 

I along with everyone else at Gribblenation have been on a couple RoadwayWiz webinars.  I was supposed to be on the Los Angeles Area webinar tomorrow but I had to cancel due to a work thing. 

On a personal level, I'm prepping a mountain bike to hit on some of the more rugged and questionable roadways that I've wanted to do.  Doing stuff like running the Ridge Route is fine, but going past ten miles on foot isn't very feasible.

[don1991]

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!

sparker, the cahighways.org US 395 page has some maps and Caltrans has a brief description of the project. Unlike the situations in Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine to the north, this new stretch of road will be an actual bypass to the west of Olancha.  The portion of existing US 395 from the current 395/CA 190 intersection south to the connection with the new bypass (this portion mainly notable for having the jerky place) will be redesignated as CA 190, while north of the 395/CA 190 intersection existing US 395 (passing the Crystal Geyser plant) will be relinquished to Inyo County.

Upon completion of the Olancha bypass, US 395 will be four lanes continuously from Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining all the way down to the 395/CA 14 split near Ridgecrest.  There really isn't that much 4-laning left to do on CA 14 either so I'd think at some point in the next 15-20 years we'll have at least 4 lanes continuously from LA all the way up to Mono Lake.  Except for the existing 4-lane sections over Conway Summit and Devils Gate Summit, I can't imagine any expansion in Mono County between Lee Vining and the CA/NV line in my lifetime.

True.  This new section will be a complete expressway with limited access.  It will bypass both towns.  The old roadway will be relinquished to Inyo County.

[sparker]

True.  This new section will be a complete expressway with limited access.  It will bypass both towns.  The old roadway will be relinquished to Inyo County.

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!

sparker, the cahighways.org US 395 page has some maps and Caltrans has a brief description of the project. Unlike the situations in Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine to the north, this new stretch of road will be an actual bypass to the west of Olancha.  The portion of existing US 395 from the current 395/CA 190 intersection south to the connection with the new bypass (this portion mainly notable for having the jerky place) will be redesignated as CA 190, while north of the 395/CA 190 intersection existing US 395 (passing the Crystal Geyser plant) will be relinquished to Inyo County.

Upon completion of the Olancha bypass, US 395 will be four lanes continuously from Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining all the way down to the 395/CA 14 split near Ridgecrest.  There really isn't that much 4-laning left to do on CA 14 either so I'd think at some point in the next 15-20 years we'll have at least 4 lanes continuously from LA all the way up to Mono Lake.  Except for the existing 4-lane sections over Conway Summit and Devils Gate Summit, I can't imagine any expansion in Mono County between Lee Vining and the CA/NV line in my lifetime.

Well, it's 2 down, 4 to go (Independence, Lone Pine, Big Pine, and Bishop).  It'll be interesting to see how Caltrans approaches upgrades/bypasses around those four towns without completely devastating their economies.  Bishop's big enough for a signed business loop (or a US 6 extension through town -- which may not be much help with retention of revenues from Mammoth or Reno-bound traffic unless a bypass goes around the east side).  But AFAIK, those particular improvements aren't on the near-term horizon, so one or all will have a reprieve for a while!   

[don1991]

True.  This new section will be a complete expressway with limited access.  It will bypass both towns.  The old roadway will be relinquished to Inyo County.

May as well start this out -- it's nice to see more work being done on US 395 in the Owens Valley, but the actual article, while specifying a "4-lane expressway" as the facility design, doesn't go into detail about how the two towns themselves will be addressed.  Often Caltrans will simply "shrink" down a divided expressway into a "5-lane" configuration through towns, increasing the capacity but maintaining full business access (with a corresponding speed reduction as well); the other alternative, of course, is a full controlled-access expressway bypass.  If anyone is privy to preliminary plans for this project, please elucidate!

sparker, the cahighways.org US 395 page has some maps and Caltrans has a brief description of the project. Unlike the situations in Big Pine, Independence and Lone Pine to the north, this new stretch of road will be an actual bypass to the west of Olancha.  The portion of existing US 395 from the current 395/CA 190 intersection south to the connection with the new bypass (this portion mainly notable for having the jerky place) will be redesignated as CA 190, while north of the 395/CA 190 intersection existing US 395 (passing the Crystal Geyser plant) will be relinquished to Inyo County.

Upon completion of the Olancha bypass, US 395 will be four lanes continuously from Mono Lake just north of Lee Vining all the way down to the 395/CA 14 split near Ridgecrest.  There really isn't that much 4-laning left to do on CA 14 either so I'd think at some point in the next 15-20 years we'll have at least 4 lanes continuously from LA all the way up to Mono Lake.  Except for the existing 4-lane sections over Conway Summit and Devils Gate Summit, I can't imagine any expansion in Mono County between Lee Vining and the CA/NV line in my lifetime.

Well, it's 2 down, 4 to go (Independence, Lone Pine, Big Pine, and Bishop).  It'll be interesting to see how Caltrans approaches upgrades/bypasses around those four towns without completely devastating their economies.  Bishop's big enough for a signed business loop (or a US 6 extension through town -- which may not be much help with retention of revenues from Mammoth or Reno-bound traffic unless a bypass goes around the east side).  But AFAIK, those particular improvements aren't on the near-term horizon, so one or all will have a reprieve for a while!

Given limited dollars and high needs everywhere, I don't see bypasses of any of those towns happening in the next 30 years.  The first one to happen would be Bishop.  They did a truck study about a decade or so ago of Bishop but nothing came of it.  Some kind of bypass was suggested. 

I'd love to see the bypasses but not at the expense of higher priority projects.  I'd prefer 4-lane upgrades of the rest of 395 north of Lee Vining before worrying about the small towns along the way in Inyo County.

Let me add also that I believe that Olancha and Cartago are only being bypassed because there wasn't sufficient room for a 4-lane roadway within the towns.  Not to mention that the towns barely function as such anyway.  A bypass of the others would hurt them more.