AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: California  (Read 188248 times)

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 11:44:56 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1275 on: June 10, 2021, 04:16:02 PM »

Glad I am not driving in Sacto!  That is an ambitious schedule.  Hope it works!

Rick

Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours.  Of course, the safety of the construction crews and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration.  I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north.  Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice.  I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.   

I am inclined to agree.  Weighing the options of the typical weeks/months-long projects while keeping a route open vs taking a few days or a week of inconvenience and detours, I think that most people would gladly take the tradeoff and simply close the freeway for a few days.  With enough publicity, the traffic nightmares that many predict don't actually end up happening.  People find a way to adapt.
In my 22 years at Caltrans I have seen several of these major closures.  They have gone off pretty much without a hitch.  The massive amount of public outreach does make a difference.  Like the previous poster said, people listen and adjust.   If the W-X Fix50 bridge deck rebuild a few years ago was any indication, Caltrans will most likely halt the widening/reconstruction work thatís underway on I-5 while 99 is closed.  They shut down the widening/rehab work that was happening on I-80 ďacross the topĒ while that Fix50 project took place.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3466
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 11:05:19 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1276 on: June 14, 2021, 07:36:32 PM »

Glad I am not driving in Sacto!  That is an ambitious schedule.  Hope it works!

Rick

Seeing as how that stretch of freeway opened 60 years ago this year -- and the pavement is pretty well trashed (particularly the ramps!), the decision to do it with one shot is a tradeoff between six days of inconvenience to local users or a protracted schedule of reconstruction with partial lane closures and numerous short detours.  Of course, the safety of the construction crews and those who would be driving on the freeway during "normal" spot-type construction would have been taken into consideration.  I would imagine that part of the decision process to do a complete shutdown was the presence of parallel I-5; longer-distance commercial movements that don't specify the east part of Elk Grove or Galt would simply shunt over to the Interstate via either CA 120 or CA 4 farther south and US 50 on the north.  Commuters to those same areas will be the most inconvenienced, but hopefully they received plenty of advance notice.  I think we're going to see more construction/reconstruction projects undertaken this way due to both time constraints and liability issues.   

I am inclined to agree.  Weighing the options of the typical weeks/months-long projects while keeping a route open vs taking a few days or a week of inconvenience and detours, I think that most people would gladly take the tradeoff and simply close the freeway for a few days.  With enough publicity, the traffic nightmares that many predict don't actually end up happening.  People find a way to adapt.
In my 22 years at Caltrans I have seen several of these major closures.  They have gone off pretty much without a hitch.  The massive amount of public outreach does make a difference.  Like the previous poster said, people listen and adjust.   If the W-X Fix50 bridge deck rebuild a few years ago was any indication, Caltrans will most likely halt the widening/reconstruction work thatís underway on I-5 while 99 is closed.  They shut down the widening/rehab work that was happening on I-80 ďacross the topĒ while that Fix50 project took place.

I think this is a bit of a trend in many areas to go with full closure, versus partial closures that would take months to accomplish a similar amount of work.  THe partial closures are also inefficient as they have to use some of their labor time to keep opening and closing the highway.  it is done for both highways and transit.  Yes, you can plan a closure for the right time to minimize disruption.  A true silver lining of COVID is that the lower traffic really enabled a boon to such construction projects, given traffic reduction.  But more generally, summer in most areas has enough of a lower traffic impact, since schools and colleges are closed, that you can generally do a closure like this without severe impact as well.  People can and often do schedule their vacation or WFH to coincide with such closures.

I now live in the DC area and pre-COVID, I would take the Metro to work.  A few years ago, there were several closures of my line to do some repair work.  One project was about seven weeks, so could not take vacation for the entire period, but enough people did for parts that it was indeed less crowded.  Shuttle buses were a pain, but for a short period, very manageable.  far better than single tracking which would mean that we'd still have delays (albeit less severe) for a much longer period of time.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1883
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 12:41:03 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1277 on: June 14, 2021, 07:55:12 PM »

Sorry for the incoming rant, but can anyone explain what the hell is going on around Mulholland and Kanan road area? Mulholland HWY has been closed at ďThe SnakeĒ here for years: Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/V5mDuSUcZfTsfZpe8

Theyíve taken almost 3 years to replace a simple two lane bridge in a rural area and it still isnít slated to be complete until late July.

Then thereís a pedestrian/hiking bridge that went out on a trail connecting the old M.A.S.H. set to Malibu Creek State main entrance. Havenít heard from Caltrans or the county about why these things are taking forever to rebuild after the heavy rain intense fire seasons in 2018/2019 caused them to be fail.
Logged

splashflash

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 64
  • Location: Vancouver Island
  • Last Login: July 23, 2021, 12:55:06 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1278 on: June 16, 2021, 12:06:38 PM »

Upcoming construction project next week on Route 99 in Sacramento:

https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-3/d3-projects/d3-sr-99-21st-avenue-undercrossing

Quote
Work Schedule/ Full Highway Closure Information
Caltrans is scheduled to close northbound and southbound State Route 99 from 47th Avenue to the U.S. Highway 50 Connector in Sacramento.

The four-day full highway closure is scheduled to begin 8:00 p.m., Friday, June 11, 2021 until 4:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 16, 2021.

Crews are also closing the mainline westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway to southbound SR-99, and the westbound and eastbound US-50 connector ramps to southbound SR-99.

In addition, the following ramps are scheduled to be closed:

The on-ramp from 16th Street to eastbound US-50
The on-ramp from 29th Street/H Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/N Street to westbound Business 80/Capital City Freeway
The on-ramp from 29th Street/T Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp from Broadway to southbound SR-99
The off-ramp from southbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The off-ramp from northbound SR-99 to 12th Street
The on-ramp from 14th Avenue/30th Street to southbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from Fruitridge Road to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (slip) from East 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99
The on-ramp (loop) from West 47th Avenue to northbound SR-99

https://www.enr.com/articles/51917-caltrans-shaves-months-off-sr-99-repair-time-with-precast-prefab-girders

ďWe can fabricate the product offsite within a factory environment to strict specifications and the product will then be able to arrive on the jobsite in such a manner that it is able to take traffic loading immediately as opposed to having to cure onsite,Ē says Michael Hein, president of Con-Fab California.

The sections are trucked to the jobsite and installed with two crane crews. Once they are in place, the joints between them will be sealed off and ultra-high-performance concrete will be installed within the keyways to lock the pieces together, says Hein. Once that is done, a polyester concrete will be put on top to smooth out any edges.

Hein says his company worked on an $800,000 contract to fabricate the pieces in about a month. Once the sections were complete, his team put them together at the Con-Fab plant to fit before taking them to the actual project site, says Hein.

The FixSac99 bridge deck replacement is part of the SAC 99 21st Avenue Project, which includes replacing sound walls, the concrete median barrier, and installing brighter lighting for the 21st Street undercrossing.

Built in 1959, the 21st Avenue undercrossing was band widened in 1974. It currently has corrosion on the surface deck, concrete spalling, cracks, joint seals that need to be replaced, and the bridge deck has begun to deteriorate due to wear and tear from high traffic, weather and age. Caltrans says it is replacing the bridge deck before emergency operations are necessary.

Caltrans used a similar accelerated bridge construction method on the $14.1-million project that replaced the deteriorating Echo Summit Bridge on U.S. Highway 50 in El Dorado County.

Logged

Bickendan

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2748
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 07:41:26 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1279 on: June 17, 2021, 03:11:10 AM »

I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4364
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:06 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1280 on: June 30, 2021, 04:46:31 PM »

From the 2021 INFRA Grants thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29600.msg2632097#msg2632097

Quote
ē           The Yolo County Transportation District will be awarded $85.9 million in grant funding to improve traffic flow in the I-80 corridor on the west side of the Sacramento-Yolo metro area.

Possible widening of the Yolo Causeway?  I know that that was a bottleneck at times (particularly Fridays) during the time I lived in Sacramento.
Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15730
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1281 on: June 30, 2021, 04:54:20 PM »

I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.

Is 271 actually signed from an exit guide sign?  254, 283 and 211 arenít signed from any exit signage.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8274
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:53:24 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1282 on: June 30, 2021, 05:47:05 PM »

I noted on my drive down US 101 through Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties that a number of BGS had external exit tabs, very refreshing to see in California. And, of course, the windy Super-4 sections, notably along CA 271 and 254.

Is 271 actually signed from an exit guide sign?  254, 283 and 211 arenít signed from any exit signage.

The last time I came through there, the northern section of CA 271 was signed on a BGS from both directions of US 101; the southern section southeast of Leggett only utilized a stand-alone 271 trailblazer assembly adjacent to the exit -- and only at its southern end; the northern end of that section actually "terminates" at CA 1 a block west of that route's own northern terminus.  I don't recall ever seeing a 271 trailblazer along CA 1, though.  Apparently the 2-lane segment of US 101 north of Leggett would have been redesignated as the connecting portion of 271 had the 101 bypass freeway been built; the original intention when plans called for US 101 to be upgraded to a continuous freeway were for 271 to function south of Garberville much as 254 did north of there -- but environmental concerns and funding issues put those freeway plans on what looks like a permanent hold, so CA 271 remains a split facility.   
Logged

STLmapboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1078
  • Age: 16
  • Location: St. Louis
  • Last Login: July 03, 2021, 08:19:15 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1283 on: June 30, 2021, 09:13:00 PM »

Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here, here, and here). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.
Logged
Teenage STL area roadgeek.
Missouri>>>>>Illinois

Joshua Whitman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6
  • Location: Victorville, CA
  • Last Login: July 19, 2021, 02:13:19 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1284 on: June 30, 2021, 11:22:54 PM »

 
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website:

SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE

There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.

To that end I donít believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what Iíve seen on Danielís site) in years.  The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.

Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!

I know right? :-D
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15730
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1285 on: June 30, 2021, 11:25:25 PM »

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website:

SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE

There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.

To that end I donít believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what Iíve seen on Danielís site) in years.  The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.

Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!

I know right? :-D

Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.
Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: Today at 10:21:41 AM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1286 on: June 30, 2021, 11:43:20 PM »

Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here, here, and here). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.

They're all over the IE, too.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8274
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:53:24 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1287 on: July 01, 2021, 01:13:07 AM »

Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here, here, and here). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.

They're all over the IE, too.

Santa Clara has been busy yellow-outlining their signal backplates for the last year; San Jose is just beginning to do so as well.  They're showing up on Caltrans-owned streets (particularly El Camino Real in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) as well as local ones, so apparently everyone's on the same page regarding the effectiveness of the reflectors. 
Logged

mgk920

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Appleton, WI USA
  • Last Login: Today at 11:18:12 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1288 on: July 01, 2021, 11:40:39 AM »

Over the past year, several lights in San Diego and Orange counties have gotten yellow reflectors on their backplates (examples here, here, and here). Before 2020, these reflectors were few and far between (this one was installed in 2016), but they've grown exponentially in the past year. I don't know if Caltrans or other agencies are responsible, but it's certainly nice to see them spreading.

They're all over the IE, too.

Santa Clara has been busy yellow-outlining their signal backplates for the last year; San Jose is just beginning to do so as well.  They're showing up on Caltrans-owned streets (particularly El Camino Real in Santa Clara and Sunnyvale) as well as local ones, so apparently everyone's on the same page regarding the effectiveness of the reflectors.

They are optional in the current MUTCD, I'd love to see them made mandatory, including with the full black back plates and faces (yes, including in places like NYC - get with the program, willyas!).  IIRC, they are adapted from European practice, where they use white outlines.

Mike
Logged

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3849
  • Last Login: Today at 12:04:59 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1289 on: July 03, 2021, 03:14:16 PM »

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:

How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?


When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River.  While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them.  This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.

Cool :)
https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/project-to-add-two-more-lanes-to-sr-210-finally-ready-to-start/article_d941e5dc-5400-11ea-855a-d34b6df40e1b.html

This is probably due to an ongoing project and 2023 is the estimated completion date.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8274
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:53:24 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1290 on: July 03, 2021, 03:25:16 PM »

CA 259 is once again posted in the field, albeit likely briefly and probably just a contractor's oversight since the TO 210 signs are up everywhere else. A 259 shield is up on the separation from northbound I-215 to CA 259, on the right just past the gore point. Roadgeek while ye can.

Ooh, this actually leads to an interesting thought:

How many California state routes that were unsigned prior to 2000 have since been signed in the field, even briefly?


When I was living in northern CA in the late 1990's, there was a construction project on Sacramento's 29th-30th freeway around the bridge over the American River.  While the road was signed as BIZ-80, there were construction signs ("your tax dollars at work") that had CA-51 shields on them.  This may have been the only on-road acknowledgement of the road's status as CA-51 that was easily visible to motorists.

Cool :)
https://www.redlandscommunitynews.com/project-to-add-two-more-lanes-to-sr-210-finally-ready-to-start/article_d941e5dc-5400-11ea-855a-d34b6df40e1b.html

This is probably due to an ongoing project and 2023 is the estimated completion date.


Well, so much for the original plans to simply widen the shoulders and bridges on 210 in San Bernardino to Interstate standards -- this is above & beyond that!  It was needed back in 2012 when I moved north; nine years later it's probably a necessity!   Maybe Caltrans will see fit to finally seek Interstate status when this is done two years hence! 
Logged

jrouse

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 288
  • Location: Sacramento, CA
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 11:44:56 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1291 on: July 04, 2021, 01:56:53 AM »

From the 2021 INFRA Grants thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29600.msg2632097#msg2632097

Quote
ē           The Yolo County Transportation District will be awarded $85.9 million in grant funding to improve traffic flow in the I-80 corridor on the west side of the Sacramento-Yolo metro area.

Possible widening of the Yolo Causeway?  I know that that was a bottleneck at times (particularly Fridays) during the time I lived in Sacramento.
Yes, plus an HOV direct connector at the I-80/US-50 interchange.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3466
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 11:05:19 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1292 on: July 06, 2021, 07:56:31 PM »

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website:

SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE

There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.

To that end I donít believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what Iíve seen on Danielís site) in years.  The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.

Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!

I know right? :-D

Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.

It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff.  Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away.  In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0.  But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.

Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5512
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:59:50 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1293 on: July 06, 2021, 11:00:18 PM »

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website:

SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE

There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.

To that end I donít believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what Iíve seen on Danielís site) in years.  The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.

Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!

I know right? :-D

Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.

It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff.  Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away.  In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0.  But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.

Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.

There was no disaster on January 1 2000 because lots and lots of programmers worked very hard in the late 1990s to work around the problem.  Going to a 4-digit year was elegant and preferred, but required converting the data in a data structure that may have no room to expand.  A lot of times some individual program was set up still with a 2-digit year but a window of interpretation:  dates from, say, 80 to 99 were interpreted as in 1980 to 1999, while 00 to, say, 30 are interpreted as 2000 to 2030.  This strategy means individual applications may start failing at different times in the future with little or no warning.
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7686
  • Last Login: July 27, 2021, 10:07:16 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1294 on: July 07, 2021, 06:54:47 AM »

Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated.  For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025.  Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".

(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Believe me, 30 years is a hell of a long time for that section of the highway to reopen.
I didn't think Caltrans would be that together regarding an opening date. According to their website:

SR 39
[IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AREA]
IS CLOSED FROM 4.4 MI SOUTH OF THE JCT OF SR 2 TO THE JCT OF SR 2 (LOS
ANGELES CO) 24 HRS A DAY 7 DAYS A WEEK - DUE TO CONSTRUCTION -
MOTORISTS ARE ADVISED TO USE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE

There is no other information regarding opening, or even what the construction is for that matter.

To that end I donít believe there has been any official action in the CTC minutes (recalling what Iíve seen on Danielís site) in years.  The 2050 is probably a place holder or someone trying to be funny.

Yeah -- no one in CA would even think of getting up for a ribbon-cutting ceremony at 5:01 a.m.!

I know right? :-D

Unless I was dead I would be there, count me in on November 30th, 2050 at 5:01 AM.

It reminds me a lot of the Y2K stuff.  Back in the 1950s and 60s saying the year 2000 seemed so far away.  In fact, there was a big concern that a lot of computer programming that involved dates would crash on Jan 1 2000, because the programming in the 60s only used two digits for the year, and so it was feared that the programming would treat the new date as 0.  But the fears were overblown - the world did not end on Jan 1 2000.

Nov 30 2050 remains to be seen.

There was no disaster on January 1 2000 because lots and lots of programmers worked very hard in the late 1990s to work around the problem.  Going to a 4-digit year was elegant and preferred, but required converting the data in a data structure that may have no room to expand.  A lot of times some individual program was set up still with a 2-digit year but a window of interpretation:  dates from, say, 80 to 99 were interpreted as in 1980 to 1999, while 00 to, say, 30 are interpreted as 2000 to 2030.  This strategy means individual applications may start failing at different times in the future with little or no warning.
^This.

It is horrific that so many people now see Y2K as a non-issue or even a hoax.  It is a total discredit to those that stayed up around the clock to address the issue precisely to ensure a disaster did not happen (including my mother who kept one of the major network backbones in New England running).  It should be celebrated as a huge success that a disaster did not happen due to a whole lot of programmers' efforts.  To treat it as an exaggerated event that did not warrant attention is ignorant disrespect and ingratitude.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bing101

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3849
  • Last Login: Today at 12:04:59 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1295 on: July 16, 2021, 10:16:30 PM »


Here is a clinched tour of I-605, I/CA-210 and I-15 on this AsphaltPlanet video.


Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4364
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:06 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1296 on: July 21, 2021, 06:43:41 PM »

Live police chase on 110 north (Arroyo Seco Parkway/old US 66)!!!

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=168127058600352&ref=watch_permalink
Logged
Chris Sampang

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4364
  • Last Login: Today at 11:20:06 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1297 on: July 27, 2021, 09:22:31 PM »

Finally got some photos of the upgraded signage along US 101/Bayshore Freeway in San Mateo County.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/csampang/albums/72157719602979781

DSC_3230c by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

DSC_3238c by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

DSC_3244c by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

DSC_3246e by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

DSC_3248e by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

Logged
Chris Sampang

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15730
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:11 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1298 on: July 27, 2021, 09:45:05 PM »

That reminds me, I really need to get back out there and take better photos of El Camino Real in addition to the Bayshore.
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.