AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021  (Read 926 times)

cahwyguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 515
  • California Highway Guy

  • Age: 61
  • Location: Northridge, CA
  • Last Login: July 18, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
    • California Highways
🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« on: February 28, 2021, 02:17:38 PM »

It's that time of the month again. Time for headlines. Not much to say this month, but hopefully you'll have some good discussion on this.

Here's the link: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16071

Ready, set, discuss.
Logged
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

roadwaywiz95

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 163
  • It's the Mario Cuomo Bridge, capisce?

  • Age: 33
  • Location: New York
  • Last Login: Today at 02:23:41 PM
    • roadwaywiz
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #1 on: February 28, 2021, 02:24:41 PM »

I'm just here for the Ridge Route comments  :wave:
Logged
https://www.facebook.com/roadwaywiz/
https://www.youtube.com/user/roadwaywiz
https://www.instagram.com/roadwaywiz/

Clinched Mainline Interstates: 4,8,11,12,17,19,41,66,68,71,73,74(E),76(E),78,79,82,83,84(E/W),86(E/W),87(N/S),88(E/W),89,91,93,95,96,97,99,H1,H2,H3

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15709
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:42 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #2 on: February 28, 2021, 02:50:24 PM »

Regarding CA 1 the repair at Rat Creek seems to be pretty straight forward.  Personally I think a lot of the doomsday-talk folks with CA 1 in Big Sur really have gotten out of hand since the Mud Creek Slide.  It isn't exactly uncommon to have Rat Creek size closures in Big Sur. 

Regarding electric charging stations, that is an interesting topic given the 2035 passenger car mandate still seems to be kind of up in the air in terms of guidance.  I'm assuming that all Caltrans maintained rest areas are going to have charging stations at some point in the future. 

I'm not exactly shocked to see a proposal to turn a lane of the Bay Bridge over to pedestrian and cyclist use.  I just assumed that was inevitable after the eastern span was replaced and the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge had it's spare lane converted to that purpose. 

Logged

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: sunny So Cal
  • Last Login: July 26, 2021, 10:12:47 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2021, 02:56:02 PM »

Everyone forgets about US 395 north of Reno in these travelogues.
Logged

M3100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 239
  • Location: Los Angeles County, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2021, 03:38:38 PM »

A couple of questions:

Regarding the US 101 / I-580 interchange in San Rafael (Marin County):  Did the local topography prevent a north US 101 to East I-580 connector from being constructed, therefore requiring drivers to take Sir Francis Drake Blvd. for that connection?    Or was that a not-envisioned connection, similar to some in the greater LA area?  (such as: Northbound I-405 to Eastbound CA SR 22, which requires a short trek on Valley View St.)

As for the traffic noise on the CA SR 4 Bypass in Brentwood, would that area benefit from sound walls?  (Not a quick or cheap solution, but a possibility...)
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15709
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:42 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2021, 04:05:54 PM »

A couple of questions:

Regarding the US 101 / I-580 interchange in San Rafael (Marin County):  Did the local topography prevent a north US 101 to East I-580 connector from being constructed, therefore requiring drivers to take Sir Francis Drake Blvd. for that connection?    Or was that a not-envisioned connection, similar to some in the greater LA area?  (such as: Northbound I-405 to Eastbound CA SR 22, which requires a short trek on Valley View St.)

As for the traffic noise on the CA SR 4 Bypass in Brentwood, would that area benefit from sound walls?  (Not a quick or cheap solution, but a possibility...)

Regarding 101/580 the topography doesn’t seem to be much of a physical barrier to a full ramp configuration.  I’ve always assumed that movement was an afterthought which how the planned 251 came into being.  One thing is for sure though, Sir Francis Drake Boulevard is way below the capacity to handle the traffic that it gets.  During peak traffic rushes I’ve been sitting there for quite awhile trying to get through. 

Regarding US 395 north of the Nevada State Line, yes that is a highly underrated corridor.  I’ve done the full thing twice but I didn’t have the presence in mind to document very well the last time I was through in 2014. 
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14290
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: July 26, 2021, 11:54:29 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2021, 06:27:21 PM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15709
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:42 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2021, 06:38:10 PM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there. 
Logged

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14290
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 38
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: July 26, 2021, 11:54:29 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2021, 12:07:41 AM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there. 
101 N to 580 S is a straight shot. Maybe we're discussing opposite directions.

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15709
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:42 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2021, 12:12:38 AM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there. 
101 N to 580 S is a straight shot. Maybe we're discussing opposite directions.

580 west to 101 south. 
Logged

M3100

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 239
  • Location: Los Angeles County, CA
  • Last Login: July 24, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2021, 04:05:10 PM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there.
101 N to 580 S is a straight shot. Maybe we're discussing opposite directions.

580 west to 101 south.

The article mentioned 101 north to 580 east, as if there is no current connection for that direction of travel.  If so, likely there is no direct connection for west to south either. 
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 15709
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 03:25:42 PM
    • Gribblenation
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2021, 04:21:29 PM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there.
101 N to 580 S is a straight shot. Maybe we're discussing opposite directions.

580 west to 101 south.

The article mentioned 101 north to 580 east, as if there is no current connection for that direction of travel.  If so, likely there is no direct connection for west to south either.

I think I’m confused, was there another article referring to the 101/580 interchange or did I just make a typo on Gribblenation?  In the blog I refer to 580 west getting to 101 south.
Logged

mrsman

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3465
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Silver Spring, MD
  • Last Login: Today at 03:38:36 PM
Re: 🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2021
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2021, 10:38:09 AM »

Just to add, Drake is not a required routing to get from 101 to 580, you can go to the next exit as well (as I did) and drive straight through 580's exit 1.

1B on Bellan wasn’t it?  There are some odd jogs to get to the southbound ramp but it is in fact there.
101 N to 580 S is a straight shot. Maybe we're discussing opposite directions.

580 west to 101 south.

The article mentioned 101 north to 580 east, as if there is no current connection for that direction of travel.  If so, likely there is no direct connection for west to south either.

I think I’m confused, was there another article referring to the 101/580 interchange or did I just make a typo on Gribblenation?  In the blog I refer to 580 west getting to 101 south.

101 south to 580 east and 580 west to 101 north have direct freeway to freeway connection.  580 west defaults onto 101 north.

580 west to 101 south - no direct connection and it doesn't seem like one is planned.  This would be a "left turn" movement, so if this were to be done it would require some type of flyover and probably significant land taking.  There are two ways of making this missing movement, based on official guide signs.  Via Sir Francis Drake, less overall mileage, but more mileage on surface streets.  Fortunately the left turn on-ramp onto US 101 south from SFD bridges over eastbound SFD, so that movement is continuous.  The second method via Bellam Blvd (Francisco Blvd exit) will have you making a standard left from the off-ramp, a right turn at the next major street and then another right onto the on-ramp.

101 north to 580 east - no direct connection, but as the articles state, one is planned.  You can currently make the move via sir francis drake, this time it's a right turn from the off-ramp, a drive for about 1.5 miles and then you default onto the onramp for 580.  Alternatively, you can take the Francisco Blvd exit.  As you exit, you will merge with traffic from the "Bellam/Francisco" exit off SB 101 (to 580 east) that is also making this exit.  You then can go straight through on the traffic signal at Bellam Blvd and enter 580 east.  This requires no turns, but you do face a traffic signal.

While I have not seen how they will make this connection, I imagine it would involve removing the "Bellam/Francisco" exit (from SB 101 to EB 580 - exit 451B to exit 1) and having people take the "Andersen/Francisco" exit (exit 451 A) instead for anyone on SB 101 wanting to reach the local area.  with that ramp removed, it seems relatively straightforward to reconstruct the 101 NB ramp to merge directly onto 580 east, although the 580 eB bridge over Bellam would probably need to be widened to allow for the merging.

Here's a map.  I believe that exit 1 would likely need to be removed.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Richmond,+CA/@37.9611449,-122.507523,272m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x808565e0f15c8c29:0xb3101633da15bff4!8m2!3d37.9357576!4d-122.3477486

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.