California

[sparker]

I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built.  CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it. 

Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing.  SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland.  SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.   

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built.  CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it. 

Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing.  SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland.  SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.   

You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip).  Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond.  By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state.  Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras.  Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line.  I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

[sparker]

I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built.  CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it. 

Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing.  SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland.  SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.   

You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip).  Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond.  By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state.  Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras.  Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line.  I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era.  LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez.  When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield.  Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route.  The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end.  When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span.  At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany.  At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County.  US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff.  LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento. 

[TheStranger]

I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built.  CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it. 

Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing.  SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland.  SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.   

You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip).  Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond.  By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state.  Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras.  Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line.  I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era.  LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez.  When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield.  Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route.  The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end.  When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span.  At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany.  At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County.  US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff.  LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento. 

What was the approximate routing of LRN 14 east of today's Carquinez bridge - Pomona Street through Crockett and the Carquinez Scenic Road?

[Max Rockatansky]

I thought about CA 4 until I recalled that west of Martinez it was the defacto route of US 40 before the Carquinez Bridge was built.  CA 12 has a lot of value moving traffic over the Delta and has some substantial length to it. 

Actually, in pre-Carquinez Bridge days US 40 hugged the south side of the strait on LRN 14, which it followed from downtown Oakland north then east to the Martinez ferry landing.  SSR 4 was later commissioned over LRN 106 west of where LRN 75 (SSR 24) diverged between Concord and Pittsburg; 106 was south of and parallel to LRN 14 and intersected it at Hercules; while 14 traveled along the strait, 106 was somewhat inland.  SSR 4 didn't use LRN 14 and didn't extend west from LRN 75 until LRN 106 was commissioned.   

You're right, I don't why I assumed CA 4 used LRN 14 (probably should have looked before answering shooting from the hip).  Apparently LRN 14 was truncated circa 1957 to Richmond.  By extension that would essentially have made CA 4 it's own thing (aside from US/Interstate multiplexes in Stockton) through the entire state.  Granted Ebbetts Pass was definitely not a major Trans-Sierra Pass in any modern context it does route CA 4 from the Bay Area over the crest of the Sierras.  Prior to the 1964 Renumbering CA 4 for a time multiplexed CA 88 to the Nevada State line.  I'd say by totality CA 4 carries some pretty substantial weight as an important highway:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239528~5511852:State-Highway-Map,-California,-1963?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=29&trs=86

The sequence of different LRN's hosting US 40 seemed to be an ever-changing series until the freeway era.  LRN 14 was the first "leg" north from Oakland to Martinez.  When US 40 was rerouted over the Carquinez Bridge, LRN 14 remained as an unsigned route from Crockett to Martinez; and on the other side of the strait, the original "host" for US 40, Sonoma Blvd., was a LRN 74 "spur" when US 40 extended up to Napa Junction and turned east with SSR 12 to Cordelia and Fairfield.  Then LRN 7, which originally ran from the Benicia ferry terminal up what is now I-680 to Cordelia was bypassed by the present I-80 alignment, originally a simple multilane arterial; Benicia-Cordelia was added to LRN 74, making it a "U"-shaped route.  The Carquinez Bridge was privately owned, so LRN 7 originally began at the toll booth at the bridge's north end.  When the Eastshore Freeway was completed from the Distribution Structure (today's 80/580/880 interchange) north to the Carquinez Strait, the bridge was twinned with today's EB truss span.  At the same time, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge was being opened as SSR 17/LRN 69; both those designations, along with US 40 and later the nascent I-80, comprised the Eastshore Freeway from the Structure north to the present I-80/580 divergence at Albany; from 1957 through 1963 LRN 7 was extended over the Carquinez Bridge (by then Division of Highways property) down to Albany.  At that time LRN 14 was truncated to Richmond over the alignment of present CA 123 (it had never been assigned to any portion of the Eastshore Freeway), leaving former US 40 to Contra Costa County.  US 40 was LRN 7 north to Davis, where that LRN turned north on US 99W through Woodland and Willows to terminate at LRN 3 at the original US 99E/99W junction at Red Bluff.  LRN 6 then carried US 40 east into Sacramento. 

What was the approximate routing of LRN 14 east of today's Carquinez bridge - Pomona Street through Crockett and the Carquinez Scenic Road?

Shown below on the 1935 Division of Highways map of Contra Costa County:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCalifornia%20Division%20of%20Highways%20contra%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=2182%2C1636%2C619%2C1096

[TheStranger]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

[dbz77]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

Interesting.

One example of a diverging diamond interchange is the interchange betwen I-15/84 and 1100 South near Brigham City, Utah.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.4857482,-112.0524264,335m/data=!3m1!1e3

[jakeroot]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.

[sparker]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.

I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one.  That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!).  But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards!  As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats! 

[TheStranger]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.

I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one.  That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!).  But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards!  As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats! 

Looking at Historic Aerials, the original junction here (between Eastshore Highway/US 40/Route 17 and Ashby Avenue/what was then Route 24) was a T intersection in 1946!  By 1958 the current free-flowing ramp setup was in place; I wonder if this was designed to tie into the never-built portion of the Route 13 freeway between there and the Caldecott Tunnel area.

[sparker]

San Francisco Chronicle article on the diverging diamond interchange, mentioning one in Manteca on Route 120 that is forthcoming as well as one proposed for the junction between Route 13/Ashby Avenue and I-80/I-580/Eastshore Freeway in Berkeley

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Prepare-to-be-perplexed-New-diverging-14106699.php

I love the inclusion of those pedestrian-only undercuts and loops. Looks to be a helluva lot nicer experience than the typical DDI, where you cross to the middle.

I had heard about the Manteca example, but just this morning on my way to the office I heard (KCBS radio) about the Ashby one.  That's already an interesting interchange, being a free-flow (almost "turbine" in design) type connecting two state facilities (I-80/580 and CA 13) -- although there are some RIRO's along the ramps connecting to local streets -- and the bridges are presently "rust buckets" (right next to the Bay!).  But since "free-flow" doesn't seem to be in the Caltrans lexicon these days (if they can avoid it!), I suppose either a SPUI or DDI's what's in the cards!  As an interesting side note, the DDI was described in the radio report as being considerably cheaper to implement than other interchange formats! 

Looking at Historic Aerials, the original junction here (between Eastshore Highway/US 40/Route 17 and Ashby Avenue/what was then Route 24) was a T intersection in 1946!  By 1958 the current free-flowing ramp setup was in place; I wonder if this was designed to tie into the never-built portion of the Route 13 freeway between there and the Caldecott Tunnel area.

The original free-flow interchange (the bridges carry a 1956 date) was probably intended to complement the divided "semi-expressway" nature of the west end of Ashby Ave., including its RIRO arrangement with intersecting streets as well as the underpass under the UP (former SP) rail line, which is constantly in use; a grade crossing would mean backups.  Also, directly west of the interchange is the bay and directly south of that was & is the 80/580/880 interchange (back then 40/50/17), originally with a lot of merges that required changing lanes to stay on course, so the higher speeds intrinsic to the free-flow interchange meant that merging onto then-US 40 would be at a speed more optimal to getting across 2-4 lanes of freeway to get onto EB US 50 or SB CA 17.  That's still a problem, particularly considering the fact that the intervening diamond exit to Emeryville gets a lot of use these days due to commercial growth adjacent to I-80, so there's a lot of weaving and lane-changing involved from University Avenue south to the system interchange -- one of the contributing factors to the present almost 24/7 backup in that direction (that, and the metering lights on the Bay Bridge). 

IIRC, the Berkeley section of CA 13 was only a part of the Freeway & Expressway system, unconstructed of course, until the early '80's; only the Warren Freeway segment south of CA 24 was limited access.  If you've ever been around or dealt with Berkeley and its citizens, that would have been a moot point in any case -- to them, I-80 along their western edge is all the freeway they'll ever need or want!    Even the Division of Highways in their '59-era "if it moves, pave it!" mode likely recognized the futility of trying to punch anything of the sort through that city. 

[sparker]

A couple of Caltrans projects, one in D7, the other in D8, have received DEIS's and are set to proceed.  One is a HUGE undertaking that will likely disrupt I-5 traffic north of L.A. for its duration:  raising many of the underheight bridges along I-5 from CA 134 north all the way to the Templin (north) carriage-reversal bridge up on the Grapevine.  They're going for 16'6" on the overcrossings, which will mean mostly teardown/rebuilds rather than RIP methods.  Also included is beefing up some additional freeway-lane bridges, particularly the one over the L.A. River and WB CA 134 near Griffith Park.  The details can be found at:

https:/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-22/html/2019-15500.htm

The second -- and this is something in the works for a while -- are connecting flyover ramps between the CA 91 express lanes and the planned express lanes on I-15 north from Corona to Ontario; this includes some modification of the 91 express lanes at and east of the 91/15 interchange.  Details:

https:/www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-22/html/2019-15499.htm

If these don't provide direct connections, they're in today's (7/22) AASHTO DTU in the Federal listings section at the end. 

[skluth]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

[TheStranger]

Article on a potential transportation tax in South San Francisco mentions two projects along US 101/Bayshore Freeway that are proposed:
- Utah Avenue overpass
- new flyover connecting 101 and 380, not sure which movement this covers as EB 380 to NB 101 and NB 101 to WB 380 are already flyovers, as is North Access Road to SB 101.
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/businesses-criticize-south-city-transporation-tax-plan/article_4539352c-ac29-11e9-abe7-bba90c965e85.html

Found this related link too:
http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=13848

[ClassicHasClass]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

It's going to be a big freaking mess. It's also going to be a big problem for the City of Jurupa Valley. Its tax base has always been iffy and now its biggest E-W arterial is being intermittently severed. Can't be good for their economy.

[djsekani]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

It's going to be a big freaking mess. It's also going to be a big problem for the City of Jurupa Valley. Its tax base has always been iffy and now its biggest E-W arterial is being intermittently severed. Can't be good for their economy.

It shouldn't be TOO bad, with the freeway only being shut down completely on weekends. This project is overdue anyway, with the high truck volume that's ruined the pavement.

[ClassicHasClass]

This project is overdue anyway

Of course, Caltrans, to justify the gas tax, is now scheduling all of the maintenance and upgrades they should have been doing over the last couple decades all at once. Thanks, state legislature!

I hope you're right, but I fear it will be a bigger concern for that region than it would have been if they'd been doing the upgrades along the way as they should have been.

[Plutonic Panda]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.

[TheStranger]

In the last week or so, with the Warriors' move back to SF imminent, new signage for the San Francisco sports venues has been placed:

"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Use I-280 North" signage right after the Candlestick Park exit off US 101 north

"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Next 2 Exits" on the right side of 280 right where the ramp from 101 north meets it, albeit a bit hidden due to bridge supports for the double-deck viaduct.  This is about a half mile before the ramp to Cesar Chavez Street, and an older AT&T Park Next 2 Exits sign remains on the left side of the roadway.

"Chase Center/Oracle Park - Next Exit" right before the offramp to Mariposa Street from 280 north

[sparker]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.

Not many places where additional lanes would be practical outside of massive property taking -- the only relatively "open" territory CA 60 travels through between the San Gabriel Valley and Riverside are over the hill between Diamond Bar and Pomona (which feature truck-climbing lanes in addition to both GP and express lanes) and well east of I-15 in the Mira Loma/Jurupa Valley area.  Between I-15 and the Santa Ana River crossing there would be a possibility of adding lanes on the north side of the freeway (and moving the median north to even out the WB and EB lanes); but while that stretch does see congestion, the major problem on CA 60 is west of I-15, where it is hemmed in by residential & commercial development. 

[Plutonic Panda]

CA 60 is being upgraded between Chino and I-215 over the next almost four months in a project called 60 SWARM. West of I-15, three bridges are being replaced at Pipeline Avenue, Monte Vista Avenue and Benson Avenue in Chino. Pavement is being replaced between Euclid Avenue in Ontario and I-215. Expect lots of delays also on I-10 and I-210 as drivers look for alternate routes. I doubt it will reduce any traffic on my least favorite concurrency, CA 60/I-215 in Riverside.

They need to be adding lanes to this freeway. Ugh.

Not many places where additional lanes would be practical outside of massive property taking -- the only relatively "open" territory CA 60 travels through between the San Gabriel Valley and Riverside are over the hill between Diamond Bar and Pomona (which feature truck-climbing lanes in addition to both GP and express lanes) and well east of I-15 in the Mira Loma/Jurupa Valley area.  Between I-15 and the Santa Ana River crossing there would be a possibility of adding lanes on the north side of the freeway (and moving the median north to even out the WB and EB lanes); but while that stretch does see congestion, the major problem on CA 60 is west of I-15, where it is hemmed in by residential & commercial development.

True and real estate is prohibitively expensive. This is why elevated or below grade options need to be explored like the Dallas area freeways and notably 635. I would be in favor of toll lanes. It should also be noted this area is severely lacking in terms of mass transit.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^
Most of CA 60 between CA 71 and Archibald Ave. is either up on a berm or down in a trench; extensive surface running doesn't start until east of there; there are enough crossing arterials south of Pomona, Montclair, and west/central Ontario to have rendered a basic surface alignment largely infeasible.   

[andy3175]

Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.

https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs

LOS ANGELES (FOX 11) - Caltrans says it is actively working to have catwalks removed from freeway signs across District 7 -- Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Standstill traffic is no surprise in Los Angeles. But it is a shock when it's caused by a shirtless protester. That's what happened in June 2018 when a dancing man protested by hanging posters from the 110 freeway sign's catwalk. It snarled morning traffic for hours.

It happens to be the exact same sign that someone tagged and spray-painted sometime before Monday morning, covering all the arrows and exits for drivers on a vital sign during the morning rush hour.

"We have the four-level connector there," said Eric Menjivar from Caltrans. "So that's one of our most important connectors."

The sign is so important, while Caltrans usually prefers to clean them at night, it was forced to clean up the graffiti before the afternoon rush.

"The sign up there is actually one of our newer signs with a protective film that we can easily clean off, depending on the paint that's been used," said Menjivar. "Usually we can get that done in a few hours and go about our day."

But sometimes that's only a temporary solution. So Caltrans wants to try something new.

Using money collected from the SB1 gas tax, the department plans to hire contractors to remove catwalks from those newer signs. They are highly reflective, so they don't require attached lights. It saves the California DOT money on utilities, but it also prevents anyone from climbing onto signs in the first place.

"The main motivation for us to upgrade signs is a sustainability practice," Menjivar added, "But the trade-off is that it becomes a graffiti deterrent."

It's a win for the environment and taxpayers' pockets.

The department still needs to bid the contract, but officials estimate the project should be completed within two years.

Caltrans says they send about $2 million each year to remove graffiti. 



Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

[mrsman]

Article about removal of the catwalks in front of overhead signs..... this is happening all over San Diego right now.

https://www.foxla.com/amp/news/local-news/caltrans-hoping-to-remove-catwalks-from-freeway-signs

LOS ANGELES (FOX 11) - Caltrans says it is actively working to have catwalks removed from freeway signs across District 7 -- Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Standstill traffic is no surprise in Los Angeles. But it is a shock when it's caused by a shirtless protester. That's what happened in June 2018 when a dancing man protested by hanging posters from the 110 freeway sign's catwalk. It snarled morning traffic for hours.

It happens to be the exact same sign that someone tagged and spray-painted sometime before Monday morning, covering all the arrows and exits for drivers on a vital sign during the morning rush hour.

"We have the four-level connector there," said Eric Menjivar from Caltrans. "So that's one of our most important connectors."

The sign is so important, while Caltrans usually prefers to clean them at night, it was forced to clean up the graffiti before the afternoon rush.

"The sign up there is actually one of our newer signs with a protective film that we can easily clean off, depending on the paint that's been used," said Menjivar. "Usually we can get that done in a few hours and go about our day."

But sometimes that's only a temporary solution. So Caltrans wants to try something new.

Using money collected from the SB1 gas tax, the department plans to hire contractors to remove catwalks from those newer signs. They are highly reflective, so they don't require attached lights. It saves the California DOT money on utilities, but it also prevents anyone from climbing onto signs in the first place.

"The main motivation for us to upgrade signs is a sustainability practice," Menjivar added, "But the trade-off is that it becomes a graffiti deterrent."

It's a win for the environment and taxpayers' pockets.

The department still needs to bid the contract, but officials estimate the project should be completed within two years.

Caltrans says they send about $2 million each year to remove graffiti.



Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

It's about time.  The level of graffiti on highway signs in California is so bad.  I've driven through bad neighborhoods in other states, that have graffiti all over the walls, but the highway signs are untouched.  I'm glad CA is finally doing something about it.

[ClassicHasClass]

Random: had cause on my way over to the Bay Area via I-80 to look for my favourite remainder postmile and it's still there, a holdover I-880 on present I-80 in north Sacramento at the I-5/I-80 interchange. I'll have to dig a picture of it out.