In 1995, voters in Orange County approved a plan to build 67 miles of freeway. But because they didn't want to pay for it with higher taxes, they decided to use tolls, previously unthinkable in California, to pay off the bonds that would finance their construction. They were told that by 2035, the bonds would be paid off and the tolls removed.
Things haven't worked out that well. Even with SoCal's infamous traffic problems, people just weren't willing to pay the tolls to use them, so revenue came in less than expected. The date when the bonds are to be paid off has been pushed back, now out to 2057 (https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/06/25/1529283/0/en/New-Study-Shows-Transportation-Corridor-Agency-TCA-Increased-Its-Debt-by-3-5-Billion-Despite-Not-Building-New-Roads.html). Their debt is rising despite no extra lanes being built. And now that Caltrans is building HOT lanes on the 5 and 405, these toll roads are becoming more and more pointless.
So what are they going to do?
The simplest thing would be to impose a sales tax to retire the bonds. Almost all of the operating costs of the toll roads are for toll collection, so once the bonds are paid off, making the roads free to use would not be very expensive.
I could see OCTA try to use making the toll roads free as a sweetener to a sales tax increase, although whether the voters will support it is another story. The last sales tax increase threw money at cities for pretty useless shuttles that made residents feel good about transit without much usage. The other thing is whether the state will try to shut down a toll elimination on air quality conformity concerns, or because it would increase VMT (as it is sure to do).
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 11:41:10 AM
I could see OCTA try to use making the toll roads free as a sweetener to a sales tax increase, although whether the voters will support it is another story. The last sales tax increase threw money at cities for pretty useless shuttles that made residents feel good about transit without much usage. The other thing is whether the state will try to shut down a toll elimination on air quality conformity concerns, or because it would increase VMT (as it is sure to do).
Has Sacramento gone that far into the looney bin?
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
If VMT increases, but stop-and-go traffic also decreases (much less idling), it's possible that greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It depends on how much the increases and decreases are.
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions
1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.
EDIT:
3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.
Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions
1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.
EDIT:
3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.
By 2035, it'll be coming almost entirely from solar and wind power.
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
What we really need is to have really tall metal poles (retrofit the Empire State Building and others, or build new ones) that can be hit by lightning and then store lightning electricity until it gets used up.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
Then why are we having rolling blackouts every time the temperature hits 100F in the inland regions of the state? Amusingly the City of Los Angeles is probably the best set to handle it's own power needs. PG&E has some seriously aged infrastructure and SoCal Edison isn't exactly in the best of shape either. This last summer in particular was really bad for anyone who has their electricity provided by a non-public utility company. What's happening now doesn't instill confidence in all electric passenger cars.
Seriously though, I rarely ever hear news of any sort of new generating station potentially being built in California. Almost all the talk in California isn't about expanding grid capacity but rather focusing on making the grid less prone to causing wildfires.
Regarding EVs and their very nature being a problem for the gas tax a lot of the talk has been of late regarding a mileage tax. I seem to recall the legislature was authorized last year to explore the feasibility of implementing a mileage tax?
Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 05:24:38 PM
What we really need is to have really tall metal poles (retrofit the Empire State Building and others, or build new ones) that can be hit by lightning and then store lightning electricity until it gets used up.
When you can make a collection system robust enough to survive the lightning strike (and everyone who has tried has failed miserably), maybe we could think about discussing this. It is an engineering hurdle and not a physics hurdle, but it is a LARGE one.
Imagine having that for your home say 50 years from now? House takes a lightning strike right to the pole and its like winning the electric bill lottery, provided you have a battery bank the size of the house to store it all.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
And that's a problem how?
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 06:52:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
And that's a problem how?
There isn't a ton of watersheds south of the Feather River that don't already have power generating stations on them. The stuff that has been proposed like Temperance Flat essentially is just an expansion and more oriented towards water shortage. Some of the larger hydroelectric projects like Big Creek really don't have much room for expansion and would face massive environmentalism resistance.
North of the Feather River there has been a lot of watersheds that have been declared wild and scenic. Some rivers like the Klamath even have some serious environmental push behind them to remove dams and restore the natural downstream flow.
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 07:15:01 PM
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
The Inland Empire and Phoenix areas are dense areas surrounded by empty space (mountains in the case of the Inland Empire). Why can't they be put there?
(I saw a set of solar panels in Newport Beach that was sloped to match the slope of the hill; the presence of mountains shouldn't prevent the installation of solar panels.)
Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 07:17:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 07:15:01 PM
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
The Inland Empire and Phoenix areas are dense areas surrounded by empty space (mountains in the case of the Inland Empire). Why can't they be put there?
(I saw a set of solar panels in Newport Beach that was sloped to match the slope of the hill; the presence of mountains shouldn't prevent the installation of solar panels.)
To be clear I don't see Arizona having this same issue that California does. There certainly is it the same level of environmental red tape in Arizona. It would be smart to put something large in the Inland Empire, I just question if there is enough of a drive to do so. If Newsom had made an announcement for 2045-50 I would have seen that as a far more realistic target.
Back to the original question, since the toll roads aren't a safety hazard (I-95 in CT), I imagine that the tolls will remain as long the cost of collecting them is less than the revenue, which should always be the case.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 06:52:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
And that's a problem how?
There isn't a ton of watersheds south of the Feather River that don't already have power generating stations on them. The stuff that has been proposed like Temperance Flat essentially is just an expansion and more oriented towards water shortage. Some of the larger hydroelectric projects like Big Creek really don't have much room for expansion and would face massive environmentalism resistance.
North of the Feather River there has been a lot of watersheds that have been declared wild and scenic. Some rivers like the Klamath even have some serious environmental push behind them to remove dams and restore the natural downstream flow.
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
The amount of energy that hits the earth in an hour is enough to meet our energy needs for a year. The Mojave Desert is massive and pretty empty.
EDIT: Someone estimated how much land would be needed to switch California to 100% renewable energy. It's not much (https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/california-solar-energy-landmass-043223/). Also, our current solar panels are only 20%. In the future, hot carrier cells will be able to hit 66% (https://www.ornl.gov/news/blocking-vibrations-remove-heat-could-boost-efficiency-next-gen-solar-cells)
Quote from: Alps on January 27, 2021, 07:40:20 PM
Back to the original question, since the toll roads aren't a safety hazard (I-95 in CT), I imagine that the tolls will remain as long the cost of collecting them is less than the revenue, which should always be the case.
But they need to pay those bondholders somehow.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 08:23:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 06:52:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
And that's a problem how?
There isn't a ton of watersheds south of the Feather River that don't already have power generating stations on them. The stuff that has been proposed like Temperance Flat essentially is just an expansion and more oriented towards water shortage. Some of the larger hydroelectric projects like Big Creek really don't have much room for expansion and would face massive environmentalism resistance.
North of the Feather River there has been a lot of watersheds that have been declared wild and scenic. Some rivers like the Klamath even have some serious environmental push behind them to remove dams and restore the natural downstream flow.
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
The amount of energy that hits the earth in an hour is enough to meet our energy needs for a year. The Mojave Desert is massive and pretty empty.
EDIT: Someone estimated how much land would be needed to switch California to 100% renewable energy. It's not much (https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/california-solar-energy-landmass-043223/). Also, our current solar panels are only 20%. In the future, hot carrier cells will be able to hit 66% (https://www.ornl.gov/news/blocking-vibrations-remove-heat-could-boost-efficiency-next-gen-solar-cells)
A lot of the western Mojave near Lancaster and Palmdale would be ideal for that kind of thing and have the least amounts of environmental red tape. Antelope Valley in particular already has some substantial wind farms much like Tehachapi Pass.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 08:31:16 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 08:23:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 07:15:01 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 06:52:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 06:31:21 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on January 27, 2021, 06:27:00 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 27, 2021, 06:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 05:16:50 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 27, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom? There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market. If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?
We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.
No problem at all. Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century. Add in some nuclear too.
Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.
It's not that they "couldn't" be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible. Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California. Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.
And that's a problem how?
There isn't a ton of watersheds south of the Feather River that don't already have power generating stations on them. The stuff that has been proposed like Temperance Flat essentially is just an expansion and more oriented towards water shortage. Some of the larger hydroelectric projects like Big Creek really don't have much room for expansion and would face massive environmentalism resistance.
North of the Feather River there has been a lot of watersheds that have been declared wild and scenic. Some rivers like the Klamath even have some serious environmental push behind them to remove dams and restore the natural downstream flow.
With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact. Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.
The amount of energy that hits the earth in an hour is enough to meet our energy needs for a year. The Mojave Desert is massive and pretty empty.
EDIT: Someone estimated how much land would be needed to switch California to 100% renewable energy. It's not much (https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/california-solar-energy-landmass-043223/). Also, our current solar panels are only 20%. In the future, hot carrier cells will be able to hit 66% (https://www.ornl.gov/news/blocking-vibrations-remove-heat-could-boost-efficiency-next-gen-solar-cells)
A lot of the western Mojave near Lancaster and Palmdale would be ideal for that kind of thing and have the least amounts of environmental red tape. Antelope Valley in particular already has some substantial wind farms much like Tehachapi Pass.
You could put some on the Santa Ana Mountains, it would generate power and weaken those nasty Santa Ana Winds.
If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?
Since the toll roads were and are OCTA property -- with Caltrans as a design and operations partner -- one or the other would likely have to assume maintenance of Los Patrones to erect CA 241 shields -- unless some sort of waiver were granted. Remember Caltrans signs roads it owns or, in the case of the OC toll roads, has an interest in; and placing state shields on county-owned roads isn't within the agency's current practice. So don't anticipate Los Patrones getting "shielded" regardless of the status of tolling itself unless there's a change in ownership.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions
1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.
EDIT:
3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.
By 2035, it'll be coming almost entirely from solar and wind power.
That is incredibly naïve. There MIGHT be enough solar, wind, and hydro power in the entire US to power California by 2035. Cali MIGHT be able to say they are out of the fossil fuel / nuclear power business, but it would be through wheeling (passing electricity on from a distant point to another), exchanges (IE trading the ability to take credit for using CLEAN electricity that is actually generated and used in a different location), and true reductions in demand / usage.
I will add one thing additionally: The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation. The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.
Quote from: bwana39 on January 30, 2021, 07:44:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:33:13 PM
Quote from: 1 on January 27, 2021, 01:22:06 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 27, 2021, 01:19:42 PM
Quote from: fungus on January 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM
The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.
California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions
1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.
EDIT:
3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.
By 2035, it'll be coming almost entirely from solar and wind power.
That is incredibly naïve. There MIGHT be enough solar, wind, and hydro power in the entire US to power California by 2035. Cali MIGHT be able to say they are out of the fossil fuel / nuclear power business, but it would be through wheeling (passing electricity on from a distant point to another), exchanges (IE trading the ability to take credit for using CLEAN electricity that is actually generated and used in a different location), and true reductions in demand / usage.
I will add one thing additionally: The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation. The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.
On what basis are you making that assumption?
Quote from: bwana39 on January 30, 2021, 07:44:30 PM
I will add one thing additionally: The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation. The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.
There are pollutants. There are always pollutants in any industry, even building buggies for horse carts. The car battery recycling issue is something that will need to be solved. But these aren't multitudes of AA and AAA batteries disposed from millions of smaller devices that leach through landfills. These are large car battery units that will be pulled from vehicles and can be immediately entered into the recycling chain. We already know how to recycle these batteries. It's a very different and mostly controllable problem, like recycling oil done by Jiffy Lube. This pollution also is minor compared to the pollution done by autos, not just the exhaust but the oil spilled and escaping through vapors at gas stations and other transfer sites, pipeline spills, and the giant oil processing plants.
Your use of pollutants is a red herring argument and is often promoted by those who often have vested interests in the petroleum and related industries. There are different pollutants, but they will be far less and with far less negative environmental impact than what we see today. It would be useless to force people to give up their cars and either walk or take mass transit, and I don't need to ask the car-enthusiast road geeks on AA Roads for that answer. Electric vehicles are a less polluting type of vehicle, not a non-polluting source. Given a choice between electric vehicles and walking/ mass transit, I'm sure a large majority will take electric vehicles. If they can be self-driving, increasing the number of commuter vehicles on the road while also increasing safety, even better.
Please avoid red herring arguments. I will call them out as the issue diversions they are.
Quote from: skluth on January 31, 2021, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 30, 2021, 07:44:30 PM
I will add one thing additionally: The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation. The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.
There are pollutants. There are always pollutants in any industry, even building buggies for horse carts. The car battery recycling issue is something that will need to be solved. But these aren't multitudes of AA and AAA batteries disposed from millions of smaller devices that leach through landfills. These are large car battery units that will be pulled from vehicles and can be immediately entered into the recycling chain. We already know how to recycle these batteries. It's a very different and mostly controllable problem, like recycling oil done by Jiffy Lube. This pollution also is minor compared to the pollution done by autos, not just the exhaust but the oil spilled and escaping through vapors at gas stations and other transfer sites, pipeline spills, and the giant oil processing plants.
Your use of pollutants is a red herring argument and is often promoted by those who often have vested interests in the petroleum and related industries. There are different pollutants, but they will be far less and with far less negative environmental impact than what we see today. It would be useless to force people to give up their cars and either walk or take mass transit, and I don't need to ask the car-enthusiast road geeks on AA Roads for that answer. Electric vehicles are a less polluting type of vehicle, not a non-polluting source. Given a choice between electric vehicles and walking/ mass transit, I'm sure a large majority will take electric vehicles. If they can be self-driving, increasing the number of commuter vehicles on the road while also increasing safety, even better.
Please avoid red herring arguments. I will call them out as the issue diversions they are.
I don't know how much pollution is caused by battery production, but I do know that extracting oil, refining it into gasoline, and then transporting it in tanker trucks to gas stations is incredibly bad for the environment. And your car requires $2,000 worth of platinum catalysts to keep the emissions from burning it down to acceptable levels.
Quote from: sparker on January 28, 2021, 08:01:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 27, 2021, 09:00:31 PM
If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?
Since the toll roads were and are OCTA property -- with Caltrans as a design and operations partner -- one or the other would likely have to assume maintenance of Los Patrones to erect CA 241 shields -- unless some sort of waiver were granted. Remember Caltrans signs roads it owns or, in the case of the OC toll roads, has an interest in; and placing state shields on county-owned roads isn't within the agency's current practice. So don't anticipate Los Patrones getting "shielded" regardless of the status of tolling itself unless there's a change in ownership.
The toll roads are NOT OCTA property. They are state highways.
They were funded out of toll revenues and a levy on properties within the vicinity of the toll roads. The tolls and those tax levies are handled by two joint power authorities which were authorized by the California Legislature. These JPAs are comprised of Orange County and the cities through which the toll roads pass and are known as the Foothills/Easter Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency. Even though there's legally two separate JPAs, they have one common set of management and operations staff and are commonly referred to under the acronym of TCA. These JPAs are separate government organizations from OCTA and OCTA is not involved in any part of their operation.
The legislation that created by the JPAs and gave them the tolling authority explicitly states that the toll roads could be transferred to the State upon completion and be part of the State Highway System. TCA has transferred ownership.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=66484.3.
https://thetollroads.com/about/background
OCTA is a county level transportation planning agency, authorized under other sections of State law. It is not an Orange County government agency but is its own separate agency, just like the TCA. OCTA has obtained authority from the Legislature to collect tolls on the portion of the 91 Express Lanes within Orange County.
This facility was originally built as a public-private partnership with Caltrans. It was one of four pilot projects authorized by legislation passed in 1989. The express lanes are state Highway with the private partner being responsible for tolling, operations, and maintenance. The SR-125 South Bay Expressway toll roads was also built under the same authority.
Due to concerns with the private partner on the 91 express lane having too much control, the Legislature passed legislation which amended that specific partnership agreement to make it a public-public partnership between Caltrans and OCTA and it removed the provisions of the agreement that were controversial.
The original public private partnership agreement covered a portion of State Route 91 in Riverside County. When the Legislature amended the agreement to give OCTA control over the Orange County portion of the toll facility, it gave the Riverside County Transportation Commission control over that portion in that county. Like OCTA, RCTC is a County level transportation planning agency, not a part of Riverside County government but legally separate.
RCTC and OCTA were mandated by this same legislation to work together on the operation of the express lanes, and they do, but they each have legal control over the toll revenues generated by the portions of the express lanes within their county.
Info on the original P3 legislation and the amendments can be found here:
https://atrn.assembly.ca.gov/sites/atrn.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/013106%20PublicPrivate.pdf
^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error. But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage. That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241". SB's another matter. Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect. I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.
Quote from: sparker on January 31, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error. But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage. That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241". SB's another matter. Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect. I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.
The two Transportation Corridor Agencies have never been part of OCTA. They have always been 3 legally separate government bodies. There are no plans to merge them. The toll roads have been owned by Caltrans since they were opened. I don't believe TCA has any legal title to any part of the facilities other than the infrastructure used for tolling.
With regards to the Los Patrones extension, that's not State highway. It's owned by Orange County, (which - dare I say it? - is itself a separate body of government from TCA and OCTA.) The State would need to adopt it.
There's no reason why the northbound direction couldn't be signed now as "TO CA-241" . I would not sign the southbound direction ad "TO CA-74" without also signing the routes that connect it to CA-74.
Quote from: jrouse on January 31, 2021, 03:39:42 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 31, 2021, 03:29:19 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error. But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage. That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241". SB's another matter. Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect. I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.
The two Transportation Corridor Agencies have never been part of OCTA. They have always been 3 legally separate government bodies. There are no plans to merge them. The toll roads have been owned by Caltrans since they were opened. I don't believe TCA has any legal title to any part of the facilities other than the infrastructure used for tolling.
With regards to the Los Patrones extension, that's not State highway. It's owned by Orange County, (which - dare I say it? - is itself a separate body of government from TCA and OCTA.) The State would need to adopt it.
There's no reason why the northbound direction couldn't be signed now as "TO CA-241" . I would not sign the southbound direction ad "TO CA-74" without also signing the routes that connect it to CA-74.
The "overlap" mentioned was simply OCTA board members or management personnel also showing up as members of the early TCA boards; early on -- mid-late '90's -- that situation was lambasted in the press (primarily the
OC Register) as potentially undermining the independence of the TCA's, which were supposed to be free of the local politics that historically had characterized OCTA policy deliberations and decisions. But with the TCA's and their tolled status, it was suggested in the press (but, of course, denied through official channels) that OCTA wanted to maintain a high degree of influence over the distribution of toll revenue. That in itself was typical of longstanding OC S.O.P -- everything was set up as "interlocking directorships" to maintain some sort of decision path from the county to OCTA to the TCA's. That arrangement came under fire when the CA 73 toll road turned out to be a money-losing proposition; the conclusion was that the facility's design and deployment criteria were unduly influenced by regional developers who insisted on a route beneficial to their private activities, increasing the construction cost. So while technically the facilities (the 133/241/261 cluster plus the separate CA 73) belonged to Caltrans for maintenance purposes, TCA did govern the actual collection of tolls and the distribution of that portion of such that didn't get plowed back into the facilities -- which was the focal point of controversy. Incidentally, the "design/build" aspect of the toll roads was one thing that got rave reviews as substantially lessening the time between project letting and the actual opening of the Eastern Corridor segment, which went into service between mid-1995 and the fall of 1998, when the connection to CA 91 opened (I lived two miles from that junction at the time). For a "government project", the preternaturally conservative OC press lavished praise on the corridor's developmental process -- at least until the CA 73 issues emerged, at which time they reverted to their historical outcries against "government waste". But most of the vitriol was aimed at that particular TCA as part of the "corrupt" nature of the various OC transportation mechanism; Caltrans, being deemed out of the original policy "loop", was spared much of the criticism. Eventually the TCA's for CA 73 and the Eastern Corridor were merged out of fiscal necessity. But it was the
de facto rather than the
de jure situation, particularly the interlocking nature of OC jurisdictions, that came under fire in this instance. Interestingly, the fact that OC is the only county with its own Caltrans district (D12) wasn't addressed within the scope of the various public discussions; back circa 2002 or so I was expecting the "other shoe to drop" from the local press regarding any overly cozy relationship between the county agencies and D12 (another form of overlap), but by the time I moved out of the area that had yet to happen (and I let my
Register subscription lapse when I left). Caltrans came through relatively unscathed, largely due to the fact that the press placed the blame within OC policy circles.
P.S. -- I fully agree with the notion that not only Los Patrones but the other streets serving as connectors to CA 74 be "trailblazed" with signage if any mention of 74 is to be made.
D12 is an interesting answer to a trivia question. Assemblyman Ross Johnson used it as part of some deal trading to get his own Caltrans District and not have to deal with the suits in LA. I think it's been discussed on this board how OC-centric the control cities are when you are in their county. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-28-me-6918-story.html
Quote from: fungus on February 01, 2021, 05:21:57 PM
D12 is an interesting answer to a trivia question. Assemblyman Ross Johnson used it as part of some deal trading to get his own Caltrans District and not have to deal with the suits in LA. I think it's been discussed on this board how OC-centric the control cities are when you are in their county. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-28-me-6918-story.html
At least L.A. consistently shows up as a control city on NB I-5 once past the El Toro "Y", as does Long Beach on I-405. But on non-Interstate freeways, most do cite OC cities rather than the outflung places where folks employed within the county actually live (don't recall seeing Corona on any BGS's, although Riverside does get a mention both on NB CA 55 and EB CA 91). Either that, or there's just no control cities at all -- WB CA 91, signed for years from CA 55 and CA 57 for L.A., is largely void of a control city past I-5 -- but the tiny burg of Artesia was, for a time, mentioned -- even though CA 91 only traverses it for about a mile and a half! Lakewood, Compton, or Gardena would be more appropriate -- but those are in L.A. County, so no mention of those prior to I-605.
It would seem that the '87 split of D12 out of D7 was done in part to offset the urbanist influence that was back then just starting to exert pressure on Caltrans to modify or even truncate road-related planning (remember, this was during the later years of the I-105/Century Freeway deployment, fraught with one controversy after another). Johnson et. al. within OC political circles calculated that a "native" OC-based district could and would assert an increased level of independence from both L.A. and Sacramento and continue to support deploying new road facilities to the fast-expanding South County area. But this was something of a double-edged sword, so to speak -- while the developmental need of newly-designated areas such as Rancho Santa Margarita and Aliso Viejo were looming large, the basic OC conservatism was working against an expanded freeway network serving those areas due to the projected cost of such. Thus the planning for the toll facilities commenced -- substituting bonds supported by future semi-direct user fees for construction coupled with a "design-build" process that would purportedly go from preliminary planning to a system collecting said fees in as little time as feasible. And it. by and large. worked -- within 8 years the section of CA 241 near RSM opened for service, with the remainder of the "Eastern Corridor" in service a little over 3 years later -- including the singularly heroic construction of 241 over the hill into Santa Ana Canyon! But for all intents and purposes there has been no significant "freeway" construction in OC since D12 broke off; except for the northern "free" approaches to CA 73 and improvements to CA 55 in northern Newport Beach -- and the expressway on CA 133 between I-405 and CA 73 -- the toll corridors constitute the major OC/Caltrans roadway projects over the past 30+ years. D12 indeed went its own way in this regard; their methodology aligning with historical OC political/economic preferences.
Quote from: sparker on February 01, 2021, 09:30:15 PM
but the tiny burg of Artesia was, for a time, mentioned -- even though CA 91 only traverses it for about a mile and a half! Lakewood, Compton, or Gardena would be more appropriate -- but those are in L.A. County, so no mention of those prior to I-605.
Artesia is in LA County as well. The last city in Orange County on the W/B 91 is La Palma.
My understanding of why Artesia ended up as a W/B control city is during the late 90's, somebody in District 12 got a notion that all the freeways should be named for their destinations. While some freeways had been named for their destinations (e.g., Santa Ana Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Orange Freeway) there were also some that had been named for the street highway routings they replaced, e.g., the Garden Grove Freeway replaced Garden Grove Blvd, the Newport Freeway replaced the portion of the route that went over Newport Blvd, and the Artesia Freeway replaced Artesia Blvd.
When District 12 decided that the freeway names needed to match up to their destinations, they changed the name of the Newport Freeway to the Costa Mesa Freeway, explaining to the press that the freeway didn't end in Newport (Beach), and so the name was deceptive. This reasoning reflected a misunderstanding that assumed the the freeway had been named after the intended destination rather than the street it replaced.
It was at this time that Artesia first showed up as a control city on a BGS. Apparently this new philosophy that freeways should be named after where they end was applied in reverse; if the freeway is called the Artesia Freeway, it should reflect Artesia as a destination. As you note, prior to this, either the destination on W/B 91 didn't have a control city past the 5 interchange, or in some instances, the control city was Long Beach. In fact, you can still find freeway signing on side-streets that shows Long Beach as the control city for the 91 W/B. Other than the two W/B pullthrough BGS's at the 5 interchange and one exit BGS on the N/B 5, there's not a single other sign that identifies Artesia as a control city on the 91.
As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12. L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A. This is terrible and inconsistent. They should have had both signs for both control cities.
"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities. Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91. Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control. "Anaheim/Riverside." The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown). How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions). Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions. Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas. If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.
Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities. Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise. So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange. Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.
CA 55 north of I-5 should just go back to solely Riverside. I think the majority of traffic to this day is using it to get to EB CA 91.
Quote from: mrsman on March 02, 2021, 08:00:22 AM
As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12. L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A. This is terrible and inconsistent. They should have had both signs for both control cities.
"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities. Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91. Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control. "Anaheim/Riverside." The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown). How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions). Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions. Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas. If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.
Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities. Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise. So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange. Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.
Agree completely. Anaheim as a control city north of the 5 isn't only wrong, it creates a danger of sending some poor tourist looking for Disneyland into the gridlocked hellscape that is the Santa Ana Canyon. And as for the 91, I don't understand the logic of why Pasadena has to be a control city on the n/b 710 and w/b 210 instead of LA, but the moment you hit the 241 interchange, Beach Cities disappears and now LA is the control city on the 91.
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ. Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 03, 2021, 02:20:09 AM
Quote from: mrsman on March 02, 2021, 08:00:22 AM
As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12. L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A. This is terrible and inconsistent. They should have had both signs for both control cities.
"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities. Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91. Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control. "Anaheim/Riverside." The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown). How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions). Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions. Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas. If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.
Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities. Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise. So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange. Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.
Agree completely. Anaheim as a control city north of the 5 isn't only wrong, it creates a danger of sending some poor tourist looking for Disneyland into the gridlocked hellscape that is the Santa Ana Canyon. And as for the 91, I don't understand the logic of why Pasadena has to be a control city on the n/b 710 and w/b 210 instead of LA, but the moment you hit the 241 interchange, Beach Cities disappears and now LA is the control city on the 91.
The 710 NB control as Pasadena is forgivable, since the completed 710 would have certainly connected Long Beach to Pasadena. L.A. was at one time the northern control of the Long Beach Freeway (or even the Los Angeles River Freeway) many eons ago and I believe there were still some on-ramps in the South Gate area that may have had a Los Angeles control instead of Pasadena. This made a lot of sense when the LB Fwy was a spur off of I-5. Obviously when the LB Fwy was extended north of I-5 to reach Valley Blvd, they decided to change all the controls on NB to Pasadena, the aspirational endpoint.
Now that the 710 gap completion is officially dead,
to the extent there is money available, I agree that the new NB control should be L.A., with either Valley Blvd or Alhambra as the northern control north of I-5 (and only Valley Blvd north of I-10). Of course, changing all the signs on the freeway, connecting freeway, and street on-ramps could be expensive, so I don't think making this change is a big priority. Perhaps when the signs are to be replaced.
[Likely the use of LA on 91 WB is also due to the history that the 91 was once a spur freeway to the east of I-5, before the parts to the west were built. 91 won't get you to Downtown LA, but it will default you onto the I-5 which will.]
Los Angeles, of course, is a big conglomeration. I think anyone who has driven in the area is aware that simply following the BGS pull through signage is meant to get you to Downtown LA, if you follow all the signs to their conclusion. But of course, there are other areas fully within the city of Los Angeles where it does not make sense to follow such signage and to veer off at a certain point.
Coming from the east, one decision point is I-10/CA-60. [Peel off that miners spade, because it is really US 60!] Currently, the sign guides you to CA-60 for Riverside and I-10 for SB and L.A. But CA-60 and I-10 parallel each other for so much that many destinations the two are equal. Despite CA-60 being the Pomona Fwy, I-10 tends to be better for the Fairplex and even most parts of Pomona, including Downtwon Pomona. CA-60 would be a shorter distance as it is more direct to reach most parts of Downtown LA. Most of the skyscrapers and civic buildings and Hollywood are closer to US 101, so take I-10 there - but Staples Center and any of the Westside reachable via the Santa Monica Fwy are more direct via CA-60.
From the Inland Empire, there are more choices. Four main E-W freeways that connect "LA" to I-15 and I-215. I-210 to Pasadena, but reachable to lots of northern LA including Eagle Rock, the San Fernando Valley, and the movie production facilities in Burbank/Universal/Studio City. I-10 to LA, especially the civic center and the original Hollywood. CA-60 to LA, reaching the southern parts of Downtown as well as most of the Westside accessible to the SM Fwy. CA-91 to Orange County, but still continuing thru the southern parts of LA county (and even LA city areas such as LAX and San Pedro). OF course, all of this info is too much for the pull-thru signage, so I'm happy with controls of Pasadena, LA (for 10 and 60), and Anaheim, with the use of supplemental signage for any other important destination. A great example of such exists here along WB I-80 approaching I-680 in Cordelia:
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2231027,-122.1288486,3a,75y,260.55h,94.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQJu4o9sC4yi50DPiYvEuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Concord and Walnut Creek should use 680, even though Benicia and San Jose are the only controls for SB 680 on the overhead signs.
Similarly, on I-15 SB from Las Vegas, L.A. (not San Bernardino) should be the control from the stateline all the way to Devore. Then, LA and San Diego to at least I-10. But before the interchange with 210, even though the pull throughs would guide LA traffic onto the SB I-15, supplemental signage could recommend San Fernando Valley traffic use 210 west.
Unfortunately the time to change the control city on the 710 is now as most of the signs are being replaced. But on the new signs they are continuing to use Pasadena. Even the new signs at the 47/103/710 interchange and on the new Gerald Desmond Bridge, most of which are not replacements of old signs but are newly designed signs, go out of their way to list Pasadena as the control city. I'm not sure how Caltrans, Metro, the Port of LB, or whomever is responsible for the construction of the bridge and the new roadways thinks having Pasadena as a control city on signs for commercial drivers leaving the port is helpful. They would have been better off leaving a control city off those signs altogether.
Quote from: jdbx on March 03, 2021, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ. Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...
What does something like that cost to purchase? What does the install look like on the vehicle?
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 03, 2021, 03:01:06 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.
And even if most of our electricity still came from coal, because power plants are located further away from populated areas than auto tailpipes, we'd still be better off from a local air quality standpoint.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 04, 2021, 07:48:47 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on March 03, 2021, 03:01:06 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.
And even if most of our electricity still came from coal, because power plants are located further away from populated areas than auto tailpipes, we'd still be better off from a local air quality standpoint.
That was the original argument about "zero emission" vehicles required by CA. No, they are just vehicles with a 600-mile-long tailpipe.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 04, 2021, 07:28:03 AM
Quote from: jdbx on March 03, 2021, 06:57:24 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on March 03, 2021, 12:10:21 PM
EVs are just coal fired cars. Where do they think electricity comes from? What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.
The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ. Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...
What does something like that cost to purchase? What does the install look like on the vehicle?
I should have clarified, they are on the roof of my house. I would say ⅓ of the homes in my neighborhood have solar on the roof. With the high cost of electricity in CA (25-50¢ per killowatt/hour), solar makes a lot of sense. I only paid about $2.70/kw installed, and that was before the 30% federal tax credit. My panels will have paid for themselves within about 5 years. I didn't put them on because I'm a hippie, I did it because I'm cheap and I *hate* our electric utility PG&E.
As for the car, it's the same story... charger installed in the garage cost about $600, since I was already wired for 220. Full tank every morning with power from the roof. That beats paying $3.50/gallon no matter how you slice it. I'm cheap. If it benefits the environment, that's great, but the green that I care about is what's in my wallet.
I am aware that in other parts of the country people are paying 10¢ kw/h for electricity and $2.50 or less/gallon for gas, so the economics are a lot different.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 04, 2021, 12:18:19 AM
Unfortunately the time to change the control city on the 710 is now as most of the signs are being replaced. But on the new signs they are continuing to use Pasadena. Even the new signs at the 47/103/710 interchange and on the new Gerald Desmond Bridge, most of which are not replacements of old signs but are newly designed signs, go out of their way to list Pasadena as the control city. I'm not sure how Caltrans, Metro, the Port of LB, or whomever is responsible for the construction of the bridge and the new roadways thinks having Pasadena as a control city on signs for commercial drivers leaving the port is helpful. They would have been better off leaving a control city off those signs altogether.
It's a bit of a chicken/egg problem. Certainly it would be better to redo all of the signs for LA instead of Pasadena. But if you only have the means to do some of the signs, does it make sense to have some signs with a control city of LA and others with a control city of Pasadena? When most of the signs have changed to LA, then certainly it makes sense for new sections (like by the GD bridge) should have LA signage, but if the majority of signs say "Pasadena" is it better to be right or consistent?
All in all, I think I do agree with you, even if you will have a period with lots of Pasadena and LA signs on 710 north - START NOW changing them to LA. In a few years, they will be the majority and they will clearly indicate that the 710 will never hit Pasadena.
There are some other roadways with duelling controls. Over the same stretch of road, two separate controls are listed - depending upon the age of the sign. E.g. US 101 north of Downtown LA has older signs for Hollywood and newer signs for Ventura. US 50 east of Sacramento mostly is signed for Placerville, but there are some signs for South Lake Tahoe, especially near I-5. And I-210 west of Pasadena for a long time has had a control of San Fernando, but D7 decided to change many of the signs to Sacramento instead. (There are still plenty of San Fernando signs out there.)
The other thing is that there's one control city on the I-10 big green sign to divert drivers on I-710 north to use I-10 east, and then one side sign prior to the Rosemead Blvd exit to use SR-19 as the preferred route into Pasadena. While San Marino is exceedingly paranoid about people passing through their city to the extent of posting ridiculously misleading signs to use Sierra Madre Bl instead of Los Robles to get to Pasadena (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1062534,-118.1347837,3a,75y,25.83h,95.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSMizz_4OtDxrrPKCRKT_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), there needs to be some signage from I-710 at Valley Bl to get to Pasadena, probably by using Valley, Fremont, Huntington, and Fair Oaks. Hopefully now that everyone has agreed that the 710 is not continuing north of Valley Bl, those signs can be installed.
Quote from: fungus on March 06, 2021, 03:50:33 AM
The other thing is that there's one control city on the I-10 big green sign to divert drivers on I-710 north to use I-10 east, and then one side sign prior to the Rosemead Blvd exit to use SR-19 as the preferred route into Pasadena. While San Marino is exceedingly paranoid about people passing through their city to the extent of posting ridiculously misleading signs to use Sierra Madre Bl instead of Los Robles to get to Pasadena (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1062534,-118.1347837,3a,75y,25.83h,95.38t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siSMizz_4OtDxrrPKCRKT_w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), there needs to be some signage from I-710 at Valley Bl to get to Pasadena, probably by using Valley, Fremont, Huntington, and Fair Oaks. Hopefully now that everyone has agreed that the 710 is not continuing north of Valley Bl, those signs can be installed.
Here is the sign at 710/10
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0603107,-118.1647591,3a,75y,10.2h,106.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sYMjS5YR-_Nft4wjapUghQA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Basically directing traffic wanting I-5 (presumably I-5 north) to go west on 10 to hit 5. For trucks, this may be a reasonable way of allowing traffic from the ports to go into Northern California, as the ramp from 710 to 5 north is on the left and trucks are discouraged from using that ramp. Trucks must use 60 or 10 to reach 5.
To reach Pasadena, you correctly noted that Caltrans is directing traffic way out of the way in order to put traffic on the highest quality street. Rosemead is signed as CA-19. (Is it still maintained by Caltrans, I ca neever keep track?) By going this way, you consistently have multiple lanes of traffic on the divided surface street, but if your destination is in Central Pasadena you are needlessly adding miles to your trip by following these signs.
It seems like the anti-710 extension cities are having their cake and eating it too. They fought the freeway, yet they are not willing to shoulder the traffic that their actions have caused. They are happy to direct traffic away from their localities. Nobody is willing to actually help the traffic reach where they are going.
So here's the deal:
If you are coming north on the 710 from Long Beach, here are the best ways of getting to your destination:
If you wanted to reach 210 west or 134 west, then assuming the freeways are moving well, make your way to 5 north. You can use the left lane ramp to 5 (except trucks), or if you miss it take 60 west or 10 west to 5. 5 will likely be your most direct path to your destination in the northwest, but CA-2 is a great option that can connect you to 210 or 134.
If you want 210 east, depending on how far east you are going, you should take 10 as far east as you can bear. 10 is a lot busier than 210, so it seems that they are recommending traffic to take 10 to Rosemead to then reach 210, but if you can use the 605 as your connector, even better. Of course, 57, 15, and 215 also make the connection even further east. The locals strongly prefer that you not take any surface streets before Rosemead, but they can't really stop you. (There may be truck restictions on some of those roads, however.)
If you actually want Pasadena, you need to ignore all of the signs and thread your own way. With the lack of freeway, no option is good. THe most popular is 710-Valley-Fremont, but it's crowded. Taking 10 east to Fremont, Atlantic, Garfield, etc. will also lead you to being mired in heavy surface traffic.
And given the politics involved, they will never sign one of the above surfact streets, because then all of the traffic will follow that.
Another option for Pasadena, is going west, and going to 5 north to 110 north. This is no panacea either. YOu will be going out of your way. You will be driving on a very curvy substandard 110 to Pasadana. Trucks are absolutely prohibited from this routing. And unlike going east, one can see that there is no decent arterial west of the 710 to directly connect I-10 to Pasadena because of the hills.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Neither South Pasadena nor its neighbor to the east, San Marino, really want N-S traffic to and from I-10 to Pasadena passing through their jurisdictions. And yes, there are numerous truck restrictions that impinge upon commercial traversal of those towns. But if surface streets aren't problematic and you have anything short of a bobtail, there's a simple routing (its S>N, so simply reverse it for the opposite direction):
Use the I-710 stub to its north end at Valley Blvd. Turn east to Fremont Ave. Turn north to Huntington Drive. Turn east (only a couple of blocks) to Fair Oaks. Turn north on Fair Oaks; it'll pass right through South Pasadena into downtown Pasadena -- actually ending up in the touristy "Old Town" area. By the way, you'll pass by the first Trader Joe's retail outlet on Fair Oaks just south of the CA 110 undercrossing (before they were sold to a holding company, TJ's was HQ'd in South Pas).
If you don't want to get off the freeway, from the south (on 5 or 710) simply stay on or segue onto NB I-5 to CA 2, then take it to CA 134 and head east for about 7 miles into central Pasadena.
Yeah, a completed 710 would have made things simpler and infinitely more direct. But it ain't happening, folks. One of the arguments raised by the City of South Pasadena against any 710 extension regardless of format was that most of its peak-hour traffic would have turned eastward on I-210, adding to the congestion misery that has been that freeway's bete noir since shortly after its opening in the mid-70's. That, added to the general increasing negativity toward urban freeways that has enveloped both local MPO's and even Caltrans drove multiple nails into the 710 extension coffin. Also, the fact that the most direct route via Fremont and Fair Oaks described above passes through no less than 4 separate municipal jurisdictions works against continuous and effective "To Pasadena" or "To I-710" signage -- especially since there's no existing single through arterial. For all intents and purposes, a recognized direct route just doesn't exist, except for locals and others who "know the territory".
Bringing together all of the above Pasadena discussion, I guess it is fair to ask:
If Caltrans re-signed all of the controls on the 710, south of the 5, from Pasadena to Los Angeles (and put in either Alhambra or Valley Blvd north of the 5), would there now be the "need" to have any further Pasadena signage on this corridor?
(I believe the need to sign for Pasadena would no longer be "necessary". The local cities have never adequately taken on the responsibility to sign traffic appropriately here anyway.)
And if that were done, and we got rid of the Pasadena control heading to 10 east at the 10/710 interchange and the control for Pasadena at I-10's Rosemead exit would that have any effect on traffic patterns? I.e. If there is no longer any mention of Pasadena, would any traffic from 710 still try to make their way along the surface streets to get to Pasadena and/or the 210?
(I believe that the traffic patterns won't change. This is already ingrained in too many people to drive along these streets to make the connection.)
I think it would also be nice to see supplemental signage for all the freeway routings that sparker had suggested. So on I-710 north approaching I-5, and CA-60, and I-10, have supplemental signs saying "Pasadena use 5 north to 110 or 2" and other similar signs at all the junction points.
------
In a similar vein, there is also the issue of how the city of Los Angeles signs for traffic from westbound I-10 (coming out of Downtown LA) trying to reach Century City. The city's favored way would be 10 east to 405 north to Santa Monica Blvd, but given the heavy traffic and the backtracking they know that few would do that. The more direct route would be to take 10 to National Blvd and then head straight from the exit on Manning with a right turn onto Motor. This would put traffic on a residential street through a wealthy neighborhood. They certainly don't want that and there are many bumps and other traffic calming obstructions along the way to discourage that routing. So the city established two other routings along the surface streets: 1) I-10 to Robertson to Pico to Ave of the Stars OR 2) I-10 to Overland to Pico to Ave of the Stars.
Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60. That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials. Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.
* :-D
Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60. That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials. Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.
Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.
Quote from: GaryA on March 08, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60. That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials. Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.
Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.
I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route (https://www.cahighways.org/maps/019-seg1.jpg) even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.
Quote from: skluth on March 08, 2021, 06:20:00 PM
Quote from: GaryA on March 08, 2021, 04:33:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 08, 2021, 02:48:21 PM
Maybe it's not on "the list" (or even in the foreword!)*, but it might behoove D7 to simply change the control city on NB I-710 to Los Angeles until the I-5 interchange, then Alhambra northward from there, including the ramps at I-5 and CA 60. That would remove Pasadena from the equation, hence the multi-facility "detour" on Rosemead or other N-S arterials. Since Rosemead (erstwhile signed CA 19, really hidden CA 164 if not relinquished) actually does enter Pasadena, albeit a half-mile west of the east city limits, putting small green signs to that effect at the I-10 interchange is helpful for general navigation, but with resignage on I-710 it pretty much removes it from its rather convoluted role as an alternate throroughfare to the unfinished freeway segment.
Yes, but signing CA-19 for Pasadena is like signing CA-22 for Long Beach -- it may enter the city limits, but if you're heading for the majority of locations within that city (especially "downtown"), it's not likely to be the best route.
I'm getting used to the California habit of not signing state routes or relinquishing routes through incorporated communities. I personally wish CA 19 was still assigned to the entire old route (https://www.cahighways.org/maps/019-seg1.jpg) even if it was only signed at the freeway exits and CA 1. Showing it's a state route on interstate exits cues drivers the exit leads to a major through street, handy if drivers want to exit and use a non-freeway to avoid heavy freeway traffic. I like using Arrow Highway and Mission Blvd to leave Eastern LA County during late afternoons when returning to Palm Springs because they're less stressful if slightly slower than the freeways. Seeing a state highway sign on the freeway like CA 83 cues me that I can take that exit to get to a parallel street option. It's much easier to remember a few numbers than a bunch of street names, especially with the sheer number of exits I'm already trying to memorize as an almost-local.
In full agreement that the local jurisdictions (Rosemead, Temple City, Pasadena) should maintain CA 19 signage over Rosemead Blvd, since it's the most efficient route
toward Pasadena from I-10. San Gabriel Blvd., a mile or so west and parallel to Rosemead, is a useful alternative except for the fact that it goes through San Marino and is something of a speed trap there -- but at least it puts one a bit closer to central Pasadena. Nevertheless, there is a paucity of signed state routes between I-10 and the CA/I-210/CA 134 E-W "continuum" through the foothill communities; D7 has been eager to shed CA 39 in the Covina/Azusa "flatlands" for the last decade, so besides the I-605 and CA 57 freeways, there's just not that much in the way of signed connectors. And since D8 and Upland decided to "86" CA 83 along Euclid, it's just gotten worse in that regard. It's as if Caltrans has stated in blanket fashion that "we're no longer going to expedite through traffic along urban/suburban/exurban arterials; we're leaving it up to the individual jurisdictions to decide whether they want to do so on their own!"
I fully expect D7, D12, and D8 to all but eliminate surface connectors from the state system within the next decade or two, given their proclivities to date. A few
might remain, like CA 1 along Rice Avenue in Ventura County and PCH along the Malibu/Dume coast -- even CA 27 may stick around, if the city and/or county of L.A. declines to accept maintenance (the same goes for CA 23 between CA 1 and US 101). The routes in Ventura County's farm/rural areas will also likely survive (maybe not CA 34) to serve the agricultural zones, as well as the routes out in the desert, but that's about it -- the L.A. basin will be toast! Ironically, I remember 1965-69, when just about everything that was owned/maintained by Caltrans received signage -- urban, rural, and in between. Perhaps what's happening today is just a manifestation of signing by maintained facility rather than actual utility as a connector; Caltrans has so much on their plate currently that they're simply "cleaning up" by scraping the detritus off that plate!
Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.
Upon checking their website they updated their 241-91 express lane connector so they're still chugging along and moving forward with projects. I just think they could be doing more. They need to completely reconstruct the 241 from the 133 to I-5. Preferably the 133 would be made as much of a freeway as possible to Laguna Beach. The obvious part is the 405 to El Toro with a full stack at the 73.
Other than various studies and projects along the 73 I don't know much other work planned.
^^^
Having trouble deciphering that. 241 doesn't go to Laguna Beach, or to I-5.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2023, 08:55:11 PM
Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.
For decades there have been pavement undulations in the section of the 241 between the 133 interchange and Santiago Canyon Road.
As for the agency's finances, the TCA's finances are terrible. It has refinanced bond debt and been doing the equivalent of interest-only type payments on the outstanding debt for years. Part of the reason for these decisions is due to overly-rosy traffic projections from the start. Part is due to higher initial capital costs from building the roads than was originally estimated. And part is due to a "kick the can down the road" mentality that has stretched paying off the bond obligations from their original 2023 retirement date to sometime in 2050. Critics of the TCA (and a grand jury investigation) claimed that some of the refinancing was done to justify extending the life of the TCA itself.
But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads. TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.
Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2023, 02:17:38 AM
^^^
Having trouble deciphering that. 241 doesn't go to Laguna Beach, or to I-5.
Sorry the 241 goes to the 133 which goes to Laguna Beach. That is the route that I took. California Route 133 is in decent enough condition. I just wish it were more controlled access further south I understand it can't be that way all the way to PCH. But the condition of the 241 to the California State Route 133 junction is really bad.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on March 28, 2023, 03:21:35 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 27, 2023, 08:55:11 PM
Can anyone here provide any insight on what is happening with this agency? I recently drove on the 241 from the 91 to Laguna beach and the condition of the road is comical. So many bumps one that damn near caused my Prius to go airborne. There's no excuse. Orange County is extremely affluent and there was a decent number of cars using the road.
For decades there have been pavement undulations in the section of the 241 between the 133 interchange and Santiago Canyon Road.
As for the agency's finances, the TCA's finances are terrible. It has refinanced bond debt and been doing the equivalent of interest-only type payments on the outstanding debt for years. Part of the reason for these decisions is due to overly-rosy traffic projections from the start. Part is due to higher initial capital costs from building the roads than was originally estimated. And part is due to a "kick the can down the road" mentality that has stretched paying off the bond obligations from their original 2023 retirement date to sometime in 2050. Critics of the TCA (and a grand jury investigation) claimed that some of the refinancing was done to justify extending the life of the TCA itself.
But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads. TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.
interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.
Quote
But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads. TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.
Not the smartest arrangement. I think that would allow a lot of Robert Moses-esque accounting: TCA skimming off the top before handing maintenance funds over to CalTrans.
On the one hand, tolls are incredibly expensive to collect and on the other hand, they discourage people from using the safest and most efficient roads we have. Who's to say if they're good or bad?
Quote from: Rothman on March 28, 2023, 06:54:47 AM
Quote
But, oddly enough, Caltrans is financially responsible for maintenance of the toll roads. TCA is only responsible for collecting tolls and managing the bond debt.
Not the smartest arrangement. I think that would allow a lot of Robert Moses-esque accounting: TCA skimming off the top before handing maintenance funds over to CalTrans.
That's a good question: do the tolls on these roads pay for the maintenance CalTrans does, or does CalTrans? The latter would seem like a good setup for avoiding the "bonds are paid off, time to make the road free, but how do we pay for the maintenance?" problem that resulted in northeast toll roads remaining toll roads forever.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2023, 04:01:56 AM
interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.
I don't know the rates on the route 2xx roads, but I always thought 73 was bizarrely expensive, even in the middle of the night. I drive 125 and I-15 express pretty often, and they're reasonable. 73 always seems to be deserted once evening rush is over, but if they only charged a buck at that time, I think it would have an order of magnitude more cars on it, and they'd make more money.
Quote from: pderocco on March 28, 2023, 01:43:15 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2023, 04:01:56 AM
interesting I find these tollroads very useful although I do think they would get a lot more traffic if they weren't toll roads and we're better connected to roads like I-5. So far the only road that connects to I-5 is the 133. If they were made free and freeway standards for routes like CA-261 AND 241 connected to I-5 and the 405 I think there'd be higher traffic counts.
I don't know the rates on the route 2xx roads, but I always thought 73 was bizarrely expensive, even in the middle of the night. I drive 125 and I-15 express pretty often, and they're reasonable. 73 always seems to be deserted once evening rush is over, but if they only charged a buck at that time, I think it would have an order of magnitude more cars on it, and they'd make more money.
IMO the 73 is one of the most beautiful roads in the state. Coming over the hill heading north seeing the Orange County sprawl with the mountains in the background is breathtaking.
I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405. The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions. Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility. Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2023, 05:51:31 PM
I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405. The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions. Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility. Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.
It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper" ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2023, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2023, 05:51:31 PM
I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405. The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions. Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility. Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.
It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper" ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.
That was always my assumption. All the same, pricing certain people out of a corridor doesn't exactly make it viable a fully functional transportation piece. What that more optimal toll rate is I don't know, I just know it's not the current one.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2023, 06:36:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 28, 2023, 06:05:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 28, 2023, 05:51:31 PM
I've never really found a time where CA 73 had much utility versus the price over just to sticking to I-405. The toll rate for me made 73 a novelty that I've only taken twice to see clinch it in both directions. Me personally, I'll pay a reasonably priced toll rate to get quieter facility. Trouble is that 73's toll rate is too high to make it viable for most people.
It's likely that way by design. It passes near the most affluent communities in Orange County. I'm amazed at how many million dollar cars I see let alone "cheaper" ones like Rolls Royce Phantoms, Lamborghinis, McLaren's, etc. It's just a different world up there. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel probably would prefer to have a road that prices certain people out.
That was always my assumption. All the same, pricing certain people out of a corridor doesn't exactly make it viable a fully functional transportation piece. What that more optimal toll rate is I don't know, I just know it's not the current one.
My assumption is that they know that out-of-area drivers (particularly those from western LA County and coastal points north) are using I-405 to get to I-5 to get to San Diego. And there are lots of those drivers. Every time I drive to San Diego, Apple Maps gives me the option to stay on I-405 or take CA-73 to get to I-5. The difference between the two is inconsequential (matter of a minute or two + 2 fewer miles), but CA-73 is the "faster" route. So they might be taking advantage of drivers who just turn Siri on and let her do her thing.
Quote from: RZF on March 28, 2023, 09:21:27 PM
My assumption is that they know that out-of-area drivers (particularly those from western LA County and coastal points north) are using I-405 to get to I-5 to get to San Diego. And there are lots of those drivers. Every time I drive to San Diego, Apple Maps gives me the option to stay on I-405 or take CA-73 to get to I-5. The difference between the two is inconsequential (matter of a minute or two + 2 fewer miles), but CA-73 is the "faster" route. So they might be taking advantage of drivers who just turn Siri on and let her do her thing.
Were the toll rates set during the era of ubiquitous sat-nav-guided driving?
Quote from: kphoger on March 29, 2023, 09:04:22 AM
Quote from: RZF on March 28, 2023, 09:21:27 PM
My assumption is that they know that out-of-area drivers (particularly those from western LA County and coastal points north) are using I-405 to get to I-5 to get to San Diego. And there are lots of those drivers. Every time I drive to San Diego, Apple Maps gives me the option to stay on I-405 or take CA-73 to get to I-5. The difference between the two is inconsequential (matter of a minute or two + 2 fewer miles), but CA-73 is the "faster" route. So they might be taking advantage of drivers who just turn Siri on and let her do her thing.
Were the toll rates set during the era of ubiquitous sat-nav-guided driving?
Still super high in the Map Quest era.
I messaged them about the condition of the 241 pavement between CA-91 and the 133 junction. They told me Caltrans and The Tolls Roads are two different agencies without elaborating. Seems a little weird given that they operate that segment of the road and could explain any improvements would be done by Caltrans, no?
But the 241 to the CA-91 express lanes connector is listed as a Toll Roads project scheduled to begin this year and they're overseeing that. Why wouldn't they oversee a project to reconstruct CA-241?