Headlines and Articles about California Highways - October 2018

[cahwyguy]

Here's the link to this month's collection of links about California Highways. The intro includes my editorial on Prop 6, which I won't include here.

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=14806

Ready, set, discuss.

[Max Rockatansky]

What caught my eye this go around...

The Historic Transportation Appendices looks like it will probably have a lot of value in my own research.  I've never stumbled upon that guide before, odd to see it was published so recently.  I also book marked the Historic Bridge Inventory given it has postmiles along with build dates for state highway bridgework.

Interesting to see Bakersfield got a realignment of the High Speed Rail Route.  Locally the destructive nature of the project on parts of Fresno hasn't made a lot of people happy who want to preserve historic structures along the rails and Golden State Boulevard corridor.

Shame the Dardanelle Bridge ruins have to go, I'm glad that I got some pictures back in 2016.

166 is pretty infamous for drivers going way over the limit.  During my last drive on the route a couple months back it was fairly common to have drivers in Cuyama Valley going 80 MPH plus (when they were encountered).  There was lots of CHP presence for a rural highway but I could foresee parts of 166 becoming 65 MPH zones given the grade is good enough in many places.

[mgk920]

Interesting to see Bakersfield got a realignment of the High Speed Rail Route.  Locally the destructive nature of the project on parts of Fresno hasn't made a lot of people happy who want to preserve historic structures along the rails and Golden State Boulevard corridor.

This is an argument that I was constantly bringing up when a 'faux' HSR project was being discussed here in Wisconsin several years ago - if you want real 'high speed rail', find me a completely grade-separated corridor between downtown Chicago and downtown Minneapolis, MN, via both Milwaukee and Madison, WI, that has a minimum horizontal curve radius of 7,000 meters (just over four miles), which would allow for a track speed of 350 km/h (+/- 220 MPH) on its entire length, thus allowing Chicago-MStP trains to run 'express' so that that service can be competitive with airlines, including through the various metro areas' upper-end suburbs, and then report back to me.  This would mirror what is being built all over China and western Europe.

The best that I could come up with bypasses Milwaukee, which would be served by a 'loop' spur off of that.

That little, minor detail is an eye-opener.

All that said, this reroute, IMHO, is a shift for the better, being less expensive to build and less disruptive to the Bakersfield area than the originally planned routing.  The only downside is that the Bakersfield stop on this new line will be many blocks away from Bakersfield's station on Amtrak's San Joaquin line.  Can I safely assume that this station will include bypass tracks to allow LAX <-> SFO trains to run 'express' and blow through the station at full speed, allowing that service to be time competitive with airlines?

Mike

[sparker]

Interesting that CA 84 across central Fremont is being relinquished.  For an urban D4 arterial, it is remarkably well-signed, even with its convoluted pathway involving several right-angle turns.  I wonder if that signage will remain; it does, despite its indirect approach, delineate a pathway from the Dumbarton Bridge to Niles Canyon.  Logically, it would be replaced by a CA 84 relocation directly NE on Decoto Road, the extension of the bridge's east freeway approach, all the way to Mission Blvd./CA 238.  But even though that facility is still under state maintenance south of the City of Hayward, 238 reassurance shields (except immediately at the two CA 84 junction points at Niles Canyon and Mowry Ave.) have vanished!  Something tells me that the concept of CA 84 continuity has been discarded in Caltrans' quest to shed as much urban street mileage as possible -- and that the similar now-shieldless portion of 238 is liable to be next on the chopping block.  If the new owners of the route, the city of Fremont, keep the existing CA 84 shields and signage intact, all well & good -- but if the history of abutting CA 238 is any indication, the shields will indeed come down, and the Niles Canyon and Dumbarton Bridge segments of CA 84 will be functionally severed from each other.     

[mrsman]

Interesting that CA 84 across central Fremont is being relinquished.  For an urban D4 arterial, it is remarkably well-signed, even with its convoluted pathway involving several right-angle turns.  I wonder if that signage will remain; it does, despite its indirect approach, delineate a pathway from the Dumbarton Bridge to Niles Canyon.  Logically, it would be replaced by a CA 84 relocation directly NE on Decoto Road, the extension of the bridge's east freeway approach, all the way to Mission Blvd./CA 238.  But even though that facility is still under state maintenance south of the City of Hayward, 238 reassurance shields (except immediately at the two CA 84 junction points at Niles Canyon and Mowry Ave.) have vanished!  Something tells me that the concept of CA 84 continuity has been discarded in Caltrans' quest to shed as much urban street mileage as possible -- and that the similar now-shieldless portion of 238 is liable to be next on the chopping block.  If the new owners of the route, the city of Fremont, keep the existing CA 84 shields and signage intact, all well & good -- but if the history of abutting CA 238 is any indication, the shields will indeed come down, and the Niles Canyon and Dumbarton Bridge segments of CA 84 will be functionally severed from each other.   

I don't like relinquishments in CA.  While there is a good argument for local control of city streets, the cities generally fail to do their job to upkeep the reassurance signs.  I don't understand how cities can hang up hundreds of stop signs, parking signs, street signs, etc., yet it's too much trouble to maintain existing signage to keep travelers who are following the number from getting lost.  If they simply left the existing sings in place and did nothing , it would be much better.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^
San Jose is weird -- borderline schizoid -- about signage on city streets; they famously (check posts by myself and Max R.) removed the CA 130 signs from Alum Rock Ave. while leaving those on Mt. Hamilton Road (now officially "orphaned").  And when CA 82 was cut back to its present southern terminus at I-880, there was still sporadic signage along the former convoluted CA 82 path through downtown, including some SGS directional indicators along West San Carlos Ave.   But by early 2017 all the former CA 82 reassurance shields had been taken down within San Jose city limits -- even the remaining short 5-block stretch north of its I-880 terminus on The Alameda.  Conversely, the neighboring city of Santa Clara has maintained its CA 82 reassurance shields well, even to the extent of posting several new shields near the University of Santa Clara (the route extends through part of the campus) -- but once over the line into San Jose, it simply disappears -- and no one has bothered to place even an "end" shield assembly at the I-880 interchange.  Also -- the exit signs for San Carlos Avenue on CA 87 and for 7th Street on I-280 still cite the presence of CA 82, although it's been long relinquished.  It's as if Caltrans and the various cities just can't bother to coordinate their efforts in this regard -- and given Caltrans' recent statewide record regarding signage, they just don't seem to give a shit anymore -- which is becoming increasingly frustrating.