Headlines and Articles about California Highways - November 2018

[cahwyguy]

As we're at the end of the month, it's time for the usual headline post. Here's the link: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=14861

Loads of interesting stuff in there, including links to articles about the FEIR for Route 710 finally being signed, meaning the fork in the road along the route is accurate, for the freeeway is done and has been replaced by other projects (there are links to articles describing those in the post as well). There's lots of history, information on carpool lane changes, loads of links to the articles that made it into my November update, as well as a few that will wait for the next one.

As I always say: Ready, set, discuss.

[Plutonic Panda]

More depressing and rather tiring news of the 710 tunnel. Good news is it can always come back from the dead, bad news is that doesn't seem likely in the near future.

It's going to be funny in a way to see all of this money sunken into local streets and traffic get worse which is exactly what will happen.

[The Ghostbuster]

Don't count on the 710 tunnel coming back from the dead. IMHO, it is likely dead for all time.

[Max Rockatansky]

Interesting that 99 between Avenue 12 and Avenue 17 in Madera County is getting a widening but not all the way to Avenue 7 and the Fresno County Line? 

I find Safety Corridors like the one 12 in the Sacramento Delta to be somewhat laughable.  The traffic situation is so bad in regards to safety that Caltrans would rather stick up a concrete wall on a two-lane highway rather than attempt to allocate funds down the line for a widening. 

Its not surprising the 2016 slide zones on CA 1 in Big Sur are closing during storms.  The traffic out there is incredibly light in bad weather anyways and I'm sure Caltrans doesn't want to take the risk.  The Mud Creek Slide zone apparently was subsiding a little too fast if I recall correctly from a couple other publications?

I'm really hoping to finish the second half of the CA 99 series this next Thursday.  The weather is "questionable" right now but it could swing either way.  Rain in any form essentially makes freeway photo taking almost an impossibility, I have an alternate plan ready to go regarding the back story of the Ridge Route if need be.

I believe that I said it last month but its worth saying again...the repairs on CA 140 east of Mariposa won't truly be complete until the highway is either realigned around the Fergusson Slide or a rock shed is built.  That statement from Caltrans is self-congratulating at best given the lack of effort upon the agency to fix the real problem, at least 140 didn't close like 39 did.

[TheStranger]

The traffic situation is so bad in regards to safety that Caltrans would rather stick up a concrete wall on a two-lane highway rather than attempt to allocate funds down the line for a widening. 

To be fair, sometimes CalTrans wants to do more but runs into obstacles on the local level, i.e. Route 37 (which was submitted to the Interstate system a couple of times without being accepted) which has been at its present 2 lanes, divided setup from Sears Point to Mare Island for over a decade, with proposals for widening on the table for years but still simmering rather than being closer to construction.

[skluth]

Really enjoyed the Bay Area 'hidden freeways' article. I don't care that most of them weren't built. But those two additional crossbay bridges would have been awesome. I really wish both had been built.

[Max Rockatansky]

The traffic situation is so bad in regards to safety that Caltrans would rather stick up a concrete wall on a two-lane highway rather than attempt to allocate funds down the line for a widening. 

To be fair, sometimes CalTrans wants to do more but runs into obstacles on the local level, i.e. Route 37 (which was submitted to the Interstate system a couple of times without being accepted) which has been at its present 2 lanes, divided setup from Sears Point to Mare Island for over a decade, with proposals for widening on the table for years but still simmering rather than being closer to construction.

True, I guess the taste of a similar concrete barrier treatment on CA 25 has left a bad taste in my mouth.  I absolutely hated the 18 Mile Stretch on US 1 south of Florida City which did the same thing.  Its almost like the DOT in question throwing up their hands and saying "#$&# it!" when they can't expand a roadway.   

[sparker]

The traffic situation is so bad in regards to safety that Caltrans would rather stick up a concrete wall on a two-lane highway rather than attempt to allocate funds down the line for a widening. 

To be fair, sometimes CalTrans wants to do more but runs into obstacles on the local level, i.e. Route 37 (which was submitted to the Interstate system a couple of times without being accepted) which has been at its present 2 lanes, divided setup from Sears Point to Mare Island for over a decade, with proposals for widening on the table for years but still simmering rather than being closer to construction.

True, I guess the taste of a similar concrete barrier treatment on CA 25 has left a bad taste in my mouth.  I absolutely hated the 18 Mile Stretch on US 1 south of Florida City which did the same thing.  Its almost like the DOT in question throwing up their hands and saying "#$&# it!" when they can't expand a roadway.   

There are multiple issues concerning CA 25 and any expansion projects; the first one is the fact that any facility from US 101 down to CA 156 or all the way into Hollister will be a joint project concerning Caltrans' D4 & D5, both of which are prone to blowback from the "anything but cars" faction, which is certainly embedded into Santa Clara County planning entities and, while a bit more dissipated within D5, nevertheless has the Santa Cruz County contingent with which to contend during planning discussions (and they're generally anti-car as well).  If that obstacle can be circumvented or otherwise dealt with, D4's desire to combine the west end of the long-sought CA 152 Gilroy East bypass with their portion of the CA 25 corridor (that alignment would bypass the wetlands along existing 152 that have been perennially problematic to planning efforts) may well make the combined 25/152 project too big to be considered in one "bite", so to speak.  D4 and the Santa Clara county MPO are all but insisting that the 25 project at least include grading if not structures for a 25/152 interchange so the facilities can be connected at a later date without disturbing commuter traffic on CA 25, which backs up onto US 101 on a daily basis.  And D5 wants to see the current 2-lane-with-K-rail section of CA 25 bypassed by a 4-lane expressway ASAP because of the outsized exurban growth in Hollister and environs (and CA 25 is the object of multitudes of commuter complaints to every agency with an email address!).  Now that Proposition 6 is history, the funds for the original 25-only expansion, which would include a free-flowing interchange with US 101 south of Gilroy, will likely be forthcoming by no later than 2020, when grubbing and preliminary grading would take place.  But if the plans for a 152 "split" are added to the mix -- and the interchange could well be in San Benito County/D5 because of multiple waterway channels crossing 25 in Santa Clara County between US 101 and the San Benito county line -- the costs could escalate to the point where the project is either delayed of put on a more "leisurely" schedule for later full completion (which would piss off Hollister commuters no end!).  I've driven this corridor during day and night; while the former's no picnic, the end of DST means the peak SB commute time is at or after dark -- and the scrape marks on the K-rail attest to the problems with that situation.
 
The final decision as to project configuration should come by the last quarter of 2019; we'll know then if relief for CA 25 will come sooner than later.

[Plutonic Panda]

In another note, though we're four days into December, I found this article about a proposed bill for more revenue to freeways and highways– always a good thing!

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/04/california-measure-seeks-to-divert-billions-from-state-coffers.html?__source=sharebar%7Ctwitter&par=sharebar

I want to learn more about this bill before I take a stance, but what I gathered from the article makes it look promising. I would be more than happy to see HSR as proposed bite the dust. More funding to freeways and highways is great!

Caltrans needs more control over freeways though. The local MPOs and governments have too much control over vital projects like the 710 tunnel which are beneficial to routes greater than the RTA's or MPO's reach. It's too easy for small communities to stop a projects that might affect hundreds or even thousands of people but would benefit tens or hundreds of thousands of people a day.

I need to read more on this bill however as the only information I have read has been from this article. I was firmly against Prop six which was proposed or supported by the person that is behind this one.

[cahwyguy]

However, in the article I read on that proposal:

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article222466485.html

there was this nugget:

Now, the folks who brought Proposition 6, the unsuccessful gas-tax repeal to the ballot in November, have a green-light to gather petitions for a wide-ranging initiative that not only would take responsibility for state highway construction away from Caltrans and give it to local governments – but also end the high-speed rail project.

Taking state highway construction authority away from Caltrans is a bad bad idea.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^
DeMaio's a well-known "grenade-thrower" who doesn't seem to understand what the type of initiatives he proposes will actually do.  Redirecting funds away from Caltrans to local MPO's would be a mixed bag; a few MPO's, as per DeMaio's apparent preferences, would likely prioritize local road repair and development -- but others would undoubtedly direct the larger share of funds into transit-related rather than road-related projects.  Being a San Diego-based activist and former politico he should see that it was the local agencies down there that initiated development of the region's LR system in the late '70's and have overseen 40 years of expansion ever since -- the first in the state to do so.  Maybe he's just hoping that the more rural MPO's in the desert, mountains, and Central Valley will counterbalance the urban bent toward mass transit by expediting construction and/or repair on their local streets and roadways. 

Besides that, the local MPO's don't have the technical background to assume effective control of those funds they elect to apply toward the freeway networks within their jurisdiction -- the technical aspects of both repair and further development would still need to reside within Caltrans.  This measure would dissipate the decision-making process; it's not too difficult to see even the smallest project being bogged down by indecision or petty issues.  As the above post suggests, passage of this measure would at least be counterproductive and at worst jeopardizing to statewide maintenance of the highway network, 

[Plutonic Panda]

Okay so then I'm against the bill if that's the case.