Text only | Text with Images

AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: cahwyguy on January 01, 2022, 12:34:11 PM

Title: 🛣 Changes to the California Highway Website covering November-December 2021
Post by: cahwyguy on January 01, 2022, 12:34:11 PM
As promised, here's the last update for 2021 (https://www.cahighways.org/chg2021.html#2021-12) for my California Highways pages (https://www.cahighways.org/). This was actually a quieter update: three wasn't quite as much going on in the CTC minutes, there were no legislative actions, the headlines didn't have a lot that was new, and AARoads was mostly discussion. Have a happy new year, get out on the roads, stay well, and do the things you know you need to do to ensure all of the above.

Here's the link: https://www.cahighways.org/chg2021.html#2021-12

As always,  :poke: ready, set discuss.

I will ask again: Does anyone know what has happened to Sparker? I'm worried -- he hasn't posted since mid-September, and he used to be regular. I hope he is OK.

Here's the changelog, edited slightly, and minus the formatting:


December 2021:
2021 is done. You had such promise, 2021. Why did you have to piss it away?

For me and my family, the end of 2021 has been hard. My wife fell the Saturday before Thanksgiving, and broke her knee and the surrounding bones. She was in acute care for a week, then in-patient rehab for two more weeks (meaning three weeks of travel back and forth between Northridge and Burbank), and now is getting in-home rehab -- with no weight bearing until the end of February. This has added caregiving to the load–I don't mind doing it, but it does add to the work and stress.

Those reading this on ꜲRoads will miss my usual pleadings related to Mr. Spike Protein and his antics over the last two years, because some feel that public health is a partisan issue. Those who want to see my pleadings can go over to the full Changelog on the site (https://www.cahighways.org/chg2021.html#2021-12). You all know what you can do to help make 2022 better, and help bring the nation (and the world) out of this crisis, so we can get back on the roads and stumble headfirst into the next one.

But let's turn our attention to something more pleasant: the roads of the great state of California. From the rural areas in the far northern environs of the state to border commerce in the south, from the deserts of Nevada and Arizona to the Pacific; from the great Sierra mountains to the depths of Death Valley; from the urban areas to rural farmland–California has a vast road network to maintain and grow. It is a network that is vital to the success of the state: its commerce, its people, its growth. It is the mission of the California Highways website to document that network: its history, its peculiarities, and the significant changes that are coming down the road. It is a journey we go on together... once you demonstrate you're following state regulations for shared spaces. After all, I have a sick wife at home, and what you do with respect to communicable diseases impacts not just you, but the broader community.

So here are your updates covering the months of November and December:

Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the (virtual) papers in November and December 2021 (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the "Observations Along The Road" and to the California Highways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum (Ꜳ). This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(ℱ), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from Concrete Bob(2) , Tom Fearer(3), mrsman(4): Route 1(ℱ), Route 3(ℱ), I-5(ℱ), US 6(3), I-8(ℱ), Pre-1961 Route 10(3), Route 11(ℱ,3), I-15(ℱ), Route 25(ℱ), Route 37(ℱ), Route 42(3), Route 43(ℱ), Route 46(ℱ), Route 70(ℱ), Route 84(ℱ), Route 96(ℱ), Route 99(ℱ,3), US 101(ℱ,3), Route 125(ℱ), Route 129(ℱ), Capitol Southeast Connector/Route 148(2), Route 152(ℱ),  Route 156(ℱ), Route 174(ℱ), Route 182(3), US 199(3), Route 247(ℱ), Route 260(4), Route 263(ℱ), Route 266(3), Route 299(3), US 395(ℱ), US 399(3), I-580(ℱ), I-880(4), Route 905(ℱ,3).
(Source: private email, Highway headline posts through December 2021 as indicated, AARoads through 12/31/2021)

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. As many people are unfamiliar with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many "non-substantive changes" and "gut and amend" bills), I've added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. A new fiscal year starts October 1, but the legislature does not reconvene until January 2022. As such, there were no new bills or resolutions from either chamber of the state legislature.

I checked California Transportation Commission page for the results of the December 2021 meeting (https://catc.ca.gov/meetings-events/commission-meetings-archive/meeting-archives-2021) of the  California Transportation Commission. As always, note that I tend not to track items that do not impact these pages – i.e., pavement rehabilitation or replacement, landscaping, drainage, culverts, roadside facilities, charging stations, or other things that do not impact the routing or history, unless they are really significant. As such, the following items were of interest:

[ Note: ° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages; ♠ is an indicator used to keep track of what has been added to the pages; ❧  indicates the results from the meeting, if the meeting minutes were available. ]

2.1a. STIP/SHOPP Program/Project Amendments
♠ (1) SHOPP Amendments for Approval: Request to:
(Related Items under Ref. 2.5b.(1) and 2.5b.(2))


Of these, the following projects/allocation were at the level of interest for the highway pages (general, these are significant new structures or changes, as opposed to repair or rehabilitation in place; additions of bike paths, pedestrian, or complete street elements; or non-visible changes). In particular, the December agenda contained numerous Major Damage Restoration items from the various mid-Summer fires and fire complexes, as well as repairs related to PEH (People Experiencing Homelessness); it also included a lot of Polyester Concrete overlays to bridge decks–none of which made it into the highway pages:


♠ (2) STIP Amendment for Action: The Department proposes to program $24,900,000 of  Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)  Surface Transportation Block Grant Program—Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program funds to the Route 11/Otay Mesa East Port of Entry - Segment 3A project in San Diego County. (PPNO 0999F)

2.1b. STIP Program/Project Amendments/Approvals for Notice

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1c. TCIF Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.1s. TCEP Baseline Amendments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.2a. Submittal of Notice of Preparation for Comments

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.2b. Submittal of Notice of Documents Available for Comment (DEIRs)

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.2c. Approval of Projects for New Public Road Connection / Future Consideration of Funding

♠ (1) Approval of Projects for Future Consideration of Funding:
(° indicates items that were below the level of detail for updating the specific route pages)


2.3a. Route Adoptions

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.3b. New Public Road Connection

♠ One New Public Road Connection: 06-Tul-99-PM 26.8 New Public Road Connection to Route 99 at International Agri-Center Way in the city of Tulare in Tulare County

2.3c. Relinquishments

♠ Three Relinquishment Resolutions:


2.3d. Vacations

♠ One Vacation Resolution: 06-Fre-180-PM R77.30/R77.61 Right of way along Route 180 on South Reed Avenue and East Kings Canyon Road in the city of Fresno.

2.5a Minor Projects

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5b. Financial Allocations for SHOPP Projects / Federal Discretionary Grant Funds

♠ (1) Request of $98,871,000 for 21 SHOPP projects. This month, there were a bunch of culvert rehabilitation projects (which are not of interest for the highway pages).
(Related Item under Ref. 2.1a.(1))

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages (a few of these are more minor projects, but for routes that haven't seen any love gotten any attention in a while):


♠ (2) Request of $84,993,000 $84,903,000 for 91 90 2020 SHOPP preconstruction project phases for design and R/W support. (2a): SHOPP support phases; (2b) SHOPP Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) support phases.
(Related Items under Ref. 2.1a.(1) and 2.2c.(1))

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages (for the (2b) items, there was a lot of culvert repair and polyester concrete overlays this month–none of which are of at the level of interest for the highway pages):

♠ (5) Request an allocation of $15,300,000 for the Right of Way Capital phase for the Roadway Rehabilitation SHOPP project, on Route 70, in Yuba County, programmed through FY 2023-24. (PPNO 9820)

2.5c Financial Allocations for STIP Projects

♠ (1) Request of $35,468,000 for the State-Administered STIP Livingston Widening Southbound project, on the State Highway System (Route 99, 10-Mer-99 28.2/R37.3), in Merced County. (PPNO 0161B)

♠ (4) Allocation Amendment — State Transportation Improvement Program Project: Request to amend Resolution FP-20-04, originally approved in August 2020 for the STIP Route 99 Tagus 6-Lane Widening (Combined) project (PPNO 6400G; 06-Tul-99 30.6/35.2) in Tulare County, to add language to the vote box to split off for the Tagus Replacement Planting Mitigation child project (PPNO 6400H) and reduce the overall STIP allocation from $73,451,000 to $69,351,000 for the parent project.

2.5d Allocations for Projects with Costs that Exceed 20 Percent of the Programmed Amount

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5e Supplemental Fund Allocations

♠ (1) Request for an additional $3,500,000 (55.4 percent increase) in Pre-Construction Support, Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase, for the SHOPP Bridge Replacement project on Route 1 (Albion River Bridge № 10-0136), in Mendocino County.  (EA 40110, PPNO 4490)

♠ (4) Request for an additional $1,374,000 (24.4 percent increase) in Construction Capital for the SHOPP Bridge Rehabilitation project on Route 156, in Monterey County.  (EA 0A090, PPNO 0900A)

2.5f Financial Allocations for SHOPP

♠ Informational Reports on Allocations Under Delegated Authority:

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:


2.5g Prop 1B Project Allocations

There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5s Senate Bill 1 Programs Project Allocations Local Partnership Program (LPP) Allocations

♠ (1) Request of $1,629,000 for the State-Administered LPP-Formulaic Turner Road Interchange Operational improvements project, on Route 99 on the State Highway System, in San Joaquin County. (PPNO 3045)

♠ (9) Request of $52,918,000,000 for the State-Administered multi-funded STIP/LPP (Formulaic and Competitive) Interstate 680 Southbound Express Lane from Route 84 to Alcosta Boulevard project, on the State Highway System, in Alameda County. (PPNO 2905F)
(Related Item under Ref. 2.5d.(1))

2.5t Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) Allocations
There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.5w Active Transportation Program (ATP) Allocations
There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

2.6g Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) Allocations
There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

4. TCIF and Aeronautic Program Updates / Policy Matters
There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

Other Matters/Public Comment
There were no items of interest for this agenda item in the reviewed minutes.

Text only | Text with Images