California 46 widening stopping due to lack of funds in San Luis Obispo County?

[ACSCmapcollector]

California 46 widening stopping due to lack of funds in San Luis Obispo County?

From what I have heard during the spring and summer of 2016, Caltrans just ran out of gasoline tax money for any project that is going on, including the California 58 expressway west of Kramer Jct to west of Barstow.

What about the Road Charge per mile program that is supposed to start by January 1, 2017, would that benefit in the long wrong as Governor Jerry Brown puts this together with Caltrans help?

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[coatimundi]

No, that doesn't sound right.
Here's the Caltrans project page, though it looks a little outdated: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist05/projects/safer46/46corridor.html

I was through there last week, and there's work going on around Shandon, which is what's supposed to be happening. And the new section just west of there opened just a few months ago.

Any benefits of the Road Charge Per Mile program would be speculation at this point, but I personally like the idea of it and think it would both encourage more conservative driving patterns and help with funding new road projects. I would still like to see the gas tax increased, but I may be alone on that.

[ACSCmapcollector]

I am talking more of the CA 46 at CA 41 Y interchange and CA 46 east that has not been widened.  There is no funds for the rest of the conversion of CA 46 from two lanes to four lanes as of now in San Luis Obispo County, and smaller sections in Kern County on CA 46 including the I-5 Westwide Freeway has not been widened either.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[coatimundi]

I don't really understand. The Kern County/District 6 section has been done for a while. I don't think there are plans to widen 46 east of I-5 because there's the plan of bringing CA 58 to freeway standards between the existing Westside Parkway and I-5, which will soak up most of the traffic, in addition to the more controversial Westside Parkway/CA 58 connector in Bakersfield.

The project to widen CA 46 is being done in pieces in District 5, but it's progressing and it'll get done. It's just a matter of when.
I've always thought that the CA 46/41 north/Cholame intersection worked fairly well as it stands as an at-grade intersection, but that will change once it's divided. If you look at the Environment Impact Report on the CA 46 project page (Volume 2 is the eastern section), there are something like 10 alternative designs for this intersection, and many include ramps and bridges.

[myosh_tino]

California 46 widening stopping due to lack of funds in San Luis Obispo County?

From what I have heard during the spring and summer of 2016, Caltrans just ran out of gasoline tax money for any project that is going on, including the California 58 expressway west of Kramer Jct to west of Barstow.

With regards to CA-58, the Hinkley Bypass should be fully funded because it is currently under construction.  I don't think Caltrans would start a project if it wasn't fully funded.  AFAIK, the Kramer Junction Bypass hasn't even gone out to bid yet.  I believe the design work is mostly completed because Caltrans released an EIR for the project.

[ACSCmapcollector]

What I have heard that the project for widening CA 46 near CA 41 has been delayed about 5 years becuase there is no STIP 2016 money from Caltrans, so they are going to postpone that widening until 2020-2021, now it looks like from what I have read off of Caltrans own District 5 website. 

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[ACSCmapcollector]

I also have noticed that the CA 58 section or soon to be Westside Parkway is not known as that, at CA 99 is known as the Centennial Corridor project.  Most of it is called Westside Parkway as of now when it comes to Google maps.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[nexus73]

Funny to think that there is any sort of funds shortage.  Some lib was posting up why Cali was way ahead of con places like Louisiana and Kansas.  He mentioned Cali had an $11 BILLION surplus.  WTF?

Since this was just a net posting and I don't keep up with the Golden State's government finances, I have no idea if this is BS or true, but should the claim be spot on, then Caltrans should have zero problems funding anything.  If there ever was a state needing every bit of transportation infrastructure it can put in place, it's California.

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Funny to think that there is any sort of funds shortage.  Some lib was posting up why Cali was way ahead of con places like Louisiana and Kansas.  He mentioned Cali had an $11 BILLION surplus.  WTF?

Since this was just a net posting and I don't keep up with the Golden State's government finances, I have no idea if this is BS or true, but should the claim be spot on, then Caltrans should have zero problems funding anything.  If there ever was a state needing every bit of transportation infrastructure it can put in place, it's California.

Rick

A lot of media sources reported last year that it would be a 10 billion dollar surplus by 2017.  Granted I would prefer to see some actual paper trail on the state fiscal figures rather than just reading something in the newspaper hence why I didn't link anything here.  A Yahoo search brings up a crap ton of stuff...most of the sources aren't mainstream though.

[coatimundi]

I heard we had a surplus too, on the local NPR, and $10b sounds about right. The complexity of state budgets and forecasts though means that there's a lot of swing for how you can manipulate the numbers. Even if I were an expert accountant, I don't know that I could completely understand these things. It's tough to just go by what you hear, but it's not like I can just look at it myself and argue.

There's so much push for decaying infrastructure right now, that I would not be at all surprised if Caltrans got a lot of that money. But I would guess most of it would go to rehab projects, especially bridges, and not to added capacity. And don't forget that we've got a high speed train to fund...

[Max Rockatansky]

I heard we had a surplus too, on the local NPR, and $10b sounds about right. The complexity of state budgets and forecasts though means that there's a lot of swing for how you can manipulate the numbers. Even if I were an expert accountant, I don't know that I could completely understand these things. It's tough to just go by what you hear, but it's not like I can just look at it myself and argue.

There's so much push for decaying infrastructure right now, that I would not be at all surprised if Caltrans got a lot of that money. But I would guess most of it would go to rehab projects, especially bridges, and not to added capacity. And don't forget that we've got a high speed train to fund...

Hey now...if you listen to people in San Joaquin Valley there should be more dams and not trains. 



Ya know....because more dams means more water.    Even though reservoir levels are still trending at minimal capacity...it's like this these people really think that there is an infinite source of water in the Sierras.    Granted this is largely farmers who are supports of this group....so I understand that it's how they make a living and it must be infuriating every time the topic of suburban lawn maintenance in Los Angeles comes up.  Wouldn't their argument be more logical if it was "more desalination and less trains?" 

How's that high speed train coming along anyways?   

[coatimundi]

I don't want to see the thread go too political, but I'm with you on the Central Valley water screamers.
I actually think one of the major reasons they chose the Valley for the first part of the HSR was so that those people would actually see progress, and not just keep hearing about how it's going to reach them eventually. I mean, they do get ignored by Sacramento pretty much 90% of the time.

I drove by it in Madera a week ago, and they had a lot of pillars and platforms close to finished. If you look at the Caltrans Quickmap too, they always have a lot of closures due to it in Fresno, so I assume it's coming along there pretty well.
I think that way too much of the ROW acquisition issues, cost overruns and the delays have been made recently. This is too large and ambitious of a project for it to go smoothly, and there are too many interests that want to see this project fail to take all the criticisms too much to heart. Or maybe I'm just blindly optimistic.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't want to see the thread go too political, but I'm with you on the Central Valley water screamers.
I actually think one of the major reasons they chose the Valley for the first part of the HSR was so that those people would actually see progress, and not just keep hearing about how it's going to reach them eventually. I mean, they do get ignored by Sacramento pretty much 90% of the time.

I drove by it in Madera a week ago, and they had a lot of pillars and platforms close to finished. If you look at the Caltrans Quickmap too, they always have a lot of closures due to it in Fresno, so I assume it's coming along there pretty well.
I think that way too much of the ROW acquisition issues, cost overruns and the delays have been made recently. This is too large and ambitious of a project for it to go smoothly, and there are too many interests that want to see this project fail to take all the criticisms too much to heart. Or maybe I'm just blindly optimistic.

The platform by the farmers about dams is completely silly but I'm gathering it's about the only one that they can use to grab attention to illustrate how out of touch things really are in regards agriculture in Sacramento.  I have my own doubts about the high speed rail but with a budget surplus it's hard to argue that at minimum something new ought to be tried for transportation and infrastructure...so I guess that I'm taking a wait and see approach while not drinking too much of the cool-aid that gets put out there.  Personally I think the states is backing off way too quickly from water restrictions after one wet winter.  Basically there isn't any new water sources to exploit outside of possibly the Trinity Range which would have a minimal impact at best if at all for the state at large.  The situation with water rights gets progressively more ugly on the Colorado River watershed...those farm guys are going to lose probably more than most at the end of the day.  But hey that's the climate here in California...it's always been a huge shift towards suburban and white collar needs which will be the case for the foreseeable future. 

[sparker]

Sorry for taking this thread more off the original (CA 46) topic -- but IMHO one of the principal reasons for starting the high-speed rail project in the Valley is the potential to lay more trackage for less cost than would be feasible in the more difficult mountain or urban areas.  This is analogous to Kansas' rapid deployment of I-70 in the eastern portion of that state as one of the opening salvos of Interstate construction -- to demonstrate that significant stretches of facility can be developed for (relatively) minimal costs (although Valley ag interests, in this instance, have instigated suits claiming that their land is being systemically undervalued in order to maintain the low-cost public perception).

I don't oppose high-speed rail per se....but I also don't foresee that this particular venture will be successful at one of its stated goals -- to relieve intrastate/intercity traffic from the state's highway network.  My guess is that most of the passenger base will be drawn from those currently using the airlines rather than the roads.  If one has to lug items (holiday gifts, personal supplies, other various cargo) between SoCal and NorCal, they'll continue to load it up and head out on the road rather than than attempting to mix it with checked luggage or, alternately, sending it off with the folks in brown or purple with both extra expense as well as an uncertain arrival time.

   

[Max Rockatansky]

Sorry for taking this thread more off the original (CA 46) topic -- but IMHO one of the principal reasons for starting the high-speed rail project in the Valley is the potential to lay more trackage for less cost than would be feasible in the more difficult mountain or urban areas.  This is analogous to Kansas' rapid deployment of I-70 in the eastern portion of that state as one of the opening salvos of Interstate construction -- to demonstrate that significant stretches of facility can be developed for (relatively) minimal costs (although Valley ag interests, in this instance, have instigated suits claiming that their land is being systemically undervalued in order to maintain the low-cost public perception).

I don't oppose high-speed rail per se....but I also don't foresee that this particular venture will be successful at one of its stated goals -- to relieve intrastate/intercity traffic from the state's highway network.  My guess is that most of the passenger base will be drawn from those currently using the airlines rather than the roads.  If one has to lug items (holiday gifts, personal supplies, other various cargo) between SoCal and NorCal, they'll continue to load it up and head out on the road rather than than attempting to mix it with checked luggage or, alternately, sending it off with the folks in brown or purple with both extra expense as well as an uncertain arrival time.

That's the thing...for someone like me I don't see what mass transit via train really offers versus using my own car and existing highway.  I get questioned about this a lot and I always bring up the 60,000-80,000 miles a year I was pulling in a car when I had territories that I covered in Southern California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Western Texas.  Basically at the time I was living in Metro Phoenix so I was smack dab in the middle of every place I had to visit once a month.  There was a company stipulation that if a site was located 6 hours or more away by car I could use an alternate means of transportation like the airport or Amtrak.

The issue that I always ran into with mass transit is that it really didn't save me much time.  Say I had a work location 8 hours away in New Mexico it would still take a minimum 6.5-7 hours via air travel.  Basically you still had to drive to the airport, sit in a security line, wait at the gate and wait to take off even before the plane hit the air...figure that's 2-2.5 hours right there.  Add another 2 hours of flight time that consisted of taxiing to the gate and deplaning coupled with the at MINIMUM 1.5 hours it took the rental car much less what it took to hit the road to head on my way basically added close to ZERO benefit to my travel schedule. 

The problem trains always had was availability of departure times, access to locations I needed to go and worse access to rental car places.  The problem with train service is that it's basically oriented completely towards the urban environment and is specifically designed for the person who doesn't drive.  So for someone like my Uncle who is walking distance from a train station in D.C. and works in locations all the way up to NYC the system works great because it's been built up for almost forever.  I just don't see how this train system is going to save any time or money for regular folks like me unless say somehow in the far flung future the rails are extended up to Portland or Seattle.  But then again if I was living in L.A. or more so San Francisco...I might think differently...however I don't think that I can subject myself to kind of urban lifestyle after living/working in the big three U.S. cities...  So in essence you have a system being built that doesn't benefit places like San Joaquin Valley all that much which is the real reason why all these farmers are pissed about eminent domain.

As for me...I'm sitting back and taking a neutral stance on the subject since I personally don't think it's going to hurt anything to try to build up more transit options during years where there is a budgetary surplus.  The problem is...what funding is being diverted to fund this railroad or other infrastructure developments?  Lane expansions on a CA 46 like highway doesn't make headlines or generate the political points that a big name project like high speed rail does.  It's like you said; the system will likely attract people who already use mass transit and probably won't pull too many people who are used to their cars.  Regardless I don't see myself here in California much beyond even 2019 when I could in theory take the train to Merced from Bakersfield.  I'm on my 9th state and every time I move/transfer I keep finding myself in more and more rural areas which is my intent.  Personally I'm hoping for a Wyoming/Montana/Idaho on the next move...somewhere far from the urban core that drives everything in California. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm not exactly dismissing high speed rail but for me it will likely always be "meh" until it proves itself.  We were promised a lot of things with light rail in Phoenix too...and for the most part a lot of it didn't come true but a lot of Millennials seem to love it...

[ACSCmapcollector]

In my humble opinion, California should do away with the HSR project anyway, and give the bond money to Caltrans for Road Construction Repairs, Highway widenings, etc.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[sparker]

This'll be my last word on the subject until such time that one of us decides to get an off-topic thread going on the California HSR project:  I think that the present CA state administrative structure -- from the bowels of Caltrans all the way up to the governor -- seems to be willing to move heaven & earth to prove that they're actually taking mass-scale measures to do something to address state transportation issues.  And HSR is certainly a visible project, for better or worse!  In the long haul, it's worthwhile; but coming off a deep recession, addressing more near-term needs such as deteriorating roads or even capacity enhancement is a more appropriate use of a resource base that  -- while purportedly flush in an aggregate sense -- has been eroded by interruptions in incoming funds (recession-related) as well as the ongoing inflationary continuum.  Taking on a massive project just so the transportation establishment (you know who you are!) can loudly proclaim to anyone who'll listen "We're doing this for sake of the future/the environment/the traffic problem/the transit problem................ad infinitum" is not only irresponsible but extraordinarily wasteful! 

As one who's done more than his share of statistical research, I'm surprised that none of the promoters of HSR have set out some sort of base line regarding the ridership that can be expected to use the system once largely completed.  This particularly intrigues me because the previous Jerry Brown administration (1975-83) actually expanded the conventional rail program (that eventually became the state-subsidized Amtrak California) within the state.  Right now there are two separate A.C. components; one centered in Los Angeles and one in Oakland.  The Southern California operations consist of L.A. to San Diego trains several times per day, with some of them actually passing through L.A. to terminate in Santa Barbara or San Luis Obispo.  The Northern California subsidiary fields the San Joaquin trains from Oakland to Bakersfield and the Capitol trains from San Jose to Sacramento (with some extending to Roseville, IIRC -- I'll need to avail myself of a new schedule).  The only actual all-train route directly connecting Northern and Southern California is the Coast Starlight, operated by the national long-distance Amtrak system, separate from A.C. (and a very difficult reservation during the summer or holiday season).  The nascent A.C. system was initiated under the first Brown administration -- but it included a L.A. to Sacramento, on the coastal route through Santa Barbara, San Jose, and Oakland, overnight train called the Californian.  I used that train several times to visit my family in the L.A. area in the early '80's, when I had a car that probably wouldn't have survived the 400-mile trip!  However, the following Deukmejian administration promptly cancelled the train in the spring of '83, citing operating expenses -- although the train was more often than not filled to capacity.  I mention it because I would have expected the 2nd Brown administration to have at least considered reinstating that train -- I even called the state Office of Business and Transportation (Caltrans' governing entity) a couple of years back to inquire about this -- but got nowhere vis-a-vis a reply, much less an explanation.   If reinstated, such an operation would at least provide a base line regarding potential ridership between the state's two major population areas.  And doing so would involve a much smaller level of expenditure than even a few miles of HSR right-of-way and trackage. 

I.e. -- show the public that there is a viable market for rail between north & south, and then -- if so demonstrated -- begin planning HSR in a less PR-oriented way:  get the hardest-to-deploy segments done first to avoid being victimized by inflation (tunneling through the Tehachapi hills will likely be the costliest segment), and then do the Valley.  The current crop of HSR planners are not utilizing public funds effectually!

[coatimundi]

I was actually tempted to start a California HSR thread a week or so ago, in the excitement of seeing the progress in Madera, but I held off. Since this is a roads forum, I figured the best place would be the Mass Transit forum, but that doesn't seem to get much traffic.

FWIW, every time I've ridden the Capitol Corridor, it's been nearly full. A lot of it is demographics, I think (seems like a lot of people from Sacramento move to the Bay Area at some point), but there's also something to be said of the connectivity (local public transport) in the metro areas that it serves, and the traffic that it doesn't necessarily relieve but, rather, provides an alternative to. I mean, I would much rather be on a train than sitting in the constant traffic jams on I-80, but that may be my own personal preference.
I've always been surprised that the San Joaquin line was able to continue to function given the car-centric nature of the Central Valley, but I haven't seen the ridership numbers.

But I think you're right: airlines are the ones who are going to mostly lose when the HSR is finally completed, and highway traffic won't necessarily be reduced. So, really, Southwest Airlines would be the big loser. Given the conditions at both LAX and SFO, I think you would not have to try too hard to get people onto the train if it wasn't that much longer or much more expensive. Especially since they seem to be especially concerned with existing system connections in the design of this. Personally, I would pay more to take the train over flying, but that may also be my own opinion. It's just not feasible now since, to reach LA from here, it takes longer than driving, is often much more expensive than flying, and only runs once per day.

[sparker]

All right -- I guess that wasn't my "absolute last" word on this subject.  Reinstatement of the Californian, or something similar on extant rail lines between SoCal and NorCal, would not only serve as a base line to help determine whether HSR ridership would justify the project's expense and use of resources, but also provide a rail-based alternative to the single (Coast Starlight) daily train serving that function.  It is also a concept that can be deployed on relatively short notice.   

I've ridden the San Joaquin line several times; it never seems to lack for ridership.  Amtrak California did an admirable job both outfitting and scheduling the trains; the departure & arrival times are quite convenient -- and while on-time performance is, the last time I saw any data, up in the mid-80's (percent) -- that is certainly not bad, seeing as it utilizes, for the most part, a BNSF line that carries a considerable freight load -- primarily containerized cargo, which is the current "bread & butter" for Western railroads.  Many railroads (I'm looking at you, UP!) tend to prioritize Amtrak well below such cargo movement; but Amtrak California has somehow managed to convince BNSF to expedite their trains over this particular stretch of largely single track.  The result has been a consistently high ridership level.  The San Jose-Sacramento "Capitol" line, over UP its entire length, also has admirable ridership levels -- but its function is largely as an extended commuter train between adjacent metro regions.  It's also on double track for much of its run (at least from Oakland to Sacramento), so delays are minimized due to the additional trackage capacity.   There's a lot of loyal riders for that corridor -- probably, as coatimundi cited, due to the fact that I-80 congestion makes that commute a major pain in the ass! 

But one of the issues with HSR -- as well as any fixed-location facility -- is the issue of potential riders actually getting to a place where they can board the train.  Adequate parking is a must -- one cannot depend upon riders being willing or even able to efficiently utilize local transit to access the station(s) that are deployed along the urbanized portion of the HSR route.  And any departures or arrivals between 5-9 AM and 3-7 PM will be within the morning/evening "rush hours" of maximum congestion regarding egress to & from the stations (and a 4 hour timeframe for each congested period is being conservative!).  Also, most commuter rail stations are little more than a loading platform; long-distance travel entails baggage handling, enhanced customer service, and other labor-and-facility-intensive factors.  Current HSR planning calls for the network to "come to ground" in both L.A. and Bay Area urban areas, requiring extensive facility upgrade to the existing rail routes that are planning to carry the HSR traffic.  Caltrain, the San Jose-San Francisco commute line (ex-SP) is currently planning extensive upgrades, including full motive electrification to replace the present diesel locomotive-based operation.   But several of the S.F. Peninsula towns along the Caltrain line have expressed opposition to deployment of the type of facilities required to "piggyback" HSR over the extant rail line, including raising or lowering the rail grade to separate it from adjacent properties -- principally for the sake of safety and security, as well as to minimize if not eliminate any at-grade crossings of the tracks (which will require closure of numerous local streets).  It seems at times that the HSR planners just didn't fully consider all the consequences related to system deployment -- or, more cynically, they actually did, but arrived at the conclusion that full public disclosure of those consequences would result in a sizeable lessening of public trust in their agenda -- and are trying to squeeze in minimal or partial "fixes" for those problems as quietly as possible. 

Bottom line -- while HSR might be an admirable long-term concept, the present deployment methodology is hampered by inadequate planning and research, exacerbated by a politically-motivated effort to get enough of the system deployed to eventually proclaim that "we're too far along to quit now" when the inevitable problems and controversies emerge down the road.   

[ACSCmapcollector]

I also agree that we are getting off the subject of the California State Route 46 widening project for San Luis Obispo County too.

Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA

[BakoCondors]

Ditto on the political so I will attempt to get it back on track (sort of) by commenting on this:

I also have noticed that the CA 58 section or soon to be Westside Parkway is not known as that, at CA 99 is known as the Centennial Corridor project.  Most of it is called Westside Parkway as of now when it comes to Google maps.

Bakersfield's Westside Parkway is the name given to the city-built freeway that is currently open and in use. Centennial Corridor is the controversial project being built by CalTrans that will connect the Westside Parkway to the existing stub-end of the 58 freeway at Real Road, just west of the 99. When the Centennial Corridor is completed, the city will relinquish the Parkway to CalTrans for the purpose of realigning 58.

Google Maps plays fast and loose with the names.