Headlines About California Highways – August 2024

[cahwyguy]

The August Headline post is up: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16906

The updated to the California Highways site should follow in short order: I just need to review this forum, and do a last update on the legislative pages. I waded through the CTC minutes yesterday. So what did you do your Labor Day weekend? I took care of a wife recovering from knee replacement, and went through the Transportation Commission packages :-) Such a roadgeek.

In any case, the headlines are up. Ready, set, discuss.

[Max Rockatansky]

Amusing how everyone is panicking over Pacheco Pass (related to Sisk Dam being raised) but yet forgets CA 198 west of Coalinga exists.  It isn't as though CA 152 or CA 156 west of the pass is great as is. 

A couple recent stories related to the project have been about commuters from Los Banos to San Jose via CA 152.  Can't say that I'm super sympathetic to those who chose to put Diablo Range between their home and job.

[pderocco]

Amusing how everyone is panicking over Pacheco Pass (related to Sisk Dam being raised) but yet forgets CA 198 west of Coalinga exists.  It isn't as though CA 152 or CA 156 west of the pass is great as is. 

A couple recent stories related to the project have been about commuters from Los Banos to San Jose via CA 152.  Can't say that I'm super sympathetic to those who chose to put Diablo Range between their home and job.

I'm having trouble visualizing how raising a dam requires narrowing a road, as opposed, say, to rerouting it to higher ground. Are there any official docs available about this project, perhaps an EIR with drawings?

[SeriesE]

I'm a bit confused after reading the article. Is 152 permanently getting reduced to 2 lanes or is that temporary?

[Max Rockatansky]

The portion at Cottonwood Creek is the issue.  The main part of Sisk Dam is currently being raised 11 feet.  When that is complete the portion at Cottonwood Creek will need to be raised also.  Trouble is 152 runs atop the segment at Cottonwood Creek.  I haven't seen an EIR but my understanding is that two lanes will be raised at a time.  This will create a bottleneck at the top of a large incline/decline grade.

I did find this though:

https://www.usbr.gov/mp/sod/projects/sisk/

Apparently there was some sort of public concern the San Luis Reservoir would overspill during a large earthquake.  A stability berm is also being constructed.

[pderocco]

Then narrowing it looks like it will be temporary. Raising it would obviously require closing half of it at a time.

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, hence my lack of sympathy for those using Sisk Dam as part of a super commuter route.  Having your life set to collapse due to a relatively minor mountain road project probably isn't the way to go.

[RZF]

I'm wondering what the significance was for the added "0" to make it SR 740 on that map from 1935. All it does is follow the always- and currently-aligned CA 74.

[cahwyguy]

I'm wondering what the significance was for the added "0" to make it SR 740 on that map from 1935. All it does is follow the always- and currently-aligned CA 74.

There were two routes like that in the 1934 numbering: 740 and 440. They were both alternates or separated pieces of the non-0 route. I think they were still figuring out the numbers, and in both cases, may have been designed as temporary based on planned US highway submissions.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm wondering what the significance was for the added "0" to make it SR 740 on that map from 1935. All it does is follow the always- and currently-aligned CA 74.

Fair chance it was being held in reserve for a US Route designation.  I don't have much to back that up other than the original CA 44 became US 299 whereas CA 440 (on the same map) was redesignated as current CA 44. US 70 really didn't have a firm routing in California until early 1935 after AASHO approved the extension.

[cahwyguy]

I'm wondering what the significance was for the added "0" to make it SR 740 on that map from 1935. All it does is follow the always- and currently-aligned CA 74.

Fair chance it was being held in reserve for a US Route designation.  I don't have much to back that up other than the original CA 44 became US 299 whereas CA 440 (on the same map) was redesignated as current CA 44. US 70 really didn't have a firm routing in California until early 1935 after AASHO approved the extension.

Well, part of 740 did become US 395, after which they decided to make the rest of it another segment of 74.

[pderocco]

Right, hence my lack of sympathy for those using Sisk Dam as part of a super commuter route.  Having your life set to collapse due to a relatively minor mountain road project probably isn't the way to go.

Well, they can always take 130.

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, hence my lack of sympathy for those using Sisk Dam as part of a super commuter route.  Having your life set to collapse due to a relatively minor mountain road project probably isn't the way to go.

Well, they can always take 130.

The thought of commuters using Del Puerto Canyon Road and San Antonio Valley Road just to get to CA 130 at Mount Hamilton is amusing.  I've done the run in snow, it is passable but not easy. 

[heynow415]

Right, hence my lack of sympathy for those using Sisk Dam as part of a super commuter route.  Having your life set to collapse due to a relatively minor mountain road project probably isn't the way to go.

Well, they can always take 130.

The thought of commuters using Del Puerto Canyon Road and San Antonio Valley Road just to get to CA 130 at Mount Hamilton is amusing.  I've done the run in snow, it is passable but not easy. 

Those are fun roads on a bicycle or motorcycle.  As a commute route?  Maybe for a few days but that would wear thin fast.  I would ordinarily not consider Corral Hollow/Tesla or 580 over the Altamont as suitable (commute) alternatives, but whaddya gonna do?  I certainly agree with your point on living on the other side of a mountain range from one's place of employment.  Did a Davis to San Rafael commute for a year in the 90's and even with much less traffic in those days, I was very glad to give that up. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Right, hence my lack of sympathy for those using Sisk Dam as part of a super commuter route.  Having your life set to collapse due to a relatively minor mountain road project probably isn't the way to go.

Well, they can always take 130.

The thought of commuters using Del Puerto Canyon Road and San Antonio Valley Road just to get to CA 130 at Mount Hamilton is amusing.  I've done the run in snow, it is passable but not easy. 

Those are fun roads on a bicycle or motorcycle.  As a commute route?  Maybe for a few days but that would wear thin fast.  I would ordinarily not consider Corral Hollow/Tesla or 580 over the Altamont as suitable (commute) alternatives, but whaddya gonna do?  I certainly agree with your point on living on the other side of a mountain range from one's place of employment.  Did a Davis to San Rafael commute for a year in the 90's and even with much less traffic in those days, I was very glad to give that up. 

In something small and nimble it might not be so bad.  Anything large is going to really struggle, especially west of Mount Hamilton.

For comparison, Google is pulling a 1 hour 25 minute estimate for Los Banos-San Jose.  That jumps 3 hour 2 minute estimate for going over Mount Hamilton. 

[M3100]

I learn something new each time I read these. 

Re: wildlife crossings - the one being constructed over US 101 in the Agoura area has been in the news regularly.  Evidently a redesign is in the works - the "walls" on the sides of the crossing will be raised so that vehicle headlights do not distract the animals. 

I had not previously heard of the wildlife overcrossing on US 395 near Bridgeport, or the 1952 undercrossing of US 101 [for cattle] near Gaviota.

[cahwyguy]

I learn something new each time I read these. 

Re: wildlife crossings - the one being constructed over US 101 in the Agoura area has been in the news regularly.  Evidently a redesign is in the works - the "walls" on the sides of the crossing will be raised so that vehicle headlights do not distract the animals. 

I had not previously heard of the wildlife overcrossing on US 395 near Bridgeport, or the 1952 undercrossing of US 101 [for cattle] near Gaviota.

There are quite a few more -- one planned on ROute 17, I think there's one up near 152. They tend to catch my eye for the highway pages, which is why the news articles get saved.

[ClassicHasClass]

They're usually in picturesque territory, too, since there'd be a need for wildlife safety there.