🛣 Headlines About California Highways – April 2021

[cahwyguy]

It's May 1st. This means the Morris Dancers are out dancing, celebrating the fact that you are getting a bunch of headlines about California Highways. What else would they be celebrating? Perhaps the fact that you got your vaccine? You did get your vaccine, I hope. How else can you go on a roadtrip through our beautiful state. In any case, here are your headlines. Ready, set, discuss.

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16105

But seriously: Hopefully you enjoy these posts. I collect the headlines and the links in these articles primarily so I can find them again when I do my page updates, but they serve as a great point for discussion about what is happening on California highways, and what has happened in the past.

Daniel

[ClassicHasClass]

All the Big Sur residents happy CA 1 got closed can't be pleased about the early end of their "vacation." Still, no one ever got fired for underpromising and overdelivering.

I found the article on the WTB Sanford road in the Cajon Pass disappointingly speculative.

The Last Chance Grade on US 101 has always been a major choke point. Reminds me of old Shearer's Grade in northern San Diego county (former US 395) until I-15 went through.

[andy3175]

Still, no one ever got fired for underpromising and overdelivering.

Agree with that sentiment Classic, especially with projects that have a large degree of publicity and consequence for residents. Having this corridor reopen is notable exactly because it got done before the summer tourist season began. While some will miss the low traffic volume, others will be happy to see business pick up with the resumption of normal seasonal traffic along SR 1.

Thanks for the update on SR 37 ... interesting to see at least consideration of a bridge over San Pablo Bay, which might be less environmentally destructive than trying to squeeze more lanes onto existing SR 37. That said, the bridge will be very expensive if it is determined to be feasible. I would imagine if a bridge were built, portions of SR 37 especially east of SR 121 could be abandoned. The photos of the flooding that occurred along SR 37 in 2017 and 2018 was notable and helps describe the need for upgrades to the corridor given projected sea level rise. The same is true from the evacuation perspective, since the Golden Gate Bridge, I-580, SR 37, SR 1, and US 101 north are the primary routes out of Marin County in the event of a disaster. 

[TheStranger]

That San Clemente/TCA thing...will that affect the eventual southern terminus of the existing free extension of 241 (Los Patrones Parkway), which currently ends in Rancho Mission Viejo?

---

the planned carpool lanes on Lombard and Park Presidio in SF remind me a lot of the existing ones in the Santa Clara expressway system, the huge difference being that the Santa Clara expressways don't have an intersection every 1/10th of a mile. In addition to the still-under-construction bus rapid transit lanes on Van Ness, there are already transit/taxi lanes on other streets (all lanes of Market between 2nd and 10th, the right lanes on Mission between 11th and Main).

[sparker]

Two entries caught my eye -- the resurfacing of I-15 from Cajon to Mountain Passes.  Obviously periodic resurfacing is required on an asphalt road; all well and good.  But I-15 from the I-40 split to the NV state line still needs to be brought out to six lanes; if the privately-financed rail project with much of its route in I-15's median is actually going to be started within the next decade, it would be appropriate for D8 to coordinate such a widening effort with the deployment of the rail line, since the obvious method of widening would be to situate the additional lane in that same median.   One can only hope that foresight drives the composite planning process.

The second thing is the revamping of the Last Chance Grade up in Del Norte; of the two choices, the more-inland tunnel would seem to provide the most bang for the buck; simply shoring up the existing route doesn't address the longstanding issues with that road that don't involve physical collapse -- the grades and the curvature.  A complete realignment -- preferably with the same capacity considerations afforded the Orick relocation to the south -- would be, IMO, the most appropriate approach (if not the absolute cheapest!) going forward.

[Max Rockatansky]

All the Big Sur residents happy CA 1 got closed can't be pleased about the early end of their "vacation." Still, no one ever got fired for underpromising and overdelivering.

None of them were having a great time when Mud Creek and Pfiefer Canyon happened in 2017.  A lot of the Big Sur Kate types stayed quiet this time around, I suspect not having an escape route like the Nacimiento-Ferguson Road available played a part. 

[ClassicHasClass]

A complete realignment -- preferably with the same capacity considerations afforded the Orick relocation to the south -- would be, IMO, the most appropriate approach (if not the absolute cheapest!) going forward.

Agreed, but they'll never do it. The usual suspects would screech and howl.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the Gribblenation Roadcasts using my wife's computer and the software Daniel gave me a link to (Audacity) has helped tremendously with the volume issues.  I had actually recorded that Mojave Desert episode but the sound file ended up being corrupted it.  I had to edit the second version a couple times because I kept sneezing randomly for some reason. 

Regarding the Mojave Desert there certainly is a lot there with the Arrowhead Trail and early US Route 91.  The amount of uncertainty with early US Route 91 through the Mojave is very evident in the early CHPWs given the Arrowhead Trail was bouncing all over the place.  Fortunately US 91 didn't end terminating in Bannock, that certainly was never destined to last long as a terminus had it actually come to pass.

That closure of CA 62 at Indian Canyon is really at the worst possible spot for causing a traffic issue, no wonder it is being done overnight.  Almost everyone from the Mojave Desert heads to DHS or Palm Springs via Indian Canyon Drive.

So people are just now catching on that much of CA 99 in the Fresno Area is ancient?  I'm kind of surprised they missed that the northbound bridge over the San Joaquin River was built in 1928.  Regarding 180 and the Kings River Overflow, that is a hold over from the preexisting highway in Centerville which was recently bypassed.

Regarding the lane closures on 41 south of Fresno I've been dodging a lot of that by following Manning or Floral over the modern highway to Elm Avenue.  Elm Avenue is a decent enough roadway southward to Elkhorn or Harlan to bypass the construction area.   Northbound I've been using Elkhorn to Clovis Avenue.  Clovis Avenue has a similar SB1 repair underway.  My plan around that (if it become a problem) is Fowler Avenue south to Adams Avenue.

[sparker]

A complete realignment -- preferably with the same capacity considerations afforded the Orick relocation to the south -- would be, IMO, the most appropriate approach (if not the absolute cheapest!) going forward.

Agreed, but they'll never do it. The usual suspects would screech and howl.

Hey, they're gonna piss & moan anyway, so might as well throw it out there!  Could conceivably be sold as a way to get through traffic away from coastal redwood groves (and a couple of redwood-related tourist traps as well!).  Might be ripe for the "101 up the hill and another state highway through the groves" configuration a la CA 254, shored up just enough to remain viable as a secondary passageway.  Besides, CA 264's not being used!

[M3100]

Glad to see they are repaving California SR 62; we drove a segment of that a couple weeks ago to visit Pioneertown and Joshua Tree National Park.  SR 62 is rough in spots.

Lots of local radio news "heads up" announcements about the closure of US 101 this weekend, to work on the Sixth Street Viaduct in the Boyle Heights area (L.A.).  Looking forward to that new viaduct.

[mrsman]

Saw the story about plans to make Colorado Blvd one lane in each direction in order to provide exclusive bus and bike lanes.  Big mistake.  The corridor needs two lanes in each direction to adequately address the traffic in the area.  Buses will just take the regular lanes.

The current bike lanes are buffered with paint.  There may be enough room to accommodate "protected" bike lanes while still preserving most parking and 2 lane of traffic in each direction.  That should be done.

[sparker]

Saw the story about plans to make Colorado Blvd one lane in each direction in order to provide exclusive bus and bike lanes.  Big mistake.  The corridor needs two lanes in each direction to adequately address the traffic in the area.  Buses will just take the regular lanes.

The current bike lanes are buffered with paint.  There may be enough room to accommodate "protected" bike lanes while still preserving most parking and 2 lane of traffic in each direction.  That should be done.

Agreed; the portion of Colorado east of Eagle Rock Blvd. has been the "relief valve" for CA 134 for the 50 years the freeway has been opened -- drawing Pasadena-bound traffic from both the SF Valley/Glendale area via Colorado itself or from downtown L.A. or the Hollywood area coming in along Eagle Rock.  Reducing the through traffic lanes to a single one would cause quite a bit of peak-hour distress, forcing the eastbound evening traffic onto York Blvd. and/or North Figureroa, which really can't handle that volume.  Then again, maybe that's the idea driving the planners -- make surface-street freeway avoidance so onerous that commuters consider mass transit.  Wishful thinking seems to dominate a lot of decisions of these sorts; but all it really does in reality is relocate the arterial traffic!

[skluth]

Saw the story about plans to make Colorado Blvd one lane in each direction in order to provide exclusive bus and bike lanes.  Big mistake.  The corridor needs two lanes in each direction to adequately address the traffic in the area.  Buses will just take the regular lanes.

The current bike lanes are buffered with paint.  There may be enough room to accommodate "protected" bike lanes while still preserving most parking and 2 lane of traffic in each direction.  That should be done.

Agreed; the portion of Colorado east of Eagle Rock Blvd. has been the "relief valve" for CA 134 for the 50 years the freeway has been opened -- drawing Pasadena-bound traffic from both the SF Valley/Glendale area via Colorado itself or from downtown L.A. or the Hollywood area coming in along Eagle Rock.  Reducing the through traffic lanes to a single one would cause quite a bit of peak-hour distress, forcing the eastbound evening traffic onto York Blvd. and/or North Figureroa, which really can't handle that volume.  Then again, maybe that's the idea driving the planners -- make surface-street freeway avoidance so onerous that commuters consider mass transit.  Wishful thinking seems to dominate a lot of decisions of these sorts; but all it really does in reality is relocate the arterial traffic!

I'd get rid of the parking instead of reducing lanes if they really want bus lanes. I'd guess that busses get stuck in rush hour traffic there as much as the rest of rush hour traffic. Either restrict parking to non-rush hour periods or move the busses into the parking lanes 24/7. Businesses won't like losing their street parking, but most businesses have their own lots.

I agree planners often shortsightedly try to get more people to use transit. It's not a bad idea, but not when you are alienating the very same people who might otherwise use it if it were just better. More people also will use some forms of transit and not others; many transit users would never take a bus other than the tram for Disney parking but use commuter trains daily.

[heynow415]

Saw the story about plans to make Colorado Blvd one lane in each direction in order to provide exclusive bus and bike lanes.  Big mistake.  The corridor needs two lanes in each direction to adequately address the traffic in the area.  Buses will just take the regular lanes.

The current bike lanes are buffered with paint.  There may be enough room to accommodate "protected" bike lanes while still preserving most parking and 2 lane of traffic in each direction.  That should be done.

Agreed; the portion of Colorado east of Eagle Rock Blvd. has been the "relief valve" for CA 134 for the 50 years the freeway has been opened -- drawing Pasadena-bound traffic from both the SF Valley/Glendale area via Colorado itself or from downtown L.A. or the Hollywood area coming in along Eagle Rock.  Reducing the through traffic lanes to a single one would cause quite a bit of peak-hour distress, forcing the eastbound evening traffic onto York Blvd. and/or North Figureroa, which really can't handle that volume.  Then again, maybe that's the idea driving the planners -- make surface-street freeway avoidance so onerous that commuters consider mass transit.  Wishful thinking seems to dominate a lot of decisions of these sorts; but all it really does in reality is relocate the arterial traffic!

After touring the area on GSV, I would guess that's exactly what they have in mind.  Colorado east of Eagle Rock is "downtown", such as it is, with most businesses directly fronting on the street (as opposed to parking lots with buildings set back). I don't know how congested "the" 134 gets but with the ramps from it directly to Colorado on either end of the corridor I can imagine Colorado is used as a bypass.   So folks there could very well be trying to reclaim their downtown and by slowing things down it makes it more attractive for pedestrians who might patronize local businesses instead of catering to those in a rush to get to Pasadena.  With the k-rails they have placed in the street in various places it also looks like they might be experimenting with widening the sidewalks to further emphasize it's a central business district and/or provide the opportunity for outdoor dining for fronting businesses.  Removing on-street parking does not help the fronting businesses and also removes the barrier that gives pedestrians visual and psychological separation from moving traffic. 

BRT is subway lite and to be competitive with the auto it needs to have its own lane/right of way.  Given the extensive residential neighborhoods on either side of Colorado and commercial ventures along it I can see why they would route a transit spine through that corridor.  Will this push motorists on to other streets?  Probably, but at some point there are diminishing returns the more one has to deviate from their intended route - again, I don't know how bad the freeway gets so that tipping point tolerance may be quite high. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
CA 134 traffic on the hillside segment above Eagle Rock between CA 2 and I-210 can be one of the worst in the region, both WB in the morning and EB in the evening; by default (no one really wants to use the CA 110/Arroyo Seco Parkway for commute purposes unless they reside in the south side of Pasadena or South Pasadena itself) it's part of the only all-freeway semi-direct path from central L.A. to Pasadena and the suburbs directly east of there.  It's one of two major chokepoints on the E-W lateral freeway (combined 134 and the eastern reaches of 210) that crosses from the SF Valley to the northern San Gabriel valley; the other is the series of lane drops east of the 134/210 junction that culminate in the eventual 4+4 configuration east out of Pasadena.  Those chokepoints formed shortly after the full freeway length was completed through downtown Pasadena in 1976 and have consistently persisted since.  Thus, surface alternatives are regularly sought by in-city commuters but are limited by the hilly topology around Eagle Rock and Highland Park, plus the presence of the Arroyo Seco "gully" that deepens as it heads north toward the Rose Bowl (the famous Colorado Street bridge spans it as well).  Really, there's no optimal way to get from point "A" to point "B" during peak commute times; motorists tend to wend their way through the various arterials until they find one that is reasonably direct and not fully packed.  Welcome to L.A. traffic!

[skluth]

Really, there's no optimal way to get from point "A" to point "B" during peak commute times; motorists tend to wend their way through the various arterials until they find one that is reasonably direct and not fully packed.  Welcome to L.A. traffic!

That's what I do. If I'm leaving LA to return to Palm Springs on late afternoons, I usually take some combination of eastbound major roads like Valley Blvd, Arrow Highway, and Mission Road/Blvd to get to the Inland Empire before taking the freeway. I'm not saving any time but I'm saving my blood pressure.

[sparker]

Really, there's no optimal way to get from point "A" to point "B" during peak commute times; motorists tend to wend their way through the various arterials until they find one that is reasonably direct and not fully packed.  Welcome to L.A. traffic!

That's what I do. If I'm leaving LA to return to Palm Springs on late afternoons, I usually take some combination of eastbound major roads like Valley Blvd, Arrow Highway, and Mission Road/Blvd to get to the Inland Empire before taking the freeway. I'm not saving any time but I'm saving my blood pressure.

Arrow Highway was always a godsend -- except on Fridays, when those outbound folks who normally endured I-10 or 210 migrated to it out of sheer frustration.  If I was there during that time, I'd usually head a bit south to one or another of the parallel streets through Covina and hit Arrow out around La Verne, where it usually shedded some traffic.  But I haven't had to do that shit for almost nine years now, having myself migrated some 400 miles northwest!  Now my commute's 15 minutes or so each direction, all on local secondary streets in central San Jose.  But occasionally I miss the adventure of probing ever northeastward until I finally arrived in Hesperia!  But then occasionally I have to head south more or less along I-880 in late afternoon, in which case the local-street roulette repeats itself! 

[heynow415]

Really, there's no optimal way to get from point "A" to point "B" during peak commute times; motorists tend to wend their way through the various arterials until they find one that is reasonably direct and not fully packed.  Welcome to L.A. traffic!

That's what I do. If I'm leaving LA to return to Palm Springs on late afternoons, I usually take some combination of eastbound major roads like Valley Blvd, Arrow Highway, and Mission Road/Blvd to get to the Inland Empire before taking the freeway. I'm not saving any time but I'm saving my blood pressure.

I hear ya.  During my OC residency (Capo Beach) circa 1987-91 going to San Luis Obispo on Fridays was not for the feint of heart.  Going up the shortest way (405/101) was one nightmare after another:  jams in Huntington Beach, Long Beach, from LAX to Sepulveda Pass, going west through the valley, the merge at Oxnard Blvd, and, the final insult, the four signals in Santa Barbara.  Not much of anything had been widened yet and HOV lanes were pretty much nonexistent.  It was 20 miles longer but I found the 5/57/210/118/126 to Ventura relatively smooth sailing.  Sure there were a couple slow spots (5 when it was still six lanes north of Tustin), the short section shared with the 60, and a little bit in Pasadena but it got you past all the worst, except for Santa Barbara.  It certainly kept my blood pressure lower and was probably less time overall. To this day, I will go miles out of my way as long as I'm moving.

[sparker]

Really, there's no optimal way to get from point "A" to point "B" during peak commute times; motorists tend to wend their way through the various arterials until they find one that is reasonably direct and not fully packed.  Welcome to L.A. traffic!

That's what I do. If I'm leaving LA to return to Palm Springs on late afternoons, I usually take some combination of eastbound major roads like Valley Blvd, Arrow Highway, and Mission Road/Blvd to get to the Inland Empire before taking the freeway. I'm not saving any time but I'm saving my blood pressure.

I hear ya.  During my OC residency (Capo Beach) circa 1987-91 going to San Luis Obispo on Fridays was not for the feint of heart.  Going up the shortest way (405/101) was one nightmare after another:  jams in Huntington Beach, Long Beach, from LAX to Sepulveda Pass, going west through the valley, the merge at Oxnard Blvd, and, the final insult, the four signals in Santa Barbara.  Not much of anything had been widened yet and HOV lanes were pretty much nonexistent.  It was 20 miles longer but I found the 5/57/210/118/126 to Ventura relatively smooth sailing.  Sure there were a couple slow spots (5 when it was still six lanes north of Tustin), the short section shared with the 60, and a little bit in Pasadena but it got you past all the worst, except for Santa Barbara.  It certainly kept my blood pressure lower and was probably less time overall. To this day, I will go miles out of my way as long as I'm moving.

I'm surprised you just didn't take I-5 north out of metro L.A. to CA 166 and shoot west and then north on 101 to get to SLO.  I've done that a few times to visit a friend up there while I was living in OC in the late '90's.  Saved an awful lot of time and stress!

[heynow415]

[/quote]

I'm surprised you just didn't take I-5 north out of metro L.A. to CA 166 and shoot west and then north on 101 to get to SLO.  I've done that a few times to visit a friend up there while I was living in OC in the late '90's.  Saved an awful lot of time and stress!
[/quote]

I tried that a couple times and it seemed like a wash (still taking my detour through Diamond Bar/Pasadena because taking 5 the whole way was bad news in my experience).  The bigger issue at that time was being a starving student with a less-than-reliable vehicle - going through Timbuktu was a key consideration.  There are plenty of lonely gaps along 101 north of Goleta but nothing like 166.

[Max Rockatansky]

Even taking 33 and 58 would be viable for getting to SLO (definitely less so though back in time with the Old Salinas River Bridge) and the Los Angeles Area.  166 is pretty tame for a rural two lane road, not many dramatic grades or many curvy areas.

[ClassicHasClass]

The grades and curves aren't major (Grocers Grade into Maricopa notwithstanding), but if you had a breakdown, there's not much of anything between Maricopa and SLO. New Cuyama doesn't count.

[Max Rockatansky]

The grades and curves aren't major (Grocers Grade into Maricopa notwithstanding), but if you had a breakdown, there's not much of anything between Maricopa and SLO. New Cuyama doesn't count.

But I wouldn't think of 166 as anymore desolate compared to something like I-10 east of Coachella to Blythe or even I-15 between Barstow-Baker.  I want to say the last time I drove it I even had cell phone reception the entire time on 166 (definitely not the case on 58).

[mrsman]

Saw the story about plans to make Colorado Blvd one lane in each direction in order to provide exclusive bus and bike lanes.  Big mistake.  The corridor needs two lanes in each direction to adequately address the traffic in the area.  Buses will just take the regular lanes.

The current bike lanes are buffered with paint.  There may be enough room to accommodate "protected" bike lanes while still preserving most parking and 2 lane of traffic in each direction.  That should be done.

Agreed; the portion of Colorado east of Eagle Rock Blvd. has been the "relief valve" for CA 134 for the 50 years the freeway has been opened -- drawing Pasadena-bound traffic from both the SF Valley/Glendale area via Colorado itself or from downtown L.A. or the Hollywood area coming in along Eagle Rock.  Reducing the through traffic lanes to a single one would cause quite a bit of peak-hour distress, forcing the eastbound evening traffic onto York Blvd. and/or North Figureroa, which really can't handle that volume.  Then again, maybe that's the idea driving the planners -- make surface-street freeway avoidance so onerous that commuters consider mass transit.  Wishful thinking seems to dominate a lot of decisions of these sorts; but all it really does in reality is relocate the arterial traffic!

After touring the area on GSV, I would guess that's exactly what they have in mind.  Colorado east of Eagle Rock is "downtown", such as it is, with most businesses directly fronting on the street (as opposed to parking lots with buildings set back). I don't know how congested "the" 134 gets but with the ramps from it directly to Colorado on either end of the corridor I can imagine Colorado is used as a bypass.   So folks there could very well be trying to reclaim their downtown and by slowing things down it makes it more attractive for pedestrians who might patronize local businesses instead of catering to those in a rush to get to Pasadena.  With the k-rails they have placed in the street in various places it also looks like they might be experimenting with widening the sidewalks to further emphasize it's a central business district and/or provide the opportunity for outdoor dining for fronting businesses.  Removing on-street parking does not help the fronting businesses and also removes the barrier that gives pedestrians visual and psychological separation from moving traffic. 

BRT is subway lite and to be competitive with the auto it needs to have its own lane/right of way.  Given the extensive residential neighborhoods on either side of Colorado and commercial ventures along it I can see why they would route a transit spine through that corridor.  Will this push motorists on to other streets?  Probably, but at some point there are diminishing returns the more one has to deviate from their intended route - again, I don't know how bad the freeway gets so that tipping point tolerance may be quite high.

While I have not found the full width of Colorado anywhere, I can say that it seems that the current curb to curb width is about 10 car lanes.  Before the bike lanes were put in, there was one parking lane and three driving lanes on each side of the median.  Moreover, the median seems to be about the width of two parked car lanes.  If a parking lane is 8' and a driving lane is 10' that amounts to 92', but may be even wider.

The best illustration of the width is a 2009 GSV of Colorado at the broken grid intersection with Townsend.  You can see two left turn lanes in the space where the median will go.  Beyond the left turn lanes, there are three driving lanes and parking lanes in each direction.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1395236,-118.2014118,3a,75y,87.98h,71.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s258C2m44hsiUPdSW0rBFqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

So with a 10 lane wide roadway (albeit the left turn lanes and parking lanes are narrower than the driving lanes), can it be realigned to provide bus lanes and bike lanes and still provide enough space for parking and two lanes of traffic in each direction?  I believe it can, but the medians will probably need to be sacrificed, and probably about 30% of parking spaces removed (to accommodate left turns at major intersections) but generally it can be done.

[mrsman]

A little more research on Eagle Rock led me to this community presentation by LA Metro from Sept. 2020

https://www.boulevardsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/1.-PresentationFinal1A-003.pdf

pages 11 and 14 of the presentation both show much better proposals than what will be implemented here.

The current configuration of Colorado Blvd, east of ER Blvd, is as follows:  40' of pavement in each direction with a 16' median.  The 40' of pavement is delineated as follow:

8' parking lane
5' bike lane
5' buffer
2X11' driving lanes

This amounts to 80' of pavement and 16' median for a total width of 96'.

The proposal on page 11 basically replaces the bike lane and buffer with a shared bike/bus lane (and borrows 1' from a driving lane and the parking lane to make it 12').  While there are issues with buses and bikes sharing a lane, it seems like the most balanced proposal to provide enough parking for the businesses while keeping traffic moving.

[I would personally tweak it as follows.  Shrink all driving lanes to 10'.  Shrink down the median from 16' to 6' (to allow an extra 5' of pavement on each side of the median).

My proposed configuration is now 45' of pavement in each direction with a 6' median.  The 45' of pavement is delineated as follows:

8' parking
5' bike lane
2 X 10' driving lanes
12' bus lane]

{The page 14 proposal is similar to my idea, but unfortunately sacrifices a whole side of parking.  The parking lane can be reinstated if you repurpose the 2 2' buffers, 1' from each driving lane, and 2' from the median towards an 8' parking lane.}