Caltrans Settles Environment Lawsuit, Cancels High Desert Freeway Project

[sprjus4]

I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.

It's kinda mind-blowing that California hasn't pushed for that, given the importance of that corridor. If this was NC, it would have "Future I-40" signs plastered all over it.

This is viewed more as a priority mostly due to the fact that CA-58 is already built out as a 4-lane expressway (once Kramer Junction is completed). It's already adaquete, and minor improvements just to slap a blue shield on it isn't a priority compared to this corridor which would bypass a 2-lane road that passes thru towns. CA-58 already got the "bypass" treatment.

[nexus73]

"Climate emergency"...ROTFLMAO!  Nanotech already resulted in the invention of a catalyst which turns CO2 into ethanol.  We can easily regulate this planet's CO2 level.  The next thing to do is to match the appropriate level of removing CO2 to the Sun's output.  A Maunder Minimum event is predicted for 2030 by the way, so even if we are slow on the uptake for implementing this new nanotech tool. the lessened output of the Sun gives us some breathing space. 

https://www.ornl.gov/news/nano-spike-catalysts-convert-carbon-dioxide-directly-ethanol

Rick

I had not heard of this before. I do try to follow carbon-sequestering technologies. This happened in 2016. That's three years ago. Except for articles written soon afterwards, it was hard to find any articles about this even a year later. I couldn't find any from this year. One lab's enthusiasm is not a reason to believe we could effectively use this the near future. "Cold fusion is less than 20 years away" has been true since the 70's.

If you can find evidence showing progress on this and not just reference the original article, I'll be more optimistic. Right now, I'll just consider this a promising avenue of research and not expect it to help with our carbon crisis any time soon. Predictions of a Maunder Minimum repeat is controversial and is based on models not widely accepted in the community.

I think nano-spike catalysts converting CO2 is a tech worth exploring and it's certainly possible the sun could start a sunspot minimum cycle starting next decade. I also think there are good chances neither will happen and we should not rely on either as a contributor to solving our current climate crisis until we have better evidence.

Do your own research with a search engine.  The technology exists.  Matter of fact it gets referenced in an energy company commercial I see on TV.  Why deny REAL science to advance a political agenda?

Rick

I did a search. I even stated I did a search and found nothing other than articles describing what happened in this one lab test and the latest was from 2017. I did another search this morning with the same result. The burden of proof for someone making a claim is to support that claim, not for others to prove you wrong or to do their own research. If I make a claim that there are unicorns that fart rainbows, then it is up to me to prove it exists and not for you to prove me wrong.

I'm guessing you did your own search and also found nothing so you tried to make me do your work for you rather than bother to actually back your claim. There is no evidence that this technology has advanced one iota since the original lab test. You've made a claim based on a single, three-year old lab result and some overly optimistic statements from those researchers, scientists who have a self-interest in promoting their research. You said you've seen it in a commercial, yet provided no evidence of that commercial. That you are unable to back your claim means this is likely still a far-future technology that may never be useful despite the researchers ambitious statements. You can either prove it or drop your claim. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with the one who doesn't believe it.

Either that, or there are unicorns that fart rainbows. Prove me wrong.

Go talk to the source if you cannot find any more info.  I give leads, not handouts.  You did not even know about this tech before I mentioned it.

Prove yourself smart.

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of shelved desert highways routes, seems like almost everyone has forgotten about the unbuilt CA 122:

https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#122

Now that projected path would actually be a true bypass for Los Angeles-Las Vegas traffic by way of Palmdale and Barstow.  You can dig even deeper with shelved plans for CA 118, CA 249, CA 48 and CA 196...all can be seen on the 1964 State Highway Map below:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201964%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=6479%2C9793%2C762%2C1350

Also, amusingly the planned route of CA 18 west of Victorville appears to be the earliest iteration of what morphed into the High Desert Corridor.  Palmdale Road already existed and the State essentially just took it over rather than build a new facility. 

[Duke87]

I'm as much a lefty as the next guy, but I really don't understand why so-called "environmentalists" think that killing a proposed freeway is better for the environment than what will eventually happen to CA 138 when it's stop-and-go thru numerous traffic lights...

Well, what will eventually happen is that it becomes a pain in the ass to travel between Palmdale and Victorville during large periods of the day... and in response, people will avoid doing so if they can. People who live in one won't take jobs that require they commute to the other, and so forth.

This results in fewer vehicle miles traveled, which in spite of the increased congestion means less emissions overall. At least for as long as the energy to propel these vehicles is ultimately sourced from fossil fuels. Once it isn't, then there ceases to be an emissions benefit to constraining the ability of people to travel by car.

The drawback, of course, is that the economy and general quality of life in the area will suffer from the lack of transportation capacity.

[nexus73]

Speaking of shelved desert highways routes, seems like almost everyone has forgotten about the unbuilt CA 122:

https://www.cahighways.org/121-128.html#122

Now that projected path would actually be a true bypass for Los Angeles-Las Vegas traffic by way of Palmdale and Barstow.  You can dig even deeper with shelved plans for CA 118, CA 249, CA 48 and CA 196...all can be seen on the 1964 State Highway Map below:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/ll/thumbnailView.html?startUrl=%2F%2Fwww.davidrumsey.com%2Fluna%2Fservlet%2Fas%2Fsearch%3Fos%3D0%26lc%3DRUMSEY~8~1%26q%3DCALTRANs%201964%26sort%3DPub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No%26bs%3D10#?c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=0&r=0&xywh=6479%2C9793%2C762%2C1350

Also, amusingly the planned route of CA 18 west of Victorville appears to be the earliest iteration of what morphed into the High Desert Corridor.  Palmdale Road already existed and the State essentially just took it over rather than build a new facility. 

Given how much the High Desert will fill in, then add the population of Kern County into the mix also getting larger, one has to wonder how many layers of bypass will be built over the next 50 years.  In a way, one can see how a grid of freeways will eventually fill in the High Desert, turning the whole shebang into an extended metropolitan area, meaning that we would need yet another bypass...LOL!

Rick

[sparker]

That particular project has been cancelled; the projected construction start date out in the 2060's rendered it a bit useless in dealing with today's regional growth levels and patterns.  The best thing Caltrans and the local MPO's can do given the removal of the freeway portion of the corridor is to (a) do what some above posters have suggested and complete CA 58 as an Interstate-grade freeway (hey, the basic structure is in place), with a freeway extension/connection from the end of the CA 14/Antelope Valley freeway to CA 58 near Mojave, and (b) start planning for a freeway along CA 138 and/or CA 18 to replace the deleted corridor.  This should be implemented in SIU-type sections rather than publicized as a major regional project as the HDC was -- keep it under the national radar as much as possible.  Tout the 138/18 freeway as a safety measure; initial construction as 2+2 (expandable) rather than the 8-10 lane facility projected for the HDC.  (c) Shift planning and ROW funding to (a), (b) -- as well as a freeway upgrade for US 395. 

Yeah, eventually the RE/T groups will sniff it out -- but their BANANA instincts will work against them if countered by groups from the High Desert asking for safety/mobility upgrades.  If the RE/T's response to that is to either denigrate mobility in general or growth in their region as "sprawl" (which will inevitably be brought up), economic data indicating that this is one of the last reasonably affordable housing zones in SoCal should be shoved in their collective faces -- painting them as either unsympathetic to --  or unconcerned with -- those affected by economic reality, or possibly elitists whose preferences, if actually implemented, would result in a combination of gentrification as well as an actual expansion of the housing shortfall/crisis due to that phenomenon.  They've conflated a methodology (urbanism) into an ideology that tends to disregard economic constrictions and realities in favor of a one-size-fits-all approach, which is, in effect, to create more New Yorks (in terms of density and structure) and conversely make life as onerous as possible for those unwilling --or unable -- to comply with their preferences.   And they've managed to get enough of their number embedded (or, some may say, wormed) into the planning establishment to, in some cases, steer their favored measures into the queue while undermining anything outside their comfort zone  -- essentially governance by the inculcated.  But they can cobble up all the "settlements" and pyrrhic victories they want -- folks will continue to seek out affordable residences; and if those are on the north side of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino ranges, that's where the growth will occur -- with or without RE/T groups' sanction.     

[Bobby5280]

Many so-called New Urbanists fall into the category of "Limousine Liberal." It's kind of funny when they get accused of being elitist or even racist. It's not hard to make that kind of argument against them since so many are woefully out of touch. New York City overall is a very liberal city in terms of politics, yet the level of gentrification that has taken place over the past 20 years almost smacks of "ethnic cleansing."

Eventually all the price gouging on living costs, the orgy of speculative investing in housing and even illegal schemes to convert affordable, rent-controlled apartment buildings into luxury condos ends up driving away all kinds of young adults, even young white adults. Every city depends heavily on a "working class." There are countless numbers of low paying service industry jobs that have to be filled by someone with a pulse. They may not be career jobs at all, but anyone working them has to be able to survive while employed in that particular job level.

Both New York and Los Angeles are major landing pads for legal immigrants. That's one factor that may sustain or even continue to grow their populations. There is a growing number of American-born residents who grew up in those cities, but are choosing to re-locate to other parts of the nation after reaching adulthood. They can have a life in a more affordable state like Texas. Or they can be stuck living with their parents until they're in their 30's.

[Beltway]

8 billion dollars for a rural freeway?  Are they paving it with gold??

It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .

Seriously or joking?  Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.

[Bobby5280]

Seriously or joking?  Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.

Given the latest population numbers in the cities North of the San Gabriel Mountain, an East-West freeway between Lancaster and Victorville is worth at least 3 lanes in both directions. Within each city metro a 4-4 arrangement is justified.

[sparker]

Seriously or joking?  Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.

Given the latest population numbers in the cities North of the San Gabriel Mountain, an East-West freeway between Lancaster and Victorville is worth at least 3 lanes in both directions. Within each city metro a 4-4 arrangement is justified.

In reality, the traffic flow on CA 138 & CA 18 combined between Palmdale & Victorville -- even during commute periods -- would be sufficiently served by 4 overall lanes; perhaps 6 for the first few miles east of CA 14 and between I-15 and US 395.  The area is growing, but that growth is steady rather than rapid.  Also -- there's only scant actual commuter traffic between the Antelope and Victor valleys; most commuter activity heads south to, respectively, Santa Clarita and the San Fernando Valley (via CA 14) and the Inland Empire (via I-15).  There's some interregional truck traffic on CA 138, but not approaching the levels seen on the combination of US 395 and CA 58.     2 + 2 would suffice for at least the next couple of decades. 

[sprjus4]

8 billion dollars for a rural freeway?  Are they paving it with gold??

It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .

Seriously or joking?  Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.

Could reasonably be constructed as a 4, maybe 6-lane freeway for a lot cheaper, maybe just a couple of billion. I was just simply stating what the $8 billion plan was.

And quite frankly, since everybody is so concerned about outer growth, make access points limited to major junctions so it serves effectively as an outer bypass, not interchanges at every other road. That would only induce development. This is evident when looking at pretty much any bypass of a major metro.

[stevashe]

Not familiar with the project, but I glanced at the map and it seemed like a highway to nowhere.

I think upgrading CA-58 into an extension of I-40 to Bakersfield should be a bigger priority.

This is true; however, they're almost finished with that anyway, so I think they could have spared come resources for this.

[roadfro]

The climate change discussion has gone on long enough. Please refocus discussion here on the High Desert Freeway project. Those wanting to further debate the merits of climate change can take it to the "Off Topic" board. –Roadfro

[SeriesE]

Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.

[Max Rockatansky]

Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.

That's the part of CA 138 (west of CA 14) that really doesn't need the upgrade.  I'd argue N2 is a better route to I-5 from Palmdale provided one takes Three Points Road instead of sticking to N2 on Pine Canyon/Old Ridge Route to reach CA 138.  CA 138 was envisioned at one point as being realigned the corridor of N2 whereas the current route of west of CA 14 would become CA 48.  Even Lancaster Road/Avenue I (Old CA 138) is more direct to I-5 over present 138.  The busiest I ever saw 138 between 14 and 5 was when the latter was shut down due to a peroxide spill.  Either way the traffic was light and mostly jumping on from Three Points Road. 

[sparker]

8 billion dollars for a rural freeway?  Are they paving it with gold??

It was proposed as a 8-10 lane freeway with a bike path, solar panels, and high-speed rail, not just a "rural freeway" .

Seriously or joking?  Given where it is that far north of L.A. , I figured it was 4 lanes.

Could reasonably be constructed as a 4, maybe 6-lane freeway for a lot cheaper, maybe just a couple of billion. I was just simply stating what the $8 billion plan was.

And quite frankly, since everybody is so concerned about outer growth, make access points limited to major junctions so it serves effectively as an outer bypass, not interchanges at every other road. That would only induce development. This is evident when looking at pretty much any bypass of a major metro.

The dearth of interim interchanges was one of the salient features of the HDC; preliminary plans showed a couple of interchanges within Palmdale, one at Lake Los Angeles, and then nothing until the outskirts of Adelanto.  The project was designed as a long-distance corridor rather than a means for local housing/commercial expansion -- a fact that was apparently lost on the parties who brought the lawsuit.  But then again, some of the more pointed of these groups denigrate automobile ownership and usage in general -- hence the BANANA approach -- if a private car can use it, they don't want to see it!  But if an enhanced facility is constructed more or less along CA 138 and/or 18, it'll likely be of a more conventional format -- one with decidedly more access points than the HDC would have provided.   Essentially those groups have achieved what could be termed a "pyrrhic victory" -- one that just might come back to bite 'em in the ass in the long run.

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^^ we'll see. I am not trying to bring the climate debate back but I will say California is going full on the left wing nutso scale and part of the is insanely overreaching climate change mitigation policies. They canceled the 710 tunnel, indefinitely scaled back the south 710 expansion, San Diego is trying to back out of long planned freeway projects the voters put into place, and now the HDC freeway is canceled. Something tells me there is more to come.

[skluth]

Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.

If the goal is for those going to the Central Valley and points beyond, a freeway connecting the CA 14 and CA 58 bypassing Mojave along with a short freeway around Bakersfield to I-5 would work just as well. CA 138 might save a few minutes. I don't know if the Grapevine or Tehachapi Pass is more likely to have snow and ice problems.

[Max Rockatansky]

Frankly, unless the freeway is going all the way west to I-5 (so connecting I-5, CA-14, and I-15), this freeway is not really high on priority at this time.

If the goal is for those going to the Central Valley and points beyond, a freeway connecting the CA 14 and CA 58 bypassing Mojave along with a short freeway around Bakersfield to I-5 would work just as well. CA 138 might save a few minutes. I don't know if the Grapevine or Tehachapi Pass is more likely to have snow and ice problems.

The biggest issue with 138 west of 14 is that it multiplexes through Lancaster and takes a direct westerly approach to I-5, if a Freeway was aligned northwest it would save substantial distance.  My personal observation is that Tejon Pass gets way more snow than Tehachapi Pass.  Bear Mountain and the Mojave Desert seem to have a slight mitigation to the effects of a deep snow. Even Walker Pass seems to get less snow than Tejon Pass. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^
The recurring snow situation on I-5 over Tejon seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon; I recall heading up old US 99 as a kid almost yearly for Christmas with our Sacramento relatives, and only encountering light snow on the ground once or twice in about an about 12-year period, most of it around the summit and Frazier Park interchange (which was an intersection back then).   I started noticing snow in the late '90's -- and once, circa 2005, had to detour via Mojave for a business trip to Bakersfield because I-5 was shut down.   And the reports of similar closures have dotted the news regularly since then.  Rather than rekindling the climate-change arguments in this forum, I'll just posit that weather patterns -- particularly at higher elevations -- appear to have changed dramatically in the past 20+ years.  Go figure!

But the fact that traffic heading west on CA 138 intended to descend into the San Joaquin Valley must first surmount Tejon Summit may have been part of the rationale for jettisoning the original "Metropolitan Bypass" along 138 -- CA 58, only 30-40 miles north, is historically less prone to weather-related closures -- and is a 4-lane divided facility for the entire mountain crossing; on balance a consistently better option.   

[don1991]

Based from what I've read it seems this project by technicality is shelved and not canceled.

No way the freeway is not built but it will come at a much bigger cost later on.  Hopefully they are smart enough to preserve the ROW, otherwise real pain later on.  Those houses between the 14 and 15 freeways are coming no matter what.  A 4-lane conventional highway between the two freeways won't cut it.

Big hurt to the High Desert areas.  Given the current state of politics, I'm sure that those currently in charge of Occupied California couldn't care less.

[In_Correct]

While scanning for headlines, I discovered this: Caltrans Settles Environment Lawsuit, Cancels High Desert Freeway Project

https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/02/caltrans-settles-environment-lawsuit-cancels-high-desert-freeway-project/

A recent court settlement spells the end for the planned High Desert Corridor Freeway. Bryn Lindblad, deputy director of Climate Resolve – one of the plaintiffs – calls the settlement “a victory for smart planning [and against] climate change.” Climate Resolve estimates that the freeway would have resulted in four million additional miles being driven every day. Those tailpipes would have contributed major greenhouse gas emissions, exacerbating the planet’s climate emergency.

The $8 billion, 63-mile High Desert Corridor freeway would have spanned two counties connecting the north L.A. County cities of Palmdale and Lancaster with San Bernardino County cities of Victorville, Apple Valley, and Adelanto. The route would have gone through a patchwork of privately-owned undeveloped wild lands populated by Joshua Trees.

...

This is disappointing. Roads do not cause any environments. Roads do not hurt any environments. Roads Are Roads. Roads get people and things places that they need to be. If Roads really are evil, they are a necessary evil. Improving Roads makes them safer, and much less harmful also. If this Road is not allowed to be built at the forbidden location, where can it be built? It will have to go some place, or people will spend much more time on other Roads. Fortunately CA-58 is being improved.

[Rothman]

I don't understand this.  Roads definitely have an environmental impact.  They are necessary, but environmental impacts do need to be considered.  Heck, it's required by federal and state law.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't understand this.  Roads definitely have an environmental impact.  They are necessary, but environmental impacts do need to be considered.  Heck, it's required by federal and state law.

And it's that one-two punch of environmental laws which often shelves infrastructure projects.  With California the environmental laws are arguably stronger than anywhere else in the rest of the country and in some instances even more so than the Federal counterparts.  It probably doesn't help that California has a long history of public works projects before the Mid-20th Century that has a substantial negative environmental impact.  Hell had the Division of Highways backed down during the 1960s when groups started aggressively objecting to potential projects in the mainstream they might still be here. 

[rarnold]

Many so-called New Urbanists fall into the category of "Limousine Liberal." It's kind of funny when they get accused of being elitist or even racist. It's not hard to make that kind of argument against them since so many are woefully out of touch. New York City overall is a very liberal city in terms of politics, yet the level of gentrification that has taken place over the past 20 years almost smacks of "ethnic cleansing."

Eventually all the price gouging on living costs, the orgy of speculative investing in housing and even illegal schemes to convert affordable, rent-controlled apartment buildings into luxury condos ends up driving away all kinds of young adults, even young white adults. Every city depends heavily on a "working class." There are countless numbers of low paying service industry jobs that have to be filled by someone with a pulse. They may not be career jobs at all, but anyone working them has to be able to survive while employed in that particular job level.

Both New York and Los Angeles are major landing pads for legal immigrants. That's one factor that may sustain or even continue to grow their populations. There is a growing number of American-born residents who grew up in those cities, but are choosing to re-locate to other parts of the nation after reaching adulthood. They can have a life in a more affordable state like Texas. Or they can be stuck living with their parents until they're in their 30's.

Spot on. I think in many ways gentrification has been 1000 times worse than white flight was in the 1950's and 1960's, because of the almost sinister quality to it. It is all corporate, big money, almost exclusively white, at the expense of minority communities. Starbucks are better than a mom and pop shop, right?