🛣 Headlines About California Highways for March 2020

[cahwyguy]

Well, March certainly didn't come in like a lion and leave like a lamb, did it? It came in like a lion, and left like a pride of angry, socially isolating, pissed off lions chafing at captivity.

For me, March started in Madison Wisconsin, and ended with me working from home, hardly out on the roads at all. But I'm luckier than so many others. I wish all who read this continued good health, and may we come through this stronger and with a desire to explore more of the highways of the great state of California. PS: I am working on a highway page update, but it is slow going. It will be done sometime in April.

As for the highway headlines: there are a lot fewer of them this month. Something else has crowded the highway news off the road (and the highway workers as well). But these headlines are (hopefully) a zone free of that contagion.

Here are your headlines about California's Highways for March. As always, ready, set, discuss.

Click here for the headlines: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15860

[nexus73]

From your website posts:

Last Chance Grade Project. The Last Chance Grade Project is a collaborative effort to study alternatives for a permanent solution to instability and roadway failure on a 3-mile segment of US Highway 101 in Del Norte County, extending between Wilson Creek to 9 miles south of Crescent City. Project Partners are considering alternatives that provide more reliable connections through the region; protect economic, environmental, and cultural resources; and reduce maintenance costs.

Silly Caltrans!  They had engineers back in the 80's lay out a mildly inland route that could either be 2 or 4 lane.  Why waste time and money doing "considering" when a plan is already in hand?  The best way to reduce maintenance costs is to build a new road and let the old one slide into the Pacific Ocean.  Whatever is left can be used to access the redwoods by tourists.

Rick

[roadfro]

Well, March certainly didn't come in like a lion and leave like a lamb, did it? It came in like a lion, and left like a pride of angry, socially isolating, pissed off lions chafing at captivity.

LOL, you got that right! 

[SeriesE]

Re: CA-25 fixes
Build the CA-152 freeway and the problem will resolve itself! Isn't one of the alternatives along the 25-156 corridor?

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding Gribblenation, I'm presently out of new material to write about.  That being the case I'm finishing up two 2016 series out of the Mountain States Region.  The amusing thing is that I've already wrote the California related articles for the back side of one of those series given that we have a lot of readership out of this state.  Once I get through the 2016 Mountain Region stuff I'm planning on wrapping up some loose ends from 2014/2015 from the Mid-West and Northwest Regions.  From there assuming I don't have anything additional to catch up on I'll probably start ramping up more California "Paper Highway" blogs and maybe even some new stuff for Los Angeles freeways.  Really at this point I'm assuming that I won't be up to much otherwise aside from an overload on distance running probably until May.

I did enjoy the L.A. Times article on CA 33.  Suffice to stay right now roads like CA 33 have an even greater appeal given how off-grid they can be. 

I will be curious to see how much of this mass transit/HSR stuff really will really stand up post-virus.  I'd have to imagine that there might be something of a populace shift away from dense urban cores in favor of sprawl.  That being the case it will be interesting to see if the fate of the SB1 funds will stay in the domain of roads.

The only way to improve CA 25 north of Hollister at this point is four-lane.  Things like concrete barriers and prohibiting turns are band-aid measures that do little to solve the problem. 

Is it just me or does it seem like that rest area on CA 46 in Shandon is closed more than its actually ever open? 

Those 1924 Rand McNally Maps are incredibly useful in determining Auto Trail alignments.  I also like this 1920 Clason Map of California which shows El Camino Real as an Auto Trail:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~215610~5502473:Roads-Of-California-And-Nevada-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:california%20highway;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=30&trs=248

[skluth]

I will be curious to see how much of this mass transit/HSR stuff really will really stand up post-virus.  I'd have to imagine that there might be something of a populace shift away from dense urban cores in favor of sprawl.  That being the case it will be interesting to see if the fate of the SB1 funds will stay in the domain of roads.

I'd rather doubt it will change much. Building more highways becomes ineffective at some point, both because the roads will just fill faster and because the cost of building more lanes through developed areas becomes prohibitive. Major metros like SF, LA, NYC, and Chicago are already experiencing sprawl where the exurbs are 2+ hours from the urban core. Building more highways won't solve that.

Dense urban cores have little to do with how this virus is spreading. It spread first in areas where people have family members returning from overseas, first mostly from China and then Europe. (The NY outbreak started in New Rochelle, NY, a suburb on NYC. The first Washington cluster was in a suburban nursing home in Costco's home town.) Urban areas that have clamped down have done a decent job of flattening the exponential growth curve outside of NYC which was hit too early for any measures to be effective. Some states have yet to enact any measures other than local communities; I'm fully expecting to see outbreaks in several rural Midwest states soon, especially in towns along interstate trucking corridors. Many of these areas have little to no crisis health care facilities.

It may give more impetus to Elon Musk's venture to build tunnels for electric vehicles under metro areas. I don't know if those would qualify for SB1 funds. It will probably be a constant battle to protect SB1 funds from being diverted to other money pools.

[sparker]

Re: CA-25 fixes
Build the CA-152 freeway and the problem will resolve itself! Isn't one of the alternatives along the 25-156 corridor?

One of the more commonly discussed route alternatives for CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is actually using the Santa Clara County and a small piece of the San Benito County sections of CA 25 as the initial section of the 152 alignment and then diverging 152 east to intersect that route's existing alignment a mile or so west of the 156 junction -- or alternately, just circling around the hill that 152 presently climbs and intersecting 156 about a mile south of the current junction.   The wetlands that hem the current route in and effectively prevent extensive upgrades in situ would be circumvented to the south.  The principal drawback to such an alignment is the amount of working farmland that would have to be acquired for the ROW.  But if such a plan somehow reaches finalization, it could dovetail into the plans to construct a 4-lane facility along CA 25 down to Hollister; the combined facility would likely contain at least six lanes, with a directional split at the divergence point.  The idea of constructing a SB/off-NB/on freeway interchange at the 101/152-25 separation rather than the present quasi-diamond won't inconvenience minor-movement traffic all that much (there really isn't much to begin with!) except for the "tourist trap" next to the current interchange.  Most traffic coming over from the Valley on 152 wanting to head southwest would simply take 156, and vice versa (especially if well-signed for that concept at both the 152 and 101 interchanges with 156).  I'd expect plans for CA 152 from CA 25 to CA 156 to resemble the existing expressway east of Casa de Fruta -- some at-grade intersections and an interchange or two along the way (but upgradeable to a full freeway down the line). 

The only way to improve CA 25 north of Hollister at this point is four-lane.  Things like concrete barriers and prohibiting turns are band-aid measures that do little to solve the problem. 

Amen to that!  It's programmed, but the final format, including suggestions for that roundabout at the 25/156 intersection -- IMO a fool's errand, as there's just too much commuter/commercial traffic on both routes -- appears to point to a combination of twinning and a 4-lane new alignment to the east, with the original highway, in that case, serving as farm access.  But apparently there's a high accident rate at the 25/Bolsa intersection, so for the time being a Band-Aid it is!  Haven't ventured down that way since the COVID-19 measures kicked in, but visiting our friends in Hollister will undoubtedly be one of the first trips out after the all-clear is given; I'll certainly check to see if signage for the restricted movement at that interchange will have been erected by that time.   

     

[coatimundi]

Re: CA-25 fixes
Build the CA-152 freeway and the problem will resolve itself! Isn't one of the alternatives along the 25-156 corridor?

One of the more commonly discussed route alternatives for CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is actually using the Santa Clara County and a small piece of the San Benito County sections of CA 25 as the initial section of the 152 alignment and then diverging 152 east to intersect that route's existing alignment a mile or so west of the 156 junction

When traffic gets bad going east on Fridays, I tend to take 101 north to 25, then Bloomfield Avenue to cut over to 152. It's a really narrow road with a 4-way stop, but it never has traffic while all the other roads are clogged around then. Google Maps will occasionally recommend that routing over going through Hollister. 156 between SJB and Hollister is a notorious bottleneck, and there has been a lot of talk about what to do with it. But it doesn't seem like much of the traffic using it actually goes to either of those towns but, instead, continues east to Pacheco Pass. Therefore, it may be better and easier to build a new alignment that takes over 25 and gets to 152 via Bloomfield Road, since it would serve both traffic from NB and SB 101 going to Pacheco, leaving that 156 freeway stub and the expressway on to SJB as serving solely traffic reaching those towns. But, of course, that still leaves the issue of the wetlands along 152. But it's probably easier to mitigate that than to create brand new ROW over farmlands.
First thing is to rebuild the 101/25 interchange, which needs just basic redesign and retrofitting as it stands due to how dangerous it is. If they can ever get that done, then I'll start to believe 152 or 156 will actually be somehow improved one day.

[Max Rockatansky]

Re: CA-25 fixes
Build the CA-152 freeway and the problem will resolve itself! Isn't one of the alternatives along the 25-156 corridor?

One of the more commonly discussed route alternatives for CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is actually using the Santa Clara County and a small piece of the San Benito County sections of CA 25 as the initial section of the 152 alignment and then diverging 152 east to intersect that route's existing alignment a mile or so west of the 156 junction

When traffic gets bad going east on Fridays, I tend to take 101 north to 25, then Bloomfield Avenue to cut over to 152. It's a really narrow road with a 4-way stop, but it never has traffic while all the other roads are clogged around then. Google Maps will occasionally recommend that routing over going through Hollister. 156 between SJB and Hollister is a notorious bottleneck, and there has been a lot of talk about what to do with it. But it doesn't seem like much of the traffic using it actually goes to either of those towns but, instead, continues east to Pacheco Pass. Therefore, it may be better and easier to build a new alignment that takes over 25 and gets to 152 via Bloomfield Road, since it would serve both traffic from NB and SB 101 going to Pacheco, leaving that 156 freeway stub and the expressway on to SJB as serving solely traffic reaching those towns. But, of course, that still leaves the issue of the wetlands along 152. But it's probably easier to mitigate that than to create brand new ROW over farmlands.
First thing is to rebuild the 101/25 interchange, which needs just basic redesign and retrofitting as it stands due to how dangerous it is. If they can ever get that done, then I'll start to believe 152 or 156 will actually be somehow improved one day.

The main problem there is that getting from US 101 north onto CA 25 requires a pretty daring left hand turn which is dicey if traffic is free flowing. 

[nexus73]

Re: CA-25 fixes
Build the CA-152 freeway and the problem will resolve itself! Isn’t one of the alternatives along the 25-156 corridor?

One of the more commonly discussed route alternatives for CA 152 between US 101 and CA 156 is actually using the Santa Clara County and a small piece of the San Benito County sections of CA 25 as the initial section of the 152 alignment and then diverging 152 east to intersect that route's existing alignment a mile or so west of the 156 junction

When traffic gets bad going east on Fridays, I tend to take 101 north to 25, then Bloomfield Avenue to cut over to 152. It's a really narrow road with a 4-way stop, but it never has traffic while all the other roads are clogged around then. Google Maps will occasionally recommend that routing over going through Hollister. 156 between SJB and Hollister is a notorious bottleneck, and there has been a lot of talk about what to do with it. But it doesn't seem like much of the traffic using it actually goes to either of those towns but, instead, continues east to Pacheco Pass. Therefore, it may be better and easier to build a new alignment that takes over 25 and gets to 152 via Bloomfield Road, since it would serve both traffic from NB and SB 101 going to Pacheco, leaving that 156 freeway stub and the expressway on to SJB as serving solely traffic reaching those towns. But, of course, that still leaves the issue of the wetlands along 152. But it's probably easier to mitigate that than to create brand new ROW over farmlands.
First thing is to rebuild the 101/25 interchange, which needs just basic redesign and retrofitting as it stands due to how dangerous it is. If they can ever get that done, then I'll start to believe 152 or 156 will actually be somehow improved one day.

The main problem there is that getting from US 101 north onto CA 25 requires a pretty daring left hand turn which is dicey if traffic is free flowing. 

Now we know why you like to drive a Challenger...LOL!

For me there are two internal time clocks for driving.  One is set to "Oregon" and lets me drive like a normal human bean.  The second clock is set to "California" and it is hair trigger all the way. 

Driving relaxed is more enjoyable but driving at warp speed is exhilarating!

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh...That Challenger has always ended up going home on J1 or CA 198.  Usually when I'm out in Monterey it's for a work thing which means I'm generally in my daily driver.  Fast left hand turns like 101 north onto 25 south are never fun with Four cylinder engines.

[nexus73]

Heh...That Challenger has always ended up going home on J1 or CA 198.  Usually when I’m out in Monterey it’s for a work thing which means I’m generally in my daily driver.  Fast left hand turns like 101 north onto 25 south are never fun with Four cylinder engines.

Guess you need an Ecoboost turbo-4 Mustang to add to your collection of cars!  They have over 300 HP.  4-cylinder fun is also part of owning a "ricer" too. 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh...That Challenger has always ended up going home on J1 or CA 198.  Usually when I'm out in Monterey it's for a work thing which means I'm generally in my daily driver.  Fast left hand turns like 101 north onto 25 south are never fun with Four cylinder engines.

Guess you need an Ecoboost turbo-4 Mustang to add to your collection of cars!  They have over 300 HP.  4-cylinder fun is also part of owning a "ricer" too. 

Rick

The only problem there is I would be missing out on the AWD utility that I have now with my Impreza.  That car ain't fast but it sure comes in handy on a lot of these dirt roads I've featured on Gribblenation lately.  I might get a Forester next time to get a couple extra inches of ground clearance but so far the Impreza has handled some pretty rough stuff.

[nexus73]

Heh...That Challenger has always ended up going home on J1 or CA 198.  Usually when I’m out in Monterey it’s for a work thing which means I’m generally in my daily driver.  Fast left hand turns like 101 north onto 25 south are never fun with Four cylinder engines.

Guess you need an Ecoboost turbo-4 Mustang to add to your collection of cars!  They have over 300 HP.  4-cylinder fun is also part of owning a "ricer" too. 

Rick

The only problem there is I would be missing out on the AWD utility that I have now with my Impreza.  That car ain’t fast but it sure comes in handy on a lot of these dirt roads I’ve featured on Gribblenation lately.  I might get a Forester next time to get a couple extra inches of ground clearance but so far the Impreza has handled some pretty rough stuff.

On the Ford Authority website there was an April Fools post about a new Mustang Raptor.  Too bad it was a joke as that would be the perfect highway and offroad vehicle for you! 

Here in Oregon there is a S197 Mustang body which got placed on a 4WD platform.  It was likely a slug in the performance department but had you lived here in my area back in the early 70's, you would have seen a wiped out Opel Kadet body placed on a short 4WD frame.  Under the hood was a high compression Olds 455.  This vehicle had so much power that you could steer it with the gas pedal!  It could race around East Bay Drive, a narrow road across the bay from Coos Bay-North Bend, despite the curves present. 

Rick

[Max Rockatansky]

Heh...That Challenger has always ended up going home on J1 or CA 198.  Usually when I'm out in Monterey it's for a work thing which means I'm generally in my daily driver.  Fast left hand turns like 101 north onto 25 south are never fun with Four cylinder engines.

Guess you need an Ecoboost turbo-4 Mustang to add to your collection of cars!  They have over 300 HP.  4-cylinder fun is also part of owning a "ricer" too. 

Rick

The only problem there is I would be missing out on the AWD utility that I have now with my Impreza.  That car ain't fast but it sure comes in handy on a lot of these dirt roads I've featured on Gribblenation lately.  I might get a Forester next time to get a couple extra inches of ground clearance but so far the Impreza has handled some pretty rough stuff.

On the Ford Authority website there was an April Fools post about a new Mustang Raptor.  Too bad it was a joke as that would be the perfect highway and offroad vehicle for you! 

Here in Oregon there is a S197 Mustang body which got placed on a 4WD platform.  It was likely a slug in the performance department but had you lived here in my area back in the early 70's, you would have seen a wiped out Opel Kadet body placed on a short 4WD frame.  Under the hood was a high compression Olds 455.  This vehicle had so much power that you could steer it with the gas pedal!  It could race around East Bay Drive, a narrow road across the bay from Coos Bay-North Bend, despite the curves present. 

Rick

The mere fact that an electric Mustang CUV exists has given instant credibility to almost any automotive April Fool's joke for maybe the next decade.