CA-126 eventually to be expanded to a full freeway from 5-101?

Started by MrAndy1369, April 25, 2018, 09:28:47 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Plutonic Panda

At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.


cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.

Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.

Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
SB I-5 to WB-126 isn't free flowing:

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/msEAKTHNzPq3dVgu7

And yeah technically the other movement is free-flowing as it includes tight loop ramp but I would prefer that be converted to a flyover.

While yes it does flows freeway speeds it still needs to be made into a freeway for safety reasons.

cahwyguy

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 09:27:59 PM
Quote from: cahwyguy on October 03, 2021, 09:21:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 07:26:13 PM
At the very least they need to make it freeway quality outside Fillmore and build free flowing ramps at the I-5 junction.


Actually, the ramps at the I-5 junction are pretty free flowing, at least WB. Between there and Fillmore, it flows at freeway speeds. But conversion to "freeway" is a problem, in that there are numerous farms and roads that require access, and there is the cost of right of way and frontage roads. Both sides of Fillmore are major farming areas.
SB I-5 to WB-126 isn't free flowing:

Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/msEAKTHNzPq3dVgu7

And yeah technically the other movement is free-flowing as it includes tight loop ramp but I would prefer that be converted to a flyover.

While yes it does flows freeway speeds it still needs to be made into a freeway for safety reasons.
It was more free flowing before they extended Newhall Ranch Road to the East. As for a flyover ramp, I think that would need traffic justification that may not be there at the present time.They don't have to make a full limited access freeway to improve safety. They can widen the roadway (which I seem to recall is in the plans), and add separation barriers (also in the plans). They can limit left turns and -- a Caltrans favorite -- replace left turns with roundabouts, which would also serve to calm the speed of the traffic. I know that's probably not a solution you would like, but it is the direction that Caltrans is going (for such a solution also increases the usability of the road for bicycles).
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ I think there was a glitch because I can't see your reply

cahwyguy

I think my point was that (a) it was more free flowing before they extended it east, and I don't think the traffic justifies, at this time, the cost of a flyover. That may change.

As for conversion to freeway, they don't need to make it limited access to make it safer, especially with the cost of frontage road ROW and the need for farm access. Take a look at my page, www.cahighways.org/ROUTE026.html . I think there are plans to widen it, put in median barriers and more rumble strips. They can limit left turns to specific intersections, and (a Caltrans favorite) add roundabouts, which also adds to the traffic calming and lowers speed in the corridor. You may not like it, but that's more likely what District 7 would do.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

Plutonic Panda

A roundabout in downtown Fillmore? I mean I wouldn't be opposed to that given the likelihood that the stretch through town ever been upgraded to a freeway probably won't ever happen given the right of way constraints.

Rarely do I say this but I don't think it's the amount of lanes that is the problem just the fact that it is not a freeway. I mean it's about as low density as it gets in regards to the areas going through outside of Fillmore. Reroute some roads add some service roads and some interchanges it's not like California is hurting on money. I don't see why district 7 would have an issue doing this here and I'm willing to bet there would be a little to no opposition to it but maybe I'm wrong. A bypass around Fillmore is a different scenario though. But yeah I don't really see this as a project it's going to be on district 7's radar as they have more pressing issues.

If we're adding lanes anywhere I'd rather that be on CA 118. That road needs to be at least four lanes in each direction.

Techknow

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 03, 2021, 11:03:24 PMReroute some roads add some service roads and some interchanges it's not like California is hurting on money.
Yes Senate Bill 1 has done a great deal of funding to help improve the maintainence of California highways, but the usage of these funds is limited in terms of building new lanes. I did some research on this a few years back, IIRC SB1 funds can only be used to build HOV or bike lanes and not for entirely new general-purpose lanes or new freeways/expressways. In other for the latter to happen, projects have to be funded by the STIP which is specifically designed to improve the state's highway network.

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ yeah I remember reading about that as well. Thanks for the clarification I wasn't sure what funds could be used to add general purpose lanes. I also seem to recall bills being proposed or potentially passed to allow for some SB1 funds to be used for purposes they weren't supposed to be used for in the original wording such as the bullet train I can't remember exactly what the case was.

RZF

East Ventura, Santa Paula, and Fillmore are growing rapidly right now due to the abundance of people working in Santa Clarita now and the relative affordability in these places. I'm neutral on a full freeway connection because, although it makes complete sense geographically, traffic normally flows well in both directions even at peak times. Furthermore, there are way too many 2-lane farm roads that end at a T-intersection with the 126. Is it really worth it to create complete freeway exits at all of these roads?

I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ there is no way every one of those roads would get its own interchange. Some might just bridge over the highway or connect to other roads. But I what's for sure is that when you're driving you can listen to this and it'll all be okay:


Occidental Tourist

Quote from: RZF on October 05, 2021, 12:32:21 AM

I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.

Did they accidentally think that they should use a sequential exit number?

JustDrive

Quote from: RZF on October 05, 2021, 12:32:21 AM
East Ventura, Santa Paula, and Fillmore are growing rapidly right now due to the abundance of people working in Santa Clarita now and the relative affordability in these places. I'm neutral on a full freeway connection because, although it makes complete sense geographically, traffic normally flows well in both directions even at peak times. Furthermore, there are way too many 2-lane farm roads that end at a T-intersection with the 126. Is it really worth it to create complete freeway exits at all of these roads?

I feel that CA-126 is stuck on this issue. The least they could do is at least correct the exit number at Commerce Center Dr.

I've only ever seen traffic on the 126 going eastbound in the afternoons at the 23 junction in Fillmore. Yes, a lot of people in the Santa Clara River Valley work in Santa Clarita, but I don't think a full freeway is warranted east of Santa Paula. Besides, the speed limit is already 60 east of Piru.

pderocco

The only way to make a 126 freeway would be to build a slightly elevated causeway down the middle of the Santa Clara River, so that the river could still function on those rare occasions when it is called upon to carry water. I can't see that happening.

Also, re: the I-5 "stub": They didn't build a freeway over Commerce Center Dr as a preview of a future freeway to Santa Paula, they built it because the lines of trucks trying to turn left from Commerce Center Dr onto 126 to get to I-5 were legendary.

I also remember when there were ramps connecting The Old Road to 126. Right around the time some poor schmuck decided to develop a shopping center on the Old Road just south of 126 and I-5, CalTrans eliminated those ramps, making it hard to get to from the freeway. To this day, the shopping center remains almost deserted.

Oh, and I just noticed that the main road through the new development behind Six Flags is called, according to Google, N Commerce Center Dr. I think that "N" has to be a typo.

ClassicHasClass


kernals12

The 1984 EIS for the 4 lane widening of SR 126 had this to say about the freeway proposal:
"The route for a freeway in this area was adopted in 1958. after planning studies, the project was terminated because of financial and technical problems. A 1973 estimate for the construction of a freeway through the Santa Clara River Valley was $130,000,000. Extensive flood protection would have been required through this narrow river valley. Because the financing for this project could not be foreseen within a 20-year period, and the need for a freeway did not develop, the 1958 freeway adoption was rescinded in 1974."

kernals12

In 1968, the Army Corps of Engineers wanted to channelize much of the Santa Clara River in the Santa Clarita Valley. That would've made it a lot easier to build the freeway, but it would've also led to the drying up of wells in the SCV.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.