🛣 Headlines About California Highways – January 2022

Started by cahwyguy, January 31, 2022, 08:19:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

It's that time of month again: Time for your highway headlines.

Here are the headlines I collected about California highways (and related subjects) during the month of January: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16215

As always: Ready, set, discuss.
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


Max Rockatansky

Weird to see a corridor video on CA 3.  They actually missed the best part, why CA 3 has a hanging end in Montague.  The reason CA 3 ends in Montague is because it was where passengers could disembark the Southern Pacific Railroad closest to the Siskiyou County Seat Yreka.  I always thought it was kind of neat that Yreka managed to hang on as the County Seat despite not really being on a main transportation hub until Legislative Route Number 3 (the Pacific Highway and later US 99) became a thing during the First State Highway Bond Act.  Even First State Highway Bond Act era there was a lot of people who wanted to bypass Yreka and go directly from Montague following the Southern Pacific to Hornbrook.


the typo was driving me crazy sry

ClassicHasClass

Used to live on Washington St in Colton and the I-215 overpass was well past its sell-by date even then. Still, tearing it down is going to be a real snarl, since traffic easily backed up particularly on the southbound side.

Also, isn't "{insert Bay Area city} opposing expansion on Highway X" sort of a "dog bites man" story at this point?  :biggrin:

pderocco

I don't see how Truckee's "mouse hole" can be considered a bottleneck, until they fourlane the road all the way to the ski resorts.

pderocco

A few points on double-decking a freeway:

It's true that double-decking a Miami freeway won't solve the congestion problem for all time, but it's not as if the effort will have been wasted: it will mean that more people will be able to use the road. Building the road doesn't conjure more people into existence, it just attracts them from elsewhere. The converse is that not building the road leaves them somewhere else, and roads will have to be built there instead. So you might as well build roads where it appears that people want to be. And in this case, that appears to be Miami.

Further down, in making an argument for public transportation, Washington state's transportation secretary made the obligatory genuflection to bike lanes. Doesn't anyone realize that bike lanes are a staggeringly inefficient use of space for transportation? Especially when they make them as wide as car lanes, so that bikes won't get doored by people emerging from parked cars. I can't count the number of roads that I've watched pared down by two lanes to make room for bikes, when it is obvious that the number of people using the bike lane is less than 1% of the number who used the car lane it replaced. If you build it, they won't actually come.

As to Seattle, when they got rid of the double-decked Alaskan Way Viaduct, they did it by replacing it with a double-decked tunnel, not with nothing. And I don't see any bike lanes on it.

All that said, the article did make good points about how double-decking isn't necessarily better than making the road wider on the surface. I rather like our 14-lane I-15 in San Diego.



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.