California

[noelbotevera]

Newbie to the boondoggle that is California highways - but one of the strangest things I've noticed on the system are unrelinquished highways. I know that they're old alignments and that they've never been transferred to county/local control, but it raises the question - why bother defining them? And, in the case of CA 14U - signing them? I think it'd be easier to strike these alignments off the books versus keeping them in maintenance limbo - or heck even abandon them - but it's Caltrans and nothing has to make sense.

Same thing with temporary postmiles. In some cases they make sense (a future alignment of a route) but in others - like the north end of I-280 - it's clear that those arrangements aren't temporary. How hard would it be to accept those postmiles as part of a realignment of a route, or that route's actual postmileage?

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals.  On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected.  Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out. 

[noelbotevera]

Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals.  On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected.  Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.

That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?

I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals.  On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected.  Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.

That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?

I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.

Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route.  I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes.  The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory.  I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function.  There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years.  I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.

[bing101]

Asphalt Planet does a tour on Bayshore Freeway.

[TheStranger]

Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals.  On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected.  Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.

That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?

I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.

Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route.  I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes.  The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory.  I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function.  There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years.  I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.

In the CA Highways update thread, there is now mention of an official proposal to rebuild the north part of Roure 39 in...2027. Wow!

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding the Post Mile Paddled on not so temporary routes, they likely are originals.  On CA 168 near Prather they definitely are vintage from the 1960s when they were first erected.  Given the planned alignment of CA 168 was never cancelled by the legislature it is unlikely Caltrans has much need or desire to swap them out.

That makes sense, but then there's scenarios like this where CalTrans is sending someone to replace those postmiles despite being on an inaccessible section of road. Impassible routes are nothing new (WA 168, WA 339) but to me it seems like a waste of time to update postmiles with new signs, especially since (a) they haven't changed since 1964 and (b) if CalTrans doesn't care then why bother in the first place?

I can understand that some things are never stricken off the books but cases like these look silly.

Regarding CA 39 there was talk in recent years of using it as an emergency fire evacuation route.  I believe CA 173 more or less functionally exists for emergency purposes.  The problem in both cases is that both roads aren't officially abandoned from the State Inventory.  I suspect that the Post Mile replacements in those instances are just part of the routine cycle of replacement and are ordered essentially by way of some sort of administrative function.  There has been a ton of signage replacement projects around the state the past five years.  I wouldn't find unfeasible that CA 39 and CA 173 came up at some point in the state budget.

In the CA Highways update thread, there is now mention of an official proposal to rebuild the north part of Roure 39 in...2027. Wow!

SAMSUNG-SM-G930A

I'll believe it when Caltrans actually breaks ground. 

[STLmapboy]

Video of kid driving around LA in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylhHckM3wYY
Young Hispanic teen riding shotgun with his mom in front and siblings in the backseat, listening to 60s music (David Bowie, the Byrds, Bob Dylan, etc.) on a vintage radio in a Mercury Grand Marquis while driving the freeways in the sunset. It makes me nostalgic for a time I wasn't alive in.

He starts at San Pedro Ave/30th St and gets on 10 west. It's interesting to note how little some of the signs/lights have changed. At the 2:29 timestamp a distance sign is shown referring to freeways not by number but by name, like this.

Santa Fe Ave        1/4
Golden State Fwy 3/4
Santa Ana Fwy    1 1/4

The current sign has "[5 shield] Fwy NORTH" and "[5 shield] Fwy SOUTH."
Some of the older button copy shields in the vid can still be seen on 2009 GSV

Cesar Chavez Ave is shown as Brooklyn Ave at 3:39.

[nexus73]

Video of kid driving around LA in 1988 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylhHckM3wYY
Young Hispanic teen riding shotgun with his mom in front and siblings in the backseat, listening to 60s music (David Bowie, the Byrds, Bob Dylan, etc.) on a vintage radio in a Mercury Grand Marquis while driving the freeways in the sunset. It makes me nostalgic for a time I wasn't alive in.

He starts at San Pedro Ave/30th St and gets on 10 west. It's interesting to note how little some of the signs/lights have changed. At the 2:29 timestamp a distance sign is shown referring to freeways not by number but by name, like this.

Santa Fe Ave        1/4
Golden State Fwy 3/4
Santa Ana Fwy    1 1/4

The current sign has "[5 shield] Fwy NORTH" and "[5 shield] Fwy SOUTH."
Some of the older button copy shields in the vid can still be seen on 2009 GSV

Cesar Chavez Ave is shown as Brooklyn Ave at 3:39.

By the way, the car is a Marquis as opposed to a Grand Marquis.  What is the difference?  The Grand Marquis was full-sized while the Marquis was an intermediate-sized car.  My sister-in-law had one.  They were nice in their day but the odds of seeing one in the present are practically nil, so it would be hard for someone who was young to know the difference.  The Ford LTD also did the same thing by having an LTD II. 

Listening to the music reminds me of my time in the Southland in the mid-70's.  There was so much smog then!  Still, I enjoyed driving the freeways, especially at night, with tunes blasting away.  Life was fun when I was young!  Hope you can find that kind of magic to build memories with too.

Rick

[bing101]

Los Angeles roadgeek tour in 1989. Yes this includes the US Bank Tower under construction.

[M3100]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

[mrsman]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

And that's a good thing.  Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction.  Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.

[jrouse]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

And that's a good thing.  Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction.  Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.

We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard.  And they're just now noticing?

[jakeroot]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

And that's a good thing.  Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction.  Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.

We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard.  And they're just now noticing?

Well, they are based in the Southland. How many quadruple white facilities are there in Greater LA? I know (or believe) white is the only style used up north.

[SeriesE]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

In places with wider buffer areas, it's really 4 yellow lines to 4 white lines. Why not 2 white lines like an invisible gore area?

[stevashe]

In Today's (7-12-2020) Daily Breeze, the Honk Traffic Column (Jim Radcliffe) mentioned HOV lanes: the double-yellow solid lines that divide the HOV lanes from the regular traffic will be replaced with double-white lines, consistent with the federal highway standards.

And that's a good thing.  Yellow separates opposing directions, white separates same direction.  Double line does not allow passing (or changing lanes), singles lines do.

We've been changing those over since 2012 when we adopted the federal standard.  And they're just now noticing?

Well, they are based in the Southland. How many quadruple white facilities are there in Greater LA? I know (or believe) white is the only style used up north.

There's a decent amount now, seems like they've just been replacing yellow with white when the lanes need to be restriped as it was a bit patchy on the sections I drove last year. Example on I-5 in OC: https://goo.gl/maps/7Axwb3r2eryZoCHp8

[bing101]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[Max Rockatansky]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

[sparker]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

[mrsman]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

[sparker]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91.  Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133.  IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!).  But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003. 

[mrsman]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91.  Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133.  IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!).  But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.

That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north.  It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5.  But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.

While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y.  While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.

[sparker]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91.  Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133.  IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!).  But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.

That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north.  It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5.  But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.

While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y.  While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.

But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway.  We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer...........................

[DTComposer]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91.  Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133.  IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!).  But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.

That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north.  It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5.  But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.

While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y.  While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.

But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway.  We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer...........................

I used CA-73 quite a bit during my years there, but I agree that it's mostly redundant (and was even before the El Toro Y improvements).

I would have liked Caltrans to build out CA-73 as originally intended - freeway from I-405 to CA-1 using the MacArthur Boulevard corridor (or perhaps Newport Coast Drive). On the southern end, they could have built Laguna Canyon Road as a freeway from I-405 to CA-73, then used current CA-73 southeast to I-5.

The section of CA-73 between Newport Coast and Laguna Canyon could have remained unbuilt (preserving a lot of wilderness land), or at most could have been like the other Parkways in the area (Crown Valley, Antonio, etc.).

[sparker]

Highway Heaven does a cool tour of CA-73

[/youtube]

Back in 2011 I took CA 73 by accident and didn't realize it was a toll road.  I was surprised that I actually had the coin change in my car to pay the toll to keep going.  The net result was they I didn't save a single minute on my trip to downtown Los Angeles over what I would have done if I had stuck to the conventional route on I-405 en route to the Harbor Freeway. 

One goof on the video captions; CA 73 departs from I-5 at the very north end of San Juan Capistrano, nowhere near the OC/San Diego county line (actually about 15 miles to the north).  The 73 toll road has been a perennial money-loser since its inception; it was initially deployed as (a) a "relief route" for the I-5/405 combination, which tends to clog up at the merge point at the Irvine/Lake Forest line, and (b) an access road for the then-new -- and exceptionally wealthy/pricey suburbs of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel -- sort of their own personal highway, originally priced so ensure lack of congestion.  Also, the Fluor Corporation, with its HQ in Aliso Viejo, lobbied heavily in the late '80's and early '90's for its deployment and routing (it passes within a block of their HQ complex).  It was originally governed by its own separate sub-agency, but merged with the Eastern County agency that manages the 133/241/261 cluster in the eastern hills simply because it couldn't financially stand on its own and required cross-subsidy from the more flush entity.  And Max is correct; off-peak there is little or no time saving between 73 and the 5/405 combination.  Peak hours, there's some relief; but if one has to utilize the always-free section of 73 between MacArthur and I-405, that gets peak-hour congestion similar to the adjacent I-405 and CA 55 freeways; it doesn't really clear out until well up into the hills.   

Is it true that they improved the "El Toro Y"  (do they still call it that now that the area is known as Lake Forest) by adding more lanes after the implementation of this toll road?  It seems that Caltrans' work did undercut the 73's profitability. 

But yeah, little reason to use this road unless you are going to Laguna Hills.

Part of the reason they brought the "El Toro Y" out to up to 8 lanes/direction was to provide dedicated exit lanes from NB 5 to the NB 133 toll road; that latter facility is the main conduit for commute traffic from the corporate HQ complex flanking the triangle (5/133/405) to homes in the Inland Empire via 133/241/91.  Prior to the rebuild it tended to back up down as far as El Toro Road, since traffic had to stay left to avoid the right-hand multiple-lane "peeloff" to I-405 but then sneak over to the right again to access NB 133.  IMO, they should have made the "Y" a directional interchange -- but originally back in 1968 DOH chose not to disturb the main I-5 movement and made all exits/entrances from their respective RH sides (didn't count on the huge volume on 405 50 years down the line!).  But adding 133 as a major commute corridor added to the mess, which D12 has been attempting to build out of since about 2003.

That makes a lot of sense as there is definitely the need to address the traffic movement from southern 5 to 133 north.  It also explains the reason for the truck bypass lanes (matching the other 5/405 interchange in northern SFV) that basically allows traffic on the right lanes to be able to reach I-5.  But all in total, it makes the area really smooth for driving through, but affecting the profitability of 73.

While not really having much sympathy for the toll road operators, as I feel traffic improvements need to be made, I do understand that the Caltrans projects here absolutely undercut the 73 operators as part of the reason to use their toll road was to avoid the backups at the El Toro Y.  While 73 bypasses the Y, it also bypasses most of the employment areas of Irvine, so there is very little traffic that will use the 73 corridor - affecting the profitability of the toll road.

But all the wealthy residents of Aliso Viejo and Laguna Niguel now have their very own underutilized accessway.  We all know the old adage about the rich getting richer...........................

I used CA-73 quite a bit during my years there, but I agree that it's mostly redundant (and was even before the El Toro Y improvements).

I would have liked Caltrans to build out CA-73 as originally intended - freeway from I-405 to CA-1 using the MacArthur Boulevard corridor (or perhaps Newport Coast Drive). On the southern end, they could have built Laguna Canyon Road as a freeway from I-405 to CA-73, then used current CA-73 southeast to I-5.

The section of CA-73 between Newport Coast and Laguna Canyon could have remained unbuilt (preserving a lot of wilderness land), or at most could have been like the other Parkways in the area (Crown Valley, Antonio, etc.).

Believe me -- if the CA 73 tollway hadn't been constructed, that land -- at least north of the coastal hills ridgeline where the tollway exists currently -- would have been filled with more housing and any number of multilane arterials connecting them.  The concept of taking a CA 73 freeway down MacArthur to the coast was dashed once the Coastal Commission came into existence; any notion of an uphill CA 1 bypass was sunk some 43 years ago when the combined actions of Caltrans under then-director Gianturco (the freeway was deleted from plans) and the Commission (which effectively forbade any freeway development on the seaward side of the watershed divide) wiped out most of the CA 1 freeway plans in both OC and L.A./Ventura counties. 

The saving grace of the hillside area north of Newport Coast is the fact that UC Irvine owns much of the land and has no intention of opening it up for development -- but the adjacent properties have, in fact, been developed with largely luxury housing (although there have been a number of multi-unit facilities built as well, primarily to accommodate university-related needs).