🛣 Headlines About California Highways – September 2022

[cahwyguy]

A little bit late, because I've been extremely busy. Here are the headlines for September 2022: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16413

As a reminder: I'm looking for someone who is willing to talk for 30 minutes or so on the following:

For 1.05: The Pat Brown era of highway construction in California, and the rationale behind, and impact of, the 1964 "Great Renumbering"  on the traveling public.

For 1.06: The impact of CEQA on road construction in California – including the process both before and after CEQA – as well as the impact of the growing importance of regional transportation agencies on the State Highway System.

Episode 1.03 features Morgan Yates of the Auto Club of Southern California; Episode 1.04, which will be posted around 10/15, features Jonathan Gifford of George Mason University on the Interstate System. Podcast details are in the headline post.

As always: Ready, set, discuss.

[Quillz]

＄ 101 will close this weekend to demolish the Encino Avenue bridge, and neighbors are thrilled —  (Daily News). About five years ago, a group of Encino residents got wind that a pedestrian bridge on Encino Avenue over the 101 Freeway was to be demolished and then rebuilt. They weren't opposed to the demolition, but they were opposed to the estimated $20 million to rebuild a bridge barely anyone used, and they felt the money could be better spent repairing Encino's infrastructure, streets and sidewalks. So, they organized and got federal, state, county and city government representatives involved to helping them win their case. "It looks as though we accomplished what we wanted ... and the $18 million can be saved and used for a more worthy project,"  said Encino resident Marshall Barth, 84, who has lived on Encino Avenue south of the freeway two decades. "One of the reasons I have lived so long is that I swore I would not leave this Earth until that bridge was down. Every once in a while, you can fight City Hall."

I'm sure the fact that some homeless people were living on the bridge for a short time played no role in them wanting the bridge to be demolished. Although I really can't recall ever seeing foot traffic on that bridge. Interestingly, there is another one that is closer to the Balboa off-ramp that is still up. I guess that one is staying?

And on a totally unrelated note: someone keeps plowing into the "Exit 21" gore sign on the 101 SB Balboa off-ramp. It was fixed, TWICE, and then not even a week later, plowed into again. I dunno if it's some weird coincidence or it's someone actually having a vendetta. I wouldn't normally notice things like that but it's been systematic this past year.

[skluth]

Neither of those pedestrian bridges are needed. Pedestrian bridges are needed where neighborhoods are split and there are no good alternatives for pedestrians to easily/ safely walk from one side of a highway to the other. Almost every other street between Wilbur Av to Balboa Blvd crosses the freeway with pedestrians needing to only walk about 1000 feet in either direction to reach a highway bridge across 101. I agree with the locals who said the money saved by not rebuilding the bridge could be used elsewhere for better purposes. I'm betting most of the residents of the homes near Encino Av south of 101 have never walked to any destination along Burbank Blvd.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'll be really exited to get a four lane 156 between San Juan Bautista and Hollister.  The back up at the light at Union is absolutely horrendous and is something I have to often contend with when I visit Monterey for work.  I posted something regarding the start of the expansion the other day on Gribblenation:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0344P9GTZesKf7xZ2eckYdwJW7cbPw2YAGBibPMKpsm3ZkUC5ZfrKoQ6wk3K9affKol&id=100063655972258

[jdbx]

I'm really happy that things are getting started on the Soscol Junction project in Napa. We often travel that route to get to Napa or Sonoma, and the backups at that traffic light can be epic on the weekends with all of the Napa Valley tourists heading in that direction. The new arrangement will allow through traffic on CA-29 to travel unimpeded on an overpass. I would expect that this will also reduce the backups on southbound 221 at that intersection, as the roundabout will move traffic much better.

This will probably move the southbound bottleneck down to the traffic light at CA-12 / Jameson Canyon Rd and I also expect a bigger bottleneck to develop on the other side of the river heading north were CA-12 splits off towards Sonoma.

Project page with before and after layout of this interchange: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-4/d4-projects/soscol-junction

[ClassicHasClass]

I'll be really exited

Freudian slip on a roadgeek site? 

Anyway, good that people are finally paying attention to CA 37, but that highway is so overcapacity it makes CA 91 look like a smooth ride.

[rschen7754]

I would be cautious of the FreightWaves article (no longer active, but archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20221127194958/https://www.freightwaves.com/news/freightwaves-classicsinfrastructure-groundbreaking-held-for-i-805-in-san-diego). Large portions of that article were copied from the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805) without acknowledgment. (Following the fork to the AARoads Wiki, the most up to date version is at https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Interstate_805).

[cahwyguy]

I would be cautious of the FreightWaves article (no longer active, but archived at (original URL was garbled). Large portions of that article were copied from the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_805) without acknowledgment. (Following the fork to the AARoads Wiki, the most up to date version is at https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/Interstate_805).

Thanks for the heads up. When the next round of updates is posted, I've replaced the Freightways material with a pointer to the Wiki. As I've noted elsewhere, I have a love/hate relationship with the Wiki -- I feel it has been the death of the individual state highway sites. But in this case, it is worth pointing to the Wiki, as I don't think it will go away (unlike news articles).

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm pretty sure internal Wikipedia politics has undone any momentum it once had as a "catch all" highway page.   I know the momentum around here is towards promoting the AAroads Wiki as replacement.  I see the strife as an opportunity for promotion of the remaining state pages or stuff like what we do on GN.

[cahwyguy]

I'm pretty sure internal Wikipedia politics has undone any momentum it once had as a "catch all" highway page.   I know the momentum around here is towards promoting the AAroads Wiki as replacement.  I see the strife as an opportunity for promotion of the remaining state pages or stuff like what we do on GN.

Understood. For me (at least), there's a big difference between quoting parts of a news article that may go away, and just cutting and pasting from a Wiki page that is more stable. It feels wrong to just cut and paste from the Wiki page, even with attribution.

Of course, and this is my problem, the Wiki pages have often felt just fine lifting from the individual state highway pages (with attribution). Then, when I update my pages as I get more information, it doesn't make it back into the Wiki.

Newspaper articles are not regularly updated. Neither are blog posts (I think that Tom only goes back and updates things infrequently). But Wikis are regularly updated.

[Max Rockatansky]

On your site the all the changes in legislation definitely are going to require constant updates and revisions.  I tend to think the pages/articles on California State Highways I write tend to be a more macro level of what your site captures.  That generally translates into lesser updates for me unless something major happens like a realignment or I don't have something right (like I-10S).

Either way, the amount of information on the typical GN article definitely would far exceed what modern Wikipedia would permit.  Pertaining to California I tend to try to capture as many maps and historic photos I possibly can.  Personally I tend to get more enjoyment out researching roads and topics that nobody has really heard of or aren't directly tied to State Highways.  One of the common pieces of feedback I've heard is that I tend to focus on weird or rural mountain roads.

Internally I think all four of us at GN are in agreement that there is no such thing as "too much" historic information.  The only debate I recall having recently was the volume of photos on individual articles.

[cahwyguy]

And with respect to the GN articles, I try to present a summarization of the key points, with a link back to the original article.

[Max Rockatansky]

Generally I embed links to source materials and snip applicable illustrative information.  I see the latter part as an attempt to future proof source links eventually going bad.

Stuff like the AASHTO Database concerns me.  It is a great resource, but not one I expect to survive in the long run.  Worse yet there isn't really a viable way to link that information as a source.  I can definitely snip and save my own photos of it though.

[pderocco]

What sort of "road-user charge" does SANDAG have in mind? The article seems to assume we all understand what that means. Does SANDAG have any taxing authority, or is the state or county supposed to do the taxing for them? Is the road-user charge something people in San Diego county are supposed to pay? What is it based on? Miles traveled within San Diego county? How could they claim a right to charge San Diegans for a trip they take out of county, or out of state? Is it somehow supposed to charge outsiders who drive in San Diego county? Are they expected to be able to track us electronically, or just check our odometers once a year? Seems like a lot of questions are unanswered.

[pderocco]

So the feds intend to spend $5 billion on half a million chargers along 75000 miles of interstates, with stations spaced 50 miles apart. That means 1500 stations. That means each station would have 333 chargers. That's quite a parking lot, and since they're supposed to be fast chargers, each station would consume the amount of electricity of a modest sized town. And chargers cost waaay more than $10000.

Let's be generous and say that a fast charge takes only 30 times as long as a gas fill-up. Assuming during the day these will be mostly in use, 333 chargers would serve as many cars as 11 gas pumps. Does anyone think that long range conventional car travel could be supported by one 11-pump gas station every 50 miles?

"'America led the original automotive revolution in the last century, and ... we're poised to lead in the 21st century with electric vehicles,' Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said." Well, they didn't do it in the last century with Soviet style central planning. Fittingly, this is a five-year plan, and it won't work out any better than the Bolshevik's.

[Max Rockatansky]

I tend to think a lot of these climate goals related the proliferation of EVs tend to assume long range automotive travel will be less of a thing for the general public. 

[cahwyguy]

What sort of "road-user charge" does SANDAG have in mind? The article seems to assume we all understand what that means. Does SANDAG have any taxing authority, or is the state or county supposed to do the taxing for them? Is the road-user charge something people in San Diego county are supposed to pay? What is it based on? Miles traveled within San Diego county? How could they claim a right to charge San Diegans for a trip they take out of county, or out of state? Is it somehow supposed to charge outsiders who drive in San Diego county? Are they expected to be able to track us electronically, or just check our odometers once a year? Seems like a lot of questions are unanswered.

Most likely (and remember, these headlines were almost 2 years ago), this was an experiment coordinated with the state, working in conjunction with the DMV and registration fees. It would most likely, at this point, be self reporting. A bit of searching shows that they removed the charge from their 2025 regional plan, They also had a sheet where they explained the charge, and it looks to be more like toll roads on selected highways.