Headlines About California Highways – January 2025

[cahwyguy]

It's the start of a new month, and you know what that means: It's time for highway headlines. Here are your headlines, and other related articles, that caught my eye about California Highways during January.

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17120

Ready, set, discuss.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sounds like the city of Watsonville should have pushed for the adopted 152 bypass to be actually constructed.  That certainly would've pulled a lot of those cars out of downtown.  Photos 40 and 41 in the blog below show the CHC adopted corridor:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2025/01/the-former-surface-alignment-of.html

I have some stuff coming up on my Facebook page about the surveyed extension corridors for the Tioga Road.  That was a huge focus in some of the early California Highway Biennial reports around the start of the 20th century. 

[Plutonic Panda]

You added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.

[stevashe]

You added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.

It's actually unclear what the status of that action is. They rescinded the memo immediately freezing funding, but then Trump's press secretary said that the executive orders were still in effect.

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens /shrug

[cahwyguy]

You added a few notes about President Trump's freezes on infrastructure bills but I believe that has been rescinded so you may wanna do some research into that to confirm it and remove those notes if true.

It's actually unclear what the status of that action is. They rescinded the memo immediately freezing funding, but then Trump's press secretary said that the executive orders were still in effect.

So I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens /shrug

To be specific: What was rescinded was the memo that cut grant and similar funding. Separately, there were two infrastructure bills: The Inflation Reduction Act, and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), which included the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Grant Program, and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant (Rural) Program. The Executive Orders signed his first day in office froze certain sections of the Inflation Reduction Act. In particular, sections related to Reconnecting Communities (which they think relate to DEI) were paused or somehow cancelled, and that might impact certain funding such as the rejoining communities that were looking into things like the 980 vision studies, or the studies related to I-5 in San Diego.

Here's the reference: https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/01/federal-agencies-ordered-to-pause-spending-of-inflation-reduction-act-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act-funds

Additionally, Federal Funds related to climate change related spending were frozen. This would impact the planning work on Route 37.

So, I think at this point, much of the funding with respect to highways from the Federal side is up in the air, and in particular, articles from early January about new initiatives are even iff-ier today and needed that caveat.

Hopefully, the new administration will not cut the highway funding ALREADY APPROVED BY CONGRESS, but one never knows with these folks.

[ClassicHasClass]

Those 2009 Inyo traffic studies really could use a refresh.

[Plutonic Panda]

Anything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm not a fan of getting rid of I-980 myself for numerous reasons.  All the same, there are some prices not worth paying to stop interest in studying removal of the corridor.

[Plutonic Panda]

In this case there is because it's just another freeway they want to remove due to the anti-Car nuts in the state. So yes, it is a waste of money and the studies need to stop.

[Max Rockatansky]

Sure, sounds great on paper that there is a push to stop the studies.  Problem is the people who are pushing to stop them and what else they'll want with it.   It is just too bad this couldn't have come from a place of more level-headedness.

[Plutonic Panda]

Levelheadedness is driving the highway and seeing how many people use this and not asking what else they want with it other than the purpose it was built for which was to drive on it. I don't see why saying the studies to remove the 980 with classify somebody is not being levelheaded. To me that sort of logic is a two-way street.

[Max Rockatansky]

There is very little levelheaded with the current administration.  Just because they have some highway related ideas I agree with doesn't mean I'm going to go in wholesale with thinking all their ideas are great.   

[Plutonic Panda]

I never said no one implied that you thought all of their ideas are great. I'm not sure where you got that from.

[Max Rockatansky]

One might read the below passage a certain way.  Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote. 

Anything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.

I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself.  The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO).  That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage.  I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.

[cahwyguy]

One might read the below passage a certain way.  Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote. 

Anything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.

I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself.  The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO).  That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage.  I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.

And, it is really important to note that the study results were not yes/no on removal. There are a large variety of options to consider -- freeway caps, increased bus service, other ways of addressing things. This was a STUDY to see what the STAKEHOLDERS wanted, and those stakeholders included commuters.

Please, folks, hold back on the kneejerk reactions. All this came from the fact that I noted that funding announced in January might not happen, and thus those articles required more time to be borne out. That's all.

[Max Rockatansky]

Much of my personal ire towards doing anything with I-980 comes from the fact that the removal concept was pushed so heavily by New Urbanism groups.  Those groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.

Yes, a study would get a more accurate picture of what the community wants (which I suspect is not removal).  All the same, things got to this point with I-980 for the wrong reasons.  Other states pushed back against similar New Urbanism pushes (I-275 in Tampa comes to mind).

All the same, I suspect long term a corridor study will get done one way or another in the somewhat relative short term.

[Plutonic Panda]

One might read the below passage a certain way.  Based off what you just said I don't think you really thought through what you originally wrote. 

Anything that cancels that that stupid 980 project I'll support. That road needs to stay.

I would prefer the I-980 deletion stuff goes away myself.  The rationale for removing the freeway has shaky and poorly constructed arguments (IMO).  That said considering what administration this potential study cancellation came from it is attached with a whole bunch of extra baggage.  I don't see said baggage as being worth the price to maintain a freeway in a city which I don't reside.

Correct, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion. They're not planning this in good faith there's other freeways as well. They want studies on to have them removed. I mean they're closing the upper great highway a road I use often when I'm in the area a road that a lot of neighbors didn't want to see closed either. So my position is a lot of these studies are not in good faith. I'm not against alternatives and adding other ways to move around to less than traffic congestion.

[citrus]

Those groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.

For sure. I was speaking with some neighbors about the Central Freeway in San Francisco recently (we all live near it), and there are at least several folks who want to see the freeway stay up, not because of traffic impact, but because they don't want the neighborhood to attract the type of investment that would make it more expensive to live in it. There were also several folks who mentioned that the traffic on the freeway is better off there than it would be at surface level. So there is often not a clear consensus. Which is why we do studies to understand all these things. It's a shame these studies take so long and are so expensive.

Correct, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion.

Where is this coming from? I've never seen a study that says that this is the goal. A side effect of achieving other goals that are deemed more important, sure. But I don't think anyone is seriously saying this is the reason to do anything. We are still a democracy (supposedly), after all. The SF Supervisor who championed the Great Highway removal is now facing a recall, as he is ultimately accountable to the ballot box here if it turns out the goals of this project were not actually what the voters wanted. If they really overstepped, he will be replaced.

[Plutonic Panda]

Those groups despite what they say they often do not speak for the affected communities and corridor users.

For sure. I was speaking with some neighbors about the Central Freeway in San Francisco recently (we all live near it), and there are at least several folks who want to see the freeway stay up, not because of traffic impact, but because they don't want the neighborhood to attract the type of investment that would make it more expensive to live in it. There were also several folks who mentioned that the traffic on the freeway is better off there than it would be at surface level. So there is often not a clear consensus. Which is why we do studies to understand all these things. It's a shame these studies take so long and are so expensive.

Correct, but this is all part of a plan to make it as hard to drive as possible, and to create more traffic, congestion.

Where is this coming from? I've never seen a study that says that this is the goal. A side effect of achieving other goals that are deemed more important, sure. But I don't think anyone is seriously saying this is the reason to do anything. We are still a democracy (supposedly), after all. The SF Supervisor who championed the Great Highway removal is now facing a recall, as he is ultimately accountable to the ballot box here if it turns out the goals of this project were not actually what the voters wanted. If they really overstepped, he will be replaced.

Well, of course a study is never gonna come out and say hey, we wanna make it harder to drive.

[cahwyguy]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

[pderocco]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.

[cahwyguy]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.

Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.

[Plutonic Panda]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

I'll just agree to disagree

[Plutonic Panda]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.

Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.

Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.

[cahwyguy]

The goal isn't to make it harder to drive. The goal is to make things carbon neutral. That goal is helped by having fewer cars on the road, and ... encouraging ... people to move to mass transit and active transportation.

... which is done in part by making it harder to drive.

Ah, but that's not the GOAL. It is one of the means of achieving it, but there are other means, such as transit incentives, increased use of HOV lanes over general purpose lines, providing preferential treatment to vehicles with a smaller carbon footprint, increased registration fees based on carbon footprint. Each potential solution has different drawbacks, and as we are seeing, different administrations have different priorities.

Yes, it is the goal. They just don't talk about it.

The CTC has a published goal of being carbon neutral. So please keep any notions of hidden agendas and conspiracies to the fantasy forums.