🛣 October 2019 Headlines about California Highways

[cahwyguy]

OK, folks. You know the drill. Here are your headlines about California Highways from October. Ready. Set. Discuss.

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15578

[Concrete Bob]

When SB-1 became law, I realized the funds were pretty much dedicated to rehabilitating existing routes on the California highway system, with little or no funds going to expanding capacity on the grid.  When the proposition to rescind SB-1 went on the ballot, I considered voting for it, because there was little or no chance of expansion of the State Highway system.  However, I voted "no", because I figured some of the non-SB 1 gas tax funds could be would be spent on expansion and modernization of the grid.  I felt good about my vote.  It appears as though our current governor wants to take a good portion of the non-SB-1 gas tax revenue stream, and re-direct it towards rail projects that will do nothing to alleviate problems on congested, dangerous two-lane highways like SR 46 and 1950s-era freeways like SR 99 that should have been addressed forty years ago.  I am very disappointed in our current governor, and feel he is doing the same thing to the driving taxpayers of California that he did to his best friend's wife a few years back.

https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/AIDE-QUITS-AS-NEWSOM-S-AFFAIR-WITH-HIS-WIFE-IS-2652745.php
       

[Max Rockatansky]

I haven't read the specifics but it seems like the current Governor is either anti-Highway or getting a lot of pressure from scaling the HSR back by reading the headlines of all the cancelled projects.  The short sighted part is that a lot of the projects being cancelled are in my area (San Joaquin Valley) where people are the least likely to use the HSR in favor of a major highway line CA 99.  I'm not opposed to High Speed Rail but the project has been handled poorly from the start and the first logical thing that had been done in a long time was when it was scaled back by the current Governor.  The winter of 2017 really put into perspective how poorly the State Highways in California have been maintained since the 1970s, the passage of SB1 was helping to begin to fix that.  SB1 was to exactly the opposite of what the governor signed in Executive Order, that's a shame the public who voted for it (myself included) is being told what they wanted didn't matter. 

Something I don't understand about the HSR, how is it going to help people stop people from commuting by car?   The HSR has a design for stations being placed every 45 miles roughly.  Essentially the HSR was planned as an alternate form of transportation to get people from Los Angeles to the Bay Area.  Yeah, it might help the poor sap that has to drive from the Bay Area from San Francisco but there is no way it can replace the utility of interurban rail.  Considering how many interurban lines have gone by the wayside in California I've always been surprised that none of the mass transit advocates are making a serious push for that kind of rail service.  Either way the long commutes and untenable urban living situation when it comes the big cities in California isn't new and the HSR as designed probably isn't the solution. 

[cahwyguy]

I try to stay neutral on these various issues (you've probably noticed), but there was a good article in Streetsblog yesterday (which I just saved for the November headlines) that covers why the funding was reallocated. I'll paste it below, except for the last few paragraphs. It exposes how intricate our highway and transit funding is, and how most people don't understand it

Article: https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/10/31/ca-99-widening-defunded-where-is-the-money-going/

The following post first appeared on Stop and Move.

Two weeks ago, CBS47 lobbed the following headline: Gov. Newsom redirects gas tax money to fund railway systems, not highways.

Unfortunately, the reporting was pretty light on details. Where is the money going? Where did the money even come from? CBS got the following statement from Caltrans:

The state is confronting the climate crisis head on. In doing so, Caltrans will use available transportation dollars to prioritize projects that manage congestion and reduce vehicle miles traveled in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Those who claim the state is canceling projects funded by gas tax dollars are incorrect. Aligning climate goals with transportation goals requires new thinking, not obstructionism.

Fair enough, but that's not an answer either.

The media also got quotes from a few very angry republicans who essentially said the Governor was stealing from the gas tax fund and the tax was a bait and switch.

"I don't understand how this is even legal, from a voter integrity standpoint,"  (State Sen. Andreas Borgeas, R-Fresno) said Friday during the "Eggs & Issues"  forum at Tornino's in Fresno. "The idea that individuals can take money from that pot (when) the voters prescribed exactly where it was intended to go, from a legal standpoint, I don't understand."

Fresno Bee

State Sen. Andreas Borgeas should know better.

Gas Tax Law
Those bait-and-switch claims are a lie. To start, SB-1, the gas tax bill, clearly states how the money gets allocated. For example:

This bill would create the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program to address deferred maintenance on the state highway system and the local street and road system. The bill would require the California Transportation Commission to adopt performance criteria, consistent with a specified asset management plan, to ensure efficient use of certain funds available for the program.

...

The bill would also allocate portions of the revenue from the new transportation improvement fee to the State Transit Assistance Program and to the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program. The bill would restrict expenditures of the fee revenues made available to the State Transit Assistance Program to transit capital purposes and certain transit services, and would require a recipient transit agency to comply with various requirements, as specified.

So to start, the bill was never about just roads, and it clearly said as much on the ballot. There's a lot more in the law about who gets what money, including money for things like planning. In fact, the law even pre-allocated funding based on revenue estimates:

The revenues estimated to be available for allocation under the act to the state are estimated over the next 10 years to be as follows:
(A) Fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation.
(B) Four billion dollars ($4,000,000,000) for highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation.
(C) Three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) for high priority freight corridors.
(D) Two billion five hundred million dollars ($2,500,000,000) for congested corridor relief.
(E) Eight hundred million dollars ($800,000,000) for parks programs, off-highway vehicle programs, boating programs, and agricultural programs.
(F) Two hundred seventy-five million dollars ($275,000,000) for the interregional share of the State Transportation Improvement Program.
(G) Two hundred fifty million dollars ($250,000,000) for freeway service patrols.
(H) Seventy million dollars ($70,000,000) for transportation research at the University of California and the California State University.

I highlighted F, because this is the specific section of money we are talking about today. Section A, the $15,000,000,000 for state highway maintenance and rehabilitation? No change. Section B, the $4,000,000,000 for highway bridge and culvert maintenance and rehabilitation? No change. Etc.

Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
What exactly is the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program ?

The purpose of the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) is to improve interregional mobility for people and goods across the State of California on highway and passenger rail corridors of strategic importance. These strategic corridors provide the transportation network that connects the state's major regions to one another and connects the rural regions to the large urban areas. The corridors also provide connectivity to neighboring states and the international border with Mexico. The ITIP is a program of projects funded through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that obtains funding primarily through the per-gallon State tax on gasoline

The ITIP is one of many state funding programs that collectively invest in the development, maintenance, and operations of the State Highway System and other components of the state's larger transportation network. These programs cover a wide breadth of areas including high-speed rail, intercity passenger rail, commuter and urban rail, bus transit, waterborne ferry, active transportation, highways, local streets and roads, and general aviation airports.

That's a pretty broad program, which again is about all forms of transportation, and not just highways. As it turns out, the the law is even more specific about the funding mix:

At least 60 percent of the program shall be programmed to projects outside urbanized areas on the Interregional Road System (IRRS) and for intercity passenger rail. Of this amount, at least 15 percent (9 percent of the ITIP) must be programmed for intercity passenger rail projects.

Up to 40 percent may be programmed to projects anywhere in the State subject to the north/south 40/60 split. Projects may be state highway, mass transit fixed guide-way s, or rail grade separation

On top of all this, projects funded under this program must meet certain goals, such as accessibility, safety, and reliability.

This is not a new program, and it's something you would expect people like Assemblyman Jim Patterson and State Sen. Andreas Borgeas to know about, before saying stupid things like "When you pay for gas and you pay a gas tax, a railroad is not a highway. This is bait and switch. This is saying one thing and doing something else."

Are they grossly ignorant about the job they are being paid to do by taxpayers, or are they lying?

Changes in Funding
Ok, but what projects exactly are being funded now? High Speed Rail? BART? The proposed Visalia-Hanford rail line? The answer is...nothing!?!

The story unfolds in this massive Caltrans report. This is a draft report, as there are two scheduled public meetings where comments are accepted, but little will change. What this report does is look at how much money is actually available (in case revenue was not projected properly, or costs were higher than expected) and allocate it to specific projects. What projects get money will vary based on current needs, the pre-assigned mix of funds, and executive orders like this one:

Governor Edmond G. Brown issued Executive Order B-30- 15 on April 29, 2015, related to climate change and ordering that a new interim statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is established.

To start, there's less money available.

STIP capacity over the 2020 five-year FE period has decreased compared to the capacity in the 2018 five-year FE period, going from $3.3 billion in the 2018 FE to $2.6 billion in the 2020 FE. The decrease is primarily attributable to a high level of pre-existing STIP project commitments for allocated and programmed projects.

And then taking into account the money that has already been planned for, we get this:

The 2020 Fund Estimate provides $52,414,000 in new, additional ITIP funding

But here's the thing. $52,250,000 is immediately eaten up by previous projects that cost more than expected (in San Luis Obispo and Humboldt counties).

Which by my math, leaves $164,000 to hand out. That's nothing.

Then, $32,494,00 in highway projects were deleted to make money available. This is where funding for the new CA-99 lanes in Tulare and Madera were cut. The other cut highway was 46 in San Luis Obispo.

By the way, the elected representative of that area has appealed directly to the project benefits, rather than throwing a fit like the Fresno area reps.

Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, R-San Luis Obispo, called on the California Transportation Commission to reject its staff's proposal. "The widening of Highway 46 provides not only carries an economic benefit, but a safety one, as well,"  Cunningham wrote in his letter. "The Highway 41/46 corridor in San Luis Obispo County, otherwise known as Blood Alley, has seen a fatality rate three times higher than the state average."

Fresno Bee

Of course, he forgets to mention that so little money is left because one of their projects went over budget....

An additional $8,673,000 was added to the funding pile from money saved on the "Tulare SR 99 Tagus Highway project,"  and another $20m from savings from a CA 99 bond.

The end result is "retained $61,331,000 in uncommitted 2020 ITIP programming capacity to be held in reserve for priority rail projects and other priorities aligned with Executive Order N-19-19."

Priority Rail Projects
Who gets money from these changes is decided based on the executive order, which states that transportation investments must be "near housing, and on managing congestion through innovative strategies that encourage alternatives to driving."

But what specific projects will get it are not in the report, which is why they're called uncommitted funds. We DO know what rail projects had previously been allocated funds, which you can see in this map:



It's a mix of projects around the state, with the primary focus being on Amtrak California lines. Incidentally, this is the first I've heard of Fresno getting a second platform at the Amtrak station. That money is not scheduled to be spent until 2022. Maybe they can build high platforms to accommodate the new trains? Currently, the only plan is for "mini-highs"  at each station (also in 2022).

The only brand new rail project identified is Link Union Station, which is being funded at the expense of "Raymer to Bernson Double Track Project"  which was zeroed out because apparently the engineering was too hard. So that's money shifted from one part of the Pacific Surfliner to another.

Who should get the uncommitted funds? Well, a lot of hands are out for the cash. Metrolink is apparently arguing that any funds going to them will have the biggest impact on reducing emissions, since they will be able to add more train trips that replace car trips. By electrifying and adding tracks, they can become a serious commuting option for the region. They make a solid argument.

Meanwhile, Central Valley (CV) politicians will argue that the money should stay in the valley, since that's where it was originally going to go.

That's a fair argument, but unfortunately, the CV doesn't have a large bench of projects sitting in line waiting for funds. They want to relocate the Madera station (again), but that project isn't going to really change travel patterns. ACE, in the northern part of the valley, is very well positioned to receive funding, but that won't satisfy politicians from Fresno and Kern.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

Ergo, the danger of just reading headlines and not reading the whole story.  Makes me wish I hadn't opened my mouth until I had a chance read everything first related to the shelved projects.  Suffice to say those improvements to CA 99 and CA 46 are needed, I hope they get funded in the short term future. 

I want to say that's the first time I've seen CA 165 pop up in a headline.  Those memorial highways with Fire Fighter names are starting to get more and more common.

Good thing I got on the Real McCoy II earlier this year.  The ferry routes get some fairly decent amount of traffic with the local Rio Vista-Isleton Crowd but ultimately don't have a ton of over all impact on traffic like the Rio Vista Bridge does on CA 12.  Interestingly in my own research it looks like the older ferry system was much more efficient before the deep water dredging took place since it was cable driven like the ferry on CA 220.

Regarding the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge it would be nice if a similar pedestrian path could be built on the western span of the Bay Bridge.  I would imagine a lot of people would start taking a bike if not out right walk between Oakland and San Francisco if the option was available.

CA 68 needs a four lane alignment between Monterey and Salinas, not roundabouts.  The Monterey Peninsula doesn't have a four lane connection to the rest of the highway system and traffic bottlenecks severely during rush on all routes out of the area aside from G16.  CA 156 thankfully is getting some log needed upgrades between Castroville and Prunedale in the next couple years.

I really wanted to check out the Niland Geyser when I was in Coachella Valley this past month but it didn't work out to head that far south.  I'm still behind on getting blogs up from that trip but I am looking forward to tackling the present state of CA 111 west of CA 86.

Something else I wanted to try to do but didn't have the time on the last trip was check out Jack Rabbit Trail on foot in the Moreno Valley Badlands.  I ran it once when I worked in the area, I want say in 2012?  The original Jack Rabbit Trail is essentially much akin to the Old Ridge Route and San Juan Grade, lots of concrete and severe erosion from time.  Older highways like these would make for some really awesome hiking and mountain bike trails.  In the case of National Parks like Yosemite and Sequoia they have recycled former highways into trails...maybe some of these counties and National Forests will start catching on some day?

Too bad the article on the expansion of CA 132 really missed out on how old that right of way is and the historic context with I-5W.

Anyone want to take a running bet on how long Angeles Crest and all of CA 2 goes before the next rock slide closure?  We're due for a trip down down to L.A. in December, that would be a fun alternate to I-5 if it's available. 

Regarding Gribblenation, I'm going back and updating a lot of the blogs.  I want to have some consistency with all the California Highway blogs so they feature they same detail in map scans, Public Works documents and Post Mile tool details that newer blogs do.  Right now I'm only going back and making the updates if I have a reason to touch the older blogs; such as when I have newer/better photos.  At some point I'll really need to dig in and focus on making the updates, it definitely put the plans to build a directory for the page on old (we have over 1,700 articles between everyone).  Short term I'll have the following coming up in the blog series; Generals Highway, CA 111 Palm Springs, CA 74 Pines-to-Palms Highway, CA 86 Expressway, I-10 Coachella Valley, former CA 231, Mariposa Grove Road, the 1938 Dinkey Creek Bridge, former CA 1 in Castroville, the Old Coulterville Road and on a lesser scale Auberry Road.

[cahwyguy]

Regarding Gribblenation, I'm going back and updating a lot of the blogs.  I want to have some consistency with all the California Highway blogs so they feature they same detail in map scans, Public Works documents and Post Mile tool details that newer blogs do.  Right now I'm only going back and making the updates if I have a reason to touch the older blogs; such as when I have newer/better photos.  At some point I'll really need to dig in and focus on making the updates, it definitely put the plans to build a directory for the page on old (we have over 1,700 articles between everyone).  Short term I'll have the following coming up in the blog series; Generals Highway, CA 111 Palm Springs, CA 74 Pines-to-Palms Highway, CA 86 Expressway, I-10 Coachella Valley, former CA 231, Mariposa Grove Road, the 1938 Dinkey Creek Bridge, former CA 1 in Castroville, the Old Coulterville Road and on a lesser scale Auberry Road.

I may not always go back through the old ones. So if, while doing them, you identify some corrections that need to feed back into my pages (with credit, of course), please drop me a note telling where to look. (I was about to say "where to go", but I'm sure loads of folks would love to tell me where to go).

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding Gribblenation, I'm going back and updating a lot of the blogs.  I want to have some consistency with all the California Highway blogs so they feature they same detail in map scans, Public Works documents and Post Mile tool details that newer blogs do.  Right now I'm only going back and making the updates if I have a reason to touch the older blogs; such as when I have newer/better photos.  At some point I'll really need to dig in and focus on making the updates, it definitely put the plans to build a directory for the page on old (we have over 1,700 articles between everyone).  Short term I'll have the following coming up in the blog series; Generals Highway, CA 111 Palm Springs, CA 74 Pines-to-Palms Highway, CA 86 Expressway, I-10 Coachella Valley, former CA 231, Mariposa Grove Road, the 1938 Dinkey Creek Bridge, former CA 1 in Castroville, the Old Coulterville Road and on a lesser scale Auberry Road.

I may not always go back through the old ones. So if, while doing them, you identify some corrections that need to feed back into my pages (with credit, of course), please drop me a note telling where to look. (I was about to say "where to go", but I'm sure loads of folks would love to tell me where to go).

Will do, usually I don't release them unless there is something really substantially new.  CA 156 probably was by the most expanded from the original document version. 

[cahwyguy]

Will do, usually I don't release them unless there is something really substantially new.  CA 156 probably was by the most expanded from the original document version. 

Right, but substantially new to you doesn't mean that it implies changes to what I have on my pages. If you discover actual errors in what I have for the history or have changes that need to be made to my pages to bring things into alignment -- especially if you are noting that my pages are in error -- please let me know so I can fix things.

[Max Rockatansky]

Will do, usually I don't release them unless there is something really substantially new.  CA 156 probably was by the most expanded from the original document version. 

Right, but substantially new to you doesn't mean that it implies changes to what I have on my pages. If you discover actual errors in what I have for the history or have changes that need to be made to my pages to bring things into alignment -- especially if you are noting that my pages are in error -- please let me know so I can fix things.

I'll let you know what I find, when I get a chance to look through what was updated I'll let you know what might need an update.  With CA 156 I mostly found old alignments of LRN 22 and CA 156.  Interestingly (and you have this noted on your page) I couldn't find a single reference to CA 156 in any Division of Highways publication aside from the State Maps before the 1964 Highway Renumbering.  The State Maps show 156 between CA 152 and US 101 starting in 1938 but it never really is clear until 1964 if it was west of US 101.