News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

CA 41 Two Lane Death Trap K-Rail Installtion

Started by Max Rockatansky, July 31, 2021, 12:32:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Max Rockatansky

For simplicity sake I'm borrowing from what I posted on Gribblenation this morning:

"Recently the two lane segment of California State Route 41 (often referred to as the "The 2 Lane Death Trap" ) from Excelsior Avenue north to Elkhorn Avenue was converted to a no-passing zone.  This past weeks the same segment was altered again for the center striped to be changed for the upcoming center K-Rail installation.  The K-Rail installations on California State Route 41 will be taking place between August 1st-6th and is the first such zone in Caltrans District 6.  Some other two lane State Highways which have center K-Rail installations include; CA 25 north of Hollister, CA 12 in the Sacramento River Delta and CA 37 along San Pablo Bay."

Photo 3 on the link below has the Caltrans announcement regarding the 8/1-8/6 K-Rail installation. 

https://www.facebook.com/72868503020/posts/10158117948488021/?d=n


SeriesE

CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me. 

heynow415

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.   

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: heynow415 on August 02, 2021, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.

What I found particularly amusing about the K-Rail/No Passing segment on CA 12 in the Delta is the hammy "drive to stay alive"  signs.  I always wondered if there was a similar story to what happened on CA 37:

https://flic.kr/p/2cLe54w

heynow415

#5
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on August 02, 2021, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.

What I found particularly amusing about the K-Rail/No Passing segment on CA 12 in the Delta is the hammy "drive to stay alive"  signs.  I always wondered if there was a similar story to what happened on CA 37:

https://flic.kr/p/2cLe54w

Now that you mention it, I don't recall seeing that slogan used elsewhere, though it is catchy.  That section of 12 has several strikes against it:  no shoulders, undulating (so limited visibility for passing, even if illegal anyway), lots of trucks, lots of RV's/trailers/boats.  When the Rio Vista bridge was raised, particularly on Friday or Sunday afternoons in the summer, it could back up through Rio Vista on to this section; it was even worse when the junction with 160 was a 4-way stop right on the levee at the east end of the bridge so no room for left turn pockets.  Seems like the bridge is not raised as much as it used to be (fewer sailboats and ship traffic?) and with the signal at the relocated 12/160 junction it doesn't seem to back up as much as in the past.  Regardless, like many other two-lane roads, a few folks get impatient and try to pass when they shouldn't.  And unlike the section between Denverton and Suisun, there's not enough room to add a median barrier without r/w acquisition.


Restored missing quote tags. –Roadfro

Max Rockatansky

Took a fresh photo album (I didn't realize how dusty my interior windshield got with the Dixie Fire) of the Two Lane Death Trap segment today when the K-Rail install completed.  The K-Rails extend from Postmile FRE 0.00-6.00 between Excelsior Avenue and Elkhorn Avenue as stated above.  Numerous breaks in the K-Rail can be found as CA 41 intersects; Laguna Avenue, Mountain View Avenue and Harlan Avenue.  Interestingly the shoulders on CA 41 have been widened about two feet with gravel fill but I can see the bridge over Murphy Slough being a problem now that it has been rendered narrow.

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmWnmqvw

kernals12

Hey look, Max is posting about a problem that needs fixing! But I'm sure he'll dismiss every single proposed solution as being stupid.

sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on August 02, 2021, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.

What I found particularly amusing about the K-Rail/No Passing segment on CA 12 in the Delta is the hammy "drive to stay alive"  signs.  I always wondered if there was a similar story to what happened on CA 37:

https://flic.kr/p/2cLe54w


One major problem with the 2-lane section of 152 is that except for the easternmost segment that surmounts the hill just prior to the 156 junction there are almost continuous agricultural and residential access points that would require breaches in the K-rail; functionally converting them to RIRO's would be politically impossible, as these are largely farms that have been there for at least decades.  D4 has, for all intents and purposes, thrown in the towel regarding any improvement along the existing alignment -- partially because of the wetlands to the south that commence at the rear of the properties along the road (152 and the farms arrayed along it are situated on a sort of "ledge" between the hills and those wetlands).  Of course the long-term solution is a complete reroute on the other side of the wetlands, but the fact that 152 is more of a commercial than a commuter artery has resulted in the Santa Clara County MPO relegating it downwards on the priority list.  Compounding that issue is the fact that most of the proposed alternative alignments lie along the Santa Clara/San Benito county line -- and correspondingly between D4 and D5, with most options "toggling" between the separate zones.  Finally, the west end of these options merge with the CA 25 corridor, which is already being addressed, but initially in an interim (read as cheap as possible) fashion.  But it's been like this with 152 for decades -- always caught between regional politics and lack of agency prioritization; this is one corridor that can't seem to catch a break!

Max Rockatansky

#9
Quote from: kernals12 on August 08, 2021, 12:29:47 PM
Hey look, Max is posting about a problem that needs fixing! But I'm sure he'll dismiss every single proposed solution as being stupid.

Four lane or bust IMO, hell if I would four 41 all the way south to 46 if it was up to me.  The biggest obstruction to four lane expansion is going likely be the eminent domain that would need to be declared at the Camden Mobile Home Park.  I'll be interested to see if the momentum towards expansion going in the upcoming CTC minutes over the next 6-18 months.

Edit:  Thinking further on it, if I had my way a four lane expansion of CA 41 to CA 49 is probably warranted by the the current traffic counts.  Deadwood Hill between Coarsegold and Oakhurst probably would be where a hypothetical four lane expressway would likely have to end given the hostile terrain.

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2021, 12:37:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on August 02, 2021, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.

What I found particularly amusing about the K-Rail/No Passing segment on CA 12 in the Delta is the hammy "drive to stay alive"  signs.  I always wondered if there was a similar story to what happened on CA 37:

https://flic.kr/p/2cLe54w


One major problem with the 2-lane section of 152 is that except for the easternmost segment that surmounts the hill just prior to the 156 junction there are almost continuous agricultural and residential access points that would require breaches in the K-rail; functionally converting them to RIRO's would be politically impossible, as these are largely farms that have been there for at least decades.  D4 has, for all intents and purposes, thrown in the towel regarding any improvement along the existing alignment -- partially because of the wetlands to the south that commence at the rear of the properties along the road (152 and the farms arrayed along it are situated on a sort of "ledge" between the hills and those wetlands).  Of course the long-term solution is a complete reroute on the other side of the wetlands, but the fact that 152 is more of a commercial than a commuter artery has resulted in the Santa Clara County MPO relegating it downwards on the priority list.  Compounding that issue is the fact that most of the proposed alternative alignments lie along the Santa Clara/San Benito county line -- and correspondingly between D4 and D5, with most options "toggling" between the separate zones.  Finally, the west end of these options merge with the CA 25 corridor, which is already being addressed, but initially in an interim (read as cheap as possible) fashion.  But it's been like this with 152 for decades -- always caught between regional politics and lack of agency prioritization; this is one corridor that can't seem to catch a break!

Interestingly with 152 I've found most of the traffic backups are compounded by people turning out of those businesses.  If one truck had to stop in the highway the effect ripples dozens of vehicles down the road.  A lot of those local business pullouts are left hand too which just worsens the situation.  I've found the alternative of 25 and 156 to be somewhat faster with the biggest obstacle coming in the form of transitions from 101 to 25 via that hellacious left hand turn. 

Max Rockatansky


sparker

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 08, 2021, 01:23:35 PM
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2021, 12:37:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 02, 2021, 12:14:04 PM
Quote from: heynow415 on August 02, 2021, 12:08:25 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 01, 2021, 08:20:25 AM
Quote from: SeriesE on August 01, 2021, 02:28:30 AM
CA-152 needs this treatment on its two lane portion too.

I'm tempted to make a joke that nobody can get to a fast enough speed on 152 from Gilroy to 156.  The issue at hand with 41 is largely politically driven and a recent event.  Personally I don't really see the corridor anywhere near as bad as say 152 east of Gilroy or any segment of two lane 156.  The speed at which this K-Rail conversion is happening really surprised me.

The one on 37 got installed in the same manner.  What became known as Frankie's wall was the result of him being killed in a head-on; one of many over the years when the section between Sears Point and Mare Island varied from 2 to 3 lanes which resulted in all sorts of crazy passing maneuvers. His death was the final straw (he was 18) which resulted in tremendous political pressure by a campaign initiated by his parents that got it funded and constructed in relatively short order.  Since it's on a levee there's not a lot of room to work with so the relatively consistent layout of it now, two lanes with median barrier and shoulders, was accomplished by removing the various alternating passing lanes that existed previously.

What I found particularly amusing about the K-Rail/No Passing segment on CA 12 in the Delta is the hammy "drive to stay alive"  signs.  I always wondered if there was a similar story to what happened on CA 37:

https://flic.kr/p/2cLe54w


One major problem with the 2-lane section of 152 is that except for the easternmost segment that surmounts the hill just prior to the 156 junction there are almost continuous agricultural and residential access points that would require breaches in the K-rail; functionally converting them to RIRO's would be politically impossible, as these are largely farms that have been there for at least decades.  D4 has, for all intents and purposes, thrown in the towel regarding any improvement along the existing alignment -- partially because of the wetlands to the south that commence at the rear of the properties along the road (152 and the farms arrayed along it are situated on a sort of "ledge" between the hills and those wetlands).  Of course the long-term solution is a complete reroute on the other side of the wetlands, but the fact that 152 is more of a commercial than a commuter artery has resulted in the Santa Clara County MPO relegating it downwards on the priority list.  Compounding that issue is the fact that most of the proposed alternative alignments lie along the Santa Clara/San Benito county line -- and correspondingly between D4 and D5, with most options "toggling" between the separate zones.  Finally, the west end of these options merge with the CA 25 corridor, which is already being addressed, but initially in an interim (read as cheap as possible) fashion.  But it's been like this with 152 for decades -- always caught between regional politics and lack of agency prioritization; this is one corridor that can't seem to catch a break!

Interestingly with 152 I've found most of the traffic backups are compounded by people turning out of those businesses.  If one truck had to stop in the highway the effect ripples dozens of vehicles down the road.  A lot of those local business pullouts are left hand too which just worsens the situation.  I've found the alternative of 25 and 156 to be somewhat faster with the biggest obstacle coming in the form of transitions from 101 to 25 via that hellacious left hand turn. 

...............which is slated to be replaced by a marginally less hellacious left hand turn; money issues resulting in interim measures.  Welcome to D4! 

Max Rockatansky

Caltrans District 6 posted a bulletin on Facebook for the planned four lane expansion on the CA 41/Death Trap (I'm calling it that from now on) zone:

https://www.facebook.com/593909824019105/posts/pfbid0hdYmuGTE5ZRVPbxmHrE1qQMNGP84xGgBiyn7YmtjifbrnZaRB8j1zuVLyVkfs3LYl/?mibextid=DcJ9fc



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.