What Will Become of Orange County's Toll Roads

[kernals12]

Has CARB actually taken up the whole 2035 edict by Newsom?  There are some serious doubts regarding whether the infrastructure (especially the failing state wide electrical grid) will be there to support an entirely electric passenger car market.  If I recall correctly commercial vehicles were not part of the 2035 directive?

We built enough power stations and transmission lines to handle electricity demand that was doubling every decade from 1930 until 1970. There will not be a problem meeting the demand from electric cars.

No problem at all.  Just build more coal powerplants like they did in the last century.  Add in some nuclear too.

Not even those "Powder River let 'er buck" types in Wyoming believe this.

It's not that they "couldn't"  be built it's just that a certain Environmental Quality Act would essentially make that impossible.  Pretty much everything aside solar and hydroelectric has largely been a no-go in recent decades in California.  Even hydroelectric is getting a lot backlash by the dam removal crowd.

And that's a problem how?

There isn't a ton of watersheds south of the Feather River  that don't already have power generating stations on them.  The stuff that has been proposed like Temperance Flat essentially is just an expansion and more oriented towards water shortage.  Some of the larger hydroelectric projects like Big Creek really don't have much room for expansion and would face massive environmentalism resistance. 

North of the Feather River there has been a lot of watersheds that have been declared wild and scenic.  Some rivers like the Klamath even have some serious environmental push behind them to remove dams and restore the natural downstream flow. 

With solar, I just don't see there being huge swathes of land being used up to build generating stations that will have a large enough impact.  Most of the stations that have been recently aren't very large and are extremely remote areas.

The amount of energy that hits the earth in an hour is enough to meet our energy needs for a year. The Mojave Desert is massive and pretty empty.

EDIT: Someone estimated how much land would be needed to switch California to 100% renewable energy. It's not much. Also, our current solar panels are only 20%. In the future, hot carrier cells will be able to hit 66%

A lot of the western Mojave near Lancaster and Palmdale would be ideal for that kind of thing and have the least amounts of environmental red tape.  Antelope Valley in particular already has some substantial wind farms much like Tehachapi Pass.

You could put some on the Santa Ana Mountains, it would generate power and weaken those nasty Santa Ana Winds.

[The Ghostbuster]

If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?

[sparker]

If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?

Since the toll roads were and are OCTA property -- with Caltrans as a design and operations partner -- one or the other would likely have to assume maintenance of Los Patrones to erect CA 241 shields -- unless some sort of waiver were granted.  Remember Caltrans signs roads it owns or, in the case of the OC toll roads, has an interest in; and placing state shields on county-owned roads isn't within the agency's current practice.  So don't anticipate Los Patrones getting "shielded" regardless of the status of tolling itself unless there's a change in ownership. 

[bwana39]

The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.

California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions

1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.

EDIT:

3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.

By 2035, it'll be coming almost entirely from solar and wind power.

That is incredibly naïve. There MIGHT be enough solar, wind, and hydro power in the entire US to power California by 2035. Cali MIGHT be able to say they are out of the fossil fuel / nuclear power business, but it would be through wheeling (passing electricity on from a distant point to another), exchanges (IE trading the ability to take credit for using CLEAN electricity that is actually generated and used in a different location), and true reductions in demand / usage.

I will add one thing additionally:  The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from  gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation.  The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.

[kernals12]

The requirement by state law is to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40% from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Because of this, anything that would generate huge VMT and couldn't be justified based on safety or operations would likely be shut down by a governor who claims to take climate change seriously. The tolling of the TCA roads clearly is not a safety or operations issue.

California is banning the sale of internal combustion engine powered cars though. So it wouldn't increase CO2 emissions

1. Existing cars are still gasoline and will be using these roads.
2. Electric cars use electricity. It's not free energy.

EDIT:

3. By 2035. There are still 14 years remaining.

By 2035, it'll be coming almost entirely from solar and wind power.

That is incredibly naïve. There MIGHT be enough solar, wind, and hydro power in the entire US to power California by 2035. Cali MIGHT be able to say they are out of the fossil fuel / nuclear power business, but it would be through wheeling (passing electricity on from a distant point to another), exchanges (IE trading the ability to take credit for using CLEAN electricity that is actually generated and used in a different location), and true reductions in demand / usage.

I will add one thing additionally:  The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from  gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation.  The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.

On what basis are you making that assumption?

[skluth]

I will add one thing additionally:  The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from  gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation.  The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.

There are pollutants. There are always pollutants in any industry, even building buggies for horse carts. The car battery recycling issue is something that will need to be solved. But these aren't multitudes of AA and AAA batteries disposed from millions of smaller devices that leach through landfills. These are large car battery units that will be pulled from vehicles and can be immediately entered into the recycling chain. We already know how to recycle these batteries. It's a very different and mostly controllable problem, like recycling oil done by Jiffy Lube. This pollution also is minor compared to the pollution done by autos, not just the exhaust but the oil spilled and escaping through vapors at gas stations and other transfer sites, pipeline spills, and the giant oil processing plants.

Your use of pollutants is a red herring argument and is often promoted by those who often have vested interests in the petroleum and related industries. There are different pollutants, but they will be far less and with far less negative environmental impact than what we see today. It would be useless to force people to give up their cars and either walk or take mass transit, and I don't need to ask the car-enthusiast road geeks on AA Roads for that answer. Electric vehicles are a less polluting type of vehicle, not a non-polluting source. Given a choice between electric vehicles and walking/ mass transit, I'm sure a large majority will take electric vehicles. If they can be self-driving, increasing the number of commuter vehicles on the road while also increasing safety, even better.

Please avoid red herring arguments. I will call them out as the issue diversions they are.

[kernals12]

I will add one thing additionally:  The technologies used in these alternative energy sources may generate pollutants that minimize the carbon footprint that was saved by the reduction from  gasoline / diesel vehicles and fossil fuel power generation.  The end of life for batteries is a growing problem as well as the creation of new streams of pollutants in the manufacture and discard of the alternative sources of energy and the vehicles that they power.

There are pollutants. There are always pollutants in any industry, even building buggies for horse carts. The car battery recycling issue is something that will need to be solved. But these aren't multitudes of AA and AAA batteries disposed from millions of smaller devices that leach through landfills. These are large car battery units that will be pulled from vehicles and can be immediately entered into the recycling chain. We already know how to recycle these batteries. It's a very different and mostly controllable problem, like recycling oil done by Jiffy Lube. This pollution also is minor compared to the pollution done by autos, not just the exhaust but the oil spilled and escaping through vapors at gas stations and other transfer sites, pipeline spills, and the giant oil processing plants.

Your use of pollutants is a red herring argument and is often promoted by those who often have vested interests in the petroleum and related industries. There are different pollutants, but they will be far less and with far less negative environmental impact than what we see today. It would be useless to force people to give up their cars and either walk or take mass transit, and I don't need to ask the car-enthusiast road geeks on AA Roads for that answer. Electric vehicles are a less polluting type of vehicle, not a non-polluting source. Given a choice between electric vehicles and walking/ mass transit, I'm sure a large majority will take electric vehicles. If they can be self-driving, increasing the number of commuter vehicles on the road while also increasing safety, even better.

Please avoid red herring arguments. I will call them out as the issue diversions they are.

I don't know how much pollution is caused by battery production, but I do know that extracting oil, refining it into gasoline, and then transporting it in tanker trucks to gas stations is incredibly bad for the environment. And your car requires $2,000 worth of platinum catalysts to keep the emissions from burning it down to acceptable levels.

[jrouse]

If the Orange County Toll Roads are de-tolled, does that mean the Los Patrones Parkway could become an extension of CA 241?

Since the toll roads were and are OCTA property -- with Caltrans as a design and operations partner -- one or the other would likely have to assume maintenance of Los Patrones to erect CA 241 shields -- unless some sort of waiver were granted.  Remember Caltrans signs roads it owns or, in the case of the OC toll roads, has an interest in; and placing state shields on county-owned roads isn't within the agency's current practice.  So don't anticipate Los Patrones getting "shielded" regardless of the status of tolling itself unless there's a change in ownership.

The toll roads are NOT OCTA property.  They are state highways.

They were funded out of toll revenues and a levy on properties within the vicinity of the toll roads.  The tolls and those tax levies are handled by two joint power authorities which were authorized by the California Legislature. These JPAs are comprised of Orange County and the cities through which the toll roads pass and are known as the Foothills/Easter Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency.    Even though there's legally two separate JPAs, they have one common set of management and operations staff and are commonly referred to under the acronym of TCA.  These JPAs are separate government organizations from OCTA and OCTA is not involved in any part of their operation. 

The legislation that created by the JPAs and gave them the tolling authority explicitly states that the toll roads could be transferred to the State upon completion and be part of the State Highway System. TCA has transferred ownership.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=66484.3.

https://thetollroads.com/about/background

OCTA is a county level transportation planning agency, authorized under other sections of State law.  It is not an Orange County government agency but is its own separate agency, just like the TCA.  OCTA has obtained authority from the Legislature to collect tolls on the portion of the 91 Express Lanes within Orange County. 

This facility was originally built as a public-private partnership with Caltrans.  It was one of four pilot projects authorized by legislation passed in 1989.  The express lanes are state Highway with the private partner being responsible for tolling, operations, and maintenance.  The SR-125 South Bay Expressway toll roads was also built under the same authority.

Due to concerns with the private partner on the 91 express lane having too much control, the Legislature passed legislation which amended that specific partnership agreement to make it a public-public partnership between Caltrans and OCTA and it removed the provisions of the agreement that were controversial.

The original public private partnership agreement covered a portion of State Route 91 in Riverside County.  When the Legislature amended the agreement to give OCTA control over the Orange County portion of the toll facility, it gave the Riverside County Transportation Commission control over that portion in that county.  Like OCTA, RCTC is a County level transportation planning agency, not a part of Riverside County government but legally separate. 

RCTC and OCTA were mandated by this same legislation to work together on the operation of the express lanes, and they do, but they each have legal control over the toll revenues generated by the portions of the express lanes within their county.   

Info on the original P3 legislation and the amendments can be found here:

https://atrn.assembly.ca.gov/sites/atrn.assembly.ca.gov/files/hearings/013106%20PublicPrivate.pdf

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error.  But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage.  That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241".  SB's another matter.  Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect.  I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.

[jrouse]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error.  But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage.  That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241".  SB's another matter.  Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect.  I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.

The two Transportation Corridor Agencies have never been part of OCTA.  They have always been 3 legally separate government bodies.  There are no plans to merge them.  The toll roads have been owned by Caltrans since they were opened.  I don't believe TCA has any legal title to any part of the facilities other than the infrastructure used for tolling.

With regards to the Los Patrones extension, that's not State highway.  It's owned by Orange County, (which - dare I say it? - is itself a separate body of government from TCA and OCTA.)  The State would need to adopt it. 

There's no reason why the northbound direction couldn't be signed now as "TO CA-241" .  I would not sign the southbound direction ad "TO CA-74"  without also signing the routes that connect it to CA-74.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^
Knew that TCA originally operated the system as an independent body, with some management overlap with "parent" OCTA -- but did not know the transfer to the state had taken place; since leaving OC in 2004, didn't pay much attention to these things subsequently -- apologies for stating the error.  But this doesn't change the response to the question at hand regarding the Los Padrones extension to the CA 241 toll road; it would need to be adopted by, now, Caltrans in order to receive signage.  That being said -- there's nothing stopping the NB direction and the approaches to that facility from being signed as "TO CA 241".  SB's another matter.  Technically (and fancifully), it could be signed south of Oso as "TO CA 74", even though the connection is presently indirect.  I suppose we shall see what transpires down the line.

The two Transportation Corridor Agencies have never been part of OCTA.  They have always been 3 legally separate government bodies.  There are no plans to merge them.  The toll roads have been owned by Caltrans since they were opened.  I don't believe TCA has any legal title to any part of the facilities other than the infrastructure used for tolling.

With regards to the Los Patrones extension, that's not State highway.  It's owned by Orange County, (which - dare I say it? - is itself a separate body of government from TCA and OCTA.)  The State would need to adopt it. 

There's no reason why the northbound direction couldn't be signed now as "TO CA-241" .  I would not sign the southbound direction ad "TO CA-74"  without also signing the routes that connect it to CA-74.

The "overlap" mentioned was simply OCTA board members or management personnel also showing up as members of the early TCA boards;  early on -- mid-late '90's -- that situation was lambasted in the press (primarily the OC Register) as potentially undermining the independence of the TCA's, which were supposed to be free of the local politics that historically had characterized OCTA policy deliberations and decisions.  But with the TCA's and their tolled status, it was suggested in the press (but, of course, denied through official channels) that OCTA wanted to maintain a high degree of influence over the distribution of toll revenue.  That in itself was typical of longstanding OC S.O.P -- everything was set up as "interlocking directorships" to maintain some sort of decision path from the county to OCTA to the TCA's.  That arrangement came under fire when the CA 73 toll road turned out to be a money-losing proposition; the conclusion was that the facility's design and deployment criteria were unduly influenced by regional developers who insisted on a route beneficial to their private activities, increasing the construction cost.  So while technically the facilities (the 133/241/261 cluster plus the separate CA 73) belonged to Caltrans for maintenance purposes, TCA did govern the actual collection of tolls and the distribution of that portion of such that didn't get plowed back into the facilities -- which was the focal point of controversy.  Incidentally, the "design/build" aspect of the toll roads was one thing that got rave reviews as substantially lessening the time between project letting and the actual opening of the Eastern Corridor segment, which went into service between mid-1995 and the fall of 1998, when the connection to CA 91 opened (I lived two miles from that junction at the time).  For a "government project", the preternaturally conservative OC press lavished praise on the corridor's developmental process -- at least until the CA 73 issues emerged, at which time they reverted to their historical outcries against "government waste".  But most of the vitriol was aimed at that particular TCA as part of the "corrupt" nature of the various OC transportation mechanism; Caltrans, being deemed out of the original policy "loop", was spared much of the criticism.  Eventually the TCA's for CA 73 and the Eastern Corridor were merged out of fiscal necessity.  But it was the de facto rather than the de jure situation, particularly the interlocking nature of OC jurisdictions, that came under fire in this instance.  Interestingly, the fact that OC is the only county with its own Caltrans district (D12) wasn't addressed within the scope of the various public discussions; back circa 2002 or so I was expecting the "other shoe to drop" from the local press regarding any overly cozy relationship between the county agencies and D12 (another form of overlap), but by the time I moved out of the area that had yet to happen (and I let my Register subscription lapse when I left).  Caltrans came through relatively unscathed, largely due to the fact that the press placed the blame within OC policy circles.

P.S. -- I fully agree with the notion that not only Los Patrones but the other streets serving as connectors to CA 74 be "trailblazed" with signage if any mention of 74 is to be made.

[fungus]

D12 is an interesting answer to a trivia question. Assemblyman Ross Johnson used it as part of some deal trading to get his own Caltrans District and not have to deal with the suits in LA. I think it's been discussed on this board how OC-centric the control cities are when you are in their county. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-28-me-6918-story.html

[sparker]

D12 is an interesting answer to a trivia question. Assemblyman Ross Johnson used it as part of some deal trading to get his own Caltrans District and not have to deal with the suits in LA. I think it's been discussed on this board how OC-centric the control cities are when you are in their county. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-09-28-me-6918-story.html

At least L.A. consistently shows up as a control city on NB I-5 once past the El Toro "Y", as does Long Beach on I-405.  But on non-Interstate freeways, most do cite OC cities rather than the outflung places where folks employed within the county actually live (don't recall seeing Corona on any BGS's, although Riverside does get a mention both on NB CA 55 and EB CA 91).  Either that, or there's just no control cities at all -- WB CA 91, signed for years from CA 55 and CA 57 for L.A., is largely void of a control city past I-5 -- but the tiny burg of Artesia was, for a time, mentioned -- even though CA 91 only traverses it for about a mile and a half!  Lakewood, Compton, or Gardena would be more appropriate -- but those are in L.A. County, so no mention of those prior to I-605. 

It would seem that the '87 split of D12 out of D7 was done in part to offset the urbanist influence that was back then just starting to exert pressure on Caltrans to modify or even truncate road-related planning (remember, this was during the later years of the I-105/Century Freeway deployment, fraught with one controversy after another).  Johnson et. al. within OC political circles calculated that a "native" OC-based district could and would assert an increased level of independence from both L.A. and Sacramento and continue to support deploying new road facilities to the fast-expanding South County area.  But this was something of a double-edged sword, so to speak -- while the developmental need of newly-designated areas such as Rancho Santa Margarita and Aliso Viejo were looming large, the basic OC conservatism was working against an expanded freeway network serving those areas due to the projected cost of such.  Thus the planning for the toll facilities commenced -- substituting bonds supported by future semi-direct user fees for construction coupled with a "design-build" process that would purportedly go from preliminary planning to a system collecting said fees in as little time as feasible.  And it. by and large. worked -- within 8 years the section of CA 241 near RSM opened for service, with the remainder of the "Eastern Corridor" in service a little over 3 years later -- including the singularly heroic construction of 241 over the hill into Santa Ana Canyon!  But for all intents and purposes there has been no significant "freeway" construction in OC since D12 broke off; except for the northern "free" approaches to CA 73 and improvements to CA 55 in northern Newport Beach -- and the expressway on CA 133 between I-405 and CA 73 -- the toll corridors constitute the major OC/Caltrans roadway projects over the past 30+ years.  D12 indeed went its own way in this regard; their methodology aligning with historical OC political/economic preferences.

[Occidental Tourist]

but the tiny burg of Artesia was, for a time, mentioned -- even though CA 91 only traverses it for about a mile and a half!  Lakewood, Compton, or Gardena would be more appropriate -- but those are in L.A. County, so no mention of those prior to I-605. 

Artesia is in LA County as well.  The last city in Orange County on the W/B 91 is La Palma. 

My understanding of why Artesia ended up as a W/B control city is during the late 90's, somebody in District 12 got a notion that all the freeways should be named for their destinations.  While some freeways had been named for their destinations (e.g., Santa Ana Freeway, San Diego Freeway, Orange Freeway) there were also some that had been named for the street highway routings they replaced, e.g., the Garden Grove Freeway replaced Garden Grove Blvd, the Newport Freeway replaced the portion of the route that went over Newport Blvd, and the Artesia Freeway replaced Artesia Blvd.

When District 12 decided that the freeway names needed to match up to their destinations, they changed the name of the Newport Freeway to the Costa Mesa Freeway, explaining to the press that the freeway didn't end in Newport (Beach), and so the name was deceptive.  This reasoning reflected a misunderstanding that assumed the the freeway had been named after the intended destination rather than the street it replaced.

It was at this time that Artesia first showed up as a control city on a BGS.  Apparently this new philosophy that freeways should be named after where they end was applied in reverse; if the freeway is called the Artesia Freeway, it should reflect Artesia as a destination.  As you note, prior to this, either the destination on W/B 91 didn't have a control city past the 5 interchange, or in some instances, the control city was Long Beach.  In fact, you can still find freeway signing on side-streets that shows Long Beach as the control city for the 91 W/B.  Other than the two W/B pullthrough BGS's at the 5 interchange and one exit BGS on the N/B 5, there's not a single other sign that identifies Artesia as a control city on the 91.

[mrsman]

As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12.  L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A.  This is terrible and inconsistent.  They should have had both signs for both control cities.

"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities.  Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91.  Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control.  "Anaheim/Riverside."  The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown).  How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions).  Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions.  Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas.  If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.

Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities.  Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise.  So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange.  Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.

[ClassicHasClass]

CA 55 north of I-5 should just go back to solely Riverside. I think the majority of traffic to this day is using it to get to EB CA 91.

[Occidental Tourist]

As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12.  L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A.  This is terrible and inconsistent.  They should have had both signs for both control cities.

"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities.  Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91.  Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control.  "Anaheim/Riverside."  The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown).  How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions).  Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions.  Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas.  If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.

Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities.  Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise.  So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange.  Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.

Agree completely.  Anaheim as a control city north of the 5 isn't only wrong, it creates a danger of sending some poor tourist looking for Disneyland into the gridlocked hellscape that is the Santa Ana Canyon.  And as for the 91, I don't understand the logic of why Pasadena has to be a control city on the n/b 710 and w/b 210 instead of LA, but the moment you hit the 241 interchange, Beach Cities disappears and now LA is the control city on the 91.

[Avalanchez71]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

[CtrlAltDel]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.

[jdbx]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ.  Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...

[mrsman]

As I have said before on other threads, I do not like the control city usage of D12.  L.A. used to be the consistent NB contorol on I-5, but D12 decided that Santa Ana is a control city, so it needs to replace L.A. on basically all pull-through signs of NB I-5 between the San Diego County line and the Santa Ana city limit do not say L.A., even though nearly all of the signs in San Diego County north of Downtown SD only say L.A.  This is terrible and inconsistent.  They should have had both signs for both control cities.

"Learning" from that mistake, they decided to sign the NB 55 with two control cities.  Riverside was the historic control since the 55 fed into the 91.  Then they basically decided that the freeway ended in Anaheim, so Anaheim was an appropriate additional control.  "Anaheim/Riverside."  The problem is that 55 intersects with the 5 that actually goes toward the heart of Anaheim (Angels stadium, Disneyland, Downtown).  How is it sensible for folks on 5 to be directed to take 55 to Anaheim, when you are more likely to want to stay on 5 (especially folks who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely going to Anaheim solely to reach the tourist attractions).  Worse yet, is that control is even signed at the northern terminus, directing traffic to "Anaheim/Riverside" to EB 91, essentially the opposite direction from the attractions.  Perhaps when you keep driving on 91 to 215 to 15 you'll know that you somehow missed Disneyland when you reach Las Vegas.  If they really wanted an OC based city along eastern 91, Anaheim Hills or Yorba Linda would be far better.

Regarding the 91 WB, I think it deserves consistent control cities.  Don't like "Beach Cities" as it is too imprecise.  So how about Anaheim and sign it consistently as the WESTBOUND control until the 57 interchange.  Then, Gardena or Redondo Beach could be appropriate.

Agree completely.  Anaheim as a control city north of the 5 isn't only wrong, it creates a danger of sending some poor tourist looking for Disneyland into the gridlocked hellscape that is the Santa Ana Canyon.  And as for the 91, I don't understand the logic of why Pasadena has to be a control city on the n/b 710 and w/b 210 instead of LA, but the moment you hit the 241 interchange, Beach Cities disappears and now LA is the control city on the 91.

The 710 NB control as Pasadena is forgivable, since the completed 710 would have certainly connected Long Beach to Pasadena.  L.A. was at one time the northern control of the Long Beach Freeway (or even the Los Angeles River Freeway) many eons ago and I believe there were still some on-ramps in the South Gate area that may have had a Los Angeles control instead of Pasadena.  This made a lot of sense when the LB Fwy was a spur off of I-5.  Obviously when the LB Fwy was extended north of I-5 to reach Valley Blvd, they decided to change all the controls on NB to Pasadena, the aspirational endpoint.

Now that the 710 gap completion is officially dead, to the extent there is money available, I agree that the new NB control should be L.A., with either Valley Blvd or Alhambra as the northern control north of I-5 (and only Valley Blvd north of I-10).  Of course, changing all the signs on the freeway, connecting freeway, and street on-ramps could be expensive, so I don't think making this change is a big priority.  Perhaps when the signs are to be replaced.

[Likely the use of LA on 91 WB is also due to the history that the 91 was once a spur freeway to the east of I-5, before the parts to the west were built.  91 won't get you to Downtown LA, but it will default you onto the I-5 which will.]

Los Angeles, of course, is a big conglomeration.  I think anyone who has driven in the area is aware that simply following the BGS pull through signage is meant to get you to Downtown LA, if you follow all the signs to their conclusion.  But of course, there are other areas fully within the city of Los Angeles where it does not make sense to follow such signage and to veer off at a certain point.

Coming from the east, one decision point is I-10/CA-60.  [Peel off that miners spade, because it is really US 60!] Currently, the sign guides you to CA-60 for Riverside and I-10 for SB and L.A.  But CA-60 and I-10 parallel each other for so much that many destinations the two are equal.  Despite CA-60 being the Pomona Fwy, I-10 tends to be better for the Fairplex and even most parts of Pomona, including Downtwon Pomona.  CA-60 would be a shorter distance as it is more direct to reach most parts of Downtown LA.  Most of the skyscrapers and civic buildings and Hollywood are closer to US 101, so take I-10 there - but Staples Center and any of the Westside reachable via the Santa Monica Fwy are more direct via CA-60.

From the Inland Empire, there are more choices.  Four main E-W freeways that connect "LA" to I-15 and I-215.  I-210 to Pasadena, but reachable to lots of northern LA including Eagle Rock, the San Fernando Valley, and the movie production facilities in Burbank/Universal/Studio City.  I-10 to LA, especially the civic center and the original Hollywood.  CA-60 to LA, reaching the southern parts of Downtown as well as most of the Westside accessible to the SM Fwy.  CA-91 to Orange County, but still continuing thru the southern parts of LA county (and even LA city areas such as LAX and San Pedro).  OF course, all of this info is too much for the pull-thru signage, so I'm happy with controls of Pasadena, LA (for 10 and 60), and Anaheim, with the use of supplemental signage for any other important destination.  A great example of such exists here along WB I-80 approaching I-680 in Cordelia:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.2231027,-122.1288486,3a,75y,260.55h,94.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQJu4o9sC4yi50DPiYvEuQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Concord and Walnut Creek should use 680, even though Benicia and San Jose are the only controls for SB 680 on the overhead signs.

Similarly, on I-15 SB from Las Vegas, L.A. (not San Bernardino) should be the control from the stateline all the way to Devore.  Then, LA and San Diego to at least I-10.  But before the interchange with 210, even though the pull throughs would guide LA traffic onto the SB I-15, supplemental signage could recommend San Fernando Valley traffic use 210 west.

[Occidental Tourist]

Unfortunately the time to change the control city on the 710 is now as most of the signs are being replaced.  But on the new signs they are continuing to use Pasadena.  Even the new signs at the 47/103/710 interchange and on the new Gerald Desmond Bridge, most of which are not replacements of old signs but are newly designed signs, go out of their way to list Pasadena as the control city.  I'm not sure how Caltrans, Metro, the Port of LB, or whomever is responsible for the construction of the bridge and the new roadways thinks having Pasadena as a control city on signs for commercial drivers leaving the port is helpful.  They would have been better off leaving a control city off those signs altogether.

[Avalanchez71]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

The solar panels on my roof which recharge my EV every day beg to differ.  Our recent power outages have caused food in my fridge to spoil and a few other inconveniences, but were of zero consequence to operating my car...

What does something like that cost to purchase?  What does the install look like on the vehicle?

[kernals12]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.

And even if most of our electricity still came from coal, because power plants are located further away from populated areas than auto tailpipes, we'd still be better off from a local air quality standpoint.

[GaryV]

EVs are just coal fired cars.  Where do they think electricity comes from?  What is going to happen if there is a power failure and no one can operate a EV.

You are 23.4% correct, as of 2019. For better or worse, the majority of electricity comes from natural gas.

And even if most of our electricity still came from coal, because power plants are located further away from populated areas than auto tailpipes, we'd still be better off from a local air quality standpoint.

That was the original argument about "zero emission" vehicles required by CA.  No, they are just vehicles with a 600-mile-long tailpipe.