🛣 Headlines About California Highways – November 2020

[cahwyguy]

One more month to go, and 2020 is gone. It has really been a year, what with the election and COVID. Hopefully, the worst of both will soon be past us. But one thing has held stead: you've had headlines about highways in California to keep you amused, however briefly.

Here are your headlines that cover the month of November. Hopefully, you'll find a few nuggets of interest to discuss in the mix. But before I give the go signal, one note: Hopefully you stayed safe in 2020. May you have the happiest of holidays -- whichever ones you celebrate -- and remain healthy and safe as 2020 finishes and throughout 2021.

Here's the link to the headline post: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=15984 . And ....

Ready, set, discuss.

[ClassicHasClass]

The Fair Oaks/110 interchange upgrade is ... an interesting idea. I agree it's underdesigned, but isn't that true for much of the Arroyo Seco?

Gonna have to try that DDI in Manteca if I ever get back to making my regular monthly Central Valley runs.

[Max Rockatansky]

The expansion of CA 156 between Castroville-Prundale will be a welcome addition and the long awaited four lane connection that the Monterey Peninsula presently lacks.  Good thing I got pictures of the eastbound ghost lanes east of CA 183.

Sure didn't take long with the closure of Great Highway to have the negative effects so many of us discussed in another thread on this board. 

[mapman]

The expansion of CA 156 between Castroville-Prundale will be a welcome addition and the long awaited four lane connection that the Monterey Peninsula presently lacks.  Good thing I got pictures of the eastbound ghost lanes east of CA 183.

Actually, the section of CA 156 referred to in cahwyguy's post is in San Benito County, between San Juan Bautista and Hollister.  Although not as high profile as the section between Castroville and Prunedale, it also desparately needs to be upgraded.  It has seen exponential growth in commuter traffic in the past two decades and also is used by traffic between Monterey County and the Central Valley (via Pacheco Pass).

TAMC is still trying to fund the CA 156 widening between Castroville and Prunedale as a new toll road, as the state can't provide enough money to do the full widening.

[Max Rockatansky]

The expansion of CA 156 between Castroville-Prundale will be a welcome addition and the long awaited four lane connection that the Monterey Peninsula presently lacks.  Good thing I got pictures of the eastbound ghost lanes east of CA 183.

Actually, the section of CA 156 referred to in cahwyguy's post is in San Benito County, between San Juan Bautista and Hollister.  Although not as high profile as the section between Castroville and Prunedale, it also desparately needs to be upgraded.  It has seen exponential growth in commuter traffic in the past two decades and also is used by traffic between Monterey County and the Central Valley (via Pacheco Pass).

TAMC is still trying to fund the CA 156 widening between Castroville and Prunedale as a new toll road, as the state can't provide enough money to do the full widening.

Gotcha that's actually a choke that is a particular problem I've encountered.  In particular that light at Union at the outskirts of Hollister is an infamous choke point.  I work frequently out in Monterey and that's almost always where I grind to to a half for 20-30 minutes if I hit it during rush hour.  From Union east to 152 it isn't too bad but I usually detour onto J1 to avoid the eastbound climb over Pacheco Pass. 

Seriously a toll road between Castroville and Prunedale?   Everyone will just jump onto Castroville Boulevard to avoid a toll.

[sparker]

The expansion of CA 156 between Castroville-Prundale will be a welcome addition and the long awaited four lane connection that the Monterey Peninsula presently lacks.  Good thing I got pictures of the eastbound ghost lanes east of CA 183.

Actually, the section of CA 156 referred to in cahwyguy's post is in San Benito County, between San Juan Bautista and Hollister.  Although not as high profile as the section between Castroville and Prunedale, it also desparately needs to be upgraded.  It has seen exponential growth in commuter traffic in the past two decades and also is used by traffic between Monterey County and the Central Valley (via Pacheco Pass).

TAMC is still trying to fund the CA 156 widening between Castroville and Prunedale as a new toll road, as the state can't provide enough money to do the full widening.

Gotcha that's actually a choke that is a particular problem I've encountered.  In particular that light at Union at the outskirts of Hollister is an infamous choke point.  I work frequently out in Monterey and that's almost always where I grind to to a half for 20-30 minutes if I hit it during rush hour.  From Union east to 152 it isn't too bad but I usually detour onto J1 to avoid the eastbound climb over Pacheco Pass. 

Seriously a toll road between Castroville and Prunedale?   Everyone will just jump onto Castroville Boulevard to avoid a toll.

That or a detour onto CA 129!

But getting back to the Headlines, the multi-modal plans to expand or modify the I-80 corridor from Sacramento to Auburn is a bit disingenuous in regards to any expansion of I-80 itself; it's already undergone expansion several times and any further activities in that regard would invariably involve considerable property taking on both sides of the freeway.  Given the massive population growth of Roseville, Lincoln, and Rocklin over the last 30 years it's surprising that the concept of extending the North Sacramento LR to at least Roseville hasn't come to fruition (perhaps disagreement between Sacramento and Placer Counties might be a possible culprit here!).  Probably not down the center of 80 (again requiring housing displacement) but likely along Antelope Road and the UP tracks.  Something tells me that placing a LR line that would effectively function as a commuter service rather than a local server wouldn't be placed along an existing surface road like Auburn Blvd. or Madison Ave.   But I can see it going up the Antelope/UP corridor, swinging around the Roseville yard to the north, and terminating at a park-and-ride at the shopping center north of Roseville along CA 65. 

If congestion relief for I-80 is sought, the long-pondered CA 102 parallel facility to the north, skirting Lincoln and Auburn and reconnecting with I-80 near Applegate -- as suggested in the late '80's and early '90's (although there are more tracts in the Lincoln area to duck than back then!) -- might be a viable alternate as well as a relief truck route. 

[M3100]

I was amused by the comment about the SFMTA referring to "the" 101.  Evidently saying "the" before a route number is a uniquely SoCal thing.  I was reminded of this several years back, while working in Florida with east-coast based colleagues.  I mentioned driving back on "the" 95, and they called me out on it.   PBS traces this pattern of speech to the early days of SoCal Freeways, when they were better known by their names (e.g. the Ventura Freeway) instead of their route numbers. As we switched from names to route numbers, we retained the "the".

Meanwhile, I saw the L A Times article about the future relocation of California SR 1 north of the Bay Area.  I have not driven that section of roadway in many years.  I'm wondering if Orange County will pursue something similar (or a change to a higher grade above sea level); the coastal sections of SR 1 already endure periodic flooding.

[ClassicHasClass]

In Australia I've heard it a few times too ("on the M4"). This wasn't a thing before the alphanumeric routes, but they seem to have acquired the snowclone, and I suspect it's via the Brits.