Regional Boards > Pacific Southwest

🛣 Changes to the California Highway Website covering June-August 2021

(1/2) > >>

cahwyguy:
Every few months, I go through all the headline posts I make, all the email I receive, and the posts on this forum to find new information of interest for the California Highways site, www.cahighways.org . I also go through what the state legislature is doing, and go through the minutes of the California Transportation Commission. The result is a series of updates to my website. In addition to just updating the site, I publish the changelog here.

I encourage you to look at the full changelog at 👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼 https://www.cahighways.org/chg2021.html 👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼👈🏼 I"ll post the start of the changelog here, but there have been lots of actions and funding allocations. I encourage everyone to read through it, and I thank those who have contributed information to it. I'll thank Tom/Max again for his research into the history, which I condense with credit and his permission, just has he grabs from my site. Our shared hobby has always been built on sharing of information -- something I appreciate.

So as always: Ready, set, discuss. Let's bring out some aspects of these changes that might not be obvious. To see the text below with working links (because the BB just pastes text), visit https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16137

😷
Blah blah blah introduction. Perhaps I should go with that.

Seriously, though. We’re at the end of Summer 2021, and the best thing I can say is that we’re not having to deal with a Presidential campaign again. COVID is still here, however, impacting travel. I did get some travel in over my summer, with drives to Los Osos, Scottsdale, and Las Vegas, and exploration of the Route 166 corridor and the Route 58 corridor between I-15 and Route 14. I got to see the construction they are doing S of Mojave on Route 14, and got to kill off a load of podcasts. Hopefully you’ve had a safe summer. As always: Please make sure you [redacted], and please continue to [redacted]. Neither complete eliminates risk, but they are both key factors in reducing risk to an acceptable level. As someone who has been working in Cybersecurity for over 35 years, I understand how being risk adverse can blind you to the importance of doing the simple things to reduce risk. Just as with our highways, our goals should be to reduce the risks whereever we can. [Edited to redact words that someone found offensive, but can be seen in the original changelog]

On to the updates.

Updates were made to the following highways, based on my reading of the papers from the last week of May 2021 through xxxx 2021 (which are posted to the roadgeeking category at the “Observations Along The Road” and to the CaliforniaHighways Facebook group) as well as any backed up email changes. I also reviewed the the AAroads forum (Ꜳ). This resulted in changes on the following routes, with credit as indicated [my research(ℱ), contributions of information or leads (via direct mail or ꜲRoads) from Anthony R. Brooks(1), Tom Fearer(2), Brian Nordon(3),  Tony Ortega(4), Scott Parker(5), Joe Rouse(6), Chris Sampang(7), Carol Stephens(8): Route 1(ℱ,2), Route 4(ℱ), Marine Route 5 (M-5)(ℱ), I-5(ℱ,2), Route 11(ℱ), Route 16(2), Route 17(ℱ), Route 18(ℱ),  Route 25(ℱ), Route 29(ℱ), Route 33(2), Route 35(ℱ), Route 36(ℱ), Route 37(ℱ), Route 41(ℱ,2), Route 46(ℱ,2), US 50(ℱ,2), Route 58(6,5), Route 71(ℱ), Route 74(ℱ),  Route 77(ℱ,1), I-80(ℱ,2), Route 88(ℱ), Route 91(ℱ,1,4), Route 99(ℱ,2), US 101(ℱ,2), Route 110(ℱ), Route 113(2), Route 121(ℱ), Route 132(ℱ), Route 135(ℱ), Route 136(3),  Route 140(ℱ), LRN 148(ℱ), Route 152(ℱ), Route 156(ℱ), Route 166(ℱ), Route 174(ℱ), Route 176(ℱ), Route 187(ℱ), Route 207(ℱ), Route 247(ℱ), Route 249(8), Route 273(ℱ), Route 275(2), Former US 399(2),  US 395(ℱ), I-405(ℱ), I-580(ℱ),  Marine Route 580(ℱ), I-680(ℱ), I-710(ℱ), County Sign Route A13(ℱ), County Sign Route 66(7).
(Source: private email, Highway headline posts through August 2021 as indicated, AARoads through 09/05/2021)

Updated the links to the Cal-NexUS pages and the highway exits, because Caltrans went and moved things again(ℱ). Updated the El Camino Real Bells page to reflect the removal of the El Camino Real bell from downtown Santa Cruz, and the rationale therefore(ℱ). Updated the Statistics page to better reflect the shortness of Route 77(1).

Marine Highway SystemAdded information on the National Marine Highway System(ℱ):
(Source: CleanTechnica, 6/22/2021; US DOT Maritime Administration: National Marine Highways, 6/2021)



In California waters, there are two routes: Route 5 (M-5) and Route 580 (M-580). The US Department of Transportation has a special webpage all about this system of marine highways, complete with a map of the system. The system’s highways are numbered the same as nearby Interstate Highways from which they could relieve congestion. The DOT Maritime Administration (MARAD)’s Marine Highway Program has one major goal: expand the use of America’s navigable waters. They closely with public and private organizations to:


* Develop and expand marine highway service options and facilitate their further integration into the current U.S. surface transportation system, especially where water-based transport is the most efficient, effective and sustainable option
* Highlight the benefits, increase public awareness and promote waterways as a viable (in some cases a superior) alternative to “landside” shipping and transportation options
The Marine Highway system currently includes 26 “Marine Highway Routes” that serve as extensions of the surface transportation system. Each all-water route is designated by the Secretary and offers relief to landside corridors suffering from traffic congestion, excessive air emissions or other environmental challenges. For the highways in California, a section was added to the appropriate route page providing information on the Marine highway route.

Reviewed the Pending Legislation page, based on the California Legislature site. As usual, I recommend to every Californian that they visit the legislative website regularly and see what their legis-critters are doing. As many people are unfamiliar with how the legislature operates (and why there are so many “non-substantive changes” and “gut and amend” bills), I’ve added the legislative calendar to the end of the Pending Legislation page. Noted the passage of the following:

[See https://www.cahighways.org/chg2021.html for the rest, or to see the above with links. Ready set discuss]

Daniel

nexus73:
Vaccination is a hot button political issue right now. You always seem to inject some politics into your posts.  Do you want to discuss highways or political issues? 

Rick

roadfro:

--- Quote from: nexus73 on September 07, 2021, 10:23:24 AM ---Vaccination is a hot button political issue right now. You always seem to inject some politics into your posts.  Do you want to discuss highways or political issues? 

--- End quote ---

Let's not go there...

cahwyguy:
Suffice it to note that the most useful cybersecurity adage I ever learned came out of a CHP seminar on reducing traffic deaths in response to SAFETEA-LEU. The Minnesota DOT had a program they called Towards Zero Deaths http://tzd.state.mn.us/whatistzd/foures/. It emphasized the Four Es: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response. These apply perfectly to cybersecurity, and many other disciplines. Education and enforcement, in particular, are key to reducing risk, and resiliency is vital to preventing fatalities.

I believe in doing what I can to reduce risk, based on Minnesota DOT's Four Es. The intent of my posts here is always to discuss highways -- only. I will ignore attempts to steer the conversation in other directions. I seem to recall a similar attempt to divert was made in response in my previous changelog (checked. https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29420.0 . yup. I was told to do physically impossible act).

I agree with Roadfro: Please focus on the changes discussed in the changelog, not one word out of 16,113 words (emacs is your friend). But to play it safe, I have [redacted] those words. If you want something interesting, consider this:

♠ (Jun) (1) Request of $5,000,000 for two State-Administered LPP (Formulaic) projects, on the State Highway System. (Related Item under Ref. 4.16) ❧ Approved

Of these, the following were of interest for the highway pages:

#1. $2,500,000. 05-SBt-156 3.0/R8.2. PPNO 05-0297; ProjID 0500000505; EA 34490. San Benito Route 156 Improvement Project. Route 156 In San Juan Bautista, from The Alameda to 0.2 mile east of Fourth Street. Widen to 4 lanes. (Future consideration of funding approved under Resolution E-11-76; October 2011.) This allocation of $2,500,000 in LPP-Formulaic funds will be used to reduce  the local funds to $7,139,000  for the STIP project approved in December 2020 under Resolution FP-20-35 . (Concurrent LPP-F Programming Amendment under Resolution LPP-P-2021-15; June 2021) (The Department requests non-proportional spending) Allocation: CONST $2,500,000.
#2. $2,500,000. 05-SBt-25 51.5/58.2. PPNO 05-3061; ProjID 0520000007; EA 48541. State Route 25 Expressway Conversion (Segment 1). San Felipe Road to 0.3 mile north of Hudner 0.8 mile west of Route 25 0.5 mile east of Route 25. Construct interchange and convert to four-lane expressway. (Concurrent LPP (Formulaic) Programming Amendment under Resolution LPP-P-2021-15; June 2021) (Contribution of $2,500,000 local Measure G funds) (The Department request non-proportional spending.) Allocation: PA&ED $2,500,000.

Those are connected to a route adoption:

 (Jun) (1) One Rescission of Freeway Adoption: 05-Mon-101 PM R91.9/101.3 05-SBt-101 PM 0.0/2.9. A portion of US 101 from Espinosa Road to Route 156 in the counties of Monterey and San Benito. ❧ Approved

♠ (Jun) (2) One Route Adoption as a Freeway: 05-Mon-156 PM R1.3/T5.2. On Route 156 from 0.2 mile east of Route 183 to US 101. ❧ Approved

Daniel

mrsman:
This is a nice map of the marine highway routes.  Of course, most of these follow coastlines and the primary rivers of the country.

I was unaware of the M-65 route allowing for river travel all the way from the IL/KY border down to the gulf by way of AL.  I had always thought that the only navigable waterway connecting the Ohio River to the gulf was the Mississippi River.  Very interesting.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version