California

[andy3175]

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2021/03/03/sacramento-toll-lane-proposal-i-5/

SM-G973U1

Good catch... the toll lane story made several Sacramento news outlets last night.

Here's additional coverage... https://www.abc10.com/amp/article/news/local/california/cal-trans-i-5-toll-lanes-downtown-sacramento-airport/103-a29d54c8-18db-49c8-b35b-9665f94c15ae

Caltrans considering I-5 toll lanes from downtown Sacramento to airport

The project would stretch from US 50 to the Yolo County line along Interstate 5 in Sacramento. ...

Caltrans is looking at the stretch of I-5 that extends from US 50 to the Yolo County line. The project aims to reduce congestion while increasing the number of people that can travel the busy route, according to Caltrans.

The proposal includes plans to widen the freeway and bridges, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, adding ramp meters, and toll lanes in both directions. ...

Project alternatives include the addition of 2+ or 3+ person High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, a 2+ or 3+ person High Occupancy Toll Lane (HOT) where only single-occupancy vehicles are charged, or even a no-build alternative, according to Caltrans.

The project cost is estimated at more than $300 million and could cost as much as $500 million. If approved, it could take until 2028 from the time the project is rolled out until completion, construction wouldn't be likely to start until 2025.

Public comment is underway: https://deavpm.wixsite.com/website-4/submit-comments

[Plutonic Panda]

I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?

[mrsman]

Question from my trip to LA and Big Bear, the last time I went deep into the Inland Empire was August 2019 and when I passed Interstate 15 on EB 10 the sign said Las Vegas and SD. I didn't go past that particular interchange this time but all the signs for 215 and 15 now say Barstow. Was that a new change or was the EB 10 sign a special thing always there because that's the mainline route?

When I was working in Ontario about a quarter-mile from that interchange, the EB10>NB15 ramp cited both Barstow and Las Vegas (as of 2012).  Since that's the principal L.A. - Vegas corridor, it seemed to be a natural if somewhat gratuitous choice.  IIRC, the pull-throughs on I-15 at both CA 210 and I-15 only reference Barstow; Las Vegas isn't mentioned on overhead BGS's until the 15/40 split (this was also as of 2012; if anyone knows different feel free to correct here).

It's pretty common throughout the US to use distant control cities at major interstate interchanges. For example, interchanges where interstates meet around St Louis will display Tulsa (I-44), Memphis (I-55), and Kansas City (I-70). These same interstates show more local control cities like Springfield, Cape Girardeau, and Columbia. I can point out similar examples all over the North and East.

California is one of the few states that pretty much almost entirely tries using local or in-state control cities whenever possible right?

Reno and Vegas and Oregon Coast are three out of state ones I know are used here, not sure when Phoenix and Portland first show up.

Kinda wild to think how relatively nearby all of the listed destinations at the East Los Angeles Interchange originally were, prior to Sacramento replacing Bakersfield for 5 north.

SM-G973U1

It is annoying how many very small towns are used as control cities, just to keep the control cities within the state.  They are known as INTERSTATE highways for a reason, and at a certain point large cities from other states should be used.

I feel that a good compromise is to have two control cities on most signs, and CA actaully does do this in many places (US 101 through the Central Coast comes to mind).  Between San Jose and Ventura, the controls are LA and SF, but occasionally secondary controls like SLO and Santa Barbara will also be signed.  Generally, where there is room, sign both controls, a local control and a long distance control (major city).  Of course, where there is only room for one city, the major city should take precedence.

So I-15 north from the Inland Empire should use Las Vegas, not Barstow, as its control.  But many of the pull-through signs could sign both.

CA does seem to go out of its way to avoid signing Phoenix.

[jander]

But everyone know you have to go through Barstow to get to Vegas, so why not us it as a control city?

Now if Nevada had Jean or Primm as a control city I would be like "LOL Wat?" , but Barstow is reasonable.

Also, US-50 in Sacramento has Ocean City, MD as a control city.

[kkt]

That's not a control city, that's an end of route sign...

[Max Rockatansky]

And I would add is mostly there for funsies by conveying scale.  Almost nobody is going to drive across the country in one shot on US 50 to Ocean City.  Not exactly "useful" as a control city...but cool.

[jrouse]

I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?

They have long had plans for HOV lanes on that part of I-5.  The options under study are to build new HOV lanes, new HOT lanes, or converting an existing lane in each direction to HOV.  State and federal law prohibits conversion of non-tolled lanes to tolled lanes, except HOV to HOT.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've read several articles and I'm not understanding this, are they adding new tolled lanes or simply converting existing lanes to tolled?

They have long had plans for HOV lanes on that part of I-5.  The options under study are to build new HOV lanes, new HOT lanes, or converting an existing lane in each direction to HOV.  State and federal law prohibits conversion of non-tolled lanes to tolled lanes, except HOV to HOT.

Thank you for the explanation.

[jander]

Fun thread on Reddit about shitty Bay Are merges. https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/lzgwp1/what_is_the_worst_highway_merge_in_the_bay_area/

[Max Rockatansky]

Apparently the last two covered bridges in the State Highway System were on CA 96 and were removed in 1950:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa195051calirich/page/n451/mode/1up

[sparker]

Fun thread on Reddit about shitty Bay Are merges. https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/lzgwp1/what_is_the_worst_highway_merge_in_the_bay_area/

One that didn't warrant a mention in the 121 comments was 280 north to 880 north.  Even though it was "improved" by separating it from the Stevens Creek Blvd. C/D lane a few years back, it's still one of the shortest merges out there; one needs to effect the merge in about 40-50 yards.  But they remodeled this interchange without taking any more additional property around the interchange perimeter, so if that was part of the revamp "brief", D4 was operating with one hand tied behind their back.  As the comments in the article attest, NIMBY input seems to exert inordinate influence into local freeway planning to the detriment of both efficiency and safety.

[TheStranger]

1980s footage of the Embarcadero Freeway from I-80 to Washington Street in downtown San Francisco, 3:53 into this clip.  If you slow down the footage to 1/4 speed you can catch a State Route 480 sign in there:
https://youtu.be/rmsTZAF1F-o?t=233

[TJS23]

Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport

[Max Rockatansky]

Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport

That's an odd one for sure.  I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland. 

[ClassicHasClass]

1980s footage of the Embarcadero Freeway from I-80 to Washington Street in downtown San Francisco, 3:53 into this clip.  If you slow down the footage to 1/4 speed you can catch a State Route 480 sign in there:
https://youtu.be/rmsTZAF1F-o?t=233

I have a Blu-ray still from the Criterion Collection of this. It's got a couple nice old signage shots.

[sparker]

Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport

That's an odd one for sure.  I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland. 

Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line.  This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.

[Max Rockatansky]

Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport

That's an odd one for sure.  I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland. 

Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line.  This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.

Thing is though that the actual road itself really doesn't lend itself to getting much faster than 40 MPH east until the vicinity of CA 29.  It must have been one hell of a storm, I don't even recall there being chain control signs when I drove through back in October.   I want to say the only real advisory signage east of Old Hopland is the 39 Foot Length prohibition:

IMG_9162 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Incidentally, CA 175 is one of the best intact examples of how a First State Highway Bond Act road.  There is absurd amount of curves between US 101 and CA 29.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there:

IMG_9220 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

[kkt]

Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there

Lovely!  I am looking forward to road trips again.

[Max Rockatansky]

Speaking of CA 175 and the summit at the Mendocino/Lake County Line...I found this up there

Lovely!  I am looking forward to road trips again.

Wasn't all weird stuff like that, the view of Clear Lake was top notch from the same spot:

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

[andy3175]

Today on unique Chain Control: 175 from Hopland to 29 near Lakeport

That's an odd one for sure.  I'm not even sure how necessary that would be given how curvy 175 is east of Old Hopland. 

Probably considerable snow on the road; it tops out at a hair under 2500' elevation just east of the Mendocino/Lake county line.  This was a cold Arctic storm; we San Jose types got snow down to about 1900 feet up on Mt. Hamilton, and the main body of the storm passed farther north -- more or less in the area of Lake County -- TV news showed Middletown, at the SE end of 175, with a substantial dusting of snow.

I used to live in the area. 175 would not frequently close due to snow, but there would usually be a few storms each year that could bring snow low enough to warrant chain control or even closure. Another concern of 175 near Hopland was concern of flooding in the low areas. And yes, 175 is one of the most winding state highways in a region of the state that's full of winding roads.

SM-G975U

[Max Rockatansky]

I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. 

[sparker]

I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. 

Except.......it looks like back around 1910 or so getting a road from the Redwood Highway over to Lake County was considered a priority -- hence the inclusion in the first State Bond road group -- and the reason that this currently and relatively obscure highway had a low LRN: 16!  Curiously, if LRN 50 (SSR 16) had followed the original plans and traced Cache Creek all the way to Lower Lake rather than strike out north to a terminus at LRN 15/SSR 20 -- and the Lower Lake-Lakeport connector would have been prioritized earlier (that connector had been on the "to do" list for decades before CA 29 was routed over it after '64), SSR 16 could have conceivably ended up in Hopland, ironically using its LRN doppelganger!

[Max Rockatansky]

I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175. 

Except.......it looks like back around 1910 or so getting a road from the Redwood Highway over to Lake County was considered a priority -- hence the inclusion in the first State Bond road group -- and the reason that this currently and relatively obscure highway had a low LRN: 16!  Curiously, if LRN 50 (SSR 16) had followed the original plans and traced Cache Creek all the way to Lower Lake rather than strike out north to a terminus at LRN 15/SSR 20 -- and the Lower Lake-Lakeport connector would have been prioritized earlier (that connector had been on the "to do" list for decades before CA 29 was routed over it after '64), SSR 16 could have conceivably ended up in Hopland, ironically using its LRN doppelganger!

I always wonder why LRN 50 was ultimately diverted north of Cache Creek yo LRN 15.   Cache Creek certainly wasn't an obstacle that couldn't have been overcome as it almost became a rail line before the highway was conceived.  I suppose the good terrain LRN 15 offered was ultimately too good not to pass up.  It would have been neat though to see CA 16 on what was LRN 16 instead of CA 175. 

[kkt]

I suspect this is probably the most anyone on this forum has or ever will talk about CA 175.