News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

California

Started by andy3175, July 20, 2016, 12:17:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

cahwyguy

Quote from: Voyager on January 07, 2025, 12:15:37 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 06, 2025, 12:11:08 AM
Quote from: FredAkbar on January 06, 2025, 12:09:45 AMI'm sure there is talk on the Fictional boards about making a tunnel freeway due south from Palmdale to Pasadena. Commute problem solved!

Why fictional when it was actually once seriously considered?

https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/09/angeles-forest-highway-los-angeles.html?m=1

I still think its wild how almost none of the freeway corridors in that area ever were built (138 comes to mind). Doesn't seem like any of those paper highways ever will be either.

WHen you look at those highways (Route 138, Route 48, all the roads through the Angeles National Forest), it is unclear whether their benefit (time savings, construction jobs) offsets the environment impact of their construction and operation. We know a lot more now about that than we did in the 1950s and 1960s.

With an engineering hat on, the better question to ask is: What is the problem that these freeways would really be solving, and are there better ways to solve that problem? If their primary purpose is to solve congestion, then the real answer is to move people to the jobs, or jobs to the people. More housing and density in the cities; more manufacturing in the high desert; more (electric) trains to transport goods; and of course completing the high speed rail, which will see a rail tunnel under the mountains.

Much as I enjoy highway history, and despite what some here will say, highways aren't always the answer -- especially when you don't really understand the question.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways


Max Rockatansky

FWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

Voyager

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

I also think making 138 a full freeway between 5 to Palmdale would help relieve a lot of 14 traffic, although it would add more to 5 as a result.
AARoads Forum Original

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Voyager on January 07, 2025, 04:41:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

I also think making 138 a full freeway between 5 to Palmdale would help relieve a lot of 14 traffic, although it would add more to 5 as a result.

I don't know about that.  138 west of 14 is pretty desolate and sparsely traveled.  Really the biggest problem I see is that it isn't signed at 65 MPH but rather 55 for some reason.  I don't recall ever having issues passing anyone on that corridor. 

pderocco

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.
I've always heard that the two-lane parts from Palmdale to Phelan had a high accident rate, which could be alleviated by  creating a proper expressway, as they've been doing little by little.

The expressway plans for I-5 to CA-14 were a lot further along, I believe. Even when I lived in LA, I only went up there on weekends, when traffic was light, so I don't know how heavy the truck traffic is on the western part of CA-138 during the week. But if it's heavy enough to make it hard to pass, then that project might still be a good idea.

The plans for a freeway through Palmdale, turning into an expressway to I-15 and beyond, went nowhere. But you could say the same for the grand plans for the SoCal Logistics Airport, which still doesn't even have a rail connection. Maybe in 50 years...

emory

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

The section of SR 138 in Palmdale is actually up for relinquishment to the city as of this year. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=438.

cahwyguy

Quote from: emory on January 25, 2025, 01:53:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

The section of SR 138 in Palmdale is actually up for relinquishment to the city as of this year. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=SHC&sectionNum=438.

It is authorized for relinquishment. "Up for relinquishment" would mean that it is in front of the CTC. Normally, that means there would be a SHOPP project to either repair the road or give money to the city to do the same. After that, the road would be relinquished. Those are things I note on my pages, and I haven't seen those yet.

The CTC is authorized to relinquish it, but hasn't done so yet.
Daniel - California Highway Guy ● Highway Site: http://www.cahighways.org/ ●  Blog: http://blog.cahighways.org/ ● Podcast (CA Route by Route): http://caroutebyroute.org/ ● Follow California Highways on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cahighways

pderocco

I wonder if they'll actually maintain signage to the continuation of route 138, unlike so many sloppy cities. They'd be needed on the 14 freeway, and then at 47th St, or people not familiar with the area would get lost.

mrsman

Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 07, 2025, 04:28:44 PMFWIW I don't think 138 is all that bad east of Palmdale to I-15.  Where it is actually bad is within Palmdale itself.  The problem probably could be solved by making rebuilding Pearblossom Highway as a true Palmdale bypass.

I agree.  I think the section of Pearblossom between Fort Tejon and CA-14 should be labeled (at the very least) as a county highway, if not simply moving CA-138 onto it. 

Even though it's more mileage, its probably a lot quicker to use Pearblossom than driving through central Palmdale.  Another compromise routing might involve Ave S, which has an exit on CA-14 and would still be quicker than using Palmdale Blvd.

It seems like CA is doing a poor job of reserving right of way in these areas.  A right of way for an east-west freeway through Palmdale would be very useful for building a road once development makes it out that far.  Imagine if there was a right of way parallel to Ave S between CA-14 and Fort Tejon.  That would be a wonderful corridor for CA-138 traffic and for a lot of Metropolitan Bypass traffic.  Extend the highway further east as Palmdale development grows further (maybe a new highway number).  It wasn't that long ago that most of the Palmdale area had a lot of empty spots for highway development, especially east of 35th. 

pderocco

Quote from: mrsman on January 26, 2025, 04:47:55 PMIt seems like CA is doing a poor job of reserving right of way in these areas.  A right of way for an east-west freeway through Palmdale would be very useful for building a road once development makes it out that far.  Imagine if there was a right of way parallel to Ave S between CA-14 and Fort Tejon.  That would be a wonderful corridor for CA-138 traffic and for a lot of Metropolitan Bypass traffic.  Extend the highway further east as Palmdale development grows further (maybe a new highway number).  It wasn't that long ago that most of the Palmdale area had a lot of empty spots for highway development, especially east of 35th. 
There is ROW for that, just north of P-8/Technology Dr, which was the proposed route for the High Desert Corridor. Plenty of room for a Y interchange too. Looks like only a truck parking lot and one little business in the way around 10th St E. The difference is that it doesn't lead to Fort Tejon, it goes E to connect to Air Expressway and the Southern California Logistics Airport, which might actually get some significant business if it had a freeway or expressway connection to I-15. That would be a little less useful for getting to the Cajon Pass, but more useful for getting to Vegas. Does more truck traffic go east on I-10 or I-40? I don't know.

bing101

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dixon-parkway-boulevard-overcrossing-project-233534252.html

Dixon, California current status on the Parkway blvd overpass project.



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.