🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2024

[cahwyguy]

Or maybe people did have time to read and think about HLE, as opposed to just mindlessly voting yes or no. I'm sure if it didn't pass, you'd have a different claim. Low voter turnout also suggests that a lot of people likely don't have a strong opinion on the matter. HLE also specifically applies to county-maintained roads. Things that have been relinquished (like CA-2 through Santa Monica), anything within an incorporated city, is not applicable. And it applies to future improvements, it doesn't force the county to just immediately change up roads.

Just a note that the measure was HLA, not HLE, and it was a CITY, not a county measure (unless there was a separate measure in unincorporated county portions that I wasn't aware of). They actually had a nice website, and if you look at https://yesonhla.com/the-plan they have a really nice set of GIS interfaces that show the specific improvements that are likely. Of particular interest here is the Vehicle Enhanced Network, https://yesonhla.com/networks/vehicle , which is (unsurprisingly) quite small. Most of the improvements are at the peds, bike, transit, and neighborhood levels.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thanks. I keep typing HLE for some reason I have no clue why I continue to do that.

[Plutonic Panda]

The pro highway Caltrans has selected the no build alternative for the I-110 Adams Terminus ramp... you know because they're so pro freeway and love widenings.

[cahwyguy]

The pro highway Caltrans has selected the no build alternative for the I-110 Adams Terminus ramp... you know because they're so pro freeway and love widenings.

According to Streetsblog:

According to the Metro letter, a lawsuit against Caltrans and Metro forced them to do full environmental impact studies. The agencies had prepared a MND (mitigated negative declaration) with FONSI (finding of no significant impact) in 2018, but the lawsuit challenged that, forcing Metro to do a full EIR (Environmental Impact Report).

Upon further study, Caltrans and Metro found the new elevated structure would have "significant environmental and community impacts," leading them to select the no-build alternative - effectively canceling the project.

The 2018 lawsuit was brought by the West Adams Heritage Association, the Adams Dockweiler Heritage Organizing Committee, and Friends of St. John's Cathedral.

The plaintiff's attorney Amy Minteer summarizes the case, "Our overarching arguments were that the flyover would have adverse impacts on the surrounding historic resources, in particular St. John's Cathedral, that it would divide and severely impact the existing University Park community, would conflict with the city's My Figueroa Plan, and would also have aesthetic, traffic, GHG [greenhouse gas], and urban decay impacts."

Minteer notes that Caltrans proposed the flyover in the 1980s. It met with controversy at the time, and in the early '90s, Caltrans decided against the project. Then, zombie-like, the project came back to life just over a decade ago. According to Minteer, Caltrans then stated it would do an EIR for the project, but prepared the MND/FONSI instead.

The lawsuit was filed in 2018. The following year, Caltrans and Metro agreed to a settlement in which they committed to a full EIR. The agencies kicked off scoping meetings in 2021. Those EIR studies led to Metro and Caltrans' decision not to build the project

West Adams Heritage Association Vice President Jean Frost told Streetsblog, "It took years of organizing, reaching out, getting expert opinion, and coordinating a campaign against a terrible idea that ought not to have gained traction."

So its not an issue of bias for or against widening -- it is community opposition and impact on historical facilities, which is a concern these days.

[Plutonic Panda]

Same repeated excuse for the 710 tunnel. Same repeated excuse for the 710 expansion. Same repeated excuse for the HDC freeway.

Obviously there's going to be community impacts. These express lanes should be built into downtown and along the 101 Calabasas.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh look another day another street lane removal:

On February 1st, LADOT shared a conceptual design to improve safety along Hollywood Boulevard, which calls for converting a travel lane in each direction into a parking-protected bike lane between Lyman Pl and Van Ness Ave, and replacing parking with a protected bike lane between Van Ness Ave and Gower St. This proposed reconfiguration will:

• Help reduce excessive speeding
• Reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic
• Allow for safer turns
• Create dedicated space for people on bikes and scooters

Make traffic already worse. This goal could be done with adding bike or bus lanes replacing street parking but that won't make traffic worse by removing a GP lane so can't do that.

[Plutonic Panda]

And this is precisely my issue with this entire thing. They aren't trying to just add alternatives. The end goal here is to make driving is absolutely hellish as possible to discourage it.

AND I DO SUPPORT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE LIKE THE LA BREA BUS LANES. Personally, I would've gone even further and suggested they made those 24 seven bus lanes an added enhanced bus shelters and completely reconstructed the street. I would've even of been in favor for removing a lane of traffic on La Brea from Sunset to Hollywood.

So I'm not getting my panties in a wad or screaming with sky is falling every time a lane removal project is proposed. But the LA dot does it makes me think this is intentional and there's a nefarious motive behind this. And nefarious I mean an ideology to make this hostile as possible.

You had other posters on this thread that suggested somehow these agencies are pro widening and pro cars because they will suggest projects to enhance freeway travel by adding auxiliary lanes and passing them off as when they are in fact GP lanes. I have not seen anywhere where that has been done. You could argue that they did that on CA 60 in the Badlands BUT THAT WAS A TRUCK LANE.

PS I don't know why my cap lock keeps getting turned on automatically. I'm using speech to text.

[cahwyguy]

You had other posters on this thread that suggested somehow these agencies are pro widening and pro cars because they will suggest projects to enhance freeway travel by adding auxiliary lanes and passing them off as when they are in fact GP lanes. I have not seen anywhere where that has been done. You could argue that they did that on CA 60 in the Badlands BUT THAT WAS A TRUCK LANE.

Actually, that's NOT what I'm saying. I think there is a changing of the guard at these agencies, and the older widening mindset and build build build mindset is aging out, and being replaced by folks with a more holistic view, looking at not just what is best for cars. That's being pushed by the legislature, which has legislative climate goals to reach. So, yes, they are trying to make single-car driving more painful, to get more folks onto transit. Friction does have a purpose.

But I also do believe in historic preservation and history, and do think that in the rush to build, we've often paved over history. So I don't have a problem with things like the 110 stoppage.

I also think we've been insensitive to the communities impacted. Building wider freeways helps the folks going long distances, but is horrible for the businesses in the communities they pass through, which lose loads of business.

I try to see and understand all sides of the issues, even those I don't agree with. A neutral observer, so to speak.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell. 

[Plutonic Panda]

CAHWYGUY

someone on this thread suggested Caltrans was pro freeway/widening. There's a different between having a holistic view and moving to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and being against any and all car infrastructure projects. There are very few of them happening in LA county and the ones that haven't started yet are being canceled left and right.

I mean selecting the no build for the Adams terminal project is ridiculous. The express lanes were clearly designed to be extended and could have been beneficial for silver line bus riders as well if they extended it to downtown and increased the scope of the project. If not that at least finish the thing and tie it into the existing infrastructure.

Now how exactly will the 110 stoppage help historic preservation?

Why does building wider freeways to help folks go longer distances have to be a zero sum equation? What about them? Do they not get a say in their city as well? The metro is part of the city. And I live by a large freeway and have by larger ones. Businesses and communities are thriving by them. Have you been to Little Tokyo? It's right by a massive freeway and is absolutely bustling with activity and businesses making a lot of money. There's more to the picture than what you're painting.

[Plutonic Panda]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did? 

[Plutonic Panda]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?

I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.

[Max Rockatansky]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?

I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.

Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for?  Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way?  I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s.  It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things. 

Do you recall what I said about Kernals12?  Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board?  That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Like it or not, the Division of Highways is long gone.  Rightly or wrongly the dynamics in this state have shifted towards more diverse transit (especially in big urban areas) and reducing single vehicle commuting.  Will the current trend be something that works out in the long run?...time will only tell.

That's great. I'm totally in support of better mass transit options. I use it every single day. I just don't like the path we're going on where we're completing neglecting car infrastructure. I plan on starting a thread discussing measures HLA because I have a lot of concerns and questions on that.

Where did I say that you should support it or infer that I did?

I never said you did. I'm clarifying my position.

Then what are you doing complaining about it this forum for?  Shouldn't you be out trying to start campaigning for local representatives to see things your way?  I'd argue that is how things started to turn towards where they are now beginning the late 1960s.  It is so easy to complain on a social media platform, it way harder to actually try to change things. 

Do you recall what I said about Kernals12?  Why do you think that I give him such a hard time when he whines on this board?  That kid is the poster example of internet whining and not taking actual initiative to do anything.

How do you know that I don't do just what you're saying? And yes, I'm going to continue to complain on this board because that's what part of this board is for us to discuss things. You can characterize it however you want.

I do in fact, wright people a lot. My next step is to actually start attending meetings, but I'm a little bit shy and I have anxiety to do so. But I'm gonna try to do it.

I actually was just speaking with the head of vision zero today who works with the Los Angeles Department of transportation. She couldn't give me a clear answers to why they don't even crate landscaping barriers, which could produce the urban heat island effect instead of just slapping paint and these hollow plastic bollards they use to try and calm or use for buffers between bus/bike and car lanes.

These people don't give a fuck Max. I've written hundreds of emails and letters to my representatives and I've gotten maybe a handful of responses and out of those most of them are just generic probably computer generated replies.

And kernels 12 is on the complete extreme side of things to where that person doesn't want any transit to the point. I'm not sure if they're even serious.

[Max Rockatansky]

Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing.  We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.

Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance.  Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?   

[Plutonic Panda]

Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing.  We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.

Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance.  Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?

Well, I'm not really sure what you suggest I do then. As I said, I'm looking at other ways to get more involved and show up to meetings.

[Max Rockatansky]

Complaining here at the end of the day gets you nothing.  We probably aren't the crowd you need to convince.

Sending emails into a black hole likewise isn't getting you anywhere with any form of governance.  Has any notable quasi-political movement you're aware ever started gaining traction by sending emails which get auto-replies and possibly read by an admin person?

Well, I'm not really sure what you suggest I do then. As I said, I'm looking at other ways to get more involved and show up to meetings.

Changing your approach and looking into public comment probably getting on a more productive track. 

[cahwyguy]

CAHWYGUY

someone on this thread suggested Caltrans was pro freeway/widening. There's a different between having a holistic view and moving to the complete opposite end of the spectrum and being against any and all car infrastructure projects. There are very few of them happening in LA county and the ones that haven't started yet are being canceled left and right.

I can't speak to your unnamed someone. The view I'm talking about come from Caltrans today. I suggest you listen to this episode of the FReeway Exit podcast: https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/freeway-exit/bonus-blowing-the-whistle-on-widening-freeways . Oh, and if you want to hear the other side: https://www.kpbs.org/podcasts/freeway-exit/bonus-in-defense-of-freeways , from the same podcast.

I mean selecting the no build for the Adams terminal project is ridiculous. The express lanes were clearly designed to be extended and could have been beneficial for silver line bus riders as well if they extended it to downtown and increased the scope of the project. If not that at least finish the thing and tie it into the existing infrastructure.

Now how exactly will the 110 stoppage help historic preservation?

They were designed to be extended, but as freeway to freeway interchange HOV lanes to future HOVs on I-10, or through downtown. Not this proposal, which was not wanted by the neighborhood it would impact.

How does it help historic preservation? Well, not building it prevents destruction of a historic church. It prevents destruction of historic homes (that district around USC has loads of historic homes. We already lost loads of homes when the Santa Monica was built, and it was treated as a simple "Black" neighborhood. That was once one of the wealthiest parts of Los Angeles. I suggest you read the EIR.

Why does building wider freeways to help folks go longer distances have to be a zero sum equation? What about them? Do they not get a say in their city as well?

First, it is often NOT their city. If they are going longer distances, they often don't live in the neighborhood that have to suffer with the pollution and the noise from the freeways (and there is noise -- I hear the noise from the 118 all the way down below Lassen). The long distance drivers don't have to suffer with the loss of business, or the barriers that make their neighborhoods unwalkable. All of this, mind you, so someone can save perhaps 5 minutes. How do you judge 5 minutes over a communities quality of life.

When it was the Division of Highways, they didn't care about such things. Today, there are mandates that they do.

I view myself as a historian. What Caltrans does, it does based on its understanding of the law, with the CTC as a check. My job is to report what is being done, and to try to see ALL sides.

The metro is part of the city. And I live by a large freeway and have by larger ones. Businesses and communities are thriving by them. Have you been to Little Tokyo? It's right by a massive freeway and is absolutely bustling with activity and businesses making a lot of money. There's more to the picture than what you're painting.

But is Little Tokyo bustling because of the freeway? I've been there -- we often try to eat there before going to the Music Center. And parking is horrid. What makes the area active is transit -- the Gold and Blue lines.

[cahwyguy]

And as for the historic impact, here's the summary from the LA Conservancy: https://www.laconservancy.org/save-places/issues/i-110-flyover/

Our Position
Along with our partners, the Conservancy was deeply concerned that the proposed I-110 Flyover Project would have profound impacts on University Park, including its rich collection of historic properties.

As a consulting party in the Section 106 process, the Conservancy submitted comments to Caltrans in October 2015. Although Caltrans acknowledges that the project would have clear direct and indirect impacts on historic resources, the current project scope was too narrow to assess the full range of impacts adequately.

We disagreed with Caltrans' finding that the proposed project would be compatible with the existing visual character of the surrounding area, including historic properties. While we appreciated efforts to minimize the visual impact through design modifications, no amount of intervention or "dressing up" can effectively lighten a structure of this scale or render it compatible with the existing community and historical context. Instead, the flyover ramp would have created visual and physical divisions within the neighborhood.

If built, the flyover would be immediately adjacent to St. John's Cathedral, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) #516. The new structure would create a significant visual barrier and generate new auditory impacts that could interfere with the cathedral's operations.

Overall, the proposed project would have a significant adverse effect on St. John's Cathedral's integrity of feeling, setting, and association, as well as the community at large. While there have been neighborhood changes over time, a large flyover structure would be the most dramatic and egregious change to occur.

We urged Caltrans to analyze a range of alternatives, including: 1) moving the undertaking to another site; 2) using an alternative project design; and 3) canceling the undertaking.

[cahwyguy]

Further, this is from the letter announcing the No-Build choice. It would have made traffic in the neighborhood worse:
https://boardarchives.metro.net/BoardBox/2024/240216_I-110_Adams_Northern_Terminus_Improvement_Project.pdf

Preparation of the EIR began in November 2021 with the scoping period that included
public scoping meetings and meetings with project stakeholders. The EIR studied
three alternatives: no build, a flyover offramp over Adams Boulevard and Flower
Street to connect the ExpressLanes directly to Figueroa Street, and an arterial
alternative consisting of a dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/ ExpressLane
extending from the Adams Boulevard offramp going east on Adams, then north on Hill
Street, continuing north on Olive Street, then terminating at Olive and 18th Streets.

A key focus of the EIR was to conduct an updated traffic analysis for the three
alternatives that included new traffic counts, traffic modeling, and simulation. The
traffic analysis determined that the arterial alternative would introduce more traffic
circulating in the local roadway network by restricting left turns at several intersections,
which would reduce traffic performance overall in the study area.

The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.

Due to the aforementioned impacts, the no-build alternative has been selected by
Caltrans as the preferred alternative. Caltrans has prepared and approved a California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Addendum and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) FONSI to document the selection of the no-build alternative for the project.

[Plutonic Panda]

CAHWYGUY All good points you made and I get it. I'll respond here in a little bit because I have a lot to say on that.

But I will say I just saw this video from LAdot Which I thought was pretty interesting regarding their position on HLA which I mean to start a thread on.

[pderocco]

The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.

Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?

[cahwyguy]

The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.

Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?

I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8

[pderocco]

The traffic analysis also studied the flyover alternative and determined that this
alternative would be expected to improve overall traffic operations performance in the
study area relative to the No‐Build and arterial ExpressLane Extension scenarios.
However, the Flyover Alternative would require a new elevated structure which would
result in significant environmental and community impacts.

Do they have an actual definition of "environmental impact"? Does it mean anything more specific than "an effect on something nearby"?

I'm sure it is defined in the EIR, but I haven't had the time -- or frankly, the interest -- to dig into it. Be my guest: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2013021002/8

I would expect it to be defined elsewhere, like in the legislation that gives the agency the power to accept or reject proposals based on "environmental impact". But the phrase seems to be bandied about without any clear limit to its meaning.