🛣 Headlines About California Highways – August 2022

[cahwyguy]

Summer is drawing to a close ... and nature is reminding us it is summer with a good blast of the heat. Perhaps this will help you cool off: the headlines about California's highways for August. Perhaps it will get you hot under the collar. But in any case, ready, set, discuss. Oh, and please go listen to the California Highways: Route by Route podcast, available in almost every podcasting application as well as via anchor.fm

===> Link to headline post: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16376 <===

Regarding the podcast: Episodes 1.01 and 1.02 are up. Ep 1.01 covers the state highway system before 1920, and features an interview with Adam Prince. Ep 1.02 discussed the highway system in the 1920s, and features an interview with Joel Windmiller of the Lincoln Highway Association. Both are available through the podcast's home page, our page on anchor.fm, or through your favorite podcaster. Please spread the word on the podcast, write a review, and like it in your favorite podcaster. I'd like to see the listenership grow: as I write this, we have (through anchor.fm) 57 listens to the sample episode, 58 listens to ep 1.01, but only 32 to episode 1.02. So keep spreading the word. I've got 1.03, which features a long interview with the archivist of the Auto Club of Southern California, edited. I'll upload it in mid-September.

I'm still looking for folks to interview for upcoming episodes. If you can help us find people to talk to, that would be great. Just let me know (comment here, or email daniel -at caroutebyroute -dot org. Here's the list for the rest of the first season in terms of what I'm wanting in regard to interviews: 🎙 1.04: Someone to talk on the 1956 Interstate Highway Bill 🎙 1.05: Someone to talk on the impact of Pat Brown on highway construction in California and/or the impact of the great renumbering 🎙 1.06: Someone to talk on the impact of the California EQA act on highway construction 🎙 1.07: Someone to talk on how the state numbers state highways – in particular, anything official on numbering patterns, or the rules for signing things 🎙 1.08: Here I'd like someone to talk on the role of AASHTO on numbering US highways 🎙 1.09: This is Interstate numbering, so again an expert on Interstates – either numbering, the federal aid highway acts, or the chargeable/non-chargeable distinction 🎙 1.10: This is numbering of county highways, so anyone from a county public works department on the signed route system 🎙 1.11: A state legislator on highway naming resolutions 🎙 1.12: Someone from the California Transportation Commission on the role of the commission.  We're also looking for a better theme song, so if you know of someone willing to write some short pieces for the show that we can use for free, that would be great.

Daniel

[skluth]

I'm sure the four-lane expressway between Hollister and San Juan Bautista is much needed and I like the overall design. I also like roundabouts generally, but I'm not a fan of roundabouts on busy rural highways like this proposed roundabout on CA 156. I just think it's an accident waiting to happen. I really wish California would consider something like a Michigan J Left (but with the Bixby Road crossing itself eliminated) in these instances.

[skluth]

Really cool to read about the Laurel Curve wildlife crossing. This is the official news release for those who want to avoid the paywalled article.

PS I love the work you do for this every month. Great stuff.

[Max Rockatansky]

I drove by that construction between San Juan Bautista and Hollister on 156 yesterday, it was long over due for expansion. The current corridor is brutalizing during rush hour.  Just getting Union Road fixed along will help traffic move leagues better than it does now.  I'm in agreement that there is way too much traffic for roundabouts to be the ideal solution.

[Plutonic Panda]

I really hope they widen CA-14 so it's at least 3 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane. Ideally a 4 GP lane + 2 HO/T each way would be the way to go and would eliminate all traffic issues that road is plagued with. I'll be happy for any improvements.

Regarding wildlife crossings, the 101 wildlife crossing in Agoura Hills is officially impacting traffic on the 101 as lanes have been shifted! It'll be cool to watch that come together. I wonder if people will be allowed to cross it as well.

[ClassicHasClass]

Maze Blvd sucks. Good news about CA 132.

Also happy to hear about the CA 14 expansion. A number of acquaintances making the LA-Antelope Valley run will be happy too.

[kernals12]

I really hope they widen CA-14 so it's at least 3 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane. Ideally a 4 GP lane + 2 HO/T each way would be the way to go and would eliminate all traffic issues that road is plagued with. I'll be happy for any improvements.

Regarding wildlife crossings, the 101 wildlife crossing in Agoura Hills is officially impacting traffic on the 101 as lanes have been shifted! It'll be cool to watch that come together. I wonder if people will be allowed to cross it as well.

Is there enough ROW for a 12 lane freeway through the Antelope Valley? And think of the bottleneck that would cause at the Newhall Pass Interchange.

EDIT: Yeah, no, a 12 lane freeway is not going to happen

[Plutonic Panda]

I really hope they widen CA-14 so it's at least 3 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane. Ideally a 4 GP lane + 2 HO/T each way would be the way to go and would eliminate all traffic issues that road is plagued with. I'll be happy for any improvements.

Regarding wildlife crossings, the 101 wildlife crossing in Agoura Hills is officially impacting traffic on the 101 as lanes have been shifted! It'll be cool to watch that come together. I wonder if people will be allowed to cross it as well.

Is there enough ROW for a 12 lane freeway through the Antelope Valley? And think of the bottleneck that would cause at the Newhall Pass Interchange.

EDIT: Yeah, no, a 12 lane freeway is not going to happen

That link takes me somewhere far away from where this project is at.

Anyhow most of the freeway should have ample room for 12 lanes but it could have room for 30 and it still wouldn't get widened that much. I'm honestly shocked at this news. It makes me wonder if Metro is now going to focus on widening other freeway corridors and abandon most freeway projects closer to LA like the 710 and 605 projects.

Really, given metro is canceling all of these multi billion dollar mega projects could they focus on completely rebuilding and redesigning horrible interchanges like I-405/101 junction and/or add missing movements to those like the 101/134/170?

[cahwyguy]

Really, given metro is canceling all of these multi billion dollar mega projects could they focus on completely rebuilding and redesigning horrible interchanges like I-405/101 junction and/or add missing movements to those like the 101/134/170?

Neither of these will happen, probably for the same reasons: (1) right of way costs (this is especially true of the 101/134/170, where there is no room to build the transition without major ROW acquisitions from wealthy homeowners), and (2) the impact of closing those interchanges (this is especially true for a 405/101 rebuild, which could only be done by closing the interchange and building a new one in place, which given the traffic load, won't happen).

Daniel

[Plutonic Panda]

Really, given metro is canceling all of these multi billion dollar mega projects could they focus on completely rebuilding and redesigning horrible interchanges like I-405/101 junction and/or add missing movements to those like the 101/134/170?

Neither of these will happen, probably for the same reasons: (1) right of way costs (this is especially true of the 101/134/170, where there is no room to build the transition without major ROW acquisitions from wealthy homeowners), and (2) the impact of closing those interchanges (this is especially true for a 405/101 rebuild, which could only be done by closing the interchange and building a new one in place, which given the traffic load, won't happen).

Daniel

It just seems like something that would be worth it in the long run. Metro does however have other interchange rebuilds in the works maybe they can expedite those instead.

[pderocco]

I really hope they widen CA-14 so it's at least 3 GP lanes + 1 HOV lane. Ideally a 4 GP lane + 2 HO/T each way would be the way to go and would eliminate all traffic issues that road is plagued with. I'll be happy for any improvements.

It would be a significant improvement merely to widen the three-lane roadbeds to four. I always thought that the lane drops were a bit demented. How could they have thought there wouldn't be backups there?

As to HOV lanes, 2GP+1HOV is always a bad idea because it hurts the people who have to use the jammed up GP lanes more than it helps the few who breeze through the HOV lanes. Even 3GP+1HOV may have less throughput than 4GP, because the original theory that the availability of carpool lanes would induce a significant number of people to carpool is probably wrong.

[Quillz]

1.07: Someone to talk on how the state numbers state highways – in particular, anything official on numbering patterns, or the rules for signing things

It's basically been totally random since 1964. Seems numbers now just get assigned inline, because there are many even-numbered routes that travel north-south, and odd-numbered routes that travel east-west! Recently CA-11 was revived near the Mexican border.

Original 1934 numbering rules were: lower numbers in LA and the Bay Area. Otherwise it was kind of orderly. Even numbers divisible by 4 were in NorCal, the rest were in SoCal. Odd numbers followed a similar pairing: 1 was in NorCal, 3 was in SoCal, 5 was in NorCal, and so on. Seems the rough center of the state also served as sort of a dividing line: you had lower NorCal route numbers around here, and they would get larger as you went north. SoCal thus had lower numbers near the Mexican border, and they got larger towards that dividing line. At least with the three-digit routes (118, 126, 138). The two-digit routes (74, 78, 94) seemed to have the opposite behavior. (And it also appears that CA-198 served as the dividing line, as original route numbers have a sharp drop north of here).

Kind of a shame this system was never really followed through. It was pretty orderly until 1964, then after the highway renumbering, just seemed to have gotten ignored. But a lot of the original routes are still in place and you can see these rules. I quite like the numbering scheme, I think it works well for a large state. I've done some renumbering projects where I follow the scheme into the present day and it's actually pretty flexible. There was no need for the state to just switch to a "random" approach, but that's what they did.

[TheStranger]

1.07: Someone to talk on how the state numbers state highways – in particular, anything official on numbering patterns, or the rules for signing things

It's basically been totally random since 1964.

Yes and no:

In 1964 a lot of geographic clustering still occurred:

13 near 17
31 near 30
43 and 46 established in the Central Valley (46 as replacement for US 466)
52, 54, 56 in San Diego area
57 near 55
62 near 60
69 over former 65 (due to sign theft, 69 eventually became 245)
72, 73 in Orange County, both near 74
82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area

Other examples
112 and 114 in the Bay Area
115 near 111 in Imperial County
236/237/238 along former Route 9 in the South and East Bay
proposed 143 and 148 in Sacramento
116 and 121 in Sonoma County (121 was a replacement for former segment of 37)

[Max Rockatansky]

Pertaining to 43 it's worth noting it actually was field signed slightly before the 1964 Renumbering. 

[Quillz]

1.07: Someone to talk on how the state numbers state highways – in particular, anything official on numbering patterns, or the rules for signing things

It's basically been totally random since 1964.

Yes and no:

In 1964 a lot of geographic clustering still occurred:

13 near 17
31 near 30
43 and 46 established in the Central Valley (46 as replacement for US 466)
52, 54, 56 in San Diego area
57 near 55
62 near 60
69 over former 65 (due to sign theft, 69 eventually became 245)
72, 73 in Orange County, both near 74
82, 84, 85, 87 in the Bay Area

Other examples
112 and 114 in the Bay Area
115 near 111 in Imperial County
236/237/238 along former Route 9 in the South and East Bay
proposed 143 and 148 in Sacramento
116 and 121 in Sonoma County (121 was a replacement for former segment of 37)

Oh, that does make some sense. I didn't notice that clustering. That would make it more akin to how Utah signs their highways. Recently CA-11 was revived, and is roughly in the same area as the 1990 revival of CA-7 (both functioning as routes to the border).

Interesting you brought up CA-13. That was the original CA-17, and it appears the renumbering happened around 1936 or so. Not sure why. It would also seem that the next route number to be used would be a revival of CA-21. Maybe if NorCal ever needs a new route.