AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: California  (Read 425848 times)

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1875 on: May 05, 2023, 10:47:21 PM »

Sacramento has enough problems providing adequate infrastructure to the people who live there already.
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 212
  • Roadgeek since 1966 - When Caltrans moved traffic

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Wholesome, Folsom CA
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 01:02:35 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1876 on: May 05, 2023, 11:44:52 PM »

Sacramento "bit the big one" when it scrapped all the plans for suburban freeways (16, 65,102, 143, 148, 244, 256, I-80 bypass) between 1974 and 1979.  All the right-of-way purchased for the new freeways (the ones that were formally adopted - There were no land acquisitions for 102) was sold to developers by the end of the 1970s.  Sacramento's LRT uses the land that was purchased for the I-80 bypass.  If I-80, 143, 244 and 65 were built, we would have had four additional American River crossings, which would be of great relief to the area. 

The LRT is virtually empty except during weekday rush hours.  I am so glad that I retired three years ago.  I couldn't put up with that $#!t these days.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2023, 12:44:30 PM by Concrete Bob »
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7824
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: Today at 12:07:24 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1877 on: May 05, 2023, 11:50:21 PM »

A lot of the land left undeveloped is prone to landslides, and it would be a bad idea to build permanent structures there.

I'd like to see some areas developed more densely, more like the density of S.F., and with better amenities to go with it.  Want to be close to jobs and a vibrant downtown?  Accept that you're not gonna have a single family home on 1/4 acre.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2766
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 09:33:03 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1878 on: May 06, 2023, 12:38:50 AM »

Sacramento "bit the big one" when it scrapped all the plans for suburban freeways (16, 65,102, 143, 148, 244, 256, I-80 bypass) between 1974 and 1979.  All the right-of-way purchased for the new freeways (the ones that were formally adopted - There were no land acquisitions for 102) was sold to developers by the end of the 1970s.  Sacramento's LRT uses the land that was purchased for the I-80 bypass.  If I-80, 143, 244 and 65 were built, we would have had four additional American River crossings, which would be of great relief to the area. 

The LRT is virtually empty except during weekday rush hours.  I am so glad that I retired three years ago.  I couldn't put up with $#!t these days.

But 143 is sort of getting built as the Capital Southeast Connector
Logged

Concrete Bob

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 212
  • Roadgeek since 1966 - When Caltrans moved traffic

  • Age: 60
  • Location: Wholesome, Folsom CA
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 01:02:35 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1879 on: May 06, 2023, 01:08:07 AM »

Kinda sorta, but not really.  The Connector is a hybrid of SR 143 and 148 south of US 50.  There is no American River Crossing.  And the design of the Connector involves six roundabouts on a roughly 2.7 mile stretch through the Wilton area.  The section of the connector, in its ultimate buildup will have ten tight-diamond interchanges between Excelsior Road and the El Dorado County line.  Initially, those intersections will be built as surface level grade crossings.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4700
  • Last Login: Today at 05:21:14 AM
Logged
Chris Sampang

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3281
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:45:27 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1881 on: May 07, 2023, 02:48:32 PM »

Hmm... I was trying to do the Tioga Pass Road this year. When is the 41 into Yosemite going to be open? There's a connection to 120 from there, right?
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1882 on: May 07, 2023, 03:01:34 PM »

Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4122
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 06:21:57 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1883 on: May 07, 2023, 06:30:17 PM »

It seems in the 50s and 60s there were plans to make absolutely everything a freeway. CA-23 was envisioned as the Decker Freeway, all the way from CA-1 to Fillmore. There was the CA-64 freeway through the San Fernando Valley. The CA-14 extension was going to be a freeway to CA-1. I think this was still part of that "we can build anything, anywhere" mentality that defined most of the first half of the 20th century, and before there was a large environmental movement.
Don't forget the plans to make CA 1 a freeway from Oxnard to San Luis Capistrano, including an offshore causeway between Malibu and Santa Monica
Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to with my comment. Or how there were all these plans to take highways across the Sierra. It was just a mentality of anything and everything can be built, and who cares about the environmental impact. Makes me wonder what might have been if environmentalism didn't become a bigger deal, would we have a causeway from California to Hawaii?


Pretty obviously not. That would be physically impossible

Doesn't stop FritzOwl from planning it
It should happen. It would take the traffic load off of the 101 and PCH. The Santa Monica pier can be moved. Better yet a tunnel would be even more preferable.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3281
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:45:27 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1884 on: May 07, 2023, 07:33:44 PM »

Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
So is the 41-to-120 portion the part that is being worked on? I was planning to take 120 across Yosemite but sounds like it won't be open until July at the earliest.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1885 on: May 07, 2023, 07:46:25 PM »

Yes, the Big Oak Flat Road connects the the Tioga Road from Crane Flat.
So is the 41-to-120 portion the part that is being worked on? I was planning to take 120 across Yosemite but sounds like it won't be open until July at the earliest.

I don’t think so, my understanding is the problem is on a Caltrans maintained segment of 120 which would put it west of the Yosemite park boundary.  All you’ll need to do is check the “Plan Your Visit”  tab on the NPS page for Yosemite by the time July comes around.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2766
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 09:33:03 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1886 on: May 25, 2023, 03:10:27 PM »


This 1969 map from a brochure for the Watson Industrial Park makes some interesting predictions about LA's future freeways.

They predicted that the Beverly Hills Freeway would see the light of day but not the extension of SR 57 to the Pacific Coast Highway (excuse me, Pacific Coast Freeway).

I've read that the Century Freeway was envisioned to stretch all the way to San Bernardino but it looks like any plans to extend it past the 605 were scuttled early.

Notable lines of the map that are missing: The Slauson Freeway, the Laurel Canyon Freeway, the part of the Whitnall Freeway south of the Santa Monica Mountains, the Pacific Coast Freeway North of Redondo Beach and the Reseda-to-the-Sea Freeway.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1887 on: May 25, 2023, 03:20:25 PM »

The Division of Highways Maps showed the exact same data.  Any DOH map from 1938-1970 shows projected realignments of highways.  The map legend on the DOH Maps denoted the difference between a planned realignment versus one formally adopted by the California Highway Commission.  The post 1975 Caltrans Maps show similar information but aren’t quite as nice as what the Division of Highways put out.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2023, 03:23:00 PM by Max Rockatansky »
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4882
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 04:16:16 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1888 on: May 25, 2023, 03:38:21 PM »

I had a road atlas from around 1991 that still showed the proposed CA 64 freeway, even though it was canceled and deleted in 1970 and 1976. It also showed the proposed CA 30 freeway (which was constructed as CA 210), and the proposed Interstate 710 extension to Interstate 210 (which will never be built).
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1889 on: May 25, 2023, 03:39:22 PM »

Right, but just because an alignment was cancelled by the CHC/CTC doesn’t mean the highway was deleted legislatively.  In the case of CA 64 it has never been deleted by Legislative action.
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4700
  • Last Login: Today at 05:21:14 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1890 on: May 31, 2023, 04:01:16 AM »

It's been some months and the sign for "Exit 492B" on US 101 northbound at 3rd Street in SF is still up, even though the correct number is 429B.

That also reminds me:  back in the early 2000s, the one retrofitted button copy exit numbering sign was along 101 southbound in Millbrae, Exit 420 for Millbrae Avenue.  For a while, the same exit ramp complex was signed for a different number (Exit 421) northbound; I think both sides have now been standardized to exit 420, though not sure which number would be more accurate.
Logged
Chris Sampang

ClassicHasClass

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 861
  • 0-60 in 59.999997 years

  • Location: (not-so) sunny (No) So Cal
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 09:29:28 PM
    • Floodgap Roadgap
Re: California
« Reply #1891 on: May 31, 2023, 06:02:39 PM »

I think both sides have now been standardized to exit 420, though not sure which number would be more accurate.

Perhaps they're both smoking something.  :sombrero:
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 840
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 71
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:15 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1892 on: May 31, 2023, 08:28:17 PM »

It's been some months and the sign for "Exit 492B" on US 101 northbound at 3rd Street in SF is still up, even though the correct number is 429B.

Exit ≈492B.
Logged

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4859
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 05:12:12 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1893 on: June 08, 2023, 11:52:56 AM »

By request, posts discussing AZ 95 signed in Needles, CA have been split off to a dedicated thread. –Roadfro
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

gonealookin

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 954
  • Location: Lake Tahoe - NV side
  • Last Login: February 24, 2024, 11:49:36 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1894 on: June 08, 2023, 01:31:20 PM »

Sierra highway pass reopening news:

https://twitter.com/CaltransDist10/status/1666829489559719937

CA 108/Sonora Pass:  The snowplows working from opposite sides met a few days ago but there's still work to be done as to repairs to the road, removing fallen trees, etc.

CA 120 and Tioga Road through Yosemite National Park:  Lots of snow still to be removed and whatever repairs must be done; target reopening is in time for July 4 weekend but it's iffy.

Further south and east of the Sierra on CA 136 near Lone Pine:

https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1666226259825926144

Logged

thsftw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 47
  • Location: Bay Area
  • Last Login: December 06, 2023, 02:34:44 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1895 on: June 08, 2023, 03:10:48 PM »

Sadly highway 4 being open doesn't do much for shortening the drive time from the Bay Area to Mammoth, especially since a lot of it is only a single lane.
Logged

TJS23

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 29
  • Location: California
  • Last Login: December 28, 2023, 06:44:01 PM
Re: California
« Reply #1896 on: June 08, 2023, 03:17:13 PM »

Starting a road trip on Monday, going to June Lake first so I'm hoping they will open Sonora Pass by then! Never been up that way nor Ebbetts pass so at least I have an alternative now.
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 840
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 71
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:13:15 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1897 on: June 09, 2023, 12:02:10 AM »

Further south and east of the Sierra on CA 136 near Lone Pine:

https://twitter.com/Caltrans9/status/1666226259825926144

Los Angeles apparently isn't stealing enough of their water.
Logged

Quillz

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3281
  • A Talking Pokémon

  • Age: 35
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:45:27 AM
Re: California
« Reply #1898 on: June 09, 2023, 05:10:21 AM »

Starting a road trip on Monday, going to June Lake first so I'm hoping they will open Sonora Pass by then! Never been up that way nor Ebbetts pass so at least I have an alternative now.
I did Sonora Pass three years ago. It was pretty steep, but I enjoyed it. Second highest crossing of the Sierra IIRC, and offers some really beautiful scenery. I think it was the western approach just before the actual pass, really steep stuff and your car will really get those RPMs up.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 24761
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 12:10:30 AM
    • Gribblenation
Re: California
« Reply #1899 on: June 09, 2023, 09:14:22 AM »

Ebbetts Pass IMO is by far the more interesting than Sonora Pass.  The one lane highway and wreckage of the mining boom of Alpine County is fascinating.
Logged

 


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.