California

[sparker]

The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf

I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.

I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding.  Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties.   

Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint:  CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta).  Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project.  But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!

[Plutonic Panda]

The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf

I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.

I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding.  Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties.   

Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint:  CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta).  Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project.  But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!

Maybe I am mistaken but are those dates proposed start dates or just the year the money will be allocated from this fund?

[sparker]

The CTC allocated a couple billion in funding to some small town/local projects and some bigger freeway projects detailed in the last pages of these links:

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/senate-bill-1/tcep/recommendation/2020-trade-corridors-enhancement-program-staff-recommendations-111620.pdf

https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/sccp/recommendation/2020-solutions-for-congested-corridors-program-staff-recommendations-111620-a11y.pdf

I'm particularly interested in the 105 HO/T lanes. I really hope they expand the freeways lanes adding one each way making for two HO/T lanes in each direction. Unfortunately they voted out and alternative that would have widened the freeway's footprint allowing for full standards so any improvement would likely be substandard but I would rather have more lanes and no shoulder.

I'm happy to see that US 101/SR 25 and SR 156/Castroville Boulevard interchanges are finally getting funding.  Those are much needed interchange improvements in southern Santa Clara and northern Monterey Counties.   

Also glad to see that the 101/25 project is not only funded but slated for a 2022 start; hope that will be the impetus for additional projects in the area (hint:  CA 152 reroute from 101 to Casa de Fruta).  Also like the eastern extension of the CA 46 divided expressway project.  But sorry to see that the CA 99/Tulare upgrade didn't make the present cut; that's one of the oldest and most substandard sections of 99 and has sorely needed work for decades!

Maybe I am mistaken but are those dates proposed start dates or just the year the money will be allocated from this fund?

If the design of the project has been completed -- at which point the district (in this case D4, but only by a couple of miles) knows how much ROW is necessary -- property acquisition commences when the funds are disbursed.   When construction actually begins is, of course, dependent upon a list of other factors (and COVID has certainly affected such scheduling).  But at least the preliminary steps generally occur in the initial funding year.  But this particular project is likely to be at least in some fashion coordinated with the CA 25 expansion, most of which is in San Benito County -- within District 5.  So the overall schedule for the 101/25 interchange may well be dependent upon the schedule for the adjoining project(s).   

[Plutonic Panda]

A report on the progress made by SB-1:

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Senate Bill 1) has passed a major timeline milestone, one-fifth of the way through a promised 10-year transformation of California's transportation network.

A recent progress report presented to the California Transportation Commission shows that Caltrans, to this point, is meeting or making significant strides on key SB 1 performance targets set for pavement, bridges, drainages, its signals, signs and sensors system.

But challenges remain in the pace of improvements to the bridges that Caltrans maintains, although solid progress has been made to that critical part of the State Highway System (SHS).
Caltrans analyzed the condition of its major highway components as part of an annual progress report required by the CTC. In addition to the SB 1 targets, the report measured Caltrans' performance in the same categories established in its 2018 Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) that counted and assessed the condition of the highway system's many physical components, and set objectives to preserve and improve those assets.

The progress report noted that Caltrans was on track, at current and projected rates of repair and rehabilitation, to meet SB 1 performance standards for pavement overall, bridges, and culverts by the end of the 10-year reporting period. The interconnected grid of electrical devices and hardware known as TMS (transportation management system) was placed on monitor status, meaning it's still uncertain whether the pace of improvements will be enough to achieve 2027 goals. That same rating was accorded for a separate SB 1 category, pavement maintenance based on the number of potholes, cracks and concrete corrosion found on state routes.

Read more here: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/projects-in-golden-state-making-significant-progress/50430

[bing101]

Here is an update on the I-405 construction in Orange County by 101not5

[sparker]

Here is an update on the I-405 construction in Orange County by 101not5

Yowza!  With all the flyovers for the express lanes, this project's budget must be approaching $1B if not substantially more.  Can't imagine that the folks living next to 405 are particularly thrilled with the upgrades -- or at least the installation process!

[Kniwt]

The Los Angeles Times reports on a project to realign part of CA 1 near Gleason Beach in Sonoma County, as part of a "managed retreat" effort to move the highway inland and away from the rapidly encroaching coastline.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-11-27/gleason-beach-managed-retreat

Here at Gleason Beach, once referred to as Malibu North, the beach gets drowned during high tide. Bits of concrete and rebar are all that remain of 11 clifftop homes that have already surrendered to the sea. A graveyard of seawalls, smashed into pieces, litters the shore.

Highway 1 now hangs inches from what seems like the edge of the world. For decades, officials have scrambled to save the road from the ocean – pouring millions of tax dollars into a vicious cycle of sudden collapses and emergency repairs. Last year, this critical lifeline for the region was reduced to one lane.

With the realities of climate change looming ever closer, California transportation officials are now moving a key stretch of highway more than 350 feet inland – one of the first major efforts by the state to relocate, or "manage retreat,"  critical infrastructure far enough away from the coast to make room for the next 100 years of sea level rise.

The ambitious project Рapproved this month after more than a decade of planning Рcomes at a time when city and state leaders across California are waking up to the social and economic disasters of sea level rise. At least $8 billion in property could be underwater by 2050, according to recent legislative reports, with an additional $10 billion at risk during high tides. Heavier storms and more intense cycles of El Ni̱o could make things even worse.

[Kniwt]

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that widening of US 101 through Richardson Grove State Park is still on, after a federal appeals court overruled a 2019 lower court ruling against Caltrans' environmental impact analysis.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Humbolt-County-road-lined-with-old-growth-15770723.php

The state's long-standing proposal to widen part of Highway 101 in Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County, to make room for bigger trucks, took a step forward Wednesday when a federal appeals court said Caltrans had adequately considered any likely impact on towering, ancient redwoods living alongside the highway.

The project, originally proposed in 2007, hit a roadblock in May 2019 when U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco rejected the state Department of Transportation's conclusion from 2017 that it would cause "no significant impact"  to the environment. Alsup said there was evidence that the road-widening could suffocate some of the 300-foot redwoods – some of them 3,000 years old – cause root disease in others and worsen damage to trees hit by trucks that skidded off the highway.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Caltrans had conducted an adequate review, with assistance from a staff arborist, and found that the construction would not threaten the life of any old-growth redwoods. The court also accepted the department's findings that the project would not diminish visitors' enjoyment of the park by increasing traffic or noise from the highway.

[Max Rockatansky]

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that widening of US 101 through Richardson Grove State Park is still on, after a federal appeals court overruled a 2019 lower court ruling against Caltrans' environmental impact analysis.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Humbolt-County-road-lined-with-old-growth-15770723.php

The state's long-standing proposal to widen part of Highway 101 in Richardson Grove State Park in Humboldt County, to make room for bigger trucks, took a step forward Wednesday when a federal appeals court said Caltrans had adequately considered any likely impact on towering, ancient redwoods living alongside the highway.

The project, originally proposed in 2007, hit a roadblock in May 2019 when U.S. District Judge William Alsup of San Francisco rejected the state Department of Transportation's conclusion from 2017 that it would cause "no significant impact"  to the environment. Alsup said there was evidence that the road-widening could suffocate some of the 300-foot redwoods – some of them 3,000 years old – cause root disease in others and worsen damage to trees hit by trucks that skidded off the highway.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Caltrans had conducted an adequate review, with assistance from a staff arborist, and found that the construction would not threaten the life of any old-growth redwoods. The court also accepted the department's findings that the project would not diminish visitors' enjoyment of the park by increasing traffic or noise from the highway.

Ran into a paywall about two paragraphs in.  I guess the original plan included removal of 54 non-old growth Redwoods and now that's down to 38?  CAhighways has a summary of the legal battle:

https://www.cahighways.org/ROUTE101.html

[oscar]

Today's appellate court decision is at https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/12/02/19-16478.pdf

I haven't reviewed it in detail, but the concurring opinion seems to give some hope to both sides. On the one hand, it says that changes to the project, or new data gathered during preparation for construction, might require a "do-over" on the environmental review. On the other hand, construction might generate new information that might help Caltrans on any additional projects it might propose in redwood country. (I suspect such additional projects are purely hypothetical.)

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Still, widening of a 2-lane facility remains a "band-aid" approach; a full new alignment bypass, which would have obviated the need for any widening of the current facility, would still be the optimal approach -- albeit with the terrain to deal with, a decidedly expensive one.  Both the commercial needs of northern Mendocino and Humboldt Counties and the environmental needs of Richardson Grove itself deserve better than a simple widening of a substandard roadway.  However, longstanding emotional factors have mitigated against a permanent solution -- and Caltrans has simply elected to take the path of least resistance rather than press for a long-term approach.     

[kkt]

Yes.  In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove.  As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves.  Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove.  But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long.  For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road.  Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.

Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park.  And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes.  In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove.  As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves.  Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove.  But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long.  For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road.  Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.

Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park.  And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.

Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants.  Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101. 

[sparker]

Yes.  In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove.  As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves.  Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove.  But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long.  For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road.  Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.

Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park.  And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.

Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants.  Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101. 

The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Yes.  In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove.  As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves.  Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove.  But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long.  For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road.  Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.

Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park.  And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.

Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants.  Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101. 

The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed.

Which I would assume would be promoted as another touring alternate to 101 like 254 is.  271 is kinda like that already but doesn't quite have the same impact 254 has given it doesn't have a state park.  Interestingly I do think 271 probably has the more expensive bridge structures to maintain as there is a couple concrete arches and a truss span. 

[kkt]

Yes.  In the long run, nothing will be satisfactory short of a 4-lane expressway standard bypass for Richardson Grove.  As it is, truck standards evolve larger and larger and they become less and less capable of taking curves.  Every 20 years or so there's a new plan for taking away just a few more redwoods so the new trucks can drive through Richardson Grove.  But it's not going to be satisfactory for very long.  For one, they count tree trunks without considering whether the remaining trees can live with the root damage caused by the widened road.  Might as well build the bypass sooner, since it will have to be done eventually, and save those 38 trees.

Another factor is the noise of the highway in the park.  And while there is an underpass from the campgrounds to the river, kids on their way to play in the river or on the beach have been known to take the shortest way instead of going to the underpass.

Another benefit to Richardson Grove would be it suddenly would become another mini Avenue of the Giants.  Newton B. Drury Scenic Drive is way less hectic through Prairie Creek Redwoods than when it was mainline US 101. 

The present highway through Richardson Grove would likely become another section of CA 271 if a bypass were to be constructed. 

Perhaps, however there would probably be a segment where 271 and existing 101 run in parallel, requiring a new number for one of them.

I thought the obvious route for a bypass would be to depart from 101 just south of Cook's Valley Campground and climb up the east side of the valley.  The Park extends part way up the east side of the valley, so the bypass would need some distance to gain the elevation.  But 271 parallels 101 to north of Cook's Valley Campground.

[sparker]

Even if a Richardson Grove bypass were to become reality, that still leaves the curvy 2-lane section north of Leggett as an obstacle to efficient N-S movement in the area; that would itself require bypassing; whether on the opposite slope west of the current facility or a more ambitious mountain-climber to the east, likely veering off from the existing limited-access section between Cummings and Leggett.  But currently it's unlikely that Caltrans has the appetite or intestinal fortitude (i.e. "guts") to draw what would be the inevitable fire from the more vehement environmental activists for even considering making egress in that neck of the woods any automotive-friendlier.  It's correspondingly likely that "band-aids" such as the widening cited that only draw grumbling or short-term fire from those quarters will remain the activity of choice.  Also, the fact that any improvement activity on that southerly 2-lane segment doesn't directly affect a dense redwood grove likely means that segment will probably a prime candidate to receive a version of the "band-aid" treatment in the near term if deemed necessary.   

[kkt]

As far as I remember, the 2-lane section from Leggett to Confusion Hill is curvy, but wide enough for current large trucks to travel without restriction.  Have to slow down for the curves, and there are limited passing opportunities, but no actual obstacles.

[Max Rockatansky]

I agree, the only true part of 101 that isn't meant for modern freight traffic is at Richardson Grove.  I kind of wonder how the bypass of Confusion Hill was affecting visitation prior to the pandemic?

[sparker]

As far as I remember, the 2-lane section from Leggett to Confusion Hill is curvy, but wide enough for current large trucks to travel without restriction.  Have to slow down for the curves, and there are limited passing opportunities, but no actual obstacles.

I agree, the only true part of 101 that isn't meant for modern freight traffic is at Richardson Grove.  I kind of wonder how the bypass of Confusion Hill was affecting visitation prior to the pandemic?

That 2-lane segment saw quite a bit of improvement in the mid-late 80's -- particularly replacement of some really narrow bridges -- but, in conjunction with the current state of the Richardson Grove section, not enough to alleviate the truck restrictions on US 101 north of Laytonville.   Semi-trucks (particularly the ones exceeding the posted "38-foot" post-to-axle standard) that just can't make it through Richardson would still have to slow to 15-20mph or less to get past Leggett -- which makes me wonder if, once Richardson is widened (band-aid and all notwithstanding!) if those restrictions would be modified or even lifted, with automotive traffic simply having to tolerate slow trucks through the 2-lane segments.  Even with the inefficiencies along US 101, letting larger trucks use the highway would benefit commerce in the greater Eureka area -- effectively eliminating the trucking side-trip through Redding and over 299.  And that in itself may be an additional rationale for the Richardson widening concept -- removing the final physically prohibitive obstacle to through trucks, regardless of the effect on traffic or the parks lining US 101.  Frankly, the smell of political pressure emanating from the North Coast permeates the whole Grove widening project.   

[heynow415]

It's been several years since I've been up that way so GSV helped refresh my recollection of the challenges in that corridor.  One thing that did catch my eye is in Leggett at the 101/1/271 junction where it appears there is preparation for a grade separation to nowhere (to the north) with s/b ramps connecting to 271.  It seems as if the mystery stub is for a realignment that would bypass the current circuitous route following the Eel to at least Rock Creek and instead cross it at least once, if not twice.  It also looks like there is a r/w reservation that goes as far as the river, based on Google's property line delineations.  Anybody know what that's about?   
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Leggett,+CA+95585/@39.8706922,-123.717278,1133m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x54d4cc1fffa328f9:0x28dffafca0e1592e!8m2!3d39.8654841!4d-123.7148275

[kkt]

I don't really know.  But in the streetview image off CA 1, there's grading equipment and a portapotty and the earth north of CA 1 looks freshly graded, like prep for 101 to take an overpass over CA 1.  That's dated Oct. 2017.  However, I'm not seeing any prep for a right of way across the Eel from that earthwork.  If they've gotten to the grading earth stage, you'd think at least the trees would have been removed.

[SeriesE]

There is an update on the I-5 widening from Streetsblog. You may not like the commentary, but the timeline and the documents are informative: https://la.streetsblog.org/2020/10/29/documents-show-metro-drastically-increased-605-5-freeway-widening/

Since the overpass will get rebuilt anyway, why not use a SPUI instead?

It looks like Caltrans only has partial cloverleaf and diamond interchanges in their design books.

SPUIs have capacity limitations because of their three-phase designs. The partial cloverleafs proposed by Caltrans have much higher capacity.

I don't fully understand some of their decisions. For example, on the southside of the 5, they've designed the ramps to all start at one intersection. This isn't necessary for A4 parclos. Here, it makes the ramp through Dennis the Menace Park much straighter and more destructive than it needs to be.

For the other proposal, why does the on-ramp loop on the north side become so elongated, but remains more circular in the other proposal? More needless ROW acquisition, it seems.

If it were up to me, I'd design the northbound to southbound ramp to become less destructive to the park, and keep the northbound to northbound loop more circular.

Which design has the least delays? Parclo A4 with unsynchronized signals (happens more often than not in my experience) or SPUI?

Want to learn more but it's hard to find them online.

[Max Rockatansky]

Found this article in the March 1934 CHPW pertaining to the early construction of the modern Last Chance Grade of US 101 south of Crescent City.  The previous road is now a Endetts Beach Road and California Coastal Trail in Del Norte Redwoods State Park:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n79/mode/2up?q=Klamath

[kkt]

Found this article in the March 1934 CHPW pertaining to the early construction of the modern Last Chance Grade of US 101 south of Crescent City.  The previous road is now a Endetts Beach Road and California Coastal Trail in Del Norte Redwoods State Park:

https://archive.org/details/californiahighwa193436calirich/page/n79/mode/2up?q=Klamath

Cool!  If you happen to run across photos of the completed 1930s Last Chance Grade, do post a link