Headlines About California Highways – February 2025

[cahwyguy]

It's that time of month again: Time for highway headlines and such. Before the post link, a note that the next episode of CA RxR is delayed because Tom and I have been so busy we've been unable to coordinate a recording time. We've now got one scheduled for next week, so perhaps I'll have it edited and out a week or so after that. The podcast episode will be on I-5W.

Here's the link to the February headlines: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=17148

Ready, set, discuss.

[Max Rockatansky]

At least there is a finally a timeline on the Ferguson Rockshed.  Those Bailey Bridges have been on 140 for what seems like forever. 

[pderocco]

The first time I drove CA-138 east of I-15 after they straightened it, I was rather stunned that they left one tight curve on it, with warning signs to slow down. What were they thinking? I wonder why they didn't continue the straightening all the way through, including what they're now getting around to fixing.

[Plutonic Panda]

I have to say, thank you for making the first article about widening a highway. I'm happy about that!

[Plutonic Panda]

Also to add, what are the chances we see any capacity enhancements to the Vincent Thomas bridge? They recently widened another portion of this corridor. Why wouldn't they widen this one? Preferably, I'd like to see this section twinned as opposed to completely rebuilt as a cable stayed bridge. But I do think it should be 3 lanes each way with standard shoulders.

[cahwyguy]

Also to add, what are the chances we see any capacity enhancements to the Vincent Thomas bridge? They recently widened another portion of this corridor. Why wouldn't they widen this one? Preferably, I'd like to see this section twinned as opposed to completely rebuilt as a cable stayed bridge. But I do think it should be 3 lanes each way with standard shoulders.

Probably little, due to the design costs and other cans of worms that might be opened (such as the capacity on either end, port supports, historic nature of the existing design, etc.)

[kernals12]

That Arroyo Seco safety improvement study is just a song and dance routine. Any major changes to the Parkway would be monstrously expensive.

[Max Rockatansky]

And probably would be resisted given it would change the historic character.  Seems like something about safety on the Parkway comes up every couple years and gets shot down.

[SeriesE]

Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway/CA-110: it's easier and cheaper to make the entire lane 3 an aux lane/shoulder.

I still find it a bit odd (maybe ridiculous) that a major commuter highway can be designated as historic + get the maximum protection out of the designation (ok, mostly the latter). Can't help but think it's the work of local NIMBYs to prevent any development/improvements. Surely the 5 mph ramps (as an example) can be rebuilt to be safer but still retain the old look of the current structures.

[kernals12]

Re: Arroyo Seco Parkway/CA-110: it's easier and cheaper to make the entire lane 3 an aux lane/shoulder.

I still find it a bit odd (maybe ridiculous) that a major commuter highway can be designated as historic + get the maximum protection out of the designation (ok, mostly the latter). Can't help but think it's the work of local NIMBYs to prevent any development/improvements. Surely the 5 mph ramps (as an example) can be rebuilt to be safer but still retain the old look of the current structures.

You want them to take away a lane in each direction? Are you nuts?

And sure the ramps could be rebuilt to be safer, but you'd have to demolish a couple of homes.

Were there any proposals like in the 60s to turn the Parkway into a modern freeway?

"I still find it a bit odd (maybe ridiculous) that a major commuter highway can be designated as historic + get the maximum protection out of the designation (ok, mostly the latter)"

I see you are unfamiliar with the Northeast.

[Plutonic Panda]

I say just leave the road like it is. Maintain it and keep it up. If they can do any improvements to the ramps then great. But I'm against removing lanes.

[SeriesE]

Restriping lane 3 into an aux lane was an idea floated by the planners in the past. It's probably the cheapest way to improve safety of entering/exiting traffic and it works with historic preservation since there are no physical changes.

[ClassicHasClass]

Restriping lane 3 into an aux lane was an idea floated by the planners in the past. It's probably the cheapest way to improve safety of entering/exiting traffic and it works with historic preservation since there are no physical changes.

You're more right than you might know, since originally as built there were just two lanes (the current third lane was the original breakdown lane).

[SeriesE]

Restriping lane 3 into an aux lane was an idea floated by the planners in the past. It's probably the cheapest way to improve safety of entering/exiting traffic and it works with historic preservation since there are no physical changes.

You're more right than you might know, since originally as built there were just two lanes (the current third lane was the original breakdown lane).

Oh, that's even better, then. I was never a fan of adding a lane by narrowing lanes and deleting the shoulder(s). I know there are some people in this forum that doesn't like road diets, but I think that's different from reallocating the existing space to fit shoulders and standard width lanes.

[Plutonic Panda]

I drive this highway every single day. That thing is packed a lot of the time. Sometimes it's not. But especially during rush-hour. And other random times of the day it gets pretty full. Narrow that thing to two lanes with a standard shoulder and I guarantee you people are going to legally pass others who are surely going to be going slow. Not to mention the increased congestion that's gonna be a result.

If there's a way to modify the ramps to make it a little bit safer to enter the highway, then do it. Otherwise just keep it at three lanes each way and people need to learn how to drive.

[stevashe]

I drive this highway every single day. That thing is packed a lot of the time. Sometimes it's not. But especially during rush-hour. And other random times of the day it gets pretty full. Narrow that thing to two lanes with a standard shoulder and I guarantee you people are going to legally pass others who are surely going to be going slow. Not to mention the increased congestion that's gonna be a result.

If there's a way to modify the ramps to make it a little bit safer to enter the highway, then do it. Otherwise just keep it at three lanes each way and people need to learn how to drive.

But the option mentioned was two lanes with aux lanes, so there would still be three lanes between exits, which is an important distinction.

In your experience, how much *through traffic* typically uses the right lane? Given the lack of space for acceleration, it seems like the right lane would likely have a lot less cars in it since people likely want to avoid getting stuck behind someone slowing down to take a sharp exit. If most through traffic is already avoiding the right lane, then it's operating like an aux lane already and you might as well formalize it.

[Plutonic Panda]

It seems like most people do use the left two lanes when traffic is lower but creating a continuous aux lane would no doubt be abused by aggressive drivers who will use it to pass.