AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Pacific Southwest => Topic started by: andy3175 on December 16, 2014, 11:51:12 PM

Title: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: andy3175 on December 16, 2014, 11:51:12 PM
I've seen this topic discussed in the US 101/NorCal Improvements thread from 2012 (see https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6628.msg146863#msg146863), but I thought it would be worthwhile to discuss this project in a separate thread. The project would realign US 101 in Richardson Grove State Park to allow for trucks to pass through the area; currently, trucks have difficulty navigating the 2-lane highway through the state park due to close proximity of a redwood grove. A project webpage is online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/richardson_grove/, and an opposition webpage is located at http://www.saverichardsongrove.org/ (which is notable for the picture at the bottom of the main page).

A lawsuit has challenged this project due to the unique environmental constraints within the state park. Recently,the lawsuit was dropped (based on a story from http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/3217109-181/disputed-highway-101-expansion-through dated Dec 8) as a result of Caltrans announcing that it would start the environmental analysis process over again.

QuoteA coalition of environmental groups has dropped its lawsuit challenging a controversial Highway 101 widening project through a grove of Humboldt County old-growth redwood trees after Caltrans decided to seek further environmental review of its plans. Opponents of the 1.1-mile project through Richardson Grove State Park say the work would damage the roots of the protected redwood trees. Caltrans says the $5.5 million project is needed to alter the narrow section of highway – one of the last remaining bottlenecks on the North Coast's main thoroughfare – to meet federal standards for large trucks. ...

Still, environmental groups (Center for Biological Diversity and the Environmental Protection Information Center) said further study of the project's impacts would benefit the 1,000-year-old trees. They announced their dismissal of the lawsuit last week. "This is an important victory stopping a nonsensical project that would have done terrible damage to an ancient grove of giant redwoods in our state park," said Jeff Miller, spokesman for the Center for Biological Diversity. "We'll be ready to go back to court if Caltrans decides to pursue the project, and it'll have to completely start over on environmental review and the approval process."

Meanwhile, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee wrote on 9/2/14 of an alternative approach (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/dan-walters/article2608323.html):

QuoteThe coalition has filed its third lawsuit against Caltrans' project to widen the narrow, 1915-vintage stretch of Highway 101 that snakes through the immense trees, and make it suitable for large trucks meeting a new federal standard. Caltrans says its 1.1-mile project would carefully avoid damage to old-growth trees, but environmental groups say it could undermine their shallow roots.

The Richardson Grove bottleneck needs to go, but widening the existing road is a poor solution at best because traffic would still disrupt what should be quietude in such a unique corner of California. A better solution would be to bypass the park altogether, or at least the portion containing old-growth trees. Caltrans had planned for decades to do exactly that, shifting the highway across the Eel River to the east, and leaving the old road as a quiet driveway for visitors.

In 2000, after 45 years of inaction on that plan, it was re-evaluated, and highway officials ultimately decided that the path of least resistance would be to widen the existing highway to make it safe for the federally approved freightliners. Moving the highway eastward is still the better plan, albeit costlier than a widening that, if anything, would allow even more noisy and dangerous traffic in the redwood grove.

We'll see what happens with the next environmental review of any improvements on US 101 through Richardson Grove.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: andy3175 on November 21, 2015, 01:24:27 AM
More criticism of Caltrans regarding funding the Richardson Grove Project ahead of other road projects in California's North Coast:

http://transportationpriorities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/District-1-Safety-Analysis.pdf - report

QuoteCaltrans District 1 has attempted to justify the Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project, the 197/199 Safe STAA Access Project, and other major highway projects in part by claiming they will improve safety, despite the fact that this is not the primary goal of any of the projects. In fact, in the case of the two projects identified, we argue that it is likely they will decrease highway safety rather than improve it. We identify 14 state highway segments in District 1 which have a substantially higher rate of fatal accidents than the district average, and note that only one of these segments overlaps with one of the projects identified above (and even in that case, the project boundaries do not include any of the fatal accidents in the segment). We challenge Caltrans to prioritize true safety projects that will make a real difference, and to stop using dubious safety claims to justify highway expansion projects.

Quote"The highest number of fatal accidents on any stretch of highway was on the 101 going through the town of Weott, where I happen to live,"  said Barbara Kennedy, a CRTP spokesperson. "But there were also very high rates on 101 in Arcata and Fortuna, on Routes 20 and 29 in Lake County, and in a number of other places."

"What's really an outrage is that for years Caltrans has been pushing these oversized truck access projects in Richardson Grove and on Highways 197 and 199 and calling them safety projects,"  Kennedy continued. "It turns out these projects are not actually targeting the dangerous parts of our highways. Anyway, Caltrans has given themselves exemptions from their own safety design standards to build these projects which will bring in more big, dangerous trucks. How can you call that safety? We challenge Caltrans to cancel Richardson Grove, cancel 199, and put the money toward real safety projects."

http://lostcoastoutpost.com/2015/nov/6/environmental-group-questions-caltrans-commitment/ - analysis

QuoteA McKinleyville-based environmental group comprised of longtime foes of the Richardson Grove Improvement Project is accusing the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) of pushing questionable highway expansion projects at the expense of more worthy public safety projects.

The Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities (CRTP) issued its own report today, saying that it analyzed data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatal Accident Reporting System and concluded that the state agency is ignoring the most dangerous stretches of road in the local district, choosing instead to finance road-widening projects to accommodate "more big, dangerous trucks."

In response, Caltrans insisted that safety is always the agency's No. 1 priority, and it questioned the methodology of the group's study. The improvement projects in question, the agency said, are designed not just to improve safety but also to accommodate industry-standard trucks, and given the nature of funding sources, comparing safety to logistics is a "very simple matter of comparing apples to oranges."

In a phone conversation this afternoon, CRTP spokesperson Barbara Kennedy said her group is an outgrowth, of sorts, of people in Humboldt and Del Norte counties who have long been opposed to both the Richardson Grove project and a similar widening project on State Route 199 through the Smith River canyon.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Milliontown on November 22, 2015, 10:10:36 PM
Caltrans did a feasibility study back in 200 or so for a bypass of the CA park lands.  Essentially it was completely infeasible, with huge cost and enormous amounts of excess soil to dispose of.  I believe this project came about a few years later after surveys indicated it was possible to do slight realignments to lift the STAA restrictions.  For a while, they were operating under the assumption there was no possible way to use the existing alignment.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: Milliontown on November 22, 2015, 10:10:36 PM
Caltrans did a feasibility study back in 200 or so for a bypass of the CA park lands.  Essentially it was completely infeasible, with huge cost and enormous amounts of excess soil to dispose of.  I believe this project came about a few years later after surveys indicated it was possible to do slight realignments to lift the STAA restrictions.  For a while, they were operating under the assumption there was no possible way to use the existing alignment.

Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".  Maybe then if these folks would actually get out in the real world like I do, they might realize roads from the Roaring Twenties are not what we need in the 21st century.

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on November 23, 2015, 04:53:56 PM
Of course, a lot of the opposition to those projects think 18-wheelers and large RVs shouldn't be taking 101 through California's north coast.  Very few places that wild are left, and they want to keep them that way.

And some of the opposition thinks it's silly to do the proposed small realignment through Richardson Grove because it will still be an unsafe road for 18 wheelers, and what 101 really needs is a reroute outside of the park.

The opposition has a good point, though, you can't claim it's all about safety and then ignore the accident statistics.  If it's really about 18-wheeler access, CalTrans should say so, and if that's not a good enough argument for the project, maybe it shouldn't go through?

I'm also surprised Weott has a particularly high accident rate.  I drive though there every year or two and I'm not seeing anything remarkably unsafe about it.  It's just a 4-lane road, divided by a line and not by a barrier.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 07:34:27 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 23, 2015, 04:53:56 PM
Of course, a lot of the opposition to those projects think 18-wheelers and large RVs shouldn't be taking 101 through California's north coast.  Very few places that wild are left, and they want to keep them that way.

And some of the opposition thinks it's silly to do the proposed small realignment through Richardson Grove because it will still be an unsafe road for 18 wheelers, and what 101 really needs is a reroute outside of the park.

The opposition has a good point, though, you can't claim it's all about safety and then ignore the accident statistics.  If it's really about 18-wheeler access, CalTrans should say so, and if that's not a good enough argument for the project, maybe it shouldn't go through?

I'm also surprised Weott has a particularly high accident rate.  I drive though there every year or two and I'm not seeing anything remarkably unsafe about it.  It's just a 4-lane road, divided by a line and not by a barrier.


Sorry to say we count on tourists and trucks out here.  Teleporters and have not been invented yet...LOL!  Thus the need for good roads.

Caltrans can say all sorts of silly things and drag their feet when it is time to deal with a project so I won't be defending those bureaucrats.  No sirree!

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on November 24, 2015, 11:50:11 AM
It's not CalTrans.  If it was up to CalTrans, 101 would have been interstate grade 50 years ago.

You only see 18-wheelers vs. teleporters, really?  There are smaller trucks, there are tourists who come by car or small RV.  Yes, goods cost more because they're transferred to smaller trucks for delivery to the north coast... but that same limited access keeps the land prices down and keeps the area rural.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on November 24, 2015, 12:25:32 PM
We who live here are not particularly interested in being turned into a park for the metro areas to visit.  My father used to talk about that in the Sixties.  It looks like the same mindset is at work today.  Sorry kkt, you will not get many of us here on the coast to agree with that outcome but you can write off ever coming here once the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits.  It will be decades before the coastal region from Ft. Bragg to the southern third of British Columbia recovers and is once again fully open, populated and has the services required that we currently enjoy today.

That'll guarantee we'll be a park...LOL!

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on November 24, 2015, 12:34:19 PM
I'm sure there are quite a few people there who would like freeway access... but there are also a lot of people there who want to keep it a quiet, rural area, and see lack of a freeway as the best way to accomplish that.  It's not the metro areas filing law suits scaling back and delaying the projects, it's people who live there.

Not sure what the Cascadia Subduction Zone has to do with anything.  Nothing CalTrans might do would prevent the earthquake, or even survive landslides and a tsunami.  Hope FEMA can land supplies by boat at the ports or beaches or helicopter them in, and get good at putting up temporary bridges afterward.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on November 24, 2015, 07:12:16 PM
Let me connect the dots for you kkt.

1-Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits

2-Everything is destroyed along the coast.

3-Survivors are evacuated.

4-Between the government unable to handle damage in the trillions of dollars and there being a lack of corporate and private funds to build enough infrastructure to sustain any sort of industrial, agricultural or fishing endeavors, the coast remains deserted.

5-Add in 10 years of aftershocks which prevent building of new bridges. 

6-The end result is that you Big City people get your wish of having the coast turned into a giant park but with no highways or railways, you will have no way to visit.

If you were truly educated in emergency response to the coming quake and the lay of the land here, you would know the ports will be rendered useless, the beaches will be filled with debris and finding flat ground for helicopters will be problematical.  Given that bridge lengths can go half a mile to a mile-plus, there is no temporary bridge option. 

Most opposition to development here comes from well funded enviro groups.  There is some local opposition mixed with local support but neither side is full of $$$ to drag the projects into courts for years and years like the Sierra Club and others of their ilk.

Rick

Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on November 25, 2015, 11:46:12 AM
All those things are equally likely whether or not 101 is made a 4-lane, grade separated highway.  In fact, the grade separations would make clearing the road after a large quake even more of a problem.  In addition to clearing landslides and collapsed bridges, every couple of miles there would be the remains of a reinforced concrete overpass to be cleared away.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: andy3175 on June 28, 2017, 01:07:07 AM
http://www.krcrtv.com/north-coast-news/epic-files-lawsuit-against-caltrans-road-adjustment-1/565499928

QuoteEPIC files lawsuit against CalTrans road adjustment
June 27, 2017

An ongoing legal battle between the California Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Information Center has delayed adjustments to the stretch of Highway 101 that goes through Richardson Grove State Park. The most recent lawsuit was filed in the Humboldt County Superior Court on June 23. CalTrans representative Eli Rohl said that the discussion has been an ongoing issue for nearly a decade.

"Back in 2007 we proposed a project that would allow industry standard trucks to pass through Richardson Grove," Rohl said. "We've got some curves where STAA length trucks can't properly make the turns on the highway."

STAA trucks are slightly longer than standard semi-trucks, making it difficult for them to drive on winding roads, according to Rohl.

"We can see there is some off-tracking due to the geometry of the roadway, which off-tracking is a fancy way of saying some part of the truck at one point or another crosses into oncoming traffic."

Rohl said the legal battle has cost CalTrans $30 million for what was supposed to be a $3 million project. But for EPIC program manager Tom Wheeler, the fight is worth it to prevent harm to the trees that line the road through Richardson Grove. 

"We have so few of these forests left, these ancient Redwood forests, and they are incredibly precious," Wheeler said. "They have been standing for over a thousand years and to harm them, to pave them is an affront to deeply held values."

CalTrans said the agency has spent time and money conducting environmental impact studies to combat EPIC's lawsuit. Then in 2012, they said an appellate court told them the studies they had already conducted were not sufficient.

"Basically what the appellate court said was we can't support your finding of no significant impact without further environmental studies, and so we went back and did another three years of environmental studies," Wheeler said.

Rohl said that adjusting the road will be economically beneficial to the businesses in Humboldt because shipping would be more convenient. Wheeler combated this saying that Highway 5 is the optimal route for shipping, and that the benefits do not compare to the risks that construction poses to old growth redwood trees.

However, Rohl said that the project will only remove non-old growth trees and will impact the land as minimally as possible.

"We never had the intention to remove old growth redwood trees," Rohl said

Despite conservation efforts from CalTrans, EPIC still sees the project as a threat to the trees.

"The project will result in harm to ancient redwood trees and that fact is indisputable," Wheeler said. "The degree to which this harm occurs is perhaps up in the air."
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: roadfro on June 30, 2017, 03:26:40 PM
Mod Note: Removed several posts containing unnecessary/off-topic banter. –Roadfro
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
You're an idiot...LOL!
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: english si on June 30, 2017, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.
That seems to have been the tactic of some city councils over here in the 1960s - have a plan to demolish three-quarters of the city to build some urban freeways, and they might just let you get away with merely demolishing some of the city for better roads (and bare in mind that a lot of this was in the rebuild-the-cities post-blitz period, when there were areas of shoddy housing that were to be redeveloped as well as the literal bombsites).
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on June 30, 2017, 06:09:51 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick

All right, I'll try again.

Richardson Grove is a park.  Its mission is preservation and recreation.

Preservation.  There are very few stands of never-logged forest at river level.  Losing that forest takes centuries to recover.  It's wrong to lose any of it.

Recreation.  The campground at Richardson Grove is across the highway from the river's beach.  People are going back and forth between the river and the campground all day long.  The danger and noise are significant problems already, and a better road for trucks would make them worse. 

101 through Richardson Grove was barely acceptable back in the 1930s when all trucks were about the size of delivery trucks today.  Truck drivers do not always respect slow speed limits or pedestrian right of way.

The highway has been whittling away at the trees, a little wider every decade or two to accommodate ever-growing trucks.  That needs to stop.  Just because some standards committee that never even heard of the north coast invents a standard for longer trucks that's appropriate for interstates, does not mean they must be adopted for every highway everywhere.

Industry and logging on the north coast does need a better highway.  The way to accomplish that is bypassing the park.  The road through Richardson Grove should be only for people going TO Richardson Grove.

The north coast is a geographically isolated region, a long drive at best, and fairly regularly cut off from the obvious routes in or out for days or weeks at a time.  A better highway won't change that, so you connectedness is what you value, consider relocating.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on June 30, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2017, 06:09:51 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick

All right, I'll try again.

Richardson Grove is a park.  Its mission is preservation and recreation.

Preservation.  There are very few stands of never-logged forest at river level.  Losing that forest takes centuries to recover.  It's wrong to lose any of it.

Recreation.  The campground at Richardson Grove is across the highway from the river's beach.  People are going back and forth between the river and the campground all day long.  The danger and noise are significant problems already, and a better road for trucks would make them worse. 

101 through Richardson Grove was barely acceptable back in the 1930s when all trucks were about the size of delivery trucks today.  Truck drivers do not always respect slow speed limits or pedestrian right of way.

The highway has been whittling away at the trees, a little wider every decade or two to accommodate ever-growing trucks.  That needs to stop.  Just because some standards committee that never even heard of the north coast invents a standard for longer trucks that's appropriate for interstates, does not mean they must be adopted for every highway everywhere.

Industry and logging on the north coast does need a better highway.  The way to accomplish that is bypassing the park.  The road through Richardson Grove should be only for people going TO Richardson Grove.

The north coast is a geographically isolated region, a long drive at best, and fairly regularly cut off from the obvious routes in or out for days or weeks at a time.  A better highway won't change that, so you connectedness is what you value, consider relocating.


The amount of trees impacted is minimal, very minimal.  Up here in Oregon we had a similar narrow area to deal with that was curvy.  This was the Humbug Mountain State Park section of US 101.  Despite the lack of any real right of way, ODOT did come up with a plan than enabled trucks and giant RV's (some with "toy" trailers so they're as long as an 18-wheeler) to traverse the section in greater safety.  It appears to me the Caltrans plan will cause no more disruption to the natural setting than what happened here.

Caltrans did have plans for bypasses and tunnels but the expense was quite high, so the current proposal was created. 

When you make mountains out of tiny molehills, you discredit your cause but that does seem typical for the enviros.  As for relocating, uh-uh.  There's nothing that a better road can't solve and the problems are very solvable.  It just takes the will to do so.

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on June 30, 2017, 09:38:52 PM
Quote from: NE2 on June 30, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 28, 2017, 10:55:58 AM
Try to do things right with minimal impact and still get sued by the enviros.  Next time plan on leveling all the redwoods and putting in an 8-lane freeway, then maybe these organizations will be happy when a reasonable plan like the one being proposed, is put into place.

Rick
You're an idiot...LOL!

You're rattled as always...LOL!  MAGA!

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: compdude787 on July 01, 2017, 12:25:14 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on June 30, 2017, 09:38:16 PM
The amount of trees impacted is minimal, very minimal.

Yeah, and the article even said that Caltrans is NOT planning to remove any old-growth trees. Thus, this environmental group is clearly raising a stink over nothing. If they were trying to remove old-growth trees, then I can understand the environmentalists screaming bloody murder, but if they're not cutting down old-growth trees, well then boohoo, cry me a river. Big flippin' deal.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Looks like roadfro has more "cleaning up" to do...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

This reminds me of Caltrans' issues with CA-17 between Scotts Valley and Los Gatos.  I believe Caltrans had visions of upgrading the 4-lane expressway into a 4-lane freeway to improve safety on more than one occasion but cost and the desire of the city of Santa Cruz to remain "separated" from the S.F. Bay Area killed the upgrade efforts.


Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Looks like roadfro has more "cleaning up" to do...  :rolleyes:

Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
Nothing infeasible about the freeway proposal from back then at all.  If it was truly infeasible then how the heck did we ever build the Panama Canal over a century ago?  It was a lack of political will, not a lack of engineering knowhow which has left 101 with gaps of obsolete 2-lane. 

This reminds me of Caltrans' issues with CA-17 between Scotts Valley and Los Gatos.  I believe Caltrans had visions of upgrading the 4-lane expressway into a 4-lane freeway to improve safety on more than one occasion but cost and the desire of the city of Santa Cruz to remain "separated" from the S.F. Bay Area killed the upgrade efforts.


Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: citrus on July 01, 2017, 04:55:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick

If the route is really just SF to Grants Pass, going over to I-5 is 2 hours shorter (and also 44 miles shorter, so even if 101 were built to the standards of I-5, it would still be longer).
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: citrus on July 01, 2017, 04:55:31 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 01, 2017, 01:10:55 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on November 23, 2015, 12:58:57 AM
I always said stick the governor and the politicians behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass in order to understand the concept of "white knuckling".

Ummm... what's so "white knuckling" about driving a big rig or RV on I-80, I-505 and I-5 when driving from San Francisco to Grants Pass.  You might want to select a destination on the Oregon coast to make your point.

Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.  Join the locals, turistas and truckers as they slog their way through narrow crooked two lane sections and see how white your knuckles get, especially if you are driving a Big Ass RV that would do Paul Bunyan justice!

Rick

If the route is really just SF to Grants Pass, going over to I-5 is 2 hours shorter (and also 44 miles shorter, so even if 101 were built to the standards of I-5, it would still be longer).

Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.  Trucks have to deliver and move goods along this routing.  Hope you get the point.

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: myosh_tino on July 02, 2017, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.

Nah, I'm good.  If I need to get to Grants Pass, I'll stick to the freeways (80, 505 and 5).  It'll get me there faster and I won't use as much gas.  :)


Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.

But that's not what you said.  You said to tell them to get "behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass."  To me, that implies the starting point is San Francisco and the destination is Grants Pass, in which I correctly pointed out the preferred route is 80 -> 505 -> 5 which is far from a white-knuckle drive (unless you start during the evening commute in which case that's more of a "hair-pulling" drive).

Now, if you had made the starting point Crescent City and the destination is San Francisco *or* Grants Pass, then I guess I can see your point as you'd have to traverse the 2-lane sections of 101 and/or 199.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: sparker on July 02, 2017, 03:02:28 AM
Plain & simple: Richardson Grove -- and the 2-lane segment north of Leggett -- have needed a bypass for decades.  Both road proponents and the environmentalists have valid points -- and both point to the existing alignments as non-expandable for reasons cited by both factions.  The issue is and always will be money; freeways (even the single-carriageway-with-double/double-yellow-lines type typifying US 101 in the region) in this terrain are exceptionally costly; the 1973-era hillside alignment southeast of Leggett was and is the most expensive Caltrans project (adjusted for inflation) in Mendocino County to date.  And CA 299 via Redding is no picnic for commercial vehicles; the entire Northwest Coast is negatively affected by the functional lack of efficient access to and from the south.  Nevertheless, the assemblers of the successive Caltrans STIPs only see the area as (a) in decline due to the rollback of the logging industry or (b) simply a recreational destination.  Since they saw fit to deploy almost 50 miles of freeway north of there through the redwoods in the '60's, it's clear that a similar solution to the present situation from Leggett to Benbow was in the works at some previous point, but was likely sidetracked by both the Gianturco retrenchment of the late '70's as well as the increasing militancy of parties opposed to enhancing road access to outlying areas in general.  In short, no one's proposed spending the level of money required for such an undertaking -- or to stir up the proverbial "hornet's nest" of presumed opposition.  It's clear something could be done; the Redwood National Park inland bypass from Orick to Klamath was completed, leaving the old-growth trees alone aside the old US 101 alignment; while the quarters are admittedly a bit closer in the area under discussion here, it shouldn't be an impossible task -- just difficult.  Unfortunately, even "difficult" is problematic in today's Caltrans lexicon; avoidance of even the hint of controversy seems to be the order of the day. 

Randolph Collier is probably turning over in his grave given what it takes to get a project off the ground today!!!
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on July 02, 2017, 11:14:22 AM
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2017, 01:17:50 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 12:27:51 PM
Myosh, look at a map.  US 101 from SF to Crescent City.  Go 3 miles north of Crescent City to catch US 199 to Grants Pass.  Apparently you have no acquaintance with our lay of the land so I invite you to make the drive to know For Reeelz what is going on up here.

Nah, I'm good.  If I need to get to Grants Pass, I'll stick to the freeways (80, 505 and 5).  It'll get me there faster and I won't use as much gas.  :)


Quote from: nexus73 on July 01, 2017, 07:00:30 PM
Length of route is immaterial.  The tourists are out to see the coast, not I-5.  The locals live on 101 and have to transit in between GP and SF to varying distances.

But that's not what you said.  You said to tell them to get "behind the wheel of those big RV's and 18-wheelers with a start in San Francisco and tell them to drive to Grants Pass."  To me, that implies the starting point is San Francisco and the destination is Grants Pass, in which I correctly pointed out the preferred route is 80 -> 505 -> 5 which is far from a white-knuckle drive (unless you start during the evening commute in which case that's more of a "hair-pulling" drive).

Now, if you had made the starting point Crescent City and the destination is San Francisco *or* Grants Pass, then I guess I can see your point as you'd have to traverse the 2-lane sections of 101 and/or 199.

Okay, I guess you do not know about the "Redwood Highway", as the route between SF and GP is called.  Since Richardson Grove was the topic of discussion, I figured you were able to surmise what the deal was. 

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 01:41:11 AM
Update: http://www.redwoodtimes.com/article/NK/20180312/NEWS/180319996

Caltrans' revised Richardson Grove project under review by local judge
By Will Houston, whouston@times-standard.com, @Will_S_Houston on Twitter
Posted: 03/12/18, 8:40 PM PDT

QuoteCaltrans argued before a Humboldt County Superior Court judge on Tuesday that its revised widening project plans for U.S. Highway 101 through Richardson Grove State Park comply with a 2014 court order to address environmental impact concerns. Environmental groups argued that the environmental review is "inadequate"  and that the changes to the project require a more in-depth environmental review.  ...

Attorneys for Caltrans and environmental organizations made their case before a Humboldt County judge and a packed courtroom on Tuesday as to whether Caltrans has an adequate environmental review for its controversial U.S. Highway 101 widening project through Richardson Grove State Park.

Superior Court Judge Kelly Neel said she will take the matter under submission and said that she would likely not have a decision by the end of the month.

Caltrans' 1.1-mile highway widening project through the old-growth redwood park began in 2007, but has been repeatedly challenged in state and federal courts by environmental groups like the Arcata-based Environmental Protection Information Center and local residents Bess Bair, Trisha Lee Lotus, Jeffrey Hedin and David Spreen.

Caltrans is seeking to expand the highway to allow industry standard-sized trucks to be able to pass through, but challengers claim the project does not address potential impacts to redwood trees and their root systems.

Caltrans has repeatedly found in its environmental reviews that the project would have no significant environmental impacts under both the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

A state appellate court panel found in 2014 that Caltrans did not provide information on the impacts to old-growth redwoods and how they planned to reduce those effects. Caltrans was then ordered by the Humboldt County Superior Court to revise its state environmental document.

Caltrans released an addendum to its state environmental review in May 2017, including a revised project plan that would reduce the number of trees that would be removed – no old-growth redwoods would be removed – reduce the amount of pavement that would be added, and reduce the amount of material that will be moved and used as fill.

Like its previous environmental reviews, the agency found its revised project would not have a significant environmental impact.

On Tuesday, Caltrans deputy attorney Stacy Lau argued the changes made to the project have fulfilled the court's demands. ...

The Environmental Protection Information Center's attorney Sharon Duggan argued Tuesday the Caltrans environmental review was deemed "inadequate"  by the court. Duggan said that the only way you can create an addendum to the environmental review as Caltrans did is if they had a valid environmental review.

"It's our position that Caltrans needed to revise the [environmental impact report] and go through the appropriate process to reflect how things have changed,"  Duggan said.

Lau characterized the project changes as being "minor modifications"  and that the agency was never required by the court to recirculate the environmental review.

"Because the impacts would be less than they were in the previous project,"  Lau said.

Caltrans' revised project plans were challenged again in June 2017 as part of a separate lawsuit by the Environmental Protection Information Center, the Center for Biological Diversity, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, Friends of Del Norte and the four previously mentioned county residents. The litigation calls on the court to order Caltrans to cease project operations until it complies with state laws, to cover attorneys' fees and the lawsuit's cost and provide any other relief the court deems proper.

Caltrans' challenge to these claims is set to be heard by Neel on March 28.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: nexus73 on March 17, 2018, 10:45:33 AM
"The litigation calls on the court to order Caltrans to cease project operations until it complies with state laws, to cover attorneys' fees and the lawsuit's cost and provide any other relief the court deems proper."

Now to see if the state will in return then try to break the bank of these activists by demanding repayment of the taxpayer dollars spent on defending the project if Caltrans prevails.

Rick
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Max Rockatansky on December 27, 2020, 11:03:21 PM
Given that there has been a recent U.S. Appellate Court Ruling this month on the potential widening of US Route 101 in Richardson Grove State Park the topic seemed topical for highway blog.  The subject of US 101 in Richardson Grove State Park is a controversial topic between allowing STAA truck freight to reach Humboldt County and environmental protection of Coastal Redwoods lining the highway.  Notably US 101 through Richardson Grove appears to have once been planned to be recycled into a Avenue-of-the-Giants-like segment of CA 271 via a long cancelled bypass.  Whatever your feelings are regarding US 101 in Richardson Grove the segment of highway certainly is a scenic dip into a Coastal Redwood Grove. 

https://www.gribblenation.org/2020/12/us-route-101-through-richardson-grove.html
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on December 28, 2020, 01:38:22 AM
Nice photoessay :)
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 10:23:38 AM
So is this just widening the section of 101, or will it be upgraded to freeway standards? Also, could they build a wildlife crossing to prevent fracturing of the ecosystem (and prevent animal collisions)?
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2021, 10:29:54 AM
At present moment all that is being sought is expanding the current roadway to allow STAA trucks through.  If I recall correctly this would impact I believe three dozen younger growth Redwoods.  I need to update the above blog with a drawing from 2002 (which was sent to me on a Facebook page) which previously explored three bypass concepts.  I've been unsuccessful in finding the original bypass concept thus far.  Unfortunately it came after 1967 when the CHPWs ended and Division of Highways information became scarce approaching the birth of Caltrans.  Most expressway development on US 101 was heavily prioritized to the north due to the 1964 Christmas Floods.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on January 01, 2021, 11:47:43 AM
Caltrans likes to express the widening in terms of three dozen or however many it is younger redwoods.  However, removing redwoods along the edges of the road also allows light shafts to penetrate down to the understory making it warmer in the summer and hurting understory plants and birds that need filtered light.  The larger trucks will be noisier and impact the peace of the park both for wild creatures and for visitors.  A wider, straighter road invites higher speeds even if the posted speed limit remains the same.

The widening of the road is not just a one-time event.  Every 30-40 years the trucking industry is successful in creating a larger class of trucks that need wider, straighter roads to hold them, and old roads just have to be widened.  Today they're just asking for a little straighter, but this will not be the end of it for long before they want a 4-lane expressway.  Let that expressway happen outside the park.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:06:15 PM
Why can't truckers just take I-5?
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2021, 12:12:16 PM
From I-5 taking CA 299 west from Redding to Humboldt is the most practical route and it doesn't permit STAA trucks either.  From there to you have an assortment of twist filled routes like; CA 96, US 199, and CA 36 which aren't happening for trucks with serious length.  In the case of US 199 there is a second obstacle from getting to Humboldt County via the Last Chance Grade south Crescent City on US 101. 
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: cahwyguy on January 01, 2021, 12:15:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:06:15 PM
Why can't truckers just take I-5?

There are likely multiple reasons, ranging from that's not where they are going, that's not where the loads are, differences in the weather (there are less snow closures near the coast), and much more. Often, asking the "Why don't they..." question is pointless. They do what they do for reasons we don't know, and more importantly, can't control.

Daniel
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on January 01, 2021, 12:23:05 PM
Anyone know if upgrading 299 to allow STAA trucks has been studied?

There can indeed be less snow closer to the coast, however flooding and landslides happen pretty regularly.

Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2021, 12:27:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2021, 12:23:05 PM
Anyone know if upgrading 299 to allow STAA trucks has been studied?

There can indeed be less snow closer to the coast, however flooding and landslides happen pretty regularly.

Off the top of my head I believe so but I would need to research more.  Notably though, at least as of late the Trinity River on 299 between 3 and 96 has had a lot of issues.  I believe that there was a prolonged slide closure this year that was pushing traffic onto 96 via the Klamath River. 
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Max Rockatansky on January 01, 2021, 12:50:46 PM
I would say that is highly unlikely given the environmental resistance in areas that aren't up to expressway standards.  The amount of push back from Richardson Grove alone is pretty damning on two fronts; one there is fierce resistance to expanding the current highway and secondly Caltrans doesn't seem to be too keen on building an expensive bypass.  Don't forget even the bypass route would meet environmental challenges and that isn't even getting into the cost of building a new crossing on higher terrain east of the South Fork Eel River.

I can't foresee very much happening with the Last Chance Grade aside from mitigation and minor and improvement.  The terrain at the Last Chance Grade is a monster (Big Sur like if I was to draw a comparison) and isn't something that would easily permit construction of a four lane highway.  On the whole though, I would say that US 101 for the most part in Humboldt County is far better than it probably needs to be.  The expressway and freeway grades are nowhere near as prone to being wiped out by floods compared to what was in place prior.  Even the surface alignment of US 101 in Eureka isn't "too bad" even in the localized rush hour, the one-way split definitely helps ease traffic.  CA 255 gets a fair amount of localized run off traffic to really mitigate much of a need to build a full bypass of Eureka. 

Regarding Mendocino County south towards Marin County I could conceivably see those expressway gaps closed one day given there is less environmental concern and a increasingly larger local populace.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on January 01, 2021, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 03:21:43 PM
Most of 101 in that span is already a 4 lane freeway. And once this 4 laning project is completed, it will be at least 4 lanes with only 2 at-grade intersections (that I've been able to find on google maps) for a full 80 miles south of Eureka. They've also built a freeway bypass of Willits and are planning to build a new interchange north of Eureka and close the median there (https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2019/apr/18/caltrans-meeting-safety-corridor-project/). At that point, if they ever build that bypass of Eureka, you'd have a 4 lane road with just 2 at-grade intersections for 110 miles.

Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2021, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.
Am I having a stroke right now or simply missed your sarcasm? You say it's inevitable but then immediately state it is unlikely?

As an aside, I do wonder the likelihood of the general public in cities every changing their minds about building urban freeways again be in the form of tunnels or elevated. I suspect that could happen in the coming decades. Ripping through cities at grade seems like it will never happen again apart from maybe low density suburbs or poor smaller towns.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: kkt on January 01, 2021, 05:08:19 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 04:14:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2021, 02:56:49 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

Not only is it not inevitable, but it's highly unlikely.  Even the new, high standard 4-lane expressway sections often have shorter exit and entrance ramps than freeway standards would allow, and have grade crossings once in a while.  You'd have to have a massive public change of mind about the value of freeways as well as a massive pile of money from somewhere.
Am I having a stroke right now or simply missed your sarcasm? You say it's inevitable but then immediately state it is unlikely?

Read again.  I typed "Not only is it not inevitable but it's highly unlikely."

Sorry multiple negatives are confusing.  I should have just said it's impossible for the forseeable future.  Right now both public attitude and lack of money are against it, and I don't see either of those changing.

Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 03:21:43 PM
Most of 101 in that span is already a 4 lane freeway. And once this 4 laning project is completed, it will be at least 4 lanes with only 2 at-grade intersections (that I've been able to find on google maps) for a full 80 miles south of Eureka. They've also built a freeway bypass of Willits and are planning to build a new interchange north of Eureka and close the median there (https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2019/apr/18/caltrans-meeting-safety-corridor-project/). At that point, if they ever build that bypass of Eureka, you'd have a 4 lane road with just 2 at-grade intersections for 110 miles.

No, a freeway means free of grade crossings and entrance and exit ramps making high speeds possible.  Where there's four lanes it's mostly expressway, with grade crossings and very short entrance and exit ramps.

Expect that bypass of Eureka about half past never.  No right of way for it was preserved, so it would require massive property acquisition.  No money, no public support, not gonna happen.


Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 01, 2021, 05:39:39 PM
Ah my apologies I see it now.
Title: Re: US 101 Richardson Grove Realignment
Post by: sparker on January 01, 2021, 05:52:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 01, 2021, 12:29:44 PM
It's looking pretty inevitable that 101 will become a freeway from Patrick's Point to the Golden Gate Bridge.

I don't think that a full freeway will be constructed along US 101 -- but eventually the 2-lane sections will be bypassed by expressways or freeways, again along the order of that section of US 101 through the Redwood State Parks (where CA 254 occupies the original alignment).  But, facility-wise, it'll look more like US 101 between Santa Barbara and Gilroy -- mixed expressway and freeway sections.  Without the spectre of impeding Interstate status, Caltrans has little or no need to expand the current expressway segments north of Willits into full freeways; the benefits of full grade separation just don't approach the cost of doing so. 

That being said, it's likely that in 30 years or so -- if the wine tourism industry can rebound from the fires of the last few years -- US 101 will be a freeway north as far as CA 20 (or north of Willits if they're real ambitious!), including a bypass of Hopland.  Separating through traffic from streetside tourists is always a good idea, and the counties will drive that point home to D1 and D4 -- especially if more large trucks start heading north on 101 toward the North Coast.  And eventually the Laytonville-Cummings segment will be brought out to 4 lanes by either a widened facility or twinning, which would bring the expanded segment north as far as Leggett.

Quote from: kkt on January 01, 2021, 11:47:43 AM
Caltrans likes to express the widening in terms of three dozen or however many it is younger redwoods.  However, removing redwoods along the edges of the road also allows light shafts to penetrate down to the understory making it warmer in the summer and hurting understory plants and birds that need filtered light.  The larger trucks will be noisier and impact the peace of the park both for wild creatures and for visitors.  A wider, straighter road invites higher speeds even if the posted speed limit remains the same.

This widening, basically a "band-aid" (albeit one that will cause more long-term damage in the process of [temporarily] solving a local economic issue) by D1 -- and one that, somewhat surprisingly, got full approval for its implementation, is manifestation of Caltrans' policy for this corridor of "kicking the can down the road" until push came to shove.  Funds should have been set aside for a bypass as soon as the freeways bracketed this section of road.  And those who opposed such a bypass should have realized that their position was incompatible with regional economic reality and worked to fashion the best bypass facility they could get without hunkering down on a "none shall pass" stance.  So the result of all this is potential environmental problems for the Grove itself.  A quasi-divided (like other sections of 101) snaking around upslope at 50 mph would have been vastly better than anything under current planning.  But Caltrans shied away from that discussion/fight and now has to bear the brunt of the results.