🛣 Headlines About California Highways – February 2024

[cahwyguy]

It's a leap day, meaning it's the end of the month, meaning it is time for highway headlines. So here are your headlines.

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16744

As always: Read, set, discuss.

[Max Rockatansky]

Regarding 41, the detour posted doesn't make any sense.  The detour route if followed traffic way the hell west on 198 to I-5 near Harris Ranch.  Detouring down Avenal Cutoff Road and 269 only adds about 10 minutes to the regular alignment of 41.  I've asked Caltrans D6 a couple times on social media for an explanation for the posted detour but haven't gotten a response.

[Quillz]

I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.

[pderocco]

All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.

[pderocco]

I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.

Sanity would suggest that they should just cut a new road through a better-behaved part of the landscape, and return the existing alignment to nature. Old growth redwoods are worth preserving, but not every last one of them. If they had to cut down 0.1% of them to make room for a new highway, that would hardly be a crime against nature. Also, part of the reason for having a road through them is so that people can admire them. You can't do that from inside a tunnel.

[Quillz]

All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.

How am I being forced to drive an electric car, either now or some arbitrary point in the future?

[Quillz]

I'd be in favor of the tunnel under the redwoods. I've been stuck on that section before due to sudden rock slides. Seems "easier" than the other total rebuild option.

Sanity would suggest that they should just cut a new road through a better-behaved part of the landscape, and return the existing alignment to nature. Old growth redwoods are worth preserving, but not every last one of them. If they had to cut down 0.1% of them to make room for a new highway, that would hardly be a crime against nature. Also, part of the reason for having a road through them is so that people can admire them. You can't do that from inside a tunnel.

If this specific section in question is where I'm thinking, there are no redwoods in the immediate area. The major groves would be to the south (Prairie Creek) and to the northeast (Jed Smith). So while this area is scenic, it is mainly for offering some ocean views, as opposed to redwoods. Although the section I'm thinking of is about 10 miles south of Crescent City, this may not be the troublesome part (although it sure seems like it).

[pderocco]

All this analysis about how freeways shouldn't be widened because the extra traffic will produce more pollution seems utterly incompatible with the policy of forcing everyone to drive electric cars in the future. Since this seems to be motivated by an irrational animus toward personal transportation, more than concern for the climate, I wonder what argument they'll concoct against freeway widening when the vehicles are no longer polluting.

How am I being forced to drive an electric car, either now or some arbitrary point in the future?

By laws that forbid the selling of new non-electric cars after such-and-such a date, some single-digit number of years from now. Many climate-obsessed politicians, here in California, Washington, Europe, and throughout Western Civilization, are trying to impose these timetables. Some will succeed, although I think their eventual contact with technological and political reality will be their undoing. But part of my point is that the Venn diagram of the people opposed to widening freeways and people opposed to selling internal combustion vehicles have a large overlap, and it will be interesting to see how they try to resolve the contradiction.

[Quillz]

Well, I'll just buy my cars in Wyoming, which is doing the exact inverse.

There are numerous laws that are usually "x will happen by y," and indeed history has shown either the time table gets extended, or the laws are just heavily amended or not really enforced. In practice, both the California and Wyoming laws will probably have the same fates of being more political grandstanding than reality. But time will tell.

[SeriesE]

the streetblogs post against I-710 improvements is against the improvements for the sake of being against them.

Many interchanges listed for a rebuild are outdated cloverleaf interchanges that needs to be redesigned for safety reasons

[Quillz]

the streetblogs post against I-710 improvements is against the improvements for the sake of being against them.

Many interchanges listed for a rebuild are outdated cloverleaf interchanges that needs to be redesigned for safety reasons

My Facebook feed is nothing but contradictions. They complain about bike lanes and how people should just be driving instead. Then a day or two later, they'll complain how they are on their bike and almost got run over due to lack of bike lanes.

But of course, people on Facebook are all qualified engineers who understand the ins and outs of traffic flow and design.

[Max Rockatansky]

Well, I'll just buy my cars in Wyoming, which is doing the exact inverse.

There are numerous laws that are usually "x will happen by y," and indeed history has shown either the time table gets extended, or the laws are just heavily amended or not really enforced. In practice, both the California and Wyoming laws will probably have the same fates of being more political grandstanding than reality. But time will tell.

Thing is though, California has the EPA waiver and has taken measures in the past which have affected the automotive industry.  I still recall car commercials with the tagline "California emissions compliant" being a somewhat common thing when I was growing up in the 1980s.  I tend to view the PHEV mandate as something similar.  Granted I don't think the automotive market will be able to facilitate CARB's PHEV goals by 2035 and it will get delayed. 

[roadfro]

I still recall car commercials with the tagline "California emissions compliant" being a somewhat common thing when I was growing up in the 1980s.

For me growing up, cars featured on The Price Is Right in the 1980s and much of the 1990s were often touted as having "California Emission". Never knew what that was until much later in life.

[Plutonic Panda]

But its contentious approval by the California Transportation Commission last month exposed a deepening rift in the state between its climate goals and the list of freeway widening projects that some say are gliding through without scrutiny and threatening the health of the people who live near them

These people are stupid then because what freeway widening project has been passed without scrutiny? How many freeway expansions have been canceled? This is ridiculous. No they're not stupid they know exactly what they're doing they just don't want to see a single freeway improvement project so they're gaslighting.

[Plutonic Panda]

Oh and of course what would this thread be without a post from anti freeway rhetoric from streetsblogs' one and only Joe Linton:

But wait, there's some lipstick on this pig! In truth, it's not as bad as the mega-widening that Metro was hell-bent on a couple years ago, but there's still harmful freeway widening.

[Plutonic Panda]

At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.

Goddamn this shit gets old.

[Quillz]

Yeah, I agree it really sucks when different people have different opinions on matters. Only the opinions I like should be allowed.

[cahwyguy]

At the end of the day the state needs leaders who will forgo whatever "environmental" rules that cause every reporter on the issue and their dog to shit their panties about freeways being widened. It's nice to see updates on California roadways but why continue to post the sam goddamn fucking article 5 times, every month, that says the same shit? Freeway x is being widened and here's why it's bad for the environment and will undermine California's climate goals. Oh and the 1000000th iteration of wording the headline "induced demand!!!!!!" here and we shouldn't widen freeways because of it.

Goddamn this shit gets old.

Well, first, I filter out a lot of the slant (hopefully, about 99% of it) when it makes it into my pages. When you have your slant filter on, you know what you can ignore.

What were you saying again?

Seriously, we're going to be getting more articles like this because traditional freeway projects will be fewer. Look at the highway page updates I just posted. Read through the next iteration of the SHOPP. Very few true widening projects -- mostly rehabilitation and active transportation. That's what you see, so that's what the articles are ... whether you like it or not. I just report the articles that I see.

[Max Rockatansky]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

[Quillz]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.

Most of his rants seem to boil down to "I don't like these things, therefore they're bad."

I agree... I've said before that it's not some nefarious plot. Widening freeways endlessly doesn't magically solve traffic problems, it tends to increase traffic. There are decades of studies that come to this, it's not like some guy is just sitting around saying "freeways are bad, no more freeways." (Hey, didn't we just see people try this with the Marina Freeway, and it was quickly shot down?) Decisions are made based on studies, surveys, all sorts of factors. I see this oftentimes with bike lanes. People claim they never see any bikers, therefore they're bad. But are they sitting there 24/7, doing actual studies? Most people make these statements based on their own observations. But it's a big city with over ten million people. And people have different view points about what should or shouldn't be done.

And like it or not, climates are changing. We do need to respond to it. Does that mean every single person pushing a climate solution is doing it for the greater good? No, there are always grifters. But unlike some other states, at least California seems to recognize that climates are changing and that will impact things in the future, for better or for worse.

As always: why do the pro-freeway people matter more than the anti-freeway people? Or vice versa?

[Max Rockatansky]

There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area.  While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal." 

To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life.  Likewise it probably feels even more frustrating if the changes in transportation priorities tend to come off as forcing you to potentially change your mode of life.  How many people at the end of the day actually like change?...doesn't seem like many.

[Quillz]

There is something to be said though about how modern American life largely revolves around commuting from a suburban-like area.  While it would be "nice" to have options I tend see much of these older cities as too far gone to be really truly "multimodal."  To that extent I can see viewing stuff like prioritizing trying to make the infrastructure more diverse as potentially frustrating to someone who has used freeways for commuting purposes much of their life. 

I agree. I rely on the freeways. I would like them to be widened. But I recognize it's easier said than done, and it will very likely just encourage even more cars. But I also recognize my needs are no more or less important than anyone else's. Not everyone has access to a car, so I can get why mass transit improvements are necessary. Some people want bike lanes or sidewalks so they can move on bike or foot more safely. Do their needs not matter as much? That's the thing, everyone has their world view and recognizing that not everyone agrees with you can be hard. But it's just something we have to learn to do as a society.

Before I drove, I had to take the bus to school. I didn't like having to deal with a single bus line that only came every two hours. Since I've gotten my car, I've noticed many service improvements. Even if it's not something I personally use anymore, I can understand how beneficial that would be to some people. Not everything that is being done will personally impact me, but I understand why they happen. Earlier today, I was walking along a road that has no sidewalk, and only a tiny shoulder. My only alternative was a washed out, muddy trail. So I chose the road. I kept thinking how nice having either a bike lane or sidewalk would be here. It would have made things a lot safer for me. But no doubt some people will counter with "if you're going to widen, why not put another lane there?" And there's no right or wrong answer here.

[Max Rockatansky]

Me personally I couldn't fathom trying to make it (or function) long term as an adult in the United States without access to a car.  I'm skeptical given that newer American cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely aren't built to facilitate dense urban living.  Even the recently booming cities of the Central Valley like Fresno and Bakersfield are developing largely as car centric.

I don't know, sometimes going down visit family in Mexico is a refreshing eye opener.  The town my wife's family is from is 500 years old and was built with walking everywhere in mind.  That's an actual place where you can get by with using your feet a bike rather than a car.  Outside of a handful of super dense cities like NYC or SF we really don't have that state side. 

I mean hey, I'm a distance runner and going on long distance bike rides isn't super uncommon for me.  I just don't see how any of the current measures being taken would ever permit to commute to work via anything by car.  I would totally need to change what I do for work and get off the retirement trajectory I'm on.  That would never work for me, but perhaps someone far younger in their career life?

[Plutonic Panda]

Yeah, I agree it really sucks when different people have different opinions on matters. Only the opinions I like should be allowed.

Yeah totally let's just have the same opinion over and over like a broken record. Real productive.

[Plutonic Panda]

While the climate goals of the state and things like reducing VMT aren't my cup either I don't tend to see a point in angrily ranting about them.  I tend to prefer to take a logical understanding as to how things became how they are and how I can counter opine.  I tend to not offer opinions on GN and let the reader decide for themselves.

Then again, I chose to live here and I guess that I could in theory move again if I found the situation has become too disagreeable.  Nowhere is perfect and nor does it always remain the same.

So, what should we do? Happily agree with them?