AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: LA Times - High Desert Highway  (Read 2565 times)

jpm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: San Diego
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:44 AM
LA Times - High Desert Highway
« on: February 11, 2018, 09:04:53 PM »

From the LA Times over the weekend comes an article about a proposed 63 mile high desert freeway extending from Palmdale to Victorville, north to and paralleling CA-138 / CA -18.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-high-desert-freeway-20180210-htmlstory.html

I'm surprised that it hasn't been discussed here yet - I was surprised to hear of the proposal.  If it ever came to fruition, it would relieve a lot off traffic off of CA-138.

Any comments?

--jpm
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1194
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:16 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2018, 01:40:51 AM »

I haven't heard of this specific highway proposal before, but I'm not surprised they're looking at developing it. This corridor has been mentioned in this forum before as a possible metro LA bypass for I-10 traffic headed to/from points in California farther North. I know it has come up in discussions about The CA-58 corridor between Barstow & Bakersfield (what really should be an extension of I-40).

A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.

That LA Times article characterizes freeways as being old fashioned and that interest is mainly in mass transit. We're always going to need roads. I think what's going on with this mass transit vs freeways thing is a contest over where public money is being spent. It's politics. They're still promoting the fantasy of getting everyone to move into dense inner city neighborhoods and just rely on mass transit. Not everyone wants to do that for their own specific reasons. And the issue of affordability cannot be stressed high enough. Housing costs and living costs in general have grown ridiculous inside of America's largest cities, including LA. Yet the "experts" are wondering why communities on the wrong side of the San Gabriel Mountains are growing so much. I think a lot of those experts are just out of touch.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 10:37:22 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4065
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 09:57:29 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2018, 10:14:29 AM »

Maybe this won't exactly solve the problems experienced in the northern suburbs, but it's a nice start. The sooner, the better, as they say, and hopefully this may eventually become part of a giant loop around L.A. and San Diego so that those not heading to those cities may take it to access I-15 and I-10 a lot quicker to get to Las Vegas and Phoenix, respectively.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Mark68

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 138
  • Location: Parker, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:57 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2018, 02:32:43 PM »

Isn't this just revisiting the old "Metropolitan Bypass" freeway that was proposed (and the I-5/CA 138 interchange was actually built for). Imagine if that had actually gotten built...

There certainly needs to be high-speed access between the two desert valleys (Antelope and Victor), not only to bypass the LA Basin, but because of the growth of the High Desert communities themselves.
Logged
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

jpm

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13
  • Location: San Diego
  • Last Login: Today at 05:52:44 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2018, 05:27:07 PM »

I can foresee this freeway putting even more stress on I-15 through Cajon Pass if this is going to be used as a bypass around the LA Basin.....unless there are (very) long term plans to connect the eastern part to I-10 by going around the back of Mt San Gregornio.  That would be high on the "impossible meter."

-jpm
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6470
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 04:05:42 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2018, 10:37:02 PM »

Why wouldn't a four-lane configuration on an expressway grade work from I-5 east to I-15 work with CA 138 and CA 18?  There are some segments near Victorville that probably ought to be controlled access but a full freeway wouldn't be really all that necessary in much of the jog west to I-5.  An expressway could be groomed not to have traffic lights much like CA 198 and US 101 south of San Francisco is.  Upgrades to a full freeway grade could be made as needed rather than all at once.  US 395 could a similar upgrade from I-15 north to CA 58...Kramer Junction bypass or not.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1194
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:16 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2018, 11:11:53 PM »

I think CA-138 should at least be a 4-lane expressway between I-5 and CA-14. They could build the thing Texas-style: 2 roadways separated by a large median big enough to hold a future freeway. Development is sparse along that corridor for now. It won't be long before increased development makes it difficult or impossible to upgrade.

It doesn't seem clear to me what the best alignment would be between Palmdale and Victorville. Upgrading parts of CA-138 and CA-18 seem very do-able in the undeveloped areas between the two cities. It's not going to be easy at all to lay down a new freeway over CA-18 inside Victorville and CA-138 within Palmdale. The longer it takes to acquire ROW the more difficult prospects for the highway will become.

Quote from: jpm
I can foresee this freeway putting even more stress on I-15 through Cajon Pass if this is going to be used as a bypass around the LA Basin.....unless there are (very) long term plans to connect the eastern part to I-10 by going around the back of Mt San Gregornio.  That would be high on the "impossible meter."

I think the thing to do is upgrade CA-247 to Joshua Tree (at least in 4-lane expressway format) and then CA-62 down to I-10. That would pull a lot of long distance bypass traffic on I-10 away from the I-15 option.

Another thing would be building at least some kind of road, even a 2-lane route between I-10 East of Desert Center and CA-62 to the Northwest. The route would skirt a couple solar power farms, Desert Center Airport and then connect to CA-62 about 30 miles East of Twentynine Palms. CA-62 makes a sharp bend around some mountains at that point. The valley is open and pretty flat between that point and I-10. Such a road would be a plus for road-based military traffic going between Twentynine Palms, MCAS Yuma and the Army's Yuma Proving Ground. This road would cut through the East side of Joshua Tree National Park. But it's not the focal area of that park land. 
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 03:30:04 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

MarkF

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 144
  • Location: Orange County, California
  • Last Login: Today at 02:27:06 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2018, 12:22:08 AM »

I seem to recall an seeing old Thomas Bros map (a long time ago) showing something similar as the Metropolitan Bypass.  I think they showed it as CA 48.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6470
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 04:05:42 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2018, 12:41:45 AM »

I seem to recall an seeing old Thomas Bros map (a long time ago) showing something similar as the Metropolitan Bypass.  I think they showed it as CA 48.

The 1990 state highway map shows a proposed 48 alignment taking over part of 138 east to US 395:

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~239483~5511824:State-Highway-Map,-1990-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:caltrans;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1&mi=1&trs=86

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3560
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:38 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2018, 05:42:56 PM »

This is the "E-220" proposal mentioned back in 2005 within the legislative description of High Priority Corridor #71, part of that year's SAFETEA-LU omnibus transportation act.  Generally talked about as a toll road, it is slated to terminate (W) at CA 14 north of downtown Palmdale (somewhere near the old "Skunk Works" aerospace plant) and extend east past Lake Los Angeles (more a desert retirement community than an actual lake!) and intersect US 395 in Adelanto.  East of there the concept is merged with a relocation of CA 18, which will generally follow Air Base Parkway (which itself slides between the former George AFB to the north and the prison grounds to the south), interchanging with I-15 about 2-3 miles north of the present east CA 18 (D Street) exit in Victorville.  From CA 14 to I-15 it is expected to be a full limited-access facility; but east of I-15 it is being planned as an expressway bypassing both Victorville and Apple Valley to the north, returning to the present CA 18 alignment east of Apple Valley.

Apparently the "E-220" designation indicates some sort of PPP arrangement (it certainly has nothing to do with a CA 220 designation, which exists some 350 miles northwest); it's probably just a "placeholder" number for the project, which may include some rail format (the west end just happens to be where the California HSR alignment is located; whether any rail along the corridor follows that format or a more conventional sort has yet TBD).  The east end is near the major BNSF/UP Cajon Pass rail line -- but the area at either end of the corridor, while consistently growing, may not yet be able to support commute rail.  My guess is that the corridor will be built as a limited-access tollway with enough space in the median to place a future rail line.  What it will be actually designated is, at the moment, anyone's guess. 

From the original Metropolitan Bypass concept dating from the late '50's, this area has seen proposal after proposal for access and connectivity; we'll just have to see if this one actually plays out.
Logged

AsphaltPlanet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2218
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario
  • Last Login: Today at 02:11:08 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2018, 08:41:41 PM »

The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.

There isn't another reasonably approach to addressing transportation needs for that part of the county.  If the County was smart they would consider provisions for tolled express lanes along the corridor as a way to manage transportation demand in the long term.

It doesn't take too much googling to find how few passengers even fairly established LRT lines carry relative to the neighbouring highway network.  In an exurban area such as the high desert there isn't any realistic alternative to transport by auto.

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1262
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:51 AM
    • AARoads
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2018, 10:22:09 PM »

The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.

Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

emory

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 319
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 10:40:18 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2018, 10:25:52 PM »

The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.

Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?

The CA 210 freeway east of CA 57 would be the most recent freeway built in LA County.
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1262
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:51 AM
    • AARoads
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2018, 10:28:23 PM »

A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.

I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1262
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:57:51 AM
    • AARoads
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2018, 10:30:29 PM »

The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.

Is I-105 truly the last freeway built in LA County, or does that distinction go to the CA 30 now CA 210 freeway leading east toward San Bernardino County?

The CA 210 freeway east of CA 57 would be the most recent freeway built in LA County.

That's what I have thought. I based on my concern on the title of piece, which reads "L.A. County set to build its first new freeway in 25 years, despite many misgivings." It is also mentioned in the article:

Quote
The county’s first new freeway in a quarter-century is something of a throwback, as regional planners have shifted their focus in recent years toward mass transit and infill development to combat snarled traffic and housing shortages. Yet it serves as a reminder that even as Los Angeles moves to encourage more density in its urban neighborhoods, development continues to push into the scrublands on the county’s fringes.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Mark68

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 138
  • Location: Parker, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 02:19:57 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2018, 01:02:03 PM »

  From CA 14 to I-15 it is expected to be a full limited-access facility; but east of I-15 it is being planned as an expressway bypassing both Victorville and Apple Valley to the north, returning to the present CA 18 alignment east of Apple Valley.

I just passed thru the area on I-15 around Thanksgiving weekend. There are several new exits along I-15 in the Victor Valley, but I noticed one on the far north end labeled "Dale Evans Parkway", and that there was a lot of construction going on near the I-15 interchanges with D & E Streets. Maybe it has nothing to do with this particular freeway project (I suspect it just has to do with the steadily increasing population), but isn't this near where the east end of the proposed freeway is to be located?
Logged
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

bigdave

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 45
  • Location: Madison, AL
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 11:14:11 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #16 on: February 14, 2018, 01:20:43 PM »

The LA Times's perspective on the high desert freeway is disappointing.

True, but hardly unexpected from the LA Times which like most media in the Golden State hates cars and highways.  :popcorn:

The article does refer to this as the first new freeway in 25 years. Given that the 210 was a freeway extension and not an entirely new freeway, I would agree this is the first new freeway in 25 years. Except it will have been much more than 25 years before the first ground is moved, much less finished.

Logged

DTComposer

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 749
  • Location: San Jose
  • Last Login: Today at 02:50:59 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #17 on: February 14, 2018, 04:31:49 PM »

Surprising that this thread has been up three days and we haven't seen FritzOwl's "My plans make CA-138, CA-18 and CA-62 coast-to-coast Interstates and number them I-12, I-12.2 and I-12.4"  :)

Re: first new freeway in L.A. County: in addition to being an extension rather than a whole new route, the 210 extension also had only about 5 of its 26 miles in L.A. County, so I'm not surprised it doesn't really "count."

As far as the route itself: how much traffic is currently going between Lancaster/Palmdale and Hesperia/Victorville? It seems to me like those are mainly exurbs with people either working within each urban area, or commuting into L.A. and/or the Inland Empire, in which case this route doesn't really help anything.

"Twinning" the entirety of CA 138 as expressway (procuring the ROW for freeway upgrade should that ever be necessary (which I doubt)) between I-15 and CA-14, and between CA-14 and I-15 at Cajon, and CA-18 between Llano and Victorville would seem to me the easiest solution. There would need to be new alignment in Victorville and in Palmdale and perhaps a little bypass here and there, but a whole new alignment doesn't seem like the best use of the money vs. need.

As far as long-distance traffic - if the goal is to get from Palm Springs and points east to Bakersfield and points north, wouldn't a better plan be continuing to upgrade CA-58 and then looking at CA-247 and CA-62 from Barstow to I-10? OR, from Phoenix and beyond, just using proposed I-11 to I-40 to CA-58? If the Victor and Antelope Valleys continue to grow as they have been, then long-distance traffic is just going to get mired there, instead of in L.A. Maybe not quite as bad, but I can easily see both those areas topping a million people within 30 years, so it would still be messy.
Logged

myosh_tino

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2663
  • Silicon Valley Roadgeek

  • Age: 44
  • Location: Cupertino, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:54:40 PM
    • Silicon Valley Roads @ Markyville.com
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2018, 05:05:40 PM »

Surprising that this thread has been up three days and we haven't seen FritzOwl's "My plans make CA-138, CA-18 and CA-62 coast-to-coast Interstates and number them I-12, I-12.2 and I-12.4"  :)

FritzOwl knows better than the post that kind of stuff here.  He's actually pretty good about confining his posts to the Fictional board.
Logged
Quote from: golden eagle
If I owned a dam and decided to donate it to charity, would I be giving a dam? I'm sure that might be a first because no one really gives a dam.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3560
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:38 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2018, 06:37:46 PM »

A Palmdale to Victorville freeway would be a decent start. But really the freeway corridor ought to be longer. I think CA-138 from the I-5 interchange over to CA-14 North of Lancaster should be upgraded. There's already a freeway to freeway quality interchange at I-5. It quickly drops down to a 2-lane road at Quail Lake. I think there should be at least a 4-lane expressway route between Victorville and Joshua Tree & Twentynine Palms. CA-62 between I-10 and Morongo Valley & Yucca Valley may be worthy of upgrades.

I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.

This is probably the best of all ideas regarding a true bypass of L.A. Metro; the original concept strictly along CA 138 has been rendered moot by the outsized development of the San Bernardino area -- dragging "bypass" traffic into that mess would hardly be a worthwhile project.  And Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor.  To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other.  South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a lot of work!).  North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides.  However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan"). 

Unfortunately, anything east of Apple Valley isn't on any official radar screen at present;  San Bernardino County remains a bit of a "backwater" as far as funding goes.  If the "E-220" project didn't include L.A. County, the chances are it would remain a line on the map for good.  By itself, the 14-to-15 segment does two main things:  it connects the two developing areas in the High Desert, and provides a "shortcut" to the main Las Vegas route (as well as I-40 east of Barstow) that doesn't involve Inland Empire congestion; it's particularly useful to folks living in the western part of L.A. metro (at least that part west of I-405) as well as commercial transport originating or terminating in that area -- which enables a lot of vehicles to reach those outlying areas sooner -- but also has the potential to cause even more congestion on CA 14 from I-5 to Palmdale than its current troublesome levels.  In the short run, it may be simply trading the frying pan that is general congestion east of L.A. for the fire (CA 14 backups).  If the corridor is built as planned, we'll see in about 20 years just what transpires.     
Logged

Occidental Tourist

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 313
  • Last Login: May 03, 2018, 01:45:52 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2018, 03:25:13 AM »

I think the freeway corridor should originate at I-5/CA 138, extend east on CA 138 to CA-14, connect with the planned E-220 corridor between CA-14 and I-15 (maybe this will be CA-18?), and then extend east past Apple Valley to join with CA 247 at Lucerne Valley. The freeway (or maybe expressway, I just prefer separation of the two directions of traffic) travels toward Landers, then would drop south toward I-10 via CA-62. CA-62 could use more than just an expressway given the number of intersections along its route west and south of Yucca Valley. But that would create a clean bypass from I-5 to I-10 and also create a good east-west connector across the southern Mojave Desert that links the developing communities. I'm doubtful there can ever be an Interstate-standard freeway through Morongo Valley south of Yucca Valley, but at least this would promote a genuine bypass of the whole LA metro area as envisioned with the very old Metropolitan Bypass.

Ah, the northern leg of my I-9 concept, with the southern leg being the CA 86/111/7 corridor to the border at Mexicali.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3180
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 05:36:14 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2018, 05:55:50 AM »

True, but hardly unexpected from the LA Times which like most media in the Golden State hates cars and highways.  :popcorn:

The article does refer to this as the first new freeway in 25 years.
The latter thing is surprising given the former. It's a factoid (that we're having issues with) that infers that LA's freeway network has been neglected wrt development in the county. A factoid that undermines LA's (outdated) image as Freeway-city.
Logged

bigdave

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 45
  • Location: Madison, AL
  • Last Login: May 24, 2018, 11:14:11 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2018, 12:06:30 PM »

FritzOwl knows better than the post that kind of stuff here.  He's actually pretty good about confining his posts to the Fictional board.

Wow, I had no idea there is a Fictional board. Some of that stuff is great!  :clap:
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 1194
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 04:09:16 PM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2018, 02:27:19 PM »

Quote from: sparker
And Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor.  To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other.  South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a lot of work!).  North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides.  However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan").

CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.

It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.

Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.

These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3560
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 03:03:38 AM
Re: LA Times - High Desert Highway
« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2018, 03:27:18 PM »

Quote from: sparker
And Andy is quite correct about the issues between Yucca Valley and I-10 -- mainly the Morongo Canyon south of Morongo Valley, where 4 lanes of CA 62 occupy much of the canyon floor.  To get any high-capacity route through there, Interstate-grade or not, would likely require construction efforts similar to that on I-5 north of Castaic -- using the present alignment for one direction, and constructing a new-terrain set of lanes through the adjoining hills for the other.  South and north of that particular obstacle there's little in the way of physical obstacles; from the canyon's mouth to I-10 is an existing (and readily upgradeable) divided expressway (although the last time I was through there circa 2012 the pavement needed a lot of work!).  North of there any facility would require considerable property-taking through Morongo Valley and the west side of Yucca Valley; houses and ranches dot the valley floor and hillsides.  However, from there all the way "around the horn" following CA 247 and then CA 18 into Apple Valley is actually doable; SOP desert construction (although there are several normally dry waterways from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains that will require bridging -- this is flash-flood territory on an alluvial "fan").

CA-62 can be converted to a freeway from I-10 up through the mountain pass and up to the doorstep of the town of Morongo Valley. The road would need work in the mountain pass; it's already divided, but the shoulders appear inadequate in spots. It doesn't look like there are any driveways there.

It would take some creative ideas to get CA-62 converted into a freeway through the town of Morongo Valley. An elevated highway about 1 mile long over the current CA-62 four lane is do-able and wouldn't need to consume a bunch of property. But elevated highways face serious political headwinds. So that would force a new highway alignment.

Not many of the properties that dot the valley floor look valuable. It might not be all that difficult to acquire ROW. Bypassing Yucca Valley would be more tricky. There's too much development along CA-62 itself. At first glance a bypass around the north side of town would seen feasible. But there are some higher income homes and a golf course along that side.

These difficulties are one of the reasons I thought about an I-10 to CA-62 link starting near Desert Center. It would prevent Westbound I-10 traffic headed to Northern CA from having to back-track through Morongo Valley. It would be a more direct route to a larger LA High Desert Highway bypass.

Actually, if plans were to forego any part of the CA 62 alignment from I-10 to the Morongo/Yucca Valley separation (a shallow rise on EB 62), a facility from I-10 south of Desert Hot Springs through that "community" (the more of that particular desert blight that's taken by eminent domain the better, IMHO!) and over the mountains west of the Joshua Tree NP boundaries and alighting either west or east of Yucca Valley might be a possibility (albeit not cheap!).  While there's a few alignments through Morongo that, from my recollection on the ground there before 2012, could be utilized as a freeway routing (it's ranch country, with more outbuildings than residences), a new-terrain route to the east would likely involve less overall taking of improved property and, as Bobby mentions, would require considerably less backtracking than a CA 62-based alignment (also avoid that damn canyon!), making it more of a real metro bypass rather than something cobbled over a quasi-adequate corridor.  I'll have to do a GSV look at that area -- after I finish putting out some recently-developed fires at work!     
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.