🛣️ December 2018 Headlines/Articles about California Highways

[cahwyguy]

The end of the year. Also, the end of the month. That means it is time for another round of headlines. Yes, some of these articles are a little older. However, I just discovered them or a discussion this month led me to them, and I want to remember them for the next round of site updates (this is true of the articles at the end on the Yermo border crossing; an aaroads discussion yesterday got me searching for information on the move). Have a happy and safe new year.

Here's the link: https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=14922

As always, and for the last time in 2018 ... all together now ... ready, set, discuss.

[Plutonic Panda]

First article in and already depressing news.

This was my comment on the Facebook page link: Hopefully this project dies like the 710 tunnel. The tunnel needs to be built and thanks to a small group of selfish, self centered people, millions of people a year who would have used it will now clog your surface streets or continue to sit in traffic on other corridors.

Many other countries and cities are now seeing how great tunnels are. Unfortunately in this county, we just seem to post pretty renderings of new homes, bike lanes, and parks. But the reality never changes.

Most people still drive. Most people still don't bike. Traffic congestion is still at record levels leading to misery for those just wanting to get to work.

No matter how many more pretty renderings you post of projects like this, these small projects don't do a single thing to help any of that.

Hopefully the sane decision will be made and this stub will kept for a tunnel that needs to be brought back.

Will be interesting to read replies though I can pretty much already guess what the responses will be.

[froggie]

Many other countries and cities are now seeing how great tunnels are.

Most of those other countries and cities are also able to build tunnels for pennies on the dollar compared to tunnel costs in the U.S.  Until you can address the cost of infrastructure, don't expect to get much.

And on that note, one reason you may see a lot of bicycle projects in urban areas is because they require much less width/ROW than road projects and can be built for "pennies on the dollar" compared to road projects.  Much easier (and often faster) in many cities to get around on bike than it is by car.  The fact that "most people still don't bike" is because they fail to understand this or are too lazy to do it themselves.

[Max Rockatansky]

Some thoughts...

-  California needed to implement a temp tag law for quite some time, in amaxed it has taken this long.  The potentially safety/crime issues are way too obvious.  Too bad Front plates are still a thing.

-  I'm not sure if the HSR is going to survive all these attempts to kill it especially when it has fallen behind and over cost estimates.  Prop 6 definitely wasn't the way to get voter support though with how much roads need to be repaired state wide. 

-  Regarding I-5 I'm honestly surprised more people don't end up taking 33 instead.  The traffic on I-5 is brutal this time of year not there hardly ever anyone on 33.  I took 33 home from San Emidgio Canyon yesterday and had a great time...until I had to get through Kettleman City where 41 and 5 intersect that is. 

-  Good thing we didn't go out to Joshua Tree National Park In December, that closure on 247 would have required a hell of a detour. 

[theroadwayone]

-  Good thing we didn't go out to Joshua Tree National Park In December, that closure on 247 would have required a hell of a detour.

With or without the shutdown or the closure, people still have been going to the park. I don't think they'll find what they're looking for.

[Max Rockatansky]

-  Good thing we didn't go out to Joshua Tree National Park In December, that closure on 247 would have required a hell of a detour.

With or without the shutdown or the closure, people still have been going to the park. I don't think they'll find what they're looking for.

That depends, what I have in mind is fairly off the normal grid most people visit.  That said I was looking at the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite this weekend but the rumored trashed heap ultimately has made me think better of it.  I did try the Wind Wolves Preserve instead of Pinnacles last week, I was pleasantly surprised...epesically given the historic road connection to the El Camino Viejo

[sparker]

The fact that "most people still don't bike" is because they fail to understand this or are too lazy to do it themselves.

Or, in my case, have an inner-ear issue that doesn't allow me to maintain the balance necessary to ride a bike (a lifelong situation).  I'm a bit disappointed about the over-generalized statement above; some of us don't bike because we simply can't!

[Occidental Tourist]

The fact that "most people still don't bike" is because they fail to understand this or are too lazy to do it themselves.

The condescension in this statement is awesome.  I bet you have some very strongly-held beliefs about the virtues of craft beer over commercial beer that you freely share, too.

[Max Rockatansky]

The fact that "most people still don't bike" is because they fail to understand this or are too lazy to do it themselves.

The condescension in this statement is awesome.  I bet you have some very strongly-held beliefs about the virtues of craft beer over commercial beer that you freely share, too.

The thing about West Coast cities compared to out east is that the urban area is much larger geographically and the population far more spread out.  San Francisco is probably the one City in California that has the traditional dense urban populace where a bike borne commute is probably within the grasp of the everyday commuter.  San Diego and Los Angeles would be certainly out of the question for most. 

[Rothman]

Many other countries and cities are now seeing how great tunnels are.

Most of those other countries and cities are also able to build tunnels for pennies on the dollar compared to tunnel costs in the U.S.  Until you can address the cost of infrastructure, don't expect to get much.

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  Whay can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

In regards to biking:  Weather and safety are major detriments to commuting by bike.  Your broad statement is baffling.

[hotdogPi]

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  What can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

Actually setting aside money for infrastructure. We haven't had any major ones for quite a while. $1 trillion would get a significant amount done.

[froggie]

Many other countries and cities are now seeing how great tunnels are.

Most of those other countries and cities are also able to build tunnels for pennies on the dollar compared to tunnel costs in the U.S.  Until you can address the cost of infrastructure, don't expect to get much.

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  Whay can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

I'm not sure offhand what could be done to address it.  But clearly there's an underlying reason somewhere why our infrastructure is so much more expensive to implement than Europe's.  Some of it might be due to the industry being almost like a oligarchy in that there are not many firms capable of executing large contracts and the high cost of entry is a barrier to the creation of new firms.  And some projects have busted their budgets due to the high number of change orders received and approved.

In regards to biking:  Weather and safety are major detriments to commuting by bike.  Your broad statement is baffling.

Apologies if what I posted previously sounded condescending.  I've seen far too many people who don't understand that a bicycle can be very useful in a city.  True, there are some (like sparker, and I'm sorry you're stuck with that) who are physically unable to bike, but more often they're simply unwilling to.

I should have been clearer with the following, but I also wasn't specifically referring to commuting.  I was referring to city travel as a whole.  Commuting and other work-related trips are only about 1-in-6 of daily vehicle trips and 1-in-8 of daily person trips regardless of mode...the vast majority of trips are for other reasons.  Also, the majority of vehicle trips in the U.S. (roughly 60%) are 5 miles or less.  These are short distances to where bicycling can be competitive, especially in cities.

When I was last stationed in Norfolk, it would take me an average of 4 minutes and 30 seconds to go from my apartment to the parking garage and get my car down to the street.  In that same amount of time, I could already be to my favorite diner or sushi place or halfway to the grocery store by bike.

Weather is a detriment but one that can be overcome....just look at Portland (rain), Seattle (rain), or Minneapolis (winter), all of which are cities with higher-than-norm bicycling.  I also know a recently-retired ADOT engineer who bike commuted in Phoenix (heat).

Agree that safety is a detriment...arguably the biggest issue.  But that's exactly the reason why we need more bike infrastructure.  Besides being less expensive and able to squeeze into smaller right-of-way than road projects, studies have found that dedicated bike infrastructure (especially protected bike lanes and off-street paths with fewer intersections) are significantly safer.  Vehicles would benefit as all but the most die-hard of vehicular cyclists would divert out of the regular lanes.  Businesses in the city would benefit from an increase in customers...you can park 10-12 bikes in the same space as one vehicle parking spot.

[djsekani]

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  What can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

Actually setting aside money for infrastructure. We haven't had any major ones for quite a while. $1 trillion would get a significant amount done.

You'd blow half of that legal fees. It's rare that a major infrastructure project goes ahead in this country without someone suing to prevent it for whatever reason.

[Plutonic Panda]

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  What can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

Actually setting aside money for infrastructure. We haven't had any major ones for quite a while. $1 trillion would get a significant amount done.

You'd blow half of that legal fees. It's rare that a major infrastructure project goes ahead in this country without someone suing to prevent it for whatever reason.

That is something that needs to be fixed. How you do that? I have no fucking clue. But somehow there needs to be a way to stop half of these lawsuits before they even begin as they are mostly filed by people who just like to sue as some hobby.

[djsekani]

How do you address the cost of infrastructure in the United States?  What can be done aside from the already put-in-place processes for competitive contract bidding?

Actually setting aside money for infrastructure. We haven't had any major ones for quite a while. $1 trillion would get a significant amount done.

You'd blow half of that legal fees. It's rare that a major infrastructure project goes ahead in this country without someone suing to prevent it for whatever reason.

That is something that needs to be fixed. How you do that? I have no fucking clue. But somehow there needs to be a way to stop half of these lawsuits before they even begin as they are mostly filed by people who just like to sue as some hobby.

Not even that deep, it's just NIMBY-ism. Can't even repair a sidewalk without someone bitching about how it'll lower their property values, increase traffic, or bring in more undesirables.

You fix this by eroding the rights of property owners and especially homeowners when it comes to city planning, and that's obviously not going to fly.

[sparker]

Generally -- at least from what I learned years ago from my ex the attorney, whose law firm handled several suits based on applied eminent domain -- suits are more often than not brought when specific and/or singular characteristics of a piece of property taken -- or a region disrupted -- are locally portrayed as necessary to retain to ensure both property values and a local sense of history.  In other words, if a neighborhood has achieved recognition or historical status (formal or informal) it will not only be more prone to bring suits to stop public projects that may alter the face of said neighborhood -- but will also be more likely to prevail with such suits.  One such instance in her own Fresno neighborhood (Fig Garden) about 30 years ago concerned the desire of ATSF to widen their ROW through the neighborhood in order to install a "passing track" around the downtown Amtrak station and extending north all the way through Fig Garden to about Shaw Avenue in order to run time-sensitive (read: container trains) freight around stopped or slowing Amtrak passenger trains.  Since the RR ROW through north Fresno was narrow through both downtown and Fig Garden -- and Amtrak was to partially finance the expansion -- eminent domain was sought to effect the additional track (which would have required relocation of several businesses along North Blackstone Ave. (old CA 41).  The businesses, along with several Fig residents, brought suit to stop the eminent domain process, claiming that while it did concern a (semi)-public corporation, Amtrak, its benefits solely accrued to ATSF.  The city of Fresno, which also opposed the expansion but wasn't a plaintiff here (they were planning their own suit if the Fig Garden suit were to fail) added a condition to their approval of any expansion -- a two-track RR viaduct over Blackstone Ave. (previously an at-grade crossing), which would have effectively doubled the cost of the expansion.  When that was posited, ATSF, which at that point was just starting to upgrade their cross-country main line at a cost in the billions, reneged and dropped the plans. 

If such a suit had been brought by folks along the ATSF line in South Fresno (who likely would have needed financial assistance to do so), which despite its prominence in the agricultural-processing sector (mostly raisins) didn't have the historical significance of Fig Garden (the first "high-end" housing area in the region, dating from the late 1800's), the chance of it making it to trial would have been considerably less.  As it turned out, ATSF and the other regional RR, at that time SP, came up with a plan to divert freight traffic via a connector in Madera County to the north, to the SP tracks paralleling CA 99 and returning to ATSF rails where the lines crossed near Fowler, south of Fresno.  But the 1995 merger of ATSF with BN to form BNSF and UP's acquisition of SP the year after dashed those plans. 

Property valuation, particularly when tied to a specific neighborhood or sub-region, is almost considered a birthright in some areas; disturbing that seemingly ever-increasing set of numbers is done at the public agency's risk these days.   But in some cases, like the one cited above, the cities themselves ally with the property owners to forestall or redirect changes to longstanding idiom. 

[djsekani]

Although it doesn't affect the likelihood of success, it seems (from my limited observations) that property values and aesthetics are the top reasons these days for anti-development lawsuits.

I spent over a decade living in the Coachella Valley, where road-widening and expansion projects were rarely contested, even when they took out structures or businesses.

Compare that to the last decade in the Los Angeles area:

• A Target store in East Hollywood finally got the go ahead for completion after over four years of lawsuits. Neighborhood groups opposed the store's height (which isn't that obscene compared with other structures in the neighborhood.
• The leader of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation sued to block construction of a residential development that would have obstructed the view from his office building.
• A South L.A. development, one of many, is being opposed due to fears of gentrification.
• Can't forget the infamous I-710 tunnel, which I'm sure everyone here is an expert on by now.
• There's also the I-710 widening in Long Beach, which is sure to bring out the anti-freeway environmentalists any day now. Naturally I'm sure they'll have another solution for handling the massive amount of freight traffic on that freeway.
• A proposed tunnel for HSR from Burbank to Palmdale is being heavily opposed by Valley residents concerned about the impact on their communities.
• The city of Beverly Hills has more or less completely lost their minds over the path of the Metro Purple Line, which would go underneath a high school.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

[sparker]

Although it doesn't affect the likelihood of success, it seems (from my limited observations) that property values and aesthetics are the top reasons these days for anti-development lawsuits.

I spent over a decade living in the Coachella Valley, where road-widening and expansion projects were rarely contested, even when they took out structures or businesses.

Compare that to the last decade in the Los Angeles area:

• A Target store in East Hollywood finally got the go ahead for completion after over four years of lawsuits. Neighborhood groups opposed the store's height (which isn't that obscene compared with other structures in the neighborhood.
• The leader of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation sued to block construction of a residential development that would have obstructed the view from his office building.
• A South L.A. development, one of many, is being opposed due to fears of gentrification.
• Can't forget the infamous I-710 tunnel, which I'm sure everyone here is an expert on by now.
• There's also the I-710 widening in Long Beach, which is sure to bring out the anti-freeway environmentalists any day now. Naturally I'm sure they'll have another solution for handling the massive amount of freight traffic on that freeway.
• A proposed tunnel for HSR from Burbank to Palmdale is being heavily opposed by Valley residents concerned about the impact on their communities.
• The city of Beverly Hills has more or less completely lost their minds over the path of the Metro Purple Line, which would go underneath a high school.

The list goes on, but you get the idea.

Addressing the above:  East Hollywood, like its neighbor Silver Lake, tends to prefer preservation of existing commercial facilities; a Target certainly wouldn't fit into their notion of self-identity as quasi-"boho" or even "neo-hippie".  But believe me, the residents will have no problem shopping there (but probably not for clothes!).  If the housing near the AIDS Foundation facility contained a decent measure of affordable units, then that executive shouldn't be pissing & moaning; if it's garden-variety gentrification (with $1M+ townhouses or "sliver" homes), then he may have some level of justification.  And since the 25-year process by which the I-105 freeway was pushed across South Central, the remaining residents have generally been quite wary of any mass development that would possibly have the effect of raising the median rental value (rental properties comprise much of the housing stock in South Central) -- although some property owners, depending upon their social conscience, might welcome some level of gentrification in the area. 

Re the various tunnel projects -- 710 has been discussed to death here and elsewhere; no need to rehash the details here.  I'll have to look into the Burbank-Palmdale project a bit more to comment; likewise the Beverly Hills/Metro situation.  But in regards to the I-710 widening near Long Beach -- that's been in the works for some time now; but it'll bring out activists in the northern reaches of that project (actually not too far from the I-105 interchange) opposing the use of eminent domain to achieve the widening; further south in Long Beach itself, there will likely be less issues regarding widening; the Coastal Commission tends to give a bit of a pass to the actual facilities serving the twin Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, choosing to concentrate on minimizing air & water pollution emanating from those ports (such as getting rid of older particle-emitting diesel trucks often used for drayage from the ports to downtown L.A. railyards).   

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm just amazed at the bullshit that goes on and even more amazed at those who play devils advocate and seem to accept it.

We almost always seem to take the easy and cheap solution now like throwing tolls on roads to reduce traffic by pricing certain people that can't afford it out. Instead of building real infrastructure we just are quick to repaint roads m(road diets) and get all excited like something good was done(and in some cases it was).

It seems like the same old argument time and time again is "we don't feel like this appropriate"  "adding more lanes just leads to more driving"  and "they should look at other options like mass transit and bike lanes."  

Along with with a much needed expansion of mass transit and cycling facilities, we need to continue the expansion of roads. Hopefully one day we can see a bigger picture but I won't elaborate anymore on that as it would open a can of worms.

People are so quick to believe simplistic notions like mass transit equals less cars because it seems reasonable that more people packed in on a bus or train is that many less people on the road– that isn't necessarily the case. People also don't want to think critically and accept the fact that in reality, unless a massive change is forced on the population, most will continue to drive. Ideas like freeways contribute to climate change overlook the real problem which is the combustion engine, not the freeway itself. People also think because more traffic might use a freeway after it was widened that more emissions, specifically fine particulate emissions, will rise because more traffic will use the freeway and that isn't always the case.

Regarding LA, I can't believe how slow shit moves in this city. I live near Hollywood and LA Brea; it took them almost 4 months to complete a intersection modification project where they rebuilt the crosswalks(I'm guessing to be ADA compliant) and added some stupid features like a bike box at the intersection and no turn on red. After the project was completed it took them almost 3 more months to paint the bike box green. LA just needs to get its shit together. This is my first major city other than Dallas or OKC(which those cities can't hold a candle to LA), but this is completely unacceptable and I'm always amazed more citizens just seem to ignore it and accept it.

I'm pretty cynical here I'll admit, but this city just can't seem so any infrastructure right anymore and half asses the transit infrastructure it does have. If they're going to let the freeways rot or not widen them anymore to relieve traffic congestion, then they need to come out and say it. But don't continue to deceive drivers by bullshit like "this metro line to Santa Monica will ease traffic on I-10."

I always get a kick out of the politics here. We need more affordable housing, but no more sprawl and wide freeways to the high desert or the valley which would actually help to solve the affordable housing proble. We also don't want high rises either(even though most high rises that are built aren't affordable for most). We want to end homelessness, but don't build those shelters or offer services in my neighborhood. Traffic is too bad here... "opposes any sort of new freeway or widening project" ... mass transit is not good here "opposed any mass transit project that takes a lot of money to do it right and not half ass it"

I can go on and on, but the main point of everything I'm bringing up is very few people seem to care about the greater good anymore and only care about their own little bubble. We didn't go to the moon because it was easy. But apparently it's too hard to build a freeway tunnel here.

[sparker]

OK -- looked at the Burbank-Palmdale HSR tunnel proposal (the tunnel is actually Pacoima-Agua Dulce!) -- and it's actually shorter than I had expected from the original nomenclature.  Since much of the controversy comes from the northern end where it empties out into Soledad Canyon by passing through several small communities in the area, the HSR tunnel should have been oriented to emerge nearer Acton than Santa Clarita to avoid taking any more improved property than necessary.  I'm guessing that the shorter tunnel was for the sake of economy (although if you're going to do a 25-mile tunnel, IMO you may as well shoot for 35!) or possibly to avoid interaction with the several regional faults (the infamous San Andreas follows the fall line of the northern San Gabriels; the HSR and current Metro lines cross it just south of Palmdale).  Shouldn't be any controversy on the Pacoima side of the mountain; the line would sink into the alluvial fan near Hansen Dam, pass through the San Gabriels near Little Tujunga Canyon and emerge near Agua Dulce, east of Santa Clarita.  Considerably higher elevation to the north; the tunnel would have to be canted upward from Pacoima on north (and likely be twin bores -- one for ventilation).  Still, keeping the HSR portion as long as possible without having to slog down Metra tracks in the Valley is a positive step for system prospects. 

[Plutonic Panda]

After I posted some pro mass transit views on the Amtrak thread, it's time for me to steer the other way. Came across this article on CityLab and offered my take:

"You want to kill transit? Tell the majority of Americans who fund it on the lie it will solve traffic congestion  that the real goal is to make driving harder.

This is why I can not stand many urbanists, due to this line of thinking. But I'm glad you at least come out and say the truth. If you want to make driving harder, you live in a fantasy land.

I currently live in Hollywood and bike and use subway all the time. It's great for what it is but I can't wait to get back into suburban sprawl which provides a much better quality of life.

LA is already one of the hardest cities to drive in. Lack of turn lanes, stop lights always turning red every block not letting traffic flow efficiently, lack of dedicated turn arrows at major lights, substandard freeway and road designs, some of the least freeway lane miles per person of any city in the US... I think it's safe to say on top of the horrid traffic, LA is pretty hard to drive in.

But that's not all. These transit advocates want more than just options to live car free. Sort of like the divide they intend on creating between suburban dwellers.

I support tons of things "you"  probably want like massive expansion of intercity rail and transit, a massive trillion dollar investment of national passenger rail upgrades, taller and denser developments in the core, better bike infrastructure...

But the second I also advocate for wider freeways, more freeways, and more parking, it's "shut this person out of the conversation"  but unfortunately for the urbanists and transit advocates, you just alienated a majority of the population.

Whether or not you like it, unless you're able to successfully dupe and decieve the majority of the country, you are going to have to work with solo car driving suburbanites or you will quickly find yourself on the bad end of the stick. It seems tides are always starting to sway that way anyways leaving the bike and road diet fad that has been sweeping the country lately though it's yet to be implemented on citywide scale in nearly every city.

If you really want to entice riders and grow transit the right way, apart from the need of widening freeways and adding new solutions like HOT lanes, you need to actually make transit a viable alternative to car drivers. Currently metro doesn't even operate the system it has in the manner. What good is a transit line if you have to wait 15 minutes(if you're lucky) for it arrive after you've likely had to wait for other transfers. It doesn't make sense for most people.

Also, the expo line is essentially a glorified streetcar at best which now appears it will be the model van nuys rail line will follow.

You want real solutions? How about doing the hard things and widening freeways, bridging gaps, building an express lane network in the 101 from Ventura to DTLA(which I argue would be one of the most profitable express lanes in the world) at 6-8 elevated lanes with free BRT service, remove on street parking on major corridors and turn it into a 3rd permanent driving lane and build massive parking garages every mile to supplement loss of parking. There would also be room for bike lanes with certain modifications. Parking garages would be free for 2 hours and paid for by express lanes as would many new freeway improvements.

Fix deficient interchanges and eliminate bottlenecks. Build more elevated express lanes along the 405. Fund free BRT lines every express lane corridor.

Build a series of 8 lane tunnels(2 free lanes and two rolled lanes in each direction)under the hills to eliminate congestion through canyon roads and toll major canyon roads to non residents.

Build a series of massive parking garages alongside a revamped and widened freeway network around DTLA that gives drivers 5 hours of free parking. Run elevated heavy rail or connect and expand the subway network in downtown the new parking garages and implement tolls to drive downtown.

These are just a few ideas I've had and they would absolutely put a massive dent in traffic. Expensive? Yes. But it would also return revenue and would gain the support of many car drivers to continue investment into a real rail system.

We need to have subways going under 3rd, sunset, La Brea, Fairfax, Pico, I can go on and on. We need to start with the most important and not half ass it.

There is no reason to go to war with car drivers and that could hurt your cause if you're not careful.

Instead of getting mad at pro freeway folks like me, work with people and you'll get more accomplished at a quicker rate."

––––

This was in response to Urbanized LA repost of the article on their Facebook page. Urbanized LA is a good source of info for new development around the metro. I agree with some stuff but I'm the polar opposite on their city planning views. It shows when they come out and show their colors by saying we want to make it harder to drive. At least their honest about it– I'll give them that.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1721195301357553&id=535361466607615&ref=m_notif&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic

[mrsman]

As an la native I also keep track of what's going on in LA.  Hi follow streetsblog and urbanize LA but hate there politics.

Nexus 5X