I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment. Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route? Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59. Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway. I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness. I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one. I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs. It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks. But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens. But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida. Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.
I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage. Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time. California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who
maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
Prior to the 1950s, the California State Automobile Association and the Automobile Club of Southern California signed the routes. I wonder if they were the ones that determined the signed routings (as the routings the state was using at the time were the LRNs and not anything in the field) over the years, particularly in urban areas.
I've always felt that route numbering should be a navigational aid that a state DOT can determine (with input from local jurisdictions) regardless of route maintenance, but California has had some legislative form of numbering for a century with no sign of abandoning that system anytime soon.
That's probably an easier fix than presented with the current reality of relinquishment. Why not just throw a county route sign up with a route number identical to the state route? Seems to work just fine for states like Florida and there is a current example of the practice in California with CA 59 and J59. Now I could be talking just out of my ass but I'm running under the assumption that it would be FAR easier to mount county route signage for continuity rather than having to go through the wriggamoral of the legislature.I suppose I could, but I still would love to say I've driven it. But granted, I guess no one has been able to since 1978, so it's not like I'm alone here.I have finally accepted that CA-39 will never again connect to CA-2, and therefore I will never be able to say I have clinched it.
You probably could do it on a bike or maybe running? I've done both on the disconnected segment of the Ridge Route. Would be a pretty conventional way of route clinching.
I'm actually surprised an article like this came out in the current climate here in California...highway talk has become passe to say the least.
I guess in general, I'm not a particular big fan of what would seem to be Caltrans' apathetical attitude towards their highways. Seems more often than not, they just want to abandon them, rather than fix them. That's certainly the correct choice economically, but as a roadgeek, really bothers me. And again, while I can't say I've been to every state, I will say that nearly every other state I have been to seems to have routes that are very clearly signed, no matter who maintains them. In California, once a route gets relinquished, it may as well not exist anymore from a navigation standpoint.
True....but it's not the only route like, CA 173 was similarly abandoned but it doesn't get as noticed much because it was a dirt highway. I guess that's what I don't understand...the apathy to me just seems like legislative laziness. I've been here for five years and worked here for another three with contract works....so there is a ton of practices in California that, at least for me seem don't seem excusable...roads being the primary one. I guess it sort of reminds me of how bad things really got in Michigan with road maintenance and how it led to things like an entire direction of an Interstate Highway being shut down for months for repairs. It just feels like the whole state has stagnated with all public works projects in general and there is little willpower to do anything unless something breaks. But then again something like high speed rail somehow gets traction with all this existing infrastructure...interesting how that happens. But then again I didn't grow up here and I'm comparing it to places that are going through population booms Texas, Arizona and Florida. Even still, it's interesting how far places like Michigan and California have really fallen when they were once considered paragons of automotive infrastructure.
I don't know, I look at the neighboring states and with the exception of Oregon (talk about apathy for anything automotive or anything above 35 MPH) there seems to be a lot more great deal of care for highways which would include route signage. Nevada did a renumbering in the not too distant past and Arizona is pushing to build or improve things all the time. California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
That is one of the reasons why the remaining segment of California state route 65 hasn't been built. However I am sure there need to upgrade what does exist in our own state of California, what Governor Brown is proposing. We are lagging behind Arizona and Texas for the best highways, when California's conditions of our highways are poor.
I think this thread provides an opportunity for me to provide some background on how Caltrans is funded. I see several people have issues with how my employer operates. But if you were to understand the funding constraints, you might be a little more understanding as to why we don't do all the things you think we should do.
Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California. This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties. The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects. There are some other splits and limitations that I won't get into here. But in essence, the counties dictate to Caltrans what projects will be built.
The primary source for transportation funding here is, like most other places, the excise tax on fuel. However, close to half of the State's counties have local sales taxes that are used for transportation. Combine that resource with their share of the STIP and that gives them a lot of leverage.
The STIP is used to fund road widening and major improvements. Another fund, also paid for out of the fuel excise tax, is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP). These funds are used to cover maintenance needs and operational improvements. SHOPP funds cannot be used to widen roads. Caltrans controls the SHOPP, and those funds can be mixed with STIP funds to address multiple needs in one project.
Here in California, the fuel excise tax has not been raised in more than 20 years. During that time, as vehicles have become more fuel efficient, people are filling up less, so there's less money coming into the coffers. And inflation has reduced the buying power of those dollars over time.
With limited funding, and restrictions on the funds it has available, Caltrans cannot do all that it would. It's been estimated that there's about $58 billion in unmet transportation needs in this State. In the past, there have been general obligation bonds that have helped fund improvements, but those bonds have been issued and so that resource is gone. The ARRA (Obama stimulus) funds are gone too. Given this bleak picture, the California Transportation Commission made severe cuts to the STIP a few months back. This affected both Caltrans' and the counties' shares. In fact, there's been talk from time to time of not funding the STIP at all and putting everything into SHOPP.
The system is broke and while a fuel excise tax increase might bring some additional funds in the short term, it still won't work in the long term given the federal mandates for improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The counties can cover some things with their sales taxes and at least two counties that I know of plan to put ballot measures up in November for additional sales taxes on top of what they already have. But it will never be enough. The issues with the excise tax are why there's the push for a road use charge as a replacement. I'm participating in the pilot and I am very interested in seeing what it leads to.
Bottom line - we don't have much to spend, and so we have to prioritize accordingly.
iPhone
Back in 1998 there was this little piece of legislation known as Senate Bill (SB) 45 that dramatically changed the funding structure for transportation in California. This bill, put simply, put 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds into the hands of the counties. The State retains 25 percent for funding of inter regional projects.
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?
is california 66 signed at all anywhere?
Was back in 2012 the last I saw a shield in San Bernardino.
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
Even with the uncompleted I-710, aren't there enough freeways in L.A. already?
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
There's a sign at Euclid, in Upland. But, of course, that's just a junction with SR 83, so I would, since they had to put up signs anyway, they just said "Oh, yeah, we've got this other state highway. I guess we should sign that too."
This is the best they could do: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1069155,-117.6519358,3a,15y,123.2h,88.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sErhubCn50M5Hpxc6kv4Rog!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
That is probably the only CA 66 shield in existence on the actual road.
I'll have to look when I get home but I'm fairly certain the 66 I've seen was at H Street and 5th Street in San Bernardino.
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
The reason that there are few 55 MPH signs in California is because, by state law, the speed limit on many rural roadways is 55 MPH (unless otherwise posted). Thus, when you see an "END 50 MPH" sign, the implication of that sign is that the speed reverts to 55 MPH. This practice is common on older roadways (say, those built prior to the 1960's) and can even appear on freeways (like on southbound CA 1 at Ocean Street in Santa Cruz).
However, I agree with you that not having 55 MPH signs creates ambiguity for drivers as to what the speed limit truly is. Ambiguity is NOT a good thing for drivers, as it can lead to inattention (while pondering the sign's message), and thus can cause collisions. Yet at the basis of the speed laws in California is a belief that drivers will adjust their speed to the conditions of the road, e.g. if a road has no shoulders, the law assumes that drivers will routinely reduce their speed accordingly. In my experience, this is occurring less and less frequently.
Note: The other two cases in California where an unsigned roadway has an unsigned speed limit are 1) local streets (such as those in neighborhoods), and 2) streets through denser business districts (such as a traditional downtown); in both cases, the speed limits are 25 MPH by state law.
California probably has some of the worst signage just in general anywhere in the country...route signage is just part of it. There are places you will literally have no clue how fast the speed limit is, it's really strange how few signs there are in general here.
I can agree with what you said here, even though I've hardly ever driven in California, and have just barely scratched the surface of this state's roads. I haven't really driven enough of the state to comment on the quality of the signs, but I do agree that there are places where you have no idea what the speed limit is. An example is that you are on a highway through a rural area, then you enter a town or something and the speed limit gets decreased to, say, 50 mph. Then, after you get through the town, there's a sign saying "END 50 MPH" and it doesn't ever tell you what the new speed limit is. An example can be found here (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8440231,-123.9640335,3a,33.2y,129.37h,87.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stuyt38SjKHSmGj_uW_v2WA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en) (and also there's also at least one in Oregon on a county road north of Pacific City, as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@45.2230146,-123.9691474,3a,75y,23.91h,79.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl7ITsz8unxYNDpft3s0Ngw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)). This is literally the dumbest sign in the world!!! It's a waste of metal. It doesn't tell you what new speed to drive at; all it tells you is what the old speed limit was, and nobody cares about that. I've never seen any of those stupid signs here in Washington where I live, so thank God I don't have to cringe at them on a daily basis. Sorry for the rant, but those signs are a BIG pet peeve of mine.
The reason that there are few 55 MPH signs in California is because, by state law, the speed limit on many rural roadways is 55 MPH (unless otherwise posted). Thus, when you see an "END 50 MPH" sign, the implication of that sign is that the speed reverts to 55 MPH. This practice is common on older roadways (say, those built prior to the 1960's) and can even appear on freeways (like on southbound CA 1 at Ocean Street in Santa Cruz).
However, I agree with you that not having 55 MPH signs creates ambiguity for drivers as to what the speed limit truly is. Ambiguity is NOT a good thing for drivers, as it can lead to inattention (while pondering the sign's message), and thus can cause collisions. Yet at the basis of the speed laws in California is a belief that drivers will adjust their speed to the conditions of the road, e.g. if a road has no shoulders, the law assumes that drivers will routinely reduce their speed accordingly. In my experience, this is occurring less and less frequently.
Note: The other two cases in California where an unsigned roadway has an unsigned speed limit are 1) local streets (such as those in neighborhoods), and 2) streets through denser business districts (such as a traditional downtown); in both cases, the speed limits are 25 MPH by state law.
I would say the "End xx" signs are more common than the actual speed limit signs in California outside of cities. Any undivided, non-residential road is 55mph unless otherwise specified. So you mostly see speed limit signs in urban areas. You can find all the speed limits laid out in the California Vehicle Code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=22001-23000&file=22348-22366
Prima facie seems to be common in Europe. When I was in Latvia a couple of months ago, that's all they had. I don't recall them ever signing the default speed limits, including when you entered into a town and that prima facie limit dropped to 50kmh. When you saw the town sign, you were supposed to slow down, and were supposed to speed back up when you saw the town sign with an "X" across it. It was weird. The only way I knew was that my GPS had the limits mapped out.
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
Caltrans has even been known to post the occasional US-99 shield on occasion.Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
Interesting bit of info about the prima facie speed limit. I will keep that in mind when I drive in California again.A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
Also, re the discussion about CA 66, does it run along the former US 66 alignment?
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
I also recall that the 15/40 split in Barstow originally had the exit signed for 40 and 66, suggesting that those two were concurrent for a bit (albeit briefly).
Beginning July 25, a high-tension cable barrier and rumble strip will be constructed on a 1½-mile section of Highway 156 between Highway 1 and Castroville Boulevard.
I find this interesting and a bit strange that they're doing it on just this section of 156 and not also on 1. I also find it interesting that they're doing it at all. I wasn't aware of any issues with vehicles crossing the median here. I also didn't realize that Caltrans typically installed these.
Interesting bit of info about the prima facie speed limit. I will keep that in mind when I drive in California again.
Also, re the discussion about CA 66, does it run along the former US 66 alignment?
Ironically, Caltrans just installed a new SR 30 shield on the route in La Verne, despite being decommissioned 15+ years ago.LOL... It's like CA-42 signage, it just never goes away.
Makes me wonder what became of that 66 sign then out on 5th in San Bernardino...would have loved to see that pop up on ebay to go along with the AZ 66 I already have. :-D
:-D that's the reason why I brought it up, I'd love to buy one of the shields, of all highways not to sign California! Nevada is worse at signage of their state routes though.
Looking at GSV, the 40 sign has been replaced since the photo. Both appear way too new to also have the US shields, but who knows.
This signage was deployed just before I moved out to the Inland Empire from Anaheim; I remember seeing it at the beginning of 2002. I actually called District 8 and asked what was up, and (after my call got "ping-ponged" around the office) got an answer to the effect that they were trying to get in on the historical signage of 66 because no parties out in the smaller towns west of San Bernardino wanted to pay for the traditional shield-on-tan "historical" signage -- and they had a bunch of NOS (new/unused old stock) US 66 signs laying around their corporate yard warehouse. They indicated at the time that they were going to cobble up some "HISTORICAL" banners to put above or below the shield itself when they could find the time to do so. Logic was simple -- they owned the road (pre-relinquishment), it was legally CA 66, and they could post it however they wanted. They never came up with the banners; the signs were gone circa 2004.
Always wondered since -- as only a few shields were posted, did collectors get them before the district could remove them? An authentic US 66 '57 spec shield, especially with a state property sticker or stencil, would be quite valuable.
A former portion, yes. Some of 210 was also once 66.
That's not exactly true:
210 directly parallels 66 less than 1-1.5 miles away from Pasadena to about Claremont, then ends up 2 miles further north from there eastward to I-215.
66 never used any of the 210 alignment as far as I know....
However, the cable median barriers weren't tall enough, so they weren't all that effective in stopping big cars like SUVs and trucks. So finally, WSDOT put in a tall jersey barrier in the median (as seen here (https://www.google.com/maps/@48.0608102,-122.1845263,3a,75y,351.26h,77.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo3.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DJ2ScfnrSbmRbc407W3bYGQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D32.768478%26pitch%3D0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)) and that solved the problem. The cable median barriers are still there, but the jersey barrier has made them pretty much redundant.
The allowable HTCB must consist of one of the following or a Department-authorized equal:Source (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_ads_addenda/11/11-406504/specs/11-406504sp.pdf)
- 1. TYPE BRIFEN - Type Brifen 4-Rope TL-4 Wire Rope Safety Fence System (WRSF) manufactured by
Brifen USA, Inc- 2. TYPE GIBRALTAR - Type Gibraltar TL-4-4 manufactured by Gibraltar Cable Barrier Systems
- 3. TYPE CASS - Type CASS TL-4 Cable Safety System manufactured by Trinity Industries
I remember seeing the cable barrier surrounded by plants, but I can't remember where. Maybe it was 99. I remember it being really hot, so I think that's what it was. Personally, I think it would be great if they put in some oleander or, better yet, something native but still capable of totaling a Range Rover. Like maybe oak trees that grew up instead of out.
I recall, as a kid, being enthralled with the aesthetics of So Cal highways. The median flora just makes things so much nicer.
It just surprised me to see that Caltrans was going to use cable barriers since they seem to love their sheet metal.
The one place I used to see it the most was in Phoenix, on Loop 101. And, as you may expect, there were always sections that were broken and not repaired. The thrice-daily wrecks on that road likely caused the state to give up.
Norman describes the old and the new with the eye of a man visiting a bewildering foreign country.
Besides the Delano-Tulare section, oleander was a median feature on 99 along the former expressway section between Chowchilla and Merced that's just been bypassed by a freeway. Further north, other expressway sections -- between Atwater and Livingston, and between Delhi and Turlock -- were also the sites of oleander. There was some in and around Manteca (incidentally, the oldest CA 99 freeway section in the Valley, dating from about 1951-52), but that's gone since the widening of the last 5 years. The farthest north section of current 99 freeway with some oleander is around Galt. Although I haven't been on these "Business 99" sections in well over a decade, IIRC there's some in the segment around Kingsburg/Selma, as well as south of Turlock. They're certainly hardy plants, tolerating 60+ years of hydrocarbon exhaust! (they're also toxic to humans!)
And don't you people in the Southland actually say "Cali"? I mean, people here roll their eyes at that, but I had always thought it was just one of many differences.
And don't you people in the Southland actually say "Cali"? I mean, people here roll their eyes at that, but I had always thought it was just one of many differences.
When I hear "Cali" my mind goes to "douchebag".
It's the same with the people who insist on saying "Frisco" or "San Fran". I don't know what they're trying to prove, but it just sounds dumb.
Reminds me of people (I know a few) who think New York state is just a giant city, even though the vast majority of the state has forests, mountains, lakes, etc. Just like California.When I hear "Cali" my mind goes to "douchebag".
It's the same with the people who insist on saying "Frisco" or "San Fran". I don't know what they're trying to prove, but it just sounds dumb.
A lot of yuppies in Arizona use that term when talking about California. I imagine they think the whole state is like a giant Los Angeles, makes me roll my eyes in disgust everytime I hear my brother's wife say that or surfer slang. Speaking of surfer slang I have yet to ever encounter anyone who was actually from here that spoke like that.
The only people in NorCal I've heard use "Cali" are the same sort who say "hella". I think it's a dying subculture.
Although they say "Nobody calls it Frisco", but there are San Francisco old timers who call it that, particularly African-americans. It's the new arrivals who quickly learn not to from other arrivals.
This is the only time I've ever heard "hella" ever be a thing:
This is the only time I've ever heard "hella" ever be a thing:
There's an argument to made that Cartman killed "hella". It was a word, but I really don't think I've heard it unironically in the 21st century.
This might be more of a routine thing for the California folks, but I-5 through Orange County has long been one of my favourite sections of freeway in California. With that said, I've uploaded a number of photos of the highway taken during various visits over the past few years.
Some I-5 SoCal goodness:So the advance sign has an unnecessary slash between State College and The City Drive, and the placement of the mileage indicator for the 22 interchange is too far right. Also the mileage indicator for State College/The City Drive/Chapman doesn't conform to the sign manual requirements because it has the numerator and denominator on the same line and is the same size as the whole number mileage indicator below and as the rest of the sign text when it should be about half that size.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_108_south_Dec14_forum.jpg)
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_110-45_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)The "West" on the advance sign is not capitalized and La Palma is missing its Ave.
(http://www.asphaltplanet.ca/CA/I/5/I5_CA_dv_113-6_north_Dec14_forum.jpg)The infamous "Artesia" (population 14,000 with two offramps off the 91) as a control city for the 91 West.
It'll be interesting to see how the presently under-construction segment between Buena Park and Downey looks when they're finally done with it; IIRC, there were some unique design features necessary to squeeze the expanded facility between existing businesses, rail lines, and the like. If anyone down there has some recent pictures or can get their hands on plans, posting those would be greatly appreciated!Check out https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11848.0
^ Yeah, I agree with that, but I am thinking that at some point in the future the structures that comprise the East LA Interchange complex will reach the end of their service life, and will need to be somehow replaced. I live in a northern climate, so structural replacement is probably something that afflicts our infrastructure sooner than it would in California, but I have to think eventually the East LA interchange will need to be remade into something that is really cool.Yeah. At this point it will probably take a discovery of some serious structural failure(s) before any plans to rebuild will even be considered.
Having used this interchange for most of its 55-year existence, I'm certain that most drivers would be glad to place it in a particular historical subsection -- the WTF Hall of Fame! This particularly pertains to drivers wishing to stay on I-5 in either direction through the complex -- and encountering a small-radius curve en route, not to mention the merges from hell! I'm guessing that the engineering effort contained numerous "plan-it-as-we-go" moments.
My question is, when the interchange opened, did the Santa Monica even have a signed number? Or just temp I-10?
I think it was more poor future-planning on Caltrans part then anything else. They wanted the 101 to be the primary route through the interchange and didn't really care what the legislators were planning numbering wise.
My question is, when the interchange opened, did the Santa Monica even have a signed number? Or just temp I-10?
IIRC, while the Olympic Parkway around that corridor had been planned as pre-1964 State Route 26, by the time the Santa Monica Freeway was built (including that part of the East Los Angeles Interchange), it was I-10 from the start.I think it was more poor future-planning on Caltrans part then anything else. They wanted the 101 to be the primary route through the interchange and didn't really care what the legislators were planning numbering wise.
I don't know if it was "want" so much as, as the Santa Ana Freeway was the first through the area, they didn't want to disrupt the one through route that had already been established. (If we were thinking simple lines-on-map layout, having 5 tie into the San Bernardino Split so that there was no need for that 2 miles of parallel north-south freeway routings would have been the most logical, but this could have been a matter of what right of way the state was able to acquire at the time)
I was 11-12 years old at the time the interchange opened; it was completed in phases. The first sections to be completed, in early 1961, were the ramps forming the direct I-5 connection, from the SE Santa Ana Freeway (at that time still signed as US 101) to the Golden State Freeway (I-5/10).
The San Bernardino Freeway interchange a couple of miles north on the Golden State had been completed and opened in early 1960 (and, for a while, there was a BGS on westbound I-10 just before that interchange showing the through lanes of the San Bernardino Freeway as I-110; it was gone by 1963).
Of course, historically the 101 as a through route from Hollywood to Santa Ana predated all of the interchanges, and the powers that be probably thought that it would be wasteful to rip up the 101 routing between SB Split and ELA interchange so we are left with what we have. There was no good way to connect I-5 Golden State Freeway to match up with this part of the 101 because the railroad yard was in the way.
(It's also important to remember that prior to the Golden State Freeway construction from Elysian Park to the San Bernardino Freeway, 99 and 6 had to continue southwest into downtown on the Arroyo Seco Parkway before reaching the San Bernardino Freeway rather indirectly via 101; the I-5/at-the-time US 99 routing between those two points saves about 4-5 miles of driving and bypasses the Four-Level entirely)
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
Just saw this on a tweet from Caltrans D7. It's a non-standard US shield and missing Freeway Entrance sign.
When I, as an 11-year-old kid, first saw that they were using the original Riverside Drive ramps as a connection to and from I-5 to the southward (then) Pasadena Freeway, my reaction was the kid's version of WTF? I always thought those ramps were substandard even as a street connector much less carrying the brunt of southbound I-5 traffic toward downtown L.A.! But 55 years later, it's still there (although having been repaved and restriped countless times). I'm guessing that tearing out the cliff to cobble together a set of high-speed ramps was a non-starter, considering the land was a city park (the 2nd largest in L.A. after Griffith, slightly to the north). Adding flyovers to the Pasadena Freeway twin bridges over the L.A. river was probably dismissed as well due to the configuration of those bridges. Likely the Division of Highways did what it could with the cards it was dealt -- although in reality the hand was dealt by the Division itself 20-25 years previously when the Arroyo Seco Parkway was in the planning stages. At that time the proposed L.A. freeway system was largely radial in nature, centering on downtown; the Interstate loops weren't even a pipedream in the mid-30's.
Maybe a bit stupid or off-topic, but was the section of the Golden State Freeway north of Arroyo Seco, along the river, constructed before the section south of that? Because I've always thought it funny that the old Riverside Drive ramps from Arroyo Seco were (and still are) used for its I-5 connection.
You could totally fix that old Riverside Drive set of ramps if you built a flyover on the right-hand side (south) of the 110 north for the traffic going to the 5 north and removed that left-hand exit that uses the lower part of old Riverside. Then the footprint from the old northbound-to-northbound lanes could be regraded to make the 5 south to 110 south ramp wider, include shoulders, and have better turning radii where it finally connects to the 110 south.Not quite -- NB 110 is coming out of a 4-lane-wide tunnel at that point, with the left lane dedicated to the turn to NB 5, and the 2nd lane splitting between the NB 5 ramp and the NB 110 main line. It segues directly onto the L.A. river bridge at that point; this is the original bridge constructed when the tunnels contained North Figueroa St., and were re-purposed for NB only when the SB lanes of the Arroyo Seco Parkway were constructed. Underneath the bridges are not only the L.A. River but several sets of railroad tracks; the Metrolink main service facility is directly north of the I-5 bridge, less than a half-mile to the northeast. There's just no room left for any sort of viable flyover, absent a complete reconstruction of the 1938 original bridge -- which is a concrete multiple arch with ornate railings and superstructure details -- and is below the grade of the adjacent southbound bridge, which would also have to be bridged by any flyover! Any such "modern" ramp facility would have had to be implemented in the late '50's and early '60's when I-5 was originally constructed.
Not quite -- NB 110 is coming out of a 4-lane-wide tunnel at that point, with the left lane dedicated to the turn to NB 5, and the 2nd lane splitting between the NB 5 ramp and the NB 110 main line. It segues directly onto the L.A. river bridge at that point; this is the original bridge constructed when the tunnels contained North Figueroa St., and were re-purposed for NB only when the SB lanes of the Arroyo Seco Parkway were constructed. Underneath the bridges are not only the L.A. River but several sets of railroad tracks; the Metrolink main service facility is directly north of the I-5 bridge, less than a half-mile to the northeast. There's just no room left for any sort of viable flyover, absent a complete reconstruction of the 1938 original bridge -- which is a concrete multiple arch with ornate railings and superstructure details -- and is below the grade of the adjacent southbound bridge, which would also have to be bridged by any flyover! Any such "modern" ramp facility would have had to be implemented in the late '50's and early '60's when I-5 was originally constructed.
I would think your two biggest engineering issues would be 1) relocating the power lines and telephone lines, and 2) whether the downgrade on the new offramp from the bridge to Riverside Drive was too steep such that you had to lose the Riverside Drive offramp.
I’m not an engineer, but to my knowledge there’s nothing (other than historical preservation issues) that would stop being able to marry a seismically independent box girder bridge to the existing steel bridge.
I used to frequent Universal and that interchange was always a mess. I didn't know that they (finally) added a direct connection from Universal Blvd to SB101. I remember always having to drive quite a way south on Cahuenga Blvd to get on.
Also, it looks like just north of the new SB101 onramp, there is a US 101 shield with green NORTH and directional arrow tabs. The northbound onramp from NB Universal is also using painted posts for it's entrance assembly.
Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.
The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
Caltrans giveth... Caltrans taketh away.
The new SB 101 onramp came at the expense of the old SB 101 offramp for Barham Blvd. There is now no exit on SB 101 between Lankershim and Highland, a distance of almost 3 miles.
According to Google Maps that ramp has been closed for almost a decade though. The new on ramp was just built within the last two years.
He means this one.
(http://i.imgur.com/meyEnSQ.jpg)
After they closed the old old diamond ramp, they partially replaced it with an on/off for southbound 101 traffic. When they opened the new Universal City ramp southbound, they closed the replacement Barham southbound offramp because of a weaving problem
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-adv-universal-city-ramp-20141221-story.html
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
(http://i.imgur.com/3oDaK0Y.jpg)
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
As for the missing Freeway Entrance sign, I've seen Caltrans do this on ramps leading to an expressway segment, because the ramp is technically not a freeway entrance. Here's an example:
(http://i.imgur.com/3oDaK0Y.jpg)
Or you might find an expressway entrance sign, but this is much less common (this is at the Brawley Bypass, SR 78-111); I cannot name another place where an expressway entrance sign is in use in California, but I would imagine other uses of "expressway entrance" are out there:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@32.9988404,-115.5264008,3a,60y,302.62h,91.66t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSMKDnnvP2T00ADtCvCVFHA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Brawley,+CA+92227/@33.0024928,-115.5264465,3a,60y,296.15h,86.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sDsUpDtmk2Vz921TeFzEIqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x80d74f9483289275:0xb1aa9c384dced8f1!8m2!3d32.9786566!4d-115.530267
Noticed this fabulous 84 multiplex this morning on the way up to Sonoma where, IIRC, there is no multiplex. I had thought the definition had it end on both sides of 880. Google Maps shows it multiplexed too.
if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.if it's signed as continuous, it's continuous.
Well, no, that's not true. That's the thing about it: Caltrans' definition of it does not include any of the several multiplexed sections. But I meant formerly continuous with regards to the fact that it used to be one, continuous roadway between the Dunbarton Bridge and the section of Thornton Avenue east of 880.
So it's no longer continuous, but it is contiguous, I s'pose.
Why would caltrans want those small gaps anyway? That's super weird.
There are only a couple of route definitions post-1964 that imply a concurrency, rather than breaking it into several segments; Route 271 is the one that immediately comes to mind (even though it is not signed along US 101 from Route 1 to the second segment a bit north).CA 271 is an "odd duck", intended to be a scenic alternative to US 101, which in the '60's and the '70's was being reconstructed as a limited-access facility generally uphill from the original route, which for the most part followed a series of canyons or narrow valleys containing redwood groves. As noted above, 271 was signed in 2 segments once the 101 freeway was in place; it was intended that once a freeway segment from Leggett north to Smithe Grove State Park was constructed, 271 would be signed over the original highway, connecting those separate segments. Environmental concerns have since halted any freeway development along that stretch of US 101, hence the "split" route on CA 271; the southern section traverses the redwood-filled valley between Cummings and Leggett, while the northern serves Smithe Grove. If/when completed, 271 was intended to function exactly like CA 254 (Avenue of the Giants) further north, as a scenic 101 alternative.
I don't know much about the process that drew up the 1964-era route definitions - were some routes determined major and thus given legislative precedence in concurrency definitions, i.e. US 101 being defined in only two segments that corresponded to (mostly) LRN 1 and LRN 2?
Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)
Since LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time. Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II. Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes. The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.
Looking at the old LRN system, it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101)
I have always thought that LRN 1 being assigned along the combination of California US 199 and then the portion of 101 south of there to SF was because all of that is the named Redwood Highway altogether.
it was clear that the lowest numbers -- the first to be defined -- connected specific cities, places, or points of interest deemed to be of statewide importance -- 1 & 2 essentially defined US 101 (with some local deviations such as the northernmost segment of LRN 1 along US 199 rather than 101) from the Mexican border to Oregon, and 3 & 4 covering US 99 (and 99E) from Oregon south to Los Angeles. The next batch of numbers were connectors from these north-south "spines" to other points, sometimes in two directions; 5 - 8 were scattered over Northern California, connecting to one or more of the "spines". 9 was more or less a rather strange "branch" from 2 in Ventura, extending east along the northern reaches of the Los Angeles basin to San Bernardino, while 10 crossed east-west on what is now CA 198. 11 extended two ways from Sacramento (SW and east along US 50), 12 connected 2 in San Diego with Imperial Valley via US 80, 13 connected 4 at Salida, north of Modesto, with the eastern Sierra slope (on what is now CA 219 and CA 108). 14 was a Bay Area connector from Oakland to Martinez (at the time, the US 40 Carquinez Bridge was privately owned and not part of the LRN network, so US 40 was discontinuous: LRN 14 south of the bridge and LRN 7 northward). LRN 15 connected LRN's 1 & 3 via CA 20, while LRN 16 was CA 175 from Hopland to Kelseyville, on Clear Lake (this must have been politically-motivated, as it partially duplicates LRN 15, only 20 miles to the north). LRN 17 connected LRN 3 at Roseville to Grass Valley, while LRN 18 was the "all-weather" Yosemite connection (CA 140) from LRN 4 at Merced. LRN 19 connected LRN 2 at Fullerton to the "Inland Empire" cities of Pomona and Riverside, while LRN 20 was a cross-state connector, originally CA 44 for its full length but later US 299 (CA 299) west of Redding. LRN 21 and above didn't follow the pattern of the first 20 as "branches" extending out from the spines, but were established in order statewide as roads were brought into the state system.
Since LRN 1 was in the first batch of highways to be designated in 1924, it's likely that the shift to US 199 north of Crescent City was a nod to the fact that the upper Rogue River valley in Oregon, including Grants Pass, was more of a population and commercial center than was the Oregon coast at the time. Brookings, the largest town on the coast south of Coos Bay, didn't come into its own, population-wise, until it developed into a retirement center post-WW II. Also, since logging of the redwoods in the valley areas of Del Norte County was one of the two major enterprises there (commercial fishing being the other), it was likely thought that access to the nearest railhead, Grants Pass, would entail the prioritization of that route for those purposes. The adoption of the "Redwood Highway" name likely came later as the state -- and later national -- parks were developed in the region, and tourism became a major commercial component in the area.
Actually, LRN 1 was defined in the first bond issue in 1909 -- see http://www.cahighways.org/chrphas1.html . That gave you most of the first 34 legislatively defined routes. LRN1 was defined broadly: "From San Francisco to Crescent City, 371.2 mi". Similarly LRN 2 "From San Francisco to San Diego, 481.8 mi".Since the original "loose" definition of LRN 1 cited Crescent City as the terminus, it's likely that the decision to prioritize the inland US 199 corridor for the reasons I stated previously came at a later date -- possibly when the original multi-route highway system was formulated circa 1924. It might be useful to obtain a history of the deployment of US 101 along the Oregon coast to ascertain whether the northern extension of US 101 to the Oregon state line (LRN 71) was developed in conjunction with efforts north of the state line.
The way I look at it is that the entire Redwood Highway was the most ideal routing from what were then some of the more populated parts of California into the more populated parts of Oregon. It's just an easier winter routing than US 99, so I think the idea was that it would be the primary north-south route in the state.
From what I understand also, most of what is now US 101 in Oregon didn't exist until more into the mid-20th century.
LRN 1/US 199's completion a few years earlier also makes sense; Oregon would benefit, commerce-wise, from California redwood lumber being either milled and/or loaded onto railcars at Grants Pass or Medford, so expediting that coastal outlet would connect two areas with a mutual interest.
Interesting. I could see the reasoning for it being on the entrance ramps from 84, as it would guide drivers to the corresponding segment, especially since the 880 section used to be continuous.
I don't really get why Caltrans is so against multiplexes. This is a situation where it could be quite useful.
I was just saying that the legally defined multiplexes are rare in California, even where they would be pretty useful.
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.
I think it's probably an exception in that specific instance. Another example is with 33/166, I believe 166 mile markers are posted, as it's the original, older road, while 33 was tacked on as an extension to replace US-399.There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
No concurrency is truly "legally defined" as far as I know; for any one given segment of state-maintained/state-defined road, only one route number is legally defined on it, with the secondary route of the concurrency broken up into segments that begin and end at the other defined road.
The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.
%STARTSEG
From Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near San Dimas.
As of November 24, 2002, the portion from I-10 to I-210/Route 210 was signed as Route 57. Previously, this segment had been signed as part of I-210.
%HIST1964
In 1963, this segment was defined as the segment "Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona, passing near Industry." Note that the Route 210 referred to in this segment is the former I-10/I-210 junction in Pomona, not the current I-210/Route 57 junction in San Dimas.
In 1965, Section 1371 split this into two segments: "(b) Route 5 near Santa Ana to Route 60 near Industry. (c) Route 60 near Industry to Route 210 near Route 10 and Pomona."
In 1998, AB 2388 (Chapter 221) recombined these segments, and renumbered former Route 210 between the I-10 (near Pomona) to the I-210/Former Route 30 jct (near San Dimas) portion as Route 57, creating the current definition.
There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.
My take is it's more of a guideline or a convention than any actual rule and thus it's frequently ignored. Perhaps the route that was signed/built first gets priority, who knows.There's actually a priority for all of that: I-, US-, and then CA routes in ascending order. So, for example, if a CA route and a US route must multiplex, it is the CA route that gets the discontinuity. If two CA routes must multiplex, the higher number route gets the break, etc.
But that would dictate that, in the example above, SR 33 should get precedence over 152. I think the definition actually gives 33 the break there. Maybe there's an exception for what are obviously more important roads?
And I don't think there's actually a break in the definition of 108 for the multiplex with 49. There's just a break for the unconstructed portion.
Route 108 does have a break. Route 49 is postmiled along the 49/108 section.
You're right.
I noticed in the 49/120 multiplex also, that 49 gets the break instead of 120.
I'm not sure about this "ascending number" rule.
The freeway concurrency between CA 57 and CA 60 in Diamond Bar is not acknowledged in either route's legal definition, so there's an instance of a concurrency with no broken route. Exit signs follow CA 60 mileposts.
So it's possible that the 57/60 concurrency is simply following the post miles of the pre-freeway alignment
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
Jesus, look at that messed-up shield!New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
I've noticed a couple of instances in the S.F. Bay Area where the directional banner is above the route shield on the Freeway Entrance assemblies but the vast majority of the ones I see, including some new ones at the I-880/Stevens Creek Blvd interchange, follow the old/existing standard with the directional banner below the route shield.
Here's an assembly on eastbound Mission Blvd/CA-262 at the on-ramp to north I-680…(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/FwyEntAsm-680n.png)…that has the directional banner above the shield (note the oddly shaped neutered I-680 shield with larger than normal numerals).
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.
With the November election not far off, several California counties are planning transportation sales tax increases including the following:As this particular corridor has portions in both Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, does this measure address the corridor portion east of the L.A. county line as well -- since San Bernardino County is not at present considering a dedicated tax increase to address this project?
- Los Angeles County (Measure M) - http://thesource.metro.net/tag/measure-m/
- High Desert Corridor (E-220)
New subject: Has anyone noticed that Caltrans is changing its freeway entrance signing practices? In either the 2012 or 2014 updates to the California MUTCD, the totems were changed so that the cardinal direction plaque is now supposed to go above the route shield. I have noticed that this was actually the practice in at least one Caltrans district (District 5). I've noticed the new standard being used in a few spots around Sacramento now.
I'm curious to see if they'll follow the new standard when they replace the Business 80 shields on the freeway entrance packages on what is now solely signed as US-50 in Sacramento and West Sacramento. As I noted in my latest post in that thread, those shields have not been replaced yet.
iPhone
I have not yet noticed in Southern California. Funny about the placement of the direction sign. I prefer it above for US and Interstate shields, below for State shields. It just looks cleaner that way, in California. I will see if I can find some in Districts 7-12 with the new placement.
I have seen this on I-15 in San Bernardino County; I think it is becoming increasingly common. I will have to remember to photograph one of these to share next time I see one.
FWIW, I think SDMichael is right about the aesthetics of banner placement for Interstate and US route markers vs. state markers.
Walking back to the hotel in Downtown Fresno this evening and spotted this gem. Obviously city maintained. If I'm not mistaken, we have:
- Wrong size
- Wrong font
- Wrong placement of "California"
https://flic.kr/p/LwkP5A
Are there plans to fill in the many freeway quality gaps of us 101 between San Francisco and LA and make it a complete freeway between the 2 cities?
Nexus 9
I could see some of the section between Gilroy and Salinas being upgraded because of the increasing traffic on that section. However, nothing appears to be programmed right now.
Between Gaviota Pass and Santa Maria, you'd have to determine how many local landowners (ranches, farms, and vineyards) who have easement access directly from the highway would be impacted before you could determine the likelihood of an upgrade. Same thing for the sections in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties.
I could see some of the section between Gilroy and Salinas being upgraded because of the increasing traffic on that section. However, nothing appears to be programmed right now.
Actually, there have been many upgrades and grade crossing eliminations between State 156 and Salinas. At this time, there may not even be any remaining grade crossings. Only the section between State 25 and Gilroy really need any sort of upgrade.
CalTrans just put up new entrance assemblies on the 57 South at Lambert Rd in Brea. IIRC, the shield is above the directional banner. Has anyone checked the assemblies on the 215 portion of the San Bernardino Fwy? I didn't really check going through there the last couple days, but I'm willing to bet it's swapped. Sections of the 101 in Ventura County too I believe.
One of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
Caltrans has agreed to spend $3.1 million to help build a tunnel under Highway 17 in Santa Cruz County, a project expected to make the busy route safer for both wildlife and humans.
The state’s commitment, announced on Thursday by its governing board, means that the design work at the site, called Laurel Curve, could begin in a few months.
More than 350 animals of 82 different species, including 13 pumas, have been hit on Highway 17 in the last eight years, according to CalTrans data. Collisions are a risk to people, as well.
If additional funding is secured through Measure D, a half-cent sales tax for transportation projects in Santa Cruz County on the Nov. 8 ballot, the tunnel could be built by 2020. ...
Laurel Curve region is a route for animals because it holds the largest undeveloped parcels along Highway 17. The route follows two major drainage basins. One, on the east, leads to a branch of Soquel Creek and the protected Forest of Nisene Marks State Park. The other, on the west, leads to Bean Creek and the San Lorenzo River, then the sea.
A second tunnel under Highway 17 is planned near Lexington Reservoir in Santa Clara County. Caltrans does not have funds to help at this site, but it supports its installation and is working closely to help tunnel proponents Pathways for Wildlife, MidPeninsula Open Space District and Peninsula Open Space Trust, according to Tanya Diamond of Pathways for Wildlife. ...
The Laurel Curve tunnel will be about 120 feet long. Fencing is also required, to funnel wildlife into safe passage.
The tunnel will cost $8 to $12 million to build. If Measure D passes, $5 million will be contributed to construction of the tunnel.
57 is already signed as such between I-10 and I-210. The signs on I-10 say "To I-210" at the 57 interchange, and will probably continue to say so when SR 210 is renumbered to the interstate.
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
So what surface streets does Caltrans still control in Los Angeles? There's SR 1 on Sepulveda Blvd and the PCH, SR 2 on Santa Monica Blvd/Alvarado Street/Glendale Blvd, SR 213 on Western Ave somehow still exists, SR 27 on Topanga Canyon Blvd. I think that's it.
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
they're seriously giving away even the airport portion of 1 too? I feel like of all highways in california, 1 should never be decommissioned in any form. i hope they sign it still, it's so historic.
As mentioned elsewhere, it looks like California SR 187 will not be around too much longer...
http://lawestmedia.com/lawest/caltrans-give-control-venice-boulevard-city-l/QuoteOne of the last surface streets in Los Angeles that is part of the state highway system will be turned over to the City of Los Angeles, the state said last week.
Venice Boulevard between the Santa Monica (10) Freeway and Lincoln Boulevard is actually little-known California 187, and under control of Caltrans.
The California Transportation Commission has approved “relinquishing” the highway – turning it over to the City of Los Angeles. L.A. will now be in charge of maintenance, traffic signals and other operations.
The city will be paid a one-time fee of $14.5 million, which the commission determined was “in the best interests of the state,” according to an agenda item.
Neighboring SR 1 is also due to be turned over to Los Angeles, from the Santa Monica city limits to I-105.
they're seriously giving away even the airport portion of 1 too? I feel like of all highways in california, 1 should never be decommissioned in any form. i hope they sign it still, it's so historic.
I was under the impression that the signage on 1 had been staying up with previously relinquished portions around L.A. and Long Beach? If that's the case, good for Caltrans if they can get a local body to maintain the roadways...I'm all good with that provided there isn't a signage gap.
So silly, it took Caltrans forever to re-post Venice Blvd with 187 shield. Just completed within the last 2 years. They even put overlays at the I-10 westbound off-ramp. Now they have to come down.
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
I dont know why I wrote Ness. I meant Navy Way. That's the traffic light before the Thomas Bridge on 47.
Is SR 47 actually state maintained north of SR 103? It's not in the truck route list (http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/trucks/truck-network-map.html) (and for that matter, neither is the part with the signal at Ness Avenue).
I dont know why I wrote Ness. I meant Navy Way. That's the traffic light before the Thomas Bridge on 47.
I just went by what you said - the part just east of the Thomas Bridge is not listed as a state highway in the truck route list.
47 7 LA R 0.000 E 2.302 2.010 TA Jct 110 Begin Unconstructed - Seaside Ave.
47 7 LA 3.497 4.565 1.068 TA End Unconstructed - Terminal Island Fwy Jct Rte 103
The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.Where? I can't find the following bridges on (signed) SR 47:
The Navy Way bridge is in the District 7 bridge log though. So I would assume it's still state-maintained.Where? I can't find the following bridges on (signed) SR 47:
*SR 47 over railroads and Navy Way ramp
*SR 47 over railroads east of Navy Way
*I-710 over SR 47
*I-710 Desmond Bridge
*anything on SR 47 north of SR 103
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd07.pdf
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
why wasn't the freeway portion of CA 160 connected to I-5? it seems weird to have it just dump traffic onto city streets like that. Also, is the gap through downtown still signed at all? I thought you had to maintain signage when the state gives the road away.
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
I would guess so. The sign is still up and is quite prominent (you can see it clearly on GSV, at the northern part of the intersection). I noticed it when I was through there a few weeks ago.Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
I could absolutely be wrong, but I recall 170 being signed on Highland somewhere in 2003 or so. About how long ago were the signs removed? And was it ever signed on the 101 offramp?
Search "Navy Way" within the doc. It's in the index.Strange. I wonder why it's not in the main list...perhaps it was once state maintained but no longer is? Did the city take it over and build the flyover where SR 47 turns? Or maybe it was built by the city but will be taken over by the state when work is done?
I would guess so. The sign is still up and is quite prominent (you can see it clearly on GSV, at the northern part of the intersection). I noticed it when I was through there a few weeks ago.Route 170 on Highland was recently decommissioned, right?
Highland is off the books. In addition the legislature also deleted the unconstructed segment near LAX. Here's the new definition:
Route 170 is from Route 101 near Riverside Drive to Route 5 near Tujunga Wash.
I could absolutely be wrong, but I recall 170 being signed on Highland somewhere in 2003 or so. About how long ago were the signs removed? And was it ever signed on the 101 offramp?
There may still be a 170 shield on the southbound lane near the Hollywood Bowl entrance. That was definitely the last shield.
Interstate 5 Stockton North project nears completion with opening of new HOV lane in September ...
http://www.recordnet.com/news/20160921/sjs-first-carpool-lane-opens-on-i-5-through-stockton
Any stretches of CA freeways that have no more button copy on them? I hear I-10 is virtually button copy free.
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Bakersfield and the whole 99 corridor has a ton of them left. Even the surface routes or lesser expressways in San Joaquin Valley have button copy all over the place on guide signs.
The Sacramento stretch of I-5 appeared to mostly be button-free on my trip up there last week, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn of a remaining sign.
If you're looking for a "most remaining button copy signs," then I would nominate San Jose.
Bakersfield and the whole 99 corridor has a ton of them left. Even the surface routes or lesser expressways in San Joaquin Valley have button copy all over the place on guide signs.
They'll never be replaced on the Crosstown Expressway. Eventually it will just be buttons, and no copy. I would fathom that some of the signs there are older than me. Eventually, the pavement there will be nominated for historic status. And Stockton will market it in their tourist brochures.
I shot a video of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14) northerly from the Newhall Interchange back in April, 2016. I just uploaded it with some signs and what not. This is an awesome freeway through the mountains:
I shot this last April, on a trip when I drove up the west coast. I started in Phoenix, AZ, where I rented a one way car which I dropped off in Portland, OR, twelve days later.
My route involved driving from Phoenix to San Diego along Interstate 8. I then spent a couple of days touring around San Diego and LA, before heading up to Reno on CA-14 and US-395. I spent the night outside of Lake Tahoe, and then took 80 across into Sacramento. From there, I went into San Francisco for part of the day, and then drove up the coast along SR-1 and US-101 all the way to Aberdeen, Washington. I spent a day and a half in Seattle, and then drove back down to Portland where I spend the day before flying back home later that evening.
So far, I have only uploaded a few videos from that trip. This was my third upload, which was preceded by videos of I-210 and SR-134 through suburban LA, and a short freeway tour of Phoenix. I took quite a few vids though, and plan to be uploading them more frequently in the next few weeks.
I-210 and 134 vid:
Phoenix Freeway tour:
It is the very symbol of traffic and congestion. Interstate 405, or the 405, as it is known by the 300,000 drivers who endure it morning and night, is the busiest highway in the nation, a 72-mile swerving stretch of pavement that crosses the sprawling metropolis of Los Angeles.
So it was that many Angelenos applauded when officials embarked on one of the most ambitious construction projects in modern times here: a $1 billion initiative to widen the highway. And drivers and others put up with no shortage of disruption – detours and delays, highway shutdowns, neighborhood streets clogged with cars – in the hopes of relieving one of the most notorious bottlenecks anywhere.
Six years after the first bulldozer rolled in, the construction crews are gone. A new car pool lane has opened, along with a network of on- and offramps and three new earthquake-resistant bridges.
But the question remains: Was it worth it?
Nearly a year after a judge ruled that part of its final environmental impact report was inadequately done, Caltrans on Thursday night presented its revised draft EIR for the Highway 101 widening project between Santa Barbara and Carpinteria.
The document was released earlier this month, kicking off a 60-day public commenting period for the final phase of the long-awaited Highway 101 widening project.
The phase will add a high-occupancy vehicle lane in each direction of the freeway along the 10.9-mile stretch between the Andree Clark Bird Refuge in Santa Barbara and just south of Bailard Avenue in Carpinteria.
Under the plan, the interchanges at Sheffield Drive in Montecito and at Cabrillo Boulevard and Hot Springs Road in Santa Barbara will also be reconstructed, eliminating the area’s left-hand offramps.
The EIR revision came after a lawsuit challenged the document, arguing that Caltrans failed to adequately analyze the impacts to local intersections and cumulative traffic impacts from the project.
The original EIR was approved in August 2014, and Superior Court Judge Thomas Anderle ordered the revision this past January. Only the intersections section of the original EIR had to be redone.
“This project is going to be the last freeway lanes that we’re going to build in this part of the corridor in any of our lifetimes,” said Scott Eades, Caltrans’ Highway 101 corridor manager. “We’re not designing this project to build another lane at some point in the future. Literally, we’re designing this project to be the ultimate capacity for this corridor.”
SR 299 is closed due to earth movement at Big French Creek near Del Loma (between SR 3 and SR 96 on the way to the coast). Caltrans hopes to reopen the route to controlled one-way traffic next month. The detour/alternate route is SR 36.
http://www.actionnewsnow.com/news/caltrans-hwy-299-closed-again-at-big-french-creek-until-early-january/
I shot a video of the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR-14) northerly from the Newhall Interchange back in April, 2016. I just uploaded it with some signs and what not. This is an awesome freeway through the mountains:
I shot this last April, on a trip when I drove up the west coast. I started in Phoenix, AZ, where I rented a one way car which I dropped off in Portland, OR, twelve days later.
My route involved driving from Phoenix to San Diego along Interstate 8. I then spent a couple of days touring around San Diego and LA, before heading up to Reno on CA-14 and US-395. I spent the night outside of Lake Tahoe, and then took 80 across into Sacramento. From there, I went into San Francisco for part of the day, and then drove up the coast along SR-1 and US-101 all the way to Aberdeen, Washington. I spent a day and a half in Seattle, and then drove back down to Portland where I spend the day before flying back home later that evening.
So far, I have only uploaded a few videos from that trip. This was my third upload, which was preceded by videos of I-210 and SR-134 through suburban LA, and a short freeway tour of Phoenix. I took quite a few vids though, and plan to be uploading them more frequently in the next few weeks.
I-210 and 134 vid:
Phoenix Freeway tour:
N.Y. Times: Los Angeles Drivers on the 405 Ask: Was $1.6 Billion Worth It? (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/20/us/los-angeles-drivers-on-the-405-ask-was-1-6-billion-worth-it.html)QuoteIt is the very symbol of traffic and congestion. Interstate 405, or the 405, as it is known by the 300,000 drivers who endure it morning and night, is the busiest highway in the nation, a 72-mile swerving stretch of pavement that crosses the sprawling metropolis of Los Angeles.QuoteSo it was that many Angelenos applauded when officials embarked on one of the most ambitious construction projects in modern times here: a $1 billion initiative to widen the highway. And drivers and others put up with no shortage of disruption – detours and delays, highway shutdowns, neighborhood streets clogged with cars – in the hopes of relieving one of the most notorious bottlenecks anywhere.QuoteSix years after the first bulldozer rolled in, the construction crews are gone. A new car pool lane has opened, along with a network of on- and offramps and three new earthquake-resistant bridges.QuoteBut the question remains: Was it worth it?
It's interesting that there are still stretches of that freeway that are only two-lane each way (not counting the carpool lanes) with the enormous population growth of the Palmdale/Lancaster area over the last thirty years.
It's interesting that there are still stretches of that freeway that are only two-lane each way (not counting the carpool lanes) with the enormous population growth of the Palmdale/Lancaster area over the last thirty years.
I don't really like the idea of having a dedicated carpool lane on a freeway with only two or more general purpose lanes. Fortunately however, the carpool restriction is only in effect during peak hours on this freeway. Something that is very atypical of other LA area freeways.
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
That's how all carpool lanes should be--only HOV during peak hours.Not according to our wonderful governor. (http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-sac-carpool-lanes-20150929-story.html)
Video of the Moreno Valley Freeway in California taken during evening dusk last April:
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
Really the only one I can think of that has a car tunnel now would be the fallen redwood in Sequoia National Park just a couple miles east of Moro Rock.
This might upset a lot of Californians, if they haven't read or heard about it already:
http://gizmodo.com/after-more-than-100-years-californias-iconic-tunnel-tr-1790964594
For Chevron owner Manjit Multani Sing, drivers getting rerouted means customers going elsewhere to fuel up. "Since it's raining and business is pretty slow and last since yesterday with the good rain and the 269 is closed and business is pretty slow now," he said.
- Interstate 80 at Donner Summit was closed a day or two ago due to a large mudslide and downed power lines (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-live-winter-weather-california-i-80-closed-in-both-directions-near-1483946038-htmlstory.html)
- Interstate 80 at Donner Summit was closed a day or two ago due to a large mudslide and downed power lines (http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-live-winter-weather-california-i-80-closed-in-both-directions-near-1483946038-htmlstory.html)
It closed today too due to white out conditions. They had an avalanche at Alpine Meadows that closed 89 for a while, then US 50 east of Placerville was stopped for at least an hour due to avalanche danger.
Los Angeles officials have restored limited access to Laurel Canyon Boulevard, unclogging a major north-south traffic artery that was shut down last week after a mudslide.
Southbound traffic can now use the full stretch of Laurel Canyon Boulevard, said Edward Yu, an engineer with the city’s Department of Transportation. Northbound drivers will be detoured onto Laurel Canyon Road between Kirkwood and Mount Olympus drives, he said.
The announcement comes four days after a mudslide sent part of a home’s patio down a hillside, pushing debris onto the busy boulevard. That, in turn, prompted officials to close a section of the street, which serves as a crucial north-south route between the Westside and Studio City in the San Fernando Valley.
On Saturday, building inspectors determined the hillside had been stabilized. Large concrete barriers have been installed on part of Laurel Canyon Boulevard. Truck traffic remains prohibited.
Last week, jurors found Caltrans negligent for failing to make the slightly inclined, diagonal intersection safer despite a history of collisions and complaints about visibility. They also found some blame on the part of the taxi driver who collided with Amir “Nick” Ekbatani, the former UCLA offensive lineman who lost a portion of his left leg in the crash.
Ekbatani was traveling northbound on PCH in the late evening of July 14, 2012, when he was struck by a southbound taxi making a left turn onto Diamond Street. ...
The striping of two double-double yellow lines to form a simulated median on the pavement would give left turners “positive guidance,” Mardirossian said, and a left-turn signal would have prevented the accident. ...
Redondo Beach Mayor Steve Aspel said city engineers will meet with Caltrans officials to get the ball rolling on intersection improvements.
The city originally was named in the lawsuit, but was dropped from the case after successfully arguing it does not control the intersection at the west end of Redondo Union High School and has no liability.
“We are requesting meetings with Caltrans to see if we can help rectify it and speed up anything that needs to be done,” Aspel said. “It’s their final call, but it does concern me because so many kids from the high school cross right there. PCH is a highway and people travel too fast and they don’t understand those intersections are at an angle.”
Intersections are supposed to have 90-degree angles, Mardirossian said, but PCH and Diamond Street form a 60-degree angle.
Betty White Freeway
Another southern California video from me. This time it's the 71 and 60 freeways from Corona towards LA:
^ I drove US-395 last April when I took those videos. I was just saying that to try and capture video, I wasn't sure exactly which stretches would be the best to film, because at that time I'd never driven it before. Turned out though, that April was a great time to do the drive, because the Sierra's were still very much snow capped, but the valleys were warm and nice.
I'd like to drive some of the Trans-Sierra Highways at some point in the future, but I tend to go to California during the winter time when the passes are closed as a way to escape the cold and misery that is southern Ontario in the winter.
^ I drove US-395 last April when I took those videos. I was just saying that to try and capture video, I wasn't sure exactly which stretches would be the best to film, because at that time I'd never driven it before. Turned out though, that April was a great time to do the drive, because the Sierra's were still very much snow capped, but the valleys were warm and nice.
I'd like to drive some of the Trans-Sierra Highways at some point in the future, but I tend to go to California during the winter time when the passes are closed as a way to escape the cold and misery that is southern Ontario in the winter.
Cool stuff! If you're ever in the Mono neck of the woods during spring or fall, be sure to make a side trip over CA 270 (and the following unimproved county road) to the ghost town of Bodie. Well worth the trip. The June Lake loop (CA 158) is also nice, but try to avoid it between June and September, when it's populated by -- well, I'll use a "nicer" term to describe them than I usually yell out the window -- unskilled drivers in massive RV's. A couple of them blocking the road because they can't turn their rig around can mess up a whole afternoon!
Don't blame you for wanting to escape Ontario in winter -- a good friend is originally from Sudbury -- and lived in Ottawa for many years -- and was eternally grateful when his company transferred him to their San Jose-area facility a few years ago (he's an EE). He certainly doesn't miss the snow -- but has been complaining nonstop about how CA drivers can't or won't adapt to adverse weather such as we've been having up here for the last week or so (double-edged sword and all that!).
Because of the recent storms, Ortega is now sagging in a stretch, which was noticed Wednesday. Geo-technical engineers for Caltrans, after getting a report that the road seemed to be dipping, were inspecting the roadway when they discovered large cracks in the eastbound lanes, Whitfield said.
Caltrans needs to deeply assess the damage before determine when Ortega can re-open.
Over five days ending Monday, three storms dropped 5.6 inches of rainwater onto the area, according to the National Weather Service. Nearly 12 inches have fallen there this month.
The 8,000-acre Caspers Wilderness Park, an Orange County-operated swath along Ortega, was shut as well until the highway re-opens.
The historic highway originated in the 1920s and now stretches 32 miles over the Santa Ana Mountains.
For years there had been discussions to widen Ortega beyond largely one lane in each direction, but the proposal was scrapped a year ago after locals complained that would attract more development and vehicles.
Ortega Highway, a link between south Orange County and Riverside County, was closed to commuters Wednesday after sagging in the road was discovered following this weekend’s heavy storms.
The highway is blocked to traffic going east at Antonio Parkway, three miles from the I-5 freeway, and going west at Grand Avenue in Lake Elsinore. Residents of the area are being allowed in to get to their homes, but the families of about 30 children are having to exit the area via Lake Elsinore and drive around to their schools in Orange County.
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
74 has, out of necessity for many inland commuters, been functioning as a "relief route" for CA 91 from at least the turn of the century -- despite its complete inappropriateness as a mass traffic mover. I can't help but think that the wear & tear on that highway (even with its semi-truck prohibition) may have contributed to its structural issues, particularly on the segment deep in the canyon. The recent rains may have just been the "last straw", so to speak. CA 74 should have been at least realigned a decade ago, if not earlier.
I saw something on the local news this morning in a similar vein. Soquel-San Jose Road outside Santa Cruz, which is used by some as a relief route for SR 17, has been closed by the county because one side has started to collapse at a curve. This was, in large part, due to it carrying more traffic than what it was designed for. No trucks, but enough vehicles to cause structural issues. It's possible that the recent closures of SR 17 exacerbated the problem.
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Probably a lot of people from Oroville are saying that right now.
^^^^
Well hell...that's a rare one with 74. It has been two days since that initial article and it isn't even on the quickmap:
http://quickmap.dot.ca.gov/
You know, maybe the drought wasn't so bad. :bigass:
Probably a lot of people from Oroville are saying that right now.
With all the increased releases from Oroville in an effort to lower the lake level, quite a few low lying areas downstream of there have taken on additional water and have flooded. It will be interesting to see how things hold up in the next few days through the storms that are coming through the end of the week. The Caltrans twitter feed (https://twitter.com/CaltransHQ) continues to provide updates on road closures, with SR 70, 99, and 162 being affected over the past few days to varying degrees.
I'm curious if this genuinely surprises anyone. I mean, I remember most of the same shit going down in, I believe, '95 (I read this morning that the Salinas River is expected to hit its '95 level this weekend, so I assume that's the year), but I think that was more south because I recall a lot of video of Malibu homes relocating themselves. It's just that, thus far, I've been surprised by people being surprised by it. Who would have thought that the tallest dam in the country would have an issue during significant rain? Who would have thought that building a highway across erosion-prone hills would result in a portion being washed away?
Is this just me?
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back.
On the plus side it will probably kill a lot of tourist traffic heading north because you'd have to double back.
You're right. I don't normally even get close to Pfeiffer park on weekends on the summer, but will probably go down there for hiking in a couple of months once it dries out a bit, just because I can't imagine the crowds are going to be very thick this year, and it'll certainly be nice and green. Maybe the restaurants in Big Sur will start running specials so that they'll just be in the "expensive" instead of the "WTF is this" range.
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge. Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
I always hated how the heavy law enforcement feel once you get north of Bixby Creek.
Might be good for some camping too provided that doesn't get shut down on 1.
I have to think that Caltrans could drop a temporary modular bridge into place in fairly short order. Perhaps not for the duration of the rainy season, due to concerns about erosion on the bridge embankments, but during the dry part of the year, a new bridge could be erected withing a few weeks if not sooner.
I always hated how the heavy law enforcement feel once you get north of Bixby Creek.
What?Might be good for some camping too provided that doesn't get shut down on 1.
It should be a good year to go camping down there. Most of the spots are typically reserved well in advance, and the few walk-in spots that exist (don't remember if they're at Pfeiffer or at Garapata) require careful planning to snag, so all the news about Big Sur being closed has likely already made long-distance tourists alter their plans. I've been seeing that reflected on TripAdvisor. People don't know what's going to happen, so they don't want to book anything.
I have to think that Caltrans could drop a temporary modular bridge into place in fairly short order. Perhaps not for the duration of the rainy season, due to concerns about erosion on the bridge embankments, but during the dry part of the year, a new bridge could be erected withing a few weeks if not sooner.
It'll be a while. The stability of the hill is going to have to be studied once the rain finally stops (it's supposed to rain again this weekend) and, even then, I don't think it'll be safe by summer. This isn't the Sierras. Even in dry years the ground is really unstable in that region.
Every time I've taken 1 north through Big Sur there is a ton of Sheriff's and CHP presence north from the Bixby Bridge, through Carmel to where the freeway begins. Last time I counted 12 County Sheriff vehicles and two CHP. Granted tourism usually leads to problems with people misbehaving, other roads like 41 north of Fresno get like that during the season...especially with CHP. Definitely necessary to step up enforcement during tourist season but not the most inviting feeling to see so many squad cars.
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Ooo, that's not good. I'm surprised they're letting emergency vehicles cross.
It looks like a pretty "standard plans" bridge. Maybe they'll have a replacement in by summer.
Here's a pic from Caltrans that shows why the bridge is toast:
...
Ooo, that's not good. I'm surprised they're letting emergency vehicles cross.
They aren't, read the second article Coatimundi posted in reply 267. I wouldn't even want to walk across that thing in that shape.
I'm surprised the bridge totally hasn't slid down the hill with that lean....
The bridge sunk a couple of feet overnight due to active landslides created by historic amounts of rain. ... “Obviously it’s going down by itself at a pretty good rate now,” said David Galarza, Caltrans’ structure representative for the project. “As time progresses, we will continue to assess if we want to assist it in it coming down to the ground.”(http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/mch-l-bigsur-0223_2_2.jpg)
I would think that leaving it standing out just draw people out there to take pictures, probably best just to assist it falling over.
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Yes, coastal California is difficult country, bedrock is usually way too far down, the hills are often steep, and the area is subject to heavy floods.
Landslides do a lot of damage in lots of places, though. A lot of people don't realize it because it's usually a little damage here and there instead of all in a few seconds.
The northern coast during a much drier time:
I shot this last year. What a spectacular drive it is.
It's definitely worth driving. I'd never been north of San Francisco in California before I did this trip last year. I really enjoyed myself. I followed the Coast all the way up to Aberdeen, Washington. If I were to do it again, I would bother with it north of Astoria.
I've done the coast through Big Sur twice. Once was in December, 2014. The road was marked closed due to slides. I drove through (after I asked an oncoming car if it was passable), and saw a few minor slides along the route. Looking back, I was pretty naive about just how much damage a rain storm can do to the coast road.
There are a lot of great drives in California.
For a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
Monterey Count Weekly posted an update on the Big Sur situation today: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/construction-to-begin-on-nacimiento-fergusson-road-re-opening-access/article_392fb784-fae6-11e6-826a-0f323a4dc806.htmlWhat's wrong with it?QuoteFor a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
I like the "11:30-noon". I believe it takes over an hour to drive it from 101. Maybe they mean from a point in the mountains, which is where I believe the closure currently starts. But I wouldn't want to be the delivery guy bringing a box truck through that.
Highway 1 is still closed at Palo Colorado. They had slides and are only allowing residents through to the more serious closure at Pfeiffer Canyon. Otherwise, I may have tried to go down to the bridge this weekend. Personally, I think the slides are minor and are just used as an excuse to keep people the F out of there. But that's for the best. The Palo Colorado community itself is really messed up.
Monterey Count Weekly posted an update on the Big Sur situation today: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/construction-to-begin-on-nacimiento-fergusson-road-re-opening-access/article_392fb784-fae6-11e6-826a-0f323a4dc806.htmlWhat's wrong with it?QuoteFor a few hours a day starting Monday, Big Sur will no longer be an island. The U.S. Forest Service announced plans to begin construction with limited access for through-traffic on Nacimiento-Fergusson Road starting Monday, Feb. 27.
I like the "11:30-noon". I believe it takes over an hour to drive it from 101. Maybe they mean from a point in the mountains, which is where I believe the closure currently starts. But I wouldn't want to be the delivery guy bringing a box truck through that.
Highway 1 is still closed at Palo Colorado. They had slides and are only allowing residents through to the more serious closure at Pfeiffer Canyon. Otherwise, I may have tried to go down to the bridge this weekend. Personally, I think the slides are minor and are just used as an excuse to keep people the F out of there. But that's for the best. The Palo Colorado community itself is really messed up.
According to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
I can see if it was damaged in an earthquake, but a mudslide? It must've been built over very poor land for that to happen.
Yes, coastal California is difficult country, bedrock is usually way too far down, the hills are often steep, and the area is subject to heavy floods.
Landslides do a lot of damage in lots of places, though. A lot of people don't realize it because it's usually a little damage here and there instead of all in a few seconds.
Here's a fresh look, taken yesterday, of the Pfeiffer Canyon bridge (Caltrans photo) continuing to fall:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fskqSVAAAWCRV.jpg)
http://abc7news.com/news/warning-issued-over-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration/1793506/QuoteAccording to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
Here's a fresh look, taken yesterday, of the Pfeiffer Canyon bridge (Caltrans photo) continuing to fall:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6fskqSVAAAWCRV.jpg)
http://abc7news.com/news/warning-issued-over-pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-deterioration/1793506/QuoteAccording to Caltrans, due to extreme safety concerns, people are being told to stay clear and not get within a 100 feet of either side of the bridge.
Just needs a little duct tape, is all. :-D
The Pfeiffer Canyon bridge was demolished Friday.
http://www.kcra.com/article/caltrans-demolishes-big-sur-bridge/9152581
(http://hips.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/big-sur-bridge-1489888487.jpg)
It's definitely worth driving. I'd never been north of San Francisco in California before I did this trip last year. I really enjoyed myself. I followed the Coast all the way up to Aberdeen, Washington. If I were to do it again, I would bother with it north of Astoria.
I've done the coast through Big Sur twice. Once was in December, 2014. The road was marked closed due to slides. I drove through (after I asked an oncoming car if it was passable), and saw a few minor slides along the route. Looking back, I was pretty naive about just how much damage a rain storm can do to the coast road.
There are a lot of great drives in California.
Olympic is incredible. The variety of ecosystems is an absolute national treasure.
Last time I was out that way I stayed in Sequim since it offers such a huge relief from the rain. The further west you go the more rainy it gets. Really it was probably better than Mount Rainier because of the diverse range of differing climates and lack of people.
Last time I was out that way I stayed in Sequim since it offers such a huge relief from the rain. The further west you go the more rainy it gets. Really it was probably better than Mount Rainier because of the diverse range of differing climates and lack of people.
Sequim, unusual for a NW town, is a "mecca" for "snowbird" RV'ers who seek out warmer-than-usual places to spend the winter. Back in the early '90's when I lived in Portland, a number of St. Louis-based relatives who fit that category dropped by on their way to Sequim -- usually just after the holiday season. Having spend several Christmases in StL, I can hardly fault them for wanting to head toward a more benign climate!
"Why go back?"
I'm not a snowbird, but I dislike hot weather (and hot humid weather especially) way more than disliking the cold overcast weather of the pacific northwest. If it's cold, you can bundle up in warm clothes. If it's hot, you can't really do much about that but stay inside where there's AC. And I hate being stuck inside.
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
What is even more strange to me is how little actually RV/Snow Bird destinations California has compared to Nevada and Arizona. Really off the top of my head the big RV/Snowbird places I can think of in California would be Sun City/Menifee and Coachella Valley. Basically Arizona has; Lake Havasu, Parker, Quartzsite, Yuma, all those dinky places on US 60 west of Wickenburg, Phoenix, Apache Junction, and even Tucson...I'm sure that I'm missing a lot more. There is just as much desert in California as there is in Arizona but there is something to it that isn't as big a draw for that crowd.California is expensive, Arizona is not. No real intrigue to this one.
In California, I see snowbirds hanging out on BLM land in the Imperial Valley, until it gets too hot and they meander their way back to Canada. No hookups or other services, but it's hard to beat the price (nothing).
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
But that all said a lot of the RV crowd was attracted to places like La Paz, Yuma, and Mohave County in Arizona which were all relatively rural compared to Maricopa County. What is the difference between say rural San Bernardino County?...seems to me that Needles and Barstow might be missing out on an economic windfall from the retiree crowd. Southern Clark County in Laughlin is another mecca for the RV crowd, in fact I believe it is in the top five popular retiree RV sites in the country. Now could it all come down to sales taxes and gas prices driving the retirees away?....maybe?...but outside of Sun City there aren't a lot of large scale attempts to attract said crowd.Sales tax, income tax, cost of fuel, cost of food, cost of housing. Also reasonable access to a major city for occasional trips to the airport (either going to see family or having them visit), shopping, and visiting specialist doctors (very important when you get old and your body falls apart). Most of rural San Bernardino county is too far away from everything.
When I was living in Hesperia from 2009 to 2012, many of the folks I came across were military retirees; neighboring Apple Valley seemed to be a "mecca" for ex-USAF personnel (the proximity of 3 former and present bases: Edwards, George, and Norton, likely accounted for much of that phenomenon). That, despite a distinct lack of extensive medical facilities (St. Mary's in AV and Valley Med in Victorville, both mid-sized facilities, comprised what was available); from conversations I had with local residents concerning this discrepancy, a substantial number of these -- dominated by folks over 55 -- simply went "over the hill" (i.e., Cajon Pass) for their major medical needs, either to Arrowhead Medical Center in Rialto or the Loma Linda complex. Also, many of them were "grandfathered-in" Kaiser members who schlepped down the nearest facility in Fontana as their primary site.
Quoting:
You are right on all counts. I am sure when it came to Division of Highways --> Caltrans, that Reagan was going for efficiency in government. I am sure he did not foresee the Caltrans of today that spends more time on bicycle and pedestrian plans instead of building roads that move goods and people.
As for CEQA, I always wondered if Reagan realized what a Pandora's box he opened. I am sure it was passed with good intentions but then most legislation is. Few people foresee government action taking on a life of its own, far beyond what was intended.
I agree on not making things to politically heavy, except to note that the concept of building roads has become all too political over the past 4 decades. I am most interested to see if there comes a turning point in California such that building roads and infrastructure becomes the in-thing to do again. Jerry Brown is a dinosaur as are many in the California Legislature and nothing lasts forever.
I keep hoping that new blood comes in, casts off the chains that have kept the once Golden State from building, and makes this state a golden beacon again. Once the State of California used to be pro-active - anticipating problems and working to build ahead of time to keep the problem from occurring. Now we hem and haw until it is far too late and the solution is nothing more than an ill-fitting band-aid, unable to work. Adding one or two lanes to a freeway that is has been congested for more than 50 years (think I-5 in Norwalk) is better than nothing but is not enough.
Kind of funny to think of Hesperia and Victorville really as another part of the outward urban Sprawl from Los Angeles....but its really true. A 30 mile drive over Cajon Pass doesn't seem all that bad to get the doctor compared what it really could be.
I'm not sure the Division of Highways to Caltrans transition was motivated primarily by efficiency. At that time California was fairly flush and not really feeling pinched. However, the urban areas felt they were approaching the end of where freeways could reasonably be built, but there was no state agency building the mass transit projects that would be more appropriate for urban areas. Caltrans was to be the agency charged with both.
Yes, Reagan did slash the state colleges budget, but that wasn't motivated by saving money, that was a way to punish those damn hippy students who thought they could protest any way they wanted to and their colleges weren't kicking them out.
At least look into it further before assuming it was budget cuts.
Driving on I-10 towards the western end, Caltrans has changed the overhead signs for Lincoln Blvd to say "TO SR 1 SOUTH." Rarely do I see them change signs on freeways to acknowledge a local relinquishment of a state highway.
Driving on I-10 towards the western end, Caltrans has changed the overhead signs for Lincoln Blvd to say "TO SR 1 SOUTH." Rarely do I see them change signs on freeways to acknowledge a local relinquishment of a state highway.
At least the route continuation is mentioned! Let's hope they followed up at the end of the ramp at Lincoln Blvd. with a directional trailblazer as well (even if it also has a "TO" banner attached).
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Bingo! I had a very hard time getting through Ventura on 1 back in 2013. Reassurance signs being MIA is not reassuring!
Rick
ya if it were indiana, the signs would just disappear, then reappear on the portion that they maintain.
Grump. If Caltrans can con cities or towns into taking over maintenance, good for them. But the routes should still be state routes, with their exits marked and reassurance markers. Route signs are to aid easily-confused travelers. Travelers don't care who's supposed to be filling the potholes.
Bingo! I had a very hard time getting through Ventura on 1 back in 2013. Reassurance signs being MIA is not reassuring!
Rick
EAGLE ROCK >> Caltrans transportation engineer Wahib Jreij fixed his gaze on a live jumbo screen of infamous Los Angeles traffic, then zeroed in on some grainy insets of the northbound Hollywood Freeway.
Cars flowed freely at the end of morning rush hour past traffic merging in from Sunset Boulevard – held back to one car at a time for half a century by California’s first freeway onramp light meter.
“Los Angeles, without ramp meters, would have more accidents, more pollution and definitely more congestion,” declared Jreij, the Caltrans District 7 transportation engineer in charge of ramp metering. “They work.”
It was 50 years ago this week that the state Division of Highways, a forerunner of Caltrans, installed the first fixed freeway ramp meters in Hollywood. Los Angeles, now home to 1,000, can now lay claim to the Ramp Meter Capital of the nation.
At 4:15 p.m. on April 11, 1967, two strange stop lights flickered on at the northbound onramp at Sunset Boulevard and the 101 Freeway.
Drivers of the latest Chevy Camaro SS muscle cars who had once gunned it up the ramp now had to wait for a green in order to merge into the third traffic lane.
At the same time, transportation engineers closed the nearby onramp at nearby Hollywood Boulevard – preventing more than 900 cars from entering the freeway before 6 p.m.
The idea, born a few years earlier on an expressway outside Chicago, was to limit packs of cars from suddenly entering and slowing down the freeway. ...
Of the nearly 3,000 metering sites in California, some 1,024 ramp meters are spread across Los Angeles and Ventura counties, transportation officials say, making Caltrans District 7 the largest ramp metering region in the nation. Of those, roughly 30 meters control connecting freeways.
And at its heart is the Los Angeles County Regional Transportation Management Center, home to Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol offices in Eagle Rock. ...
There are no statistics that measure ramp measure effectiveness in Los Angeles, Caltrans officials say. But they cite an independent study in Minnesota that demonstrated they keep traffic moving.
Nearly two decades ago, residents of the Twin Cities questioned whether 430 freeway ramp meters worked. So for six weeks, the Minnesota Department of Transportation turned them off.
The result: freeway volume fell 9 percent; speeds dropped 7 percent; travel times increased 22 percent; crashes increased 26 percent, including a 200 percent increase in side-swipe hits.
Caltrans District 7 now plans to install more ramp meters, funds permitting, on the northbound 170 Freeway near Mission Hills, along the 101 Freeway in Camarillo, and on Highway 14 into the Antelope Valley.
why doesn't california 261 have a direct connection with i-5? and why does it stop just short of i-405? where does it officially begin?
A resolution authored by state Sen. Anthony Portantino to name a segment of the 134 Freeway between Eagle Rock and Pasadena after President Barack Obama advanced one step closer to becoming official this week.
The state Senate approved the resolution on Monday by a vote of 35-1. Previously, it had been adopted by the Senate Transportation Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee. ...
The resolution would require Caltrans to erect a sign between the 2 Freeway and the 210 Freeway declaring that segment the “President Barack H. Obama Freeway.”
The portion of the 134 Freeway lies just north of Occidental College in Eagle Rock, the small, private, liberal arts college Barack “Barry” Obama attended from 1979 to 1981. Obama lived in the dorms as a freshman and then in an apartment at 253 E. Glenarm St., in Pasadena as a sophomore.
It’s taken more than two decades of intermittent highway construction, but motorists now can drive from Interstate 5 in Oceanside all the way to Interstate 15 in Fallbrook along a four-lane split highway with a lifesaving barrier in the middle.
The roughly $400 million state Route 76 improvement project has transformed the highway from a once curvy two-lane road – clogged by rush-hour traffic and occasionally scarred by head-on collisions – to a wider, straighter thoroughfare. ...
Crews recently wrapped up the final five-mile stretch – from South Mission Road in Fallbrook to Interstate 15 – months ahead of schedule at a cost of $201 million. That phase began in 2013 with the complete reconfiguration of the I-15 interchange. All work that remains is extensive landscaping of the highway using drought-tolerant plants.
The entire state Route 76 corridor project was divided into three segments: west, middle and east. The western segment through Oceanside was completed in 1999. The second phase, stretching from Melrose Drive to South Mission Road, was finished in 2012 at a cost of $171 million. ...
The highway was first built in the 1930s and over the decades has been the site of several fatal crashes. Bettencourt said it wasn’t necessarily because the road was unsafe, but because people would drive too fast, or while they were intoxicated, or would try to unsafely pass slower vehicles by crossing over double-yellow lines.
State Route 76 is a vital artery linking coastal North County to inland communities, including Southwest Riverside County. As the population has grown – and Indian casinos have proliferated east of Interstate 15 – traffic on the two-lane road has skyrocketed.
Traffic along the most recently completed five-mile stretch today averages more than 20,000 daily vehicle trips, a number that is expected to more than double by 2030, state transportation officials have said. ...
Throughout the project, Caltrans has been working closely with the county, which has been buying land and slowly developing a park along the banks of nearby San Luis Rey River.
The regional park one day will be 1,700 acres and 9 miles long, beginning in Oceanside and ending near I-15, The dream is to offer active and passive recreational opportunities along 20 miles of trails, while preserving the river corridor.
The reconfiguration of the highway required the acquisition of adjoining parcels of land along the route, nearly 1,600 acres in all, before construction began. Some of the land will either become part of the regional park or will buffer it.
Highway 76 actually continues as a four-lane highway for another mile and a half east of the interchange. A separate construction project, paid for by the owner’s of a rock quarry several years ago, paid for that work.
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:
what is the point of ca 103? why doesnt it go further north and connect with 405 or 710?
California Transportation Commission Transfers Route 710 Section to the California
Department of Transportation: On August 25, 2000 a one-and-a-half mile segment of the Long Beach Freeway (710), between Pacific Coast Highway and Ocean Boulevard was adopted into the State Highway System from the City and Port of Long Beach. At the same time, the state relinquished a one mile portion of the Terminal Island Freeway (Route 103U) to the City of Long Beach. Future improvements to the pavement, median barrier and landscape are planned for the newly adopted portion of Route 710. Assemblyman Alan Lowenthal sponsored a press conference regarding the Department’s takeover of Route 710 in May 2000 in Long Beach.
The future can’t come soon enough for West Long Beach residents like Evelyn Knight.
Like other residents of Long Beach’s furthest western boundary, she has spent decades living in the shadow of one of the area’s most contested and vilified roadways: the Terminal Island Freeway, State Route 103.
The 1.6-mile stretch is both a vital route for trucks carrying goods from the Port of Long Beach, and is blamed for a host of health issues in area residents, everything from asthma to cancer.
On Saturday, the city hosted an event showcasing conceptual plans to decommission SR 103 that have been in development for two years. It was the first time the plans, developed from a series of community meetings, have been shown publicly.
The city plans to decommission one side of the freeway, leaving a reduced set of lanes to serve as a local access road. There will be green park space, a small section of wetland, pedestrian bridges and walking trails, among other features. ...
The Long Beach-owned section of the freeway from Pacific Coast Highway to Willow Street is set to be decommissioned. Though that day is still years away, residents got a first-time look at what that future could look like.
Seventh District Councilman Roberto Uranga, who represents the neighborhoods affected by the freeway, city urban planners and representatives from Meléndrez, a Los Angeles-based landscape architecture and urban design firm consulting for the city, organized the event to unveil the plans, which will be presented to the Long Beach Planning Commission Nov. 19 and to the City Council Dec. 1. ...
The Green Terminal Island Freeway Transition Plan, as it is known in project parlance, began in October 2013, when Caltrans awarded Long Beach a $225,000 environmental justice grant. The project is considered one of Southern California’s largest freeway-removal projects.
The freeway plan is also part of a broader initiative called Livable West Long Beach, which would build on existing plans and seek funding for a series of community-driven improvement projects. The broader West Long Beach plan will focus on neighborhoods near the 710 Freeway and Los Angeles River from the 405 Freeway south to Anaheim Street.
Funded by the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners with a $300,000 grant, which governs the Long Beach port, the livability plan pulls projects and policies from seven existing plans and creates a master document that prioritizes those projects based on community feedback.
Was it supposed to go further north originally?
Nexus 6P
SR 76 now four lanes between I-5 and I-15 with completion of segment through Bonsall that opened on May 16, 2017:
Good news! Now I can take it off the list of SoCal 2-lane congested highways cited in a different thread. This'll probably save a lot of lives in the long run -- 76 was one of the most dangerous roads in the region.
Lake Tahoe's Emerald Bay is perhaps the most spectacular nook in one of the world's beautiful alpine basins. But it can be an elusive nook. This winter, avalanches closed the highway above the bay for weeks, severing the loop road around the lake.
What is the highway didn't have to make that tightrope walk across the steep mountainside behind the bay? What if it simply ran straight and low along the lakeshore instead, like it does elsewhere in the basin? Of course, that would mean a bridge across the mouth of Emerald Bay. ...
The fight over the Emerald Bay Bridge, little remembered today, represents a pivotal moment in Tahoe history. It took place as California's relationship to its natural environment was undergoing a seismic shift.
It began during a heavy winter like the one California just experienced. In late 1955, a massive rock and earth slide engulfed Highway 89 and tumbled all the way down to Emerald Bay, forcing an 11-month road closure.
The route there is listed as a state highway, but that's misleading. It's a winding, two-lane mountain road built in the 1920s with stone wall buttresses. Most winters it would be closed for months, buried in snow. That winter of 1955-56, Tahoe business leaders had enough. They wanted to expand the Tahoe year-round economy. Some talked of a San Francisco-sized population in the basin. ...
The state Division of Highways, the precursor to today's Caltrans, hired geologists, studied alignments, drew up engineering plans, and built a scale model of an arched bridge, low to the water, to show at community meetings. Officials even commissioned a serene watercolor artwork of the bay fronted by a bridge that looked almost dainty on the landscape. ...
Proponents had precedent to point to. The Golden Gate Bridge.
Of course the Golden Gate Bridge itself is beautiful, but eastern Marin County changed enormously because of the bridge, and not for the better. I'm glad Lake Tahoe didn't build the Emerald Bay bridge.
Does anyone have any evidence that the following business routes of US 101 exist or previously existed? I found either signage or AASHTO approval of the others.
Garberville-Redway
Templeton
AtascaderoSan Luis Obispo
Also, is there one now in Willits?
edit: found SLO here: https://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf
Does anyone have any evidence that the following business routes of US 101 exist or previously existed? I found either signage or AASHTO approval of the others.
Garberville-Redway
Templeton
AtascaderoSan Luis Obispo
Also, is there one now in Willits?
edit: found SLO here: https://www.aaroads.com/california/california_state_hwy_system_signing_log_1991.pdf
I didn't see one in Atascadero passing through today on CA 41.
I'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
does california 170 extend onto highland ave? google says it does, but i can find no proof that it's true.'twas relinquished to the city in 2005-2006: http://cahighways.org/169-176.html#170
This is the only CA-170 shield I ever recall seeing on Highland:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1094484,-118.3365203,3a,75y,197.97h,77.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBUGoQkLpG-Rn2jWGj5LgTg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
It's there up until the November 2014 image, then gone in the December 2016 image.
QuoteI'm specifically talking about a signed business route. Not a former route that has been bypassed.
Most signed (or formerly signed) business routes represent former routes that have been bypassed. They are created as business routes so as to drive traffic back to the businesses on the bypassed portions. About the only exception to this, which was created as a business route for completely different reasons (sort-of) is BR 80 in Sacramento, but even that is in many ways the former I-80 routing that was bypassed when the new I-80 routing was created (which was to be I-180, but, hell, that's another can of works. See my pages if you want to open it).
Big changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:
- California’s first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.
Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month’s San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.
Manteca opted to pursue a diverging diamond interchange for Union Road instead of upgrading the existing structure to a partial cloverleaf. It means motorists getting on and off Union Road at the 120 Bypass will never have to worry about their turn movements being stopped by a red light when Manteca becomes the first California city to employ a diverging diamond interchange.
The diverging diamond design calls for traffic lanes crossing on either side of the bridge structure so northbound traffic would cross the bridge on the west side instead of the east side with the southbound lanes on the east side instead of the west side. Once they clear the bridge they are switched back.
The on and off ramps along with the flipping of the lanes creates two semi-diamond shaped intersections on either side of the bridge. This eliminates the need for traffic from both directions on Union Road as well as that coming from the 120 Bypass to pass through traffic signals to exit an off ramp or to get into an on ramp. The project will also include ramp meter signals such as now are in place on the Lathrop Road/Highway 99 interchange.
The project will also include Manteca’s first separate pedestrian/bicycle bridge across the 120 Bypass to address growing concerns about safety as more and more walkers head across Main Street, Union Road, and Airport Way as housing develops south of the 120 Bypass. None of the existing overpasses have sidewalks or protected bicycle lanes. The diverging diamond design as employed in other states require pedestrians to cross into the middle of the bridge and then cross back to the edge at two signalized intersection.
It would involve building a tunnel under off and on ramps on the east side of the bridge and looping a shared two-lane bicycle/pedestrian path up to the overcrossing where a wall would separate it from the traffic lanes. The Class I bicycle path would be American with Disabilities compliant. It also would have stairs that would allow walkers wanting to – and able to do so– to take a shortcut bypassing the loop to reach the bridge deck
Manteca’s fourth interchange on the 120 Bypass being pursued at McKinley Avenue will be the city’s first partial cloverleaf. But in order to save money the city is considering an option that would allow the interior loop onramps to be built at a later date.
That means the initial construction would have all left turns from McKinley Avenue to 120 Bypass onramps go through signalized intersections just as they currently do at the Airport, Union, and Main interchanges. When the loops are completed northbound McKinley Avenue traffic will be able to get onto westbound 120 without going through a traffic signal as would southbound McKinley to eastbound 120.
A full cloverleaf interchange – which is not being proposed – eliminates the need for any traffic signals.
San Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.
There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.
The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.
The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.
Workers have begun installing hundreds of new retro-reflective signs above Bay Area freeways that throw back the light from headlights of oncoming vehicles much better than the older green reflective signs. (Many of these older signs are dark now for a variety of reasons ranging from copper thieves to burned-out bulbs to state officials not wanting to spend additional money with new signs coming.)
All highways in the South Bay will be covered – 439 new signs are planned – starting with Highway 17 from Highway 9 to I-280 and Highway 85 from 101 to Middlefield Road.
Similar signs are going in at 164 locations on Interstate 80, I-580 and I-680 in Contra Costa County. Ditto 880 in Alameda County and 101 in San Mateo County.
I’ve passed along Roadshow readers’ requests that Caltrans illuminate the dark corridors first.
The move to retro-reflective signs follows tests on Interstate 80 in Sacramento where some drivers complained the new signs were almost too bright.
This new illumination will cost $10,000 per sign on average and should be ready by summer. Crews will also do lighting work on the ramps, closing them from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m., but crews will never close two consecutive ramps.
To view a video, go to or search for “Caltrans News Flash #60 — Retro-Reflective Signs Increase Safety, Reduce Costs.”
A new sign along Highway 1 in Monterey County, near Sand City, tells drivers that the exit for Seaside and Del "Ray" Oaks is coming up in 1 1/4 miles.
Caltrans officials did not notice the misspelling of Del Rey Oaks until the day after the sign was installed in mid-June.
Another new sign at the exit itself was also misspelled as "Del Ray Oaks."
Fixing the spelling errors will be pricey.
Changing the "a" to an "e" will costs several hundred dollars, Caltrans spokesperson Susanna Cruz said.
To entirely replace the signs, it could cost thousands of dollars.
If you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for “Corona na Fwy.”
That’s because when a new “Corona” was put up a year ago, a portion of the old “Corona” remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, “Corona na Fwy.”
A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think “it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na.”
Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency “wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed,” spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn’t know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.
Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don’t seem to look at their signs once they’re done.
What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs? the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does? When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!
I'd put reflective in quotes, they're completely black at night!
Nexus 6P
You can barely read the damn things in broad daylight!
Nexus 6P
What is California's real excuse for not using reflective signs? the old ones look like they've been there since they built the damn highway in the 60s and 70s! Also why don't they post exist numbers on all bgs like every other state does? When I was in LA 2 weeks ago, it was hard navigating because they barely post exit numbers, how hard is it to add that!
Changes coming to Manteca Bypass SR 120, including California's first diverging diamond interchange
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/142374/QuoteBig changes are coming to the 120 Bypass. Ground could start turning as early as 2018 on three major interchange projects that could cost as much as $85 million. They include:
- California’s first diverging diamond interchange at Union Road.
- The creation of a partial cloverleaf interchange at McKinley Avenue.
- A revamp of the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange.
Regional and city officials are hoping to secure federal funding for the 120 Bypass/Highway 99 interchange. It is a major project they will be stressing the regional importance of to federal officials during next month’s San Joaquin County One Voice lobbying to Washington, D.C. The city is also seeking federal assistance with the McKinley Avenue interchange.
More on the SR 99-120 interchange improvements:QuoteSan Joaquin County Council of Governments working with Caltrans District 10 are pushing for a target of 2019 to break ground on a permanent solution designed to reduce carnage on the 120 Bypass caused by traffic backups heading eastbound on the Bypass as it approaches Highway 99.
There are two alternates are being considered for the long-term improvement.
The first could cost as much as $40 million. It would widen the connector to southbound 99 to two lanes, construct braided ramps (that are physically separated from freeway lanes) at the Austin Road interchange and replace the Austin Road crossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane. In some instances braided ramps require constructing bridge structures to send traffic above other lanes.
The second would cost upwards of $29 million would widen the connector to two lanes, permanently close Austin Road on and off ramps and replace the Austin Road overcrossing to provide an additional southbound 99 through lane.
And the other one shows a green-out overlay to a porcelain-enamel sign that resulted in an error (and is slated for eventual replacement): http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/09/did-you-catch-the-typo-on-the-freeway-sign-in-san-dimas-caltrans-eventually-did/
(http://www.mercurynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/typo.jpg?w=612)QuoteIf you drive the 57 Freeway, you may have noticed a typo on a mileage sign. Near San Dimas, for southbound motorists, an overhead sign gave the distance to the exit for “Corona na Fwy.”
That’s because when a new “Corona” was put up a year ago, a portion of the old “Corona” remained, on a line that was shorter after the 71 emblem was removed. Hence, “Corona na Fwy.”
A reader who works for a local government agency tipped me off to the mistake, which I featured on my blog along with the Google Street View image. He said he likes to think “it is a Caltrans tribute to Sha Na Na.”
Within a few days of my blog post, Caltrans was on the scene. The agency “wanted to let you know that the issue has been fixed,” spokeswoman Yessica Jovel emailed to say. She didn’t know why the 71 emblem had been taken down to begin with but told me the entire sign panel is scheduled to be replaced as part of an upcoming project.
Caltrans, she said, has 32 workers to maintain 150,000 freeway signs in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. This may be why they sometimes don’t seem to look at their signs once they’re done.
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention.
i exclusively refer to all numbered routes as their number, not a fan of the freeway naming convention.
I find the names more memorable and longer-lasting than the numbers.
In the case of the original (pre-Interstate) Los Angeles freeway layout, the names of the freeways indicated its ultimate (or penultimate) destination: Pasadena, San Bernardino, Santa Ana, (the) Harbor, Hollywood, Ventura -- which made sense. Even the original Bay Area freeways followed suit in a way: Bayshore, Eastshore, Southern (across the southern tier of S.F. proper). When other considerations: honorific, memorialization, etc. came into use, that lessened the impact of names: OK, Nimitz was applied to the southern Eastshore because it (more or less) provided access to Oakland/Alameda naval facilities -- and MacArthur was applied because it basically traced old MacArthur Blvd., the original US 50 alignment in east Oakland. But those names didn't assist in delineating [/i]where[/i] the freeway was heading. OK, the Ronald Reagan Freeway (CA 118) goes somewhere near the Reagan museum, but that's somewhat of an oddity. The nail in the coffin, at least out here in CA, came when the newscasters, both radio and TV, starter using numbers exclusively to report on traffic conditions and incidents in the early '80's. And now that they're signing short freeway segments as memorials to fallen LEO's and other local figures, the whole naming concept has been dissipated to the point where it's functionally meaningless. Route numbers will likely remain the default for the foreseeable future.
With only one left, iconic yellow road sign showing running immigrants now borders on the extinct
By Cindy Carcamo
So many immigrants crossing illegally into the United States through California were killed by cars and trucks along the 5 Freeway that John Hood was given an assignment.
In the early 1990s, the Caltrans worker was tasked with creating a road sign to alert drivers to the possible danger.
Silhouetted against a yellow background and the word “CAUTION,” the sign featured a father, waist bent, head down, running hard. Behind him, a mother in a knee-length dress pulls on the slight wrist of a girl – her pigtails flying, her feet barely touching the ground.
Ten signs once dotted the shoulders of the 5 Freeway, just north of the Mexican border. They became iconic markers of the perils of the immigrant journey north. But they began to disappear – victims of crashes, storms, vandalism and the fame conferred on them by popular culture.
Today, one sign remains. And when it’s gone, it won’t be replaced – the result of California’s diminished role as a crossing point for immigrants striving to make it to America. ...
A generation after they were installed, the last of the “running immigrants” signs stands on two wooden posts in a concrete median of northbound Interstate 5, just before a “Welcome to California” sign. ...
In the 1980s, more than 100 people were killed as they tried to cross freeway lanes in the San Ysidro area and between San Clemente and Oceanside. Caltrans wanted to do something about the problem and asked Hood, a California Department of Transportation employee and Vietnam War veteran who grew up on a Navajo reservation in New Mexico, to come up with a sign that would alert drivers and could reduce the number of deaths.
He eventually settled on using the image of a family in an effort to tug at the heart in a way a typical road sign might not. A little girl with pigtails, he thought, would convey the idea of motion, of running.
The sign was inspired by photographs of people crossing at the time, including those taken by former Los Angeles Times staff photographer Don Bartletti.
Caltrans first installed the signs in late 1990 and early 1991. After workers erected a median fence along the freeway’s trouble spots in 1994, officials decided not to replace any future signs that were lost. Around that time, federal officials launched Operation Gatekeeper, which fenced off the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego – pushing illegal immigration east, toward Arizona and Texas. That helped reduce the number of freeway-crossing deaths, Caltrans officials said.
“You create your work, and that’s the extent of it. You never envision something like that to happen,” Hood said about the sign’s evolution. “It’s become an iconic element. It lives on.”
Nearly a century ago when automobiles were a relatively new invention, roadsters and open-air sedans made their way from the Mexican border to Orange County along a patchwork of paved and unpaved surface streets.
They included Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street, Garnet Avenue, Morena Boulevard, San Diego Avenue, India Street, Harbor Drive, Broadway in Chula Vista and Beyer Boulevard in Otay Mesa.
To help tourists and even locals avoid getting lost, the federal government in 1926 began formally designating a series of signed roadways that included U.S. Highway 101 – the first official north-south route through San Diego.
And those well-known surface streets and several others in San Diego County were part of the route, which had developed erratically since just after 1900 based on where roads were paved and a wide variety of other factors.
The original Highway 101 was replaced relatively quickly in 1933 by the more modern and direct Pacific Highway featuring bridges and ramps, which kept the name Highway 101 despite following a significantly different route than the original version.
And Pacific Highway gave way in 1964 to Interstate 5, an even more modern road following a similar path that is the third, and possibly final, official north-south highway route along San Diego’s coast.
Before the original Highway 101 and the already existing roads it included, there was a stagecoach route from Old Town to Los Angeles in the late 1800s that followed mostly the same semi-coastal route as the famous El Camino Real charted by Father Juniperro Serra.
When people began driving cars in San Diego around 1900, there was a dearth of paved roads and a trip to Los Angeles could take nearly 10 hours.
City officials debated for several years whether to build a north-south route along the coast through Pacific Beach and La Jolla, or to build a more direct route through the rugged and hilly terrain of Rose Canyon to the east.
They eventually chose the coastal route based on its flatness and scenic beauty, and paving was completed in 1920 of La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street and Garnet Avenue.
But the shorter Rose Canyon route, which some travelers had used before the Pacific Beach route had been paved, was flattened a bit and rerouted in 1930 with a big plan on mind.
City officials decided to create a new Highway 101 by grading and extending Atlantic Street from Barnett Avenue to the Rose Canyon highway at Balboa Avenue, and re-naming it Pacific Highway.
The road was designated as the new Highway 101 in San Diego when it opened in late 1933, and it was connected to the state’s portion of Highway 101 that had been completed all the way to just south of Del Mar.
In 1935 the city officially changed the names of Atlantic Street, West Atlantic Street, Rose Canyon Highway, Torrey Pines Mesa Road and Torrey Pines Road to Pacific Highway.
The road was eventually connected to the South Bay and the border in the 1950s with construction of the Montgomery Freeway.
Thirty years later, Interstate 5 was built on essentially the same path as Pacific Highway and the Montgomery Freeway, except where it veers toward Sorrento Valley on its way into North County.
But a few sections of the old Pacific Highway still exist, including a long stretch from downtown up to Mission Bay Park where you can see the road’s old-fashioned highway interchanges.
The road also still exists from where it began near present-day Seaport Village through the northern edge of downtown.
And a few other sections have survived, such as North Torrey Pines Road between UC-San Diego and Del Mar, Gilman Drive between Interstate 5 and the university, and Mission Bay Drive in Pacific Beach.
In contrast, nearly all of the original Highway 101 has survived, of course, because it was essentially surface streets.
Missing portions, however, include a chunk that became part of the UCSD campus and a stretch eliminated to create the National City Mile of Cars. In addition, part of the original 101 isn’t open to the public because it’s within Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
There is evidence the original Highway 101 split into two separate routes for a few years because of congestion concerns, but details of that are disputed. The western route may have included Ingraham Street and Foothill Boulevard.
And the later version of 101 was divided into two routes in North County, between Palomar Airport Road and State Route 76, for the same reason in the 1950s.
Highway 101 still exists north of San Diego as a major freeway running from Los Angeles all the way to Washington State.
But other than the historic markers, the 101 name has essentially been wiped out in San Diego County, except in a few North County cities where the road remains mostly unchanged from decades ago.
Potential road hazards posed by dead trees along some California highways, especially in the sierra, have prompted Caltrans to get rid of them. That includes trees on private land - at no cost.
Caltrans has already removed 107,000 trees near California highways, trees that were killed by drought and bark beetle infestation.
"We're now addressing those that may be off of state property," says Patrick Olsen with Caltrans.
He says hazardous trees are being marked with orange paint by certified Caltrans arborists. Then Permission to Enter forms will be sent to affected property owners one to six months after trees are marked.
"We are sending out notices via mail," says Olsen. "We're also having a door-hanging campaign. If you have a tree on your property that may be suspect, you'll be receiving a notice there."
The agency expects to take out another 54,000 trees by next summer. Removal work will begin after the Labor Day Holiday.
Had a US 99 and blue guide sign sighting leaving Fresno-Yosemite International Airport tonight:Nice to see old historic signs that serve as reminders to what once was. It's also interesting that after all those years they've kept it up for as long as they have.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4336/36074677354_0fe4230386_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL)IMG_6613 (https://flic.kr/p/WXN9KL) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
Interesting that 180 isn't listed but not surprising considering it was far from being a freeway when this guide sign was new. 168 would have been on Shaw and Clovis.
Recent article regarding Historic US 101 signing efforts in San Diego...I applaud the fact that the old US 101 route is finally getting some recognition in San Diego. I wish OR and WA would acknowledge their own portions of US 99 like CA does, and not with state route shields either!
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-101-history-20170818-story.htmlQuoteNearly a century ago when automobiles were a relatively new invention, roadsters and open-air sedans made their way from the Mexican border to Orange County along a patchwork of paved and unpaved surface streets.
They included Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street, Garnet Avenue, Morena Boulevard, San Diego Avenue, India Street, Harbor Drive, Broadway in Chula Vista and Beyer Boulevard in Otay Mesa.
To help tourists and even locals avoid getting lost, the federal government in 1926 began formally designating a series of signed roadways that included U.S. Highway 101 — the first official north-south route through San Diego.
And those well-known surface streets and several others in San Diego County were part of the route, which had developed erratically since just after 1900 based on where roads were paved and a wide variety of other factors.
The original Highway 101 was replaced relatively quickly in 1933 by the more modern and direct Pacific Highway featuring bridges and ramps, which kept the name Highway 101 despite following a significantly different route than the original version.
And Pacific Highway gave way in 1964 to Interstate 5, an even more modern road following a similar path that is the third, and possibly final, official north-south highway route along San Diego’s coast.QuoteBefore the original Highway 101 and the already existing roads it included, there was a stagecoach route from Old Town to Los Angeles in the late 1800s that followed mostly the same semi-coastal route as the famous El Camino Real charted by Father Juniperro Serra.
When people began driving cars in San Diego around 1900, there was a dearth of paved roads and a trip to Los Angeles could take nearly 10 hours.
City officials debated for several years whether to build a north-south route along the coast through Pacific Beach and La Jolla, or to build a more direct route through the rugged and hilly terrain of Rose Canyon to the east.
They eventually chose the coastal route based on its flatness and scenic beauty, and paving was completed in 1920 of La Jolla Boulevard, Turquoise Street, Cass Street and Garnet Avenue.
But the shorter Rose Canyon route, which some travelers had used before the Pacific Beach route had been paved, was flattened a bit and rerouted in 1930 with a big plan on mind.
City officials decided to create a new Highway 101 by grading and extending Atlantic Street from Barnett Avenue to the Rose Canyon highway at Balboa Avenue, and re-naming it Pacific Highway.
The road was designated as the new Highway 101 in San Diego when it opened in late 1933, and it was connected to the state’s portion of Highway 101 that had been completed all the way to just south of Del Mar.
In 1935 the city officially changed the names of Atlantic Street, West Atlantic Street, Rose Canyon Highway, Torrey Pines Mesa Road and Torrey Pines Road to Pacific Highway.
The road was eventually connected to the South Bay and the border in the 1950s with construction of the Montgomery Freeway.
Thirty years later, Interstate 5 was built on essentially the same path as Pacific Highway and the Montgomery Freeway, except where it veers toward Sorrento Valley on its way into North County.
But a few sections of the old Pacific Highway still exist, including a long stretch from downtown up to Mission Bay Park where you can see the road’s old-fashioned highway interchanges.
The road also still exists from where it began near present-day Seaport Village through the northern edge of downtown.
And a few other sections have survived, such as North Torrey Pines Road between UC-San Diego and Del Mar, Gilman Drive between Interstate 5 and the university, and Mission Bay Drive in Pacific Beach.
In contrast, nearly all of the original Highway 101 has survived, of course, because it was essentially surface streets.
Missing portions, however, include a chunk that became part of the UCSD campus and a stretch eliminated to create the National City Mile of Cars. In addition, part of the original 101 isn’t open to the public because it’s within Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton.
There is evidence the original Highway 101 split into two separate routes for a few years because of congestion concerns, but details of that are disputed. The western route may have included Ingraham Street and Foothill Boulevard.
And the later version of 101 was divided into two routes in North County, between Palomar Airport Road and State Route 76, for the same reason in the 1950s.
Highway 101 still exists north of San Diego as a major freeway running from Los Angeles all the way to Washington State.
But other than the historic markers, the 101 name has essentially been wiped out in San Diego County, except in a few North County cities where the road remains mostly unchanged from decades ago.
And more info on our page at https://www.aaroads.com/california/us-101ha_ca.html.
^^^
Kind of makes me question the quality of the operation at Fresno-Yosemite if they have had the same sign hanging up since the 1960s. One would think that the budget would allow for that sign to be replaced with something a little more informative as to the nearby freeways, 180 is the most accessible and isn't even mentioned.
^^^
Kind of makes me question the quality of the operation at Fresno-Yosemite if they have had the same sign hanging up since the 1960s. One would think that the budget would allow for that sign to be replaced with something a little more informative as to the nearby freeways, 180 is the most accessible and isn't even mentioned.
I think the "US 99" error shield was just a sign contractor mistake; since the CA 168 freeway wasn't even opened until about 1992, and that sign likely dates from around that period. US 99 would have been officially 28 years gone by that time (and 26 years since the U.S. shields were taken down in the summer of 1966). Besides, it's blue -- no shield on that sign is technically/MUTCD correct. If you're gonna make a mistake, might as well make it big!
i thought airport signs were always blue
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
The new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge on CA 1 in Big Sur is opening by the end of the day on Friday the 13th:
https://bigsurkate.blog/2017/10/03/pfeiffer-canyon-bridge-to-open-end-of-day-on-friday-101317/
Caltrans says the new Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge will open Oct. 13, eight months after the transportation agency shut down the bridge along Highway 1 just south of Big Sur Station.
“There is some bridge rail work to be done and some guard rail work to be done,” said Jim Shivers, a Caltrans spokesman.
Caltrans will pave the roadway this weekend, which will be followed by lane striping. Among the other work yet to be done is trenching to improve drainage on the existing roadway and grinding down the road as it approaches the bridge to make for a smooth transition. Crews will also have to remove the large machinery currently in place as part of construction work.
“It’s a full opening,” Shivers said, explaining both lanes will be open to the public Oct. 13 by 5 p.m. ...
The single-span, steel girder structure was built without the columns that made the previous configuration vulnerable to landslides at an estimated cost of $24 million.
“We did seven years of work in about seven months,” Shivers said. “It’s pretty remarkable what work has been done here, it’s really amazing.” ...
Highway 1 remains closed at the massive Mud Creek slide on the southern end of the Big Sur coast, about 10 miles north from the San Luis Obispo County border. Crews are working on building a new road atop the quarter-mile slide at a cost of $40 million. The highway is expected to reopen in late summer 2018.
Caltrans plans to reopen storm-damaged Highway 1 between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach by December – if the weather cooperates.
“We are hoping to give the residents out there a Christmas present,” said Steve Williams, Caltrans spokesman. “But it is complicated work and we don’t know what the weather will be like.”
Last winter’s record rains caused significant problems on the coastal highway. Caltrans officials said there were 17 storm-related work sites in Marin, most of those on Highway 1. The work has an estimated cost of more than $75 million.
A section of Highway 1 in Muir Beach opened in early May after being closed since January after parts of the road washed away and down a hillside.
But another key section of Highway 1 to the north, between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach, where the highway has dipped, cracked and slipped, has yet to see through-traffic. The reopening date was initially pegged at early September, then October, and now December is the new target. ...
To get to Stinson Beach from the south now, drivers need to use a detour on Panoramic Highway, which extends the trip about 13 miles.
Other work is also set to start on Highway 1. That construction will include shoring up retaining walls at several locations.
Even once it opens, Caltrans plans to keep signs up with traffic warnings that encourage people to use the Panoramic detour so Highway 1 does not get backed up, county officials said.
The road closures, detours and one-way controls brought by the winter storms made West Marin difficult to navigate on busy weekends over the summer.
Locals are familiar with closures of the highway, seeing major shutdowns in 2005, 2006, 2014 and again this year.
Update on SR 1 reopening between Muir Woods and Stinson Beach:
http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20171003/caltrans-targets-december-for-highway-1-reopeningQuoteCaltrans plans to reopen storm-damaged Highway 1 between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach by December – if the weather cooperates.
“We are hoping to give the residents out there a Christmas present,” said Steve Williams, Caltrans spokesman. “But it is complicated work and we don’t know what the weather will be like.”
Last winter’s record rains caused significant problems on the coastal highway. Caltrans officials said there were 17 storm-related work sites in Marin, most of those on Highway 1. The work has an estimated cost of more than $75 million.
A section of Highway 1 in Muir Beach opened in early May after being closed since January after parts of the road washed away and down a hillside.
But another key section of Highway 1 to the north, between Muir Beach and Stinson Beach, where the highway has dipped, cracked and slipped, has yet to see through-traffic. The reopening date was initially pegged at early September, then October, and now December is the new target. ...
To get to Stinson Beach from the south now, drivers need to use a detour on Panoramic Highway, which extends the trip about 13 miles.
Other work is also set to start on Highway 1. That construction will include shoring up retaining walls at several locations.
Even once it opens, Caltrans plans to keep signs up with traffic warnings that encourage people to use the Panoramic detour so Highway 1 does not get backed up, county officials said.
The road closures, detours and one-way controls brought by the winter storms made West Marin difficult to navigate on busy weekends over the summer.
Locals are familiar with closures of the highway, seeing major shutdowns in 2005, 2006, 2014 and again this year.
Photo I took today of a damaged sign on US 101 in Santa Rosa
(https://i.imgur.com/TMfqEXW.jpg)
Sad. The damage to that part of Santa Rosa is unfathomable and on a par with damage from other major firestorms in the history of California. The aerial views of destroyed neighborhoods are truly stunning and saddening, and my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones in the inferno. That said, and bringing this back to roads, I wonder if they will replace that U.S. 101 Business route sign or watch it disappear forever. Sometimes, these old business route signs on California highways get damaged or removed... and they never come back.
Unfortunately, the massive expansion of housing into formerly rural regions in this state has rendered such destruction almost inevitable; the warming trend has only served to accelerate the timetable for such occurrences. One can only hope that this latest batch of disasters will serve as a limiting factor -- or even consideration -- when suburban and exurban developments are proposed in the years to come.
Unfortunately, the massive expansion of housing into formerly rural regions in this state has rendered such destruction almost inevitable; the warming trend has only served to accelerate the timetable for such occurrences. One can only hope that this latest batch of disasters will serve as a limiting factor -- or even consideration -- when suburban and exurban developments are proposed in the years to come.
I doubt it. Some news outlets here are already speculating on the impact the Wine Country fires will have on already-astronomical Bay Area home prices. I suspect most, if not all, of the destroyed homes in Santa Rosa will be rebuilt.
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while. A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time! But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions. One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.
The subdivisions burning is more scary. Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc. And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.
At least it'll make potential buyers think twice for a while. A cabin in woods at the end of five miles of dirt road would be so nice much of the time! But it is, and should be, at the bottom of the firefighter's priority list, and you might have a lot of trouble escaping with your lives, let alone any possessions. One hopes insurance companies will hesitate to insure these.
The subdivisions burning is more scary. Cities could require renovations for increased fire protection anytime there's a substantial investment in the property - new roof etc. And possibly sooner on rental property, hotels, and so on.
Related to this, and IMHO a major precedent for ordering that buildings be built with less flammable materials, were the building codes that were adopted by the City of Chicago after the seriously devastating firestorm that blew through it on 1871-10-08/10. It's why the city's neighborhoods look the way that they do to this day.
Mike
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes…Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.
Does anyone know why there is only one constructed SR-x00 in California? (SR-100 is unconstructed.) Other states seem to have many hundred-multiple routes…Continuous numbers only go into the high 200s. 1/2 is statistically insignificant.
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm)
However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading. Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring". In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend. But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm. October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.
I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.
The spring reopening dates are more accurate. Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017. It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement. There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.
Tioga and Sonora Pass had a snow closure already, probably won't last with warmer weather coming:
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/04/snow-closes-yosemites-tioga-road-and-sonora-pass/
Caltrans has a historical listing of the winter closure dates:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/clsdlst.htm)
However, the dates of the closures shown there, usually after Thanksgiving, are misleading. Those are the dates when they formally throw in the towel on each road and say "we're not going to try to reopen this thing until the spring". In fact, most of those passes, particularly Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga, are usually "closed due to snow" though not officially "closed for winter" sometime earlier in November, maybe second week of November on average, and sit closed but in limbo for a few weeks, on the possibility that minimal snow and an extended dry period through the rest of November may allow them to be opened for Thanksgiving weekend. But in most cases there's enough snow in November at >8000 feet that they never reopen after the first big November storm. October sees them closed for 24 hours period or so but October snow is usually not so copious that it can't easily be plowed away.
I know I have driven over Tioga at Thanksgiving, and one year it was even open for Christmas/New Year's, but that's very rare.
The spring reopening dates are more accurate. Sonora Pass is almost always open for Memorial Day, but that wasn't the case in 2017. It's not just clearing the snow and abating the avalanche danger, it's repairing any damage they find once they're down to bare pavement. There were some major repair issues on Ebbetts Pass this year, thus the 6/30 opening.
Updating this: Ebbets, Sonora and Tioga Passes were all preemptively closed yesterday, Nov. 2, in anticipation of a storm coming through over the next couple days. It looks like there will be more snow next week, so there's a good chance they won't be reopened until the spring. However, the Caltrans highway conditions site has them labeled "Closed due to snow" for now; eventually they will give in and change that to "Closed for the winter".
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength. 120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed. 89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.
I don't know this actually close them down for good, it doesn't seem like this particular storm doesn't have a ton of strength. 120 and 108 still just say "adverse weather" while 4 is much more vague other than the road is closed. 89 over Monitor Pass is still open, no real chain restrictions on the map so far.
I have to remember every year to take the storm forecasts, especially the early ones, with a few grains of salt. :rolleyes: This storm was what is sometimes locally known as a "fizzard". The process I described is correct, but it looks like I jumped the gun on the timing and there is probably still some opportunity to drive over those passes in 2017.
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
Interstate 80 improvements are planned between Kidwell Road near Dixon and the interchange between I-80 meets I-5 (including the Yolo Bypass bridge) ... this project would add an extra carpool lane that would widening the freeway from three to four lanes in each direction. Goal is to begin construction in 2021.
http://www.abc10.com/news/local/california/caltrans-has-plan-to-ease-congestion-on-stretch-of-i-80-through-davis/497189381
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure.
The Southern Crossing, attempt LXVIII. California's senior Senator renews her call.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php (http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Feinstein-Traffic-is-terrible-Build-a-new-bridge-12410794.php)
238 to 380 -- direct -- would involve a Bay crossing at close to its widest point; it's more likely that the old "triangle" method extending from the east end of the double-deck segment of I-280 to Hunters' Point and then across to Bay Farms near Oakland International (immediately south of Alameda) -- and then creeping down the bay's east shore before cutting across to 238 -- would be the alignment of choice, as it would involve considerably less structure.
From the 1960s planning maps I've seen on Flickr (and posted on the AARoads forums) I recall the original Southern Crossing plan was a connection from today's I-280 at Cesar Chavez (Army) Street (where small stubs exist for the unbuilt Route 87 extension, later today's unbuilt Route 230) east to Alameda to a connection with today's I-980 and the unbuilt Route 61 freeway:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4741575894
On that map, 61/112 seems to correspond to the connection to today's I-238 though not a direct linkage between the two. (IIRC, there is an unbuilt extension of the 238 freeway west to the unconstructed 61 freeway that had been proposed)
The best option, as unpopular as it may seem around here, is to try and build another transbay BART tube and add bypass BART tracks to some of the closer-in stations to allow express trains.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and East Bay Congressperson Mark DeSaulnier penned a letter to the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission this week, urging the agency to build an additional bay bridge, a new east-west transbay connection, and–while they’re at it–a second Transbay Tube.
The California lawmakers cite “intolerable” traffic throughout the region.
“Quality of life is suffering; and our economy is not nearly thriving as much as it could be if these transportation challenges were addressed,” reads the request.
The solution? “An additional route across the Bay for both BART and vehicular traffic.”
The letter continues: "The most congested freeway segments in the Bay Area for the second year in a row are the afternoon commutes northbound and eastbound on U.S. 101 and Interstate 80 from the I-280 interchange in San Francisco to the Bay Bridge’s Yerba Buena Island Tunnel. Moreover, the next most congested route is the westbound direction on I-80, through the Bay Bridge, to Fremont Street. A second crossing would alleviate this traffic through San Francisco and the East Bay, would better connect the entire Bay Area, and would provide significant benefits for toll payers."
The letter, addressed to MTC Executive Director Steve Heminger, references Regional Measure III (RM3), calling it inadequate to solve transit problems., If passed by voters next year, RM3 will raise bridge tolls and put the money toward transit. DeSaulnier previously called RM3 unfair. He told East Bay Times that it “disproportionately put the burden of financing [transit] investment on East Bay residents.”
The idea of a second bay crossing is as old as the Bay Bridge itself. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright even created a design for an additional span. (Wright hated the idea of a second steel design, and partnered with engineer Jaroslav J. Polivka to propose the concrete “Butterfly Bridge,” which would have spanned from Cesar Chavez and Third Street to its eastern terminus on Bay Farm Island, just north of the Oakland Airport.) Back in 2000, Feinstein sent a similar letter urging then governor Gray Davis to start planning on a southern bridge project. Similar to Wright’s vision, the new bridge’s price tag sunk the idea.
Originally, there were freeways (87 on the west side and 61 on the east) that were to flank the bay; as construction of them (particularly 87 from SF to Alviso) would have required considerably bayfill, they were, within a couple of decades or so, deleted from the system (the 61 freeway only went as far south as far as the Dumbarton/CA 84 bridge). Most of the 61 alignment was far more "doable" than its CA 87 counterpart; much of that route is now newer industrial parks. Under both the original 1959 freeway plan and its 1965 update, pretty much every planned freeway perpendicular to either bay shore terminated at one of these; as the corridors were deleted, so were the various extensions serving them. Unsigned CA 112 always went out to the 61 corridor, but that route was never part of the freeway network, just a surface street connecting to central San Leandro. These days, placing a freeway along 112 (Davis Street) would be a highly unlikely prospect due to the intense adjacent industrial and residential development. If a serious bridge proposal were to hit the formal route selection process, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a connection skirting Oakland International Airport and intersecting I-880 near the present Coliseum in conjunction with plans for a new A's stadium, possibly on or near the present site. Still, though, the odds-on favorite alignment remains one that would function as a I-238 extension.
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).
This. There's way too much residential development along the shore of the East Bay to connect a Southern Crossing to 238. The only feasible option would be south side or north side of Bay Farm Island, either through or under Sea Leandro Bay or a routing south of the airport with a connection to Doolittle/Davis on upgraded facilities to 880.
Alameda is too densely packed to accommodate a spur freeway from the new crossing to central Oakland (such would function as a virtual extension of I-980).
Interesting you mention that (given that the 980 extension has been shown as part of real proposals for the Southern Crossing in the past). Is the former Alameda naval air station land empty enough to be useful as potential right of way? Not sure there is any aviation activity there these days.
Yes. From existing 980, into a tube under the ship channel (like the existing Webster and Posey tubes to Alameda), then tunnel under Alameda, possibly one exit, then bridge across the bay to 280 near the Islais Creek Ship Channel. Possible exits atArmyCaesar Chavez St. or 3rd St.
Except the Alameda NAS land has already been set aside for development of the Alameda Point community.
What happened to this thread?
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
But there are many other, more specific threads on California topics -- a dozen and a half with activity this month so far. This thread is just a catch-all for things not covered elsewhere.
If mrpablue wants more activity in this thread, he can always post something substantive and on-topic.
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
I don't even think that this thread is necessary. 80% of the threads in PSW have to do with California, why should things be singled out here?
Likewise, NV and HI do deserve their own state threads though.
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
Two thoughts from my weekend excursion:
1) I-80 east of Auburn, CA belongs in Oregon. Four-lane, winding, pine forests. Suddenly it becomes Californian in nature in Auburn, growing lanes and deciduous trees.
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
What happened to this thread?
Not much going on in the state or forum right now.
I don't even think that this thread is necessary. 80% of the threads in PSW have to do with California, why should things be singled out here?
Likewise, NV and HI do deserve their own state threads though.
When Andy started it up the thread was about general California observations and was meant to be a catch-all for just general discussion. It kept chugging along for quite a long time but seems to have been shifted out of the way in favor of more topic dedicated threads. But to your point about 80-90% of the discussion on this board is oriented towards California with the rest coming from Nevada. Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
Growing up in the L.A. area in the '50's, I noticed that the terms (for the divided US 99 at the time) were pretty much interchangeable; but older folks who may have traveled upon or been told about the "Ridge Route" tended to use that term. As a kid, I thought that everything south of Gorman was the "Ridge Route" (although a sizeable portion of the pre-I-5 alignment went through the upper reaches of Piru Gorge before it was dammed off for Pyramid Lake), and the part north of there through Lebec, Tejon, and its namesake town was the "Grapevine". It's possible that when the reversed-lanes section of I-5 was completed circa 1970, the term "Grapevine" may have been reapplied, since the configuration of the lanes -- at least in an aerial view -- looks a bit like an actual grapevine wrapping around a supporting post: the original (NB) lanes followed the US 99 expressway alignment, and the new straighter SB lanes hug the ridge immediately to the east, with the lanes crossing at the top and bottom of the downhill SB gradient. It's a bit of a stretch, but possible!
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Is anyone noticing a considerable uptick in construction activity? I have only been out here for 3 years, but I'm seeing more construction projects now more than I have since moving out here. Most of them being resurfacing and utility projects like what I'm guessing is going on at Malibu Canyon RD.
I'm wanting to guess this is a result of SB1 . . .
. . . and while I hate to say this, I'm starting to become more anti SB-1 the more and more I learn about it. I am against a single penny of this going to HSR and bike infrastructure, yet they've already announced over a billion dollars of SB-1 money going towards HSR. I am not against the HSR concept, but I am not 100% behind it either and I certainly do NOT advocate for taxes from cars going towards anything related to mass transit. Especially when those people who support transit bitch about cars yet tolls and fees collected from them go to support transit, it's bats in the belfry to me.
2) I-80 should extend down US 101 to San Jose. Why doesn't it? Was it ever considered for such? 101 is a full freeway that continues the 80 mainline. 880, 680, and 280 would all connect to their parent twice instead of once, and in particular 280 and 680 would be actual loops. I get that it violates directionality, and I thought "well, now that I-480's available..." but clearly it could never have been intended for I-480 because Embarcadero. It seemed like a Fictional idea, but it's such an obvious patch job if ever there were one.
Why should I-80 turn left and head south for a while before ending? I'm thinking of the big picture, US 101 a N-S route that goes up and down the entire Pacific coast, and I-80 an E-W route that extended all the way from coast to coast.
Several possible west ends of I-80 have been considered: where cancelled I-480 and the cancelled northern spur of SOMA I-280 would have met at the Bay Bridge approaches; at a new western freeway along the Golden Gate Park panhandle meeting a new N-S route to be built at about 17th Ave. in western S.F.; and southward to the junction with US 101.
The Bayshore Freeway in S.F. is below current interstate standards, in curves, design speed, and lack of shoulders. It's fine for typical use where you're lucky if you can go faster than 50 mph anyway, and Caltrans isn't interested in spending the money to upgrade it when there are other projects needed even worse. Turning US 101 into an interstate from L.A. to S.F. was proposed at one time, but was denied.
80, 280, and 680 put together make an almost full loop. I personally feel that numbering the two sides and top of the oval with different numbers makes it more straightforward to identify where you are and where this stretch of road goes next, compared with one number for a whole beltway.
they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
Is the 280 truncation to 16th Street still an active proposal? Or has it gone dormant, or been canceled altogether?
If no one in 2018 would argue, as a young writer named David Brodsly did in 1981, that the "L.A. freeway is the cathedral of its time and place," or that it's the spot where Angelenos "spend the two calmest and most rewarding hours of their daily lives," as British architectural historian Reyner Banham put it with almost laughable enthusiasm a decade earlier, there's no doubt that both the practical and metaphorical meanings of the freeway continue to preoccupy Southern Californians.
Any sense that we've put freeway-building behind us, in fact, could be squashed by spending even a few minutes looking at recent headlines, which in the last few weeks have included items on plans to widen the 710 through Long Beach and an Orange County stretch of the 405.
Then came a report from my colleague Louis Sahagun on plans by Caltrans, the state's once-imperious road-making agency, to build a freeway linking Palmdale and Victorville. Carrying a price tag of $8 billion and part of a larger project called the High Desert Corridor, it would stretch through the Mojave Desert from the northeastern corner of L.A. County into San Bernardino County. It would be the first freeway completed in L.A. County since the controversial, much-delayed and highly litigated Century Freeway opened in 1993.
The plan suggests that Caltrans hasn't quite given up the hope of someday completing the perfect, all-encompassing freeway network, a fantasyland Banham dubbed "Autopia" in 1971. It also suggests that when we talk about growth, especially along the desert fringe of the L.A. metropolitan behemoth, we almost always talk in the next breath about freeways.
Its been quite awhile since anyone posted anything regarding Hawaii.
Today I had the opportunity to drive through US 101 for work. It was raining a lot and there were some brief heavy showers but as usual it's not too bad as long as you don't speed.
For those not familiar, for years after Pinnacles National Monument became upgraded to a National Park, the signs that directed one to what was the national monument was still there. This sign may be found while going southbound right before the CA-25 intersection past Gilroy. Well guess what, the sign has been replaced! It is now a brown sign that says Pinnacles Nat'l Park! I couldn't take a photo but I believe there is another brown sign at the end of CA-25. I might be able to take a photo of it later today
Driving back to SF (and through a rough storm), I noticed two more signs of Pinnacles National Park, one on US 101 North right before the interchange of CA-25, and on the nearby frontage road. Here's the latter sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/T7jo1Ja.jpg)
What the sign doesn't tell you (and I don't know if there's distance signage for Pinnacles as there is for Yosemite on CA-59 and CA-140), is that the park entrance is at least 40 miles away!
Caltrans has a new director: https://www.enr.com/blogs/12-california-views/post/44099-qa-with-new-caltrans-director-laurie-berman
Laurie Berman a former San Diego District Director. I sure hope she is more pro-car then the last one who has been quoted saying he wants to make traffic miserable to “encourage” people to find alternative forms of transportation.
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Looking at the project plans, the existing signs could not be reused because the lane configuration is going to change upon completion of the paving project necessitating the need to install new signs.
Don't you think that Caltrans should wait on replacing this sign until after the Centennial Corridor is open?
Looking at the project plans, the existing signs could not be reused because the lane configuration is going to change upon completion of the paving project necessitating the need to install new signs.
It's also disappointing that the sign doesn't include a control city bor 58 west like Buttonwillow or McKittrick.
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see "TO I-5" as a control on the pull-through signs on WB 58 and the ramp signage on NB CA 99. Buttonwillow wouldn't likely be mentioned because it's not served by Stockdale Blvd., which ostensibly will replace current CA 58 to west I-5 once the Westside freeway connects to the 58/99 interchange -- or at least until that freeway is eventually extended to I-5.
I wouldn't at all be surprised to see "TO I-5" as a control on the pull-through signs on WB 58 and the ramp signage on NB CA 99. Buttonwillow wouldn't likely be mentioned because it's not served by Stockdale Blvd., which ostensibly will replace current CA 58 to west I-5 once the Westside freeway connects to the 58/99 interchange -- or at least until that freeway is eventually extended to I-5.
I'd take it a step further by using Sacramento as the control city for CA-58 but only on the pull-through portion of the APL sign. I suspect Caltrans would prefer all traffic bound for Sacramento use I-5 rather than CA-99. Once the Westside Pkwy is complete all the way to I-5, CA-58 west would carry all that thru traffic. Here is the modified APL signage...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/58-99_caAPL_58thru.png)
The panel size is the same but everything is shifted to the right to accommodate the additional legend on the pull-through portion of the sign.
As for using "TO I-5" as the control point for CA-58 west on northbound 99 signs, I would argue that it wouldn't be terribly helpful. Keep in mind that the 99/58 interchange is only 24 miles from the I-5/99 split near the Grapevine so the percentage of vehicles on north 99 wanting to get to I-5 should be pretty low. With that said, here's my idea for what that sign should look like (although I suspect Caltrans will want to try to use an APL here as well)...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/99-58w_wp.png)
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Possibly secondary signage on CA 58 west at or near CA 99 might state "Paso Robles/use CA 58 west to I-5 north"; once on I-5 the signage for the CA 46 exit at Lost Hills should suffice.
they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
The late mayor Ed Lee did propose a downgrading of 280 north of 16th Street a few years ago. (Commute traffic still uses that portion on a regular basis during the workweek, and it is the primary route to reach the Embarcadero corridor and Mission Bay/Dogpatch districts from all points south)
The configuration at the Duboce exit (where 101 splits off to reach Van Ness) really precludes that from happening - too many buildings in that area would need to be removed and the intersection with Mission would also have to be reworked entirely.they should just remove 280 east of us 101, and connect the us 101 freeway directly to van ness ave.101 has always connected directly with Van Ness Avenue, at Exit 434A (the Duboce/Mission/South Van Ness junction where 101 now splits off from the Central Freeway) and previously, the pre-1989 terminus of the Central Freeway at Golden Gate Avenue and Franklin Street.
The late mayor Ed Lee did propose a downgrading of 280 north of 16th Street a few years ago. (Commute traffic still uses that portion on a regular basis during the workweek, and it is the primary route to reach the Embarcadero corridor and Mission Bay/Dogpatch districts from all points south)
what i meant was for it to be a continuous movement, no getting off, so instead of the stub tying directly into octavia blvd, it does with van ness instead.
I do also hope that there would be some signage that would indicate travel to the central coast should take 58 west (Stockdale) and then continue on I-5 north to 58 west (Rosedale) or to 46 west. A Buttonwillow control city would be a start, but maybe signage leading to Paso Robles might be even better.
CA-46 should be signed for Paso Robles, not CA-58.
Possibly secondary signage on CA 58 west at or near CA 99 might state "Paso Robles/use CA 58 west to I-5 north"; once on I-5 the signage for the CA 46 exit at Lost Hills should suffice.
You'd need something clearly directing traffic away from 58 if you want Paso Robles as a control city. Taking 58 west to US 101 would add at least a solid 40 minutes to the trip given the indirect path it takes west of I-5. Santa Maria would be a much better control city for 58 west IMO. Buttonwillow is just a glorified collection of gas stations off of I-5 for the most part nowadays, might as well convey the lengthy distance to US 101 to deter anyone who isn't serious about taking 58.
I think signage will depend upon the configuration of the eventual 5/58 freeway interchange. If it's a straight directional merge with I-5 NB, then what would be appropriate there would be a mileage sign after the merge with Paso Robles as one of the destinations (possibly citing "Via CA 46" between the city name and the mileage). If, however, it's a trumpet or directional interchange, it would be germane to put "To CA 46/Paso Robles" on the BGS's directing traffic to NB I-5. And if one wanted to nail the point down, a sign (even a secondary type) could be placed prior to the CA 58 West Buttonwillow exit stating "Paso Robles/CA 46....Use I-5 North". For the record, I'd omit Santa Maria from anything not directing traffic to CA 119 or CA 166; CA 58 west of I-5 certainly isn't a viable route to that destination; the only major central coast city even remotely appropriate for that road (possibly not the wisest choice of thoroughfares) would be SLO.
I think signage will depend upon the configuration of the eventual 5/58 freeway interchange. If it's a straight directional merge with I-5 NB, then what would be appropriate there would be a mileage sign after the merge with Paso Robles as one of the destinations (possibly citing "Via CA 46" between the city name and the mileage). If, however, it's a trumpet or directional interchange, it would be germane to put "To CA 46/Paso Robles" on the BGS's directing traffic to NB I-5. And if one wanted to nail the point down, a sign (even a secondary type) could be placed prior to the CA 58 West Buttonwillow exit stating "Paso Robles/CA 46....Use I-5 North". For the record, I'd omit Santa Maria from anything not directing traffic to CA 119 or CA 166; CA 58 west of I-5 certainly isn't a viable route to that destination; the only major central coast city even remotely appropriate for that road (possibly not the wisest choice of thoroughfares) would be SLO.
This is why I do not support listing Paso Robles on any CA-58 related signage on CA-99. Trying to kludge together mileage signs on I-5 to justify putting Paso Robles on exit signs for CA-58 just seems silly to me. I would go so far as to retract my original thoughts and support using Buttonwillow on CA-58 related signs on 99. Looking at Google Maps, Buttonwillow is not just the collection of gas stations on I-5 but there appears to be a sizable community about 4 miles west of the 5/58 interchange.
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
You can't use I-5 as a control point until west of CA 99. Otherwise, traffic going south to LA might be confused and drive well out of their way instead of just taking CA 99 south to I-5 to get to LA.
Buttonwillow is a perfectly good control point. The town is the collection of buildings a few miles west of the interstate. The gas stations and restaurants are at the Buttonwillow Interchange.
I agree Paso Robles should not be mentioned.
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
Second thoughts: Myosh makes a good point; Paso Robles doesn't need to be mentioned on CA 58; most of the WB traffic on the more heavily-traveled segment of the route east of CA 99 is heading (a) to Bakersfield (b) north on CA 99 from Bakersfield (c) directly to I-5 for dispersal elsewhere. As I originally suggested, I'd use "TO I-5" as the control for WB 58, and let the traffic go where it intends once on I-5. If any traffic is intended for Paso Robles, they can use GPS or actually learn to read a map to get where they're going. If they're on I-5 NB, it's not that far to any actual Paso Robles signage at the CA 46 exit.
You can't use I-5 as a control point until west of CA 99. Otherwise, traffic going south to LA might be confused and drive well out of their way instead of just taking CA 99 south to I-5 to get to LA.
Buttonwillow is a perfectly good control point. The town is the collection of buildings a few miles west of the interstate. The gas stations and restaurants are at the Buttonwillow Interchange.
I agree Paso Robles should not be mentioned.
Simple: amend the control sign to "West CA 58 to North I-5". Although anyone who's actually driven I-5 is familiar with Buttonwillow as a landmark and possible refueling (car & person) location, it's really not a control point as such; travelers heading west on CA 58 into the Bakersfield area will more likely be looking for a way over to I-5 than a farm town west of that freeway. Besides, the CA 99 South ramp signage prominently mentions Los Angeles as the control city at that interchange. And if a trumpet or directional interchange is eventually deployed at the future 5/58 junction site, there will be additional signage for I-5 south to L.A. there for those poor souls who missed the CA 99 South exit.
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.
Question on the Westside Parkway. Will traffic continue to use the current CA 58 to reach I-5 or will they use the more convenient Stockdale Highway once the Westside Parkway is complete? I can't see through traffic using CA 58 west of Bakersfield once a better option is available, unless truck traffic is prohibited on Stockdale Highway.
I'm back to supporting Buttonwillow as the control city. Another sign can be posted stating I-5 Northbound should follow CA 58 West. This keeps the sign from becoming too cluttered.
Rain and snow fell in Southern California Thursday morning, making for difficult driving conditions and prompting a mudslide that has forced the dayslong closure of Topanga Canyon Boulevard east of Malibu. ...
In Topanga, South Topanga Canyon Boulevard had to be shut down in both directions from Pacific Coast Highway to Grand View Drive due to a mud and rock slide that occurred about 2 a.m. at mile marker 1.5.
One vehicle got stuck in the mud but there were no injuries, Caltrans said.
It's the third slide along the winding roadway through the Santa Monica Mountains since a fire burned in the area in January, the agency said.
"After the ground became saturated in a former burn area, large rocks, mud, debris, and ash slid down the slope and over the gully and roadway shoulder," Caltrans said in a news release. "A drainage pipe at that location became clogged with mud and debris and the overflow spilled onto the roadway."
The debris came down near a slide that occurred the previous week — an incident that prompted the installation of K-rail and fencing to catch future slides. Thursday's slide fell just outside the K-rail, in three spots along a 1,000-foot span, Caltrans said.
With more rain expected over the weekend, the stretch of roadway — nearly 4 miles long — will be closed until at least Sunday night, Caltrans said. No homes or businesses are on the stretch, which Caltrans referred to as a "rural area."
Caltrans advised use of PCH, the 101 and 405 freeways, and State Route 23 as alternate routes.
Actually -- also amending the CA 99 south to read "CA 99 South TO I-5 South/Los Angeles" might not be a bad idea -- provide a reference to both directions of I-5 well in advance.It's not a bad idea. In fact it's a pretty good idea. The only problem is, it runs into one of the limitations of Arrow-per-Lane signs... there's not enough room to put "(99) SOUTH TO (5) SOUTH" because it's sandwiched between the pull-through portion of the APL and the north 99 exit portion. There's barely enough room to squeeze in "Los Angeles" on the sign...
(http://www.markyville.com/aaroads/58-99_caAPL.png)
Caltrans' new director takes her seat this week with immediate marching orders: Spend money, and spend it fast.
Gov. Jerry Brown has asked new Caltrans head Laurie Berman and new Transportation Secretary Brian Annis to turn the state's gas tax hike into quick and visible highway improvements.
The pair describe it as a historic opportunity and a major challenge. “Right now is a great time to be in transportation,” Berman said. “With (gas tax legislation) SB 1 we’ve got a lot to deliver, which is exciting. For a long time we did not have the funding to adequately maintain our system."
State transportation accounts are expected to see $5.4 billion annually as a result of Senate Bill 1, a Brown initiative that raised the gas tax 12 cents per gallon and increased vehicle registration fees. ...
Caltrans oversees state highways and rails, while the Transportation Agency acts as umbrella organization for Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, DMV, CHP, High-Speed Rail Authority and other transportation-related departments.
The state's stewardship of the gas tax already has come under attack from conservatives who hope to place a repeal measure on the November ballot. Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, argues that state leaders have neglected transportation infrastructure for years, leaving him skeptical about the Brown administration's current intentions.
"I think it is transparent what they are trying to do," he said. "Look, see we are building projects like we promised. Their motivation is that this rollback is pending."
In interviews last week, Berman and Annis deflected questions about the repeal effort, but acknowledged they must show that the state is spending the tax money efficiently and effectively. ...
SB 1 funds have been flowing into state coffers since November. Caltrans has published a list of 13 projects that it has started and finished with SB 1 funds. The largest was a $10 million highway resurfacing near Needles in rural San Bernardino County. The smallest was a $1.5 million resurfacing of Highway 113 near Dixon in Solano County.
Berman said the state faces a host of logistical tasks, including the need to hire engineers, staff and consultants. The unions that represent Caltrans workers say the department fell behind on hiring in the lead-up to the gas tax. More engineers retired or left the department last year than Caltrans hired, for instance. ...
Caltrans also has begun reaching out to local governments, private contractors and utility companies to coordinate efforts where possible, Berman said.
“Caltrans is getting money, the locals are getting money, there is a shortage of materials, there is going to shortage of labor. We don’t want to be tripping over each other, fighting over scarce resources," she said. "We are working with the construction industry to make sure everybody is ready.”
Last month, the California Transportation Commission allocated $1.5 billion in SB 1 funds to 479 cities and 58 counties for local road work.
The next two months will see a flurry of spending decisions. In April, the Transportation Agency will make $2.4 billion in grants available to transit agencies for large projects on a competitive basis, mixing cap-and-trade and gas tax funds. In May, the CTC will award $300 million for freight corridor improvements and a like amount for improvements on congested highways.
Water and electrical problems are to blame for the closures of rest stops on 1-15 between Riverside and Las Vegas, said Caltrans spokeswoman Terri Kasinga. The rest stops outside of Barstow and Baker are just old and need major repairs or rehabilitation work, which is why they are closed. Kasinga gave the following updates on their statuses:
I-15 at Valley Wells (outside of Baker): This rest area was rebuilt about 10 years ago, but the well was not replaced during the rehabilitation project due to the cost, Kasinga said. The well is about 50 years old and has started showing signs of failure, with sediment in the water and other problems, and it is collapsing. Caltrans is looking into an emergency project to build a new well. If Caltrans rebuilds at the same site of the current well, the agency would not have to get permits to do the work, Kasinga said. Caltrans still needs the engineering staff to determine whether they can rebuild in the same spot. If Caltrans builds a new well, it will need to get permits from multiple agencies, and that would delay the time needed to start the work. An early estimate for reopening this rest area is approximately June at the earliest.
I-15 at C.V. Kane (outside of Barstow): The rest area on the northbound I-15 is fairly new and was rebuilt four or five years ago, Kasinga said. The southbound I-15 rest area is currently under construction and being rebuilt and is expected to open this summer. The pump on the northbound I-15 broke and was repaired. Caltrans is awaiting water test results and once they are cleared, the rest area will reopen soon.
Caltrans has projects planned to rebuild rest areas on I-40 and I-10, according to Kasinga, who noted that water (well or pump) and electrical issues routinely plague the rest areas. Vandalism also causes closures, she said.
During closure periods, Caltrans asks that motorists and truckers use facilities and restrooms in local towns along their route and find safe places to rest. Caltrans wishes to apologize for the inconveniences, said Kasinga, adding, “But we also are not able to open the rest areas under the existing conditions until the repairs are made and the rest areas are safe for public use.”
What’s up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can’t remember why I remember it if that isn’t crazy enough.
"If Caltrans builds a new well, it will need to get permits from multiple agencies, and that would delay the time needed to start the work. An early estimate for reopening this rest area is approximately June at the earliest."
Gotta keep the bureaucrats busy with make-work...LOL! Seriously, how much impact can drilling a well in the desert have? This is why we cannot have nice things.
Rick
What’s up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can’t remember why I remember it if that isn’t crazy enough.
What’s up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can’t remember why I remember it if that isn’t crazy enough.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
What’s up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can’t remember why I remember it if that isn’t crazy enough.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
I really wish that I remembered that was there when I did my CA 127 photo album.
I remember now. It was so fucking hot. But it was much hotter than the other locales along the route being 10-15 hotter than anywhere else. Of course with a name like Baker I should have known.What’s up with Baker? I remember that town for some reason but I can’t remember why I remember it if that isn’t crazy enough.
It’s just a nasty and dingy unincorporated Town out in the desert. There are facilities but they are pretty haggard and really poor shape. Everyone I’ve stopped there with heading to Las Vegas or Death Valley complains about how awful it is. I’m pretty indifferent, the Arco has a really good selection of food items for what it’s worth.
Has there been any discussion to increase the standard height of Caltrans APL signs ? It seems to me that the APLs in California are too congested and short to fit the volume of information, even when we're talking about just one route number and one destination. I know Caltrans has specifications for sign heights; I just don't know if there is any intent to allow taller signs when APLs are called for in the sign design process. (My suspicion of course is that there would be no change to the sign heights, but I figure it can't hurt to ask.) If the sign heights can't change, then I wonder if APLs are really that effective in applications along California roads. I like the mock-up you prepared Myosh, but the overall application just looks cluttered to me. And that is without adding the exit numbers that arguably should also be inserted within this sign somewhere.
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.
To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...
Hi everyone who is more familiar with California than I. I am putting together a map of places where I can most efficiently snap a photo of a standalone shield for every state, federal, and Interstate highway in California. California signs its numbered highways so poorly that I need to check on Google StreetView to find a standing example of a sign before I even can start thinking of photographing one in the wild. My idea of "conquering"/"clinching" a state is to take a photo of every state, federal, or Interstate highway, so this fits my modus operandae.
I'm encountering a problem, though--I can't find any standalone spade shields for a number of state highways. I wanted to enlist the help of people who know their way around California, in trying to determine if any signs for these routes still exist in the wild. Is anyone aware of any standalone cutout shields for the following California highways? (BGS's and unisigns are not what I'm looking for.)
CA-66, CA-83, CA-112, CA-114, CA-130, CA-153, CA-200, CA-222, CA-259 & CA-710.
This is the map I'm putting together, by the way https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Sfrrmdkzj0UPkJDkVS4V4LAKpo8fh3va&usp=sharing
I don't think CA 66 exists anymore.
CA 83 - southbound just south of the CA 60 interchange
CA-112 - allegedly unsigned route
CA-114 - ?
CA-130 - eastbound just before Quimby Road (near Jos Grant Park)
CA-15 - ?
CA-200 - possibly hidden
CA-222 - unsigned
CA-259 - unsigned
CA-710 - ?
You might try the California Highways site at https://www.cahighways.org. They have some pics of CA 112 signs, though no standalone shields.
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn’t worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it’s a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
The only thing I ever remember about Baker is that it's the site of the "World's Tallest Thermometer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_tallest_thermometer)".
(https://www.pe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/reststops24mzf_7475103.jpg?w=826)
As usual with newspapers, the picture is unrelated. That's I-10 WB just before the White Water rest area near Palm Springs.
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
is california 1 still closed from last yrs mud slides?
Incidentally when did people start referring to I-5 as "The Grapevine" as opposed as how it was with US 99 and the Ridge Route? I've always been curious to pinpoint when that nickname changed in the public eye, almost all the old photos of Grapevine Canyon usually have "Ridge Route" attached somewhere as a description.
I know this is a bit stale, but it's interesting. I don't know when the term Grapevine started, but back in the 19th century the Spanish referred to that canyon going down into the Central Valley as Cañada de las Uvas, which roughly means Glen of Grapes. It was clogged with desert wild grape, and a few patches of them still remain. I think people started associating the name with what's really the Five Mile Grade above Castaic because they didn't know where the Grapevine was and just figured it was probably where the two sides of the road got twisted across each other.
I've driven the old Ridge Route a couple of times, before it was closed by a slide in 2005. Last I was up there, a year ago, the northern gate was open, but it has about a foot of deeply rutted dried mud on part of the road, so I didn't dare tackle it with my 2wd car.
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn’t worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it’s a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Starting back in 1994, Caltrans seems to have quite deliberately endeavored to de-emphasize (including removal or non-replacement of signage) urban routes, arterial or not (not too many of the latter in greater L.A.); instead steering through traffic to the nearest freeway by default. I would bet that by 2025 most of the CA 1 surface mileage south of I-10 in D7 will be relinquished -- with the exception of the airport tunnel and possibly the L.A. River crossings; the local jurisdictions, including L.A. County, have shown reluctance to assume maintenance of structures. About the only surface facility that will likely remain state-maintained will be CA 47 along Alameda Avenue, as part of the port access program (that includes any and all Terminal Island approaches).
california's surface state routes aren't signed well at all in major metros. i think 66 does still exist, but it's completely unsigned, except on one bgs i believe. it exists in 2 sections according to wikipedia (which my be old info now)
Very little of CA 66 is still under state maintenance. Daniel details the current relinquishment on CAhighways:
https://www.cahighways.org/065-072.html#066
With so little of the actual route being maintained by Caltrans and the high likelihood of sign theft it probably isn’t worth signing 66 anymore. Seems like it’s a trend with Caltrans in general not signing non-arterial urban surface routes lately.
Starting back in 1994, Caltrans seems to have quite deliberately endeavored to de-emphasize (including removal or non-replacement of signage) urban routes, arterial or not (not too many of the latter in greater L.A.); instead steering through traffic to the nearest freeway by default. I would bet that by 2025 most of the CA 1 surface mileage south of I-10 in D7 will be relinquished -- with the exception of the airport tunnel and possibly the L.A. River crossings; the local jurisdictions, including L.A. County, have shown reluctance to assume maintenance of structures. About the only surface facility that will likely remain state-maintained will be CA 47 along Alameda Avenue, as part of the port access program (that includes any and all Terminal Island approaches).
Since when is Alameda Avenue state maintained?
The last time I was in the area was 2011; at that time the expressway segment from just north of PCH south to the CA 47/103 merge just north of the Heim Bridge was in the initial stages of construction, as was the bridge replacement itself. It would be useful if current L.A. area posters could update the forum as to the current status of the project.
The last time I was in the area was 2011; at that time the expressway segment from just north of PCH south to the CA 47/103 merge just north of the Heim Bridge was in the initial stages of construction, as was the bridge replacement itself. It would be useful if current L.A. area posters could update the forum as to the current status of the project.
The northbound viaduct, roadway, and bridge are completed and carrying both directions of traffic as of a couple of months ago.
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
Why wouldn't 132 use Needham to 14th?
I imagine future GPS apps will route traffic along the Needham to Downey to 19th to La Loma to Yosemite. Who knows what California will do?
I've seen this around the thread before, but can't remember where, what program did you use to make those BGS's? I'd like to make some of my own!
All of my signs are laid out by hand using Photoshop. I don't know of any single program that will do all of this for you automatically.
Everything you see in the above 3 signs (route shields, arrows, exit tabs, etc) was made by me following specs from the Caltrans website.
To see how I put my signs together, check out this video I created and uploaded to YouTube...
Myosh, you really are a talent! I wonder if anyone who does videogames with highways could use them? At least with you on the job, the signs would be accurate in all aspects!
Rick
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Great! Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" :sombrero:
Detour sign near Calexico shows an erroneous shield for "Interstate 111."
(https://i.imgur.com/k0lKIsT.png)
Great! Pull the shield off the sign, put it in a FedEx flatpack, and send it to NDOT with the note "in case you ever need this!" :sombrero:
CA 1 at Mud Creek will reopen at July 20 at 11 AM. The ribbon cutting ceremony will take place at Ragged Point Inn.
It took 14 months to rebuild the road there after the May mudslide, and over 18 months since it closed around February or March last year. Hooray!
Announcement Link (http://blogbigsur.wordpress.com/2018/07/03/caltrans-announces-plan-to-re-open-state-route-1-at-mud-creek-after-massive-landslide-highway-opening-set-for-july-20-restores-full-access-to-the-big-sur-coast/)
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*. But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles. From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont. Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs. For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.
*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info
What is also weird is when signage is maintained, how it's maintained. Sometimes I'll see something like "TO CA-x," other times I'll just see the shield. The latter is preferred, because again, navigation is most important, and whether or not Caltrans maintains the actual routing is unnecessary. Must be based on the district. CA-1 through Santa Monica often has the "TO" banner, some other routes are signed in places that I know the local governments maintain them.Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained*. But, as per usual, there has been no follow-through on this; there seem to be no 238 reassurance signs on either Foothill or Mission Blvd. between I-580 and Driscoll Ave. in Fremont except for a couple of trailblazers at the short CA 84 multiplex in Niles. From Industrial Parkway (at the south Hayward city limits) south to I-680, the entire stretch of CA 238 lies within the city of Fremont. Contrast this to CA 84, which takes a rather convoluted surface-street path across that city (right through its "old town" section) and is well-marked throughout by shields, trailblazers, and small/medium green signs. For some reason, Caltrans D4 has functionally forgotten about CA 238.
*thanks to D. Faigin/californiahighways.org for this info
Yeah -- Exit BGS's from both ends of original CA 238, at I-238/580 on the north and at I-680 at the south end, still feature CA 238 shields; it's the actual facility in between that lacks signage. :confused:
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained.
For the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.
Brent (flaroads) and I rode on California 238 (Mission Boulevard / Foothill Boulevard) north from Decoto Road to I-238/580 at Hayward last week and did not see a single reassurance marker for the route. Further more the intersection with California 92/185 was reconfigured into a gateway for Downtown Hayward, and no signs appear there either, leading me to believe that the street scaping aspect resulted in a relinquishment of the routes (through there at least). Was California 238 truncated at all?
Application for relinquishment of CA 238 inside the city limits of Hayward posted 11/09; CTC approved it in 07/10, with the usual codicil that signage to the remaining portions of CA 238/I-238 be maintained.
But the language of the codicil in the Streets and Highway Code is unusual:QuoteFor the relinquished former portion of Route 238, the City of Hayward shall maintain within its jurisdiction signs directing motorists to the continuation of Route 238 or to the state highway system, as applicable.
So the requirement is not for continuity of CA 238 signage, but rather for pointers directing Hayward travelers to return to some part of the state highway system. "To" I-880, I-680, I-580, CA 84, or CA 92 signs would serve that purpose.
There is similar language for the authorized relinquishments within Hayward of parts of CA 92 and CA 185.
It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity: Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop). The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working. At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.
It's pretty obvious that all this is a purely symbiotic activity: Caltrans would rather not maintain city streets, and Hayward wants through traffic, particularly of the commuter variety, to detour around the downtown area (which it is attempting to redevelop). The city has established a partial one-way couplet on Foothill (NB) and Mission (SB) just north of the Jackson intersection; the convoluted nature of the traffic patterns has helped stymie any "straggler" traffic still trying to get from the San Mateo bridge to EB I-580 in Castro Valley (and vice-versa) by making the former shortcut difficult to navigate -- and that strategy seems to be working. At this point the primary cause of congestion in Hayward is traffic heading to and from Cal State East Bay (formerly CSU Hayward), perched on the hillside east of South Mission Blvd.
I'm not disputing that the goal is to get through traffic off Hayward streets to help downtown revitalization, but why then did they leave Foothill and Mission as 4 to 6-lane arterials? The one-way portion of Foothill is 5 lanes, plus turn lanes! When I have used Jackson/Foothill as a shortcut between the San Mateo Bridge and I-580, the portion through downtown is actually the freest-flowing (many cars going 45-50 mph) - that's not conducive to a downtown district. Heck, Foothill is still enough of a through route that it took me several trips before I even noticed the real downtown is along B Street.
I feel like what they really should do is make both streets 4 lanes max (2 each way) in the downtown district, use the extra room for landscaping/bike lanes/parklets/etc., beef up the alternative routes into/out of downtown (A Street/Redwood Road, D Street/Winton Avenue), then encourage/force all CSUEB traffic out Harder Road to Jackson/I-880 (I'm assuming the student traffic is not high from the Castro Valley area, and students from points northeast are now being directed to the Contra Costa campus).
IMO not building out CA-238 as a freeway is one of the biggest blunders in Bay Area highway history. There's not much more they can do to the Nimitz and its continual congestion has reached L.A.-type levels.
When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.
After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct. The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline. However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
https://goo.gl/maps/cN87esW6KT12
The parapet though remains as it did in 1963 over 55 years ago.
One thing that the producers did then is took a bunch of location shots from various places in Southern California and made it all look like it was in one place. The park scenes were filmed at Palos Verdes, several miles away, but when edited in the film, the California Incline was looked to be the entrance to the park in the film. Other notes are that the boat marina located less than five minutes away from the fictional Santa Rosita Park was in Oxnard some two hours away from Santa Monica.
I am guessing that the old building in the finale where the male cast members all were trapped on the runaway ladder was in Downtown Long Beach with the building being used as a back drop is long demolished. I cannot find any record of where that was filmed, but some of the other shots with it were indeed in Long Beach.
When I was small and watched the mega comedy It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World I always remembered that scene toward the end where the ramp leading to the fictional Santa Rosita Park was (the place with the Big W where the money that the cast was chasing was buried) as looking similar to the California Incline in Santa Monica.
After researching the 1963 movie and where the scenes were filmed, I was actually correct. The ramp where Spencer Tracy along with his Black Ford Falcon were parked was indeed the California Incline. However, lots have changed as at the time of production, there were no stop lights at either end of the California Incline.
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14. Not only was the G omitted but they didn’t even get the right route signed on the BGS.
https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s
Now that's the sort of signage error (the county trailblazer shields) I've come to expect from District 4 -- but this is down the road in District 5, which historically has been far more competent in that regard. Those penta shields need to be returned to whatever sign shop supplied them for warranty replacement! :pan:
The one I thought was really bad was County Route 18 Signed to Jolon from US 101 south near King City when it ought to be G14. Not only was the G omitted but they didn’t even get the right route signed on the BGS.
https://flic.kr/p/VtzH5s
Ouch! The boys down in SLO must be slipping! -- if they're making the penta county shields themselves, they're screwing up; or if they're letting the counties make the shields, they're not "proofreading" them before sending out the signing crews. Let's hope it's not because they just don't give a shit these days!
Check out this dimwit (http://southtahoenow.com/story/08/29/2018/extra-long-big-rig-gets-stuck-sr-4-after-driver-told-take-i-80) who was instructed to use I-80 rather than CA 88 to cross the Sierras, and decided the 20-mile-long no-center-stripe stretch of CA 4 would be a better option for his 73-foot rig.
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.
For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?
To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4RRe the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me! Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference. Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4RRe the "I-5 (this time with a real shield) Fwy" on the SB BGS at the 5/110 interchange, that's a new idiom to me! Since D7 hasn't posted freeway names on the various facilities for decades now, it's just possible that since that sign is only a few miles north of the end of the "Golden State Freeway", it's simply a generic I-5 reference. Coincidentally, that interchange has always been the location of the first mention of Santa Ana as a control city; all preceding references are to Los Angeles -- but that destination shifts to SB CA 110 at the ramps to that freeway about a mile previous to the NB 110 exit where the pull-through sign subject of this discussion is located.
Given that the newer 110 signs at this interchange on I-5 now refer to CA-110 as a "parkway" (it is the Arroyo Seco Parkway north of downtown LA), perhaps the distinction here is to remind people that 5 is a freeway and at this point 110 is a parkway, which implies a different level of quality.
I just returned from a driving trip to Orange County. I noticed while driving around that Caltrans uses local idioms on signs and pavement markings.
For example, this pavement marking indicating "5 FWY" instead of I-5: https://goo.gl/kL3uSv (I think these pre-date the painting of an actual interstate marking, but "I-5" is more legally correct)
Also, on overhead signage "SOUTH 5 FWY" (as opposed to the I-5 at-grade arterial?): https://goo.gl/dmJW4R
I did not notice such idioms on signs or roadway markings anywhere outside of Los Angeles, so I'm guessing this is a local district thing? How long have they done stuff like this?
To be clear, I have no problem with it. I am well aware of LA lingo (I have several family members from the area), but I thought it was odd that Caltrans would use the terms themselves.
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Anyone know of any exceptionally wide roads with permissive left turns? CA seems to use "green arrow only" left turns on a very wide basis.
Looking for something like a permissive left turn across four lanes or something. Three lanes is cool too, since I'm not sure I've seen that either.
Granted I don't live in California, but I'm hard pressed to think of any permissive left turns period, let alone any across three or four lanes. I imagine there are some out there, but they seem to be a rarity...
^^^^^^^^
Jake's on to something there; the few instances of permissive lefts I can recall remaining on anything over a single lane per direction were in L.A. on some of the N-S arterials, particularly Vermont and Western Avenues, plus much of Normandie Avenue outside the Wilshire district, which has largely been channelized with dedicated lefts due to the exceptionally high level of traffic (much of it looking for parking spots!) in that zone. Those arterials traverse some of the older neighborhoods in the city; expansion of the streets to accommodate left-turn lanes would be all but impossible, particularly since doing so would likely disturb long-standing bus stops at major intersections, forcing them to move to a mid-block area and drawing the ire of riders who want to transfer between bus lines. And having seen what happens when the L.A. "Bus Riders' Union" gets its dander up over lesser offenses, this is an occurrence to be avoided. So the streets in these areas remain as they have been for decades.
As discussed in Part 1, left-turn phasing in Los Angeles was a novelty, in the 1950's and 1960's, due to signal
equipment restrictions and the limited number of continuous raised median islands. By the early
1970's, left-turn phasing became a routine design on State highways and suburban boulevards in areas adjacent
to Los Angeles. However, it would not become a standard feature on Los Angeles’ more urban streets due to
the traffic signal operating philosophy that prevailed throughout most of the 1970's.
The philosophy reflected the distinct signal system that
the City of Los Angeles operated. Unlike the Division
of Highways, which operated signals along a few, widely
spaced State Highways, the City of Los Angeles operated
signals throughout a network with signal spacing at approximately
1/4-mile intervals. This type of signal network
allowed 30 mile-per-hour progression to be maintained
in all directions with short (50 to 70 second) cycle
lengths. However, the addition of left turn arrows
would require longer cycle lengths, which, in turn, would
severely compromise progression. This degradation in
progression was avoided by resisting requests to install
left turn arrows.
^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively). Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds! To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon! And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.
^^^^^^^^
L.A. wasn't the only city to experience several iterations of surface-street state highway routings between 1926 and the nascent freeways of the late '40's and early '50's; San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and even Fresno saw routings of not only the U.S. highways through town but also state routes as well (Max R. has delineated the Fresno historical routings quite exhaustively). Originally, many routes ran right through the CBD's of the various cities, but the negative aspects of that situation caused many city-center routes to wear out their welcome quickly (most by the mid-30's) -- with the notable exception of Sacramento, in which just about everything possible was routed right past the state capitol grounds! To plot the progression of routings through the cities from the 20's to the 60's one would need each years' official highway map plus every issue of CHPW that one could lay hands upon! And some of the temporary routings from the 50's and 60's, while freeways were being built one segment at a time, were sometimes reasonably direct, but at other times convoluted in order to take advantage of as much freeway mileage as possible.
Looking at historic maps, wasn't US 50 always on the MacArthur corridor in Oakland with few changes, with US 40 always following Eastshore (and the San Pablo Avenue business route) beyond the Maze area?
SF's history, I'll create a seperate post for that
I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.
https://youtu.be/F7862KBukvs
I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.
it wouldn't be one of my videos if i didn't type something in incorrectly.
I made an up to date video of the 405 freeway through Sepulveda Pass.
I know this road has been done a bunch of times, but I had nice light, and light Sunday morning traffic.
^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment). From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).
^^^^^^^^^
Field deployment of these smaller and wider-profile shields lacking the state name varies by Caltrans district; I've yet to see them extensively used in D4 and D5 -- although they are starting to show up over on CA 99 in areas undergoing upgrades (such as the Manteca-Stockton segment). From a visual standpoint alone, they're less prone to look horrible when numbers are placed/kerned irregularly; the "CALIFORNIA" arc above the numbers makes poorly fabricated signs look even worse (D4, take notice!).
I've only seen a couple real world examples myself with a CA 180 in D6 and a D5 with the CA 227 that I've mentioned several times. Yosemite National Park has a grouping of CA 120/CA 140 G28-1 style shields but considering their US Route shields at MUTCD compliant I would hardly call those official. The AAroads shield gallery has a CA 14 and CA 178 pair of G28-1 shields that was at some sort of swap meet:
https://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=CA19751781
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I’d like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying “County” in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I’d like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying “County” in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I’d like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying “County” in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I’d like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying “County” in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
nice sign the original 99 was the golden state boulevard now golden stae frontage road. it is full of historic places such as the abandoned california motel
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6839501,-119.74137,3a,50.7y,179.82h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59a2xQv93JhioJBAd7bPLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or the abandoned motor in theatre drive-in screen a block south
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6760032,-119.7324552,3a,49.1y,240.79h,96.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdK2-UXKaNB5ozqFT_uP1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
these vintage motels and cafe are still open!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7143205,-119.7752718,3a,75y,314.84h,79.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.464439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7158998,-119.7777165,3a,21.5y,336.32h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se2K51C4PfTHDy1FGBgkxvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or these vintage still operating motels in selma
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5698147,-119.6176653,3a,90y,230.17h,81.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.98666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.571203,-119.618985,3a,75y,60.46h,89.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixdC3HKPv42YMHY3uz9lPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5745367,-119.6228742,3a,48.5y,192.28h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swUAg2Rmx53bBDB6PmHImsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
this one is open i think though i'm not sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5690506,-119.6166293,3a,70.7y,54.74h,85.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D47.54219%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i though i was missing a motel when i found this abandoned drive-in restraunt!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5672812,-119.6146758,3a,73.6y,356.47h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxASqiErsCYaKnIoRG_OfPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i listed these places for people to use as landmarks wen driving down the old highway because it can be easy to get lost.
^^^
I did a whole Fictional County Route Thread I think last year more or less on the same topic. Essentially a good County Route program can be laid out simply by following the terrain to rural towns and areas of tourism interest in the boons. The major secondary roads in urban areas tend to be fairly obvious and could be included in the such a system too. The current County Route marker is fine but personally I’d like to see something with a little more flair like a white spade displaying “County” in the crest somehow. I always liked how Florida kept a good assortment of County Routes...granted most were State Roads at one point and still fit in the state grid.
The best idea that I came up with for a shield would have been a rectangular sign with a standard green background containing a white spade (same shape as state signs), with the word "SECONDARY ROUTE" above the shield and "COUNTY MAINTAINED" below. The numbers (black) would be adhesive and applied by the applicable signing crew. Directional arrows and banners (END/JCT) would be applied as with state highways.
It's probably hoping against hope, but possibly the counties could and would do a better job with a cohesive secondary network that with both the current and largely haphazard approach -- and even better than current Caltrans practice for those highways under their jurisdiction.
Something like this but reverse?
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1782/42193939394_3b317eddcc_k.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG)IMG_7686 (https://flic.kr/p/27hwYaG) by Max Rockatansky (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151828809@N08/), on Flickr
nice sign the original 99 was the golden state boulevard now golden stae frontage road. it is full of historic places such as the abandoned california motel
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6839501,-119.74137,3a,50.7y,179.82h,88.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s59a2xQv93JhioJBAd7bPLw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or the abandoned motor in theatre drive-in screen a block south
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.6760032,-119.7324552,3a,49.1y,240.79h,96.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdK2-UXKaNB5ozqFT_uP1kg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
these vintage motels and cafe are still open!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7143205,-119.7752718,3a,75y,314.84h,79.85t/data=!3m5!1e1!3m3!1snDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DnDv0xsXZfjHMqeZpaHdenQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D9.464439%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7158998,-119.7777165,3a,21.5y,336.32h,87.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se2K51C4PfTHDy1FGBgkxvQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
or these vintage still operating motels in selma
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5698147,-119.6176653,3a,90y,230.17h,81.3t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DYmoKqvhmqBlbz7nfKChSpA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D87.98666%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.571203,-119.618985,3a,75y,60.46h,89.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sixdC3HKPv42YMHY3uz9lPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5745367,-119.6228742,3a,48.5y,192.28h,81.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swUAg2Rmx53bBDB6PmHImsA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
this one is open i think though i'm not sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5690506,-119.6166293,3a,70.7y,54.74h,85.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DwGhV_rJvjPu_AV73sQi0RQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D47.54219%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i though i was missing a motel when i found this abandoned drive-in restraunt!
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.5672812,-119.6146758,3a,73.6y,356.47h,84.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxASqiErsCYaKnIoRG_OfPw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
i listed these places for people to use as landmarks wen driving down the old highway because it can be easy to get lost.
The alignments of US 99 are even stranger than you might realize starting with Railroad Avenue in Fresno. Front Street in Selma for sure was part of LRN 4 during the 1920s but I haven't fully confirmed if it is early vintage US 99. Given the High Speed Rail is obliterating the former surface path of US 99 in Fresno I went out last year and took a bunch of pictures and made custom maps before it was too late. Below is my blog post regarding US 99 in Fresno County:
https://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/2017/09/hunting-for-forgotten-history-old-us-99.html
Interestingly after I wrote the above blog I confirmed 8th Street in Fowler was the original alignment of US 99 before Golden State Boulevard was built. There was a major rail switch located where Golden State Boulevard is now in Fowler.
BTW welcome to the forum.
any body know anything esle about dead mans curve in lebec ca other than people have crashed and died here, was built in 1915, and that the founder of MGM stduios was on of the people who died here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man%27s_Curve#/media/File:Dead-Man%27s_Curve_in_Lebec,_California,_2010.jpg
also i found it!
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8866313,-118.9046627,396m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8865517,-118.9043962,3a,34.7y,246.24h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblya_hJjloRKEvltt_armA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8871335,-118.9055547,3a,41.3y,248.67h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8QG1Ze8JBb0wGIkZcIYskA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
also if there other remains of the orignal route i would love to know!
i know almoast nothing about the old routes of southern ca. well except for us 66.
i find other remains which i am certain of the old route i will post them here.
any body know anything esle about dead mans curve in lebec ca other than people have crashed and died here, was built in 1915, and that the founder of MGM stduios was on of the people who died here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Man%27s_Curve#/media/File:Dead-Man%27s_Curve_in_Lebec,_California,_2010.jpg
also i found it!
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8866313,-118.9046627,396m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8865517,-118.9043962,3a,34.7y,246.24h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sblya_hJjloRKEvltt_armA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8871335,-118.9055547,3a,41.3y,248.67h,85.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8QG1Ze8JBb0wGIkZcIYskA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en&authuser=0
also if there other remains of the orignal route i would love to know!
i know almoast nothing about the old routes of southern ca. well except for us 66.
i find other remains which i am certain of the old route i will post them here.
could this be it to?
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.8497039,-118.8713005,1182m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
although the other slab of pavement is one lane this is two lane google says it's old ridge route so i want some answers!
is this part of the old route!
Google Maps now shows Western Avenue in Los Angeles as CA 258, which is defined in the code, but as far as I can tell has never been adopted or made official. Either way, it's shown as running from the US 101 exit ramp near Hollywood to the I-405 exit where Western becomes CA 213.
here's a sign of the past.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.7931588,-119.7543949,3a,17.2y,142h,82.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfQ-SG-2kRY-P6rBoMeO18g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Google Maps now shows Western Avenue in Los Angeles as CA 258, which is defined in the code, but as far as I can tell has never been adopted or made official. Either way, it's shown as running from the US 101 exit ramp near Hollywood to the I-405 exit where Western becomes CA 213.
Google also displays CA 122 near Palmdale which was never built either.
As a short-term solution, California Highway Patrol has proposed using the agriculture inspection station in Meyers and a state law that prohibits vehicles from circumventing such inspection stations as a tool to enact electronic closures.
The closures would work much the same way as when a car crash closes a road. The notice is uploaded and then detected by the navigation companies, which direct traffic to a different route.
The electronic closure would be applied to side streets that could be used to circumnavigate the inspection station.
According to CHP Lt. Terry Lowther they were able to upload closures into the system and found them to work on State Routes to divert travel with using directional apps.
"The current issue is that when closures are uploaded to County roads, the directional APPS are not diverting the routes," said Lt. Lowther.
He said residents should expect heavy traffic on the side streets Sunday and Monday because of this glitch. There is still a lot of snow on all roads, especially those in the side neighborhoods, which could cause issues for unprepared drivers.
Are people heading up Johnson Pass because Waze told them to? Some of those roads next to US 50 are pretty dicey even in favorable weather.
Are people heading up Johnson Pass because Waze told them to? Some of those roads next to US 50 are pretty dicey even in favorable weather.
No, the problem isn't Johnson Pass Road, it's the residential streets down near Meyers. On Sunday (or Monday of three-day weekends), 50 gets backed up solid past the airport all the way to the "Y" (north junction of US 50 and CA 89). So drivers leave 50 and use Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Sawmill Road to get over to North Upper Truckee Road, which runs along the west side of Washoe Meadows State Park and reconnects to 50 just before the ascent to Echo Summit begins.
(https://i.imgur.com/3ZWDxCY.png?1)
North Upper Truckee Road is just a residential street which ends at a stop sign at that US 50 junction. So people have to merge back into the westbound 50 traffic at the stop sign. Traffic gets backed up horribly through the residential neighborhood, and it's worse when it's snowing because the county can't plow the residential streets up to Caltrans standards on US 50. Residents can't get in and out of their homes, emergency vehicle access is blocked, and when traffic isn't moving people in the stopped cars who gotta go, gotta go, so that happens in the residents' front yards.
The notion is to force people through the bug station on US 50; the bug station is between the intersection of 50 and Pioneer Trail and that south junction of 50 and 89.
I see, I would imagine Pioneer Trail probably gets some use too. I’ve diverted onto it plenty of times on weekends heading to State Line.
...It might be worthwhile to restrict Lake Tahoe Boulevard West of the US 50/CA 89 junction to resident/business access only...or just simply bisect the road so it can’t be used for direct through access anymore.
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now. Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:
CA 88: Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope. Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.
US 50: The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road. It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours. This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.
I-80: Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours. When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.
CA-70: As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours. This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.
CA-49: Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic. If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.
Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.
Either way I’m not sure why anyone would want to take Echo Summit in anything but good weather instead of Donner Summit. At minimum with Donner you’ll have access to multiple lanes getting over the crest of the Sierras which is by far the most difficult part of the trip more often than not this time of year I’ve found. Personally I’ve found it easier to even swing out crazy wide on CA 70 along the Feather River to US 395 and take that down to US 50 in Carson City in the winter. It might be longer but there is far less chance of extremely foul weather and more so people, usually that travel time ends up leveling out in the end.
For southern Oregon/NorCal travel, it can help to check the webcams. Obviously the direct route is I-5. Need a bypass? Weed CA is where US 97's southern terminus is. Gojng from there to Klamath Falls OR is surprisingly easy terrain. Once in the Klamath Basin, there are three routes to get back to I-5. Avoid SR 62 as it goes to Crater Lake. Lots of snow there! The two to look at are SR 140 to Medford and SR 66 to Ashland. Having been on 140, it is not that onerous in terms of the lay of the land. 66 is not a route I have used but the map shows no major mountain passes between Klamath Falls and Ashland.
Getting from here to there in the winter over here does require some route adjustments at times. Am I ever glad we have some possibilities to use!
Rick
I have lived at Tahoe for 10 years now. Here's an evaluation of the alternate routes over the Sierra in severe weather:
CA 88: Carson Pass itself usually isn't a problem, but the stretch of highway immediately west of the Kirkwood ski resort, known as "Carson Spur", is subject to severe avalanche risk as it traverses a steep north-facing slope. Carson Spur can be closed for 48 hours at a time during severe storms.
US 50: The traffic problems as mentioned above because it's a winding two-lane road. It can be closed completely from Meyers up to Echo Summit for avalanche control but those closures usually don't last more than a few hours. This is definitely my shortest and preferred route over to Sacramento.
I-80: Subject to a lot of wind which results in whiteout closures lasting up to 24 hours. When it's open...because it's a freeway, drivers try to go too fast, crash bang boom, and it's closed for a few hours at a time while the Highway Patrol lets tow trucks up there to clean up the mess.
CA-70: As Max mentioned above this can be a reasonable alternate if you're willing to put in a few extra hours. This last week, I noticed that during one of the I-80 closures, CA 70 was closed as well for some time due to several 18-wheeler wrecks.
CA-49: Not a road intended for any significant amount of traffic. If all these other roads are closed they'll shut down 49 as well.
Bottom line is, there are times when trans-Sierra traffic just isn't possible for up to 24 hours at a time.
So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley? Is it I-80 or US 50?
Rick
So when there is no snow, what is the best route to go from the Sacramento area to Washoe Valley? Is it I-80 or US 50?
Rick
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
Wasn’t sure where to put this, but I’ve noticed that most BGS on SB 5 and 805 in San Diego have “Chula Vista” and “San Ysidro” listed as control cities instead of just “SOUTH.” Must have been a fairly recent thing.
As a sad thing the quirky old "5 SOUTH 5" stuff is disappearing with the replacement (the second 5 was of course US 101).
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
Just noticed that the upper CA 39 closure (between Crystal Lake and CA 2) status has been updated. For quite a while it showed a date in 2020, then it was updated to 2025. Now it shows "Expected to end at 5:01 am Nov 30, 2050".
(Not that I'm expecting it to open then or ever, much as I'd like to see it open again.)
Kind of begs the question does the HSR get built first or does CA 39 open on Islip Saddle?
I'm just curious as to why Caltrans has not thought of re-opening this section with snow/slide sheds in the most slide-prone areas? It's not like that hasn't been done in other states...